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

 

20th February, 2004

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 24TH FEBRUARY, 2004 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 9TH DECEMBER, 2003.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 16TH DECEMBER, 2003.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 1/2004 - DECEMBER 2003 QUARTER REVIEW - 2003/06 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

2

 

6.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 2/2004 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

3

 

6.3                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 3/2004 - 2003/04 BUDGET – REVIEW AS AT DECEMBER 2003.

5

 

6.4                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 4/2004 - AUTHORITY FOR LICENSEE TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT UNDER COMPANY NAME & AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

8

 

 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 7/2004 - ACCELERATED REPLACEMENT OF STREET LIGHTING.

10

 

7.2                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 8/2004 - TREE PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE TENDER.

13

 

7.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 9/2004 - MOVERLY ROAD, KINGSFORD - ROAD CONDITION.

17

 

7.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 10/2004 - TENDER 001/04. GRAFFITI MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME.

19

 

7.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 11/2004 - 32 BEACH STREET, COOGEE - DRAINAGE PROBLEMS.

28

 

7.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 12/2004 - TENDER T002/04. SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF FLAGPOLES IN MEDIAN STRIPS AT BUNNERONG ROAD, MATRAVILLE; ANZAC PARADE, KENSINGTON AND DONNELLAN CIRCUIT, CLOVELLY.

35

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 3/2004 -ARRANGEMENTS DURING ELECTION PERIOD FOR DECISIONS TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL.

40

 

8.2                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 4/2004 - PURCHASING POLICY.

42

 

8.3                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 5/2004 - RISK MANAGEMENT POLICIES TO INCLUDE: RISK MANAGEMENT, GATHER INFORMATION & SIGN AS REMOTE SUPERVISION.

49

 

 

9           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 4/2004 - 15-19 MULWARREE AVENUE, RANDWICK.

56

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 5/2004 - 47 DENNING STREET, COOGEE.

105

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 6/2004 - 8 BURNIE STREET, CLOVELLY.

116

 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 7/2004 - 11A LURLINE STREET, MAROUBRA.

156

 

9.5                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 8/2004 - 88 BILGA CRESCENT, MALABAR.

166

 

9.6                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 9/2004 - 16 SCOTT STREET, MAROUBRA.

178

 

9.7                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 10/2004 - 240-266 ANZAC PARADE & 101-105 DONCASTER AVENUE, KENSINGTON.

223

 

9.8                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 11/2004 - 145 BROOK STREET, COOGEE.

389

 

9.9                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 12/2004 - 100-120 KING STREET, RANDWICK

438

9.10

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 13/2004 - MASTERPLAN FOR 7-37 COOGEE BAY ROAD, RANDWICK.

467

 


 

9.11                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 14/2004 - DRAFT EXEMPT AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN AND ASSOCIATED DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN. (AMENDMENT NO. 34)

498

 

9.12                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 16/2004 - AMENDMENT TO PRINCE HENRY DRAFT LEP/DCP.

504

 

9.13                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 17/2004 - GROCON MASTERPLAN 133-149 BEAUCHAMP ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

519

 

9.14                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 18/2004 - COOGEE BAY HOTEL - 212 ARDEN STREET, COOGEE. (Report To Be Circularised Prior To Meeting.)

567

 

9.15                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 19/2004 - 39-47 ST PAULS STREET, RANDWICK (RITZ CINEMA)

568

9.16

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 20/2004 – MASTERPLAN FOR 265-271 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK.

584

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                      

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Backes, Greenwood, Matson, Notley-Smith, Seng & Whitehead – Health, Building & Planning Committee Meeting, Tuesday, 10th February, 2004 – Item 5.2 – Development Application Report – 567 Malabar Road, Maroubra.  

647

11.2

By Councillor Whitehead – Council’s Online Update of Progress. 

647

11.3

By Councillor Whitehead –Banners in the Kensington Commercial Centre. 

647

11.4

By Councillor Whitehead – Provision of Land for Self-Care Hostel Accommodation.

647

11.5

By Councillor Whitehead – Future Purchase of Masonic Temple

648

11.6

By Councillor Seng – Existing Use Rights Provisions.

648

11.7

By Councillor Matson – Dangerous Practice at Dolphin Point.

648

11.8

By Councillor Matson – Increased Funding to Precinct Committees. 

648

11.9

By Councillor Matson – No Forced Amalgamations. 

648

11.10

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Traffic Survey & Management Plan for Denning, Rainbow, Cuzco Streets & Malabar Road, South Coogee. 

648

11.11

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Removal of Bus Lane in Dacey Avenue, Kensington. 

649

11.12

By Councillor Greenwood– Beach Lockers. 

649

11.13

By Councillor Greenwood – Public Notification of Development Proposals. 

649

11.14

By Councillor Greenwood– Use of Cowper Street for night passage of Heavy Vehicles.

649

11.15

By Councillor Greenwood – Clovelly Precinct Committee. 

649

11.16

By Councillor Greenwood – Biodiversity Strategy.

649

11.17

By Councillor Greenwood – Bushland Conservation Covenants. 

650

11.18

By Councillor Greenwood – Public Transport.

650

11.19

By Councillor Matson – Evaluation of Possible Problem Street Tree Policy Component.

650

11.20

By Councillor Matson – Adoption of a New Telecommunications and Radio communications DCP. 

651

11.21

By Councillor Bastic – 134 Marine Parade, Maroubra.

652

11.22

By Councillor Matson – Need to amend the Telecommunications Act. 

652

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Report

 

13.1                        

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 15/2004 - 9 RON FILBEE PLACE, MAROUBRA.

654

 

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

………………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 1/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

DECEMBER 2003 QUARTER REVIEW - 2003/06 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

DATE:

17 February, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/0555

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors on the implementation of the 2003/06 Management Plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

This is the December Quarter Review of the 2003/06 Plan.

 

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

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the Report on the December Quarter Review – 2003/06 Management Plan be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

DECEMBER QUARTER REPORT – 2003/2006 MANAGEMENT PLAN – UNDER SEPARATE COVER.

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 2/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

18 February, 2004

FILE NO:

P/011349, P/003621, P/003422 2, P/011993, P/002910, P/001615 2, P/002147, 98/S/3049 2

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

1.         Kevin Birger (T/As Sugarplum Café & Ice Cream Bar) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 1/25 Perouse Road, Randwick.

2.         Lisa Cotter (T/As Parini Italian Restaurant) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 126 Anzac Parade, Kensington

3.         Robert Ellis Lees (T/As Maroubra Junction Hotel) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 199 Maroubra Road, Maroubra Junction.

4.         Ronna Yerushalmy (T/As Green Zucchini) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 48 Burnie Street, Clovelly.

5.         Helen Ablett (T/As The Pool Cafe) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 94 Marine Parade, Maroubra

6.         Jia Guo Yin in relation to a lease of Shop, 28 Silver Street, Randwick.

7.         TAB Limited in relation to a lease of Shop, 22 Silver Street, Randwick

8.         Eagle Head Developments Pty Ltd in relation to a lease over the Kiosk/Café in Reserve No. R35571 and known as Bundock Park and Clovelly Bathing Reserve.

9.         Eagle Head Developments Pty Ltd in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining adjacent to the Kiosk/Café in Reserve No. R35571 and known as Bundock Park and Clovelly Bathing Reserve.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the agreements between Council and –

 

1.         Kevin Birger (T/As Sugarplum Café & Ice Cream Bar) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 1/25 Perouse Road, Randwick.

2.         Lisa Cotter (T/As Parini Italian Restaurant) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 126 Anzac Parade, Kensington

3.         Robert Ellis Lees (T/As Maroubra Junction Hotel) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 199 Maroubra Road, Maroubra Junction.

4.         Ronna Yerushalmy (T/As Green Zucchini) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 48 Burnie Street, Clovelly.

5.         Helen Ablett (T/As The Pool Cafe) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 94 Marine Parade, Maroubra

6.         Jia Guo Yin in relation to a lease of Shop, 28 Silver Street, Randwick.

7.         TAB Limited in relation to a lease of Shop, 22 Silver Street, Randwick

8.         Eagle Head Developments Pty Ltd in relation to a lease over the Kiosk/Café in Reserve No. R35571 and known as Bundock Park and Clovelly Bathing Reserve.

9.         Eagle Head Developments Pty Ltd in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining adjacent to the Kiosk/Café in Reserve No. R35571 and known as Bundock Park and Clovelly Bathing Reserve.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 3/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

2003/04 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT DECEMBER 2003

 

 

DATE:

18 February, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2627

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

a)         LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) REGULATION 1999

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

b).        DECEMBER  2003 QUARTER BUDGET REVIEW STATEMENT

 

Subject to Council’s formal adoption of the changes contained in this report, the following table summarises the projected budget position for 2003/2004 as at 31 December 2003 :

 

 

Summary of December 2003 Quarter Budget Variations

 

By Principal Activity

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variations

 

 

 

Expenditure

Income

Net

 

 

Increase

(Increase )

 

 

Principal Activity

( Decrease)

 Decrease

 

 

 

$

$

$

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Management of Natural & Built Assets

946,261

(1,804,990)

(858,729)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Waste Services

60,000

0

60,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

City Services

865,467

(583,998)

273,287

 

 

 

 

 

 

City Planning & Development

317,286

(360,100)

(42,814)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Governance Management and Information Services

464,099

(663,018)

(198,919)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Strategy

1,989

0

1,989

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

2,655,102

(3,412,106)

(765,186)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Original Budget (Surplus)/Deficit

 

 

(682)

 

Estimated budget deficit as at 30 September 2003

 

 

219,194

 

Transfer to Councils on Line system reserve

 

 

546,674

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s Financial Services Manager as the responsible accounting officer, advises that  the projected financial position is satisfactory.

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

 

………………………………

 

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 4/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

AUTHORITY FOR LICENSEE TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT UNDER COMPANY NAME & AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

22 January, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/3370

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The current operator of Maroubra Learn to Surf Licence Agreement, Ms. Susan Moore, (sole trader) has informed Council that she wishes to establish a new company with two (2) shareholders, Mr Craig Wachholz and Ms. Brenda Miley, that will trade as the Sydney Safe Surf School.

 

Ms. Moore is seeking Council’s approval to enter into a new licence agreement as there is a change to the parties to the agreement and Licence Agreements cannot be assigned.

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

The issues relating to a new licence agreement for Learn to Surf are:-

 

1.         The licence agreement to be entered into is only for the remaining term of the current agreement with Ms Susan Moore (which expires on 31 October 2005).  There is no extension period.

2.         The terms and conditions are as per the current agreement with Ms Susan Moore.

3.         The only changes to be made to the licence agreement are:

a.         Parties to the agreement,

b.         Commencement date of the agreement,

c.         All licensees will go as personal guarantees (jointly & severally),

d.         Licence term is reduced to twenty (20) months if entered into on 1 March 2004.

e.         The document will be executed under the new company seal signed by the Director and Secretary.

f.          Inclusion of a clause in the Licence Agreement precluding any changes to be made to the shareholders.

 

It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the signing of licence agreements between Council and Ms Susan Moore, Mr Craig Wachholz and Ms. Brenda Miley as shareholders in a company trading as Sydney Safe Surf School in relation to a licence to use Maroubra and Coogee Beaches for the purpose of holding Learn to Surf Classes.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Ms Susan Moore has requested an agreement in a Company name, a new licence is required fore the remaining term of the current agreed licence period.  The proposed license is to expire in line with the expiry date of the current licence agreement being 31 October 2005.

 

The new licence agreement is with Ms. Susan Moore, Mr Craig Wachholz and Ms. Brenda Miley who are the shareholders in a company trading as Sydney Safe Surf School.

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council prepare a new licence agreement with Susan Moore, Craig Wachholz and Brenda Miley as shareholders in a company trading as Sydney Safe Surf School for a period of twenty (20) months commencing 1 March 2004 and expiring in line with the current licence agreement with Ms Susan Moore on 31 October 2005.

 

That authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the new licence agreements between Council and Ms Susan Moore, Mr Craig Wachholz and Ms Brenda Miley as shareholders in a company trading as Sydney Safe Surf School in relation to a licence to use Maroubra and Coogee Beaches for the purpose of holding Learn to Surf Classes.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 7/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Accelerated Replacement of street lighting.  

 

 

DATE:

16 February, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/0791

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

For some time, street lighting levels across the local government area have not performed to the required standards.  Local roads currently using twin 18-watt fluorescent lamps have failed to adequately light road reserves and do not meet the requirements in AS/NZS 1158. 

 

Much of Council’s street lighting network, consisting of twin 18-watt fluorescent lamps, these lamps are considered to be outdated and have not been upgraded since Council’s initial contractual agreement with Energy Australia in 1978. Energy Australia continues to maintain these older outdated assets, which have high maintenance costs and are identified as not providing satisfactory lighting levels.

 

Council is currently involved in the Street Lighting Improvement Program organised by South Sydney Region of Councils (SSROC). The Street Lighting Improvement Program has enabled effective negotiations with EnergyAustralia.  This program has seen some promising results with negotiations to upgrade street lighting on local roads using improved lighting technology.

 

Recently EnergyAustralia has proposed to replace approximately 10,000 older streetlights across the streetlight network for Councils participating in the Street Lighting Improvement Program.  EnergyAustralia is now seeking consent to proceed in individual LGAs on a first come first served basis. 

 

ISSUES:

 

EnergyAustralia has proposed to replace 10,000 of the worst performing streetlights across all Councils involved in the Street Lighting Improvement Program, by the end of the 2003-2004 financial year.  This initiative involves the replacement of older style twin 18-watt fluorescent lights with the new model 80-watt Mercury vapour luminaries. 

 

It is expected that targeting areas with the most reported complaints and containing the oldest assets should see a reduction in maintenance costs charged to Council over a period of time. There will however be an increase in Energy costs associated with the higher wattage lights this is estimated to be approximately $10 per light per year.

 

The 80-watt mercury vapour luminaries have some clear advantages over current twin 18-Watt lamp, such as:

 

·          Increase in lighting levels;

·          Increase in reliability;

·          Compliance with AS/NZS 1580; and

·          Reduction in light pollution and obtrusive light.

 

The new 80-Watt Mercury vapour luminaries have been configured with a household glare shield to minimise light spillage, a common complaint made by local residents.  Where necessary, existing bracket arms will be replaced with longer ones to extend lighting output onto roadways.

 

COST TO COUNCIL:

 

EnergyAustralia will not be seeking any capital contributions towards the removal and replacement of twin 18-watt fluorescent lights under this program.

 

However, as mentioned previously under the current EnergyAustralia pricing, 80-Watt mercury vapour lights will cost Council approximately $10 more each year to operate than the twin 18-Watt fluorescent lights.

 

Concurrently with this current initiative from Energy Australia the SSROC group are undertaking details contractual negotiations with EnergyAustralia for a future pricing structure for street lighting. Based on progress in this negotiation to date , it is expected that ongoing cost of 80-Watt mercury vapour lights will reduce and possibly having a similar cost to the current twin 18-watt fluorescent lights.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council currently operates approximately 6,770 twin 18-Watt fluorescent lights. Based on an implementation period of four-months (March 2004 – June 2004), the additional cost this financial year required to replace all twin 18-Watt fluorescent lights is approximately $22,500 with an ongoing annual increase of $67,700 based on the current Energy Australia fee structure. There are sufficient funds in Councils current budget to fund this additional expenditure.

 

According to EnergyAustralia, the highest reported maintenance faults are experienced in Randwick and Maroubra.  As such, proposed streetlight replacements should occur in areas that have been identified high maintenance areas so that both reported faults and maintenance costs could be reduced in Council charges. 

 

EnergyAustralia will only proceed with this initiative if Council indicates their consent to proceed.  Work will also be prioritised on a first come first served basis.  Hence, it is essential that Council reach a resolution as soon as possible, to prevent forfeiting the accelerated replacement of streetlights. 

It is anticipated that this initiative will provide Council with an opportunity to increase the current street lighting levels and to upgrade street lighting on local roads.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)         Council consent to proceed with this initiative;

b)         Council fund this initiative from the Street lighting vote in the 2003-2004 budget;

c)         Council accept the additional annual charge of $10 for each 80-watt mercury vapour light;

d)         Council nominate Randwick and Maroubra as the target replacement areas;

e)         Council nominate a maximum replacement of 6,770 sets of twin 18-Watt lights; and

f)          Energy Australia be informed on Council’s resolution.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

ANNIE SHUM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSETS ENGINEER - ANCILLARY

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 8/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

TREE PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE TENDER

 

 

DATE:

19 February, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/5089

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 2 September, 2003, Randwick City Council called for Tenders to undertake the planting and subsequent maintenance of street trees of various sizes throughout the City for periods of both one and two years.

 

At the close of Tenders three companies had lodged Tender documents with Council for the provision of this tree planting and maintenance service. 

 

ISSUES:

 

Historically, Council undertakes a number of tree planting programmes and projects throughout the City during the course of any one year.

 

These include the annual Main Roads Tree Planting Programme, the Community Street Tree Planting Project, planting out of entire streets or sections of streets where it is deemed necessary, requests from residents for one-two trees outside their properties, and replacement plantings for street trees that have been removed.

 

Because of increased requests from residents for street tree planting as well as an increase in the need to remove diseased and inappropriate tree species, coupled with a corresponding increase in the cost to Council to undertake these works, it has now become necessary to Tender for the provision of this tree planting and maintenance service.

 

As stated previously, three (3) companies (Landscape Solutions, Glascott Group Pty Ltd and Marsupial Landscapes) responded to Council’s Tree Planting and Maintenance Tender and all three were then assessed using the evaluation criteria nominated in the Tender documents.

 

These criteria are:

 

·          Price (Schedule of Rates)

·          Financial capacity to carry out the work

·          Experience and ability to complete work

·          Quality Management System of the Tenderer

·          Occupational Health and Safety

 

Price (Schedule of Rates) – By far the cheapest of these was that provided by Marsupial Landscapes. Its price to plant and maintain one 25-litre tree for a period of one year was $519.78. By comparison, Landscape Solutions quoted $803.66 for the same service and Glascott Group Pty Ltd quoted $820.00.

 

There were proportionate increases in the prices provided by all three companies and the quotes provided to plant and maintain one 45-litre tree for a period of two years were $899.23 by Marsupial Landscapes, $1263.00 by Glascott Group Pty Ltd and $1496.66 by Landscape Solutions.

 

Marsupial Landscapes provided the cheapest quotations for all nine different sized trees listed in the Schedule of Rates. All three companies provided comparable Schedules of Labour Rates for Variations although the rate provided by Glascott Group Pty Ltd for saw cutting tree sites (where necessary) was considerably less than the other two companies.

 

However, even allowing for this, Marsupial Landscapes represented by far the best price for the requested works.

 

Financial capacity to carry out the work – All three companies demonstrated that they were solvent and that they had the financial capacity to carry out the work.

 

All had $20 million public and product liability insurance as well as appropriate Workers’ Compensation and motor vehicle insurance.

 

Experience and ability to complete work – All three companies have the experience, suitably qualified and trained staff and ability to carry out and complete the requested works but Landscape Solutions had by far the most comprehensively trained staff and most extensive range of equipment of all three companies.

 

They also had the largest amount of appropriate work in hand and had completed works worth many millions of dollars.

 

All three Tenderers had comprehensive environmental policies and all three completed and complied with the environmental questionnaire contained in the Tender document.

 

Again, however, Landscape Solutions had the most comprehensive environmental policy document of the three companies.

 

Quality Management System of the Tenderer – All three Tenderers were AS/NZS ISO 9002 compliant and had perfectly acceptable quality management systems in place.

 

Occupational Health and Safety – Again, all three companies had comprehensive OH&S systems in place and all demonstrated that they were committed to appropriate and ongoing training and induction of personnel as well as having comprehensive risk and injury management systems in operation.


CONCLUSION:

 

The predominant reasons for Council putting its tree planting and maintenance operations out to Tender are the fact that at present we experience relatively significant losses after the expiration of the current six-month maintenance period and that the total average cost of providing this service now exceeds $100,000 per annum.

 

The three Tenderers more than adequately addressed the criteria necessary to carry out any nominated tree planting and maintenance works in a professional manner as per Council’s Specification and requirements.

 

However, the single overriding factor in any decision as to whether to engage any of these companies has to be cost and how that cost compares with present planting and maintenance operations.

 

At present, it costs Council $55.00 to have a 25-litre street tree planted and maintained for a period of six months. In theory that would allow approximately 2000 trees to be planted and maintained for a cost of just over $100,000.

 

The cheapest quotation provided by the three Tenderers to plant and maintain one 25-litre tree for a period of twelve months is $519.78. That translates to approximately 200 trees for the same total cost of around $100,000.

 

Even though maintaining trees for a period of only six months means that there can be fluctuating losses, this still allows nearly ten times the number of trees to be planted under the current system than would be possible if the cheapest Tree Planting and Maintenance Tender were accepted.

 

Accepting any of the lodged Tenders would have too devastating an effect on the total number of street trees that would be able to be planted annually by Council within its current tree management budget.

 

One company, Marsupial Landscapes, included in its Tender documents a schedule to PLANT ONLY trees of varying sizes and the cost to plant a 25-litre tree (including GST) is quoted at $182.41 – this is more than three times the current cost paid to Council’s preferred contractor to plant and maintain the same size tree for a period of six months.   

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council declines to accept any of the three Tree Planting and Maintenance Tenders lodged on Tuesday, 30 September, 2003, and that the relevant tree planting and maintenance Specification be reviewed to more appropriately reflect the level and extent of service achievable within its current tree management budget.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 9/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

MOVERLY ROAD, KINGSFORD - ROAD CONDITION

 

 

DATE:

18 February, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0548/01

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A petition regarding the condition of Moverly Road, Kingsford has been received from a resident of Moverly Road, Kingsford, on behalf of surrounding residents and others.

 

ISSUES:

 

The petitioners regard the road to be in a poor and dangerous condition and have requested resurfacing.

 

Moverly Road, between Malabar Road and Anzac Parade, consists of a central concrete pavement, with spray seal asphalt shoulders.

 

A preliminary inspection indicates failures in the concrete pavement include cracking of slabs and differential settlement. While joint noise is characteristic of concrete pavements, these failures have resulted in an uneven surface in some areas, particularly between Loch Maree Street and Anzac Parade.

 

In addition, areas of the spray seal asphalt shoulders particularly at joints with the concrete pavement are exhibiting signs of deterioration.

 

In most areas, grinding slab replacement and joint cleaning and sealing will provide adequate treatment for the concrete pavement. However, this treatment may not be sufficient for areas with poor surface ride  In these areas, asphalt overlay may be warranted.

 

Selective milling and resurfacing of deteriorated should areas will provide an adequate treatment for these areas.

 

A detailed investigation of pavement requirements and will be undertaken to determine the extent activities required.

 

Grinding, joint activities and minor asphalt works will be considered for routine maintenance works for 2004-2005. Slab replacement and any potential asphalt overlays will need to be considered under capital works funding for 2004-2005.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Following detailed investigation rectification works in Moverly Road, Kingsford, will be considered for maintenance and capital works funding for 2004-2005.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That the petition received from local residents in the vicinity of Moverly Road be noted; and

2.         The petitioners be notified that joint cleaning and sealing activities will be completed under routine maintenance,  and slab replacement and potential asphalt overlays will be considered under the 2004-2005 resurfacing programme.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 10/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 001/04. GRAFFITI MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME.

 

 

DATE:

19 February, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2143

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting held on 25 November 2004, Council resolved that:

 

(a)        Council note the proposed Council funded multi-faceted programme including outsourcing of graffiti spotting removal and database development services; and

 

(b)        This programme include a performance based contract with provision for short termination notification by Council.

