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

 

3rd February, 2004

 

 

HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 10TH FEBRUARY, 2004 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

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

 

Quorum:                                      Eight (8) members.

 

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

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUILDING & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 2nd DECEMBER, 2003.

 

3           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

5           Development Applications

 

5.1                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 48 ARCADIA STREET, COOGEE.

2

 

5.2                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 567 MALABAR ROAD, MAROUBRA.

17

 

5.3                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 552 BUNNERONG ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

29

 

5.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 15 CASTLE STREET, RANDWICK.

89

 

5.5                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 48-58 MAROUBRA ROAD & 63 ROYAL STREET, MAROUBRA.

97

 

 

6           Miscellaneous

 

6.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 1/2004 - MASTER PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED LOT 20 NO. 9 BUMBORAH POINT ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

199

 

6.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 2/2004 – LOCAL DEVELOPMENT TASFORCE.

201

 

6.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 3/2004 – SUBMISSION TO THE SECTION 94 REVIEW TASKFORCE.

216

 

 

7           General Business

 

8           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

…………………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

20 January 2004

FILE NO:

D/0969/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, including a new double carport at the front of the dwelling, a shed/outbuilding (4m x 5.5m) and shade sails structure at the rear.

PROPERTY:

 48 Arcadia Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Simon Paterson

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Michael Daley, John Procopiadis and Dominic Sullivan.

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, including the erection of a new double carport at the front of the dwelling, a new shed and shade sails structure at the rear.  The estimated cost of the work is $40,000.

 

The main issue is that the proposed carport at the front of the dwelling does not comply with the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Section 4.7 of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the carport, due to its width, size and the necessity to alter the front façade of the dwelling will detract from the appearance of the existing dwelling house and further compromise the local streetscape. 

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to deletion of the proposed double carport (see condition 2).

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks consent to carry out the following works: -

 

-      Demolition of part of the existing front brick fence, front verandah and its roof, a brick column on the eastern corner of the dwelling, and an existing single garage attached to the eastern wall of the dwelling to provide for a new double carport with pitched roof.

-      Demolition of an existing shed at the rear of the dwelling and erect a new shed with roof storage area above.

-      Erection of a new shade sails structure above the existing spa pool at the rear of the dwelling.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Arcadia Street, Coogee, and is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 13.11m to Arcadia Street, a depth of 38.1m and a total site area of 499.3 sqm.  The existing improvement comprises a single storey brick dwelling house with a single garage attached to the eastern external wall of the dwelling and a separate shed structure adjoining the rear and eastern boundaries.  The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of freestanding dwelling houses, semi-detached dwellings and multi unit housing developments.  The site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

 

 

 

 

a.    HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

80/01119/BZ

Garage

Approved

01/01/80

98/00254/BJ

Retaining wall to the side & rear of existing dwelling

Approved

06/04/98

98/00359/DA

Ground floor alterations and additions to the rear of an existing dwelling

Approved

19/06/98

98/00761/BE

Alterations & additions to the rear of the existing dwelling including pergola

Approved

16/07/98

98/01185/FB

New pitched tile roof to existing garage

Approved

18/01/99

98/01168/JZ

New pitched roof replacing existing flat roof of garage

Approved

25/01/99

99/01339/GB

New spa to rear yard

Approved

23/11/99

99/01168/JC

New spa to rear of yard

Withdrawn

30/03/00

99/01339/GB

Raise the level of the rear yard

Rejected

25/02/00

00/00321/GC

Install spa pool to rear yard

Approved

22/05/00

00/00478/JC

New spa in rear of yard

Approved

13/06/00

00/00321/GC

To modify the existing consent – place a lattice privacy screen on top of existing fence

Approved

13/10/00

00/00805/JB

Attached lattice to the top of the existing fence

Approved

26/10/00

 

b.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The subject application was lodged with Council on 24 October 2003. A preliminary assessment of the application raised issues relating to the bulk and scale of the proposed carport and the adverse impact it would have upon the appearance of the dwelling and the local streetscape. 

 

An on-site meeting was held on 24 November 2003 to discuss the issues raised with the application.  As a result, the applicant was advised to redesign the roof of the proposed new shed to reduce the bulk and scale of that building when viewed from the rear of the multi-unit housing development to the north of the site and to delete the proposed double carport while maintaining the existing single garage and the front verandah.  Subsequently, the applicant submitted the amended plans on 1 December 2003 which detailed the redesigned roof of the proposed shed and the proposed carport.  However, notwithstanding the amendments made, it was considered that the proposed carport should not be supported.  This issue is addressed in Section 9.3 of this report.

 

The applicant since advised that he wishes to pursue the original proposal and this has been considered in the assessment of the subject application.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Peter Richardson of 37 Arcadia Street, Coogee

 

The proposal will increase parking problem by removing a parking space on the street. If the proposed carport can be accessed by a single driveway, local residents and pedestrians will not be affected in any way.

 

Comments:

 

No details of the proposed vehicular access driveway have been indicated on the plans submitted with the application.  However, it seems likely that if the application is approved as submitted, the driveway width would be 5.8m resulting in the likely loss of one on-street car space. 

 

A site inspection has revealed that the dimensions of the existing driveway shown on the survey plan is incorrect and is supposed to be 3m at kerb rather than 4m as shown on the plan.  Nevertheless, as the proposed carport and associated car spaces are considered to be excessive in bulk/scale and will detract from the appearance of the existing dwelling house, therefore, the proposed carport and associated car spaces will be recommended for deletion.  If the proposed carport is to be approved, an appropriate condition should be imposed to ensure the width of the existing driveway at the kerb is maintained in order to reduce the impact upon Council’s streetscape and to maintain the existing level of on-street car spaces. 

 

5.2       Support

 

No submissions in support of the proposed development were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services for comment, conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted.  The following comments have been provided: -

 

Landscape Comments

 

Although two trees have been indicated in the rear yard on the plans provided, it should be noted that the tree in the northeast corner is in fact growing in the neighbouring property. It is a Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) of approximately 9 metres in height and 7 metres in width. It is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and besides the possibility of minor pruning work to allow for the installation of the proposed shade structure, it should be largely unaffected by the proposed works.

 

There are also two (2) Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow palms) of approximately 4 metres in height in the rear yard. They appear in good health and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and are to be retained as has been indicated on the plans.

 

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 2B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and is within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.  The proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Not addressed in Statement of Environmental Effects

There will be no impact on the foreshore resulting from this proposal.    

 

7.1  Policy Controls

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

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

·      allows year-round use

·      minimises impact on neighbours

·      addresses privacy and sun access

·      addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

P3  Local indigenous plant species used.

 

P4  Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

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

 

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 

Yes

44% area landscaped

221m2 provided

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

20% of site provided as soft landscaped area.

FLOOR AREA

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

FSR

0.57:1

 

Yes

Proposed FSR is 0.44:1

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

P5  Second storey of a semi detached dwelling integrates with streetscape and adjoining dwelling.

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

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

 

S1  The external wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5m.

 

 

 

 

S3  Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

 

S3  No excavation within 900mm of side boundary.

 

S3  No excavation within 3m of rear boundary.

 

S4  Length of second storey portion is not greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

No.  The external wall height of the proposed shed/outbuilding is 4.3m. (see Section 9.1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

N/A

 

 

N/A

 

 

N/A

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

 

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

 

 

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

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

No (see Section 9.2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

No (see Section 9.2)

 

 

 

 

 

No (see Section 9.2)

 

 

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Notes:

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

 

P1  Are located  and designed to:

·      conveniently and safely serve users;

·      enable the efficient use of car spaces and accessways, including adequate manoeuvrability for vehicles between the site and the street.

 

 

 

P2  Not dominate or detract from the appearance of the development and the local streetscape.

 

P2  Be compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

P3  Car parking areas and accessways are designed, surfaced and sloped to facilities stormwater infiltration on site.

 

P4  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped to enhance amenity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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  Where vehicular access is available from the rear of the allotment, access and parking is located behind the building.

S2  Where vehicular access is available only from the front of the allotment, carports and garages located behind the building line.

 

S2  Driveways, car parking spaces and car parking structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

No (see Section 9.3)

 

 

 

 

No (see Section 9.3)

 

 

 

 

8.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The subject site area is less than require for the submission of a master plan (4,000m2) and as such a Master Plan is not required to be prepared.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1     Height, Form & Materials

 

The proposed shed will have an external wall height of 4.3m, which does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP.  Although not as large, there is an existing similar structure to the east of the site, at the rear of No. 52 Arcadia Street, which has similar height as the proposed shed and due to a difference in ground levels, the shed should not result in any overlooking, significant loss of views or overshadowing to the adjoining premises.  As noted previously, the applicant was advised that the roof of the proposed shed appears to be excessive in bulk and scale when viewed from the rear of the existing multi-unit housing development to the north of the site, and as a result, the applicant has submitted a revised roof form for the proposed shed.  Condition 4 has been included to address this issue.

 

The proposed sails structure will have a maximum height of 5m, which does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP.  Given that the subject site is lower than the site to the north and there are existing trees at the rear of the adjoining properties which are about 9m in height, and the proposed structures will improve the privacy of the occupants,  it is considered that the proposed sail structure is acceptable in this regard.   

 

9.2     Building Setback

 

The proposed shed will be sited on the north (rear) and east (side) boundaries of the subject site, which does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP.  However, the proposed shed satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that the walls to the east and north of the shed do not contain windows and given there is an existing similar structure immediately to the east at No. 52 Arcadia Street, the proposed shed will be unlikely to result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

9.3     Garages & Driveways

 

The proposed carport and associated car spaces does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP in that it will occupy more than 35% of the width of the site.

 

The proposed carport and associated car spaces also does not comply with the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that the erection of a carport to the front of the dwelling will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the local streetscape.  It is noted that there are some other examples of similar sited carport/garage structures within the immediate locality, however, rather than desirable examples, they serve as examples of the adverse and negative impacts that this type of development has on the streetscape.  Moreover, these existing carports/garages were approved under a different planning regime that has been superseded by one that places more weight on the retention of the integrity of the existing streetscape.  Whilst their existence is acknowledged, it is not considered that the poor precedent for visual amenity and impact upon the streetscape should be repeated, and for these reasons, the proposed carport and associated car spaces should be deleted and the existing garage should be retained.  An appropriate condition is imposed accordingly. 

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

Apart from the double carport structure, the proposed development complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives, performance requirements or preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.  With the exception of the proposed carport structure, where compliance has not been achieved, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and should not result in any significant adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 969/2003 for Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house at 48 Arcadia Street, Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

1          The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans, numbered 11, dated October 2003 and received by Council on 24 October 2003, the amended plan, unnumbered, undated, and received by Council on 1 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 proposed carport and the associated car spaces are to be deleted as they do not comply with the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Section 4.7 of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the proposed carport and the car spaces will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the local streetscape.      

 

3          The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the proposed shed and shade sails structure are to be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building.

 

4          The roof of the proposed shed must be constructed in accordance with the amended plans received by Council on 1 December 2003.  Details of the roof design are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

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 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:

 

6          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.

 

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          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.

 

9          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.

 

10        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.

 

11        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 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:

 

12        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.

 

13        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.

 

14        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.

 

15        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.

 

16        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.

 

17        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.

 

18        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.

 

19        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.

 

20        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.

 

Landscape Conditions

 

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

 

21        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.

 

22        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.

 

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

 

24        Permission is granted for the selective pruning of overhanging branches from the Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) tree located on the adjoining property. This approval does not imply any right of entry onto a neighbouring property nor does it allow pruning beyond a common boundary. However, where such measures are desirable in the best interests of correct pruning procedures, it shall be necessary for the applicant to negotiate with the tree owner. All pruning must be undertaken by a qualified Arborist, with suitable qualifications in Arboriculture and to Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

25        In order to ensure the retention of the two (2) Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow palms) located in the rear yard in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.         All detailed architectural, building, demolition, engineering (structural, stormwater & drainage, services), and landscape documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the retention of the existing tree specimens with the position of the tree trunks and full diameter of the tree canopies clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.         Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls, services, pipes, paving etc within 1 metre of the tree trunks shall be undertaken by hand and under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist with all roots being cleanly cut.

 

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:

 

A4 configuration plan

A4 amended plan

A4 amended plan

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 



 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

20 January, 2004

FILE NO:

D0573/2002/GA 'A'

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification to delete condition No. 5  to amend the design of the privacy screen, to increase the area of the rear first floor deck thereby deleting condition No. 4 and increasing the roof area over the rear first floor deck.

PROPERTY:

 567 Malabar Rd Maroubra

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 M & L Garnett

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as the original application was determined by Council.

 

The primary issues of this application are the impact of privacy and visual bulk to No. 2 and No. 4 Scott St. In the original application amenity impacts were not raised as a concern by No. 4 Scott St however as site conditions (loss of screening vegetation) have changed, a submission has now been submitted objecting to the proposed modification.  Solar access was also a crucial issue in the original application but has not been specifically raised in submissions as part of this application.

 

The original application included two specific conditions of consent to preserve privacy, which are proposed to be deleted as part of this application. Deletion of these conditions is considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

A Section 96 modification cannot be part approved part refused, and as such the applicant was requested to amend the application by retaining condition No. 4 and to not seek an increase in the roof area over the rear first floor deck. The applicant declined to make these amendments and has requested that the proposal be determined in the terms in which it had been originally submitted.

 

This Section 96 application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for deletion of conditions No 4 and 5.

 

Condition No. 4 reads:

 

The section of deck indicated above the ground floor dining area with the dimensions of 3mx1.5m is to be non-trafficable so as to ensure privacy to the occupants of adjoining properties. The area shall be treated as roof area to the dining room and entry will be restricted through the erection of a balustrade.

 

This application seeks approval to have this area trafficable and included in the deck area.

 

Condition No. 5 reads:

 

A privacy screen is to be provided to the southern elevation of the first floor deck. This screen is to be constructed on non-reflective obscured glass to a height of 1800mm to ensure privacy to No. 2 Scott St without increasing the bulk of the development.

 

In addition to the condition being deleted, retrospective approval is being sought for an alternative privacy screen. The revised design includes the first 900mm as brickwork and the remaining 900mm as glass bricks.

 

The third modification sought is an extension of the pergola/roof structure of the rear first floor deck to be extended over the entire deck area (including the additional area deleted per condition No. 4). The increase in roof area will be from 1800mm to 3100mm.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Malabar Road in a block bounded by Bridge St to the North and Scott St to the South. The site contains a semi-detached dwelling house, which is part of a pair with No. 569 Malabar Road.

 

The site has a total area of 275.3m2 with a frontage of 7.115m. The site has a moderate slope to the street. The subject dwelling is single storey with a single garage under the western portion of the dwelling.

 

The subject site is mostly concealed from the street by existing mature trees.

 

The rear of the site is visible from 2 Scott Street, which runs parallel to the subject site.

 

Adjoining properties within the locality contain a mixture of development types including detached and semi-detached dwellings houses and multi-unit housing.

 

The first floor addition approved at the Council meeting of the 26 November 2002 has been partially constructed. The remaining work to be completed is to the interior of the additional storey and to the rear first floor deck including the associated privacy screens.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Consent was issued for alterations and first floor addition to the existing semi-detached dwelling at the Council meeting of the 26th November 2002. Consent was issued subject to 22 conditions of consent of which 4 were non standard conditions of consent.

 

The current Section 96 application was lodged with Council on the 25 November 2003. The applicant was contacted by fax and phone on the 20th January 2004 and advised that the application could only be supported if the proposed deletion of condition No. 4 and the extension of the roof structure was withdrawn. The applicant declined to make the changes preferring the application to be determined as it was lodged.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP Public Notification of Development proposals and Council plans. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

F & J Giles

4 Scott St

 

·    Increased balcony area and roof extension will have an impact on privacy and enhance noise levels

 

Comment

 

No. 4 Scott St runs along the length of the rear boundary of Nos. 567 and 569 Malabar Rd. As such the rear habitable living rooms and recreation areas of No. 4 Scott St adjoin the rear yard of No. 567 Malabar Rd. The elevated rear deck at the approved length will not have a significant impact on privacy for No. 4 Scott St however any increase will be in close proximity to these habitable rooms and loss of privacy will be experienced. It is noted that since construction has begun a number of rear yard trees to No. 567 and 569 Malabar Rd have been removed which previously afforded privacy to the properties to Scott St.

 

M Keevers & L Rahim

2 Scott St

 

·    Loss of privacy as a result of deletion of conditions No. 4 and 5

 

Comment

 

This has been discussed in greater detail within the Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

Privacy is difficult to achieve at No. 2 Scott St as their living areas abut the two semi-detached dwellings of Nos 567 and 569 Malabar Rd. In the original assessment privacy and residential amenity was safeguarded through the imposition of conditions No. 4 and 5. The applicant has constructed the rear deck to the original plans but not in accordance with the two conditions of consent   (No. 4 and 5) what has lead to  loss of privacy for adjoining properties. The balustrade has not been erected over the non-trafficable area above the ground floor dining room and this area has been used as a deck with complaints having been received by Council.

 

Direct overlooking from the rear balcony at 567 Malabar Rd occurs onto the rear yard of No. 2 Scott St and to habitable living rooms.  The deck at the approved level would already overlook this area however extending the deck further increases the loss of privacy.

 

Landscaping that exists between the two properties and provides some visual barrier is positioned within the site of No. 569 Malabar Rd. However, given the existing subdivision pattern and footprint of the dwelling screen planting cannot be provided at No 2 Scott St so only a minimal first floor deck can be provided at No. 567 Malabar Rd without significant amenity impacts.

 

In regard to the privacy screen the amended design that is being sought as part of this application is not ideal as it provides additional bulk to the first floor addition however    may be acceptable if the other amendments sought had been removed from this application. However, as the applicant is unwilling to make the requested changes and part approval part refusal is not possible under a Section 96 application there is no option but to recommend refusal to this application.

 

·    Additional bulk caused by a roof enclosing the entire balcony area

 

Comment

 

Additional bulk has been created due to the additional 900mm of brick height that has been provided as a privacy screen contrary to condition No. 5.  The increase in the bulk of the addition by extending the roof over the deck area to extend over the previously deleted deck area will result in an excessive building length greater than an 18m first floor addition on the common boundary with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. The additional roof area will add unreasonably to this bulk all but enclosing this deck area resulting visually in an additional 3100mm building length.

 

5.2       Support

 

No. 569 Malabar Rd has lodged a letter of support as part of the application for the proposal therefore it has not been specifically discussed as an impacted property however being the attached dwelling where the deck is to be located on the common boundary privacy impacts are anticipated and further enforce the need to refuse this application.

 

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application was not referred for technical officer comment due to it being a modification to a previous consent.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

The relevant Development Control Plan is Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. Detail of compliance with the preferred solutions and performance requirements of this plan were detailed in the original assessment of this application that was determined at the Council meeting of the 26 November 2002. Variations to the preferred solutions as a result of this modification are discussed under Environmental Assessment.

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1  Substantially the same

 

The proposed modification is relatively minor in nature seeking to modify conditions of consent imposed as part of the original consent and modifying the treatment of the rear first floor deck and associated privacy screen. The works do not affect the nature of the consent. The modification is considered to result in a development substantially the same for which consent was originally granted.

 

8.2  Consideration of submissions

 

The modification was notified and two objections were received as a result of this notification period. These submissions have been already considered under community consultation section of this report.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

Privacy

 

Due to the subdivision pattern on the corner of Malabar Rd and Scott St privacy is difficult to achieve as the rear yards of No. 567 and 569 Malabar Rd abut the living rooms on the side elevation of No. 2 Scott St and 4 Scott St.

 

Whilst there is a property positioned between No. 2 Scott St and the subject site, due to the level difference between Malabar Rd and Scott St and the minimal distance between the two properties, overlooking is experienced. The western elevation of No. 4 Scott St, which is their side boundary, adjoins both the rear yards of Nos 567 and 569 Malabar Rd this results in limited privacy to their habitable rooms with windows located to this elevation.

 

The distance from the approved first floor deck to No. 2 Scott St is some 9m and to No. 4 Scott St is some 12m. Given the difference in levels between the properties and the elevated positioning of the subject deck sightlines are considered to be direct and will allow for substantial overlooking. To increase the trafficable area of the deck will result in  further reduced separation and increased opportunity for overlooking.

 

The DCP makes particular reference to maintaining high amenity to private open space and where there is already reduced amenity and loss of privacy additional overlooking is not supported. Specifically, performance requirement P1 of Part 4.5 Visual and Acoustic Privacy requires that balconies are to be designed to ensure overlooking into private open space is minimised through appropriate layout, location and design of balconies and where necessary separation, screening devices and landscaping. In the original assessment of the proposed first floor addition and associated deck this performance requirement was taken into consideration and condition Nos 4 and 5 were imposed to ensure adequate privacy levels were achieved. In deleting these conditions reasonable privacy to private open space and primary habitable rooms cannot be achieved.

 

The deck area is readily accessible off the family living room, which is the primary recreation area for the occupants of the dwelling. The deck area is likely to be frequently utilised and with the bi-fold doors open will allow for noise transferral to the adjoining properties from this high usage habitable room. With the elevated position of the habitable room and attached deck noise impacts are likely to spread and reduce aural privacy of Nos 2 and 4 Scott St and 565 and 569 Malabar Rd.

 

Bulk and scale

 

The first floor addition is to be located less than 1500mm from the northern boundary and as such any first floor addition should not exceed 12m. The approved length of the addition is 15m excluding the deck. With the approved deck the length is 16.8m, which is a significant addition. Increasing the trafficable deck area further by including the area deleted by condition No. 4 the length of the addition becomes 18.3m. This is a significant departure from the preferred solution and will have a significant impact in terms of bulk and scale for the properties that look out over this dwelling from primary habitable rooms including a kitchen, dining room and outdoor recreation areas. If this area is given a roof treatment with associated balustrade and reduced privacy screening the apparent bulk of the addition is reduced. Where an area is apparently used as a deck anticipated impacts contribute to the impression of added bulk.

 

The outdoor recreation areas for Nos 2 and 4 Scott St are located to the boundary with the subject site and 569 Malabar Rd, due to the site orientation and subdivision pattern there is no alternative recreation area in particular for No. 2 Scott St. The amenity of this area is already compromised being a front yard as well as a rear due to the site being a corner block. The traffic of Scott St already reduces the amenity of this space however the bulk of the first floor addition and privacy loss from an elevated rear deck is considered unreasonable and likely to render the outdoor area unusable. Increasing this bulk further by increasing the roofing over the deck will dominate this small open space.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The Section 96 modification currently before Council for consideration will result in unreasonable amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties in particular the two objector’s properties of Nos 2 and 4 Scott St. Whilst the amended design of the privacy screen could have been approved as part of this modification the remaining two elements of this application could not be supported, and as part approval part refusal of a Section 96 application is not permitted the recommendation is for refusal. The proposed modifications do not satisfy the performance requirements of the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in particular the performance requirements relating to privacy and bulk.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No.573/2002 on property 567 Malabar Rd Maroubra in the for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposed deletion of condition No. 4 will result in a reduction in the aural and visual privacy available to primary habitable rooms and private open space for neighbouring properties inconsistent with the performance requirements of Part 4.5 Visual and Acoustic Privacy of DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

2.       The proposed extension of the roof area over the deck will add unreasonably to the bulk of the first floor addition and be inconsistent with the performance requirements of Part 4.3 Height Form and Materials of DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

3.       The proposed modification will have unacceptable amenity impacts on the residential amenity of adjoining properties.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Architectural plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONEMTNAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

15 January, 2004

FILE NO:

D0448/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of existing dwelling on the site and construct new mixed use development comprising 12 dwellings and one commercial tenancy with semi-basement parking for 13 cars

PROPERTY:

 552 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 CS+A Architects

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Charles Matthews, Bruce Notley-Smith, Ted Seng.

 

The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing dwelling on the site, excavate and construct a single level of semi-basement carparking and a new mixed use development on the site at 552 Bunnerong Road, Matraville. The development will comprise 12 residential units and one commercial tenancy within a 3-4 storey envelope. Pedestrian and vehicular access to the development will be via Bunnerong Road. The estimated cost of the works is $1,726,350.

 

The recommendation is for deferred commencement, subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing dwelling on the site and construct a mixed-use development with twelve (12) dwellings (5x2 bed, 1 x studio and 6x1 bed units) and a ground floor commercial tenancy. The building is comprised of a four storey wing to the front of the site with a three storey wing over semi-basement parking to the rear of the site. The two wings are separated by a podium above the carparking that provides common open space to the development. Thirteen (13) semi-basement car parking spaces are proposed with access from Bunnerong Road.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located on the western side of Bunnerong Road in Matraville, one allotment to the north of Harold Street and consists of a single residential lot. The site has a frontage to Bunnerong Road of 13.425m. The site is slightly irregular with side boundaries to the north and south of 45.72 and 44.76 metres respectively. The rear  (western) boundary measures 15.15 metres. The total area of the site is 646m² and it has a fall of up to 300mm from east to west (front to rear).

 

The site is currently occupied by a single storey brick and tile dwelling. The house is located approximately 26 metres from the rear boundary and has a grassed area without significant planting to the rear. An existing driveway crossover and carport exist on the northern boundary.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by a mix of uses due to the range of zonings in the area. Sites to the rear of the subject site are zoned 2(a) and this area is characterised by 1-2 storey detached dwellings. Adjacent to the site to the north is a new 3-4 storey residential flat building with shops at its ground floor level (550 Bunnerong Road). To the south of the site is a single storey brick and tile dwelling similar in age and size to the house on the subject site. The allotments facing Bunnerong Road are located at the southern end of the Matraville Commercial Centre (which terminates at Harold Street, to the south of the site).

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A pre-lodgement meeting was held between the applicant and Council on 9 April, 2003. At this meeting issues were identified with the development concept and the applicant was advised that the scheme submitted would not be supported by Council. The number and mix of units proposed, insufficient carparking and inadequate rear setback were listed as major impediments to the proposal. It was made clear in the prelodgment advice that the site may not be able to accommodate a yield commensurate with the FSR and height controls if carparking controls were not met.

 

Despite prelodgment advice given by Council officers, the current scheme is similar in density to the scheme presented at the prelodgement meeting (13 units). However, the building form has changed from the pre-DA submission, presenting two wings in accordance with advice from Council’s Design Review Panel and changing the unit mix to increase the number of 2 bedroom units. The current scheme represents a reduction in the number of units proposed in the prelodgement scheme from 13 to 12, and changes to the articulation, materials and finishes proposed have also been made.

 

The Design Review Panel considered the proposal at its August and October meetings. Initially the Panel raised concerns with the layout of the building on the site and the potential for impacts on surrounding properties as a result of blank perimeter walls. At the second meeting the Panel commended the amendments made to the proposal and noted that privacy, landscaping, articulation of boundary walls, environmental initiatives, materials and the façade were issues to be resolved.

 

In response to this advice, the applicant lodged amended plans on 14 November 2003. These plans show additional landscaping, windows to boundary walls and greater separation between units within the development in accordance with the advice of the Design Review Panel. These plans are the subject of this assessment.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The original proposal was notified to surrounding property owners on 25 June 2003. The proposal has also been advertised in the local press. In response to this notification/advertising, the following submissions were received:-

 

5.1 Objections

 

1.         I. Borg on behalf of A. Fassilis, 554 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

·        Concerned that no notification letter was received by managing agents of the property at 554 Bunnerong Road.

 

2.         A.Fassilis, 554 Bunnerong Road c/- 4 Lowing Close, Forestville

·        No notification letter received

·        Nil setback to common boundary with 12 metre high wall will dominate the environment

·        Concern regarding encroachment of footings

·        Overshadowing

·        Loss of outlook

·        Traffic into Harold Street will create a hazard and nuisance

·        Safety/ security and privacy impacts during construction

·        Stormwater runoff and fumes from carparking level are of concern

·        Removal of boundary fence for redevelopment of 552 Bunnerong Road will leave my property unsecured and will impact on privacy

·        Allotments at 552 and 554 Bunnerong should be developed together

 

3.         K & C Toms, 16/550 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

·        Loss of natural light

·        Loss of privacy

 

4.         C. Lloyd, address withheld

·        Excessive height – out of character and unreasonable impacts on amenity

·        Rear setback non-compliance

·        Tree proposed to the rear will take years to grow to provide visual screening

·        Proposed planter boxes are not appropriate to first floor common space

·        Privacy impacts due to non-compliance with rear setbacks

·        Overshadowing

·        Loss of outlook

·        Inadequate size of balconies

·        Parking deficiencies

·        Insufficient natural light and solar access to development itself, lack of natural ventilation does not meet ESD criteria

·        Inadequate landscaping

·        Inadequate amenity for future residents and neighbours

 

5.             The Landmark Building Owners Corporation, 550 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (c/- 69 Austral Street, Malabar)

·        Non-compliance with view sharing requirements – loss of outlook

·        Non-compliance with parking requirements

·        Impact on privacy of units at 550 Bunnerong Road

·        Increased overshadowing and dampness

·        Proposal has minimal local business opportunities despite its location in the 3(b) zone

 

The amended plans were re-notified and re-advertised in the local press in accordance with Council’s Notifications DCP on 3 December 2003 and resulted in the following submissions:

 

1.             J. Briffa, 69 Harold Street, Matraville

·        Excessive height

·        Inadequate parking, will impacts on Harold Street

·        Reduced number of units will improve parking non-compliances

 

2.             A.Fassilis, c/- 4 Lowing Close, Forestville (owner of 554 Bunnerong Rd)

·        Requires that no windows be placed in southern elevation of the development to ensure that future development potential of this site is not reduced

·        Zero boundary setback should be allowed for both properties at 552 and 554 Bunnerong Road

·        Overshadowing

 

3.             The Landmark Building Owners Corporation, 550 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (c/- 69 Austral Street, Malabar)

·        Previous objections still stand

·        Exceeds density

·        Inadequate parking and misleading information in the traffic and parking study

·        Radius of 200m to justify use of on-street parking in the traffic report is unrealistic

·        Driveway is likely to result in traffic queuing and reduced pedestrian safety

·        Privacy impacts to residents at 550 Bunnerong Road, no privacy screening

·        Density should be reduced and balconies redesigned

 

4.             F & S Nolan, 68 Harold Street, Matraville

·        Size of 2 Honey Locus trees – should be mature and acceptable to provide privacy screening from rear balconies

·        Lack of parking, should comply with DCP

·        Height of the proposal is intrusive and results in privacy impacts

 

5.             D. Barden & P. Mihalj, 17/550 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

·        Non-compliances with height, privacy, setbacks, obstruction of views

·        Reduction in light, privacy and views

·        Amended application is still unsuitable for the block, recommends removal of top floor in its entirety

 

6.             C.Lloyd, address withheld

·        Holistic view of non-compliances deems the proposal unsatisfactory. Non-compliances exist with parking, height, setbacks, density, solar access and fire safety

·        Private transport is required from Matraville to amenities and services and this makes parking non-compliance a more significant issue than in other areas

·        Site is too small to accommodate the proposal

·        Privacy issue from northern wall has not been addressed, planter boxes must be maintained to achieve screening

·        Honey Locust trees are inappropriate

·        No identification of species on rear boundary to provide privacy screening

·        Loss of views from 550 Bunnerong Road, balconies will be intruded upon

·        Insufficient setbacks, particularly to the rear

·        Density calculations are unclear

·        Non-compliance with solar access, privacy impacts will result in curtains being drawn

 

7.             H.Widjaja, 70 Harold Street, Matraville

·        Inability to meet overshadowing, car parking and privacy requirements

·        Parking impacts on Harold Street

·        Height should be reduced to minimise privacy impacts

8.             P.Zabolozki, 548 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

·        Customers can’t park to visit my shop, additional parking impacts of the proposal will further reduce parking availability

·        Development is oversized for the block

 

9.             J. Leighton, 556 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

·        Loss of privacy, sunlight, inadequate parking facilities, inappropriate development for the site

·        Matraville already has an oversupply of units

 

10.           Y.Riffis, 555 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

·        Reduction in privacy, sunlight and more noise as a result of the proposal

 

A petition carrying 59 signatures was also received making the following objections:

·        Non-compliance with car space requirements, burdening residents and businesses in the area

·        Overshadowing of properties along Bunnerong Road and Harold Street

·        Inappropriate plant species, density, bulk and scale will have adverse impact on views and privacy for surrounding residents

·        Non compliance with the western setback causing privacy impacts

·        Increased pressure on stormwater and sewerage services.

·        Top floor level of the development should be removed

 

Submissions made by residents have been addressed throughout this report. The major issues of traffic and parking and rear setback, height and density have been addressed through deferred commencement condition 1. This condition reduces the height of the rear wing of the building by 1 storey by deleting 3 x 1 bedroom units on ground floor level. The reduced height of the rear portion of the building has reduced the potential for privacy and view impacts on surrounding properties. The rear setback is to be a minimum of 9 metres to protect the privacy of dwellings to the rear. The reduction in dwelling numbers has reduced the number of parking spaces required and resulted in compliance with Council’s controls.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1   Manager, Environmental Health and Building

 

The Manger, Environmental Health and Building has provided the following comments:

 

The proposal

 

Demolition of the existing brick and file cottage and construction of new ground floor commercial and car park as well as three (3) levels of residential flats.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

§  Class 6        -           Shops

§  Class 2        -           Residential units

§  Class 7a      -           Car park

 

Key Issues

 

BCA, fire safety, health, noise, structural, site management, OH&S, disabled access

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

Conditions recommended by the Manager, Environmental Health and Building have been included in the recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 17-60).

 

6.2   Director, Assets and Infrastructure Services

 

The Director of Assets & Infrastructure has provided the following comments:

 

An application has been received for construction of a four storey residential flat building at the above site containing 12 units and 1 commercial tenancy, with one level of basement carparking.

 

Landscape Comments

 

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

 

As per the guidelines set out in the DCP for Multi-Unit Housing, a minimum of 50% of the total site area must be provided as landscaped area and landscaped areas on podiums or over basement car parks is no to exceed 50% of the landscaped area. According to the submitted plans, only 40% of the total site area is proposed as landscaped areas. The EPCD Department should determine whether this is satisfactory.

 

Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

Traffic Comments

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 12 residential units will be in the range of 48 to 60 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 6 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Bunnerong Road as a result of this development.

 

Vehicular Access

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. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

The driveway opening at the Bunnerong Road frontage should be 5.50 metres wide for the first 5 metres within the property and located at least 1.0 metre clear of the side property boundary. The submitted plans show the driveway opening directly adjacent to the property boundary and only 3.50m wide. The applicant proposes to address the issue of entering and exiting vehicles passing each other, by widening the section of the driveway on Council’s property.

 

The AIS Department does not support this proposal as vehicles would not be perpendicular to the roadway when using the passing bay, and pedestrian safety may be compromised. It is recommended that the applicant be requested to submit amended plans which show the driveway being a minimum of 5.5 metres wide for the first 5 metres within the property, and set back a minimum of 1 metre from the side property boundary. It is noted that the applicant was advised of these requirements prior to the amended plans dated 14 November being received, however the amended plans do not reflect these requirements.

 

Widening of the internal driveway to 5.5 metres (as recommended by the AIS Department) would appear to involve substantial redesign of the basement and ground floor carpark, thus it is recommended that amended plans showing the redesign be obtained prior to any form of development approval being issued. However, should the EPCD Department determine that the application is to be approved in its current form it is recommended that the following deferred commencement condition be attached to the approval:

 

1)   Prior to the development consent becoming operational the applicant shall submit amended plans that show the internal driveway being a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 5 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

It should be noted that whilst the AIS Department objects to the proposed driveway, the RTA, in granting concurrence, conditioned for the driveway to be minimum 5.5m wide for a distance of 6m from the frontage roadway of Bunnerong Road. Thus the applicant’s proposal to widen a section of the driveway on Council’s property would appear to comply with the RTA’s requirements.

 

Carpark Layout

For a development of this size, Council’s DCP – Parking requires the provision of 17 spaces, that is 13 residential spaces, 1 commercial space and 3 visitor spaces.

 

The amended plans show a total of 13 car spaces being provided on-site, including 12 residential spaces, 1 commercial space and no visitor spaces, resulting in a deficit of 4 spaces. The AIS Department does not support the applicant’s decision to provide no visitor parking, nor is the commercial space being used as a car wash bay considered satisfactory.

 

The AIS Department recommends that the applicant submit amended plans addressing the parking deficit, and in particular the lack of visitor parking.

 

However, should the EPCD Department consider the provision of amended plans unnecessary, then consideration should be given to reducing the number of residential spaces by one, allowing at least one visitor car space to be provided, which would also be used as the car washing bay. It is recommended that the EPCD Department include appropriate conditions regarding this matter (if complete redesign to provide additional parking is not requested).

 

It is noted that Condition 31 in this report relates to the car wash bay being signposted with:

Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’. Consequently, if the EPCD Department determines that a visitor parking space is not required, this condition will need to be amended.

 

Comments from the RTA

It is understood that the EPCD Department has already included appropriate conditions to address the issues raised by the RTA in their letter dated 11 August 2003.

 

It is noted that work zone shall NOT be provided in Bunnerong Road during the construction period. Suitable provision should be made on-site to alleviate any need to park construction vehicles along Bumborah Point Road.

 

Conditions of consent proposed by the Director, Assets & Infrastructure have been included in the recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 61-107).

 

6.3   Design Review Panel

 

The Design Review Panel considered the application at its August meeting. The Panel raised several concerns with the proposal at that meeting, in particular with the layout of the building on the site. The Panel suggested a building form that provided greater opportunities for solar access to the adjoining site to the south as more appropriate for this site. In response to the Panel’s comments, the applicant made amendments to the plans. These amendments were considered by the Panel at its October meeting and comments are provided below:

 

1.   Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The applicant has provided a much improved response to the site.

 

2.   The Scale of the Proposal

 

The strategy of dividing the bulk into two parts is supported.

 

3.   The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The Panel would like the applicant to articulate all blank party walls, which are highly visible. The north and south elevations on boundaries are required to be further articulated. 

 

The Panel expressed concerns about the height of the first floor rear terrace, and overlooking and overshadowing that result to the rear. The Panel would like to see the height to the rear building and landscaped terrace reduced via further excavation of the basement car park. This is to minimize impacts upon adjoining properties.  The introduction of natural ventilation to the car park to achieve air and light is required.

 

BCA Advice needs to be considered and appropriate design responses incorporated within the development. 

 

The Panel believes that the common stair and access to car park need to be replanned. This should allow for escape from the car park to the street, and direct access from the car park up to the courtyard on the first floor.

 

4.   The Proposed Density

 

 

5.   Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

The Panel require appropriate screening to the East and West elevations be provided.

 

6.   The Proposed Landscape

 

There is minimal deep soil planting introduced on the rear boundary.  The Panel considers that opportunities to introduce planting in generous containers in the courtyard should be provided.  A minimum soil depth of 600-1200mm is recommended and drainage layers.

 

There is an inconsistency on the plans in regard to the amount of deep soil at the rear of the property.  The panel would like this clarified. 

 

Further development of the landscape plan is required for the next submission. This should include drawings of the roof top terraces addressing environmental issues such as wind exposure and shade protection to create useable common spaces that will enhance the amenity of the development. The involvement of a Landscape Architect is highly recommended

 

7.   The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The Panel considers that the rear building entry is required to be more appropriate. 

 

The entrance foyer of the front building fronting Bunnerong Road is too narrow and is required to be wider.  One solution to this is to slightly reduce the commercial space.

 

Privacy screening of balconies across the courtyard is required, to ensure privacy between units in the development.  The Panel considers that there is a privacy problem for bedrooms in the middle of the rear units at each level.

 

8.   The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

 

9.   Social issues

 

With a consistent mix of units provided, the Panel consider that the one off studio apartment proposed is appropriate.

 

10. The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The Panel supported the proposed east and west facade treatments, subject to further design development and the incorporation of appropriate sun screening.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel consider that this application was a significant improvement in form and amenity.  Improvements to the footpath and addition of street trees could be investigated. 

 

The Panel would like to view the application again with developed drawings, addressing a range of issues such as;

 

-           resolution of planning issues,

-           materials and facade detail,

-           boundary wall articulation

-           environmental initiatives,

-           landscape amenity,

-           room dimensions and furniture layouts.

 

The proposal was not considered by the Panel again. In response to the Panel’s comments, the applicant lodged amended plans on 14 November 2003. These plans are considered to have generally addressed the concerns of the Panel, however a greater reduction in the height of the rear building is required.

 

6.4   Roads and Traffic Authority

 

The application was sent to the RTA on 10 June 2003 for comment as Bunnerong Road is a classified road and development requires the RTAs concurrence. Council received a response on 18 August 2003 granting concurrence to the development, subject to conditions relating to driveway width, road noise, stormwater etc. These conditions have been included in the Recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 2-5).

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

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

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the following statutory controls and is consistent with the provisions of these controls:-

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

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

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

-           State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended (EP&A Act)

-           Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Commercial

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 - FSR

1.5:1 (969m2)

1.52:1 (987m2)

No1

33 - Building Height

12m

13.6m

No1

1SEPP 1 objection submitted

 

A detailed assessment of the proposal against the clauses of the LEP dealing with height and FSR is provided in sections 9.1 and 9.2 of this report (below).

 

(b)   SEPP 1

 

An objection under SEPP 1 has been lodged to support the non-compliance with Council’s 1.5:1 FSR standard and 12 metres height standard as set by clauses 32(3) 33(5) of the LEP 1998.

 

The objections made under SEPP 1 is discussed in detail under sections 9.1 and 9.2 of this report.

 

(c)   State Environmental Planning Policy No. SEPP 55

 

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

 

It is considered reasonable to assume that the site would not be contaminated, or in need of remediation pursuant to SEPP 55 and that the site is suitable for continued residential use.

 

(d)   SEPP 65

 

The development is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. An assessment of the proposal in accordance with the ten design quality principles has been undertaken by Council’s Design Review Panel. Comments made by the panel are reproduced in section 6.3 and indicate that the proposal (as amended) is satisfactory with regard to SEPP 65.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

The following Council policy controls apply to the proposed development:

 

(a)  Development Control Plan No. 19 - Matraville Commercial Centre

 

Requirement

Control

Proposed

Complies

Height Plane

45o above 8 metres in height

11.2m – no 45o angle

No

Height

12m

Up to 13.6m

No

Side and Rear Setbacks

Comply with SEPP 20

SEPP 20 no longer applies in the City of Randwick

Setbacks have been assessed in relation to site conditions and the provisions of SEPP 65.

Heritage Items

Controls when items in the vicinity

No items in the vicinity of the site

N/A

Commercial  development

To be provided the length of the street frontage

Approx. 50% of frontage

No

 

Minimum depth of 10m

8m

No

Awnings

Setback 600mm from kerb

No awning proposed – canopy at building is 2.5m above footpath – doesn’t comply

N/A

 

3.5-4.5 metres above footpath level

 

Opaque materials

Carparking

In accordance with relevant DCP

DCP- Parking requirement not met

No

 

Must not be visible from Bunnerong Road

Semi-basement parking proposed

Yes

 

Discussion of compliance with the requirements of the DCP No. 19 – Matraville Commercial Centre is included in section 9 of this report.

 

(b)  Development Control Plan Parking (DCP Parking), 1998

 

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

Car Parking

a)   number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b) layout

 

 

 

Bicycle Storage

 

0.5 spaces for each studio (0.5 spaces)

 

1.0 space required for each one bedroom dwelling (5 x 1.0 =5 spaces)

 

1.2 spaces required for each two bedroom dwelling (6 x 1.2 = 7.2 spaces)

 

1space/4 dwgs or part thereof for visitors (3 spaces required)

 

Commercial Tenancy

(1/40m2) 1.25 required

 

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 17

 

As per DCP.

 

 

1space per 3 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

(5 bike spaces)

1 space

 

 

4 spaces

 

 

 

 

7 spaces

 

 

 

 

0 spaces

 

 

 

 

1 space

 

 

 

 

 

13

 

Adequate turning areas provided.

 

7 spaces.

Yes

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

As indicated above, the amended proposal complies with driveway location, width and gradient controls. The proposal does not comply with the visitor spaces required under the DCP – Parking. The non-compliance has been discussed under section 9.9. Council’s Traffic and Parking Engineer has commented on the proposal and is satisfied that it meets the requirements of Council’s DCP Parking, subject to conditions of consent (see deferred commencement condition 4 and Conditions 63-68).

 

(c)  Section 94 Contributions Plan, 1999

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes an additional eleven (11)dwellings on the site. Deferred commencement condition 1 reduces the number of additional dwellings to 8. As a result of this assessment a condition of consent has been proposed requiring the payment of monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities and administration charges totalling $18,031.75 for the residential component of the development. This amount refers to the reduced number of units as a result of Deferred Commencement Condition 1 and must be paid prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate (see Condition 13).

 

A contribution in relation to townscape may be levied as additional gross lettable retail/commercial floor area is proposed. A contribution of $2,900.00 has been calculated and is included in Condition 13. There are no provisions for carparking contributions in Matraville Commercial Centre.

 

8.2  Council Policies

 

(a)  Rainwater Tank Policy, 2003

 

Council adopted a Rainwater Tank Policy on the 14th October 2003. The Policy encourages water conservation and reduce demand for potable (drinking) water. Condition 11 requires the applicant provide a rainwater tank to supply landscaping requirements in accordance with the Policy.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1       Height, Form and Materials

 

The development has an overall height ranging between 11.2m and 13.6 metres resulting in a non-compliance with the statutory standard of 12 metres by one metre.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clauses 33(5) (Overall Height) of Randwick LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

§   Non-compliance is due to a limited area around the stairwell to the centre of the site and will not affect surrounding properties

§   Approximately 95% of the building is within the 12m height limit

 

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

 

The development exceeds the statutory standard of 12 metres along the southern edge of the site, behind the street alignment. To the northern side the development meets the statutory standard by approximately 880mm. The difference in height and resulting non-compliance is a result of the topography of the site, not as a result of significant overdevelopment. Potential impacts of the area of non-compliance have been offset by the reduced height (1.3m below the 12m standard) of the rear portion of the development. The proposal meets Council’s FSR standards and provides adequate landscaping to soften the appearance of the development. These compliances further indicate that the non-compliance is a result of the topography of the site.

 

The applicant has provided shadow diagrams that indicate shadowing impacts to the dwelling immediately to the south of the subject site at 554 Bunnerong Road. A reduction in the height of the non-compliant section of the building would not result in a significant reduction in shadow impacts as these are the result of the orientation of the site, not the height of development towards the front of the site.

 

The non-compliance of the development will not result in significant impacts on visual and acoustic privacy for surrounding dwellings. Despite the increased height of the southern side of the building, no windows are provided to the side elevations of the development and balconies are screened by solid side walls.

 

The area of non-compliance does not significantly contribute to any view or outlook loss from the units at 550 Bunnerong Road. Impacts on these units are more a result of the top floor of the western wing of the building that complies with the height limit. These impacts are discussed under Section 9.6 (see below). The non-compliance will not reduce views or outlook from surrounding properties.

 

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

 

9.2       Density

 

The FSR of the proposal (as amended) is 1.52:1 (987m2) and exceeds that permissible under clause 32(3) of the RLEP 98 for a development on the site, being 1.5:1 by 21m2. The applicant’s calculations have been checked and are correct.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clauses 32(3) (FSR) of Randwick LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

The maximum gross floor area required under Randwick Council’s LEP is 969sqm. The proposed gross floor area is 990.58sqm. Therefore the proposed gross floor area exceeds the LEP standard by 21sqm.

 

Considering Randwick Council’s purpose under the LEP, the concern for an adverse impact on adjoining properties was of high concern when establishing the envelope of the proposed building. From an early outset the building envelope has been manipulated through ongoing design workshops with the design review panel.  The outcome of this workshop was a building that thoroughly respected the neighbour’s amenity by creating two buildings to the front and back of the site. This enabled sunlight to carry onto the neighbours’ yard to the south maintaining as much amenity as possible. The proposed buildings bulk and scale were worked out according to the privacy between the proposed dwellings, the address to the street, and the impact on the adjoining neighbours. CS+A consider the increase in gross floor area to be minor given the overall size of the project. Removing the non-complying gross floor area from the building would not have a huge benefit to the amenity to the adjoining neighbour’s.

 

The bulk and scale of the proposed building ‘fits in’ with the scale of other buildings along Bunnerong Road that have already undergone a residential/commercial development process. The height and full width frontage have achieved a successful in fill development typology that meets Randwick Council’s objectives in maintaining a consistent streetscape.

 

Lastly, the proposed development needed to meet council’s requirements for minimum unit sizes. The number of units can still be obtained even if the additional gross floor area were removed. The small increase in floor area to each unit merely increased the standard of amenity.

 

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

 

Although the proposal does not comply with the FSR standard by a minor amount (0.02% of the site area), the development proposes a density that is considered excessive given the existing site constraints, particularly the ability of the site to accommodate the required parking. A reduction in the number of units (and reduced FSR) will result in a development that achieves a reasonable level of development in accordance with the objectives of the standard. The removal of three units also reduces impacts on neighbours such as view and outlook loss and visual privacy, maintaining amenity in accordance with the FSR objectives. The site is currently occupied by a single dwelling house and is a single residential allotment. Council encourages consolidation of allotments to ensure sites are large enough to accommodate facilities commensurate with the allowable FSR. Site amalgamation with 554 Bunnerong Road is not possible at this time and consequently the size of the subject site constrains the amount of development that can be achieved.

 

As a result of the assessment of the proposal, deferred commencement condition 1 has been imposed to reduce the number of residential units from 12 to 9, by deletion of the three one bedroom units on the ground floor level of the western (rear) wing. This will result in a development with 6x2 bed units, 2x1 bed units and 1x studio and will benefit the 2 bedroom units to the rear of the site by allowing access to large podium level private open space at the rear of the scheme. The removal of these units will reduce the gross floor area of the development by 160m2 and result in an FSR of approximately 1.3:1, achieving compliance with the statutory standard of 1.5:1

 

The resulting reduction in the height of the building to the rear will improve amenity for adjoining residents to the rear by reducing opportunities for overlooking and for residents to the north by reducing impacts on outlook and views. The reductions will also ensure compliance with the carparking requirements, indicating the reasonableness of a reduced proposal.

 

The adjacent site at 554 Bunnerong Road is the last site in the Matraville Commercial Centre (where DCP 19 applies). This site is also a single residential allotment and is likely to be redeveloped in the future. The current application will influence the type of development that will occur on the adjoining site. The form and compliance of development on the subject site needs to be carefully considered to ensure the cumulative impact of these developments does not result in an unacceptable outcome in terms of density, carparking and residential amenity.

 

The density of the proposal is considered to be excessive, as evidenced by the inability of the site to accommodate adequate parking. The scheme may easily be revised to comply with parking standards and lessen impacts on surrounding properties. In this instance it is considered appropriate to condition these changes by way of deferred commencement provisions under the Act. The development is considered satisfactory with regard to density, subject to compliance with conditions.