 

Pursuant to the above resolution, tenders were called on 20 January 2004 for the initial removal of existing graffiti and ongoing removal of new graffiti in Randwick for two (2) years with an option for extending the contract for two (2) further periods of twelve (12) months each. The Tender also requested the Tenderers to price, on a provisional basis, for the delivery of graffiti awareness sessions to all Year 5 and 8 students in Randwick (Graffiti Education Programme) and the ongoing removal of billposters from specified locations (Billposter Removal Programme).

Following a 3-week tendering period, the Tender closed on 10 February 2004.

Five tenders were received. A summary of the outcome from the evaluation of these Tenders is set out in this report.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

The Randwick City Council Local Government Area (Randwick), similar to many other local government areas has been a victim of graffiti vandals. To reduce the incidence of graffiti, which imposes a significant social and financial impact on the community, at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 23 September 2003, the Council resolved, among others, that:

 

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

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

 

Pursuant to the above resolution, Council Officers commissioned a graffiti audit to understand the size and nature of the graffiti problem in Randwick. Upon the completion of the graffiti audit on 29 October 2003, Council Officers proceeded to develop a multi-faceted graffiti management programme involving the outsourcing of graffiti spotting, removal and database development services. The Council at its Ordinary Council meeting on 25 November 2003 noted the details of the said programme and further resolved that the programme include a performance based contract with provision for short termination notification by Council.

 

Accordingly, Council officers prepared a performance based tender document to invite tenders from interested parties who will be able to fulfil the following objectives, namely,

 

1.         The reduction of the incidence of graffiti to an acceptable level at minimal cost through:

A.        the initial removal of all existing graffiti in Randwick;

B.         the systematic ongoing removal of new graffiti; and

C.        the delivery of a graffiti education programme to Year 5 and 8 students in Randwick.

 

2.         The reduction of billposters to an acceptable level at minimal cost through the ongoing removal of billposters and enforcement action.

 

As the issue of illegal billposting is closely related to that of graffiti, in that both lead to ‘visual pollution’ of the environment, it was felt that there would be operational efficiency and attendant costs savings in getting a single contractor to deal with both issues. Under the Tender, the Tenderers were to price for the graffiti education and billposter removal works on a provisional basis with the Council reserving the right to accept the graffiti education programme or the billposter removal programme for the full or part of the Contract term, or not to accept the Programme as part of the Contract.

 

In brief the Contract Specifications require the Contractor to:

 

A.        Using the results of the graffiti audit of Randwick carried out by Council from 15 August 2003 to 29 October 2003 as a guide, establish for itself the quantity and type of work required;

B.         Prepare and operate under an agreed business plan and work programme;

C.        Remove all graffiti from all Council owned or managed property;

D.        Remove all graffiti that can be viewed from and is within 50 meters of any Council or public authority road, street or highway, from (a) residential property assets, subject to agreement with the owners, (b) privately owned, commercial, retail, industrial property assets, subject to agreement with the owners, and (c) government authority and service/utility supply company property assets, subject to agreement with the owners.

E.         Respond quickly to new graffiti that occurs after the initial removal and remove it from the abovementioned property/assets;

F.         Operate and publicise a Council owned telephone ‘hotline’ for the reporting of graffiti and graffiti related matters in Randwick;

G.        Inspect high priority areas and Council buildings for graffiti and billposters on a 48 hour cycle and non-high priority areas on a weekly basis;

H.        Regularly report to the Principal’s Representative;

I.          Work in tandem with Council’s current graffiti management programme;

J.          Conduct business with the owners of property/assets affected by graffiti in a professional and competent manner;

K.        Maintain good records in a database including a graffiti tags register and share this information with relevant authorities including the Police;

L.         Deliver approved graffiti awareness sessions to Year 5 and Year 8 students in Randwick, if instructed by the Council to do so,

M.        Carry out billposter removal and evidence collection on an ongoing basis within Randwick, if instructed by Council to do so.

 

A sum of AUD$150,000 has been reallocated from asset maintenance to carry out this programme for the remainder of the current financial year. A definite idea of the actual cost of the programme will be available after the award of the tender and once the Successful Tenderer carries out a graffiti audit to ascertain the exact amount of existing graffiti and collects information on the incidence of new graffiti and billposters.

 

ISSUES:

 

Tender Assessment

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

(a)        Price;

(b)        Experience and ability to complete the work;

(c)        Methodology, procedures and proposed programmes;

(d)        Financial capacity to carry out the work;

(e)        Compliance with the Specification;

(f)         Quality Management System of the Tenderer;

(g)        Occupational Health and Safety;

(h)        Environmental Impact

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

 

Tender Opening

Tenders were opened at 10.00am on the closing date of the tender by a three (3) person panel comprising representatives from Randwick City Council in the presence of 2 members of the public.

Tenders were submitted by the following:

1.         Tsunami High Pressure Water Systems Pty Ltd

2.         TLC Graffiti Removal Services Pty Ltd

3.         Urban Management Systems Pty Ltd

4.         Hydra-wash Pty Ltd

5.         GraffitiOff Pty Ltd

 

Evaluation Committee

A thorough and detailed evaluation of all tender submissions was conducted by a panel comprising, Council’s Manager Contracts and Purchasing, Kim Davis, Contract Officer, Jeffrey Gallimore, Warrick Hay, Waste Compliance Officer and Bhaskaran Sivasamy, Waste Research Officer.

 

Evaluation Process

The process of Evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Evaluation Plan (a copy of the Evaluation Plan is annexed as “Appendix A”), approved by the Manager Contracts and Purchasing prior to the close of tenders. The methodology adopted is as follows:

1.         The Evaluation Committee undertook an objective qualitative assessment of the completed schedules, (but not pricing information) submitted as part of each tender. 

2.         The schedule information and the specific questions were listed under the relevant criteria and weighted in order of importance to the overall evaluation.  Team members scored the criteria individually in accordance with the “Weighted Criteria” in the Evaluation Plan.  Individual scores were then calculated to form a Total Score as recorded on the “Evaluation Score” sheet, a copy of which is annexed as “Appendix B”. 

3.         The tendered prices in Schedule B2 “Tender Submission” were then calculated to form a “Cost Index” for each tenderer. As the pricing for this tender includes lump sum rates, monthly rates, hourly rates and unit rates, to undertake a price comparison between the tenderers, the rates were calculated to determine an estimated total contract price for each tenderer over 2 years (the initial contract period). At this stage, Graffiti Off which submitted a non-conforming lump sum daily rate, was eliminated from further consideration for reasons listed in the discussion under the Summary of Tenders. A copy of the ‘Price Evaluation’ is annexed as “Appendix C”.

4.         The corresponding Quality Scores were divided by the Cost Indexes to form a Value for Money score. Please refer to Table 1.

 

Table 1: Value for Money Score

Tenderer’s Name

Quality Score

Cost Index

Value for

 Money Score

Tsunami

58.5 %

1.038

56.4 %

Hydrawash

64.9 %

1

64.9 %

TLC

63.1 %

1.110

56.8 %

UMS

83.1 %

1.043

79.7 %

Graffiti-Off

54.9 %

N.A.

N.A.

 

SUMMARY OF TENDERERS

 

Graffiti-Off Pty Ltd

Graffiti-Off is located at Blacktown, NSW and has been operating for 8 years. The company started as a supplier of graffiti removal products before venturing into graffiti removal and has been doing graffiti removal work for local councils, Railway Infrastructure Corporation (RIC) and the Department of Public Works (DPWS). A check with the RIC and DPWS revealed that Graffiti-Off is one of a panel of preferred contractors for graffiti cleaning and is called upon to do graffiti removal work on a ad-hoc basis. 

This tenderer failed to price the works according to the provided price schedules but instead offered a non-conforming fixed daily contract rate of $345 (excluding GST, cost of graffiti coating and graffiti education) for the duration of the contract period. The Committee evaluated the Contractor’s response with respect to pricing separately, with the aim to assess the value and level of service that would be provided for this rate. The following assessment was made:

1.         A breakdown or explanation of the fixed daily rate was not provided. As such, the Committee was unable to assess whether all elements of the contract works have been costed to meet the expected variations in graffiti and billposter removal works.

2.         Graffiti Off tendered the fixed daily rate of $345 to carry out the works in the Specification, which includes, conducting a graffiti audit, establish and maintain a database with a tag register component, operate a council owned 1-800 graffiti hotline, conduct site inspections of high priority and non high priority areas for new graffiti and billposters on a weekly and 48 hour cycle, remove all existing graffiti, ongoing removal of new graffiti and billposters, liaison with property owners to obtain consent to remove graffiti and the cost of developing a billposter removal and graffiti education programme. Taking into consideration the initial programme costs, the Evaluation Committee estimated that Graffiti off allocated limited funding to manage or resource the level of work required.

3.         The Contract is to be performance based with a contract performance target of 60% reduction in the incidence of new graffiti, in the beginning of the 2nd year of the contract, and further reductions for the following years. The experience of other Councils with a multi-faceted graffiti management programme is that there should be significant reductions in the cost of maintaining the programme with the reduction in the incidence of new graffiti.   A fixed lump sum price will not allow a reduction in the contract price, even if the incidence of new graffiti should fall.

4.         A fixed daily rate did not demonstrate the tenderers financial ability to maintain a high level and quality service during peak graffiti and/or billposter removal periods.

5.         The tender pricing schedule was developed specifically to minimise the level of contract management required by Council and maximise the level of service delivery. A lump sum price does not meet this criteria, and would require greater Council resources to manage the Contract to ensure the level of service is high. This defeats the one of the main purposes behind outsourcing of the Graffiti Management programme to private contractors.

Graffiti Off also received the lowest quality score and did not compare favourably to the responses received from the other tenderers.

Graffiti Off, was therefore not further considered.

 

Tsunami High Pressure Water Systems Pty Ltd

 

Tsunami High Pressure Water Systems Pty Ltd is a cleaning company incorporated in August 2002. The company previously operated as a sole proprietorship and was known as Tsunami Cleaning Services.

 

This tenderer has some experience with local government bodies although from the schedule of work in hand and work completed it seemed that the mainstay of Tsunamis business is general cleaning rather than graffiti removal. The company has done some billposter removal work although there is no evidence of experience in graffiti education. Overall, the tenderer offered an uncompetitive tender especially in the areas of financial capacity and quality assurance.

 

This tenderer achieved the second lowest quality score and the lowest ‘Value for Money’ score.

 

TLC Graffiti Removal Services Pty Ltd (TLC Graffiti)

 

TLC Graffiti, is part of the TLC Group of companies and has 4 years experience in graffiti removal services.

 

Their submission was reasonably well put together and professional, though the Evaluation Committee (“Committee”) found that the financial information provided was inadequate and requested them to furnish further information as well as submit Schedule B22 which was inadvertently omitted.

 

The submission revealed that their graffiti management experience stems mainly from their sizeable graffiti removal contract with the City of Sydney. TLC Graffiti’s proposed graffiti education and billposter removal programme and methodology was of a high standard although they did not have previous experience in delivering a graffiti education programme. A check with the references revealed that they were professional and responsive and rated highly. However their submission was the most expensive.

 

TLC Graffiti received the 3rd highest evaluation score and also the 3rd highest ‘value for money’ score.

 

Hydra-wash Pty Ltd (“Hydrawash”)

 

Hydrawash is a professional pavement cleaning and graffiti removal company and operates out of a half acre site at Padstow. The company has grown in size both in terms of number of staff, plant and machinery and showed it had the financial capacity to carry out the work.

 

Although they had experience undertaking graffiti cleaning works for local councils in Sydney, the contracts were of a small nature (ranging from $20,000 to $70,000). Their submission did not reveal any experience in handling a multi-faceted graffiti management programme incorporating graffiti education and billposter removal, although their references were noted to be extremely happy with their contract performance to date.

 

A valuation of the prices by the various tenderers revealed that they were the cheapest, although the difference in price between the various tenderers was marginal. Overall, Hydrawash offered the 2nd best value for money score.

 

Urban Management Systems Pty Ltd (UMS)

 

UMS, a Victorian based company with offices in NSW, Queensland and Western Australia has been active for 8 years and achieved the highest evaluation score and provided the best ‘Value for Money Score’ for this tender.

UMS has an office in Sylvania, and intends to resource this project initially with their Victorian management staff  to start operations immediately and be based in Sydney full-time. The key staff earmarked for this project have been identified in their tender submission. When the works are well established here, they intend to employ and train a local team to carry on the works. Thus, while this company is Victorian based, they clearly demonstrated an ability to provide the level of service delivery required for this project.

 

This submission displayed a distinct level of professionalism and was markedly superior to the other tender submissions in both form and content. To demonstrate this, they contacted all primary and high schools within Randwick to ascertain the exact number of information sessions that need to be delivered over the duration of the school calendar. This level of tender response was not apparent in other responses received.

 

The Committee noted that UMS is the only tenderer with experience in providing a similar performance based graffiti management programme, incorporating graffiti removal, database maintenance, operating a graffiti hotline, delivering graffiti education services to school children and undertaking billposter removal work. The tenderer scored consistently high in all categories including financial capability, Occupational Health and Safety, Quality Assurance, Environmental Policies, and the quality of their proposed graffiti education (the only tenderer utilising a full-time actor) and billposter removal programmes. Their documentation demonstrated that they had achieved significant reductions in the incidence of new graffiti for the City of Casey, Victoria. Their references were noted as being extremely happy with work place performance.

 

Although, their price was the 2nd highest, their quality score was the highest by a significant margin. UMS had the highest “Value for Money Score’ and therefore offered the best value for money to Council.

 

Subject to the acceptance of the tender by UMS, Council officers will attempt to obtain a reduced rate in respect of item 1.3 of the Schedule ‘Liaison with owners/occupiers of non-Council assets for graffiti removal approvals’.

 

CONCLUSION:

Of the 5 tenders considered by the Evaluation Committee, the Committee found that the non-conforming lump sum tender pricing offered by Graffiti-Off had the following problems. The pricing structure did not allow for a reduction in the contract price corresponding to an expected reduction in the incidence of graffiti and increased the level of contract management required by Council. Further, as there was no breakdown of the fixed daily rate provided, coupled with a low quality score, the Committee assessed that Graffiti Off had allocated limited funding to manage or resource the works required.

The Evaluation Committee then proceeded to evaluate the other 4 tenderers to determine a value for money score. The cost index showed that there was very little separating the four tenderers in terms of price. UMS had a far superior quality score and the highest ‘Value for Money Score’. The Evaluation Committee concluded that this tender submission provided the greatest value for Council’s needs.

As the total annual contract price for the Graffiti Removal Programme and the Billposter Removal Programme is greatly dependant on the amount of existing graffiti and the incidence of new graffiti and billposters, and the Assets and Infrastructure has been able to allocate a sum of $150,000 for the remainder of the financial year, it is recommended to only award the Graffiti Removal Programme as part of the Tender to UMS and await the outcome of the initial graffiti audit to be undertaken by them before deciding if, and when to award the provisional Graffiti Education and/or the Billposter Removal  Programmes which form part of the Tender.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.         Council accept the tender submitted by Urban Management Systems Pty Ltd for the Graffiti Removal Programme Tender No. T001/04 for a period of 2 years with the option, at the discretion of the Council, to extend for two further periods of 12 months each for the price stated in the price schedule of their tender submission.

2.         Subject to availability of funds during the contract term, the provisional programmes for Graffiti Education and Billposter Removal be accepted.

3.         The commencement date for the project be in March 2004.

4.         The unsuccessful tenderers are notified of the tender result.

5.         The General Manager in consultation with the Mayor be authorised to sign the contract and other documents pertaining to the scope of works and that Council’s Seal be affixed to the contract.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment 1 Tender Evaluation Plan

Attachment 2 Quality Score

Attachment 3 Price Evaluation - ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER. 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

WARRICK HAY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

WASTE COMPLIANCE OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 11/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

32 BEACH STREET, COOGEE - DRAINAGE PROBLEMS

 

 

DATE:

19 February, 2004

FILE NO:

P/004045

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At an Extraordinary Meeting held on 17th December, 2002, Council considered the attached report (Attachment A) from the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services dated 12th December, 2002, on the above matter and resolved, THAT:-

 

a)         The contents of the Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 153/2002 be noted;

 

b)         Mr. Sweeney be requested to demonstrate the extent of his compliance with the conditions of approval attached to the construction of the pool and garage;

 

c)         Council retain the services of a suitably qualified Drainage Consultant to carry out an analysis of a projected flood frequency including depths of Mr. Sweeney’s property, should full compliance with the conditions of approval be achieved; and

 

d)         Should further investigations be required, the Drainage Consultants be retained to closely examine the implications of the two (2) drainage options referred to in the Report.”

 

Mr Sweeney was advised of this resolution by letter dated 30th December, 2002 and has not as yet responded to condition (b) of the resolution although he had been in regular contact with Council officers since that time in view of the storms that have occurred since that time.

 

As a consequence of conditions (c) and (d), Bonacci Rickard, a consultancy company, with existing knowledge of the situation at Beach Street, were retained to prepare a report in line with Council’s resolutions for consideration by Council.  The report was sent to Council by Email on 13th May, 2003, and a copy is attached (Attachment B).

 

At an Ordinary Meeting held on 27th May, 2003, Council considered the attached report (Attachment C) from the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services dated 12th December, 2002, which recommended that :-

a)         The $30,000 to carry out the works suggested in Option 1 and 2 in the consultant’s report is to be funded from an appropriate vote in the 2003/2004 budget

 

(b)        Mr. Sweeney be advised that Council requires him to comply fully with the conditions of consent for his pool and garage and to provide a suitable overland flow path through his property so that the drainage system at this location is capable of coping with a 1 in 10 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event.

 

Following a request from the property owner, the matter was subsequently deferred to allow the owner’s consultant to review the report put forward by Council’s consultant.

 

ISSUES:

 

The consultant working for Mr Sweeney sent an Email to Council Officers on 9 February with his comments on the report.  This Email referred to a site meeting on 21 November, 2003 with Mr Sweeney and Council’s Design Manager, and referred to a number of documents that the consultant had examined and ended as follows:  (for ease of discussion, comments by Council officers to each of the following points are provided in bold lettering)

 

“The following comments and observations are presented for further consideration:

 

1.         At the time of purchase of the property by the current owner was there evidence provided by a Section 94 Certificate as presently known of an overland flow path; if Council did not declare the existence of an overland flow path on its mapping at the time of purchase then is it justifiable for Council to claim an overland flow path retrospectively.         

 

It is assumed that the consultant is referring to a Section 149 Certificate. Under Section 149 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, Council has a duty to indicate whether a parcel of land is affected by an adopted policy to restrict development because of flooding. There is no such policy on the subject land to date.

 

Council records indicate that Mr Sweeney purchased this property in 1986. Council only requested a Drainage Easement when an assessment was made of Mr Sweeney’s application to build a garage and pool on his property in 1996. 

 

2.         The low point in Arden Street suggests that the pre-existing overland flow path would have been between No 79 Arden Street and the two adjacent houses immediately to the south. Council has asserted that there was an existing overland flow path through the subject property however the topography of the land between Arden Street and Beach Street suggests that the original overland flow path would have travelled in a diagonal south easterly direct to the true low point in Beach Street which co-exists a number of properties further south to No. 32.

 

Overland flow paths do not necessarily follow straight lines and this one  may have meandered down towards Gordons Bay prior to any development at this location. It appears that the original subdivider of the land chose an flow path by providing the underground drainage line through Mr Sweeney’s property either because the land meandered in this way or it was more convenient for the purpose of creating these allotments to have the drainage line run through his property.

           

It is good engineering practice to have the overland flow path over the top of a line of stormwater drainage pipes. As such the best engineering and practical solution would be to create the drainage easement and hence the overland flow path over the existing pipes as required by the conditions of consent for the pool and garage. 

 

3.         The Council Condition of Consent requires works to be carried on the 32 Beach Street including raising of the pool coping and raising of the rear fence; Council set this Condition without a full understanding of the true overland flow path direction.

 

Council Officers set this condition after assessing the application and noting the location of Council’s underground drainage system. Pipelines are usually installed along (or close to) natural flow paths, and hence the presence of a drainage line through a property will often indicate that overland flow may also occur through the property. Whilst the natural flow path locations may vary slightly from the pipe alignment, it is generally appropriate to contour the easement (and surrounding land if necessary) to collect and convey overland flows over the easement/pipe alignment.

 

The condition referenced in point 3 above was one of four drainage conditions imposed on the development to prevent the new works from being adversely affected by overland flow through the site. The four drainage conditions are detailed below:

 

      ·          The applicant shall allow Council to create a drainage easement, under its control, over the line of the existing Council controlled stormwater drainage pipeline within the site. The minimum easement width shall be:

                     

                      3.0m for the section of pipeline located adjacent to the proposed swimming pool. This section of the drainage easement shall be created centrally over the line of the existing Council controlled stormwater drainage pipeline.

                     

                      3.65m for the section of pipeline adjacent to the proposed garage and the southern boundary (of the property). This section of the drainage easement shall be located bordering the southern fence line.

 

     ·        The landscaping/paving within the required drainage easement shall be lowered and constructed with a vee drain formation to direct overland flow of stormwater that may travel through the property.

 

     ·        All new fences located across the required drainage easement shall be an open form type or have a 3m wide by 0.5m high opening to allow overland stormwater flow to pass unimpeded.

 

·        The applicant shall construct the proposed swimming pool coping course and the floor level of the proposed garage a minimum of 300mm above the existing adjacent ground level.  This condition is required to reduce the possibility of overland stormwater flow entering these areas.

         

These conditions indicate that the assessing officer understood the possible inundation problems at this location and took the required steps to try to alleviate the impact of these problems following the construction of the pool and garage.

           

            However as stated in the December, 2002 report considered by Council, there has never been any attempt to comply with these conditions of consent which were issued in 1996. It is noted that Council records indicate that Mr Sweeney has never sought a final inspection on the pool and garage which explains why action has never been taken to correct this situation.

 

4.         Council should consider undertaking a closed circuit TV inspection (CCTV) of the existing 600mm drainage pipelines between Arden Street and Beach Street. From discussions with Mr Brett Hails of Bonacci Rickard, it is apparent that they (BR) have not undertaken a CCTV. This will verify whether there are any significant blockages within the pipeline.

 

This was flagged in the report by Council Officers which was considered by Council in May, 2003. Council officers have arranged a CCTV inspection of the subject pipeline which commenced in Arden Street and ran in an easterly direction to Mr Sweeney’s property. Due to the bends and level anomalies in the pipe, the inspection could not proceed all the way to Beach St. However, a visual inspection was carried out with a torch in a westerly direction from a pit inside Mr Sweeney’s yard. The combination of these two inspections indicated that there were no blockages inside this pipeline at that time.

           

5.         The report by Bonacci Rickard claims that the design of the drainage according to the minor and major principle applied in accordance with Australian Rainfall and Runoff means that piped drainage is designed for the 1 to 5 event. There is precedent throughout many Municipal Councils to suggest that the design of drainage systems could be based on the 20 year Average Recurrence Interval. This would mean that the capacity of the pipeline beneath 32 Beach Street Coogee would need to be 2.86m/3 sec

 

It would be an ideal situation for the drainage system to be capable of coping with a 20 year or even 100 year storm event. However, due to the costs associated with sizing piped systems for large storm events, it is generally considered appropriate for piped systems to be designed for the smaller storm events (1 in 2 or 1 in 5 year ARI, refer to Section 14.5.1 of AR&R 1987) and provision be made for larger storm events to be conveyed as overland flow (Minor/Major system design).

 

6.         The capacity of the grate and inlet system in Arden Street would need to be upgraded to this 20 year capacity.

 

The upgrading of the inlet system in Arden St is included as part of Option2 in the Bonacci Rickard report, which was subsequently recommended in the report by Council officers in May, 2003. However designing this increase in capacity to cater for a 20 year ARI storm is considered unnecessary and inappropriate given that the piped system is only capable of handling a 2 year ARI storm after both Options 1 and 2 are implemented.

 

7.         The weir at the Beach Street gross pollutant trap should be removed and this gross pollutant trap should be designed to ensure that there is no backwater effect and that the pre-existing condition prior to the gross pollutant trap installation is maintained so that pipe capacity is not compromised.

 

The upgrading of the inlet  weir to the gross pollutant trap in Beach Street is included as part of Option 1 in the Bonacci Rickard report and was subsequently recommended in the report by Council officers in May, 2003.  CDS Technologies have agreed to carry out the necessary design work free of charge.

 

8.         The grated and side entry inlet system should be introduced at the Beach Street system in accordance with the recommendations contained in BR report under Option 2 except that the total inlet capacity should be for a 20 year ARI storm event

 

The writer is unsure as to the meaning of this point. Option 2 of the Bonacci Richard report relates to minor works to the pits in Arden Street to increase their inlet capacity up to the 1 in 2 year ARI. Thus it appears that the point may be referring to the pit in Arden Street rather than Beach Street. If this is the case it is noted (as per point 6 above) that increasing the inlet capacity of the pits beyond the 1 in 2 year ARI would be of no use unless the capacity of the piped system is also increased beyond the 1 in 2 year ARI storm event.

 

9.         Council should consider the effect of a stormwater detention basin under the footway and roadway within Arden Street to attenuate the discharge to the improved capacity of the drainage pipeline between Arden and Beach Streets.  The improved capacity requires the backwater effect of the gross pollutant trap to be mitigated.

 

The consultant has not indicated any dimensions for such a stormwater detention basin in Arden Street.  However, it is considered that the size of the required underground detention storage would be very large. Given the presence of service utilities in the road reserve, combined with high construction costs, it is considered that this option is not feasible.

 

In closing, Council should consider all of the above items and identify the proposed final Extent of works at the completion of the above assessment and forward same to the relevant stakeholders.”

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The comments By Mr Sweeney’s consultant have been discussed above in the “ISSUES” section of this report and are self explanatory. It is considered that Options 1 and 2 of the Bonacci Rickard report are conditionally supported by Mr Sweeney’s consultant. Comment 4 has already been satisfied by the CCTV inspection and Comment 8 is considered irrelevant since it refers to a section of the drainage system, downstream of Mr Sweeney’s property. It is unlikely that an agreement will be reached in the short term between Council officers and Mr Sweeney’s consultant on the other comments.

 

The cost of implementing Options 1 and 2 of the Bonacci Rickard report submitted to Council in April, 2003 (Attachment B ) is approximately $35,000 and it is the opinion of Council officers and Council’s consultants (Bonacci Rickard) that an overland flow path does currently exist through Mr. Sweeney’s property and that full compliance with his conditions of consent combined with Options 1 and 2 could improve the system to cope with a 1 in 10 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event. 

 

The report indicates that Mr. Sweeney will still suffer some overland flow for storms greater than a 1 in 10 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event even if Options 3 or 4 are implemented. Therefore, the provision of a formalised overland flow path is imperative to control the stormwater into flowing where it does the least harm until it reaches Beach Street and Council’s street system in front of Mr. Sweeney’s property.   

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:-

 

a)         The $35,000 to carry out the works suggested in Option 1 and 2 in the consultant’s report be funded from an appropriate vote in the 2004/2005 budget.

 

b)         Mr. Sweeney be advised that Council requires him to comply fully with the conditions of consent for his pool and garage and to provide a suitable overland flow path through his property so that the drainage system at this location is capable of coping with a 1 in 10 year Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) storm event.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment A: DAIS Report 153/2002 to Extraordinary Council Meeting 17 December 2002

Attachment B: Stormwater Drainage Assessment prepared by Bonacci Rickard Pty Ltd

Attachment C: DAIS Report 19/2003 to Ordinary Council Meeting 27 May 2003 - ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER   

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 12/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER T002/04. SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF FLAGPOLES IN MEDIAN STRIPS AT BUNNERONG ROAD, MATRAVILLE; ANZAC PARADE, KENSINGTON AND DONNELLAN CIRCUIT, CLOVELLY.

 

 

DATE:

19 February, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/4046

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Lump Sum Tenders were called on Tuesday 20th January 2004 and closed on Tuesday 10th February 2004 for the supply and installation of flag poles at three locations throughout the City of Randwick.  The locations are:

a)         Bunnerong Road, Matraville – proposal for 17 poles (subject to funding)

b)         Anzac Parade, Kensington - proposal for 45 poles

c)         Donnellan Circuit, Clovelly – proposal for 15 poles (subject to funding)

 

Prospective tenderers collected six (6) sets of tender documents.  At the close of tenders, five (5) tenders had been received, with two being approximately 15 minutes late.  Selection and discussion of the conforming Tenders are contained in the following report. 

 

BACKGROUND

 

Randwick City Council has provided different designs of banners in the past year in order to improve the presentation of the commercial centres and to promote the image of Randwick.  The designs of the banners have been consistent throughout the commercial centres in order to keep the continuity of a theme throughout the whole City of Randwick.

 

As part of the Kensington Urban Improvement Program for the Commercial Centre, forty five (45) new flag poles have been proposed to be installed along the median strip.  This project will be a continuation of the improvement works being carried out last year in the commercial town centre.

ISSUES

Project Funding

 

Funds are available in Council’s Section 94 Plan to supply and install the 45 flag poles that are required at Kensington town centre. The flag poles are identified as part of the Townscape improvement works within the S94 Plan and will need to be allocated by Council for this project to proceed.  It was anticipated that funding would be available from Councillor bids to supply and install flag poles at Matraville and Clovelly and it has since been confirmed that funds will not be available, the impact of this is the supply and installation of flag poles will not be accepted as part of this tender process.

 

Tender Assessment

 

Tenderers were advised in the tender documents under ‘Tender Submission Documents’ (Part A – Conditions of Tendering, Section A11- Evaluation Criteria) that the selection criteria for this project would be based on the following:

 

(i)                     Price                             

(ii)                    Time period to complete the Work                                                                   

(iii)                   Financial capacity to carry out the Work                      

(iv)                   Experience and ability to complete the Work                                        

(v)                    Compliance with Specification                                                    

(vi)                   Quality Management System of the Tenderer                                          

(vii)                  Occupational Health and Safety                                                                                                                                           

Tenders were evaluated in accordance with the Evaluation Plan approved prior to the closing of tenders by the Manager of Contracts and Purchasing. Tenderers were assessed against the weighted evaluation criteria in Attachment A.

 

Tenders were received from the following companies:

 

Conforming Tenders:

 

Tenderers and Tenderer's Lump Sum Amounts (including GST):

 

 

Tenderer

Matraville

Kensington

Clovelly

TOTAL

1.

Scully and Associates Pty. Ltd.

$26,890.60

$71,181.00

$23,727.00

$121,798.60

2.

Flagpole World                       

$36,200.00

$95,000.00

$32,000.00

$163,200.00

3.

Gribble and Brennan

$38,794.80

$101,970.00

$34,320.00

 $175,084.80

4.

Gold Spar Pty. Ltd.

Not submitted

Not submitted

Not submitted

$64,795.50

(supply of poles only, installation not included)

 

Late tenders

5.

 

Ingal EPS                    

$44,683.65

$115,731.00

$39,426.20

$199,840.00

In accordance with Part A, Clause A6, Conditions of Tendering, late tenders are not considered.

Selection Committee

Late tenders were not considered in accordance with Part A - Clause A6.

 

The selection committee meeting for the evaluation of the final tenders was held on the 10th February 2004. The committee comprised the following people:

 

Jeffrey Gallimore - Contracts Officer

Dimitri Manthopoulos - Landscape Architect

Hayley Segedin – Landscape Architect

Gigi Lombardi – Landscape Design Coordinator

 

The selection committee conducted a thorough and detailed evaluation of all tender submissions. Refer to Attachment A for ‘Scoring Guideline’At this stage the selection committee decided to not further consider Gold Spar Pty. Ltd. for reasons listed in the following summary.

 

Gold Spar Pty. Ltd.

·    This tenderer does not install flag poles.  This tenderer supplies flag poles only.

·    The tenderer did not submit any of the required schedules of the tender package in order to evaluate.

·    This tender did not meet the mandatory criteria.

 

The following short listed tenderers were then further evaluated by the committee :

 

1.         Scully and Associates Pty. Ltd.

2.         Flagpole World

3.         Gribble and Brennan

 

Selection Process

 

Following from the preliminary assessment of the three short listed tenderers, it was evident that further clarification was required on significant key issues.  These key issues were imperative in finalizing the overall assessment.  The issues were:

 

·    Further information and/or clarification of schedule B13 – ‘Schedule of Non – Compliance and Alternatives’.

·    Further information in regards to schedule B6 – ‘Schedule of Labour Rates for Variations’.

·    Further information in regards to schedule B15 – ‘Schedule of Work in Hand and Work Completed’.

·    Clarification in regards to schedule B17 – ‘Insurance Schedule’.

·    Further information in regards to schedule B12 – ‘Tender Works Program’.

·    Clarification in regards to finish material of poles and further details for the concrete footing.

 

Detailed reference checks were also carried out for the three pre-selected tenderers.

 

Summary of conforming tenderers:

 

Scully and Associates Pty. Ltd.

·    All tender schedules have been completed with the information required for the evaluation.

·    This tenderer offers the best value for money.  The most economical out of all submissions.

·    The rates for the labour rates for variations are fair.

·    This tenderer submitted thorough information about their financial status.

·    This tenderer provided the shortest construction program of seven weeks.

·    Their submission complies with the specification.

·    Three reference checks were carried out for this tenderer and were all very positive.

·    This tenderer has all insurances required up to date.

 

Flagpole World

·    Not all tender schedules have been completed with the information required for the evaluation.

·    This tenderer offers the second lowest price.

·    The rates for the labour rates for variations are competitive.

·    This tenderer did not submit any information about their financial status.

·    This tenderer offers to complete the works in 12 weeks but did not submit a comprehensive program showing the stages of the project as compared to other tender responses.

·    Their submission did not comply with the specification though they offered an alternative.

·    One reference check was carried out for this tenderer.  Inadequate information was submitted with schedules in order to carry out further reference checks.

·    This tenderer did not submit enough information in regards to insurances.

 

Gribble and Brennan

·    All tender schedules have been completed with the information required for the evaluation.

·    The price offered by this tenderer is not as competitive as the other tenders.

·    The rates for the labour rates for variations are very competitive.

·    This tenderer did not submit any information about their financial status.

·    This tenderer provides a 9 – 10 weeks construction program.

·    Their submission complies with the specification.

·    Three reference checks were carried out for this tenderer and were all very positive.

·    This tenderer has all insurances required up to date.

 

The Final Assessment and Cost vs Need Analysis are contained at the end of this report as Attachment B.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Following the completion of the tender review process, the selection committee concluded that Scully and Associates Pty. Ltd. offers the best price and a construction program over the other companies.  As the Matraville and Clovelly sections of the program could not be funded, it is recommended Council accept the supply and installation of flagpoles in the Kensington Town Centre only. 

 

The Selection Committee’s final assessment therefore concludes that Scully and Associates Pty. Ltd. be awarded the tender for Kensington Town Centre only under Contract T002/04 for the total amount of $71,181.00 (GST inc.)  It is also noted that the additional cost of $13,819.00 will be required to carry out the supervision of this project and provide for contingencies. As such, the total amount of $85,000.00 is required to complete this project.  It should also be noted that Council must allocate the funds to this project from funds available in Council’s S94 Plan.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

a)         The amount of $85,000.00 for the provision of flag poles as part of the Kensington Townscape Improvements projects be allocated from funds available in Council’s S94 Plan.

b)         Council accept the tender submitted by Scully and Associates Pty. Ltd., for the supply and installation of flag poles Kensington Town Centre only;

c)         That the General Manager be authorised to sign the contract documents;

d)         The unsuccessful tenderers are notified of the tender result.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment A - Scoring Guideline &  Preliminary Assessment

Attachment B -  Final Assessment and  Cost vs Need Analysis - ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER    

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

GIGLIOLA A LOMBARDI

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

LANDSCAPE DESIGN COORDINATOR

 


 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 3/2004

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

ARRANGEMENTS DURING ELECTION PERIOD FOR DECISIONS TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL

 

 

DATE:

13 February, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1238 xr 98/S/4495

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report outlines a method for matters to continue to be processed during the recess period in March and part of April, 2004 as a result of the Council Election.

 

ISSUES:

 

When Council adopted the 2004 Meeting Schedule on 25th November, 2003, it made provision for no meetings of Committees or Council to be held following the Ordinary Meeting on 24th February, 2004 until the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 20th April, 2004.

 

This arrangement was made to allow sitting Councillors the opportunity to undertake tasks associated with the Council Election to be held on 27th March, 2004 and, also, so as the newly elected Council would not be committed to decisions made by the previous Council in the actual month of the election.

 

Following the election day, it is necessary for the votes to be counted, an opportunity to exist for any possible recounts and for the Returning Officer to then undertake the Declaration of the Poll.  In addition, taking into account due notice being given for the calling of a meeting of the Council, it is not possible  for a Meeting to be held until 20th April, 2004.

 

During that period however, Council’s normal business activities will need to proceed and it is necessary to establish a process to facilitate this process.  The most appropriate course of action would be to delegate authority to the General Manager to determine all pressing issues that arise and that Councillors be circularised with advice on those decisions.  This would be a similar system to that which operates during the Christmas/New Year Council recess, when Councillors are advised in the Councillors’ Bulletin of any matters determined under that recess delegated authority.

CONCLUSION:

 

The determination of Council business may proceed during the recess period surrounding the Council Election, by the provision of delegated authority to the General Manager.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)         Pursuant to Section 377 of the Local Government Act, 1993, as amended, and subject to compliance with all Council policies and lawful directions previously made by the Council or any public authority, Council hereby delegates authority to the General Manager to determine, exercise or perform on behalf of the Council all powers, authorities, duties and functions of the Council following its meeting on 24th February, 2004 and until its meeting on 20th April, 2004; and

 

b)         Any determinations, exercising or performance by the General Manager, which would normally be undertaken at Council or Committee Meetings, be circulated to Councillors in the Councillors’ Bulletin within seven (7) days of such action.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 4/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

PURCHASING POLICY

 

 

DATE:

18 February, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/3802

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council adopted the current Purchasing Policy No. 3.01.13 on 10th August 1999.  The Policy requires amendments to reflect current legislative requirements and direction of Council and its improved procurement processes.

 

ISSUES:

 

Factors impacting on the Purchasing Policy include new legislation, Council reform such as centralised purchasing and Councils Online project requirements.

 

Centralised purchasing and Councils Online are evolving projects, with Councils Online anticipated to be completed by November 2004.  The new Purchasing Policy is also varied to support the new business practices and Council’s social and environmental responsibilities.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The revised purchasing policy is more relevant to modern day business practices associated with procurement and supports the direction of Council through effective management and improved procurement performance.

 

The attached Policy has been endorsed by MANEX and is submitted in accordance with Policy 1.01.01, to Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

a)         That the revised Purchasing Policy No. 3.01.13, be adopted by Council; and;

 

b)         That the Policy Register be updated accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Revised Purchasing Policy, Policy No. 3.01.13

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART 3 – CORPORATE SERVICES

 

Review Date:    /    /20    .                                                                                 Draft Policy No: 3.01.13

 

 

POLICY TITLE:          PURCHASING

 

 

File No.:           98/S/1105

 

OBJECTIVE

All purchases for goods and services are to be in accordance with this Purchasing Policy.  This policy:

·          provides a strategic approach for the procurement of all goods and services; and

·          has been prepared to ensure the achievement of the following objectives:

Value for Money: - An estimate of the worth or desirability of the goods or services offered.  This estimate can include such factors as initial cost and whole of life cost, quality, time and extent to which the goods or services meet the specified requirements, as well as social and environmental responsibilities.

Probity of the Process: - Visible and verifiable confirmation of the integrity of the purchasing process and the relevant Legislation, Regulations and Purchasing Procedure. 

Efficiency and Effectiveness: - The purchasing process must be undertaken in a consistent and business like manner, leading to improved industry performance, business relationships and cost effective method of doing business for Council. 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

Randwick City Council conducts all purchasing activities through a centralised Contracts and Purchasing Division.  The activities required to purchase items on behalf of Council are detailed in the Purchasing Procedure.

The purchase of all goods and services is to be conducted in accordance with the relevant legislation, this policy and associated procedures.

The Contracts and Purchasing Division is responsible for all aspects of this Policy including implementation, operation and verification.

 

 

Associated Government Regulations:

Local Government Act 1993

Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999, Section 55

Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999, Clause 18

Associated Council Policies, Procedures and Guidelines:

Purchasing Procedures

Policy and Procedures for Tendering

Guidelines for Risk Management in Purchasing

 


Policy Roles:

Contracts and Purchasing Division:

The Contracts and Purchasing Division will provide leadership and assistance to staff for all purchasing matters within the Council, including but not necessarily limited to:

·    Information regarding current agreements that may be accessed by the Requisitioning Officer;

·    Maintenance of stores;

·    Consideration must be given to the activities to be undertaken (are they the right activities). 

·    Sourcing and pricing of the goods and services;

·    Purchase, delivery, receival and where necessary the return of unsatisfactory goods;

·    Processing of invoices prior to payment;

·    Systems and techniques for efficient and effective purchasing;

·    Advice on the requirements of this Policy and the related Purchasing Procedure, the Local Government Act NSW (1993) and associated Regulations;

·    Departmental auditing to monitor the effectiveness and compliance of the Purchasing Policy and Procedures; 

·    Assistance in the development of quotation and tender documentation and the evaluation of quotations and tenders received; and

·    Preparation of purchase orders, contracts and other forms of agreement.

Centralised Purchasing:     The Contracts and Purchasing Division is responsible for the operation of the purchasing function in accordance with this Policy and associated Procedure. 

All purchase requisitions, must be referred to the Contracts and Purchasing Division. 

The Contracts and Purchasing Division will issue all purchase orders. 

With the exception of petty cash purchases, no purchase can be made without an accompanying purchase order number issued by the Contracts and Purchasing Division.

Receipting of all goods and services is to be entered into the system by the Contracts and Purchasing Division.

Audit:                                The Contracts and Purchasing Division will implement and manage a system of continuous internal audits to verify the satisfactory operation of this Policy and the associated Procedures.

All staff will provide the co-operation necessary for the audit activity, including but not necessarily limited to the maintenance of purchasing records and making those records available to audit staff.

Intranet Site:                     The Contracts and Purchasing Division will maintain a site on the Council’s Intranet to provide relevant and current purchasing information, systems, techniques and contacts.

Internet Site:                     The Contracts and Purchasing Division will maintain a site on the Council’s Internet to provide details of all current tenders and a guide to prospective tenderers on how to obtain and submit a tender response.

 
Pre-approved
Agreements:                     The Council has negotiated or has access to a number of supply agreements for various goods and services.  These agreements must be referred to and utilised wherever possible.

Goods and services to be purchased that are included as part of supply agreements or government contracts are not subject to normal tendering and quotation procedures in this Policy, unless it is deemed that doing so will provide significant financial benefit to Council.

Code of Conduct

And Ethics:                       Staff involved in the purchasing process are subject to the Staff Code of Conduct adopted by the Council.  The Staff Code of Conduct is available on the Intranet.

The community rightly expects its Council to conduct its business with efficiency, impartiality and integrity.  This requires that all officers perform their duties at the highest standard and that there not be or seem to be any conflict between private interests and Council’s responsibilities to the community.

Staff involved in undertaking any purchasing activity must:

·    Perform their duties professionally, objectively and with integrity;

·    Serve the Council efficiently and effectively;

·    Maintain the confidentiality of information received from their client and suppliers;

·    Observe the principal of equity in all activities; and

·    Avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest.

 

Policy Requirements:

Risk Management:            Risk may be defined as the probability of the occurrence of an incident or event that could cause a degree of harm to the organisation in terms of economic loss, property, people or the environment over a specified period of time.

When initiating a purchase, consideration must be given to the recognition of unacceptable risks and either the elimination of the risk or management of the risk to an acceptable level. 

The Risk Analysis Guideline is located on the Intranet.

Quotations/Tenders:          The minimum requirement for quotations and tenders is set out in the Purchasing Procedures. 

Requests for quotations and tenders should be structured to reflect the estimated cost of the purchase, the associated risk and level of information necessary to undertake an effective evaluation of the quotation or tender received.  Care is to be taken when setting out the structure of the request, as too much or too little can adversely affect the desired outcome.

Standard contracting templates can be found on the Intranet.  These templates must be employed for all requests for quotations and tenders.  They may also be adapted for use in lower financial value requests for purchase where the requirement involves elements of risk or complexity.

Quotation/Tender

Evaluation:                        All complying quotations and tenders received by the Council must undergo a process of evaluation that:

·    is objective in the method;

·    is equitable to all parties;

·    Maintains the confidentiality of information provided by parties; and

·    Is visible and verifiable in the probity of the evaluation process. 

These elements are critical in meeting the objectives of the Policy and provide the due recognition to the quoter/tender of the efforts and resources employed in issuing the quotation/tender.

The minimum requirement for evaluation is set out in the Purchasing Procedures. 

Conditions of

Purchase:                          All purchases will be subject to the Council’s conditions.  These Conditions of Purchase will set out the obligations of the parties and govern how the parties will work together to meet the purchasing objectives.  Council officers shall not commit the Council to any Conditions of Purchase without the approval of the Manager Contracts and Purchasing.

 

 

Draft Purchasing Policy - Revision November 2003


 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 5/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

RISK MANAGEMENT POLICIES TO INCLUDE: RISK MANAGEMENT, GATHER INFORMATION & SIGN AS REMOTE SUPERVISION

 

 

DATE:

18 February, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/5485

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Risk Management within Randwick City Council has received limited focus to date, however is actively progressing toward improved risk management practices for Council and the wider community.  The implementation of the attached policies will be Council’s fundamental steps in developing a proactive approach to a successful program.

 

Council’s Risk Management focus will include the prevention, minimisation and control of loss to Council’s human, environmental and capital resources.

 

ISSUES:

 

Following the demise of the non-feasance doctrine the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2000, was introduced. Whilst the Act provides some protection to a “Road Authority”  by the inclusion of Section 45 (non-feasance), there is little protection offered by the Act, if it can be proven, the “Council” has not implemented Risk Management strategies to ensure an event and /or loss could have been prevented, minimised or controlled.

 

Further, to comply with Council’s Insurance obligations a Public Liability Audit is to be completed by Council annually. It has been indicated by Council’s Insurance Agent, the Risk Audit will be used to allow Council the opportunity to achieve a discount on Council’s Public Liability and Professional Indemnity premium, with the implementation of Risk Management practices.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Owing to Council’s obligations under the Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2000 and to meet the requirements of Council’s Insurance Scheme, the attached Polices have been endorsed by MANEX and be submitted, in accordance with Policy 1.01.01, to Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)         The policies listed below, be adopted by Council; and

 

·          Risk

·          Signs as Remote Supervision

·          Gathering Information

 

b)         The Policy Register be updated accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Risk Policy

2. Sign as Remote Supervision Policy

3. Gathering Information Policy

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Randwick City Council Policy Register

 

 

Part 3 – Corporate Services

 

 

Review Date:   /   /200                                                  Policy N°:                    

 

 

Policy Title:                               Risk & Insurance - Risk Management Policy

 

 

File Nº:                         98/S/

 

Objective

 

To prevent, minimise or control losses to the Council’s human, environmental and asset resources and the exposure and impact on its stakeholders by delivering reduced risk through effective risk management practices.