 

9.3       Building Setbacks

 

The Matraville DCP relied on SEPP 20 – Minimum Standards for Residential Development for setback controls. This planning instrument was repealed by SEPP 53 – Metropolitan Residential Development on 26 September 1997. SEPP 53 does not include any setback controls and does not apply to Randwick. Due to the location of the site in a commercial centre, the nil setbacks to the northern and southern side boundaries and the eastern (front) boundary are appropriate. Nil setbacks to the side boundaries will allow for redevelopment of the adjoining site at 554 Bunnerong Road to be contiguous with development on the subject site and will form a street wall to Bunnerong Road in accordance with best urban design practice for commercial centres.

 

The building is setback 6-8 metres from the rear boundary at first floor (podium) level. At the second floor levels balconies protrude into the setback up to 4.4-6.2 metres from the rear boundary. The western boundary of the site adjoins a 2(a) zone and the subdivision pattern results in the rear boundary of the site adjoining the side boundaries of properties which front Harold Street. This arrangement can increase opportunities for overlooking of rear yards. As there are no setback requirements under the DCP, the 9 metre setback suggested in best practice documents is considered to be reasonable for protecting residential amenity for properties to the rear. The deletion of the three ground level units will remove the need for a communal stair to the rear wing of the building and allow the rear portion of the building to be setback 9 metres from the rear boundary at each level without reducing the width of the internal courtyard (which provides separation between units within the development). The first floor of Units 10, 11 and 12 do not have balconies and so the setback will remain as a minimum 9 metres at all floor levels. These changes have been included in deferred commencement condition 2 of this report.

 

The building has been articulated through the incorporation of balconies and a combination of solid and open elements. The articulation is considered sufficient subject to additional details of the materials proposed, particularly to the internal elevations to the communal courtyard space. Additional details are to be provided as per deferred commencement condition 3. The Design Review Panel commented that additional articulation was required to the side walls of the development. Glass block windows have been included on the northern and southern sides of the building and provide visual interest and articulation whilst maintaining compliance with the building code. On the northern side these windows are considered appropriate as they will increase natural light and provide visual interest to the adjoining development at 550 Bunnerong Road. On the southern side, the glass block windows, are to be retained to provide visual interest but are to have brickwork behind so that future development of the adjoining site (having a nil setback to the boundary) is not prejudiced (see condition 6). The building form proposed, having a front and rear wing with landscaping between has reduced bulk and scale impacts on the adjoining property and the street.

 

9.4       Landscaping and Private Open Space

 

There are no landscaping provisions in the RLEP 98 for sites in the 3(b) zone, likewise there are no requirements under DCP 19. Despite the lack of controls the applicant proposes landscaping to the rear of the site and central courtyard area to improve the outlook for residents and protect the amenity of surrounding properties.

 

Approximately 236m2 (37%) of the site is proposed to be landscaped. 36m2 of this provision is deep soil planting and is located to the rear to maximise the benefit of large plantings to surrounding properties. Private open space is provided to all units via balconies. Units to the rear will have access to private gardens which will increase the variety of accommodation provided and improve privacy between dwellings within the development by focussing the outlook from these units to the rear, rather than inside the development. The landscape treatment of the courtyard is acceptable given that there is little opportunity to plant large trees as this area exists over the parking level. To the rear the choice of honey locus trees has been queried by surrounding residents. This species is not shown on the amended plans. Details of planting to this rear boundary are to be provided prior to the consent being operational so that the appropriateness of species can be checked and amended if necessary. In addition, a detailed landscaping plan is to be lodged with the Construction Certificate application.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to landscaping.

 

9.5       Privacy

 

The proposal has limited impacts on the privacy of surrounding properties by orienting openings off living areas towards the front and rear of the site. Balconies to the rear of the front wing of the building have solid side walls to prevent residents from looking directly across the side boundaries of the site, protecting the privacy of adjoining sites.

 

The first floor balconies to living areas in the rear wing of the building are to be relocated to ground level (as terraces) under deferred commencement condition 1. This will reduce opportunities for overlooking of rear yards of properties along Harold Street. The proposal also includes screen planting to the rear boundary of the site and has been conditioned to be 9 metres from the rear boundary to ensure privacy of sites to the rear is maintained.

 

Separation of 8.7-9 metres is provided between the two wings of the building. In addition the wings have been designed so that living areas are oriented away from each other wherever possible. The proposal has been designed to minimised privacy impacts within the development.

 

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

 

9.6       Views

 

Residents in the adjoining development at 550 Bunnerong Road raised concerns regarding view loss. Views and outlook will be maintained from units to the rear of the site, with the possibility of outlook to the south-west being affected by the rear portion of the building. Views and outlook directly to the south will remain largely unaffected due to the courtyard form of the building.

 

Deferred commencement condition 1 will reduce the height of the rear portion of the building by one storey and will reduce any view and outlook impacts to an acceptable level by bringing the building within the envelope stipulated under DCP 19.

 

The development, subject to compliance with conditions, is considered satisfactory with regard to view and outlook sharing.

 

9.7       Solar Access

 

The orientation of the allotments along Bunnerong Road results in properties sharing northern side boundaries and increases the likelihood of shadowing impact (as side setbacks are generally less than rear setbacks). The orientation of the site results in shadows that move significantly throughout the day. Additional shadow will affect the northern elevations of properties fronting Harold Street during midwinter mornings (this effect will be reduced by the amendments under deferred commencement condition 1). By noon, only the adjoining dwelling at 554 Bunnerong Road will be affected. During midwinter afternoons shadows will be cast across Bunnerong Road, however the proposal will only affect these properties for a short period of time.

 

With the exception of 554 Bunnerong Road, all properties will achieve three hours of solar access, midwinter after the proposal is constructed. The impact of the development on 554 Bunnerong Road is considered to be inevitable given the orientation of allotments and the desired form of development in the Matraville commercial area. The layout of the building form has minimised impacts on 554 Bunnerong Road and maximised opportunities for solar access to any new development on that site. The extent of overshadowing is considered acceptable and not the result of overdevelopment of the site.

 

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

 

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

 

9.8       Safety and Security

 

The development meets best practice with regard to safety and security. The development provides separate entries to the commercial tenancy and the residential component of the development that are clearly identifiable and provide direct access from the street. A roller door has been indicated on the carparking plans, however it is unclear if this is to be used to secure the parking and as such a condition of consent requiring a security grill and intercom to be installed has been proposed (see Condition 16). Balconies have been oriented towards Bunnerong Road wherever possible to allow for passive surveillance. Passive surveillance of the internal courtyard space is also provided by balconies to each of the dwellings. Large, dense plantings have been restricted to the residential boundaries of the site.

 

The development meets the safety and security objectives for residential flat buildings.

 

9.9       Traffic and Parking

 

The development does not meet Council’s requirements with regard to parking provision by four spaces. This is considered to be an excessive non-compliance and indication that the development constitutes a density in excess of the capacity of the subject site. The building can be easily reduced in scale (by deletion of the ground floor level of the rear wing) to ensure compliance with parking. The deletion of 3 one bedroom units will reduce the parking requirement sufficiently to ensure compliance. The driveway width and gradient proposed from Bunnerong Road meets Council’s requirements. The Director, Assets and Infrastructure has provided comments that the carparking layout is satisfactory.

 

The development (subject to conditions) is considered to be satisfactory with regard to parking provision.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The SEPP 1 objection lodged with respect to the statutory non compliances generated by the maximum height of the development is considered to be well founded in the circumstances.

 

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

 

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

 

11.  RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council assume the concurrence of the Director, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources to vary the provisions of Clause 32(3) and Clause 33(5) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to Demolition of existing dwelling on the site and construct new mixed use development comprising 12 dwellings and one commercial tenancy with semi-basement parking for 13 cars under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1.

 

AND

 

B.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 448/2003 for Demolition of existing dwelling on the site and construct new mixed use development comprising 12 dwellings and one commercial tenancy with semi-basement parking for 13 cars at 552 Bunnerong Road, Matraville subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

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

 

1.         A full set of plans, sections and elevations showing the deletion of Units 4,5 and 6. This condition is imposed to reduce the height of the building to an acceptable level to maintain residential amenity and reduce the impact of the proposal on carparking in the area.

 

2.         The western wall of the rear portion of the development is to be setback 9.0 metres from the rear boundary of the site for its full length. Compliance with this condition is not to result in a reduction in the width of the internal courtyard (measured external wall to external wall) to less than 11.0 metres

 

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

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board), are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

4.         Details of proposed plantings to the rear boundary of the site, including species, pot size and size at maturity as well as details of soil depth along the rear boundary are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director Planning and Community Development.

 

5.         Prior to the development consent becoming operational the applicant shall submit amended plans that show the internal driveway being a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 5 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

Evidence required to satisfy the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the date of this consent.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

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

 

REFERENCED PLANS

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans drawn by CS & A, numbered Project No. 0028 and drawing numbers DA/01-D/A10, dated Nov 2003 and received by Council on 14/11/03, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

RTA Conditions of Consent

 

2.         The proposed driveway is to be a “Type 1” with minimum width of 5.5 metres, for a distance of 6 metres from the frontage roadway of Bunnerong Road in accordance with AS 2890.1-1993.

 

3.         The design and construction of gutter crossing in Bunnerong Road shall be in accordance with RTA requirements. Details of these requirements should be obtained from RTA’s Project Services Manager, Traffic Projects Section Blacktown (Ph: 02 88142144). You are advised that liaison with Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Department in relation to the design and construction of the gutter crossing is also required.

 

4.         “No Stopping” parking restriction is to be implemented along the Bunnerong Road frontage of the subject property, subject to the concurrence of the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

Prior to the installation of the “No Stopping” parking restriction (along Bunnerong Road), the applicant is to contact the RTA’s Traffic Management Services on (Ph: 02 8814 2329) for a Works Instruction.

 

5.         All works associated with the subject development shall be carried out at no cost to the RTA.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

6.         Glass blockwork on the southern elevation is to have an internal brickwork skin behind it. Alternatively, brickwork in a contrasting colour may be used within the area shown on the plans as blockwork. This condition is imposed to protect the redevelopment potential of the adjoining property at 554 Bunnerong Road, whilst maintaining visual articulation of the façade. Details of compliance are to be indicated in the construction certificate plans.

 

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

 

7.         The consumption of water within the building shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets. Details of compliance are to be noted in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

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

 

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

 

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.       The hot water system installed in the development must achieve a minimum greenhouse score of 3.5 as detailed SEDA’s Energy Smart Homes Policy.  Any electric clothes dryers to be provided in the development must also have a minimum 2 star energy rating.

 

11.       A rainwater tank of sufficient size to provide water for irrigation of all landscaped areas within the development is to be provided to the development in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tanks Policy.

 

The tank is to be located a minimum of 500mm from the side boundaries and is to have a maximum height above ground level of 2.4 metres. The tank is to be installed behind the front building line and is to be located at podium level and incorporated into the landscaping plans for the site. The noise level from any pump is not to exceed 5dBA above ambient background noise, measured at the property boundary. Overflow is to be directed to Council’s approved stormwater system or suitable absorption area (designed by a professional engineer, building surveyor or accredited certifier).

 

This condition is imposed to ensure compliance with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy and promote the principles of water conservation and ecologically sustainable design (ESD). Details required by this condition are to be included with the Construction Certificate application.

 

12.       Landscaped areas must contain a predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

Landscaped areas must include an area and facilities dedicated for onsite composting and porous paving should also be used in all pathways, wherever practicable, to maximize on-site absorption of rainwater and details are to be provided on the landscape plans.  Details of the proposed landscaping, including plant species and paved areas are to be included with the construction certificate application.

 

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

 

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

 

a)       for the provision or improvement of open space               $12,208.65

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $  5,398.10

c)       for townscape improvements                                                       $  2,900.00

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for parking to the development:

 

14.       A sign legible from the street must be permanently displayed to indicate that visitor parking is available on the site and these parking spaces must be clearly marked and accessible at all times.

 

15.       The car parking spaces and driveways must be kept clear of goods at all times and must not be used for storage purposes.

 

16.       In order to secure the carparking from the street, a security grill is to be provided at the carpark entry. Public access to the visitor’s carparking spaces is to be maintained at all times and an intercom system is to be provided adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the carpark, together with appropriate signage providing instructions for use.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

20.       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.

 

21.       In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition, that in the case of residential building work, a contract of insurance must be obtained and in force, in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

Where the work is to be done by a licensed contractor, excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·    has been informed in writing of the licensee’s name and contractor number; and

·    is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the insurance requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989, or

 

Where the work to be done by any other person (i.e. an owner builder), excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·    has been informed of the person’s name and owner-builder permit number, or

·    has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $5,000.

 

Details of the builder and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, on the notice of appointment of the PCA / Intention to commence building work.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

23.       Driven type piles/shoring must not be provided unless a geotechnical engineer’s report is submitted to the certifying authority, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, which states that damage should not occur to any adjoining premises and public place as a result of the works.

 

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

 

a.         all of the premises adjoining the subject site

 

The report is to be supported with photographic evidence of the status of the buildings and a copy of the report must also be forwarded to the Council and to the owners of each of the abovestated premises, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

25.       The installation of ground or rock anchors underneath any adjoining premises including (a public roadway or public place) must not be carried out without specific written consent of the owners of the affected adjoining premises and (where applicable) details of compliance must be provided to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of any excavation or building works.

 

26.       A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to occupation of the building, certifying the structural adequacy of the building and that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

27.       All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in Force at 1 July, 1993 and details of compliance are to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be submitted to the principal certifying authority, prior to the commencement of any demolition works.

 

28.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·    Sediment control measures.

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

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

 

31.       If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

 

·    preserve and protect the building /s on the adjoining land from damage; and

·    if necessary, underpin and support the building in an approved manner; and

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

 

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

 

33.       An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the principal certifying authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

a.   car parking and vehicular access

b.   landscaping

c.   stormwater drainage

d.   external finishes and materials

 

35.       A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or compliance certificate is to be forwarded to the principal certifying authority (and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the principal certifying authority), detailing compliance with Council’s approval at the following stage/s of construction:

 

a.   Prior to construction of the footings or first completed floor slab (prior to the pouring of concrete), showing the area of the land, building and boundary setbacks.

 

b.   Prior to construction of the first completed floor/floor slab (prior to pouring of concrete), showing the area of land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building is being construction at the approved levels.

 

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

 

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

 

37.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

41.       Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions and debris at all times.

 

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

 

43.       Any building/demolition works involving asbestos cement are to be carried out in accordance with the Work Cover New South Wales “Guidelines for Practices Involving Asbestos Cement in Buildings”.

 

44.       A Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·    location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·    location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·    location of building materials for construction;

·    provisions for public safety;

·    dust control measures;

·    site access location and construction

·    details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·    protective measures for tree preservation;

·    provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·    location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·    details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·    construction noise and vibration management.

 

The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to maintain adequate levels of public health and safety.  A copy of the approved Construction Site Management Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

Details of the proposed sediment control measures must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any site works.  The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and a copy of the approved details must be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures shall include; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment.

 

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

 

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

 

47.       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.

 

48.       If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or the building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

 

If necessary, an awning is to be erected sufficiently to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises.

 

The public place adjacent to the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place and any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed upon completion of the work.

 

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

 

If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing or amenities upon a footpath or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

49.       Public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

50.       Public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

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

 

Fences or hoardings are to be structurally adequate and be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

Details of the proposed temporary fences located upon the site are to be submitted to the principal certifying authority and the public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing or amenities upon a footpath or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

51.       A ‘B Class’ overhead type hoarding is required is be provided to protect the public, located adjacent to the development, prior to the commencement of any works on the site which comprise:-

 

·    any works or hoisting of materials over a public footway or adjoining premises, or

·    any building or demolition works on buildings which are over 7.5m in height and located within 3.6 metres of the street alignment.

 

Details of the proposed fences or hoardings located upon the site are to be submitted to the principal certifying authority and the public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing or amenities upon a footpath or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

52.       A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

53.       Temporary hoardings or fences and public access are required to be designed in accordance with the following requirements (as applicable):

 

·    The hoarding/fence is required to be structurally adequate, and be constructed of plywood sheeting, painted white or cyclone wire fencing material with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control.  The hoarding/fence is to be maintained in good condition at all times.

 

·    The hoarding/fencing is required to be constructed at a minimum height of 1.8 metres.

 

·    A path of travel having a minimum width of 1.5m is to be maintained across the front of the site and safe pedestrian access is to be provided at all times

 

·    Hoardings and fences are not to obstruct access for services including fire services.

 

·    A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

·    Unobstructed access must be maintained at all times for pedestrians and people with disabilities.  If necessary, a stable and level, non-slip timber/metal walking platform or firm road base material is to be provided adjacent to the hoarding/fence across the front of the site.

 

·    The hoarding/fence is to be provided with reflective barricades, lights or other devices, to provide adequate warning to pedestrians and motorists.

 

·    The hoarding/fence is to be constructed so that it will not obstruct the view of motorists, pedestrians or traffic lights.

 

·    Site access gates to the site shall not open over the footway/road.

 

·    The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $10 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council prior to the construction of any hoarding/fence upon the road reserve/footway.

 

·    Geotextile fabric or other suitable material is to be provided to the perimeter of any scaffolding during construction, to prevent any articles from falling to a public place or adjoining premises.

 

54.       ‘B’ Class’ overhead type hoardings and public access are required to be designed in accordance with the following requirements (as applicable).

 

·    The hoarding is to be designed so that the wind loads comply with AS1170.2.  Superimposed loads from site sheds and materials not to exceed 40% of the design live loads.  The structure should have a factor of safety of 1.5 against overturning and 2 against sliding.

 

·    Footings to the hoarding are to be located and designed so as not to have an adverse affect upon underground services or the like.  The hoarding is to be able to withstand a vehicle impact and removal of any one column anywhere in the structure and a minimum length of 2m of wall supporting the deck on any one side supporting the structure is required.

 

·    Metal parts of the hoarding or associated structures to be not less than 4m from any power line, transmission line or transmission apparatus or 1.5m from part for non conductive materials, such as timber.

 

·    Adequate artificial lighting is to be provided to the hoarding.

 

·    A suitable system of buffer railing or barriers, particularly at locations such as an intersection or sharp bend.

 

·    A minimum overhead clearance of 2.2m is to be provided below the hoarding.

 

·    The street side of the hoarding is to be open for at least 2/3 of its full height for the length of the structure to prevent a tunnel effect.

 

·    Waterproofing of the deck above the footway is required to be provided and adequate provisions are to be made for the disposal of stormwater.

 

·    The hoarding is to be painted white or other light colour acceptable to Council.

 

·    Site sheds or accommodation located on top of a hoarding within a designated crane area or where materials are being lifted over are required to sustain a 10Kpa load and a protective fence and handrails are to be provided.

 

·    The hoarding is to be erected and maintained fully in accordance with the requirements of Work Cover New South Wales.

 

·    Unobstructed access must be maintained at all times for pedestrians and people with disabilities.  If necessary, a stable and level, non-slip timber/metal walking platform or firm road base material is to be provided adjacent to the hoarding/fence across the front of the site.

 

·    A certificate of structural adequacy prepared by a professional engineer is to be submitted to the certifying authority upon installation (and a copy of the certificate is to be forwarded to the Council if it is not the certifying authority) certifying the structural adequacy of the hoarding and compliance with Councils conditions of consent and relevant requirements of WorkCover New South Wales.

 

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

 

55.       Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with Council’s development control plan for multi-unit housing and in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1. Details of the proposed access, facilities and carparking for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

56.       Access for persons with disabilities, being provided to the ground floor retail shop in accordance with Part D3 of the Building Code of Australia.  Details of compliance are required to be provided in the relevant plans and specifications for the construction certificate for the development.

 

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

 

57.       The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection.

 

58.       All hazardous or intractable wastes (including asbestos) shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover and the Environmental Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

·    Occupational health and Safety Act 1983 (NSW)

·    Construction Safety Act 1912; Regulation 84A-J Construction Work Involving Asbestos or Asbestos Cement 1983 (NSW)

·    Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 1996 (NSW).

·    Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 1996 (NSW); and

·    Waste Minimisation and Management Act 1995 and Regulations (NSW).

 

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

 

60.       Hazardous dust must not be allowed to escape from the site.  The use of fine mesh dust proof screens or other relevant measures is recommended.  Any existing accumulations of dust (eg, ceiling voids and wall cavities) must be removed by the use of an industrial vacuum fitted with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.  All dusty surfaces and dust created from work is to be suppressed by a fine water spray.  Water must not be allowed to enter the street and stormwater systems.  Demolition is not to be performed during high winds, which may cause dust to spread beyond site boundaries.

 

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

 

61.       The following damage deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)         $2000.00         -           Security damage deposit

 

The damage deposit may be provided by way of a cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the applicant advising Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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

 

62.       The following vehicular crossing deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for Council or a Council approved subcontractor to construct the vehicular crossing.

 

a)         $1000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

The vehicular crossing deposit may be provided by way of cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the completion of the Council vehicular crossing by Council or a Council approved subcontractor.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The design and construction of the new gutter crossing is to be in accordance with RTA requirements.

 

b)     Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate the area to Council's specification.

 

c)     Reconstruct any damaged sections of kerb and gutter along the site frontage.

 

d)     Reconstruct the full Bunnerong Road site frontage in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Matraville Commercial Centre It is noted that this will include footpath reconstruction along the full site frontage together with seat installations, bins and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect.

 

It is further noted that the works on Council’s verge may include stair and handrail construction to transition between the alignment level and the natural surface level on the adjacent property, together with regrading of the verge as required.

 

64.       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 metres by 1.5 metres to provide satisfactory sight lines. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

65.       Provision shall be made onsite for all construction related activities. This condition has been included to alleviate any need to park construction vehicles in Bunnerong Road.

 

66.       The layout of the basement carpark, including aisle widths, turn path and car space dimensions are to be, at a minimum, in accordance with AS 2890.1 – 1993.

 

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

 

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 front property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be:

 

·    At RL 15.65 (AHD) at the northern boundary;

·    At RL 15.75 (AHD) at the southern boundary; and

·    Grade linearly between the two points specified above

 

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.

 

67.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the existing footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

68.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $369 calculated at $27.50 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

69.       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.

 

70.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Notice must be issued to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the construction certificate being issued.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to occupation of the development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i.          Roof areas

ii.          Paved areas

iii.         Grassed areas

iv.         Garden areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

78.       The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year storm event should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm.

 

79.       A "restriction as to user and positive covenant" shall be placed on the title of the subject property prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate. Such restriction and positive covenant shall relate to the onsite stormwater detention system and shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

a.   The "restriction as to user and positive covenant" are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services Department.

b.   The linen plans shall indicate the location and dimensions of the detention/infiltration areas. 

 

This condition is to ensure that no works which could affect the design function of the detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council.

 

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

 

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

 

82.       The floor level of all habitable and storage areas adjacent to the detention area must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be constructed.

 

(In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

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

 

84.       Stormwater pipes shall be located in accessible locations.

 

85.       Pump out systems will only be considered if the applicant can demonstrate that it is not possible to manage stormwater runoff in any other manner.

 

Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the permissible discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working.

 

The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with "Section 8.4 PUMP SYSTEMS" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

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

 

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

b)       prior to stormwater discharging into any absorption/infiltration system.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·    A sign adjacent to this pit stating that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

88.       Any Absorption Trenches/Pits must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

89.       One covered car washing bay shall be provided for this development.

 

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

 

b)         The car washing bay must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system.

 

c)         The car washing bay must be signposted with Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

 

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

 

d)         A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bay.

 

90.       Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer. The works-as-executed drainage plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and shall include the following details:

 

a)           The location of the detention basin with finished surface levels;

b)          Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

c)           Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

d)          The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes;

e)           The orifice size(s) (if applicable); and

f)           Details of any pumping systems installed (including wet well volumes).

 

91.       Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council’s Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the conditions of development consent. The certification must be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

92.       Should the above site encounter groundwater/seepage water within the depth of the basement excavation, the basement carpark or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

94.       The residential garbage room areas shall be sized to contain a total of 12 x 240 litre bins (6 garbage bins & 6 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

95.       The commercial garbage room areas shall be sized to contain a total of 2 x 240 litre bins (1 garbage bin & 1 recycle bin) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

96.       The waste storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

97.       Prior to the credited certifier issuing an occupation certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to contact Council’s Manager of Waste in regards to meeting Council’s requirements for waste services to the units.

 

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

 

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

 

99.       The landscaped areas shown on the plan number DA/02 dated Nov 03 shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). The documentation is to include:

 

a.         A site plan at an appropriate scale showing existing site boundaries, existing trees within the property (clearly identified as being retained or removed), existing street trees (clearly identified as being retained or removed), features on adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary (buildings, trees, other structures etc), council’s footway, existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, and at the base of the tree/s to be retained, proposed building envelope, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.

 

The plan shall clearly show the position, canopy spread (location of dripline), trunk diameter, height and names of all existing trees upon the site and adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary which are likely to be affected by the development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

f.          Sectional elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

g.         The landscape plan shall show a minimum number of 10 x 75 litre broad canopied trees (not palms) suitably located within the rear of the site. The trees selected shall be of a species that attain a maximum height of 8 metres at maturity.

 

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

 

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

 

101.     The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the Bunnerong Street frontage of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Matraville Commercial Centre. The landscape design shall include pavements, seat installations, bins and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0786.

 

The Landscape Design plans shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director A & I Services in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the certifying authority issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

All street furniture is required to be purchased through Council. Due to supply constraints, the applicant is required to place an order and pay for the required furniture three months prior to the estimated date for the completion of street frontage works.