 

Policy Statement

 

Council will endeavour to manage risk in accordance with current best practices by nurturing a risk management culture as well as anticipating and responding to changing social, environmental, economic and legislative requirements.

 

To facilitate establishment of these practices, the Council will develop and maintain a systematic framework and process for managing risk.  The framework will:

 

a.         Ensure that key business objectives and performance targets are identified by senior management and clearly communicated throughout the organization.

b.         Encourage the organization’s use of risk management for all levels of decision-making.

c.         Embed risk considerations into the Council’s planning and decision-making processes.

d.         Assign clear roles and responsibilities for managing risk through the establishment of a Risk Management Committee.

e.         Identify and prioritise significant risks by:

 

i.          Identifying those activities that have or may give rise to loss producing events.

ii.          Measuring the impact of potential loss producing events on the Council and its activities.

iii.         Taking reasonable physical or financial steps to avoid or reduce the impact of potential losses.

iv.         Allocating resources to areas of identified priority.

v.         Maximise opportunities that can impact positively on the Council’s reputation, aims and objectives.

vi.         Equip managers and employees with the necessary skills to manage risk effectively.

vii.        Ensure that strategic partners and service providers are aware of the importance of risk management.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute N°:________                                                                Meeting Date:     /    /   04


Attachment 2

 

Randwick City Council Policy Register

 

Part 3 – Corporate Services

 

 

Review Date:   /   /200                                                   Policy No. _______________       

 

Policy Title:                   Risk & Insurance – Signs As Remote Supervision

 

 

File Nº:                         98/S/5485

 

 

Objective

 

To ensure clear, concise directions and warnings, as to the location, content and frequency of signs at beaches, swimming pools, reserves and parks, to minimise public liability exposure arising from the provision of services to the community.

 

Policy Statement

 

1          To ensure when new reserves and existing parks or reserves are upgraded all new signs are to be determined based on current best practice. Such signage shall be used to direct, advise, or warn members of the public of inherent dangers in the environment in which they are utilizing.

 

2          A regular inspection program of Council’s remote supervision signage shall be included in risk inspections.

 

3          Areas of public liability exposure at beaches, swimming pools, reserves and parks inadequately signposted shall, when Council becomes aware of a potential risk, be assessed with a view to either : -

 

a)         eliminating the risk; or

b)         reducing the risk; or

c)         accepting the risk; and/or

d)         using signs as remote supervision

 

4          Signs in existence presently not meeting the current best practice and / or Australian Standards shall be replaced as funds permit in priority order, based on public usage of the respective areas and the rating formula detailed in the current best practise manuals.

 

5          The appropriate Council Divisions shall seek an annual budget allocation from Council to be used for the replacement of deficient signs and the installation of new signs where areas of significant and high risk are identified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute N°: ________                                                               Meeting Date:     /    /   04


 

Attachment 3

 

 

Randwick City Council Policy Register

 

Part 3 – Corporate Services

 

Review Date:   /   /200_                                                Policy N°:                    

 

Policy Title:                               Risk & Insurance - Gathering Information

 

File Nº:                         98/S/5485

 

Objective

 

To document the required standard of Council generated information and data needed to assist in defending a public liability or professional indemnity claim and ensure that they constitute admissible evidence.

 

To support procedures for the gathering of information for such purposes.

 

Policy Statement

 

Council recognises gathering information in relation to Risk & Insurance is one of the principal elements of protecting Council’s position and effectively defending public liability and professional indemnity claims.

 

This will allow Council to meet operational business needs, accountability requirements and community expectations.

1)        Allow protection of Council’s financial position through risk management.

2)        Facilitate the minimum data requirements for information required to be used defending possible public and professional liability claims.

3)        and to ensure the information collected is factual and true.

 

The Gathering Information checklist is to be used to ensure that all the appropriate data is gathered and contains the appropriate information.

 

This policy and any associated procedures provide the minimum data standards for the gathering of information.

 

Council will, within its budgetary constraints and using existing information systems available, endeavour to ensure accurate and systematic information is gathered.

 

Minute N°: _______                                                                 Meeting Date:    /   /     04

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 4/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

15-19 Mulwarree Avenue, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

17 February, 2004

FILE NO:

972/03/GE

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is a Development Application Report for the Development Application No 972/03 for the demolition of existing dwellings and the construction of a four storey multi-unit housing development comprising 22 dwellings and parking for 30 vehicles.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Development Application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 30 January, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

30 January, 2004

FILE NO:

972/03/GE

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of existing dwellings and the construction of a four storey multi-unit housing development comprising 22 dwellings and parking for 30 vehicles.

PROPERTY:

 15-19 Mulwarree Avenue, RANDWICK 2031

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Arttech Design and Construction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application for a four storey multi-unit housing development and is referred to Committee, as it is valued at $2,500,000.  The application proposes demolition of the existing three dwellings and the construction of 22 new dwellings.

 

The proposal has been considered by the Design Review Panel both as a pre-lodgement application and a development application.  The development application is substantially the same design as the pre-lodgement application, although the number of units proposed has been reduced by two in the development application.  The Design Review Panel, considered the proposal, both at its pre-lodgement stage and as a development application, to be an overdevelopment of the site, excessive in its size, bulk and scale and failing to meet the design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65.  In addition, the application lacks the necessary level of documentation required, particularly a Geotechnical Report and an Arborist Report, although the applicant was made aware of these requirements at the pre-lodgement meeting and with the subsequent written advice.

 

Although the proposal has been reduced by two units since its consideration as a pre-lodgement application, it maintains a floor space ratio (1.49:1), well in excess of the maximum permissible floor space ratio for the site (0.9:1) as required under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998.  Further, the proposal does not comply with the maximum permissible wall height requirement of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan.  Objections pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 have been submitted by the applicant for the non complying floor space ratio and external wall height of the development but are not well founded as the proposal is considered to be out of context with the unique streetscape character of Mulwarree Avenue and results in detrimental impacts on adjoining properties.

 

The proposal also provides less than the required 50% landscaped area and as no objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 has been submitted with the application, consent cannot be granted to the application..

 

Notwithstanding the non compliances with the floor space ratio, landscaped area and external wall height requirements of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, the proposal is deficient with regard to the setback requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan-Multi-Unit Housing and it is considered that it will result in unacceptable privacy and overshadowing impacts to adjoining neighbours.  As well, the proposal suffers from poor internal design and site planning that will not benefit the amenity of future occupiers of the development.  It is therefore considered that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and is recommended for refusal.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes the demolition of the existing three dwelling houses and associated structures, the consolidation of the three (3) existing land parcels into the one allotment and the construction of a four storey multi-unit development above basement car parking for 29 vehicles.  The proposed development consists of 22 new dwellings around a central enclosed light well.  The development proposes a mix of 18 x 1 bedroom units (of which 10 units are two level) and 4 x 2 bedroom units (all of which are two level).

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Mulwarree Avenue, Randwick and is identified as Lots 4, 5 and 6 in DP 11916 and is regular in shape, having a total site area of 1255m2.  Existing on the site are three (3) a single storey dwelling houses.  Both 15 and 17 Mulwarree Avenue are elevated with respect to Mulwarree Avenue, with garages located under each building.  No 19 Mulwarree Avenue has a carport located on the front property boundary, however the dwelling is elevated with respect to the street to similar overall height as both 15 and 17 Mulwarree Avenue (see Figure 1).  A large eucalyptus tree is located in the south-east corner of 19 Mulwarree Avenue.  The site falls from the rear to Mulwarree Avenue by approximately 3 to 4m.

 

 

Figure 1 – 15, 17 and 19 Mulwarree Avenue (from left to right)

 

Located on the adjoining site to the north (11 Mulwarree Avenue) is an older style two storey multi-unit development being a brick and tile building, with a hip and gable roof form (its relationship with the subject site can be seen in Figure 2).  A high retaining wall runs along the southern boundary of 11 Mulwarree Avenue adjoining the subject site.

 

 

Figure 2: 11-13 Mulwarree Avenue (left of picture)

Located on the adjoining the site to the south (21 Mulwarree Avenue) is a two storey brick and tile building with a gabled roof form (see Figure 3).  This building is a dual occupancy development with separate dwellings on the ground and first floor levels.  A recent approval (DA 1054/2003) has been given by Council for alterations and additions to this property.  This approval locates a living area along the northern side of the property at the rear, as well as rear terrace at the first floor level along the northern side of the property.  All buildings located between 11 and 23 Mulwarree Avenue have a fairly consistent front building alignment.

 

 

Figure 3: 21 Mulwarree Avenue

 

On the opposite side of Mulwarree Avenue to the subject site is a relatively recently constructed housing development (1 Cowper Street), two and three storeys in height, that is well screened to Mulwarree Avenue by plantings of large fig trees along the western side of Mulwarree Avenue (see Figure 4).

 

 

Figure 4: Fig Trees on opposite (west) side

 of Mulwarree Avenue

 

Located to the rear of the site are two multi-unit developments, 16 and 18 Prince Street, being four and three storeys respectively.  The building at 16 Prince Street overooks the rear yards of 15 and 17 Mulwarree Avenue, while 18 Prince Street is well screened by extensive vegetation in the rear yard of 19 Mulwarree Avenue (see Figure 5).

 

 

Figure 5: 16 Prince Street to the rear

 

4.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A pre-lodgement application for the demolition of the existing dwellings on the site and the construction of a three storey multi-unit development consisting of 24 units was lodged on the 8th April 2003.  A meeting was held with the applicant on the 14th May, 2003, to discuss the proposed re-development.  At the meeting, the applicant was advised that the proposal was unlikely to be supported due to a large number of issues, including the excessive building bulk and non complying floor space ratio; large building footprint, inadequate setbacks, non complying building height, as well as the poor level of internal amenity provided for units within the proposed building.  The applicant was also advised of the necessary documentation required should a development application be lodged, including a geotechnical report and an arborist report.  Neither report was submitted as part of the development application.

 

The pre-lodgement application was further considered by the Design Review Panel at its meeting of 7 July, 2003, at which the applicant was advised that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site based on its density, poor amenity of apartments, and lack of deep soil planting due to the extent of excavation proposed. As such, the Panel recommended a complete redesign of the proposal by a registered architect, based on a comprehensive site analysis.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised and referred to the Precinct Committee in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan - Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Submissions were received from the following:- A B and Chiew Sim of 2/20 Prince Street, Randwick; S Brill of 3/7 Mulwarree Avenue, Randwick; Randwick Precinct Committee c/- 16 Rae Street, Randwick; and G and C Taperall of 21 Mulwarree Avenue

 

5.1  Objections

 

Traffic/Parking

·          Mulwarree is a particularly narrow and congested street.  The proposed increase in density will lead to traffic problems and accidents, especially during construction.

·          Street parking in Mulwarree Avenue is already in demand due to Tafe and UNSW students and proximity to the racecourse, with the proposed development further reducing on street parking due to visitor demand.

 

Comment

It is acknowledged that Mulwarree is a narrow street, with on street parking in high demand, however the proposal provides visitor and resident parking in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan- Parking.

 

Density

·          The proposed FSR is a significant breach of Council’s control and the SEPP 1 is considered inappropriate due to the adverse impact on adjoining development and the surrounding streetscape.

·          The proposed development will intensify the already high number of apartments and resident density to an unacceptable level and should be scaled down and considerably modified before an approval is granted.

·          The proposal removes three quality houses in good order from the area.  These are becoming a rare commodity in the area.  Their replacement with 22 new dwellings would add to the already congested and overdeveloped nature of the area.

 

Comment

The size, bulk and scale of the proposed development does not reflect the existing character of the area and the floor space ratio of the proposed development (1.49:1) is well in excess of the maximum permissible (1:1) under Clause 32 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (refer Section 9.2 of this report).

 

Aesthetics/ Streetscape

·          The proposal will be a huge concrete structure that will destroy the present natural and scenic surrounds.

·          The proposal will destroy a uniform streetscape of buildings of similar appearance and age.

·          The proposed development is out of character with the existing streetscape.  The majority of buildings in the street are strata titled and hence unlikely to be replaced and as such the street is not experiencing or likely to experience a period of transition.  Hence it is appropriate for the proposed development to address the established character and rhythm of the street.

·          The Randwick Precinct maintains that this is a “Character Area” and therefore a heritage statement should accompany the application.  Should the application be approved, Council’s Heritage Officer should ensure that the brickwork and other external details complement the brickwork of the surrounding buildings.  As well, a photographic record of the exterior and interior of the buildings should be undertaken prior to demolition.

·          The proposed development fails to provide adequate spatial separation between the proposed and existing buildings.  The proposal breaches Council’s setback controls and results in issues relating to amenity, acoustic and visual privacy and loss of solar access to units within the proposal and those of neighbouring properties and their open space.

 

Comment

The bulk, scale and size of the development are considered incompatible with the existing streetscape.  This is exacerbated by the proposal’s non compliance with the required setbacks under the Development Control Plan –Multi-Unit Housing. 

 

Solar access

·          The submitted shadow diagrams do not adequately show the impact of overshadowing of the proposed development on adjacent properties.  The current shadow diagrams seem to indicate that 21 Mulwarree Avenue would be greatly impacted by the loss of solar access, in particular on its second storey which has uninterrupted solar access throughout the day.

 

Comment

Based on a spot assessment, the shadow diagrams submitted in plan form appear to be inaccurate and do not represent the true extent of shadowing from the proposed development to adjoining properties to the south and east of the subject site.  Shadow diagrams in elevation have not been provided as part of the documentation accompanying the application and the application is considered inadequate in this regard.

 

Amenity

·          The balconies of the proposed development will overlook the open space and living areas of the two units at 21 Mulwarree Avenue and no privacy screening is provided.

·          Window positions along the southern elevation raise overlooking concerns in regard to the living areas of 21 Mulwarree Avenue.

·          Larger side setbacks and greater stepping back in the height of the building would alleviate to some extent the privacy concerns.

·          The proposed development will significantly compromise the amenity, views and privacy to the approved alterations and additions to 21 Mulwarree Avenue.

 

Comment

The design of the proposed development locates large areas of glazing and balconies in close proximity to adjoining development to the north and south (less than 10m) without appropriate offsets and without adequate deep soil planting for adequate and sustainable landscape screening.

 

Height

·          The proposed development breaches Randwick LEP height controls.  The SEPP 1 objection is inappropriate, as the proposed height will result in unreasonable impacts to the amenity of neighbouring properties as well as to the amenity of the units within the proposal.

 

Comment

The external wall height of the development is in excess of that permissible under Clause 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan.  The applicant’s objection to this control pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 is not supported.  Please refer to Section 9.3 of this report.

 

Waste management

·          Mulwarree Avenue is a narrow street with a single narrow footpath, such that the present bin presentation on garbage and recycling days causes problems for pedestrians and vehicles.  The additional bins servicing 22 units will greatly increase this inconvenience.

 

Comment

An area for bin presentation to the street, located at the front of the site, as recommended as part of the pre-lodgement advice has not been detailed as part of the development application.  As such, a compactor system should be provided for the garbage component of the waste, to reduce the number of garbage bins presented to the street.  Accordingly the garbage room needs to be redesigned should the development proceed. Please refer to Section 6.1.4 of this report.

 

Environmental sustainability

·          Demolished materials should be recycled rather than sent to landfill.

 

 

Comment

Recycling of demolished materials in order to promote environmental sustainability is supported and an appropriate condition of consent should be incorporated should consent be granted.

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1       Assets and Infrastructure Services

 

Council’s Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services has provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:-

 

6.1.1    Landscape Comments

 

As requested at the pre-lodgement meeting on 14 May 2003, an Arborist Report is to be submitted, supporting the distance of any structures from the trunk of the tree to be retained in the south-east corner of the site.

 

6.1.2    Traffic Comments

 

Vehicular Access

As requested at the pre-lodgement meeting on 14 May 2003, all new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines. The submitted plans do not comply with this request.

 

In addition, the applicant was advised that the internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 5 metres INSIDE the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Again the submitted plans do not comply with this request.

 

Car Wash Bays

 

The applicant was also informed that two covered car-washing bays must be provided for a development of this size; however the submitted plans show only one space provided for this purpose. It is noted that visitor spaces can be used for this purpose, provided they are signposted accordingly.

 

Car park Layout

 

As per AS 2890.1 – 1993 with regard to blind aisles, car spaces 24 and 25 must be made 1 metre wider than the adjacent spaces (that is, 3.50m). It is further noted that the end of the access aisle adjacent to car space 24 will need to be set back to provide sufficient turning area for space 24.

 

Disabled Access Parking

 

The submitted plans show the provision of one disabled access car space of width 3.137m. As per AS2890.1 – 1993 the parking space width shall not be less than 3.20m.

 

Secure Entry to basement carpark

 

Any security roller shutter or the like is to be located a minimum of 6.00m inside the front boundary to prevent vehicles queuing over Council’s footpath. The submitted plans do not meet this requirement.

 

6.1.3    Groundwater Comments

 

As requested at the pre-lodgement meeting on 14 May 2003, a Geotechnical Engineers Report is to be submitted, detailing geotechnical investigation to determine if the proposed development would have an affect on, or be affected by, the existing groundwater. Pending the results of the geotechnical report, the above site may be present within a fluctuating water table and/or affected by the movement of seepage water, hence any basement carpark or similar structure may need to be suitably tanked and waterproofed.

 

6.1.4    Waste Comments

 

As the development is over 20 units, a compactor system should be provided for the garbage component of waste. This will halve the number of garbage bins required, assuming a compaction ratio of 2:1. (Note however that the compactors cannot be used for recyclables); giving a total of 6 garbage bins, and 11 recycling bins to be provided. The garbage room must be redesigned, and sized to contain the compactor (with safe working area), as well as the required number of garbage and recycling bins, with satisfactory access to all bins. The AIS department also suggests that communal garbage chutes be provided. However, if they are not provided, full details of how it is proposed to transfer residential garbage from the units to the waste rooms shall be included in a detailed waste management plan.

 

6.2       Environmental Health and Building

 

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

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition of three (3) existing dwellings, land consolidation and the erection of a 4 storey residential multi unit housing building, with basement level car park.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

§ Class 2  -   Residential units

§ Class 7a -   Car park

 

Background

 

The existing buildings on the 3 sites are pre war brick cottages bounded by older style residential flat buildings. A search of Council’s records could not disclose any previous use of a potentially contaminating nature.

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

 

No information provided at this stage.

 

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

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate.

 

Access for people with a disability:

 

The proposal appears to meet the requirements of Councils DCP in relation to the provision of an accessible unit for a person with a physical disability.

 

Conclusion:

 

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

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area (1255m2) is less than that required for the submission of a master plan (4,000m2).

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31 - Landscape Area

50% of the total site area

48.4%

No

32 - FSR

0.9:1

1.49:1

No – SEPP 1

33 - Building Height

12m (max) overall

10m (max) external wall

11.9m (max) overall

11.7 (max) wall

Yes

No – SEPP 1

 

8.2       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

The development application was referred to the Design Review Panel convened under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65).  The design was considered by the Panel at its meeting on the 1st December, 2003, in relation to the design quality principles for residential flat buildings, as set out in Part 2 of SEPP 65, as follows:-

 

1.   Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

           

A thorough contextual analysis is required to determine the impact of this proposal. The information supplied in support of the application remains inadequate.

 

2.2.      The Scale of the Proposal

 

The bulk and scale of the proposed building in its immediate context is considered to be excessive. The extent of the building’s footprint and extent of the top floor should be reconsidered.

 

3.3.      The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The light well is considered too small and too enclosed to properly service 22 apartments. Its closure to the north and south reduces ventilation opportunities and general amenity.

 

The basement should be kept to minimum dimension to maximize deep soil planting.

 

4.4.      The Proposed Density

 

The FSR being sought is above that permissible and it is considered that the proposal is overly dense for the site. As a result amenity is compromised.

 

Any argument for increased density needs to be supported by high quality design, good amenity to all dwellings and reasonable impacts on neighbours.

 

The Panel does not therefore support the increased FSR.

 

5.   Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

The light well and apartment configurations need to be changed to provide cross ventilation to all units. The east west apartments are not benefiting from cross ventilation.

 

It is also suggested that opportunities to increase solar access, light penetration and cross-ventilation through the use of clerestory windows, and skylights be investigated.

 

6.6.      The Proposed Landscape

 

Panel raised concerns about species selection and their long-term survival around the site perimeter (i.e. jacarandas) and hold concerns about the retention of existing trees given the depth and proximity of excavation.  The retention of trees to the rear of the site is commended.   An arborist should be asked to confirm whether they will survive as close to the proposed excavation.

The landscape plan requires development.

 

7.   The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The Panel has major concerns about many aspects of the internal planning of the proposal and believe that amenity within the development should be greatly improved.  These are outlined below and include but are not limited to;

 

--   Bedrooms too narrow for units 5 & 6

 

--   Unit 18 entry and stair

 

--   Lack of head height under stairs for 6 ground floor units and units 16/17/20/21.

 

--   Relationship of floor finishes between some kitchen and bathrooms

 

--   Laundry and bathroom layouts.

 

The high proportion of single orientation apartments is unacceptable. It is the Panel’s view that these deficiencies are a result of too much development being proposed for the site.

 

8.   The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

9.   Social issues

 

Improvement in the mix of units is required

 

10. The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The scale, size and bulk of the proposal are considered inappropriate.  The prominent blade walls and 1 metre high brick balustrades require redesign to sit more comfortably in the streetscape.

 

The three dimensional form of the proposal is not well resolved, with awkward steps and setbacks. There appear to be discrepancies between the plans and the photomontage submitted.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The panel does not support the extra 500m2 of FSR being sought and recommends that the scheme be substantially redesigned, or that Council refuse the application.  Panel believes this is an over development of the site and does not meet the SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles.

 

The level of documentation provided is also considered inadequate for the DA consideration.

 

In consideration of the Panel’s comments, both at the development and pre-lodgement meetings, the extent and degree of design changes required to satisfactorily address the issues raised, warrant a new development application.  Accordingly, the application has been assessed as submitted.

 

8.3       Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements on preferred solutions)

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

 

Front boundary setbacks

P1        The front setback consistent with streetscape/adjoining dwelling.

Side boundary setbacks

P2        Ensure that:

·      solar access is maintained and overshadowing minimised.

·      privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their own spaces provided.

·      Landscaping and private open space provided.

·      Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zone 2C

 

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

 

 

No part closer than 3.5 metres. 

 

Maximum length of wall section is 10 metres.

 

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

 

No part closer than 3.5 metres. 

 

Maximum length of wall section is 10 metres.

 

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres

 

 

 

No - Variable setback with 3.43 min

Adjoining development has minimum setback of approximately 5.6m

 

 

North

No- 4.4m minimum average setback

 

 

 

Yes – 3.5 minimum setback

 

 

Yes – 8.47m maximum length of wall without articulation

 

 

No – 1.2m minimum length of step

 

South

No – 4.11m minimum average setback

 

Yes – No part closer than 3.5m

 

 

No – Maximum length of wall with articulation 10.001m

 

 

Yes – Minimum length of step 3.1m

 

 
Rear Boundary Setback

P3        Ensure that:

·      solar access and overshadowing minimised.

·      Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

·      Building built across site.

 

 

Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

 

No part closer than 6 metres.

 

Maximum length any wall section 10 metres.

 

 Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

No –7.87m

 

 

Yes –5.8m (pergola); 6.546m wall

 

 

No – 13.29m

 

 

 

No- 0.5m minimum length of step

 

 

General

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

 

 

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

 

 

Yes- pergola encroachment to rear of building 3.3% of preferred solution

 

DENSITY

 

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms

 

 

 

 

No – surrounding built form 2 to 3 storeys

 

FENCES

 

P1  

·      Front fences consistent with streetscape.

·      Entrances highlighted.

·      Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

 

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

 

 

No- solid fence in stepped form varying between 0.5m at the southern end to 2m at the northern end

 

 

LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

 

Landscaped Areas

P1 Sufficient size to allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

 

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

 

 

Some areas included in the landscaped area calculations have a minimum dimension of less than 2m

 

 

 

P2        Landscaped areas around flat buildings be undivided

communal open space.

 

 

No- a proportion of the landscaped area around the buildings is allocated for ground level terraces as private open space for individual units

 

 

Private Open Space

General

P3   

·      Provides privacy.

·      is accessible from main living areas.

 

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

 

 

Yes -Private open space provided by way of balconies and terraces located off living areas...Solid balustrades are provided to ensure a degree of privacy.

 

 

No- Balconies and terraces at front of building encroach in the building setback and not compatible with existing streetscape.

 

 

Flats and apartments

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Dwellings have direct access to terrace/balcony.  All units have primary balconies/terraces greater than 8 m2, with all of these primary balconies except one having a minimum dimension of 2m.

 

PRIVACY

 
Visual Privacy

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

No -Less than 10m separation between windows and balconies and windows in adjoining buildings to north and south.  Offsets not provided 

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

No - See Design Panel comments: Concerns raised in regard to species selection and long term survival around site perimeter and hence ability to provide adequate screening to ensure privacy

 

VIEW SHARING

 

 
Acoustic Privacy

 

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

“Quiet areas” separate noise-generating activities.

 

P4 Building construction minimises transmission of noise.

 

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

 

 

 

 

S4 Walls and floors insulation and sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia.

 

 

 

 

Subject to BCA requirements at construction certificate stage.  Adequate separation of bedrooms from noise generating activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No view issues raised by proposal

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

 

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

Significant overshadowing impact to adjoining property to the south and east.  It appears that shadow diagrams do not represent true indication of the extent of overshadowing proposed. 

 

 

 

Building Layout, Design and Construction

 

P4 Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

·      Living areas are orientated to       the north.

·      Larger windows are located on the north.

 

 

 

 

 

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

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars.

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

 

Note:

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

 

 

 

Drawings have been stamped 3.5 stars or greater but no documentation provided by certifier as to the number of dwellings which achieve this rating.

 

 

 

P5   Roof design and orientation suitable for solar collectors.

 

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

 

Solar roof collectors not proposed

 

 

 

P6 Heat loss is minimised in plumbing and services.

 

 

Subject to condition of any consent

 

 

 

P7 Outdoor space for clothes drying provided. 

 

 

No outdoor drying space proposed

 

 

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

 

 

Subject to condition of any consent

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

 

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

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

P7 External lighting not intrusive.

 

 

 

Casual surveillance provided by front (street facing) balconies and windows of habitable rooms.

 

 

Roller door to basement car park.

Visitor car parking located in basement carpark and subject to condition of any consent regarding sign posting

 

Lighting details not provided at DA stage – subject to condition of consent with any approval

 

PARKING

 

 

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

 

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

 

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

 

 

Car park entry will not dominate street frontage

 

 

Parking for people with disability provided in accordance with DCP.  Lift also provided.

 

 

 

 

Bicycle parking area provided

 

 

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

 

studio apartment*

1 space per two studios

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling
dwelling
                                

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 resident car spaces provided in accordance with DCP

 

 

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

 

6 visitor spaces provided in accordance with DCP

 

STORAGE

 

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

No - Minimal storage facilities provided within development, other than wardrobes –see Main body of report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basement storage 2.7m2

 

BARRIER-FREE ACCESS

 

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

 

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

 

Complies.

 

 

P2  Dwelling requirements are: 

 

15 – 29 dwellings    1

 

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

 

 

Yes - Unit 5 allocated for the use of a person with a disability

 

 

 

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

 

 

One car parking space provided for a person with a disability and allocated to Unit 5

 

 

 

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

 

 

Yes - Lift provided from basement carpark to ground floor

 

UTILITIES/SITE FACILITIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P7 Laundry and Drying Facilities

·    An internal laundry is provided in each dwelling.

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

 

 

 

 

Internal laundry and drying facilities provided to each unit except for Unit 15.

 

No communal drying area proposed

 

 

 

WASTE MINIMISATION AND MANAGEMENT

 

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities are provided.

 

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

Holding at least a single day’s waste.

Landscaped areas provide composting.

 

Subject to a condition of consent should approval be granted

 

 

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

 

 

Garbage room provided, but needs to be redesigned to contain a compactor.

 

 

P3  Collection facilities complement design and are not obtrusive.

 

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

 

No – waste facilities located off driveway in front setback with landscaping over

 

 

8.4       Development Control Parking

 

The proposal carparking at the rates specified for multi-unit development, however as noted in the comments provided by the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services (as outlined previously in the report), the proposal is deficient in respects to vehicle access, number of car wash bays, width of car space provided for people with a disability, car park layout and secure entry.

 

8.5       Rainwater Tank Policy

 

In order to promote water sensitive urban design and the concept of total water cycle management, to reduce demand for potable (drinking) water and reduce stormwater run-off and promote sustainability, Council adopted a Rainwater Tank Policy on the 14 October, 2003.  Council Rainwater Tank policy requires all new developments to install a rainwater tank for the collection and re-use of roof water for the internal purposes of toilet flushing and clothes water washing (cold water only) and also external for landscape watering.  All new multi-unit dwellings require a site specific analysis identifying optimum tank size in order to meet these internal and external demands.  This has not been addressed as part of the proposal.

 

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       Landscaped area

 

Clause 31 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998, requires that 50% of the total site area must be provided as landscaped area.  The landscaped area on the site has been calculated as 48.4%, notwithstanding that the applicant states that the landscaped area is proposed as 51% of the site area.  Some areas of landscaping have minimum dimensions of less than 2m further reducing the useability of the landscaped area.  An objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) has not been submitted and accordingly the application cannot be approved in its current form.

 

It should be noted that the landscaped area calculation relies substantially on the inclusion of ground level terraces, which effectively alienates the landscaped area around the building perimeter from communal open space, contrary to the performance requirements for landscaped area as contained in the Development Control Plan- Multi-Unit Housing (DCP-Multi-Unit Housing).  Without the inclusion of the ground level terraces and other areas over the basement podium, the amount of area available for deep soil landscaping is reduced to approximately 25% of the site area.  It has been noted by the Design Review Panel that the extent of the building footprint, which is the key determinant of deep soil planting area that is capable of growing substantial vegetation, is excessive.  Further the Design Review Panel also raises concerns regarding the species selection in the submitted Landscape Plan and their long term survival around the site perimeter.  As such, it is considered that the landscape proposal will not over, the long term, provide the screening necessary to reduce the overlooking impacts resulting from locating windows and balconies in close proximity to adjoining development.

 

A large, mature Eucalyptus Tree is located in the south-east corner of the site and provides substantial amenity to the site and surrounding area.  A number of other trees are located along the rear boundary of the site and these are shown to be retained on the submitted plans.  The Design Review Panel expressed concerns regarding the retention of all these trees, given the depth and proximity of excavation proposed and has advised that an Arborist report is necessary to confirm whether they will survive the proposed excavation.  A similar concern regarding the retention of the Eucalyptus has also been raised by Council’s Landscape Technician.  The applicant was advised at the pre-lodgement meeting that an Arborist report would be required with the development application, however it was not submitted as part of the accompanying documentation.

 

9.2       Floor space ratio

 

Under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998, the maximum permissible floor space ratio applicable to the site is 0.9:1.  The floor space ratio (FSR) has been calculated to be 1.49:1, although it is stated in the application as 1.3:1 or 1:1 without the ‘attic’ level. 

 

The attic level constitutes an additional storey to the building, rather than rooms within the roof space.  The floor to ceiling height of this level of the building varies from 2.1m to a maximum of 2.3m and as such, the additional floor area of approximately 312m2 is included within the definition of “gross floor area” as contained in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998 and is properly considered in the FSR calculation.  It should be noted that the ‘attic’ level contains habitable rooms, being bedrooms and therefore the ceiling height proposed does not comply with the minimum height for habitable rooms under the Building Code of Australia.  This is considered to provide poor internal amenity for future occupants of these units.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) that argues that strict compliance with the floor space control is unreasonable and unnecessary.  It is considered however that the SEPP 1 submission cannot be supported for the following reasons:-

 

·          The four storey building form to Mulwaree Avenue will be out of context, in terms of its bulk and scale, with the distinctive and consistent pattern of two and three storey liver brick residential flat buildings that give this street its unique visual character.  The proposed use of dark coloured bricks is not sufficient to ensure an appropriate streetscape response.

·          The building form to the street is bulky and is incompatible to the two storey form of the buildings on neighbouring properties.  The building bulk is accentuated by the overly solid appearance of the building to the street resulting from the prominent blade walls, brick balustrades and extent of louvred enclosure to balconies.

·          The impacts of the excessive building bulk and large footprint on the adjoining properties is considered unreasonable in terms of privacy, overshadowing and general amenity of the area.

·          As pointed out, by the Design Review Panel in its consideration of the design quality principles as set out in SEPP 65, the design quality of the proposal, the level of amenity provided and the impact on neighbours do not support the substantial increase in floor space sought.  The Design Review Panel considered scale, size, bulk, form and detailing were inappropriate.  In summary the proposal was considered an overdevelopment of the site, with the design failing to meet the design quality principles of SEPP 65.

 

9.3       Building height

 

The proposal, although complying with the overall building height control set by Clause 33(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998, exceeds the maximum permissible external wall height of 10m set by Clause 33 (4) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998.  The non compliance with the external wall height control occurs along both the north and south elevations of the building due to the fourth storey or “attic” level proposed.  Along the northern elevation, the top most storey has an external wall height which varies from 11.1m at the rear (east) to 11.7m at the front (west) of the proposed building, while the variation in external wall height along the southern elevation ranges from 10.4m at the rear to a compliant external wall height at the front of 9.7m.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) that argues that strict compliance with the building height control, particularly in relation to the external wall height of the development, is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

It is considered however that the SEPP 1 submission cannot be supported for the following reasons:-

 

·          The non compliance with the external wall height directly results from the four storey building form that is considered to be out of context with the character of the street and the immediately adjacent two storey development in Mulwarree Avenue.

·          The maximum permissible heights in the LEP are not ‘as if right’ controls and the four storey form occasioned by the external wall height proposed contributes to the bulk and scale of the development which is considered inconsistent in the surrounding streetscape.

·          The external wall height as proposed is inadequate in providing habitable rooms with an acceptable floor to ceiling height.

·          Building height, including its wall height, is a major factor in relation to the level of overshadowing resulting to adjoining properties from the proposal, as well as the perception of building bulk and loss of privacy.  As such, the external wall height as proposed will adversely affect the amenity of adjoining properties.

 

9.4       Setbacks

 

The proposal does not comply with the preferred solutions and performance requirements under the DCP-Multi-Unit Housing for front, side and rear setbacks as follows:-

 

Front Setback

 

The determination of the front setback is set by the performance requirement that it be consistent with adjoining development or the dominant setback along the street.  The proposal has a minimum setback of 3.43m to the outer edge of the balcony to Unit 1 at the southern end of the front setback and a predominant setback of 4.19m to balconies.  The existing dwellings on the subject site have setbacks varying between 6.1m and 7.5m, while adjoining development have setbacks between 5.6m and 7m, and these setbacks reflect the predominant setbacks within Mulwarree Avenue.  It is therefore considered that the massing and scale of the development forward of adjoining development in the street will fail to integrate with the established streetscape and fails to meet the objectives for building setbacks in the DCP-Multi-Unit Housing.

 

Side Setbacks

 

While the proposal is consistent with the preferred solutions of the DCP – Multi-Unit Housing for a minimum side setback of 3.5m to the southern boundary, the minimum setback to the edge of the terrace is 1.5m on the northern boundary.  The proposal fails to achieve the minimum 5m required as an average setback along both the northern and southern sides, being 4.02m and 4.53m respectively.  It is considered, given the amount of glazing, balconies and terraces along the northern and southern elevation of the proposed development, as well as inadequate width of deep soil planting, that there will be inadequate separation between the proposed development and buildings on adjoining properties for privacy and sunlight penetration.

Rear Setback

 

The proposal does not comply with the minimum rear boundary setback (6m) required under the preferred solution of the DCP-Multi-Unit Housing predominantly for its length being 4.546m to the terrace of Unit 6 and 5.792m to the terraces of Units 7,8, and 9.  The average rear setback is 7.4m instead of that required under the preferred solutions (8m).

 

It is considered that given the proximity of the proposed development to the three and four storey units, compliance with the minimum setbacks is considered appropriate to ensure an appropriate level of deep soil planting for privacy and amenity purposes.

 

9.5       Internal planning of the development

 

The level of amenity provided within the development is considered to suffer from poor design and internal planning.  This was also noted by the Design Review Panel with respect to the following:-

·          The size and configuration of bedrooms of Units 5 and 6 (single bedroom units) are narrow and small (8m2 approximately clear space).

·          Low head height over toilets in bathrooms located under stairs.

·          Poor relationship of spaces within units, particularly bathrooms, laundries and entries

·          High proportion of single orientation apartments.

·          The central light well is inadequate in size and too enclosed to properly service the development by way of ventilation and general amenity.

 

In addition, the following aspects of the design are considered inadequate and should be noted:

 

·          The balcony of Unit 5 has a width of 1.5m and fails to comply with the minimum dimension of 2m for private open space for flats and apartments under the DCP-Multi-Unit Housing.

·          Eight units have not been provided with any storage space other than a wardrobe and no unit has been provided with storage space to satisfy the preferred solution (10m2) under the DCP-Multi-Unit Housing.

·          Garbage room insufficient for compactor system to reduce bin numbers, especially for presentation to street, given its narrow width.  Access to garbage room is poorly located for the convenient use of residents.

·          Only 6 of the 22 units have a northern orientation.

 

9.6       Overshadowing

 

Based on a spot assessment, the shadow diagrams submitted in plan form appear to be inaccurate and do not represent the true extent of shadowing from the proposed development to adjoining properties to the south and east of the subject site.  Shadow diagrams in elevation were not provided as part of the documentation accompanying the application.

 

9.7       Energy efficiency

 

A NatHERS assessment on a unit-by-unit basis has not been provided as part of the application and the application is considered deficient in this regard.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal fails to comply with the statutory controls for floor space ratio, landscaped area and external wall height under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998.  The proposal also has insufficient setbacks to adjoining development and to Mulwarree Avenue and will have detrimental impacts to adjoining properties in terms of privacy and overshadowing, as well as presenting as a bulky building, with its size and scale out of context with the unique streetscape character of Mulwarree Avenue.  As well, the level of amenity provided within the proposed development is considered to suffer from poor design and internal planning.  The application is also inadequate in regards to the level of documentation provided, in particular the application lacks a Geotechnical Report and an Arborist Report, although the applicant was made aware of these requirements at the pre-lodgement meeting and with the subsequent written advice.  In summary, it is considered that the proposal’s degree of non compliance with Council’s controls and impact on adjoining properties and the street, constitute an overdevelopment of the site.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 972/03/GE for Demolition of existing dwellings and the construction of a four storey multi-unit housing development comprising 22 dwellings and parking for 30 vehicles at 15-19 Mulwarree Avenue, Randwick for the following reasons:-

 

1.         The bulk, form, scale, design and aesthetics of the proposed building would detrimentally affect the character and amenity of the surrounding locality and streetscape, pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).

 

2.         Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposal does not achieve the design quality principles as contained in State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65.

 

3.         Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposal fails to comply with the minimum landscaped area requirements for the site as contained in Clause 31 (2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

4.         Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposal fails to comply with the maximum floor space ratio for the site as contained in Clause 32 (1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

5.         Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposal fails to comply with the maximum external wall height for the site as contained in Clause 33 (4) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

6.         Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposal fails to comply with the building setback requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan-Multi-Unit Housing.

 

7.         Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposal fails to comply with the storage requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan-Multi-Unit Housing.

 

8.         Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposal fails to provide the requisite number of car wash bays in accordance with the requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan-Parking.

 

9.         Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposal would cause detrimental overshadowing to adjoining properties.

 

10.       Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposal would result in detrimental privacy impacts to adjoining properties.

 

11.       Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposed design is deficient in regard to the car park layout and design, vehicular access and entry and parking for people with a disability.

 

12.       Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposed design is deficient in regard to the provision of waste facilities.

 

13.       Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposed internal design is deficient in regard to the provision of suitable level of amenity for future occupiers.

 

14.       Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposed development is deficient in regard to the energy efficiency and environmental sustainability of the development.

 

15.       Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 plans

Computer Simulated Perspective

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 5/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

47 Denning Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

17 February, 2004

FILE NO:

03/1039

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for the Development Application No 1039/03 for a new balcony to the eastern elevation of the building and alterations to the upper level of the existing multi-unit housing development.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 17 February, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

17 February, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 1039/03

 

PROPOSAL:

 New Balcony to eastern elevation of building and alterations to the upper level of the existing multi-unit housing development

PROPERTY:

 47 Denning Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 A & A Cogan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillor’s Sullivan, Bastic & Backes.

 

The proposal details the erection of a balcony and alterations to the sunroom of unit 1 and the installation of a new window to bedroom 2 in unit 2.

 

The main issues are the impact of the proposed new balcony upon the privacy of the adjoining premises and the potential for view loss associated with the increased height of the upper level. 

 

The portion of the application detailing alterations to the sunroom to unit 1 and replacement of a window in unit 2 is recommended for approval. The portion of the proposal detailing the new balcony to unit 1 sited up to the eastern side boundary is recommended for deletion from the proposal due to the impact upon privacy to the adjoining premises.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal details the erection of a balcony to unit 1 sited up to the eastern side boundary and alterations to the sunroom, which include raising the internal floor to ceiling height to be consistent with the remainder of this portion of the building and replacing windows with sliding doors opening onto the proposed balcony. The floor to ceiling height would be increased from 2.1m to 3.075m. It is also proposed to replace a window to bedroom 2 in Unit 2 into a sliding door opening onto the existing landing.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a variety of dwellings and a number of residential flat buildings. The subject premises is a non conforming use comprising a three storey residential flat building containing three apartments on the eastern side of Denning Street. Due to the topography of the area the buildings are stepped down the streets leading to the coast and accordingly the premises is at a higher level than the buildings below. The building is not strata subdivided. The site is also within the Foreshore Scenic Protection area.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

A previous development consent, DA 57/02, has been considered and approved which detailed the replacement of existing balconies to the eastern elevation of the building and filling and retaining a portion of the site.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.

 

The following submissions were received:

 

 

5.1  Objections

 

J & L McEncroe of 49 Denning Street Coogee

 

-an objection was lodged with the previous Section 96 application to modify the consent and there has been no response to the result of this application.

-the works will result in a loss of view from their premises.

-the cost of the works has been under estimated.

-the statement that the changes to floor and ceiling height of the sunroom are false in that there will be an effect upon the neighbours.

 

Planning Strategies, on behalf of the owners of 48 Denning Street Coogee

 

-the proposed works will severely impact upon views towards Wedding Cake Island.

-the existing building is a multi unit housing development in a 2A zone, which is a non conforming use.

-the overall height of the building exceeds the maximum of 9.5m in the LEP.

-the proposal does not satisfy either the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies or the Multi Unit Housing DCP with respect to compatibility of bulk and scale of the building and sharing of views, minimisation of adverse impact to adjoining premises.

 

Comment:

 

The previous Section 96 Application was withdrawn by the applicant because the scope of works failed to satisfy the test of being substantially the same development as originally approved, and as a result this subsequent fresh development application was lodged. With respect to the loss of view it must be acknowledged that the substantial ocean views available from the objectors premises will remain entirely unaffected, there will be an impact upon the view to Wedding Cake Island which is available from a portion of the objectors premises, however the refusal of the application on the basis of this loss of view could not be sustained, and as has been discussed the impact upon views will be reduced by the recommended deletion of the new upper level balcony. The overall height of the building, including alterations to the existing sunroom, does not exceed the maximum of 9.5m as defined in the LEP, being 9m.

 

6.    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

 

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal is permissible under the existing use rights provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act. As no development standards apply to a development that benefits from existing use rights, the following Clauses of the LEP 1998 and DCP guidelines have been used as a guide in the context of a merit assessment.-

 

6.1       Randwick LEP

 

Clause 29 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

Clause 29 of the LEP requires that Council can only grant consent after consideration has been given to the aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore. The proposed works will not have an adverse impact upon the foreshore scenic locality as the immediate locality contains a variety of dwelling styles and forms and there is enough variety within this coastal aspect to accommodate the proposed development without any adverse impact upon the aesthetics of the locality.

 

Clause 33 Maximum Heights

 

The maximum height for a building other than a dwelling house within a 2A zone is 9.5m measured vertically from any point on ground level with a maximum wall height of 7m measured from any point on ground level. The proposal has an overall height and external wall height of 9m.

 

6.1       Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

 

Side boundary setbacks

P2 Ensure that:

·      solar access is maintained and overshadowing minimised.

·      privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their own spaces provided.

 

 

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

 

 

No part closer than 3.5 metres. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, see Section 7

 

 

 

 

 

PRIVACY

 
Visual Privacy

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

No, see Section 7

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

No, see Section 7

HEIGHT

P1 Heights of walls, their location and orientation do not cause substantial adverse impacts on streetscape or adjoining premises.

Clause 33 of the LEP

The maximum height of development in a 2A zone is 9.5m, with a maximum external wall height of 7m.

The maximum external wall height will be up to 9m, which does not comply with this clause of the LEP. However, the proposed increase is minimal and only occurs as a result of the increase floor to ceiling heights over the existing sunroom area.

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

Building Setbacks

 

The DCP contains overall objectives and performance requirements that seek to reduce the impact of any development upon adjoining land, by ensuring that there is adequate separation between buildings and the development is integrated with the desirable characteristics of the established streetscape.

 

The siting of the proposed balcony up to the eastern side boundary will set a poor precedent in residential amenity and clearly does not satisfy the objectives of the DCP with respect to separation between buildings, given its impacts on the privacy of adjoining and neighbouring dwellings.

 

Privacy

 

New developments should be designed to ensure that the occupants enjoy visual and acoustic privacy and the privacy of the adjoining premises is respected. In order to achieve this the performance requirements of the DCP detail that windows and balconies of main living areas are located to avoid overlooking of similar windows and private open space of adjoining premises and where necessary, landscaping and screening are provided to maintain privacy.

 

With regards to acoustic privacy, the design and layout of the building should attempt to minimise noise transmission and include the separation of quiet areas from noise generating areas.

 

Within this locality there is already a degree of overlooking to all of the surrounding premises in that most of the dwellings have some form of balconies or outdoor living areas to take advantage of the extensive coastal views and also due to the topography of the locality the premises above those below inevitably overlook the premises to some degree. It is however considered that the upper level balcony does have the potential to result in the loss of privacy to the adjoining premises in Wisdom Street in that there will be the ability to look directly into the rear yard areas of those premises, this is further exaggerated due to the siting of the balcony upon the eastern side boundary. Therefore, the new balcony cannot be supported and is recommended for deletion. There are no objections to the alterations to the existing sunroom in that there will be no additional privacy loss to the adjoining premises.

 

Height

 

The performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that the height of walls and their location do not cause a substantial adverse impact on the streetscape or adjoining premises with particular respect to privacy, solar access and building bulk.

 

It is considered in the context of the existing building height that the 600mm additional external wall height to the building will not result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises with respect to overall bulk and scale and the performance requirements of the DCP are satisfied. 