 

The applicant shall note that the approved landscape works carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council’s requirements for Civil Works on Council property. An application for the cost of the landscape works on Council property is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design checking and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council’s nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $2,000 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the construction of the approved landscape works along the Bunnerong Road site frontage.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

106.     A refundable deposit in the form of cash, cheque, or bank guarantee for the amount of $12,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ADVISINGS

 

A1       The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

            In this regard, the development consent plans do not show compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, including:

 

            a)      Part C3            -              Protection of openings

            b)      Part D1            -              Provisions for escape

            c)      Part D2            -              Construction of exits

            d)      Part D3            -              Access for people with disabilities

            e)      Clause D3.5     -              Car parking for people with disabilities

            f)       Part E1             -              Fire fighting equipment

            g)      Part E4             -              Emergency lighting, exit signs and warning systems

 

            Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

A2       The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 plans

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

9 December, 2003

FILE NO:

D/594/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification - Seeking deletion of condition 2 requiring the painting of the southern boundary wall facing 17 Castle Street

PROPERTY:

 15 Castle Street Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Michail Tsagaris

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Health Building and Planning Committee as Council determined the original application.

 

The applicant proposes to delete condition 2 of the development consent, which requires the northern wall of 15 Castle Street to be painted a light heritage colour.

 

The main issue for consideration is whether the condition will have a beneficial impact on the neighbouring property at 17 Castle Street and whether or not the condition is reasonable.

 

The recommendation is for Condition 2 to be retained in its current form.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application details the deletion of condition 2 of the Development Consent, which states:

 

‘2.             The whole of the southern brick boundary wall facing 17 Castle Street to be painted in a light heritage colour.  The colours and materials and finishes of other external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Environment, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.’

 

The applicant is requesting that the condition be deleted for the following summarised reasons:

 

·    ‘The condition is not required by ant DCP or LEP

·    There is no direct sunlight hitting the wall as it faces south.

·    The condition is onerous and infers that the applicant should improve the aesthetics for the property at 17 Castle Street.

·    The applicant has done ‘ever thing possible’ to minimise the impact on 17 Castle Street including

§ Setting back the addition 5.5 metres from the façade.

§ Providing a hip roof and lowering the wall height and roof line.

§ Having guttering lower than that of 17 Castle Street.

§ The ridge height of the addition is 3.3 metres less than that of 17 Castle Street.

·    The Randwick Town Planning Department recommended that the proposal be approved without condition 2.

·    No evidence was raised at the council meeting supporting the painting of the southern wall.

·    The proposal was only for the new addition and that the painting of the whole southern wall is ‘untenable’.

·    17 Castle Street has plans before Council for skylights and altered windows, which will achieve the light, sought.

·    The painting of the wall is not in keeping with the Councils stated aims of the conservation area.

·    The painting of one side wall is not in keeping with surrounding homes and is ‘unwarranted.’

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of free standing and semi detached dwellings and a number of low scale residential flat buildings. The whole locality is within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation area, which is characterised by a mixture of federation style dwellings and large mansion style dwellings

 

The subdivision pattern in this street is unusual in that most of the premises on the eastern side of the street are sited up to, or very close to the southern boundary, rather than the standard distance of at least 900mm.  The west side of Castle Street forms the rear yard of the dwellings fronting Earl Street and this streetscape consists predominantly of garages and carports.

 

The subject premises is one and part two, free standing dwelling, which is sited up to the northern boundary. The site has overall dimensions of 6.095 metres x 31.345 metres, a site area of 191 square metres, and there is an existing carport within the yard with access from Castle Lane.

 

Immediately to the north is a two storey residential flat building.  The distance separating the two buildings is approximately 1 metre.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

On 24 June 2002 a Development Application was received for additions to the first floor of existing dwelling house at 15 Castle Street Randwick..  The application was notified and advertised on 16 July 2002 for a period of 14 days.

 

In response, one objection was received from Mrs A James of 17 Castle Street, on the basis of solar access, floor space, bulk and scale, car parking and non-compliance with the Setback Preferred Solutions of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan.   

 

The Health Building and Planning Committee granted consent on 12 November 2002 subject to 18 conditions including condition 2, which requires the southern wall of the building to be painted a light heritage colour.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Councils Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans Development Control Plan on 17 November 2003. As a result of this notification the following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objection

 

A James 17 Castle Street Randwick

 

            Two objection letters have been received from the owner of 17 Castle Street Randwick.  A summary of the first objection letter received on 3 December 2003 is as follows:

 

·          The original proposal did not meet many aspects of Councils DCP.

·          The constructed works have had an impact on the amount of sunlight, natural light and amenity available to the property at 17 Castle Street.

·          A colour scheme detailing the wall being painted a light ivory colour for the southern wall was included with the Construction Certificate Application and has been endorsed by Councils Heritage Planner.

·          The condition to paint the wall white is ‘fair’ trade given the impacts to number 17 Castle Street

·          The objector has conducted an experiment at 12 noon on 1 December 2003 with a ISO light metre and a sheet of 1.2 x 1.2 white plaster board.  The board was placed against the southern wall of 15 Castle Street and the light metre placed within each of the ground floor rooms.  The objector claims that there was between a 150 and 200% increase in natural light available in each of the rooms when the board was placed against the wall.

·          The objector does not think that it is ‘onerous’ for the applicant to paint the wall in two coats of paint. 

 

A further objection letter was received on 19 December 2003.  A summary of this objection letter is as follows:

 

·          Believes that there will be a reflective light gain with sunlight hitting the southern wall of 15 Castle Street.  Has submitted photographs and diagrams showing this in December.

·          Does not believe that the condition is onerous either ‘financial’ or ‘effort’ wise. Has offered to paint the wall herself.  Believes that the benefit of the extension outweighs the cost of painting the wall.

·          Maintains that the condition has not been imposed to improve the aesthetics of 17 Castle Street but to redress the impacts of the first floor addition.

·          Although the approved addition represents 20% of the total wall area, maintains that it is this small section which has caused direct sunlight loss to ground floor living areas of number 17 Castle Street.

·          The applicant agreed to the painting of the wall when the colours were included in the Colour Scheme lodged with the construction certificate.

·          Maintains that the Chinese Tallow street trees will obscure any view of the southern wall from the street.

 

Comments

 

See Section 9 of this report.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the Councils Heritage Planner for comment and the following advice have been provided:

 

‘The subject site is located within the North Randwick Conservation Area and is occupied by a dwelling, originally in the Federation style, but which has been substantially altered, including painting of face brickwork to the front façade and replacement of original roofing and front windows.  The dwelling has been the subject of an upper level addition set well to the rear of the dwelling.  The subject site is part of a group of two storey dwellings towards the centre of Castle Street, with predominantly single storey dwellings towards either end.

 

Development consent has been granted for an upper level addition in front of the earlier upper level addition, but somewhat set back from the front wall of the dwelling at ground floor level.  The proposal provides a pitched roof over the new addition to match the ground level pitched roof, with a hipped roof to the front elevation. 

 

A Section 96 application has been received which proposes the deletion of consent condition no.2.  This consent condition requires the southern wall of the dwelling, facing no.17 Castle Street to be painted a light heritage colour, and that the colours, materials and finishes of other surfaces are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area.  It is noted that all the walls of the existing dwelling, including side walls at ground and upper floor level, and the front wall of the upper level, consist of common brickwork.  Only the front façade at ground level consists of painted brickwork.

 

There are no heritage objections to the existing materials and finishes.  The Draft Development Control Plan for the North Randwick Conservation Area notes the importance of original materials, generally face brickwork for the front elevation and common bricks at the sides and the rear.  The existing common bricks to the side elevations are consistent with the Draft DCP guidelines.  There are no heritage objections to the deletion of the first part of consent condition no.2, which requires that the southern wall of the dwelling be painted a light heritage colour.  The second part of consent condition no.2, an important standard consent condition, which requires that materials and finishes of other surfaces be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings, should be retained.’

 

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 Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1       Substantially The Same

 

The proposed modifications to the original development proposal are considered to represent substantially the same development.

 

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       Condition 2

 

The original proposal as reported to the Health Building & Planning Committee, satisfied the relevant performance criteria of both the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan and the Draft North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area Development Control Plan.  However, at Council’s Health Building and Planning Committee Meeting, Condition No.2 was amended to include the painting of the southern boundary wall of 15 Castle Street in a light heritage colour.

 

The objector maintains that the applicant has agreed to the wall being painted with the lodgement of the colour scheme with the Construction Certificate.  However it should be noted, as this is a condition of consent it must be satisfied for the Construction Certificate to be issued. 

 

Shadow diagrams produced with the Development Application indicate the degree of overshadowing caused by the development is not as significant as the objector has stated given the extent of the existing first floor addition.  Three windows of 17 Castle Street, these being to the northern ground floor dwellings bathroom and second bedroom/study have been affected by the first floor addition at 12 Noon. At 3:00pm there have been two windows affected by the first floor addition, these being to the second bedroom/study, and dining room. 

 

It should be noted that the shadow diagrams submitted with development application indicate that all of these windows were already in shadow at 9am, with the majority of the northern ground floor dwellings bathroom and second bedroom/study being in shadow at 12 noon, and over 95% of the windows to the second bedroom/study, and dining room were in shadow at 3:00pm.  In this regard it is therefore not considered that the additional overshadowing impact is excessive and has not had as great an impact on the neighbouring properties access to natural light as the objector has stated.

 

The applicant has also stated that the owner of 17 Castle Street has recently received development consent for skylights and bay windows to improve access to sunlight.  The objector has included evidence  that sunlight will hit the southern wall of 15 Castle Street.  It should be noted that these diagrams indicate sunlight hitting the wall in December when the sun is furthest south of the equator.   It is not considered that this is documentary evidence that direct sunlight will fall onto the southern wall of 15 Castle Street all year round and therefore the objector’s statements of direct sunlight reflecting off the southern wall of 15 Castle Street onto the northern windows of 17 Castle Street cannot be supported.

 

It is however considered that painting the southern wall of 15 Castle Street will have an amenity benefit as a lighter coloured wall would allow indirect natural light to reflect off the southern wall of 15 Castle Street.  Hence it is not considered that the requirement to paint of the southern boundary wall is onerous given the loss of direct sunlight onto the northern windows of 17 Castle Street.

 

There have been no heritage objections raised by Council’s Heritage Planner to the Colour Scheme proposed with the Construction Certificate.  However, it is recognised that the Draft Development Control Plan for the North Randwick Conservation Area notes the importance of original materials, generally face brickwork for the front elevation and common bricks at the sides and the rear.  The neighbouring two properties at 11 and 13 Castle Street have light coloured painted walls.  It is therefore not considered that painting the southern wall of 15 Castle Street will have a detrimental impact on either the appearance of the dwelling or the streetscape of Castle Street.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

Given the imposition of condition 2 was to provide an amenity benefit to the adjoining property to the south at 17 Castle Street and to ensure the colours, materials and finishes of the addition are appropriate within the Heritage Conservation Area, it is not considered that the requirement to paint the southern boundary wall is onerous given the loss of direct sunlight onto the northern windows of 17 Castle Street and Council’s Heritage Planner has no objection to the condition.  Accordingly, it is recommended that Condition 2 of the Development Consent be retained.

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to delete condition 2 of Development Consent No. D/594/2002 on property 15 Castle Street Randwick for the following reasons:

 

1.         Painting the southern wall of 15 Castle Street will have an amenity benefit, as a lighter coloured wall would allow indirect natural light to reflect off the southern wall of 15 Castle Street. 

2.         Given the approved siting of the brick wall of the addition of No 15 Castle Street on the southern boundary, the imposition of the condition is considered reasonable in the circumstances.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

SHAUN HEHIR

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

STUDENT PLANNER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

5 January, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 758/2003   3

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolish existing car yard and residential flat building on the site and construct new mixed-use development comprising residential and commercial uses and basement parking

PROPERTY:

 48-58 Maroubra Road & 63 Royal Street

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Vanimo P/L and Blackbutt Estate P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as it is valued at $17m.

 

The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing buildings on the site (used as a car yard and residential flat building), excavate and construct two (2) levels of basement carparking and a new mixed-use development on the site at 48-58 Maroubra Road and 63 Royal Street, Maroubra. The above ground development will comprise 73 residential units and 4 ground floor commercial tenancies to Maroubra Road.

 

The site enjoys the benefits of ‘existing use rights’ under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as it has been operating (with development consent) commercially and as multi unit housing prior to the coming into force of RLEP 1998. As such the EP&A regulations allow the existing use to change to another non-conforming use. The proposed development is therefore permissible under the ‘existing use’ provisions of the EP&A Act. As a consequence of the existing use provisions any relevant development standards under RLEP 1998 are not applicable.  This also includes any relevant aims and objectives contained within LEP’s.  However such aims and objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a new assessment of the proposal.

 

The development exceeds the standards for height and FSR in the 2(a) zone, however the high-quality design of the proposal has limited its impact on surrounding properties. The development will not result in significant additional overshadowing or privacy impacts to adjoining neighbours. Although the site enjoys the benefits of existing use rights, the development meets Council’s landscaping requirements under the LEP and carparking requirements under the relevant DCP. The redevelopment of the site will improve the amenity of the area by removing a non-conforming use and replacing it with a primarily residential use. The landscaped central courtyard will improve the outlook for adjoining properties.

 

The development ranges in height from 3-6 storeys and is generally consistent with surrounding development and the width of adjoining streets. Deferred Commencement Condition 1 will ensure that the building is appropriate to the surrounding context by reducing the overall height of the building to 5 storeys and removing a storey from the portion of the building adjoining Glanfield and Royal Streets. Council’s Design Review Panel made comment on the proposal indicating that it meets the 10 principles of good design.

 

The recommendation is for deferred commencement subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect a mixed retail and residential development comprising 7,088m2 of Gross Floor Area (GFA) and being 3-6 storeys in height. Two levels of basement car parking are also proposed. The building form is to be distributed along the three street frontages of the site, forming a perimeter building with communal open space to the centre of the site. Along Maroubra Road the building is generally 5 storeys in height, rising to 6 storeys on the corner of Maroubra Road and Royal Street. Along Royal Street 4 storeys of residential apartments are provided with pedestrian access from Royal Street. Along Glanfield Street the building is generally 3 storeys in height with 3 loft areas rising to 4 storeys.

 

The major component of the development is residential, comprised of 73 units (19 x 1 bed, 52 x 2 bed and 2 x 3 bedroom units). The building that addresses Maroubra Road comprises 4 commercial tenancies (288m2) at ground floor level with 4-5 storeys of residential units. This building also incorporates two specifically designed home/office apartments at ground floor level with entry from Maroubra Road. A mix of unit types including cross over, cross through and two storey apartments are provided throughout the development. Each unit is provided with private open space in the form of balconies.

 

The development proposes 2,089m2 of communal open space and landscaping. 26.4% of this landscaping is classified as deep soil, being free of any building structures above or below the ground. The courtyard will provide composting and clothes drying facilities as well as decked and turfed areas for passive and active recreation.

 

Car parking for the development is accommodated within two levels of basement carparking for 110 vehicles. 7 spaces are dedicated to retail/commercial tenancies and 103 spaces are dedicated to residential units/ visitors. 32 bicycle parking spaces have also been incorporated into the basement design. Access to the carparking is provided from Royal Street. A loading bay is provided to the western boundary of the site at street level with access off Royal Street.

 

Glanfield Street to the rear of the site is narrow and is not kerbed. Council requires a dedication of land from redevelopment sites along Glanfield Street to allow for road widening. The proposed dedication of a 4.57 metre wide strip to the rear of the site (along the northern boundary) meets Council’s requirements and will allow for a footpath, kerb and guttering to be installed on the southern side of Glanfield Street for the length of the site.

 

The design of the proposed building is contemporary in style, with the external finishes being a mixture of face brickwork, rendered masonry with detailing in various forms of aluminium. Clear, colour-backed and translucent glazing is proposed to balustrading and window treatments throughout the development.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is a regular shape and is located on the corner of Maroubra Road and Royal Street in Maroubra, extending north to Glanfield Street. The southern boundary of the site measures 60.345m and adjoins Maroubra Road, the western boundary fronts Royal Street and measures 67.095m (62.525m after land dedication), the northern boundary of the site adjoins Glanfield Street and measures 60.35m. The eastern boundary of the site measures 67.065m (62.495m after dedication) and adjoins 60 Maroubra Road (a six storey residential flat building). The total site area inclusive of land dedication for road widening is 4,046.8m2 (3,771m2 exclusive of the dedication). The site is comprised of seven separate allotments:

 

Address

Lot and DP

Improvements

54 Maroubra Road

Lots 1 &2 in DP 901019

Car sales yard – stock parking and single storey showroom building

56 Maroubra Road

Lot 2 in DP 962347

1-2 storey car showroom building and single storey workshop to the rear

58 Maroubra Road

Lot 1 in DP 962347

Uncovered asphalt parking area associated with showroom and workshop

59 Royal Street

Lot 10 in DP 791694

Uncovered asphalt parking area associated with showroom and workshop

61 Royal Street

Lot 11 in DP 791694

Uncovered asphalt parking area associated with showroom and workshop

63 Royal Street

Lot 3 in DP 901019

2 storey residential flat building containing 4 dwellings

 

Development in the locality is comprised of a variety of residential uses. Directly adjacent the site to the east is a six storey residential flat building (60 Maroubra Road). Further to the east along Maroubra Road are more 4-6 storey residential flat buildings. Across Glanfield Street to the north are two storey dwelling houses. The majority of the Glanfield Street frontage addresses the two storey dwelling on the corner of Royal and Glanfield Streets (57 Royal Street). Across Royal Street to the west is a range of residential development. The block from Maroubra Road to Glanfield Street is comprised of 1 and 2 storey dwellings and a three storey flat building on the corner of Royal and Glanfield Streets. Further to the north on Royal Street are 1-2 storey detached dwelling houses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Further west of the site, along Maroubra Road are a mix of 1-2 storey dwellings and older style 3 storey flat buildings. Development across Maroubra Road to the south is generally comprised of single storey detached dwelling houses, with some two storey houses. Directly opposite the site (across Maroubra Road) are 4 1-2 storey dwellings (69-79 Maroubra Road) including a pair of semi-detached dwellings. Maroubra Road is 30 metres wide.

 

The site is located approximately 650 metres to the west of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was lodged on August 27, 2003. As a result of comments made by the Randwick Design Review Panel and Council officers, amendments to the scheme were lodged on 28 November 2003. Further amendments to the lower levels of the development were submitted on 5 December 2003. The amendments submitted in November and December are the subject of this assessment.

 

The amended plans show a reduction in the number of units by 3 and change in unit mix (reduced number of bedrooms to some units). These changes have allowed for increased setbacks to the upper level of the building along the Royal Street frontage including the corner portion of the building at the corner of Royal Street and Maroubra Road. The off-street parking provision for the development has been increased to meet the requirements of Council’s DCP- Parking. Amendments to servicing areas such as the loading dock and garbage storage have also been made.

 

b.    HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

The following development applications have previously been lodged for the subject site:-

 

68/00518/DZ

Use land to sell new and used cars

Approved 16/12/69

71/00102/DZ

Use existing commercial premises and adjacent dwelling for sale of new and used cars

Approved 20/07/71

74/00005/DZ

Erect car sales room for sale of motor vehicles

Approved 28/06/74

85/00062/DZ

Use showroom as showroom for wholesale supplies of paint and accessories

Approved 01/04/85

95/00192/DZ

Workshop extensions plus staff and customer parking

Approved 19/12/95

T-19-158

Rezoning application to allow use of land at 59-61 Royal Street for carparking in conjunction with adjoining motor showroom uses

LEP Gazetted 20/1/95

BA 11/1960

Two storey, 4 x 2 bedroom residential flat building

Approved 19/1/1960

 

The 1995 consent related to the whole of the site, excluding 63 Royal Street (the residential flat building) and predates the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP). This consent was granted for 2 years and expired on 19/12/97. Local Approval Application (LA96/568) relating to the DA notes that a footings inspection was undertaken on 18/3/97. This indicates that the works to provide staff carparking were substantially commenced within the two year timeframe of the 1995 consent. 63 Royal Street has the benefit of existing use rights by virtue of consent BA 11/1960. The applicant has also provided a letter from Council dated 27th February 1985 confirming that the site enjoyed the benefit of existing use rights at that time. This is consistent with the approval granted later in that year to use the showroom for wholesaling of paint and accessories.

 

Existing use rights have been established and provide a basis for assessment of this application despite the proposed development being prohibited in the 2(a) zone.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. In response to the notification period ending on 24 September 2003, the following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

1.   P.Davies, 69 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Building is too high and wide

§ Out of character with 2A zone

§ Development should be residential only

§ Building should be setback from street boundaries to allow for gardens and planting as exists on other sites on Maroubra Road and Royal Street

§ Too many 1 bedroom units have been proposed

 

2.   B.Blakeway, 63 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

G.Sloan, 63 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Overdevelopment

§ Design is an ‘eyesore’ and is inconsistent with the local environment

§ Height – 2 storeys higher than existing blocks of flats

§ Overlooking

§ Overshadowing

§ Development will result in dangerous traffic conflicts

§ FSR is exceeded

§ Townhouses with gardens are more appropriate to the area

§ Oppose the colour scheme – a quieter theme should be adopted

§ Should be setback from Maroubra Road

§ Carparking

§ Capacity of infrastructure and services to cope with the proposed density in this area

§ Reduced property values

§ Commercial tenancies should not be allowed in this area

§ Building should be 7m from the boundary to provide for planting to the front of the development

§ Stormwater runoff – development in the area already exceeds capacity of system

 

3.   E.Salgado and Family, 65 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Construction noise and damage (settlement and vibration)

§ Too big and high

§ No landscaping to the street

§ Overshadowing

§ No communal areas and space for garbage etc.

§ Colour scheme is inconsistent with surrounding properties

§ Traffic safety due to increased volumes

§ Residential area – townhouses are more appropriate

 

4.   B & A Sheather, 61 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Contamination from underground petrol tanks

§ Vibration damage to surrounding properties during construction

§ Disruption due to heavy vehicles and road closures

§ Sandy soil will result in dust being spread during construction

§ Building is an eyesore and is built to the street alignment

§ Overshadowing

§ Maroubra Rd frontage is too long – development is overwhelming in size

§ Overlooking

§ Wind tunnel effects from U-shape proposed

§ Communal space will be overshadowed

§ BBQs, playgrounds, clotheslines and garbage storage have not been shown on the plans

§ Lift well not shown and plant room areas not shown on roof

§ TV reception may be affected – developer should ensure that signal quality remains

§ Stormwater drainage is unclear

§ Energy Australia should be consulted to ensure power can be provided – all power and telecommunications are to be installed underground

§ Colour scheme does not fit in with surrounds

§ Residents have spent money on 2 water bores – carparking should not allowed to contaminate these valuable resources

§ Security of the footings

§ Water tanks and solar panels should be installed

§ Town houses without any commercial component would be more appropriate to the area

§ Traffic volumes and safety impacts

§ Inadequate commercial parking

§ Bus stop outside 69-73 Maroubra Road has not been indicated – it should remain

 

5.   T.V &T.M Truong, 53 Royal Street, Maroubra

 

§ Too high

§ Development is an eye sore

§ Overlooking

§ Traffic safety and volume

§ Loss of property values

§ Commercial area is close to this site, development is not needed

§ Townhouses are more appropriate

 

6.   M.J Seaton, 44 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Overshadowing

§ Parking

§ Traffic volume and safety

§ Inadequate infrastructure

§ Reduced property values

 

7.   T.Kwok, 48 Glanfield Street, Maroubra

 

§ Height and bulk

§ Inconsistent with the neighbourhood

§ No commercial areas should be included in development

§ 7m front setback would allow for planting to the front of the building, this will allow for future footpaths and road widening

§ Traffic volume and safety

§ Traffic lights are required at the corner of Maroubra Road and Royal Street.