 

View Sharing

 

Any new development must minimise the obstruction of views by taking into account the existing topography and nature of the surrounding development, and where required view corridors should be utilised and the designer must demonstrate that steps have been taken to mitigate any loss of views.

 

It is considered that the proposal will minimise view loss from the adjoining premises and that the degree of outlook to the primary view to Wedding Cake Island from the objectors premises will be maintained from the majority of the windows and outdoor living areas of that premises. The substantial ocean and coastal views from the objectors premises will remain entirely unaffected.

 

8.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed alteration to the existing sunroom complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

As has been discussed the proposed new upper level balcony does have the potential to result in a adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises with respect to privacy and accordingly a condition of consent is included to require that the balcony be deleted from the application.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.1039/03 for permission to carryout alterations to the existing building at 47 Denning Street Coogee subject to the following conditions: -      

 

1          The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A01b, A02a, A03a, A04b, A05b & A06b, dated June 2001 and received by Council on 11th November 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3          The proposed upper level balcony to the eastern elevation of the building will result in a potential significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises with respect to loss of privacy. The proposed balcony is to be deleted from the application and the proposed sliding doors replaced by windows. Plans accompanying the Construction Certificate are to be amended accordingly and provide for a window sill height above floor level of 1200mm.

 

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

 

4          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.

 

5          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.

 

6          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.

 

7          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.

 

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:

 

8          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.

 

9          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.

 

10        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.

 

11        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.

 

12        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.

 

13        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.

 

14        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.

 

15        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.

 

16        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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 6/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

8 Burnie Street, Clovelly

 

 

DATE:

17 February, 2004

FILE NO:

03/01139/GA

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is a Development Application Report for the Development Application No 1139/03 for alterations to the ground floor and new first floor additions including new front fence and car space.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Development Application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 5 February, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

5 February, 2004

FILE NO:

03/01139/GA

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations to the ground floor and new first floor additions including new front fence and car space

PROPERTY:

 8 Burnie Street, Clovelly

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Tectonic Developments Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors Tracey, Sullivan and Backes.  The estimated cost of development is $260,000. 

 

The proposed development is for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house.  There are no significant issues of non-compliance with Council’s controls.  A number of submissions have been received, which mainly raise concern with the architectural style of the dwelling and how it relates to other existing dwellings in the streetscape.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to make additions and to undertake internal alterations to the existing ground level of the dwelling house to accommodate new living areas and bathroom and bedroom areas.  It is also proposed to make a first floor addition to the dwelling to provide for two additional bedrooms and a bathroom and storage area.  A balcony is proposed at the front of the dwelling at first floor level.  New landscaping is proposed in the rear of the site, including a pool and surrounding timber decking.  A new front fence is also proposed and a hardstand carspace in the front yard area.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Burnie Street between Arden Street and Beach Street, Clovelly.  It has an 11.7 metre frontage to Burnie Street, a maximum depth of 35.5 metres and a total site area of 318 sqm.  It is currently improved with a single storey detached dwelling house and shed in the rear yard area.

 

The surrounding environmental is residential in character and consists of detached dwelling houses.  The adjoining site to the east is occupied by a detached two-storey dwelling house and the adjoining site to the west is occupied by a single storey detached dwelling house.  Figure 1 (on next page) is an aerial photograph of the subject site and the surrounding properties. 

 

The dwellings that form the streetscape along the southern side of Burnie Street between Arden Street and Beach Street (of which there are a total of eight) are relatively consistent in their style, which is, generally, Californian Bungalow.  Most of those dwellings have common design features such as gable roof forms and pillared verandahs.  However, most of them have also been altered to varying extents over time, which has compromised their architectural integrity.  The more extensive alterations to the dwellings include: No.6, to the west, has had a first floor addition; Nos. 6, 12 and 18 have garages or carports located in their front yard areas; and No.18 has a front fence with a height of about 1.8 metres.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

There is no development history on the site.

 

Figure 1: The subject site (shown shaded) and surrounding sites

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. The following submissions were received:

 

11 Burnie Street – Dick Sheppard

 

The following issues are raised:

 

§ The proposal is not consistent with objectives of the Residential 2A and 2B zones.

 

§ The proposal is not consistent with the architectural character of existing dwellings in Burnie Street.

 

Comment

 

§ The proposed development is considered to be compatible with the Residential 2B zone in which the site is located.  Particularly, the zone allows for a variety of housing types and forms that do not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development in the area.  As discussed further in section 9 of this report, the proposed development is considered to be compatible in that it comprises a two storey dwelling house that has similar scale and proportion to other dwellings in the area and has been designed in a manner that generally complies with the relevant provisions of Council’s DCP for dwelling houses and, further, will not have any appreciable impacts on the amenity of the area.

 

§ The proposed dwelling does not display the same architectural style (in terms of period) as other dwellings in the area.  However, as stated above, it contains similar scale and proportion to the other dwellings in the area.  Particular reference is made to articulation of the façade, which reflects that of other dwellings in the area. The double fronted façade and the retention of the porch at ground floor level reflects the general form of other dwellings in the streetscape.

 

28 Burnie Street – Michael McKeon

 

The following issues are raised:

 

§ The proposal is not consistent with objectives of the Residential 2A and 2B zones.

 

§ The proposal is not consistent with the architectural character of existing dwellings in Burnie Street.

 

Comment

 

The issues raised here are the same as those of the above submission.  Therefore, refer to response above.

 

6 Burnie Street – Michael Brydon

 

The following issues are raised:

 

§ Concern at proposed fireplace and resultant emissions.

 

Comment

 

An agreement has been reached between the objector and the applicant to install a gas fire in the dwelling instead of a wood combustion fireplace.  The applicant has agreed to imposition of an appropriate condition to confirm that agreement.  This will be imposed with any approval granted.

 

10 Burnie Street – Paula O’Sullivan & Michael Johnson

 

The following issues are raised:

 

§ Inadequate consideration/analysis of the existing architectural style of dwellings on Burnie Street.

 

§ Encroachment of the ground floor loggia on the front setback.

 

§ The full width, two-storey, flat roofed building form would be first of its type in the streetscape.

 

§ The first floor balcony would be the first of its type on the street.

 

§ Contemporary styling is not sympathetic.

 

§ Proposed front fence does not allow for surveillance.

 

§ The ground floor loggia will have impacts in terms of noise and overlooking.

 

§ The swimming pool will result in noise from plant and its use by the occupants of the dwelling.

 

§ The open design of the dwelling may result in the need for air-conditioning units in the future, which will have sound impacts.

 

Comment

 

§ The proposed dwelling does not display the same architectural characteristics of other dwellings in the area.  However, it is considered that this will not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the area.  The issue raised here is the same as that of the above submission.

 

§ The encroachment of the ground floor loggia is considered to be acceptable. This is assessed in the compliance table in section 8.1 of this report.

 

§ Although different in style from other dwellings in the street, the proposed flat roof and first floor balcony on the dwelling will not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the area.

 

§ The proposed front fence will be at least 50% open to minimise any visual impact and allow greater surveillance of the street.

 

§ The proposed front loggia is unlikely to have any appreciable impact in respect of acoustic privacy, and it will not result in any significant loss of privacy.

 

§ Appropriate conditions will be imposed with any approval to ensure that the swimming pool equipment is acoustically treated to reduce noise levels to acceptable levels.

 

§ Any future proposal to install air-conditioning units in the dwelling will be the subject of a separate development application or would need to comply with the relevant provisions of Council’s Exempt and Complying DCP.

 
2 Beach Street – William Scott & Patricia (Walton) Scott

 

The following issues are raised:

 

§ The architectural style of the proposed development is out of character with the existing residential area.

 
Comment

 

§ The issue raised here is the same as that of the above submission.  Therefore, refer to response above.

 

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.

 

No objections have been raised subject to conditions with any approval.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Not applicable.  Site is less than 4,000 sqm.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

§   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

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

§   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

§   Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

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

 

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT

PREFERRED        SOLUTION

COMPLIANCE

(Whether proposal meets  Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

SOLAR ACCESS

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

Design to minimise  energy  for heating, cooling by using:

§ High thermal mass materials;

§ Solar hot water systems;

§ Insulated hot water pipes;

§ Hot water tanks and heaters close to rooms where hot water used;

§ Cooking tops located away from windows, fridges and freezers;

§ Task lights;

§ Maximised natural lighting;

§ Ceiling and wall insulation to AS2627.1-1993.

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

 

Not required for existing dwellings. Not applicable.

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

 

S2  Private open space receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

The rear yard will receive 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.

 

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

The proposal has north-facing windows that will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.

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

S9  Solar access to solar collectors on adjacent buildings maintained between 9.00am and 3.00pm throughout the year.

The proposal will not affect any solar collectors on adjoining properties. Complies.

 

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

The proposal will not affect north-facing windows on adjoining properties. Complies.

 

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

The proposal will not reduce sunlight in adjoining properties to less than 3 hours. Complies.

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.

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

Complies.

 

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

Only required for new dwellings.

P2  Water consumption minimised inside dwelling.

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

Suitable condition in recommendation.

P3  Water consumption minimised to landscaping.

S3  Landscaped area contains low water demand plant species and design.

 

 

Suitable condition in recommendation.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

The site has 58% of landscaped area. Complies.

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

An area of 63 sqm is located in the rear yard. Complies.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

The dimensions of the abovementioned area are 9 x 7 metres. Complies.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

The abovementioned area is located behind the building line. Complies.

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.

 

Complies.

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

The site has 35% permeable area. Complies.

FLOOR AREA

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

S1 Floor Space Ratio

<300m2              0.65:1

>300 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

>600m2              0.5:1

The subject site has a permissible maximum FSR of 0.6:1.  The proposed FSR is 0.6:1. Complies.

HEIGHT, FORM AND MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

S1  Maximum 7m external wall height.

 

The proposal has a maximum external wall height of 6.8 metres. Complies.

 

S1  Maximum 3.5m external wall height of buildings or additions to the rear.

Not applicable.

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

The proposed development has contemporary architectural styling that compliments other dwellings in the street

P6  Design allows view sharing.

 

The proposal will not have any appreciable impact on views from adjoining properties. Complies.

BUILDING SETBACKS

P1  Front Setback

Generally conforms with adjoining development or dominant setback along street.

S1  Front Setback

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

The proposed development involves a 0.5 encroachment on the building line by the construction of the loggia at ground floor level.  This is considered to be minor and will not have any impact, particularly considering it involves the reopening of an existing enclosed verandah that will reduce visual bulk.

P2  Rear Setback

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

S2  Rear Setback

No closer than 4.5m to rear boundary.

The proposed development is 9 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

P3  Side Setback

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.

S3  Side Setbacks

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

The proposed development is a minimum of 1.3 metres from the side boundaries at ground floor level. Complies.

 

S3  1.5m for any part of a building, two levels at that point.

The proposed development is a minimum of 1.4 metres from the side boundaries at first floor level. Does not comply but is consistent with the Performance Requirement as discussed in section 9.

 

 

 

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

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

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.

The proposed windows will not have any adverse impact in respect of overlooking of habitable room windows on adjoining properties within 9 metres. Complies.

 

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

The proposal will not directly overlook any private open space in adjoining properties. Complies.

 

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.

The proposal incorporates windows with minimum sill heights of 1.5 metres. Complies.

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

The proposed balcony at first floor level at the front will not impact on privacy of adjoining properties. Complies.

SAFETY AND SECURITY

P1  Buildings face the street and provide casual surveillance.

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

The dwelling has an existing side entry.

 

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

The dwelling has habitable room windows that overlook the street. Complies.

GARAGES, CARPORTS AND DRIVEWAYS

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements - 1-2 bedroom: 1 space; 3 bedroom:  2 spaces

 

The dwelling has no existing on-site parking. One parking space is proposed.  Although this does not comply with the minimum requirements, given the site restrictions and that one new parking space is proposed, non-compliance is considered to be acceptable.

P1  Carports, garages and parking areas designed to:

§ Ensure 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.

 

The proposed parking space has dimensions of 5.5 x 2.5 metres. Complies.

 

S1  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).

The driveway/car access is 2.5 metres wide, which does not comply.  However, it is considered acceptable given the relatively short length of the driveway.

The proposed driveway is 1.5 metres from the side boundary. Complies.

 

S1  Driveway gradients have a maximum of 1 in 6. The gradient for the first 5m from street not more than 1 in 8.

The proposed driveway is essentially flat. Complies.

P2  Carports, garages and parking areas designed to:

§ Not detract from the streetscape;

§ Be compatible in scale, form and materials.

S2  Driveways, car parking facilities <35% of site frontage.

The proposed driveway occupies about 21% of the width of the site frontage. Complies.

FENCES

P1  Front fences are integrated with streetscape.

S1  Sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

 

S1  Solid front fences in front of the building line no higher than 1.2m.

Not applicable.

 

S1  Fences in front of the building line no higher than 1.8m with upper two thirds at least 50% open. (Not applicable in Heritage Conservation Areas).

The proposed front fence is 1.8 metres in height with panels that appear to be at least 50% open.  This may be enforced by condition.  It is noted that the adjoining dwelling to the west has a front fence of a similar height to that on the proposal.

 

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   Streetscape

 

There have been a number of issues raised with respect to the architectural style of the proposed development and its location in a setting of otherwise traditional California Bungalow style dwellings.

 

It is noted that the subject site and surrounding properties along Burnie Street are not identified as heritage items or do not have any conservation area status.  Nonetheless, as stated earlier, the dwellings that form the streetscape along the southern side of Burnie Street between Arden Street and Beach Street are relatively consistent in their style, which is, generally, Californian Bungalow.  Most of those dwellings have common design features such as gable roof forms and pillared verandahs.  However, most of them have also been altered to varying extents over time, which has compromised their architectural integrity.  The more extensive alterations to the dwellings include: No.6, to the west, has had a first floor addition; Nos. 6, 12 and 18 have garages or carports located in their front yard areas; and No.18 has a front fence with a height of about 1.8 metres.

 

The proposed dwelling is contemporary in design and adopts a flat roof and an emphasis on horizontal lines.  Although these design elements are not reflective of the predominant architectural style along this particular part of Burnie Street, it is considered that the existing dwellings in the area do not hold adequate architectural integrity or historical significance to prevent the introduction of a more contemporary style dwelling such as that proposed. 

 

Also, as discussed earlier, although the proposed dwelling does not display the same architectural style (in terms of period) as other dwellings in the area, it contains similar scale and proportion which complements the other dwellings in the area.  Particular reference is made to articulation of the façade, which reflects that of other dwellings in the area. The double fronted façade and the retention of the porch at ground floor level reflects the general form of other dwellings in the streetscape.

 

It is recommended that the front façade of the dwelling be fitted with additional awnings over the north-facing windows to Bedrooms 2 and 3.  This will assist in providing additional articulation to the façade as well as providing improved energy efficiency by protecting the interiors from summer sun.

 

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Residential 2B zone in which the site is located.  The 2B zone allows for a variety of housing types and forms including multi-unit housing that do not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and are compatible with the dominant character of existing development in the area.  In view of the zoning and that Burnie Street is likely to undergo further transition in terms of the housing types that may be introduced, the proposed form of the dwelling house would have minimal impact on the existing streetscape and is consistent with the desired future character of the area.

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposal will contribute to the streetscape of Burnie Street.

 

9.2   Building setbacks

 

The proposed development does not comply with the Preferred Solution in respect of side setbacks.  The degree of non-compliance is 0.1 metres from the side boundaries at first floor level.  It will not adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings in terms of daylight and ventilation.  It is also noted that the proposed development complies in respect of the Preferred Solution for Solar Access.  Further, non-compliance with the first floor side setback will not have any adverse impact in terms of streetscape.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.  Where compliance has not been achieved with the Preferred Solutions, the proposal complies with the performance requirements.  Having regard to all relevant matters for consideration, the proposal will not result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises nor will it result in detrimental impact on the character of the locality.  Consequently, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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 1139/03 for Alterations to the ground floor and new first floor additions including new front fence and car space at 8 Burnie Street, Clovelly subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.   The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A01 to A05 (inclusive), dated 4 December 2003 and received by Council on 10 December 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

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

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

 

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

3.   Street numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position.

4.   The infill panels in the front fence are to be designed and constructed of materials that will ensure that those panels are at least 50% open. Details to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

5.   Landscaping shall be provided to the site to reduce the impact of the development upon the amenity of the environment and a landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

6.   The north-facing windows to Bedroom 2 and Bedroom 3 are to have awnings installed above them in a manner that is consistent with the other awnings on that elevation of the dwelling.  Details to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

7.   The fireplace located in the living room is to be deleted and replaced with a fireplace that operates exclusively on natural gas.  Details to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

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

 

8.   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.

 

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

 

10. 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:

 

11. 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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

14. 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.

 

15. 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.

 

16. 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.

17. 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:

 

18. A Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional storey.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies relevant standards of construction, and to maintain adequate levels of health, safety and amenity during construction:

 

19. 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.

 

20. 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.

 

21. 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.

 

22. 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.

 

23. 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.

 

24. 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.

 

25. 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.

 

26. 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.

 

27. 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

 

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 at all times.

 

29. 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.

 

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 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

33. 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 compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and to maintain public safety and amenity:

 

34. Swimming pools are to be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with AS 1926-1986.

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

Temporary pool safety fencing is to be provided pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

A sign shall be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the document entitled “Policy Statement No.9.4.1: Guidelines for the Preparation of Posters on Resuscitation”, published in 1985 by the Australian Resuscitation Council and the sign must bear a notice that contains the words “YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE SUPERVISED WHEN USING THIS SWIMMING POOL”, together with details of resuscitation techniques (for adults, children and infants) set out in accordance with the document entitled “Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation” published by the Australian Resuscitation Council.

 

35. Swimming pools are to be designed and installed in accordance with the following general requirements:-

 

·          Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

·          All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises.

 

·          Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

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

 

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

 

a)         $700.00           -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

38. 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

41. The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the existing concrete footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

42. The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $88.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

43. 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.

 

44. 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:

 

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

 

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

Advisory Conditions

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 plans

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

TOM HUTCHISON

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 7/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

11a Lurline Street, Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

17 February, 2004

FILE NO:

728/03

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is a Development Application Report for the Development Application No 728/03 for a proposed privacy screen to the rear ground floor terrace and increase the height of a section of the existing side boundary fence at the rear of the existing dwelling house.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Development Application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 16 February, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

16 February, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 728/03

 

PROPOSAL:

 Proposed privacy screen to the rear ground floor terrace and increase the height of a section of existing side boundary fence at the rear of the existing dwelling house

PROPERTY:

 11a Lurline Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr W Petroni

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Chris Bastic, Anthony Andrews and Dominic Sullivan.

 

The application seeks consent to increase the height of part of the existing fence on the south-western side boundary by 1 metre and to erect a new privacy screen of 3 metres high to the south-western side of the existing rear ground floor terrace.  The estimated cost of the development is $800.

 

The relevant issues are privacy and view sharing.  

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent including a condition to delete the proposed extension to the existing side boundary fence and a reduction in height of the privacy screen and a modification of the proposed materials (see conditions 3 and 4).

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks consent to carry out the following works: -

 

·         Increase the height of that part of the existing fence adjacent to the swimming pool of No. 15 on the south-western side boundary by 1m.

·         Erection of a lattice infill screen and a lattice privacy screen of 3m high and 2m long to the south-western side of the existing rear ground floor balcony.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Lurline Street, north of Torrington Road, Maroubra. The site is rectangular in shape and has a frontage of 12.19m to Lurline Street, a depth of 30.05m and a total site area of 427m². 

 

The site is currently occupied by a two storey freestanding dwelling house with an in ground swimming pool at the rear of the site.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by dwelling houses constructed in a variety of architectural styles. To the south of the site is a two storey brick dwelling house currently under construction. To the north is a two storey brick dwelling house.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The subject application was lodged with Council on 18 August 2003. A preliminary assessment of the application raised a number of issues.  As a result, the applicant was requested to provide the following additional information: -

 

 

 

1)         A revised plan showing the correct dimensions of the rear ground floor terrace. 

 

2)         A revised elevation including the RLs of the rear ground floor terrace and rear yard/pool area.

 

3)         The height and location of the existing trees in the rear yard of the subject property.

 

The applicant submitted the amended plan on 23 December 2003 which detailed the changes made in response to the above issues.  However, it was noted that the southwest elevation shown on the plan was incorrect as it did not match with the existing dwelling on the site.  Subsequently, the applicant resubmitted the plan on 19 January 2004 and this additional information has been considered in the assessment of the subject application.

 

b.         HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

99/01268/GB – Extend rear terrace of existing dwelling.  Approved 01/11/99.

 

99/00905/JB – Extend rear terrace of existing dwelling.  Approved 06/12/99.

 

00/00121/PU – New Swimming Pool.  Approved 15/11/00.

 

99/00905/JB – Amended Construction Certificate – additional two posts to east end elevation of dwelling.  Approved 24/09/01.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with the provisions of the DCP – Public Notification. The following submission was received:

 

5.1  Objection

 

Robert & Sue Gusmerini, 15 Lurline Street, Maroubra

 

Objects for the following reason: -

 

·    Loss of views from the rear ground floor balcony and pool area.

 

The above issue is addressed in Section 7 of the report.

 

5.2       Support

 

No submissions in support of the proposed development were received.

 

6.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and is within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.  The proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The following Clause of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal: -

 

Clause 29 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

The site is located in a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. Clause 29 of the LEP requires that Council may only grant consent after it has considered the probably aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore.

 

It is considered in this instance that the proposal is minor in nature and will not have any significant impact upon the appearance of the building and the foreshore, and therefore the proposal is considered acceptable in this regard.

 

6.1  Policy Controls

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

 

The proposal has been assessed against the objectives, preferred solutions or performance requirements of the DCP. The merits of the proposed development are addressed in Section 7 of this report.

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

7.1  Privacy and View Loss

 

Clause 4.3 Height, Form & Materials

Relevant Objectives:

 

To ensure buildings preserve privacy and natural light access for neighbouring residents and allow a sharing of views.

To ensure additions to dwellings do not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

Relevant performance requirements:

 

Buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views.

Buildings are designed to preserve privacy and natural light access for neighbouring residents.

 

 

 

 

Clause 4.5 Visual and Acoustic Privacy

Relevant objectives:

 

To ensure that new buildings and additions meet occupants’ and neighbours’ requirements for visual and acoustic privacy. 

 

Relevant performance requirements:

 

Overlooking of internal living areas and private open spaces of residential development is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and, where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

 

Privacy and View Sharing

 

A site inspection revealed that there is a significant capacity to overlook the internal living areas and rear yard of the subject property from the pool area and ground floor balcony of the adjoining property at No. 15 Lurline Street.  At the same time, it is recognised that by addressing this issue, the proposed privacy screen will result in a degree of ocean view loss to the north and northeast, particularly, from the pool area of No. 15.  Notwithstanding the intention to provide the additional privacy measures, it is considered that the proposal to increase the height of the existing side boundary fence by 1m will only partially resolve the overlooking issue.  The increase in height will also result in an adverse impact in terms of the filtered views of the ocean to the occupants of No. 15 and will accentuate the sense of enclosure around the pool area.  On balance, it is considered unreasonable to allow the erection of this structure in the nominated location to the detriment of the adjoining owner’s ocean views, given the extent of privacy invasion experienced by both properties due to the density of development and topography of the sites.

 

It is acknowledged that there is the capacity to overlook directly to each property’s ground floor balcony at the rear of the subject site and No. 15.  The proposed privacy screen and lattice infill screen will improve the privacy of the occupants of the subject property but will also result in a degree of ocean view loss to No. 15.  Notwithstanding, the plan indicates that a 3m high and 2m long lattice privacy screen is to be provided on the southwestern side of the ground floor terrace, it is considered that the height of that screen is excessive and the material proposed is incompatible with the existing glass balustrade.  An appropriate condition is imposed to reduce the height of the privacy screen to a maximum of 2.7m above the balcony floor level to ensure that overlooking and view loss from No. 15 Lurline Street is reduced to an acceptable level and the lattice screens are to be amended to be of obscured glass screens to complement with the existing glass balustrade and the appearance of the existing dwelling house (see condition 4).

 

8.    CONCLUSION

 

Apart from the erection of the extension to the existing side boundary fence, the proposed privacy screens (as would be amended in the recommendation) on the ground floor terrace complies with the relevant assessment criteria, the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.  The application is considered acceptable subject to deletion of the proposed extension to the existing side boundary fence and a reduction in height of the privacy screen and a modification of the proposed materials.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.    THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0728/03 for permission to erect privacy screens to the rear ground floor terrace of the existing dwelling house and rear yard, at 11A Lurline Street, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:-

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plan numbered 20221-01, revision C, dated August 2003 and received by Council on 19 January 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.         The colours, materials and finishes of the proposed privacy screens are to be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

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

 

3.   The proposal to increase the height of the existing side boundary fence adjoining the rear pool area of No. 15 Lurline Street shall be deleted from the plans as it will not effectively reduce the capacity for overlooking into the internal living areas and rear yard of the subject property and it will result in an unreasonable loss of filtered ocean views to No. 15 Lurline Street.

 

4.   The lattice infill screen and terrace screen are to be amended to be of obscure glass to complement with the existing glass balustrade on the ground floor terrace and the terrace screen is to be a maximum height of 2.7 metres above balcony floor level, to ensure the screens are compatible with the existing building and to minimised the capacity for overlooking and loss of views from the adjoining property to the south at No. 15 Lurline Street.  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

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

 

5.   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.

 

6.   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.

 

7.   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.

 

8.   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.

 

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:

 

9.   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.

 

10. 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.

 

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.

 

11. 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.

 

12. 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.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 8/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

88 Bilga Crescent, Malabar

 

 

DATE:

17 February, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 814/03

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for Development Application No 814/03 for alterations and additions to a dwelling.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Development Application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 16 February, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

16 February, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 814/03

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to dwelling

PROPERTY:

 88 Bilga Crescent, Malabar

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Archivision

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillor’s Sullivan, White and Daley. The estimated cost of the development is $ 80 000.

 

The main issue is the impact upon the streetscape of the alterations to the existing garage to the front of the dwelling. The proposed erection of a new garage to the front of the dwelling, sited up to 1190mm from the front boundary alignment will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application details alterations and additions to the dwelling including the erection of a brick metal roof addition to the western side of the dwelling to provide a new family room with a floor area of 38sqm, the conversion of the existing garage into floor area to the dwelling and the erection of a garage with roof terrace to the front of the dwelling sited 1190mm from the street alignment. It is also proposed to erect a 1200mm high masonry infill panel front fence to the premises.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains predominantly single storey dwellings on relatively large allotments. The subject premises is on the southern side of Bilga Crescent and is an irregular shape with a arc street frontage of 21.005m, an overall depth of 38.35m and an area of 563sqm, the site is relatively level.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. No submissions have been received.

 

5.    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.

 

5.1  Policy Controls


Development Control Plan – Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

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.

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

·     

 

 

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

·      allows year-round use

·      minimises impact on neighbours

·      addresses privacy and sun access

·      addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

Yes 70% of the site landscaped area

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR-0.53:1

 

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

 

Yes, 0.41:1.

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

No, see Section 6

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

 

 

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

No, see Section 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, 1145mm to the eastern and 900mm to the western side boundaries respectively

 

 

 

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·      enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·      safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

FENCES

P1  Front fences are integrated with streetscape.

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

Yes complies with the objectives and performance requirement

 

6.    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.

 

Building Setbacks

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours, and with respect to front boundary setbacks that the proposal generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape.

 

Preferred solutions include that side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level and 1.5m at first floor level, and that no part of the building is closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary.

 

The existing streetscape is relatively open with dwellings sited predominantly up to 6m from the front alignment and it is considered that the erection of the new garage, which is up to 3.6m in height at a distance of 1190mm from the front boundary, will significantly detract from the character of local streetscape. It is noted that there is a similarly sited garage to the adjoining premises at 90 Bilga Crescent however this structure is of significantly less scale, and in any event sets a poor precedent in streetscape amenity and should not be repeated. The proposed addition to the front of the dwelling to provide for a new family room will be sited up to 5600mm from the front alignment, however it is not considered that there will be any significant impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the degree of non compliance with the dominant streetscape setback is not substantial.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

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

 

As has been discussed the position of the proposed new garage to the front of the dwelling, sited 1190mm will not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that a building of this bulk and scale sited so close to the street alignment will significantly detract from the appearance of the dwelling and will be a visually obtrusive element in the streetscape.

 

7.    CONCLUSION

 

The portion of the Development Application detailing the erection of an addition to the front of the dwelling and new front fence complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

However, the portion of the Development Application detailing the erection of a new garage to the front of the dwelling sited 1190mm from the front boundary does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the garage will significantly detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the character of the dominant streetscape.

 

The portion of the application detailing the garage cannot be considered in isolation (and therefore deleted by condition) given that the existing garage within the envelope of the dwelling is proposed to be converted into a study and therefore the deletion of the new garage will result in no undercover parking being provided to this dwelling. Further, a condition which deletes just the double garage would substantially alter the nature of the proposed development. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.814/03 for permission to carryout alterations and additions to the dwelling at 88 Bilga Crescent Malabar for the following reasons: -                                  

 

1.         The proposed garage to the front of the dwelling does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the proposed setback of the garage up to 1190mm from the front boundary will not integrate with or conform with the dominant setbacks of Bilga Crescent.

2.         The proposed garage will be a visually obtrusive element in the streetscape and will detract from the appearance of the dwelling house.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 9/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

16 SCOTT STREET, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

17 February, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 414/01

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for a Section 96 modification seeking consent to reduce the side boundary setback of the garage from 590mm to 380mm and increase the length of wall sited this distance from the western boundary from 2500mm to 3500mm.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Section 96 Application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 16 February, 2004.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 


 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

16 February, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 414/01

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification seeking consent to reduce the side boundary setback of the garage from 590mm to 380mm and increase the length of wall sited this distance from the western boundary from 2500mm to 3500mm.

PROPERTY:

 16 Scott Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 R Zikmann

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 as the original Development Application was determined by Council.

 

The Section 96 modification seeks consent to reduce the side western side boundary setback of the garage from 590mm to 380mm and increase the length of the garage recessed wall from 2500mm to 3500. The main issues are the additional impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premise in with respect to the siting of the garage wall closer than the approved setback of 590mm, which may result from the modification.

 

It is recommended that the application to modify the consent be approved.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed modification seeks consent to reduce the side western side boundary set back from 590mm to 380mm and increase the length of the garage wall sited this distance from the western boundary from 2500mm to 3500mm. The application also includes the erection of a 1370mm high rendered enclosure for power and gas services 615mm x 375mm in dimensions to the south western corner of the allotment adjacent to the garage.

 

With respect to the landscaping to be provided to the western elevation of the garage, the applicant has, upon advice from a Landscape Architect, offered three options which will achieve the same result in softening the appearance of the garage wall in relation to the adjoining premises. These options include, planting of 4 pencil pines, planting of 3 espaliered camellias or planting of 4 star jasmine upon wire. The Landscape Architect advises that all of these options will provide for screening to the garage, with the planting of star jasmine achieving the result in the shortest time.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject land is located on the northern side of Scott Street between Malabar Road and Broome Street, one allotment removed from the corner of Broome Street. The site has a frontage of 13.72m to Scott Street, a depth of 30.48m and an overall site area of 418sqm and is presently occupied by a single storey dwelling house. To the west is a single storey dwelling house, to the east, several properties fronting Broome Street of one and two storeys in height, and to the north a single storey dwelling house with garage under.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

The original development application detailed alterations and additions to the dwelling house including a new double garage between the existing building and the street alignment, front fence/wall, rear timber deck, landscaping and new rear fencing and swimming pool. This application was approved under delegated authority on the 17 th August 2001.

 

A subsequent Section 82A review seeking consent to delete condition 2 of development consent which related to the deletion of the garage from the application was considered at the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting of the 13th November 2001 and the initial decision was confirmed at that meeting.

 

A further Section 96 application seeking to delete condition 2 of the development consent was considered by the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting of the 12th March 2002 and was approved subject to condition 2 being altered to require specific landscaping treatment to the western elevation of the garage to reduce the impact of the wall of the garage to the adjoining premises.

 

During the course of the building works the subject of this application, it was noted by Councils Building Inspector in response to a complaint from the owner of 14 Scott Street, that the garage had not been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The garage was sited 380mm from the western side boundary in lieu of 590mm, and the length of the garage wall sited this distance from the side boundary was increased from 2500mm to 3500mm.

 

This Section 96 application has been lodged seeking retrospective approval for these variations to the approved plans as well as providing alternative landscaping treatment to the western wall of the garage.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with Councils DCP – Public Notification.

 

The following submissions were received from Mrs M Anderson of 14 Scott Street Maroubra.

 

Letter of the 1st January 2004.

 

-objects to the garage not being built in accordance with the approved plans in that the garage has obstructed views of the street.

-landscape planting cannot be carried out to screen this wall as permission will not be granted to enter the objectors premises to facilitate planting of the nominated trees.

-the garage has depreciated the value of their premises.

-the garage is an eyesore and adds nothing what so ever to the streetscape.

 

Letter of the 22nd January 2004

 

-objects to proposed electrical service board structure sited to the street alignment adjacent to the eastern boundary of their property and maintain that this structure will completely block any view they have of the streetscape from the eastern side of their dwelling.

-concern given the nature of this facility so located will be a lure to pranksters, vandals and young persons with potential risk of electrocution.

-maintain applicant already has a power board in his new garage and has other alternatives in terms of location of this facility.

-applicant has already erected a service board structure in this location which was subsequently removed after complaints made to Council by the objector.

 

Comment:

 

It should be noted that this Section 96 application seeks consideration of retrospective consent for building works which have already been carried out and that there is no additional building works proposed. The matter of consent to enter the objector’s premises to allow planting to be undertaken within the recessed area adjacent to the western elevation of the garage is a private matter between the two parties involved and any consent granted by Council does not imply permission is granted to enter another resident’s property. It is not considered that the garage as constructed has a significant adverse impact upon the overall streetscape. With regards to the power service enclosure it is not considered having regard to the bulk and scale of the adjoining garage that there will be an additional significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the objectors.

 

6.                     SECTION 96 ASSESSMENT:

 

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria has been complied with: -

 

6.1       Substantially the Same Development:

 

The proposed modifications are minor and will not result in any significant additional impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape and therefore the proposed modifications to the original development proposal are considered to represent substantially the same development.

 

6.2       Consideration of Submissions

 

The submissions received from the owners of the adjoining premises at 14 Scott Street Maroubra have been considered as part of this assessment and it is not considered that the works which are the subject of this application will not result in significant additional impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises.

 

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

 

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

8          ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1

 

Garages & Driveways

 

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

 

Preferred solutions include that car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m, driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary, parking is located behind the building line and driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment. Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 there after.

 

The original application included a condition which required that the garage be deleted from the proposal, as the garage did not satisfy either the preferred solutions or performance requirements of the DCP with respect to location siting, extent, precedent and streetscape impact. It was suggested that an open hard stand carspace would be a more suitable alternative.

 

This condition was the subject of a Section 96 Application which was determined at the Health Building and Planning Committee Meeting of the 12th March 2002, where the condition was amended to read “trees to be used for the proposed plant screening between the western elevation of the proposed garage and the side boundary setback of 14 Scott Street (3.5m long from the street alignment) are to be Cupressus Sempervirens ‘Stricta ‘ (Pencil Pines)”. The intent of the amended condition was to reduce the impact of the garage wall upon the amenity of the adjoining premises by softening the appearance of the building.

 

It is not considered that the modification to the approval will result in any significant additional impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises in that whilst the garage wall is sited closer than had been approved the extent of wall on the boundary has been reduced by 1m, which will also allow the area of landscaping provided to the boundary to be increased.

 

9          CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification will not result in a significant impact upon adjoining properties or the streetscape. It is therefore considered that the application to modify the consent satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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 414/01 seeking consent to vary conditions of consent to carryout alterations and additions to the existing dwelling to provide for anew double garage, courtyard wall, rear timber deck, landscaping, new rear fence and swimming pool in the following manner:

 

A         Condition No.1 is altered to read as follows

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans comprising 6 sheets prepared by A Armour, dated February 2001 and received by Council on the 21st May 2001,the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans received by Council on the15th December 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:

 

B          Condition 2 is altered to read as follows

 

2.         The planting to be used for screening between the western elevation of the proposed garage and side boundary setback of No.14 Scott Street is to be one of the three options, sempervirens stricta, espaliered camellias or star jasmine described and detailed by Roxana Vlack, Registered Landscape Architect, in her report dated 2 December 2003 attached to the Section 96 Application.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 14 February, 2002

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

14 February, 2002

FILE NO:

D/414/2001

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification to delete condition 2 to permit a modified front double garage

PROPERTY:

 16 Scott Street Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr R and Mrs M Zikmann

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The Section 96 Application is referred to Committee as the previous Section 82A Review Application was determined by Council.

 

One letter of objection was received from the owners of No 14 Scott Street. The main concerns raised are adverse streetscape impact, excessive height of the western wall of the garage, loss of view to the east, loss of property value and sunlight and undesirable precedent.

 

The main issues are whether the proposal satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of Development Control Plan-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to siting and streetscape impact and relationship of the proposed garage to No 14 Scott Street.

 

The recommendation is that conditions 1 and 2 be modified to permit the proposed double garage as modified by the changes outlined by the applicant.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The approval issued on 17 August 2001, included the following condition:

 

‘2.        That portion of the application seeking to erect a double garage is to be deleted as the structure will not satisfy either the preferred solution or performance requirements of Development Control Plan-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in respect to location, siting, extent, precedent and streetscape impact. A double open and uncovered hardstand off street car parking space having maximum clear dimensions of 5.0m x 5.5m to adjoin the front boundary can be provided as an alternative to the double garage structure.’

 

The proposal is to replace condition 2 with a condition permitting the proposed double garage in a modified form depicted on the revised plans submitted. The main changes are:

 

1.       The front alignment of the garage has been set back 1m from the front boundary of the property to align with the dwelling at 20 Broome Street.

 

2.       A setback of 500mm has been provided from the western boundary for a distance of 3.5m from the front boundary.

 

3.       High density landscaping consisting of shrubs or trees of at least 3m mature heights will be provided within the proposed western setback to the approval of the Council. Adequate permanent irrigation will be provided in this location to ensure that the landscaping is properly maintained.

 

4.       The level of the floor slab has been reduced by 90mm from RL 19.51 to RL 19.42

 

5.       The height of the garage parapet walls has been reduced by 170mm from RL 22.83 to a maximum of RL 22.66. The overall reduction in the height of the garage walls will be 260mm.

 

6.       The rear of the garage has been relocated approximately 2m further north (beside the existing building).

 

3.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development consent was granted on 17 August 2001 to make alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house. The alterations proposed included a new front double garage and courtyard wall, rear timber deck, landscaping and new rear fence and swimming pool.

Condition 2 of the consent required the deletion of the proposed double garage, however, permitted a double hardstand carspace area having maximum clear dimensions of 5mx5.5m to adjoin the front boundary.

 

A Section 82A Review Application was considered by Council’s Health, Building and Planning Committee on 13 November 2001 and condition 2 of the original decision confirmed.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

4.1       Objections

 

The Section 96 Application has been notified in accordance with Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and one objection received from the owners of No 14 Scott Street. The main reasons for objection are:

 

1.   No other property within Scott Street has building extensions to within 4m of the  street alignment and if approved would adversely affect the streetscape of the whole of Scott Street.

 

Comment

 

This concern is unclear and it is assumed that the writers mean that no other property has building extensions closer than 4m of the street alignment. It is acknowledged that Scott Street is largely intact, with No 11 having the only carport structure between the building and the street alignment. No 571 Malabar Road has a single garage with vehicular access off Scott Street, however, this is a corner allotment with Scott Street being the side street.

 

The streetscape of the whole of Scott Street is unlikely to be affected by this development, and this would more likely be the case if an application were lodged within the main body of the block rather than at the end (as in this case).

 

2.   The erection of the proposed garage would result in a 3.5m high brick wall along the side boundary of their property which would result in a loss of view to the top of the street (Broome Street), would adversely affect the value of their property, create shadows and deprive them of sunlight.

 

Comment

 

Notwithstanding the applicant’s proposed reduced height of 260mm, the proposed maximum overall height of between 3.4m and 3.5m (western side) is still considered excessive. However, this matter has been discussed with the applicant who maintains that the overall height cannot be reduced as it is governed by the minimum height clearance required to provide the side pedestrian access to the garage which is minimal as proposed. The applicant maintains that he has already agreed to lower the overall height by 260mm and cannot reasonably make any further reduction in height. It should be noted that with Section 96 modifications, Council may only approve or refuse the application unless the applicant has agreed to the imposition of further condition/s.

 

It is likely that the siting of the proposed garage either to the western boundary or to within 500mm of the boundary (first 2.5m of the structure), will rather than result in any notable view loss, create a sense of enclosure for No 14.

No expert evidence has been provided to substantiate that there will be a loss of property value.

 

The additional overshadowing and loss of sunlight to No 14 as a result of this proposal will not be significant.

 

3.   The owner of No 16 Scott Street already has two carspaces under cover and they have no objection to a third carspace being provided along the side boundary of his house, providing he keeps within the alignment of the other existing houses in the street.

 

Comment

 

Although the preferred options of Section 4.7 of the DCP (figure 4.6) give a higher priority to carspaces at the side of a dwelling (priority3) than a carspace between the building and the street alignment (priority 4), in this instance, any enclosed structure to the boundary of No14 containing spaces in tandem formation will, given the existing windows on the eastern elevation, have a potential to adversely impact on that property.  

 

4.   The siting of the garage to 1m of the street alignment would create a precedent whereby every homeowner in Scott Street and surrounding streets will be entitled to build 1m of the street alignment.

 

Comment

 

The potential for setting an undesirable precedent is an issue for Council and if approved it would be more difficult to argue (depending on the location within the block) that other owners should not be entitled to have a similar structure. However, closer scrutiny of this aspect has been undertaken since the preparation of the earlier reports and it is evident that all properties on the northern side of Scott Street have at least one carspace located behind the general building line, or have a capacity to provide off-street parking other than within the building line. In any event, the onus would be on the applicant in each instance where it is intended to locate a structure within the predominate building line, to establish that they satisfy the relevant considerations including streetscape fit, and that the proposal merits support.

 

5.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, and the following comments have been provided:

 

5.1  Engineering Issues

 

The Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services has advised that no additional conditions are required.

 

6.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

6.1   Substantially the same

 

The proposed amendment is consistent with the original application and the proposed development substantially the same.

 

6.2   Consideration of submissions

 

The proposal was notified to the adjoining and nearby owners and one submission received. The matters raised in the submission are considered under Section 4 of this report.

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

Applicant’s submission

 

The applicant’s have provided a comprehensive submission setting out the history of their application. The submission includes fifteen reasons in support of their proposal, two expert opinions from Johnston Briggs Architects Pty Ltd and Hirst Architects Ptd Ltd supporting the proposal and four letters from adjoining or nearby (opposite) owners supporting the proposal. The reasons in support of this application include many of the reasons covered in the previous Section 82A report which is attached. Other reasons cited include:

 

-       Any garage erected along the western side of the existing dwelling would have an extremely detrimental effect on the available light and outlook to and from the living areas of No14 Scott.

 

-   The applicants have demonstrated their willingness to modify the design to   meaningingfully accommodate the expressed concerns of Council’s officers.     

-       If the proposed modifications are accepted and endorsed any visual impact on the streetscape will be minimal and the general tone of the surrounding area significantly improved.

 

-       The low probability that any other dwellings within the block will submit similar proposals as these properties already have their parking needs addressed or are much larger sites which have the capacity to locate similar sized garages elsewhere in line with the preferences of the DCP.

 

-       All the adjoining and affected neighbours opposite have endorsed the amended proposals in writing.

 

Comment

 

Notwithstanding one owner from No14 Scott Street did sign a letter endorsing the proposal, both owners have since lodged an objection to the current application.

 

-       There is no absolute prohibition against the current proposal and in the circumstances it would be inappropriate to arbitrarily apply other planning guidelines without due regard to the merits of the proposal as a whole.

 

-       A double garage between the existing dwelling and the street alignment has recently been approved at 18 Broome Street. It would be completely inconsistent and inequitable on the part of the Council, given the merits of the application, to refuse a similar garage application at 16 Scott Street on the grounds of it falling outside the dominant street alignment.

 

Comment

 

Although a garage has been approved between the existing dwelling and the street alignment at 18 Broome Street, the structure is at a low level and cannot be directly compared with the subject proposal.

 

Given the Council has consistently refused that component of the development application seeking the front double garage, it is intended in this instance, to address specifically the proposed modifications, the merits therof, and the additional information submitted since the previous decisions.

 

Proposed modifications

 

The modifications outlined in Section 2 ‘The Proposal’ section of this report in summary provide for the setting back of the garage from the street alignment by 1m to align with the dwelling at 20 Broome Street, the setting back of the most southern 2.5m (3.5m from Scott Street) of the western wall by 500mm with associated landscaped screening and reduction in overall height by 260mm. These modifications were made in order to address concerns identified by Council’s officer’s in respect of the siting of the structure between the existing dwelling and the street alignment. The following comments are made on the proposed modifications:

 

(a)      The garage has been setback 1m from the street alignment to align with the dwelling alignment of 20 Broome Street.

 

Comment

 

Although a direct comparison of the siting of the two buildings is inequitable, given 20 Broome Street is a corner allotment and its main frontage is to Broome Street, the proposed 1m setback is beneficial and would help reduce the prominence of the proposed garage. In terms of the siting relationship with No 14 and other properties to the west, a greater setback would be preferable, however, the siting of the existing dwelling house is a limiting factor.

 

(b)        Setback of 500mm for a distance of 3.5m from the front boundary (2.5m of the western wall)

 

Comment

 

This modification has been undertaken to permit the provision of landscaped screening and will assist in reducing the apparent bulk of the structure when viewed from Scott Street and the adjoining property at No14 (to the west).

 

(c)      The overall height of the proposed garage has been reduced by 260mm.

 

Comment 

 

Although the proposed height reduction will assist in reducing the bulk of the structure, as outlined in Section 4-Community Consultation, the overall height of the structure is greater than that otherwise possible (about 3.2m) due to the applicant’s need for a separate means of pedestrian access to the garage.

 

(e)        The rear of the garage has been extended by approximately 2.2m to accommodate the adjustment in floor levels and to provide access to the existing carport.

 

Comment

 

Although the overall length of western wall of the garage will be less than that originally proposed, this amendment will result in the wall on the western boundary being sited about 2.2m further north than originally proposed. Given No 14 has no windows in the eastern wall of their dwelling at this point, no significant detrimental impact in terms of additional overshadowing and privacy loss should result.

 

Collectively the proposed modifications make a positive contribution to reducing the apparent bulk and prominence of the proposed garage, which would provide a more acceptable and appropriate outcome.