§ Townhouses are more appropriate form of development for the site

 

8.   P.Pavich, 42 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Concern over Council’s notification procedure and timeframe for submissions

§ Overdevelopment

§ Too many developers are purchasing properties in the area to the detriment of home buyers

§ Building is too high in context of surrounding residential zone

§ Residents rights will be encroached upon

§ Concern over impact of development on existing infrastructure capacity

§ Demand is for ‘family housing’ with yard and play areas

§ Overshadowing and loss of aspect

§ Proposal should be submitted to the Land & Environment Court for a reasonable decision

§ Building is built to the curb and will obstruct the vision of motorists and pedestrians resulting in a greater number of accidents

§ Congestion from additional commercial suites proposed

§ Shops will be vacant and will not contribute to the streetscape

§ Design is sterile and similar to existing development in Maroubra Junction

§ Too high

§ Contemporary aesthetic is inappropriate to Maroubra

§ Insufficient parking

§ Concern regarding role of planning profession and Council in making aesthetic decisions as noted in recent media coverage

 

9.   M & G Horrigan, 39 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Cumulative impact of recent residential developments on viability of commercial precinct

§ Garbage storage and collection

§ Parking

 

10. J & R Kapellas, 1 Hinkler Street, Maroubra

 

§ Building is too high

§ Overlooking

§ Inadequate setbacks from Maroubra Road, lack of opportunities for landscaping

§ Increased setbacks from Maroubra Road would reduce overshadowing

§ Inappropriate unit mix – too many 1 bedroom units and not enough 3 bedroom units

§ Shops are inappropriate in this location

§ Median strip planting is supported, Council should also ensure that footpaths, street planting and undergrounding of overhead wires is contributed to by the proposal

§ Traffic safety – restrictions should be imposed

§ Inadequate visitor parking spaces proposed

 

11. BDO Property on behalf of 60 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ FSR and height is non-compliant and excessive

§ Mixed use development is prohibited in the 2(a) zone

§ Setbacks do not comply with the DCP

§ Overlooking

§ Construction impacts

§ Request a dilapidation report for any approval

§ Out of character with the area

§ Overdevelopment

 

12. M.Baumgartner, 10 Hinkler Street, Maroubra

 

§ Increased traffic, road congestion and vehicular movements

§ Increased noise pollution

§ Reduced pedestrian safety

§ Reduced property values

§ Height

§ Insufficient information regarding commercial activities that can be carried out on the site

 

13. J.Kwan, 46 Glanfield Street, Maroubra

 

§ Structure is too close to the Glanfield Street boundary, should be aligned with existing buildings

§ Narrowness of Glanfield Street will result in overlooking from the development

 

14. R.Spicer, 57 Royal Street, Maroubra

 

§ Narrowness of laneway – traffic and safety issues

§ Out of character with surrounding scale and development

§ Overdevelopment

§ Insufficient setbacks on Glanfield Street

 

15. J.Cantlon, 103 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Development is excessive given existing construction in Maroubra Junction

§ Parking impacts

§ Increased traffic

§ Units will be tenanted rather than owner-occupied and this will lead to social problems

§ TV reception interrupted already by large developments with no compensation

 

16. C.Locke, 49 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ No formal notification received although resident lives 100m from subject site

§ Overdevelopment

§ Traffic and parking problems

§ Rubbish collection

§ Aesthetics – building is out of character with surrounds and is unattractive

§ Provision of clotheslines

§ Spread of Maroubra Junction CBD, poor precedent

§ Pressure on existing infrastructure

§ More reasonable development should be considered

 

17. S.Tan, 50 Glanfield Street, Maroubra

 

§ The applicant has misinterpreted existing use rights – reliance on existing use rights is unsound. Sites cannot be amalgamated as each separately benefits from the existing use rights.

§ Non-compliance with FSR, height and setbacks

§ Traffic impacts

§ Noise and residential amenity impacts

§ Overlooking

§ Building form degrades the urban design and landscaping of the immediate area

§ Inadequate setbacks

§ Units will be tenanted introducing a transient population and social impacts

 

18. I.Supandi, 44 Glanfield Street, Maroubra

 

§ Building is too large

§ Increased traffic and reduced safety

§ Setbacks should be increased

 

19. Mr & Mrs W. Thompson, 67 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Building is too high

§ Overlooking

§ Overshadowing

§ Dust and damage during construction

§ Decreased property value

§ Traffic safety

§ Interruption to TV reception

§ Nil setback to the street

§ Bus stop is outside the units – will it be maintained

 

20. B.Scott, 53 Wild Street, Maroubra

 

§ Applicant presumes that site is zoned commercial

§ Development is inconsistent with 2A zoning and buildings of this type should only be allowed in Maroubra Junction CBD

§ Overdevelopment

§ Inadequate parking

§ Inadequate notification – only 120 letters sent by Council

 

21. Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee, c/- The Secretary, PO Box 372, Maroubra

 

§ Development contravenes LEP and draft DCP

§ Commercial zone has extended too far already – site is zoned 2A and should not be used for commercial purposes

§ Non-compliant FSR, height and setbacks and parking

§ Scale and character of surrounding development is not considered in the design of the building

 

22. E & E Lyon, 45 Mason Street, Maroubra

 

§ Development contravenes LEP and draft DCP

§ Commercial zone has extended too far already – site is zoned 2A and should not be used for commercial purposes

§ Non-compliant FSR, height and setbacks and parking

§ Town houses would be more appropriate form of development

 

23. D.Park, 31 Hannan Street, Maroubra

 

§ Development is out of character with residential zoning of surrounding area

§ Overdevelopment

§ Commercial uses are inappropriate outside of Maroubra Junction CBD

§ Excessive height

§ Traffic and parking impacts

 

24. C.Thomas & M.Cilia, 45 Royal Street, Maroubra

§ Development is inconsistent with 2A zoning

§ Parking impacts, insufficient off street parking provided

§ Increased traffic and safety impacts

§ Six storeys is too high – development should be limited to 3 storeys

§ Inappropriate form of development outside the Maroubra Junction CBD

 

25. K & B Boyle, 127 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Overdevelopment, cumulative impact of development given existing and approved buildings at Maroubra Junction

§ Traffic impacts

 

26. G & L Capon, 35 Storey Street, Maroubra

 

§ Overdevelopment

§ Inconsistent with 2A zoning of the site

§ Outside Maroubra Junction

§ Inadequate car parking

§ Sharing of commercial and residential spaces and use of kerbside parking inappropriate

§ Use of 1996 traffic data to project traffic movements

§ Garbage collection

§ Proposed commercial spaces are not workable in this area and climate

 

A form letter was received from the following

 

27. R.Baker, 40 Hannan Street, Maroubra

28. A.Parsons, Hinkler Street, Maroubra

29. R.Sarnacki, 48 Royal Street, Maroubra

30. G.Sloan & B.Blakeway, 63 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

31. M.Hardi, 17 Paine Street, Maroubra

32. C&P Weinberger, 26 Mason Street, Maroubra

33. C.Cool, 4/66 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

34. N & J Vozzo, 39 Royal Street, Maroubra

35. D & J Arnfield, 14/66-70 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

36. L. Bergmann, 8 Percival Street, Maroubra

37. R.Ellison, 98 Paine Street, Maroubra

38. R & S Brown, 18 Wild Street, Maroubra

39. J,D & C Vik, 17 Hinkler Street, Maroubra

40. K & K Osborn, 36A Boyce Road, Maroubra

41. M & S Mullane, 78A Paine Street, Maroubra

42. J. Da Costa, 44 Paine Street, Maroubra

43. C. Foster, 9 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

44. O. Gerald, 42 Paine Street, Maroubra

45. J & J Ruiz, 35 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

46. J.McLeod, 16 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

47. S.Pollari, 29 Royal Street, Maroubra

48. S. Ferguson, 17 Boyce Road, Maroubra

49. C.Kelly, 39 Mason Street, Maroubra

50. D & D Smith, 26 Hinkler Street, Maroubra

§ Additional comment that Council cannot provide adequate services for the development and that there are enough apartments in the area already

51. O. Nam, 30 Glanfield Street, Maroubra

52. A.Kringas, 53 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

53. Mr & Mrs R.C Paris, 57 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

54. P & M Tsangaris, 57 Wild Street, Maroubra

55. Mrs.G Horrigan, 89 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

56. R & L McGrath, 105 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

57. M.McPherson, 31 Paine Street, Maroubra

58. K.Shalvey, 64 Paine Street, Maroubra

59. P & R service, 14 Holden Street, Maroubra

60. R.Keane, 22 Boyce Road, Maroubra

61. L.Dawson, 13 Hinkler Street, Maroubra

62. A. Raisin, 8 Royal Street, Maroubra

63. R.Crane, 91 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

64. K & B Frew, 8 Paine Street, Maroubra

65. H.Norman, M & N Powys, 77 Paine Street, Maroubra

66. Mr & Mrs Rockell, 31 Cobham Street, Maroubra

67. J.T.S Kwok, 26 Royal Street, Maroubra

68. H.Baker, 19 Donovan Avenue, Maroubra

69. Y & A Tang, 14 Mason Street, Maroubra

70. H.Kannis, 59 Boyce Road, Maroubra

71. J & S Westheimer, 17 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

§ Additional comment emphasising traffic safety

72. A.Foster, C.Blakney and J.Blakester, 4 Walsh Avenue, Maroubra

73. G & S Bridle, 11B Wild Street, Maroubra

§ Additional comment emphasising traffic and parking congestion due to use of backstreets to cut travel times

74. C.McMickan, 106 Paine Street, Maroubra

§ Additional comment that Royal Street is used as a shortcut and emphasise traffic and safety issues, site is not zoned for high rise

75. A.Williams & S.Botham, 8 Hinkler Street, Maroubra

76. S & A Larcos, 10 Paine Street, Maroubra

77. S.Dukic, 20 Royal Street, Maroubra

78. P Dukic, 20 Royal Street, Maroubra

79. M.Djukic, 20 Royal Street, Maroubra

80. R.Djukic, 20 Royal Street, Maroubra

81. J.Royle, 11/32 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

82. C.Sims, 9 Royal Street, Maroubra

83. B.Roberts, 10 Royal Street, Maroubra

84. A & B Montanari, 32 Cobham Street, Maroubra

85. B & G Douglas, 56 Mason Street, Maroubra

86. P & V Cradick, 24 Royal Street, Maroubra

87. A & B Sheather, 61 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

88. A.Field, 4 Ulm Street, Maroubra

89. P & A Holmes, 83 Hinkler Street, Maroubra

90. B.Lopresto, 28 Cobham Street, Maroubra

§ Additional comment that high-rise development does not blend in with the area

91. E. Lattouf, 5 Royal Street, Maroubra

92. H & G Scoufis, 21 Royal Street, Maroubra

93. P. Vasile, 38 Mason Street, Maroubra

94. K & M Sutherland, 6 Wild Street, Maroubra

95. S.Richardson, 14 Cobham Street, Maroubra

96. H.T Chu, Mason Street, Maroubra

97. B.Bourke, 62 Paine Street, Maroubra

98. C & F Misson, 53 Parer Street, Maroubra

99. R & J Phillips, 43 Wild Street, Maroubra

100.     A.Volpicoilla, 9/237 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

§ Additional comment that proposal will lead to a shortage of water and overlooking impacts

101.     C & N Mellick, 61 Paine Street, Maroubra

§ Additional comment relating to impacts on water usage

102.     T. Truong, 53 Royal Street, Maroubra

103.     J.Smuskowitz, 8 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

104.     G & A Tesoriero, 4 Wackett Street, Maroubra

105.     P.Bouris, 57 Hinkler Street, Maroubra

106.     K. & M Rains, 43 Paine Street, Maroubra

107.     N.Danilatos, 53 Hinkler Street, Maroubra

108.     Mr & Mrs Terra & N. Zupin, 66 Glanfield Street, Maroubra

109.     E.Raasch, 55 Wild Street, Maroubra

110.     K. Wong, 79 Mason Street, Maroubra

111.     S. Ryan, 47 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

112.     M. Madigan, 24 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

113.     K. Hazelwood & L. Messis, 55 Paine Street, Maroubra

114.     Mr & Mrs Vajda, Taylor Street, Maroubra

115.     S. Bell, 40 Parer Street, Maroubra

116.     J & M Poredos, 68 Glanfield Street, Maroubra

117.     R. Stanton, 19 Mason Street, Maroubra

118.     T Haggett & S Parsons, 12 Wild Street, Maroubra

119.     M. Rose, 5 Donovan Avenue, Maroubra (owner 6/66 Maroubra Road)

§ Emphasised impact of parking congestion

120.     J. Oshorov, 5 Cobham Street, Maroubra

121.     A & P Durante, 10 Boyce Road, Maroubra

122.     A.Sanzari, 1 Ulm Street, Maroubra

123.     M. Ryan, 1A Ulm Street, Maroubra

§ Additional comment that proposal will result in social impacts and request that additional community services be provided as a result of development

124.     M. Treweek, 81 Hinkler Street, Maroubra

 

The above letters raised the following issues

 

§ Overdevelopment

§ Excessive height

§ Commercial uses are inappropriate outside of Maroubra Junction CBD

§ Development is out of character with 2A residential zoning of surrounding area

§ Traffic and parking impacts

 

125.     Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee

 

§ Submitted a petition containing 43 signatures (duplicate signatures on previous petitions) dated 3rd November 2003 and list of issues below:

§ Commercial development is inconsistent with 2(a) zoning

§ Will set a poor precedent

§ High rise should be limited to Maroubra Junction CBD

§ Exceeds standards and will impact on the local environment

§ Traffic impacts, inadequate parking

§ TV reception, impact of tall aerials on appearance of the area, ugly appearance of power lines

§ Stormwater detention

§ Geotechnical and hydrological information due to high water table

§ Lack of setbacks- development is built to all boundaries

 

126.     T. Scott, 24 Glanfield Street, Maroubra

 

§ Proposal contravenes planning guidelines and 2A zoning of the site

§ Insufficient parking

§ Increased traffic flow, particularly in Glanfield Street

 

A petition with 93 signatures was also received opposing the development. The petition contained duplicated signatures and was signed by people who also sent in submissions.

 

The amendments received in December 2003 were advertised and re-notified to surrounding residents concluding on the 7th January 2004. In response the following submissions were received objecting to the proposal:

 

1.   P.Davies, 69 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (16 additional signatories to letter)

 

§ Challenges existing-use rights being applied to Lot 10 DP 791694 and Lot 3 901019 as these are currently and were previously used for residential purposes

 

2.   B.Blakeway, 63 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Amendments are cosmetic, no change to maximum height

§ Ugly façade remains

§ Inadequate setbacks

§ Inappropriate to use existing use rights to justify development, inconsistent with 2A zoning

§ Traffic impacts, inadequate parking

§ TV reception, impact of tall aerials on appearance of the area, ugly appearance of power lines

§ Stormwater detention - flooding

§ Geotechnical and hydrological information due to high water table

§ Lack of setbacks- development is built to all boundaries

 

3.   G.Sloan, 63 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Amendments are cosmetic, no change to maximum height

§ Ugly façade remains

§ Inadequate setbacks

§ Inappropriate to use existing use rights to justify development, inconsistent with 2A zoning

§ Traffic impacts, inadequate parking

§ TV reception, impact of tall aerials on appearance of the area, ugly appearance of power lines

§ Stormwater detention - flooding

§ Geotechnical and hydrological information due to high water table

§ Lack of setbacks- development is built to all boundaries

 

4.   P.Balint, 12 Holden Street, Maroubra

 

§ General objection to high-rise development in Maroubra

§ Traffic and parking impacts

 

5.   P. Davies, 69 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Amendments to proposal are inadequate

§ Insufficient setbacks

§ Reiterates previous objection

 

6.   E & E Lyon, 45 Mason Street, Maroubra

 

§ Commercial use inappropriate in 2A zone, should be restricted to Maroubra Junction CBD

§ Building is still non-compliant – amendments haven’t changed overall height

§ Setbacks are still non-compliant

§ No land provided for road widening on Glanfield Street

§ Car parking is inadequate

§ Traffic and safety issues, particularly on Glanfield Street

 

7.   R.Spicer, 57 Royal Street, Maroubra

 

§ Concerned over existing use rights – development is inconsistent with 2A zoning and resident’s expectations

§ Traffic flow on Glanfield Street

§ Impacts on on-street parking

§ Privacy impacts

§ Flooding

§ Impact on TV reception

§ Non-compliance with setbacks

§ Construction damage

§ Will impact the precedent value of surrounding intended developments such as the Goodyear, Beaurepaire and Pagewood Hotel sites

 

8.   B.Sheather, 61 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ Outraged at size and height of proposal

§ Out of character with surrounding area – this is not the Maroubra CBD

§ Privacy impacts

§ Colours and materials are inconsistent with local streetscape

§ Amendments have not addressed issues raised with original proposal

§ FSR is non-compliant

§ Bus stop is not included in DA

§ Inadequate parking

§ Overshadowing

§ Inadequate parking

§ Non-compliant setbacks

§ No rainwater tanks, solar collectors shown

§ No open space for residents – no playground or BBQs

§ New footpath around the development will provide better access and safety on the street with new native trees

§ Power lines should be undergrounded

§ On site composting should be provided

§ Garbage bins are to be collected from a suitable area – not Royal Street or Maroubra Road

§ External clothes drying area not provided

§ Stormwater drainage inadequate – flooding and impacts on surrounding properties

§ Impact of deliveries

§ Any impact on TV signal should be rectified at developers expense

§ 30 day notification period is inadequate, 500 residents should be notified for this development

§ Notification fees are not commensurate with the cost of works proposed

§ Traffic calming should immediately be halted for Royal Street

 

9.   I. Suprandi, 44 Glanfield Street, Maroubra

 

§ Site is too large

§ Inadequate parking

§ Privacy impacts due to excessive height

§ Colour scheme is revolting

§ Overshadowing

§ Inadequate setbacks

§ Stormwater drainage

§ Inadequate time given to respond to amendments

 

10. BDO Property on behalf of 60 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

§ FSR and height is non-compliant and excessive

§ Mixed use development is prohibited in the 2(a) zone

§ Setbacks do not comply with the DCP

§ Overlooking

§ Construction impacts

§ Request a dilapidation report for any approval

§ Out of character with the area

§ Overdevelopment

 

11. S.Tan, 50 Glanfield Street, Maroubra (on behalf of 50 Glanfield Street)

 

§ Reiterates previous objections

§ FSR and height are not in the public interest as they do not comply with Council’s LEP

§ Building exceeds residents’ reasonable expectations of what can be built on the site.

§ Amendments do not address previous concerns – FSR is still excessive

§ Setbacks are still inadequate, pedestrian safety issue

§ Development is not in the public interest, residents would be happy to participate in any defence of a refusal in the Land and Environment Court.

 

12. Maroubra Junction Precinct Committee, c/- The Secretary, PO Box 372, Maroubra

 

§ Doesn’t comply with 2A zone

§ Claim of commercial usage is incorrect due to existing residential flat building (residential use)

§ Corner of Glanfield and Royal Street was purchased for staff parking, is being used for storing and detailing of cars

§ Sets a poor precedent for purchase and amalgamation of non-conforming sites

§ Height is non-compliant and inconsistent with prevailing character

§ Setbacks do not comply

§ Carparking is inadequate

§ Development is not appropriately scaled and articulated in response to the residential character of surrounding streets

§ Commercial zone has extended too far with many vacancies

 

13. Robert Spicer, 57 Royal Street, Maroubra

 

§ Amendments do not go far enough, overall height and width have not been reduced

§ Basement parking is still inadequate

§ Inadequate commercial parking, security concerns

§ Contemporary colour scheme will quickly become an ‘eyesore’

§ Excessive height

§ Overshadowing

§ Privacy

§ Inconsistent with character

§ No loading bay provided

§ Inadequate setbacks

§ Garbage storage inadequate, concern over hours of operation of garbage compactor

§ Solar heating and lighting should be required

§ Open space is too small and tokenistic

§ Native species should be used for landscaping

§ Power cables should be undergrounded

§ Composting machine should be included in proposal

§ Drainage pit

§ Too few people notified of the development and too little time given to respond, 60 days is more appropriate

§ All parking during construction is to be on-site.

 

Over 50 proforma letters objecting to the amended plans have been received and are still being received. These submissions are being received several days to weeks after the closing date for submissions and have not been included in this report.

 

Issues of “compliance” have been addressed throughout this report. It should be noted however that development standards such as FSR, height and landscaping do not apply to properties that benefit from existing use rights. Legal advice has been sought in relation to the issue of existing use rights and the amalgamation of sites proposed. The legal advice confirms that Council is empowered to grant development consent to change the current existing uses to proposed non-conforming uses.

 

Setbacks, height and density have been discussed in detail throughout this report. Further amendments to reduce the height and density of the proposal have been conditioned where necessary (see deferred commencement conditions).

The development complies with Council’s parking requirements and appropriate conditions of consent have been imposed to address residents’ concerns such as landscaping, site remediation, construction damage, stormwater and Ecologically Sustainable Design (ESD) (see conditions,7-14, 20-30 and 44). It should be noted that several of the submissions make erroneous statements in relation to the proposal, such as the lack of composting and clothes drying facilities which are clearly shown on the plans.

 

The proposal will increase the variety of housing available in the area, providing predominantly 1 and 2 bedroom units within the 2(a) zone (that is generally comprised of larger dwelling houses). The effect of the proposal would be to bring more people to the site and the demographic characteristics of this population are likely to include, single persons or share households; young couples such as first home buyers; “empty nester” households; and young families. It is likely that there will be a mix of incomes amongst residents with some units being owner occupied and others being rented. The apartments have been designed to be of a high design quality and will provide excellent amenity for future residents. The added population will support the provision of nearby facilities and services at Maroubra Junction for the local community. The increase in density will not result in an unreasonable demand on the availability of existing services, parking or traffic nor in negative social impacts on the existing community.

 

120 letters were sent to surrounding residents in Glanfield, Hinkler, Royal Streets and Maroubra Road, who are most likely to be directly impacted by the proposal. In accordance with Council’s Notification DCP public notices were placed on the site during both advertising periods and advertisements placed in the local newspaper. The notification period of 14days is standard for all development applications that are not Designated or Integrated. The procedures within Council’s Notification DCP has been followed in the public notification of this application.

 

Wind effects as a result of the new building form on the site will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties or the street. The development will not block breezes to surrounding properties due to sufficient setbacks. The building form, which minimises narrow, canyon-like spaces, is not expected to generate wind tunnel effects or result in unpleasant areas within the site or surrounding pedestrian pathways.

 

The impact of the proposal on surrounding property values is not an issue for consideration under s.79C of the EP & A Act.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1   Director of Asset & Infrastructure

 

The Director of Asset & Infrastructure has provided the following comments on the proposal:

 

An amended application has been received for the construction of a residential flat building at the above site containing 73 units and 4 commercial tenancies.

 

The comments and conditions contained in this report are based on the following plans and details:

·        Survey Plan 23722A1 by Wallis & Moore Surveyors dated 16/09/2002

·        Ground Level Plan A04, Version A by Hill Thalis Architecture & Randles Hill Straatveit Architects dated 08/12/2003

·        Basement Level 1 Plan A03, Version A by Hill Thalis Architecture & Randles Hill Straatveit Architects dated 08/12/2003

·        Basement Level 2 Plan A02, Version A by Hill Thalis Architecture & Randles Hill Straatveit Architects dated 08/12/2003

·        Landscape Plans 23025-DA01 Revision B, 23025-DA02 Revision B, 23025-D01 Revision A by Aspect Sydney Landscape Architecture dated 26/08/2003

·        Flood study titled ‘Catchment Analysis’ by Acor Consulting Engineers dated 20 January 2004

 

The EPCD Department shall determine whether the Lots are to be consolidated prior to issuing development approval.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There are two (2) recently planted Eucalyptus species (Gum trees) of approximately 2 metres in height growing on the Maroubra Road nature strip that are shown as being removed on the plans. Permission is granted for the removal of these two trees subject to suitable replacements being provided along the Maroubra Road frontage. Due to their small size (1-2 metres), the applicant will not be charged a cost for removal, but will be required to reimburse Council for loss of amenity.

 

There is one Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) of approximately 6 metres in height and 4 metres in width on the nature strip in front of 63 Royal Street. It appears in good condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Approval is granted for the removal of this tree subject to replacements being provided along the Royal Street frontage.

 

There are two Eucalyptus species (Gum trees) of approximately 6-7 metres in height and 3 metres in width growing near the western boundary (Royal Street side) of the site. They appear in reasonable condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Permission is granted for their removal, as has been shown on the plans, subject to suitable replacements being provided within the site.

 

The EPCD Department is advised that Council’s Landscape Technician does not support the landscaping on the proposed Maroubra Road median strip or the proposed laying of grass on the Maroubra Road, Royal Street and Glanfield Street nature strips of the site, due to maintenance concerns.

 

It is recommended that the EPCD Department include a condition stating that the proposed median island in Maroubra Road be deleted.

 

Flooding Comments

 

The subject development site is located in an area that may be subject to stormwater inundation during major storm events. A flood study (undertaken by Acor Consulting Pty Ltd, dated 20 January 2004) has been submitted to Council in conjunction with this development application. The flood study identifies that overland flow down Glanfield Street and Royal Street may encroach upon the subject development site during a 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

The submitted flood study determines the 1 in 100 year flood levels to be as follows:

 

·      Along the Glanfield Street site frontage – ranging from RL 19.60 (AHD) at the eastern end of the site frontage to RL 19.19 (AHD) at the western end.

 

·      Along the Royal Street site frontage – at RL 19.19 (AHD).

 

To prevent the new development from being inundated by stormwater, all new habitable and storage areas should be a minimum of 300mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level (or suitably waterproofed up to this same level), and a high point shall be provided along the full width of  the driveway and any other access points to the basement that is at least 150mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level.

 

Design against flooding in Royal Street

 

Habitable and Storage areas

To comply with the above requirements the floor level of all habitable, commercial and storage areas along the Royal Street site frontage shall be located at a minimum RL of 19.49 (AHD) or suitable protected from flooding up to this same level.

 

The submitted ground floor plan (Drawing A04 Version A by Hill Thalis Architecture and Urban projects dated 8/12/2004) generally demonstrates compliance with this requirement although it is noted that the proposed loading bay is shown to be at RL 19.30 (AHD) which is only some 110mm above the determined 1 in 100 year flood level. This is considered to be acceptable provided that:

 

·      All sections of the loading bay which area below RL 19.49 (AHD) are constructed using materials that will not be adversely affected by flooding/stormwater inundation. It is noted that this includes any turntables required to facilitate service vehicles entering and exiting the site in a forward direction (refer to traffic comments).

 

·      There are no electrical connections nor the storage of any goods that may be affected by stormwater below RL 19.49 (AHD) in the loading area.

 

·      The hoist from the basement is located at a minimum of RL 19.49 (AHD).

 

·      A restriction to user shall be attached to the title of the subject development which prohibits the storage of any goods and the installation of any floor coverings, wall coverings and fixtures (including electrical connections) that may be adversely affected by stormwater inundation, below RL 19.49 (AHD) in the loading bay.

 

·      Flood resistant doors and walls are installed at the entrance to the loading bay. This is to ensure that the doors will not be damaged during major storm events.

 

It is further noted that the submitted ground floor plan shows the floor level of commercial tenancy C01 being at RL 19.40 (AHD) which is only some 210mm above the adjacent flood level in Royal Street. However, given that there are no entrances to this tenancy off Royal Street, it is considered that the floor level as shown is satisfactory.

 

Basement access points

A high point to a minimum RL of 19.34 (AHD) shall be provided along the full width of the driveway and all pedestrian access points to the basement carpark.

 

The submitted plans do not comply with this requirement and a deferred commencement condition has been included in this report to address this issue.

 

It is noted that redesign of the driveway ramp will be required to facilitate the required high point being achieved whist maintaining satisfactory driveway grades and complying with the issued alignment level at the property boundary.

 

Design against flooding in Glanfield Street

 

Habitable and Storage areas

The submitted ground floor plan (Drawing A04 Version A by Hill Thalis Architecture and Urban projects dated 8/12/2004) shows all the floor level of all residential units along the Glanfield Street site frontage being at RL 20.30 (AHD). Given that the maximum flood level along the Glanfield Street site frontage is at RL 19.60 (AHD) the proposed floor levels are more than the required 300mm above the maximum flood level.

 

Basement access points

High points shall be provided along the full width of all pedestrian entrances to the basement off Glanfield Street. The high points shall be provided to the following levels:

 

·    Pedestrian entrance adjacent to units 305 and 306 – RL 19.75 (AHD)

·    Pedestrian entrance adjacent to units 303 and 304 – RL 19.64 (AHD)

·    Pedestrian entrance adjacent to units 301 and 302 – RL 19.53 (AHD)

 

The submitted plans do not comply with this requirement and a deferred commencement condition has been included in this report to address this issue.

 

Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

All stormwater runoff discharged from the site shall be directed to Council’s underground drainage system via new and/or existing kerb inlet pits.

 

The submitted flood study indicates that part of the stormwater management for the site involves a series of pits within the landscaped area, which, in the event of the piped system becoming blocked will overflow to Glanfield Street via a corridor between units 204 and 301. The landscaped courtyard and associated overland escape route shall be designed to ensure that any overland flow from the courtyard in a 1 in 100 year storm event will be transferred safely to Council Street drainage system without entering any habitable or storage areas.

 

Traffic Comments

 

Parking Demands

Based on the parking generation rates in Council’s DCP – Parking, the following parking demands have been estimated:

 

Component

Measure

Rate

Spaces required

Residential

 

 

 

1 bedroom units

19

1/unit

19

2 bedroom units

52

1.2/unit

62.4

3 bedroom units

2

1.5/unit

3

Visitor

73 units

1/4 then 1/7 units

16

 

 

SubTotal

100.4

 

 

 

 

Retail/commercial

 

 

 

4 Tenancies

288 m2

1/40 m2

7.2

 

 

TOTAL

108

 

 

 

 

Bicycle Parking

73 units

1/3 units + visitors 1/10 units

32

 

The AIS Department does not object to the visitor parking demands being reduced to 1 space per 4 units for the first 50 units then 1 space per 7 units for the remainder, (as shown in the table above). This would reduce the visitor parking demands down to 16.

 

The submitted plans show a total of 111 parking spaces being provided within the site, of which 28 (14 pairs) are stacked (tandem) spaces, giving a surplus of 3 spaces. The AIS Department does not object to the stacked spaces, provided the ‘double’ spaces are appropriately allocated to individual units.

 

Bicycle Parking

The submitted plans show a total of 32 bicycle parking spaces in accordance with Council’s DCP for parking.

 

Car Wash Bays

For a development of this size the AIS Department does not object to the carwash demands being reduced from the normally required 1 space per 12 units, down to 1 space per 20 units. Thus the proposed development should provide a total of 4 carwash bays. The AIS Department does not object to visitor spaces being used as carwash bays provided that they are signposted with ‘Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

 

The four car wash bays as shown on the amended plans are considered satisfactory.

 

Allocation of Parking Spaces

The residential parking spaces shall be separated from the commercial and visitor parking spaces via a security roller shutter or similar. If this cannot be achieved, collapsible security bollards or similar, must be installed on individual residential spaces.

 

Car Park Layout

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

 

Concerns are raised regarding the internal dimensions of enclosed car spaces (labelled as garages). Spaces 14, 15, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 on Basement Level 1 and, spaces 67, 68, 69, 70, 82, 83, 85, 86 on Basement Level 2 have internal lengths of 5.2m each. The plans shall be amended to show all car spaces increased to at least 5.4m long, in accordance with AS 2890.1 - 1993. it is noted that these amendments will still allow for an adequate aisle width. Condition 91 of this report addresses this issue.

 

Disabled Access Parking

The submitted plans show a total of five disabled access parking spaces being provided on Basement Level 1. The EPCD Department is to determine whether the proposed disabled parking provisions are adequate.

 

Loading Facilities

At present, the submitted plans show one service area, of dimensions 8.5m x 5.5m, with a clearance of 3.8 metres over the loading dock; which would allow only one small truck at any one time. In addition, no turning areas have been provided for the service facility. The RTA Guidelines specify (for consideration) that all vehicles are to enter and leave the site in a forward direction.

 

The AIS Department objects to the proposed location of the loading dock. This issue was raised in our previous memo dated 19 November 2003, however, the applicant has not addressed this issue. It is noted that the AIS Department does not support the current location of the loading facilities due to traffic and safety concerns surrounding service vehicles reversing either into or out of the loading bay into Royal Street.

 

As previously advised the basement is the preferred location for any such loading area. However, should the EPCD Department allow the loading bay to remain in its current location, as shown on the submitted plans, then it is recommended that the applicant be requested to provide a turntable within the loading bay to facilitate service vehicles entering and exiting the site in a forwards direction. It is noted that the width of the loading bay will need to be increased to facilitate the turntable, and as the loading bay is only some 110mm above the determined flood level, the turntable will need to be suitably protected from flooding.

 

A deferred commencement condition relating to the loading facilities being amended to enable a small rigid vehicle to enter and exit the loading bay in a forward direction has been included in this report.

 

Access Driveways and internal ramps

The driveway opening at the Royal Street frontage must be minimum 6 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

The internal driveway must be a minimum 6.10m wide (5.5m clear width with 0.3m wide kerbs on either side) for the first 5 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

The EPCD Department is to determine whether the internal driveway gradients comply with Council's DCP - Parking.

 

Traffic Facilities

The submitted plans show a median island proposed in Maroubra Road, along the full site frontage (except for the existing right turn bay). The AIS Department recommends the deletion of this median island from the plans. It is noted that the traffic engineer is not against the median island, subject to no objections being raised by owners of properties opposite the development site in Maroubra Road; however such objections have already been raised. In addition, the Local Traffic Committee has not yet been able to comment on the proposal. Furthermore, the Landscape Technician does not support the proposed landscaping of the island, which (it is understood from discussions with the applicant) was to be the purpose of the construction.

 

Road widening / Dedication

The submitted plans show a proposed 4.570m dedication to Council along the full site frontage of Glanfield Street. This dedication will permit a widening of the carriageway by approximately 0.92m along the full site frontage; and with associated road works will present a carriageway of approximately 7.50m. This dedication will also allow for parking along the site frontage in Glanfield Street, creating an additional 9 spaces.

 

Traffic Engineers Comments

In addition to the above comments from the AIS Department, the following comments were received from Council’s Traffic Engineer, Mr Ken Kanagarajan:

 

The Traffic Consultant’s supplementary information relating to the proposal was received by the Traffic Unit after the finalisation and distribution of the Randwick Traffic Committee’s Agenda papers for the December 2003 meeting of the Traffic Committee. The next meeting of the Traffic Committee is to be held on the 3rd February 2004.

 

Under the RTA’s guidelines, the submitted proposal, a development for 73 residential units, neither requires the assessment of Council’s Traffic Committee nor of the RTA’s Regional Traffic Committee. However, as the proposal also includes a small portion of commercial development (288 square metres GFA), the Traffic Committee may wish to provide advice to Council.

 

Accordingly, the proposal has been referred to the Police and the RTA representatives for their advice. The RTA representative has already given his concurrence to the recommendations outlined below. However, no advice has been received from the Police representative.

 

It is reported that the Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer discussed on-site with the applicant’s Traffic Consultant Mr. Craig McLaren of the details of the proposed Traffic Calming Measures, already approved by Council, for implementation in the immediate vicinity of the site. The interaction between these traffic calming measures and the proposed development was considered for the purpose of assessing the appropriateness of the proposed driveway arrangement, and the requirement or justification for a median at the Maroubra Road and/or Royal Street frontages of the site.

 

It is recommended that the following conditions relating to the traffic and parking issues associated with the development proposal be included in Council’s consent:

 

1)         The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of implementation of:

 

(i)         Traffic calming measures at the intersection of Maroubra Road and Royal Street, (as shown on Annexure E of the traffic consultant’s letter dated 27 November 2003);

 

(ii)        A street entry treatment, kerb blisters together with a raised threshold, at the entrance to Royal Street at the Glanfield Street intersection;

 

(iii)       Introduction of “No Standing” restrictions at the Royal Street frontage of the site, between Maroubra Road and a point 3 metres north of the northern extremity of the driveway;

 

2)         The loading dock shall be re designed so as to accommodate a small rigid truck entering and leaving the site in a forward direction;

 

3)         A sign indicating “All Traffic Turn Left” shall be installed at a prominent location at the exit point, to advise all vehicles exiting the site to do so by left turn movements only.

 

However, after an initial trial period of six months after the occupation of the development, should vehicles exiting the site be observed to make right turn movements, a narrow median at the Royal Street frontage between Maroubra Road and extending to the full width of the exit driveway, shall be constructed at the developers cost;

 

4)         All loading and unloading activities shall be accommodated on-site;

 

5)         The layout of the car parks and service vehicle area shall, at a minimum, comply with Australian Standards AS 2890.1-1993 and AS 2890.2-1989;

 

6)         All costs of traffic management measures associated with the development shall be borne by the developer.

 

The above-recommended conditions have been included within the AIS Department report.

 

The following comment was also given by the Traffic Engineer, however this has not been included in the AIS report (See Traffic Facilities Comments):

 

The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of implementation of a median island together with tree planting, at the Maroubra Road frontage, subject to:

 

a)       The retention of existing right turn holding bay at the approach to Royal Street;

 

b)       No objection being raised to such a proposal by owners of premises nos. 69 – 83 Maroubra Road; and

 

c)       The concurrence of the Randwick Traffic Committee being obtained.

 

Splay Corner Comments

 

The amended plans do not show details of the previously discussed splay corners to be constructed on both the north-western and south-western corners of the subject site. The AIS Department has included a deferred commencement condition in this report stating that amended plans clearly showing the 3 metre x 3 metre splay corners be submitted to Council for approval prior to the consent becoming operational.

 

All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre so that a driver of a stopped vehicle 2 metres behind the street boundary line can observe pedestrians up to 2 metres from the crossings. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall clearly demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Service Authority Comments

 

To facilitate the proposed road widening and dedication in Glanfield Street, the applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines located in front of the development site to be relocated underground. The works shall be in accordance with Energy Australia requirements and the applicant shall meet the cost of removing any redundant poles. The relocation of the power lines underground shall be undertaken prior to any footpath construction works.

 

Waste Comments

 

Residential Waste

The residential garbage demands shall be based on the following values:

-       1 x 240 litre split recycling bin per 2 units = 37 bins

-       1 x 240 litre garbage bin per 2 units = 37 bins, with compaction ratio of 2:1 = 18 bins

 

The residential garbage rooms must be sized to contain the compactor (with a safe working area) as well as 18 garbage bins and 37 recycling bins (with satisfactory access to all bins).

 

The AIS Department previously suggested the use of communal garbage chutes, for a development of this size, however the amended plans show no provision for garbage chutes. Consequently 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, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Commercial Waste

The commercial garbage room shall be sized to contain a total of 8 x 240 litre bins (4 garbage bins & 4 recycling bins), whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

Groundwater Comments

 

The submitted Geotechnical Report by Jeffery and Katauskas dated 16 July 2003 indicates the highest groundwater level recorded on the site to be at RL 11.2 (AHD). Given that the lowest basement floor level is at RL 13.00 (AHD), it is not anticipated that ground water will be encountered during construction.

 

Due to the low volumes of pedestrian traffic along Maroubra Road and Glanfield Streets, the width of the footpath to Maroubra Road, setback to Glanfield Street and the preferred urban design outcome for this corner site the requirement for splay corners is considered to be unnecessary and conditions recommended by the AIS requiring provision of splay corners have not been included in the Recommendation section of this report. Other Conditions of consent, including deferred commencement conditions (deferred commencement conditions 2-3) suggested by the AIS department have been included in the recommendation of this report (see Conditions 79-146).

 

6.2   Manager, Environmental Health and Building

 

The Manager, Environmental Health and Building has made comment on the proposed development including review of the submitted specialist reports.

 

Environmental Health Comments:

 

The proposal

 

This proposal consists of a 6 storey mixed commercial and residential development, including 76 residential units, commercial/retail space, public open space, and two basement parking level.

 

Key Issues

 

Land Contamination:  

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

 

In support of this development application the following documents addressing the issue of potential contamination were submitted:

 

·      Statement of Environmental Effects for Proposed Mixed Use Development at nos 54-58 Maroubra Road and 59-63 Royal Street Maroubra.

·      Report to Vanimo Pty Ltd and Blackbutt Estate Pty Ltd on Geotechnical investigation for Proposed Residential Development at 54-58 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, NSW (Ref 17596WZArpt).

·      Report to Vanimo Pty Ltd and Blackbutt Pty Ltd on Environmental Site Screening for proposed combined residential and commercial development at 54-58 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (Ref: E17596FRPT).

 

The Environmental Site Screening was designed to assess the suitability of the site for the proposed land use and was assessed by Council in accordance with the reporting requirements as stated in the NSW Environment Protection Authority Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites. Investigations into the site revealed the following:

 

·      There is an underground storage tank (UST) located on the site.

·      There is an underground waste oil tank located on site.

·      The shallowest groundwater depth was determined to be 8.4 meters.

·      Soil sampling was undertaken and assessed against appropriate soil criteria.

·      The results of this analysis did not detect elevated levels of contaminants when compared to the appropriate Health Investigation Levels.

 

The report recommends that the tanks and associated pipe work be removed by an experienced contractor. The tank pit excavation and excavated soils are to be appropriately validated prior to further excavation work.

 

The report concludes “the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development provided that the work associated with the removal and validation of the underground storage tanks is undertaken as outlined in the Environmental Site Screening.”

 

The issue of contaminated land has been adequately addressed. Conditions will be applied requiring that remediation works are conducted as detailed in the Report to Vanimo Pty Ltd and Blackbutt Pty Ltd on Environmental Site Screening for proposed combined residential and commercial development at 54-58 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (Ref: E17596FRPT).

 

Acoustics. 

The proposed development will create acoustic issues including noise experienced within the residential units from traffic, plant & equipment. The issue of acoustical amenity is mentioned on page 46 of the Statement of Environmental Effects supplied in support of the application. This document states that the following will ensure reasonable levels of aural privacy will be maintained to neighbouring residential properties and within the development itself.

 

·      Building setback

·      Floor plans

·      Orientation of living areas

·      Window placements

·      Balcony treatments

·      Louvered screens

·      Planting and landscaping

 

The issue of acoustic amenity has not been adequately addressed. A condition will be imposed asking for an Acoustic Report to be submitted to Council. This report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics and is to demonstrate and confirm that the noise and vibration emissions from the development (excluding construction works) comply with the relevant provisions of Australian Standards 2107, the Environmental Protection Authority Industrial Noise Policy and relevant conditions of approval. The report is to include assessment of the potential for noise to be experienced within the residential units from road traffic, plant, equipment and the use / operation of the premises.

 

Commercial Units:

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

 

Building Comments:

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a six storey mixed commercial and residential multi unit housing building, with basement level car park.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

§   Class 6     -           Retail/Shops

§   Class 2     -           Residential units

§   Class 7a   -           Car park

 

Background

 

The existing building on site is currently being used as a motorcar dealership (Mitsubishi/Daihatsu), and a two storey residential flat building containing four dwellings. A search of Council’s records could not disclose any previous use of a potentially contaminating nature.

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

Although some information in relation to construction site management has been provided with the application, the details are not sufficiently detailed to fully address issues such as, the location of stock piled material or the storage and disposal of excavated materials, sediment and erosion control, public safety, perimeter safety fencing and construction management.

 

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 does not appear to satisfy the BCA requirements and DDA objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability.

 

Access for people with a disability is required to be provided to the basement car park and the ground floor shops and, sanitary facilities for people with a disability are also required to be provided to the development, in accordance with the provisions of the BCA.

 

Standard conditions could be included to address these requirements, although compliance will require changes to the design of the building to accommodate a lift and/or ramp system and sanitary facilities, complying with the BCA and AS1428.

 

Conclusion:

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

 

Conditions of consent suggested by the Environmental Health and Building department have been included in the recommendation of this report (see Conditions 20-78).

 

6.3   RCC Design Review Panel

 

The proposal was considered by the Design Review Panel at its meeting of 3 November, 2003. In response the following comments were received:

 

PANEL COMMENTS

 

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

 

1.   Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The scale of the proposal in its immediate context and in response to the width of Maroubra Road is believed to be appropriate.

 

2.   The Scale of the Proposal

 

The Panel believe that the building fronting Maroubra Road could be more segmented, to mirror the east wing, which is segregated.

 

The width of the corner aspect is of concern to the panel and it should also be broken up to relieve such a dramatic impact on the streetscape.

 

3.   The Built Form of the Proposal

 

Panel commend the design of the proposal.  The relationship of the proposal to the locality and streetscape is considered appropriate.    The design of buildings, in relation to the open space located on site is commended.

 

The proposed massing, site planning and the provision of a central courtyard are supported.

 

4.   The Proposed Density

 

This appears to be justified

 

5.   Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

The proposal at this stage provides a good framework for satisfying this principle.

 

6.   The Proposed Landscape

 

7.   The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The Panel considers that the proposal is generally well planned, providing good amenity.

 

8.     The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

9.     Social issues

 

10.   The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The panel supports the aesthetics of the proposal, as the building presents sophisticated and considered facades and massing. 

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Generally this is a good application.  Panel considered that the architect had good design skills, and believes that this application should progress to its subsequent stages.

 

The Panel’s comments in relation to scale have been addressed in the amended plans by increasing the separation between the majority of the Maroubra Road elevation and the corner element proposed at the Royal Street end of this elevation.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to SEPP 65.

 

6.4   Roads and Traffic Authority

 

The proposal originally comprised 76 dwellings and required referral to the traffic authority (RTA) as a Schedule 2 development under SEPP 11 – Traffic Generating Developments. The application was forwarded to the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) for comment on 16 September 2003.

 

Subsequent amendments to the proposal reduced the number of units to 73, removing the need for referral to the RTA. Although there is no need for formal comments, Council’s Traffic Engineer has discussed the proposal with the RTA, who have agreed to the recommendations of the AIS Department (see Section 6.1).

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site area is 4,046.8m2 and would usually require preparation of a master plan under clause 40A of the RLEP98. This requirement cannot derogate from the existing use rights provisions of the EP&A Act and in this instance a Master Plan for the site is not required.

 

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 (RLEP98)

-State Environmental Planning Policy 10– Retention of Low Cost Housing (SEPP 10)

-State Environmental Planning Policy 11 – Traffic Generating Developments (SEPP 11)

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

-State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

-Draft State Environmental Planning Policy 66 – Integration of Land Use and Transport (Draft SEPP 66)

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2(a) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP) and the proposed activity (mixed-use development) is generally prohibited within the zone. Despite this prohibition, the site has been used continuously as a residential flat building and car salesyard, showroom and workshop by virtue of lawful consents, which predate the current planning controls (that now prohibit such uses within the 2(a) zone). The property therefore enjoys the benefits of “existing-use rights”.

 

Section 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act affords protection to uses operating under a lawful consent to continue even if a subsequent planning instrument prohibits that use. Under clause 41(1d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation the protection extends to changing from one non-conforming use to another:

(1)      An existing use may, subject to this Division:

(d)      be changed to another use, including a use that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act

 

Section 108(3) of the Act also provides that any provisions in an instrument that would derogate from the “incorporated provisions” have no force or effect. This effectively means that provisions (objectives, controls or standards) of an environmental planning instrument that would restrict the change of an existing use to another do not apply. However, the provisions of relevant planning instruments including such aims, objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal.

 

The relevant objectives of the 2(a) zone are as follows:

 

(a)        to maintain the character of established residential areas, and

(c)        to enable redevelopment for low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi‑detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development

(d)        to allow people to carry out a range of activities from their homes, where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the environment of the locality.

 

Although the proposed development will result in a building that is larger than the majority of residential buildings to the north, south and west of the subject site (1 & 2 storey dwellings), there are several larger (4-6 storey) residential flat buildings directly to the east of the site fronting Maroubra Road and Glanfield Street. The surrounding context of the subject site has a “mixed residential character” as indicated by the aerial photograph below:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maroubra Road is a wide (30 metres) carriageway with a variety of building forms and types along its considerable length. The height proposed on the subject site at generally 5 storeys facing Maroubra Road is appropriate to the character of this major roadway. The height of the development responds to the change in width of the roadways around the site. Wider streets can accommodate larger buildings and the height of the building changes to three storeys on the Glanfield Street side where the roadway is narrower.

 

The removal of the car yard and workshop uses on the site including open-air hardstand parking area in favour of a building of quality design and landscaped areas will be beneficial to the appearance of the site and character of the area. The incorporation of balconies and the response of the built form to each of the street frontages will bring greater variety and architectural interest to the site, which is currently occupied by workshop and showroom buildings with an industrial character. The removal of the existing flat building at 63 Royal Street in favour of a new building of high quality design is also considered to result in improvements to the character of the area.

 

The proposal represents an increase in the density on the site, providing an additional 69 residential units on the site. The new buildings represent an increased 5,516m2 of gross floor area on the site. The overall FSR proposed (including the roadway dedication) is 1.75:1 (7,088m2). A dwelling on a site of this size in the 2(a) zone would be required to have a floor space ratio of 0.5:1. Although the FSR proposed is more than is allowed under Council’s current controls and is greater than surrounding dwelling houses it is commensurate with the residential flat buildings at 62 Maroubra Road and residential flat buildings across Royal Street to the west. The existing flat building at 60 Maroubra Road (adjoining the site to the east) has an FSR in the vicinity of 2.4:1 and exceeds the floor space ratio proposed on the subject site. The floor space ratio is consistent with that provided on surrounding non-conforming sites. The bulk of the proposal has been distributed in a way that reduces the visual impact of the additional gross floor area. Any visual impact will be further reduced by Deferred commencement condition 1, which reduces the number of storeys proposed at critical points in the development.

 

The proposal meets objectives (a) and (c) of the 2(a) zone and will not detract from the character of the area.

 

The development provides two units at the eastern end of the Maroubra Road frontage that are specifically designed for home office use. These units provide a ground level entry to the ‘office’ with dwelling to the rear. These units will achieve objective (d) of the 2(a) zone by encouraging home-office uses in a location that is unlikely to result in amenity impacts. The inclusion of home-office units also adds to the variety and flexibility of accommodation available within the development and the surrounding area.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to the objectives of the 2(a) zone.

 

The following clauses of the RLEP have been considered during the assessment of the proposal:

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31(1) - Landscaped Area

50% of site area (or 2,023sq.m)

52% or 2,089sqm

Yes

31(3) – Landscaped Area over Basement

Less than 50% of landscape requirement

49% or 1,022sqm

Yes

32 – FSR

Including Road Widening Dedication

Excluding Road Widening Dedication

0.5:1 or 2,023sq.m

 

 

1.75:1 or 7,088sq.m

 

1.88:1 or 7,088sqm

No

 

No

33(1) – Building Height

 

33(3) – External Wall Height

 

9.5m max. overall

 

7m max. wall height

 

 

10-20.4m

 

10-20.4m

 

 

No

 

No

 

 

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item or within conservation area.

No heritage items nearby the subject site. Not in a conservation area.

N/A

 

Non-compliances with statutory standards cannot derogate (detract from) the protection afforded by existing use rights under s108(3) of the Act. An objection under SEPP No. 1 in support of variance from the FSR and height standards is not required in this instance. The relevant clauses of the RLEP have been discussed under Section 9 of this report.

 

(b)  State Environmental Planning Policy 10 – (Retention of Low-Cost Rental Accommodation)

 

Clause 7(2) requires Council consent for strata subdivision and alterations and additions to residential flat buildings classed as “low-rental residential buildings” under clause 6 of the SEPP. Under the SEPP demolition of low-rental residential buildings does not require the concurrence of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources. It is unclear if 63 Royal Street is classed as a “low-rental residential building, however as the provisions of the SEPP cannot detract from the protection afforded by existing use rights, and the building is proposed for demolition, details of rental levels are not required.

 

(c)  SEPP 11 –Traffic Generating Developments

 

The development as originally submitted contained more than 75 dwellings and constituted Schedule 2 development under SEPP 11, requiring referral to the RTA.

 

In accordance with the SEPP, the application was referred to the RTA for comment on September 16, 2003. Subsequent amendments have reduced the number of dwellings to under 73, and as such formal comment from the RTA has not been pursued. The RTA has given concurrence to the recommendations of the AIS Department as noted under section 6.1 of this report.

 

The development is considered to be satisfactory with regard to SEPP 11.

 

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

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated in the consideration of development applications. As the site is currently used for automotive purposes, a preliminary Environmental Site Screening report was submitted to Council’s Environmental Health department. Council’s Environmental Health officer has reviewed the submitted material and indicated that the site is suitable for the proposed residential and commercial use, subject to conditions of consent (see Conditions 20-30).

 

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

 

(e)  State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

 

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. While the provisions of the SEPP cannot detract from the provisions of existing use rights, it is considered that any redevelopment of the site should achieve consistency with the design quality principles embodied in SEPP 65. The application was considered by Council’s Design Review Panel. The Panel’s comments are included in section 6.3, above.

 

The amended plans received on 28 November 2003 responded to the Panel’s comments by increasing the articulation of the Maroubra Road elevation by increasing the separation between the westernmost corner element and the remainder of this elevation.

 

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

 

(f)    Draft State Environmental Planning Policy 66 – Integration of Land Use and Transport (SEPP 66)

 

Draft SEPP 66 generally applies to all forms of development that have a floor space over 1,000m2. The proposal has a gross floor area of over 7,000m2 and therefore the planning objectives contained within the Draft SEPP should be considered.

 

The planning objectives include improving accessibility to housing by sustainable modes of transport including walking, cycling and public transport, improving transport choice, supporting public transport services to ensure their viability.

 

A bus stop on Maroubra Road is located directly outside the subject site, providing easy access to eastbound bus services to Bondi Junction and Maroubra Beach. Across Maroubra Road is a bus stop that provides access to westbound services, including busses to Eastgardens Shopping Centre. The location of housing on the subject site will improve access to public transport and assist in the ongoing viability of public transport services in accordance with the planning objectives of the draft SEPP. The road widening proposed to Glanfield Street, including street trees and footpath allowances will encourage pedestrian and cycle traffic by providing a pleasant alternative to Maroubra Road. The Maroubra Junction shopping precinct is a 5-10 minute walk from the site via Glanfield Street and the proposed dedication will assist in encouraging sustainable modes of transport.

 

The development meets the planning objectives contained within Draft SEPP 66.

 

8.1       Policy Controls

 

The following Council policy controls may be used as a guide in assessing the proposed development.

 

§ DCP – Parking 1998

§ Section 94 Contributions Plan

§ Contaminated Land Policy 1999

§ Rainwater Tank Policy 2003

§ DCP – Multi Unit Housing

 

a.   Development Control Plan Parking (DCP Parking), 1998

 

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

Car Parking

a)   Number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bicycle Storage

 

 

 

 

Accessible Parking

 

 

 

 

Car Wash Bays

 

b) layout

1.0 spaces required for each one bedroom dwelling (19 x 1.0 = 19.0 spaces)

 

1.2 spaces required for each two bedroom dwelling (52 x 1.2 = 62.4 spaces)

 

1.5 spaces required for each three bedroom dwelling (2 x 1.5 = 3 spaces)

 

1 space/4 dwgs or part thereof for visitors (

18.25 spaces required)

 

1 space per 40m2 GFA (288/40 = 7 spaces)

 

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 109 SPACES

 

1space per 3 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

(31.3 bike spaces)

 

1 space per dwelling in accordance with MUH DCP. (4 dwellings)

 

1 per 12 dwellings (6 bays)

 

As per DCP.

 

19 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

62 (including 10 x tandem)

 

 

 

 

4 spaces (2 x tandem)

 

 

 

18 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

7 spaces (includes 2 x tandem)

 

 

110 spaces

 

 

 

32 spaces provided at B1.

 

 

 

5 spaces

 

 

 

 

4 bays

 

Adequate turning areas provided.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

Yes

 

As spaces provided as tandem or stacked parking can serve only 1 unit these are to be dedicated to the larger residential units (see Condition 18). Tandem spaces have also been allocated to 2 of the commercial suites to avoid sharing of these spaces and cars being parked-in. Discussion of compliance with the DCP – Parking can be found under sections 6.1 and 9.9 of this report.

 

8.2  Council Policies

 

a.   Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes an additional sixty-nine (69) dwellings on the site. Deferred commencement condition 1 reduces the number of additional dwellings to 66. As a result of this assessment a condition of consent has been proposed requiring the payment of monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities and administration charges totalling $156,915.70 for the residential component of the development. This amount refers to the reduced number of units as a result of Deferred Commencement Condition 1 and must be paid prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate (see Condition 15).

 

No contribution in relation to townscape may be levied as the site falls outside of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre. No contribution is required with regard to carparking as the development meets Council’s requirements and is outside of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.

 

b.  Contaminated Land Policy, 1999

 

Council’s Contaminated Land Policy applies to the site and has been addressed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer in section 6.2. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to Council’s Contaminated Land Policy.

 

c.     Rainwater Tank Policy, 2003

 

Council adopted a Rainwater Tank Policy on the 14th October 2003. The Policy encourages water conservation and reduce demand for potable (drinking) water. Condition 12 requires the applicant to provide appropriate measures in accordance with the Policy.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1       Height, Form and Materials

 

The development has an overall height (and external wall height as a flat roof profile is proposed) ranging between 10 metres (Glanfield Street) and 20.4 metres (Maroubra Road). The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible height and wall height for development on the site, being 9.5 and 7 metres, respectively. The height of the adjoining building at 60 Maroubra Road directly to the east of the site is generally 15 metres with an overall height of 17.4 metres. The residential flat building at 62 Maroubra Road further to the east is 12.2 metres high.

 

The objective of the height standards is to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones. Development should be consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard to the amenity of surrounding areas.

 

In general, the proposal has been designed so that the height of each portion of the building responds well to the different scale of development and street hierarchies to the north, east, south and west of the site.

 

The amendments made to the application has reduced the apparent height of the building along the Royal Street elevation and corner of Maroubra Road and Royal Street to minimise the impact of the building when viewed from the street and surrounding properties. These amendments have not reduced the overall height of the building. Despite the changes made, the setback portion of the building at the corner of Maroubra Road and Royal Street (sixth storey) is considered to be too tall and out of scale with the hierarchy of the intersection of Maroubra Road and Royal Street (which is not a major junction). This part of the building is currently two storeys higher than the adjoining Royal Street portion of the building and a 5 storey scale at the corner is considered to provide a better transition to the 4 storey bulk of the Royal Street elevation. Similarly, the portion of the building at the corner of Glanfield and Royal Streets at 4 storeys is too high given the surrounding 2 storey context and the prominence of this part of the building on the corner. Glanfield Street is narrow and a reduction in height to a maximum of three storeys (as occurs further along the northern elevation) is considered an appropriate response to the street hierarchy and character of surrounding development. These changes to the height of the building (requiring the deletion of three units) have been included as deferred commencement condition 1.

 

A measure as to the suitability of the development and the extent of impact to adjoining properties are the minimum amenity standards contained within Council’s Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The applicant has provided shadow diagrams showing all surrounding allotments in plan form (as required for this DA) at midwinter, the equinoxes and midsummer. The proposal generally maintains solar access to surrounding properties and achieves the minimum of 3 hours to all neighbours. Five properties will be affected by additional shadow at different times throughout the year however all will still achieve the minimum set by best practice and Council’s DCPs and northern elevations of surrounding properties will generally not be affected due to the orientation of the site and width of Maroubra Road.

 

The non-compliance of the development will not result in significant impacts on visual and acoustic privacy for surrounding properties. The boundaries of the site and surrounding sites separated by 30 metres across Maroubra Road, 20 metres across Royal Street neighbours and 10 metres across Glanfield Street 9-10 metres separation is considered adequate for the maintenance of visual privacy under the DCP and best practice documents. The proposal is further setback within the property boundaries and achieves separation which is far in excess of the generally applied requirement.  Balconies are approximately 2 metres wide and face street elevations only. These are generally sufficiently setback and close to the ground so as not to create privacy impacts. Street plantings on Glanfield Street will provide additional screening between the subject site and surrounding properties. Despite the increased height of the eastern side of the building (facing 60 Maroubra Road) and setback of minimum 3 metres, units are generally oriented to the north and south and minimal windows have been provided to the east.

 

The proposal does not meet the floor space ratio control, but has an FSR that is less than that of the adjoining building and commensurate with surrounding residential flat developments that predate the 2(a) zoning of the site. The development complies with the landscaping standards set under RLEP98, providing a large area of communal open space at the centre of the development. The height of the proposal is generally considered reasonable given the FSR and landscaping provision within the site.

 

The building exceeds the allowable height standards under RLEP98, however this will not result in adverse impacts on existing residential development. The development meets the objective of the external wall height and overall height standards, being to set upper limits for the height of buildings which are consistent with other development controls such as FSR and landscaping and have regard to the amenity of surrounding properties. The height of the proposal (as amended further by Deferred Commencement condition 1) is satisfactory given the surrounding context and lack of impacts on adjoining development.

 

9.2       Density

 

The FSR of the proposal (as amended) is 1.75:1 (7,088.1m2) and exceeds that permissible under clause 32(1) of the RLEP 98 for a development on the site, being 0.5:1 (2,023m2), by 5,065m2. This figure includes the roadway dedication as per the LEP definition of ‘site area’. Although the statutory standard cannot derogate from existing use rights provisions, the merits of the proposal can be discussed with regard to FSR and the resultant bulk and scale of the development.

 

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

 

The site is relatively large and offers greater opportunities for distribution of bulk and building forms whilst still achieving good amenity for future occupants of the development and neighbouring properties.

 

Consistent with the objective of the FSR standard, the development minimises impacts to neighbouring properties despite the non-compliance of the proposal with the density standard of 0.5:1. The FSR standard makes a general relationship between the site area and allowable density in order to ensure Council’s other statutory and policy controls can be met. Despite the non-compliance with the FSR standard, the proposal achieves a high degree of compliance with Council’s controls for landscaping and carparking. As discussed in this report, the FSR of the proposal will not result in overshadowing, inadequate landscaping or privacy impacts. The amendments made to the upper floor of the development have reduced its visual bulk and increased the setback to the upper level of the building from the street. The minor reduction in floor space proposed under deferred commencement condition 1 will reduce the visual bulk of the development further and result in a building that is consistent with the scale of surrounding development and the character of adjoining streets.

 

The development is consistent with larger built forms in the vicinity and will not result in excessive building bulk on the street. The site is not highly visible from surrounding areas or the foreshore and the bulk of the additional floor space has been adequately articulated to reduce impacts on the outlook of surrounding properties.

 

The four commercial tenancies proposed to the ground floor along the Maroubra Road frontage will contribute to the availability of services to the local area without resulting in significant impacts in terms of traffic, parking or increased noise. Maroubra Road is highly trafficked and the ground floor of the development on the southern side of the building (facing Maroubra Road) does not offer good opportunities for visual, acoustic privacy and solar access for residential uses. In this instance the provision of low –density commercial use is considered appropriate.

 

As the site enjoys the benefits of existing use rights, compliance with the floor space ratio standard cannot be enforced, notwithstanding the protection afforded by existing use rights the proposal achieves the objectives of the FSR standard and is considered satisfactory with regard to clause 32 of the LEP.

 

9.3       Building Setbacks

 

The aim of Council’s preferred solutions with regard to setbacks is to achieve consistency along street frontages. The site is very large and has long street frontages. In this case, the development will establish a setback line as it is difficult to make a comparison between properties when separated by a large, corner site such as this one.

 

The development provides setbacks to all boundaries. The front (southern) setback of 2.4-5 metres approximates the setback of adjoining development at 60 Maroubra Road (5 metres). The nil setback to the corner of Royal Street and Maroubra Road does not match that of dwellings to the west of the subject site, however a lesser setback is consistent with the proposed commercial use of the site and location of the building on a corner allotment. Due to the length of the site and lack of a clearly established setback along this side of Maroubra Road the proposed setbacks are considered acceptable. The 5m setback at ground floor level will provide for an undercover footpath to busy Maroubra Road, which will improve pedestrian amenity in the area.

 

Along Royal Street the site takes up the entire block between Maroubra Road and Glanfield Street. A setback of 3.2-4.2 metres is proposed and this is considered appropriate as it allows for the creation of entry gardens to the building and individual units from the street. Dwellings further along Royal Street are setback approximately 4.6 metres and the proposed setbacks are compatible with the setbacks of properties further to the north. As there are no other dwellings along this frontage to compare the site with, it may be argued that the setback proposed does not interrupt any established building alignment on Royal Street and is satisfactory.

 

The upper level of the Royal Street elevation is setback 6.2m to reduce its visibility from the street. This gives the majority of the Royal Street elevation a three storey scale which is in keeping with larger buildings in the vicinity of the site.

 

Along Glanfield Street, the development is setback 1.2-4 metres from the new boundary line and 6-8 metres from the existing boundary line. The general setback of 4m is consistent with the 5m setback of dwellings in the street. The scale of the building along Glanfield Street is three storeys with units accessed directly from the street. Residential flat buildings on the southern side of Glanfield Street range from 4-13m from the current street alignment. There is no clear building alignment along this frontage and as sites to the east are redeveloped and Glanfield Street is widened, the street is likely to become a primary frontage, rather than a rear laneway as it is now. The proposed setback allows for planting and building entries to Glanfield Street. Due to the long frontage of the site, the development will establish a strong building line for any future development that is consistent with proposed upgrading works.

 

The most onerous preferred solution for side boundary setbacks under the Multi-Unit Housing DCP is that buildings are set back an average of 5 metres from the side boundary and that no part of the building is closer than 3.5 metres from the side boundary. The proposal provides two short (20m) wings of building generally setback 3m from the eastern side boundary. The average setback can be calculated at 13m due to the large unbuilt section (15m) along the eastern boundary and complies with the preferred solution by 8 metres. The building will not adversely affect the adjoining building in terms of overlooking or overshadowing and in this instance setting the building further back would not achieve significant amenity gains for residents at 60 Maroubra Road.

 

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

 

The building is satisfactory with regard to building setbacks.

 

9.4       Landscaping and Private Open Space

 

The development provides 52% (2,089m2) of the site area as landscaping. This exceeds the statutory requirement under clause 31(1) of the RLEP98 of 50% (2,023m2) by 65m2. The amount of landscaping over the basement/ podium levels represents 49% (1,022m2) of the landscaping requirement and complies with the maximum permissible under clause 31(3) of the RLEP98, being 50% of (1,044m2) of the required landscaping.

 

The objective of the landscaping standards is to establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban runoff and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes. The existing development on the site has resulted in close to 100% hardstand area and there is no significant vegetation on the site at present. The landscape plan lodged with the application indicates planting of trees, shrubs and groundcovers to provide usable recreation areas and provide a pleasant outlook for building occupants and surrounding developments. The plan indicates the use o many native species including eucalypts, bottle brush and lilly pillys in accordance with Council’s preferred solutions for landscaping. The compliance of the development with all statutory requirements for landscaping provides generous areas of open space that can be used for recreational purposes and also makes a positive contribution to the streetscape, through planters to the street frontages of the site.

 

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

 

Each unit has at least one balcony of suitable depth to allow for ventilation and recreational use. Many of the ground floor units have small, decked courtyards that provide private open space at ground level.

 

Conditions of consent proposed by Council’s Landscape Technician have been included in the Recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 137-146).

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to landscaping.

 

9.5       Privacy

 

The site has three street frontages and the arrangement of the building around the perimeter of the site has minimised the potential for overlooking of surrounding properties. The building provides minimum separation distances of over 10 metres and up to 30 metres due to the width of roadways around the site. This exceeds the requirement of 10 metres set by Council’s Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

 

The eastern boundary of the site adjoins an existing residential flat building at 60 Maroubra Road. Windows in the eastern elevation of the building have been minimised wherever possible to ensure that privacy impacts do not occur. The Glanfield Street wing of the building has highlight windows to bathrooms and windows to stairwells only. The stairwells are to be obscurely glazed to ensure that no overlooking of the adjoining building occurs (see Condition 2).

 

Windows to the southern end of the building are limited to bathrooms apart from the fourth floor where a large east facing living room window is proposed. Due to the reduced setback to this elevation and the potential for overlooking a condition requiring this window to be obscurely glazed is considered reasonable (see Condition 2). The living and dining area at this level are open plan and a condition to obscurely glaze this fixed panel will not result in reduced amenity for this unit.

 

All balconies that face the rear and front of the site have solid side walls to prevent overlooking of the adjoining building to the east. The development has incorporated features to mitigate privacy impacts and (subject to conditions) meets Council’s performance requirements and preferred solutions with regard to privacy.

 

9.6       View Sharing

 

The topography of the site does not afford opportunities for views. The building has been well designed and articulated and the large area of landscaping provided to the centre of the site will provide a more pleasant outlook for surrounding residents, particularly those at 60 Maroubra Road.

 

The increased setback to Royal Street and the corner element has reduced the scale of the building and further reductions via deferred commencement condition 1 will reduce the visual impact of the development as viewed from smaller scale dwellings on Royal and Glanfield Streets.

 

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

 

9.7       Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

With regard to solar access, the proposal meets the requirements of the DCP maintaining at least 3 hours of midwinter solar access per day to surrounding properties. Living areas within the development have been located to maximise exposure to the northern aspect in order to achieve good solar access to the dwellings.

 

The layout of the building with a central north facing courtyard has allowed for the provision of operable windows to habitable rooms and encourages passive ventilation to all units in accordance with ESD principles. The incorporation of some two-storey units into the mix has increased opportunities for cross ventilation and improved the overall amenity of dwellings within the development. The north facing courtyard and reduced height of the building to the north results in the communal landscaped area to the centre of the site receiving excellent solar access throughout the year.

 

The applicant has submitted a NatHERS report of the dwellings in the proposed development, which shows that all dwellings achieve a rating of 3.5-5 stars, with most units achieving 4-5 stars. This represents a high level of energy efficiency and meets Council’s minimum requirement of 3.5 stars.

 

The proposal has achieved excellent solar access and energy efficiency for the units proposed without a significant reduction in solar access for surrounding properties.

 

9.8       Safety and Security

 

The development meets the requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP with regard to safety and security. The development provides dwelling and building entries from all street frontages, all of which are accessed via security gates. A roller shutter is proposed at the top of the entry ramp, however a gate in this location doesn’t limit access between residential and commercial parking areas. Additional gates to ensure that commercial and residential parking is reserved for legitimate residents and visitors are to be provided (see Condition 88). All floors of the building have living areas to units and balconies that are oriented towards the three street frontages to provide opportunities for passive surveillance of the street. Planting to the street edge allows casual surveillance whilst providing some screening for ground floor units. The front fencing at 1.2 metres in height complies with Council’s preferred solution and maintains surveillance of the street.

 

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

 

9.9       Traffic and Parking

 

The development meets Council’s requirements with regard to resident and visitor car parking and bicycle parking provision. 110 vehicle spaces including resident, visitor and commercial spaces have been indicated on the plans. Bicycle parking for 8 spaces has also been provided. The driveway width and gradient proposed from Royal Street meets Council’s requirements. The Director, Assets and Infrastructure has provided comments that the carparking provision is satisfactory.

 

In addition to the parking proposed to accommodate the development, the proposal will result in consolidation of seven separate allotments that each have a separate driveway crossover. This will increase the on-street parking provision on Royal Street by 11 spaces (taking into account the new driveway), which will assist in meeting the existing parking demand in the area. As part of the application a land dedication to widen Glanfield Street will allow for on street parking along one side of the street and still allow 2 way traffic, resulting in an additional 10 spaces. The amended plans include traffic blisters at the corner of Royal Street and Maroubra Road, these have been requested by Council to assist in traffic calming.

 

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

 

9.10     Fences

 

The front fencing to the proposal to Maroubra Road is formed by low planter boxes outside the commercial tenancies. This form of fencing allows for easy access to the commercial areas and provides screening from the traffic to the undercover walkway on Maroubra Road. The fencing will contribute to the pedestrian amenity of Maroubra Road.

 

Along Royal and Glanfield Streets solid front fencing to a height of 1.2 metres above the footpath is proposed. Landscaping will be provided behind the fencing and the ground floor level of dwellings is set above the fence height to ensure that surveillance of the street is still achieved. Entry to the development is clearly marked by gates at regular intervals in the fencing.

 

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

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed removal of the existing non-conforming car yard on the site in favour of a predominantly residential development is permissible on this site under existing use rights provisions of the EP&A Act. It is considered that the proposed development is appropriate on the site given the existing mixed character of this residential area. The development proposes a building envelope, height, façade treatment and urban outcomes that generally meet the criteria and fulfil the objectives contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and Council’s Development Control Plans.

 

The proposal has been assessed against the design quality principles contained within SEPP 65 and is considered to be satisfactory subject to Deferred Commencement Condition 1.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties and the redevelopment of the site under existing-use rights provisions (outside of Council’s statutory and policy controls) will not exacerbate impacts. A merits based assessment of the proposal has been made and the proposed building form is considered to be appropriate on the site given the character of the area, the objectives and zoning of the site contained within the RLEP98. As such the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 758/2003 for Demolish existing car yard and residential flat building on the site and construct new mixed-use development comprising residential and commercial uses and basement parking at 48-58 Maroubra Road & 63 Royal Street subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

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

 

1.         A consolidated, full set of plans, sections and elevations reflecting the amendments made to the plans in November and December 2003 (plans drawn by Hill Thalis and Randles Hill Straatveit Architects, numbered Job No. 00.62 and drawing numbers A00, A02-A04, A09 printed on the 8/12/03 and received by Council on 5/12/03 and drawing numbers A05-A08, A10-A12 printed on the 27/11/03 and received by Council on 28/11/03) and showing the deletion of Units 139, 219 and 220. This condition is imposed to reduce the height of the building to an acceptable level, particularly on the secondary elevations to Royal and Glanfield Streets and to ensure the amendments are consistently shown on all relevant drawings to avoid confusion.

 

2.         Prior to this development consent becoming operational the applicant shall submit amended plans showing:

 

·    A high point to a minimum RL of 19.34 (AHD) along the full width of the driveway to the basement carpark.

 

·    A high point to a minimum RL of 19.34 (AHD) along the full width of all pedestrian entrances to the basement off Royal Street.

 

·    High points along the full width of all pedestrian entrances to the basement off Glanfield Street to the following levels:

 

§ Pedestrian entrance adjacent to units 305 and 306 – RL 19.75 (AHD)

§ Pedestrian entrance adjacent to units 303 and 304 – RL 19.64 (AHD)

§ Pedestrian entrance adjacent to units 301 and 302 – RL 19.53 (AHD)

 

It is noted that compliance with the nominated high points must not result in any variation to the issued alignment levels at the property boundary. A longitudinal cross section shall be provided through the driveway which demonstrates the required high point being achieved, whist maintaining satisfactory driveway grades and complying with the issued alignment level at the property boundary (which is 100m above the top of the existing kerb).

 

3.         Prior to this development consent becoming operational the applicant shall submit amended plans showing the proposed loading bay off Royal Street being redesigned to facilitate small rigid vehicles entering and exiting the loading bay in a forward direction. This may involve a suitable sized turntable being provided within the loading bay.

 

It is noted that the submitted ground level plan (Drawing A04, Version A by Hill Thalis Architecture & Randles Hill Straatveit Architects dated 08/12/2003) shows the loading bay being located at RL 19.30 (AHD) which is only some 110mm above the flood level determined in Royal Street (refer to submitted flood study by Acor Consultants dated 20 January 2004).  Any components of the turntable which may be adversely affected by stormwater inundation will need to be located at a minimum RL of 19.49(AHD) (or suitable protected from flooding up to this same level) to ensure that suitable freeboard is available above the flood level. The amended plans shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Evidence required to satisfy the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the date of this consent.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

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

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans drawn by Hill Thalis and Randles Hill Straatveit Architects, numbered Job No. 00.62 and drawing numbers A00, A02-A04, A09 printed on the 8/12/03 and received by Council on 5/12/03 and drawing numbers A05-A08, A10-A12 printed on the 27/11/03 and received by Council on 28/11/03, drawing numbers A01 and A13-A15 (as changed by amendments shown on the elevations received on 8/12/03 and 5/12/03), drawing numbers A16, A17 and A19 printed on 25/08/03 and received by Council on 27/085/03, Revision B of the landscape drawings numbered 23025-DA01 and 23025-DA02, dated August 2003, drawn by ASPECT Sydney P/L and received by Council on 27 August 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the details approved under deferred commencement conditions 1-3, the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.         The overall height of the building (exclusive of the lift overrun) must not exceed RL36.50 and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

3.         Approval is not granted for construction of a new landscaped median strip within Maroubra Road. All reference to these works is to be removed from the Construction Certificate plans to avoid confusion.

 

4.         The sill height of the following windows are to be fixed and provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below 1.7m above finished floor level:

 

·        The fixed portion of the east facing living/dining window to unit 136 at fourth floor level

·        Windows to the stairwells in the eastern elevation of the northern wing of the building at all levels.

 

5.         Street numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, to the satisfaction of Council. The site will require submission of a Changing Address application to Council, prior to installation of any numbering to ensure that the premises is numbered appropriately and relevant authorities are notified of any changes.

 

6.         The consolidation of the separate lots into a single lot must take place, prior to the occupation of the development. Details of the consolidation of lots are to be provided to Council prior to occupation of the development.

 

7.         Power supply and telecommunications cabling to the development shall be underground.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11.       The hot water system installed in the development must achieve a minimum greenhouse score of 3.5 as detailed SEDA’s Energy Smart Homes Policy.  Any electric clothes dryers to be provided in the development must also have a minimum 2 star energy rating.

 

12.       A rainwater tank of sufficient size to provide water for irrigation of all landscaped areas within the development is to be provided to the development in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tanks Policy.

 

The tank is to be located a minimum of 500mm from the side boundaries and is to have a maximum height above ground level of 2.4 metres. The tank is to be installed behind the front building line and is to be located at podium level and incorporated into the landscaping plans for the site. The noise level from any pump is not to exceed 5dBA above ambient background noise, measured at the property boundary. Overflow is to be directed to Council’s approved stormwater system or suitable absorption area (designed by a professional engineer, building surveyor or accredited certifier).

 

This condition is imposed to ensure compliance with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy and promote the principles of water conservation and ecologically sustainable design (ESD). Details required by this condition are to be included with the Construction Certificate application.

 

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

 

14.       Landscaped areas must contain a predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

Landscaped areas must include an area and facilities dedicated for onsite composting and porous paving should also be used in all pathways, wherever practicable, to maximize on-site absorption of rainwater and details are to be provided on the landscape plans.  Details of the proposed landscaping, including plant species and paved areas are to be included with the construction certificate application.

 

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

 

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

 

a)       for the provision or improvement of open space               $108,511.86

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $ 47,978.84

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for parking to the development:

 

16.       A sign legible from the street must be permanently displayed to indicate that visitor parking is available on the site and these parking spaces must be clearly marked and accessible at all times.

 

17.       The car parking spaces and driveways must be kept clear of goods at all times and must not be used for storage purposes.

 

18.       The carpark in the development, must incorporate the provision of:

 

a)       Not less than 110 car parking spaces allocated at the following rates:- i) residential 85, ii) visitors 18, iii) commercial 7;

 

b)       Tandem parking is proposed and is to be allocated to two and three bedroom units in preference to 1 bedroom units. In order to achieve the correct allocation of tandem parking, not less than 20 carspaces in tandem arrangement are to be allocated to two bedroom dwellings and not less than 4 carspaces in tandem arrangement are to be allocated to three bedroom dwellings. Tandem parking may also be provided to the commercial tenancies up to a maximum of 4 spaces (2 x tandem).

 

This condition is imposed to ensure that public and private parking allocation is maintained. Details of compliance are to be provided in the relevant plans and specifications provided with the Construction Certificate application.

 

19.       Public access to the visitor and commercial carparking spaces is to be maintained at all times and in this regard any security gates or roller door shall be located so as to provide unimpeded public access to the visitor and commercial carparking spaces.

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

 

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

 

21.       Remediation and validation works shall be carried out in accordance with the Report to Vanimo Pty Ltd and Blackbutt Pty Ltd on Environmental Site Screening for proposed combined residential and commercial development at 54-58 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (FRPT) prepared by Environmental Investigation Services, ref: E17596, dated June 2003.  Any variation to the proposed remediation works shall be approved by Council in writing prior to the commencement of such works.

 

22.       A Validation Report shall be submitted to Council upon completion of the remedial works, and prior to commencing any building works. The Validation report shall be prepared with reference to the NSW Environment Protection Authority guidelines, Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites, and shall include:

 

·          Description and documentation of all works performed.

·          Results of validation testing and monitoring.

·          Validation results of any imported fill onto the site.

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

24.       All underground storage tanks shall be removed in accordance with:

·          NSW Environmental Protection Authority Guidelines,

·          Australian Institute of Petroleum’s (AIP) Code of Practice for the Design, Installation and Operation of Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (CP4-1998); and

·          WorkCover NSW requirements.

 

In the event of conflict between AIP Code of Practice and WorkCover requirements the latter shall prevail.

 

25.       On-site land farming of contaminated soil is not permitted, except with the written approval of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

      Monday – Friday          7am – 5pm

      Saturday                       8am – 5pm

      No work permitted on Sundays or Public Holidays

 

30.       The works shall not give rise to environmental pollution or public nuisance or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act (2000) & Regulations (2001).

 

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

 

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

 

In this regard, the operation of the premises shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background (LA90), 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with Environmental Protection Authority guidelines for tonality, frequency weighting, impulsive characteristics, fluctuations and temporal content, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Environmental Noise Control Manual, Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

32.       The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance or damage to other premises.

 

33.       A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics shall be submitted to Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and confirms that noise and vibration emissions from the development will comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and relevant conditions of approval.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

36.       All tenancies shall be the subject of a separate development application prior to occupation unless otherwise exempt by Council’s Development Control Plan – Exempt and Complying Development.

 

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

 

37.       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.

 

38.       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.

 

39.       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.

 

40.       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.

 

41.       An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the principal certifying authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

42.       In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition, that in the case of residential building work, a contract of insurance must be obtained and in force, in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

Where the work is to be done by a licensed contractor, excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·        has been informed in writing of the licensee’s name and contractor number; and

·        is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the insurance requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989, or

 

Where the work to be done by any other person (i.e. an owner builder), excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·        has been informed of the person’s name and owner-builder permit number, or

·        has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $5,000.

 

Details of the builder and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, on the notice of appointment of the PCA / Intention to commence building work.

 

43.       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:

 

44.       A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, including ancillary structures located upon:

 

§  All of the premises adjoining the subject site

 

The report is to be supported with photographic evidence of the status of the buildings and a copy of the report must also be forwarded to the Council and to the owners of each of the above stated premises, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

46.       Driven type piles/shoring must not be provided unless a geotechnical engineer’s report is submitted to the certifying authority, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, which states that damage should not occur to any adjoining premises and public place as a result of the works.

 

47.       The installation of ground or rock anchors underneath any adjoining premises including (a public roadway or public place) must not be carried out without specific written consent of the owners of the affected adjoining premises and (where applicable) details of compliance must be provided to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of any excavation or building works.

 

48.       A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer is to be submitted to the principal certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the principal certifying authority) prior to occupation of the building, certifying the structural adequacy of the building and that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

49.       All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in Force at 1 July, 1993 and details of compliance are to be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be submitted to the principal certifying authority, prior to the commencement of any demolition works.

 

50.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

52.       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.

 

53.       If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

·        preserve and protect the building /s on the adjoining land from damage; and

·        if necessary, underpin and support the building and excavation in an approved manner; and

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

 

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

 

55.       A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or compliance certificate is to be forwarded to the principal certifying authority (and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the principal certifying authority), detailing compliance with Council’s approval at the following stage/s of construction:

 

a)       Prior to construction of the footings or first completed floor slab (prior to the pouring of concrete), showing the area of the land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building is being constructed at the approved levels.

 

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

 

56.       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.

 

57.       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.

 

58.       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.

 

59.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

61.       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.

 

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

 

63.       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.

 

64.       Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions and debris at all times.

 

65.       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.

 

66.       Any building/demolition works involving asbestos cement are to be carried out in accordance with the Work Cover New South Wales “Guidelines for Practices Involving Asbestos Cement in Buildings”.

 

67.       Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·        location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·        location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·        location of building materials for construction;

·        provisions for public safety;

·        dust control measures;

·        site access location and construction

·        details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·        protective measures for tree preservation;

·        provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·        location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·        details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·        construction noise and vibration management.

 

The site management measures are to be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to maintain adequate levels of public health and safety.  A copy of the approved Construction Site Management Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

68.       During demolition excavation and construction works, dust emissions must be minimised, so as not to result in a nuisance to nearby residents or result in a potential pollution incident.

 

Adequate dust control measures must be provided to the site prior to the works commencing and the measures and practices must be maintained throughout the demolition, excavation and construction process, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

·          Provision of geotextile fabric to all perimeter site fencing (attached on the prevailing wind side of the site fencing).

·          Covering of stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material with adequately secured tarpaulins or plastic sheeting.

·          Installation of a water sprinkling system or provision hoses or the like.

·          Regular watering-down of all loose materials and stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material.

·          Minimisation/relocation of stockpiles of materials, to minimise potential for disturbance by prevailing winds.

·        Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

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

 

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

 

Fences or hoardings are to be structurally adequate and be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

Details of the proposed temporary fences located upon the site are to be submitted to the principal certifying authority and the public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing or amenities upon a footpath or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·      the slope of the land

·      site access points and access control measures

·      location and type of all sediment and erosion control measures

·      location of existing vegetation, to be retained

·      material stockpile or storage areas and methods of sediment control

·      location of existing and proposed drainage systems

·      proposed disposal of site water

·      location of building operations and equipment

·      proposed re-vegetation details

 

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

 

71.       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

 

72.       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.

 

73.       A ‘B Class’ overhead type hoarding is required is be provided to protect the public, located adjacent to the development, prior to the commencement of any works on the site which comprise:-

 

·          any works or hoisting of materials over a public footway or adjoining premises, or

·          any building or demolition works on buildings which are over 7.5m in height and located within 3.6 metres of the street alignment.

 

Details of the proposed fences or hoardings located upon the site are to be submitted to the principal certifying authority and the public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing or amenities upon a footpath or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

74.       A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, to the satisfaction of Council, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

75.       The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $5 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council prior to commencement of works.

 

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

 

76.       Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities being provided to the building in accordance with Parts D3 and F2 of the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standards.  Details of compliance is required to be provided in the relevant plans/specifications for the construction certification.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

78.       The location of the discharge point serving the car park mechanical ventilation system is to be not less than 6m from a property boundary and it must discharge vertically and satisfy the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1668.

 

Details of compliance are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

79.       The following damage deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)         $10,000.00      -           Security damage deposit

 

The damage deposit may be provided by way of a cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the applicant advising Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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

 

80.       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)         $10,000.00      -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

The vehicular crossing deposit may be provided by way of cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the completion of the Council vehicular crossing by Council or a Council approved subcontractor.

 

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

 

81.       The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to undertake the following works:

 

Royal Street Frontage:

 

a)   Construct a full width concrete commercial vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the proposed vehicular entrance to the basement carparking area.

 

b)   Construct a full width concrete commercial vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the proposed vehicular entrance to the loading bay.

 

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

 

d)   Re-construct a kerb and gutter for the full site frontage except opposite the vehicular entrance and exit points. (Note this includes relocation of the kerb and gutter to facilitate approximately 1.3m road widening, between Maroubra Road and the vehicular crossing serving the basement carpark.)

 

e)   Carry out a full depth, minimum 2.0 metre wide, road construction in front of the new kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

f)    Reconstruct the full site frontage in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Junction. It is noted that this will include footpath reconstruction along the full site frontage together with seat installations, bins and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect.

 

g)   Construct kerb blisters together with a raised threshold, on the northern side of the intersection of Royal Street and Glanfield Street, to Council’s specification.

 

h)   Install “No Stopping” parking restriction signposting at the Royal Street frontage of the site, between Maroubra Road and a point 3 metres north of the northern extremity of the driveway, or as otherwise specified by the Randwick Traffic Committee.

Maroubra Road Frontage:

 

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

 

j)    Re-construct a kerb and gutter for the full site frontage.

 

k)   Carry out a full depth, minimum 2.0 metre wide, road construction in front of the kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

l)    Reconstruct the full site frontage in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Junction. It is noted that this will include footpath reconstruction along the full site frontage together with seat installations, bins and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect.

 

m)  Construct traffic calming kerb blisters at the intersection of Maroubra Road and Royal Street, (as shown on Annexure E of the traffic consultant’s letter dated 27 November 2003);

 

Glanfield Street Frontage:

 

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

 

o)   Reconstruct kerb and gutter for the full site frontage. (Note this includes relocation of the kerb and gutter to facilitate approximately 0.92m-road widening.)

 

p)   Carry out a full depth, minimum 2.0 metre wide, road construction in front of the new kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

q)   Remove the redundant kerb inlet pits (and associated pipelines) located along the existing kerb line and construct two new kerb inlet pits (along the new kerb line) with minimum 1.8 metre lintels. The new kerb inlet pits shall be located adjacent to the redundant kerb inlet pits and shall be connected to Council’s underground drainage system via minimum 375mm diameter rubber ringed reinforced concrete pipeline (RRRCP). It is noted that the kerb inlet pits shall be constructed in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD6.

 

r)    Reconstruct the full site frontage in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Junction. It is noted that this will include footpath reconstruction along the full site frontage together with seat installations, bins and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect.

 

82.       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.

 

83.       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.

 

84.       The applicant shall install appropriate signage indicating “All Traffic Turn Left” at a prominent location at the exit point in Royal Street (within the site), to advise all vehicles exiting the site to do so by left turn movements only.

 

Behaviour of vehicles exiting the site shall be monitored by Council’s Traffic Engineer for a trial period of six months after the occupation of the development. Should vehicles exiting the site be observed to make right turn movements, a narrow concrete median at the Royal Street frontage between Maroubra Road and extending to the full width of the exit driveway, shall be constructed at the applicant’s cost, to Council’s specifications.

 

85.       The driveway opening at the Royal Street frontage must be minimum 6 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

86.       The internal driveway must be a minimum 6.10m wide (5.5m clear width with 0.3m wide kerbs on either side) for the first 5 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

87.       A work zone is to be provided in Royal Street for the duration of the construction works.  The ‘work zone’ shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee and shall have a minimum length of 12 metres. The prescribed fee for the work zone must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site.

 

88.       The residential parking spaces shall be separated from the commercial and visitor parking spaces via a security roller shutter or similar. If this cannot be achieved, collapsible security bollards or similar, must be installed on individual residential spaces.

 

89.       The loading dock shall be sized to accommodate a small rigid truck entering and leaving the site in a forward direction.

 

90.       All loading and unloading activities shall be accommodated on-site.

 

91.       The layout of the car parks and service vehicle area shall, at a minimum, comply with Australian Standards AS 2890.1-1993 and AS 2890.2-1989. It is noted that compliance with AS 2890.1 will involve the length of all carspaces (including enclosed spaces) being no less than 5.4 metres. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this condition.

 

92.       All costs of traffic management measures associated with the development shall be borne by the developer.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

94.       The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be:

 

·          Maroubra Road Frontage: 80mm above the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage.

 

·          Royal Street Frontage: 100mm above the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage.

 

·          Glanfield Street Frontage: 130mm above the centreline of the existing roadway, at all points opposite the road, 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.

 

95.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the roadway or kerb must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

96.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $       5164 calculated at $27.50 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

97.       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. The exact location of all services in the vicinity of the new pipes and pits shall be determined prior to the final drainage design being undertaken.

 

98.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

101.     The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines located in front of the development site in Glanfield Street, to be relocated underground. The works shall be in accordance with Energy Australia requirements and the applicant shall meet the cost of removing any redundant poles. The relocation of the power lines underground shall be undertaken prior to any footpath construction works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to occupation of the development.

 

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

 

Protection from flooding

It is noted that all levels contained in the following conditions are based on the levels shown in the submitted survey plan by Wallis and Moore Pty Ltd dated 16/9/2002 (Drawing 23722A1)

 

103.     The floor levels of all habitable, commercial and storage areas with entrances off either Glanfield or Royal Street shall be a minimum of 300 mm above the adjacent 1 in 100 year flood levels as determined in the flood study by Acor Consulting Pty Ltd, dated 20 January 2004.

 

104.     A high point to a minimum RL of 19.34 (AHD) shall be provided along the full width of the driveway and all pedestrian access points to the basement carpark off Royal Street. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

105.     High points shall be provided along the full width of all pedestrian entrances to the basement off Glanfield Street. The high points shall be provided to the following minimum levels:

 

·    Pedestrian entrance adjacent to units 305 and 306 – RL 19.75 (AHD)

·    Pedestrian entrance adjacent to units 303 and 304 – RL 19.64 (AHD)

·    Pedestrian entrance adjacent to units 301 and 302 – RL 19.53 (AHD)

 

The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

106.     All windows, vents and other openings into the basement carpark (except the access driveway and pedestrian access stairs) shall be a minimum of 150mm above the 1 in 100 year flood levels as determined in the flood study by Acor Consulting Pty Ltd, dated 20 January 2004.The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

107.     The proposed loading bay located off Royal Street shall be constructed at a minimum RL of 19.30 (AHD), and shall be constructed in accordance with the following general requirements:

 

·          All sections of the loading bay which area below RL 19.49 (AHD) are constructed using materials that will not be adversely affected by flooding/stormwater inundation. It is noted that this includes any turntables required to facilitate service vehicles entering and exiting the site in a forward direction (refer to traffic comments).

 

·          There are no electrical connections nor the storage of any goods which may be affected by stormwater below RL 19.49 (AHD) in the loading area.

 

·          The hoist from the basement is located at a minimum of RL 19.49 (AHD).

 

·          A restriction to user shall be attached to the title of the subject development which prohibits the storage of any goods and the installation of any floor coverings, wall coverings and fixtures (including electrical connections) that may be adversely affected by stormwater inundation, below RL 19.49 (AHD) in the loading bay.

 

·          Flood resistant doors and walls are installed in front of the loading bay. This is to ensure that the doors will not be damaged during major storm events.

 

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

 

109.     The landscaped courtyard in the middle of the site shall be designed with a suitable overland flow escape route to ensure that any overland flow from the courtyard in a 1 in 100 year storm event will be transferred safely to Council Street drainage system without entering any habitable, commercial or storage areas.

 

110.     All stormwater runoff being discharged from the site shall be directed to Council’s underground drainage system in via new and/or existing kerb inlet pits.  It is noted that all new kerb inlet pits shall be constructed in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD6.

 

111.     Site discharge pipelines shall cross the verge at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the kerb line. It is noted that this may necessitate the applicant extending Council’s drainage system along the site frontage (below the kerb).

 

112.     With the exception of the site discharge pipe, all new pipelines constructed within council’s road reserve shall be minimum 375 mm diameter, spigot and socket rubber ringed jointed, steel reinforced concrete pipeline (RRRCP). Prior to backfilling, all pipelines in council’s road reserve shall be inspected and approved by the Hydraulic Engineer certifying the works and Council.

 

113.     Any new junction pits required in Council’s drainage system shall be constructed in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD8.

 

114.     All areas of Council’s footpath and roadway affected by the proposed drainage works shall be reinstated to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Assets.

 

115.     A work-as-executed plan prepared and signed by the hydraulic engineer or a registered surveyor, must be submitted to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, detailing the as constructed details for all works within Council’s road reserve (including detailed levels).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i.          Roof areas

ii.          Paved areas

iii.         Grassed areas

iv.         Garden areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

119.     The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year storm event should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm.

 

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

 

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

 

122.     The floor level of all habitable and storage areas adjacent to the detention area must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be constructed.

 

(In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

123.     A reflux valve shall be provided (within the site) over all pipelines discharging from the site to ensure that stormwater from Council drainage system does not surcharge back into the site stormwater system.

 

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

 

125.     Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the permissible discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working.

 

The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with "Section 8.4 PUMP SYSTEMS" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

126.     Sediment/silt arrester pits must be provided:-

 

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

t)        prior to stormwater discharging into any absorption/infiltration system.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·          A sign adjacent to this pit stating that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

128.     Any Absorption Trenches/Pits must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

129.     Four covered car washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

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

 

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

 

c)         The car washing bays must be signposted with Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

 

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

 

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

 

130.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer. The works-as-executed drainage plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and shall include the following details:

 

a)         The location of the detention basin with finished surface levels;

b)         Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

c)         Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

d)         The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes;

e)         The orifice size(s) (if applicable); and

f)          Details of any pumping systems installed (including wet well volumes).

 

131.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council’s Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the conditions of development consent. The certification must be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

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

 

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

 

133.     The residential garbage rooms must be sized to contain the compactor (with a safe working area) as well as 18 garbage bins and 37 recycling bins (with satisfactory access to all bins).

 

134.     The commercial garbage room shall be sized to contain a total of 8 x 240 litre bins (4 garbage bins & 4 recycling bins), whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

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

 

136.     Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste a Waste Management Plan detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for both the residential and commercial components of the development site, post construction. It is noted that this plan shall include details of how waste is to be transported from the residential and commercial tenancies to the waste rooms, and how the garbage compaction system will be operated in a safe and efficient manner.

 

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

 

137.     The landscaped areas shown on plan number 23025-DA01-2 dated August 2003, and D01 dated 26th August 2003 shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). The documentation is to include:

 

a.         A site plan at an appropriate scale showing existing site boundaries, existing trees within the property (clearly identified as being retained or removed), existing street trees (clearly identified as being retained or removed), features on adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary (buildings, trees, other structures etc), council’s footway, existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, proposed building envelope, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.

 

The plan shall clearly show the position, canopy spread (location of dripline), trunk diameter, height and names of all existing trees upon the site and adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary which are likely to be affected by the development.

 

b.         The applicant is advised that they are to provide adequate concrete hardstand suitable for the installation of a JC Decaux bus shelter, which is to be installed at Council’s cost at a later date. Details and location for the hardstand may be obtained from Council’s Assets Co-ordinator on 9399-0920.

 

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

 

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

 

The applicant will be required to provide written documentation, prepared by suitably qualified personnel, stating that the proposed soil depth and tree plantings over the excavated basement carpark are feasible, suitable, and capable of adequately supporting the proposed trees for their life term. This documentation shall be provided prior to the issue of the construction certificate. If the applicant is unable to provide this information, the plans are to be amended accordingly.

 

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

 

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

 

g.         Sectional elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

h.         The landscape plan shall show a minimum number of 6 x 75 litre broad canopied trees (not palms) suitably located within the proposed central courtyard (deep soil planting area) of the site. The trees selected shall be of a species that attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

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

 

As such, the ‘Typical Planter Box Detail’ (02/DO1) shown on plan DO1, shall be amended to show a minimum soil depth of 600mm in all planters.

 

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

 

k.         In order to reduce the amount of stormwater generated from the site, porous paving shall be used in all pedestrian pathways not over the excavated basement carpark or ‘on slab’. Details are to be provided with the construction certificate application.

 

l.          Location of easements within the site and upon adjacent sites (if any).

 

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

 

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

 

139.     The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the Maroubra Road, Royal Street and Glanfield Street frontages directly in front of the proposed development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Junction and Council’s Street Tree Master Plan. The landscape design shall include pavement for the full width and length of the three street frontages (the proposed laying of grass is not approved), as well as tree guards and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0786.

 

The Landscape Design plans shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director A & I Services in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the certifying authority issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

The applicant shall note that the approved landscape works carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council’s requirements for Civil Works on Council property. An application for the cost of the landscape works on Council property is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design checking and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council’s nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

A refundable deposit in the form of cash, cheque or bank guarantee of $6,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the construction of the approved landscape works along the Maroubra Road, Royal Street and Glanfield Street frontages.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

143.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $6,780.00 + GST to Council,

 

a.         Being the cost for Council to remove the existing street tree specimen of Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle), ($850.00 + GST), and

 

b.         Being the cost for Council to supply and install 16 x 75 litre Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gum) street trees at the completion of all works ($3520.00 + GST), comprising six (6) along the Maroubra Road frontage, four (4) along Royal Street and six (6) along Glanfield Street, and

 

c.         To compensate Council for the loss of amenity caused by the removal of the street trees $2,410.00.

 

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

 

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

 

144.     Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 6 x 75 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) within the proposed central courtyard of the site (deep soil planting area). The species selected shall be those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a)         Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) on the nature strip in front of 63 Royal Street

b)         2 x Eucalyptus species (Gum trees) – street trees in Maroubra Road

c)         2 x Eucalyptus species (Gum trees) – within the site

.

145.     A refundable deposit in the form of cash, cheque, or bank guarantee for the amount of $32,500.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

1          The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

In this regard, the development consent plans do not show compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, including:

 

a)     Part B1        -         Structural provisions

b)     Part C3        -         Protection of openings

c)     Part D1        -         Provisions for escape

d)     Part D3        -         Access for people with disabilities

e)     Part E1         -         Fire fighting equipment

f)      Part E2         -         Smoke Hazard Management

g)     Part E4         -         Emergency lighting, exit signs and warning systems

h)     Part F2         -         Sanitary and other facilities

i)      Part F4         -         Light and ventilation

 

Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Reductions

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 1/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Master Plan and Development Application for Proposed Lot 20 No. 9 Bumborah Point Road, MATRAVILLE

 

 

DATE:

29 January, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/5296 xr D/991/2003

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

During the compilation of the Committee Paper for the Health, Building & Planning Committee Meeting Business Paper for 10th February, 2004, a problem arose in importing the relevant report for this subject.

 

ISSUES:

 

Upon the discovery of the incompatibility of the Director Planning & Community Development’s Report No. 1/2004, dated 21st January, 2004, it was decided that rather than create a possible scenario where the entire business paper for the Committee Meeting would be compromised, it was necessary to treat the report as a separate attachment.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Owing to the fact that there were technical difficulties in the Director Planning & Community Development’s Report No. 1/2004, and may have compromised the production of this Committee Paper, the report will be separately circulated.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the recommendation contained in the Director’s Planning & Community Development’s Report No. 1/2004, relating to the Master Plan and Development Application for Proposed Lot 20 No. 9 Bumborah Point Road, Matraville, be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report dated 21st January, 2004 . (UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KERRY KYRIACOU

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

MANAGER, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 2/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT TASKFORCE

 

 

DATE:

29 January, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/5449

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The NSW Minister Assisting the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Planning Administration), the Hon Dianne Beamer MP, established the Regulation Review - Local Development Taskforce in July 2003.  The Local Development Taskforce was one of a series of Taskforces that have been set up by the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Natural Resources (DIPNR) to review different major issues in the planning system.

 

The Local Development Taskforce was required to investigate and report upon the efficiency and suitability of the development assessment process in relation to ‘local development’.  The scope of the review looked at: the speed and quality of approvals for houses; costs of and standards for housing; complying development certificates; the clarity of standards and controls; notification; conditions of development consent; the conduct of accredited certifiers; the responsibility for enforcement of development consents; the role of councillors; and the complex range of issues that need to be considered in development assessment.

 

Responses are sought by 14th February 2004.