 

Expert Opinions provided by the applicant

 

Dr Phillip J Briggs-Johnston Briggs Architects Pty Ltd

 

Dr Briggs provided a detailed assessment of the streetscape impacts of the proposal which is available for perusal on the file. Dr Briggs assessed the streetscape impacts when viewed from the east, west and north and acknowledged that  the addition of any building to an area where none previously stood must reduce the effect of spaciousness by confining the vista. However, he noted that in this instance, the vista is already strongly confined by the existing residence at 20 Broome Street. He is of the opinion that the environmental effect of the proposed garage on the street and on the neighbours to the west of the applicant’s property will be minimal. He concluded that the proposal is an appropriate architectural and planning response to a particular problem requiring the balancing of mutually incompatible requirements. He further concluded that the response is so particular that that it cannot be regarded as a precedent for other applications with less stringent constraints and it sits well in its environment.

 

Ron Hirst

Hirst Architects Pty Ltd

 

Mr Hirst noted the constraints of the site, including the siting of the existing dwelling and attached carport, the existing waterboard sewer line including a manhole access to the sewer line and adjoining property (14 Scott Street) which has several windows located on the eastern façade (900mm from the boundary). He also maintains that to locate the proposed garage other than at the front of the site, given the current constraints would be almost impossible. Mr Hirst identifies the significant rise in the land towards Broome Street and the conflicting relationship between the front yard (16 Scott Street) and rear yard (20 Broome Street) and associated fencing of the two properties. He is of the opinion that the introduction of the proposed garage will assist in reconciling this conflict. He is also of the view that in this instance, the proposed garage does not ‘intrude’ or interrupt the setback condition applying given the dominant element in the street is 20 Broome Street’s back yard and the constraints of the site, the proposed garage is an appropriate solution for the site.

   

DCP-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Garages &Driveways

 

Notwithstanding it is arguable that given the individual circumstances of this site as outlined by the applicant’s experts, the objectives of Section 4.7.1of the DCP may not be contravened, it is clear that the proposal as modified fails to satisfy either the preferred solution S2 which requires that garages be located behind the building line or the performance requirement P2 which stipulates that garages are not to breach the predominant building alignment.

 

As indicated in Section 4 of this report, the streetscape in Scott Street is largely intact and although the issue of setting an undesirable precedent is therefore a valid concern, it is acknowledged that in this case, given the relatively small and narrow site, and the location of the allotment immediately abutting the rear of 20 Broome Street (corner site), support of this application need not be construed as a precedent for other sites less constrained.

 

Other relevant preferred solutions and performance requirements that need to be addressed are:

 

The proposed garage will occupy approximately 48% of the width of the site and therefore does not satisfy the preferred solution (35%). The corresponding performance requirement requires that the proposed garage not dominate or detract from the appearance of the development and the local streetscape and be compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

In respect of the above, the issue of appropriate streetscape fit is one which must be considered on its individual merits. It is agreed that as contended, the greatest impact will arise in relation to the view from the low end of Scott Street looking towards the east and that a structure of the nature proposed will reduce the sense of spaciousness at the front of the site. However, following further scrutiny and with the benefit of the streetscape analysis by the applicant’s two experts, the existing vista is already strongly confined by the existing dwelling at 20 Broome Street which by virtue of its location (corner allotment), proportions and elevated position would lessen the impact of the proposed structure. In terms of the view to the west, any overall impact will be minimal, although there will be an immediate impact to No 14, due to the presence of a masonry wall instead of an open front yard. It should also be kept in mind that approval has already been given for the relatively high front fence (1800mm with 2300mm piers) which will assist in reducing the overall visual bulk of the proposed garage.

 

Given the existing dwelling house has no notable architectural merit, and taking into account the height of the approved front fence and the existing landscaping within the eastern portion of the front yard, the proposed garage as modified although sizable, will not detract from the appearance of the existing dwelling house, and is acceptable in terms of its streetscape fit.

 

8.    CONCLUSION

 

Given all matters for consideration, including the applicants willingness to modify their proposal to reduce the likely impact of the proposed garage and taking into account the two expert opinions supporting the contention that the proposed garage given the particular context, will not have an unreasonable streetscape impact and the request to amend condition 2 of the development consent is supported. Condition 1 should be amended to reflect the proposed amendments.

 

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 414/2001 seeking the deletion of condition 2 requiring the deletion of the proposed front garage at 16 Scott Street Maroubra in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.     Development of the site must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans comprising of six (6) sheets prepared by A Amour dated FEB 2001, received by Council on 21 May 2001, as amended by plans designated DBA 01 (A) to DBA 06 (A) dated and received by Council on 9 January 2002, 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:

 

B.      Condition 2 is amended to read:

 

2.   The trees to be used for the proposed plant screening between the western elevation of the proposed garage and the side boundary setback of No 14 Scott Street (3.5m long from the street alignment) are to be Cupressus Sempervirens ‘Stricta’(Pencil Pines).        

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.A4 Configurations

2.Delegated Report of 15 August 2001

3.Report to HB and B Committee of 13 November 2001   

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

IAN BURKE

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

CO-ORDINATOR-FAST TRACK

 

 

 

 

 








 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

29 October, 2001

FILE NO:

D/414/2001

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A Review for alterations and additions to existing  dwelling house to provide new front double garage, courtyard wall, rear deck, landscaping and new rear fence and pool.

PROPERTY:

 16 Scott Street Maroubra

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr R and Mrs M Zikmann

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, Chris Bastic,  and Charles Matthews.

 

This development application is to carry out alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house to provide a new double garage and courtyard wall, a rear timber deck, landscaping and new rear fence and swimming pool and was approved under delegated authority on 17 August 2001.

 

This application seeks a review of Condition No. 2 of the consent which states:

 

‘2.        That portion of the application seeking to erect a double garage is to be deleted as the structure will not satisfy either the preferred solution or performance requirements of Development Control Plan-Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in respect to location, siting, extent, precedent and streetscape impact. A double open and uncovered hardstand off street car parking space having maximum clear dimensions of 5.0 mx 5.5m to adjoin the front boundary can be provided as an alternative to the double garage structure.’

 

It is  recommended that Condition No. 2 be confirmed.

 

2.    PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the erection of a new double garage to be sited to the front street alignment and to the western boundary, a new front courtyard wall and rear timber deck, landscaping and new rear fences and swimming pool.  The review application relates only to Condition No. 2 of the approval which deleted the proposed double garage.

 

3.     THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject land is located on the northern side of Scott Street between Malabar Road and Broome Street (one allotment removed from the corner of Broome Street). The site has a frontage to Scott Street of 13.72 m, a depth of 30.48m and an overall area of 418m2 and is presently occupied by a single storey dwelling house. To the west is a single storey dwelling house, to the east, several properties fronting Broome Street of one and two storeys in height, and to the north a single storey dwelling house with garage under.

 

4.     APPLICATION HISTORY

 

This development application seeking to carry out alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house to provide a new double garage between the existing building and the street alignment, front fence/wall, rear timber deck, landscaping and new rear fencing and swimming pool was approved on 17 August 2001 subject to thirty conditions.

 

A request was subsequently received from the applicant on 29 August 2001(within the required 28 days) to review the determination.

 

5.     STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 82A

 

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, enables an applicant to request a Review of a Determination of a Development Application or condition/s of Development Consent. Council may review the Determination, and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the Determination.

 

A review can only be made on the application as determined.  The application cannot be altered or amended as part of the review process.

 

6.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The owners of the adjoining and nearby properties were notified of the original application on 25 May 2001 and no submissions received.

 

Section 82A of the EPA Act does not contain any statutory requirement to notify any request for review of a determination or a condition/s of development consent as the proposal remains unaltered. Therefore, the current request has not been renotified to adjoining property owners.

 

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 Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed development is permissible with the development consent of the Council.

 

8.     POLICY CONTROLS

 

(a)    Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

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 40% of the total site area is provided as landscaped area, half of which should be soft permeable landscaping. The proposal provides for 46% of the site as landscaped area and therefore satisfies the preferred solution.

 

Floor Area

 

The objective and performance requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale, compatible with the existing character of the locality and also minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The site has an overall area of 418m2 and the preferred solution is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 applies. The existing development has a floor space ratio of 0.28:1 and taking into account an excess of 10.8m2 in the proposed garage, the resultant development will have a floor space ratio of 0.3:1 and therefore readily satisfies the preferred solution.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

The objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality, and with respect to additions that they do not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

The relevant performance requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and buildings are to be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets.

 

The proposed garage will have a maximum overall height of 3.3m which is considered excessive (particular in the location proposed) and in its proposed form would together with its bulk, result in a visually obtrusive structure which would dominate the front façade of the existing dwelling house and be out of character with the predominately open front yards on particularly the northern side of Scott Street.

 

Building Setbacks

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to integrate new development with the established setbacks of the street and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape and to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours. Front boundary setbacks should generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape. Preferred solutions include that the front setback is the average of the setbacks of the adjoining dwelling houses and side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives, preferred solutions or performance requirements as it is proposed to site the garage to both the street alignment and to the western boundary and therefore the proposal will breach the predominant building alignment, will be forward of the average setback of adjoining dwelling houses and in its present form will not maintain the predominant open streetscape form.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

The objectives of the DCP include that on-site parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscape and are to provide convenient and safe car parking and access.

 

The proposal will not satisfy two of the preferred solutions in that the carport is sited to a large extent within the front building line and the garage structure occupies more than 35% of the width of the site (52.8 %).

 

The proposed garage will also not satisfy the performance requirements as the structure will breach the predominant building alignment, become an undesirable precedent as the structure would occupy over half the front yard area and given the absence of similar precedents in the street (one old flat roofed garage at No 2), the structure would be out of character and inappropriate in this context.

 

Fences

 

Generally the objectives and performance requirements for fences in the DCP are to ensure that front fencing is integrated with the streetscape and is compatible with the appearance of the dwelling and any established local fence form and material.

 

Preferred solutions include that solid fences front fences are no higher than 1200mm and other types of fences be 1800mm maximum in height and they be designed so that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

 

The current proposal does not comply with the objectives of the DCP. Apart from two gates, the fence is to be of a solid construction and exceeds the 1200mm limit of the preferred solution. However, given the fact that there are a number of precedents on the southern side of Scott Street of solid higher fences, the fence in its proposed form is considered a reasonable expectation.

 

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     Reasons for review

 

Below is a summary of the applicants detailed submission which provides numerous reasons for requesting the review, including the following:

 

1&2     The determination was made without the applicant having been given the opportunity to discuss any of the assessing officer’s concerns. The applicant’s had made this request as they were aware that there were aspects of the garage proposal which might at first instance appear not to meet the performance requirements or preferred solutions outlined in Section 4.7 of the DCP. As a result, maintain that they have been unfairly prejudiced in the adverse determination as set out in Condition No. 2

 

3.         Assessing officer had no appreciation of the security and vandalism concerns of local residents and simply applied her understanding of the requirements of Section 4.7 of the DCP. Should have also taken into account the other relevant nominated aims/objectives of the DCP including, neighbourhood character,  the majority of side streets have a substantial number of both single and double garages sited to the street alignment, site constraints, siting will meet the objectives of Sections 4.5.1 and 4.6.1 of  the DCP, the Council’s legal and social obligations to affected residents resulting from the upgrading of the Maroubra Beach front area, the applicant’s fax of 4 June 2001(security/safety issues) and the proviso for the relaxation of setbacks in Section 4.4.2 of the DCP.

 

4.         The current refusal is out of step with the aims of thew DCP in that the DCP clearly contemplates that it will be applied to further the Aims and not be contrary to the Aims. Maintains with examples that the relevant Aims which have not been taken into consideration include:

 

-       Residential Diversity (page 5 of DCP).

-       Urban Design (page 5 of DCP).

-       Neighbourhood Amenity (Page 5 of DCP).

 

5.         Garages on the front boundary are a strong and existing characteristic of the entire area, including one in Scott Street, four in Tyrwhitt Street and seven garages in Curtain Crescent. Maintains the precedent has been set.

 

6.         Given the nature of improvements on nearby properties at Nos 12 and 14 Scott Street and No 20 Broome Street, it is not correct to suggest that the lifting of Condition No. 2 would in all likelihood set an undesirable precedent which would see a flood of applications in Scott Street. There is however strong evidence that this is not likely to be the case as the majority of residents have been in the street for many years and already have their parking and security needs adequately addressed.

 

7.         The proposal before Council were not arrived at arbitrarily, but were the only viable option given the site constraints and design imperatives. Refers to his original Statement of Environmental Effects.

 

8.         The siting of the proposed garage will address the ‘Visual and Acoustic Privacy’ of the owners at 14 Scott Street who have two bedroom windows within the eastern wall of their house opposite the applicants existing driveway where their cars are presently parked.

 

9.         Condition No. 2 does not take into account the stated objectives of Section 4.6 of the DCP as they do not meet the criteria of ‘ensuring a safe physical environment’ or by ‘preventing crime’. They are also incapable of ‘ensuring the security of residents and visitors’. The hardstand carspaces in no way addresses any of these requirements.

 

10.       Condition No. 2 does not take into account the obligations of the Council to properly address consequential issues of resident safety and amenity which are arising as a consequence of the ongoing improvements being made in the beachfront precinct. Identifies such issues as increased vandalism, graffiti and petty theft associated with an increase in visitors to the beach precinct.

 

11.       Council’s intention to install parking meters at Maroubra beach will result in the increased usage of non-metered parking areas such as Scott Street.

 

12.       If Condition No. 2 is retained, their vehicles and other property will remain unprotected.

 

13&14 The provision of a high wall with gates is not a viable solution, as the gates would have to swing outwards and high walls would be unlikely to be sufficient to properly secure the property and would create an undesirable continuous ‘fortress’ façade. An open double carport would also not properly address the applicants security concerns.

 

15.       The wording of the current DCP does not appear to prohibit the garage as proposed. Moreover, objectively viewed, the applicants submit there would be no adverse streetscape impact. In any event, maintains this should not be viewed in isolation as a determining factor and the application should be determined in the context of the site constraints, established neighbourhood characteristics, social climate and relevant factors in the immediate vicinity of the site.

 

16.       No objections have been received and it would be unreasonable for the application to be refused effectively on the basis of a ‘subjective judgement’ of possible streetscape impact based on the views of Council Officers who will not be personally affected by any such proposals or have to live with the ongoing security and safety concerns.

 

17.       Notwithstanding the asserted appropriateness of the current proposal, the applicants are prepared to accept a modification of condition 2 which would require a setback of 1m from the Scott Street alignment. Such a modification would effectively set the garage door back approximately 1.5m from the front boundary and reduce any asserted ‘adverse impact’ on the streetscape.

 

18.       Understands that Council has resolved to review the current DCP due to dissatisfaction by constituents regarding the garage and parking provisions. The possible easing of the current requirements should be factored into the consideration of this proposal. 

    

9.2     Further submission of 16 October 2001         

 

The applicants have made a further submission (with revised diagrams) outlining a number of changes to the original design which he contends will comprehensively address all reasonable concerns regarding the impact of the proposed garage on the existing streetscape. The proposed modifications are summarised as follows:

 

9.2.1  Front Building Alignment

 

The front wall of the garage will be sited 1m from the front boundary, and as a consequence, the front garage door will be setback 1.5m from the front boundary. The existing landscaped front yard (eastern side), will assist screening when viewed from the eastern end of Scott Street and from 20 Broome Street.

 

9.2.2  Side Boundary Setbacks

 

The side garage wall (western side), will be setback 0.5m for a distance of 3.5m from the front boundary. High density landscaping will be provided along the full length of the setback providing a ‘green screen’ for that portion of the garage most visible when viewed from the west. A permanent irrigation system will be provided.

 

A panel of glass blocks will be provided to that remaining portion of the western garage wall to provide further relief.

 

9.2.3  Overall Height

 

The overall height of the garage will be reduced by 260mm.

 

9.2.4  Other modifications

 

The suggested changes will necessitate internal changes to the proposed garage including deletion of the internal access to the storage area under the house. In addition the applicant maintains that an extension of the garage by 2m (at the rear) will also be required to accommodate the adjusted reduced floor levels and to facilitate reasonable access to the boat storage area..

 

The applicant has provided seven suggested conditions to cover the changes nominated.

 

Comment

 

Although the applicant has made a lengthy and comprehensive submission (including a detailed Statement of Environmental Effects), the proposal in either its submitted form or subject to the above suggested amendments, does not satisfy the Council’s DCP- Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in respect to siting, appropriate bulk and scale, streetscape impact and precedent. Although the amendments proposed by the applicant in his further submission of 16 October 2001 contain a number of notable changes, the siting of a double garage structure in this context is inappropriate and the private interest of permitting the structure to be sited as proposed does not outweigh the  likely adverse streetscape impact and resultant wider public interest detriment. Moreover, although not ideal, the applicants do have the benefit of vehicular access to an existing carport on the western side of the existing building, which could be expanded to accommodate two (2) vehicles in tandem arrangement.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

This application has been reviewed taking into account the reasons of the applicants in requesting the review. The proposed double garage does not satisfactorily address the Council’s current DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, is not an appropriate outcome in terms of siting, bulk and scale, streetscape impact and context, and as a consequence, Condition No. 2 of the development consent should be retained.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Condition No. 2 of Council’s original determination of Development Application No 414/2001 dated 17 August 2001 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house to provide a new double garage, front fence, rear deck, landscaping and rear fencing and swimming pool at 16 Scott Street Maroubra be confirmed.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.A4 Configurations

2.Delegated Report of 15 August 2001   

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

IAN BURKE

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

CO-ORDINATOR-FAST TRACK

 

 

 

 

 







6.      SECTION 79 C ASSESSMENT

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79 c of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, relevant Development Control Plans and Council’s codes and policies.

 

The Performance Requirements of the DCP in relation to garages, carports, car parking areas and driveways include that:

 

Carports, garages and car parking areas are located and designed to:

 

   Conveniently and safely serve users;

   Enable the efficient use of car spaces and access ways, including adequate manoeuvrability for vehicles between the site and the street;

   Not breach the predominant building alignment;

   Not become a precedent;

   Not dominate or detract from the appearance of the development and the local streetscape;

   Be compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant performance requirements and applicable objectives under Section 4.7 Garages, Carports and Driveways of the Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies as the proposed double garage will breach the predominant building alignment, become an undesirable precedent and will dominate / detract from the appearance of the development and the local streetscape.

 

The garage will be visually obtrusive and would add to the bulk and scale of the existing dwelling. Unless otherwise incorporated in the design of the dwelling, properties along Scott Street provide car spaces discreetly at the side of the dwelling. There is one example at no 11 Scott Street, which has carport in front of the building line. The adjoining property at number 14 Scott Street, has a double garage which is incorporated in the design of the dwelling and located behind the building line

 

It is to be noted that a single carport is currently available at the western side of the subject property, and that the driveway to this car space provides hardstand car parking areas adjoining the front boundary. It is considered that the proposed double garage if erected, could considerably impact on the streetscape. The erection of a double garage at the expense of a streetscape that has value for all residents is not justified. A condition is recommended to be imposed that a double open and uncovered hardstand off street car parking space having maximum clear dimensions of 5.0m x 5.5m to adjoin the front boundary can be provided as an alternative to the double garage structure.

 

In relation to the proposed 1.8m high solid front fences, it is noted that there are examples of solid high fences along Scott Street. Given that precedent exists on Scott Street for high-level fences; no objection is raised to erect the proposed fence for privacy and security reasons.

 

7.      CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does satisfy Council’s relevant assessment criteria and will not have an unreasonable impact upon the streetscape subject to the removal of the double garage structure. It is to be noted that the subject property is in a foreshore Scenic Protection Area where height and aesthetic appearance of the development in relation to the foreshore are major considerations.

 

The proposed double garage will create an undesirable precedent and also impact on the character of the area. It will detract the appearance of the existing building and will impact the residential amenity of adjoining / surrounding properties. The proposed garage is considered unsympathetic to the visual qualities of the foreshore.

 

8.      RECOMMENDATION

 

A.     That Council as the responsible authority grant it’s consent to the application for permission to carry out alterations and additions to existing dwelling house to provide new front garage (double) and courtyard wall, rear timber deck, landscaping and new rear fence and pool subject to the following conditions: -

 

1.      The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans comprising of six (6) sheets prepared by A. Armour dated FEB 2001, received by Council on 21 May 2001, 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.      That portion of the application seeking to erect a double garage is to be deleted as the structure will not satisfy either the preferred solutions or performance requirements of Development Control Plan- Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in respect to location, sitting, extent, precedent and streetscape impact. A double open and uncovered hardstand off street car parking space having maximum clear dimensions of 5.0m x 5.5m to adjoin the front boundary can be provided as an alternative to the double garage structure.

 

3.      All crossings, repairs and ancillary works on the footway and roadway are to be carried out by the Council and the cost borne by the applicant.  A statement, prepared by the applicant or owner of the premises is to be obtained and submitted to the Council, detailing the condition and status of the roadway, footway, vehicular crossings, nature strip and public place adjacent to the premises, prior to the commencement of any works on the site and also upon completion of the works.

 

The statement is to include details of any existing damage to the roadway, footway, vehicular crossing, nature strip or public place prior to the commencement of works and details of any damage caused to the roadway, footway, vehicular crossings, nature strip or public place, as a result of the works or any associated building activities, for assessment and determination by Council.

 

4.       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.

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7.        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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the terms of Council's approval and relevant standards of construction, and to maintain adequate levels of health, safety and amenity during construction:

 

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

 

10.       The building works are to be inspected by the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) to monitor compliance with Council’s approval and the relevant standards of construction.

 

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant standards of construction, is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

11.       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 & Building Services.

 

12.       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.

 

13.       Building materials, sand, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time.

 

14.       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.

 

15.       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.

 

16.       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 hoarding or 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). Hoardings or fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of solid plywood sheeting (painted white) or of cyclone wire fencing with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence, to provide dust control.

 

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

 

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

 

17.       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.

 

18.       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.

 

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

 

19.       The following security deposits requirements are to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)         $450.00           -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

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

 

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

 

20.       The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to construct a concrete vehicular crossing and new layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

21.       The applicant shall note that all external work carried out shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". A non-refundable fee of $110 shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The application for the quotation is to be made at the completion of the internal building works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a 22% design and supervision fee on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid.

 

22.       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.

 

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

 

23.       The design alignment level at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must be 150mm above the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage. Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department. The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

24.       The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment must be at least 150mm below the alignment level as specified above.  This condition has been attached to accommodate future footpath construction at this location.

 

25.       The design alignment levels issued by Council and their relationship to the kerb 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.

 

26.       The above alignment levels have been issued by the Council's Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services at a prescribed fee of $63.80 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

27.       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.

 

28.       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.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and to maintain public safety and amenity:

 

29.       Swimming pools are to be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with AS 1926-1986.

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

Temporary pool safety fencing is to be provided pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

A sign shall be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the document entitled “Policy Statement No.9.4.1: Guidelines for the Preparation of Posters on Resuscitation”, published in 1985 by the Australian Resuscitation Council and the sign must bear a notice that contains the words “YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE SUPERVISED WHEN USING THIS SWIMMING POOL”, together with details of resuscitation techniques (for adults, children and infants) set out in accordance with the document entitled “Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation” published by the Australian Resuscitation Council.

 

29.       Swimming pools are to be designed and installed in accordance with the following general requirements:-

 

·      Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

·      All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises.

 

·      Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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


 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 10/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

240-266 Anzac Parade & 101-105 Doncaster Ave, Kensington

 

 

DATE:

17 February, 2004

FILE NO:

02/897/GG

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is a Development Application Report for a Section 96(2) application for alterations to levels of development resulting in overall increase to Anzac Parade and Doncaster Ave building wings & addition of raised windows to habitable roof space.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Development Application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 16 February, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT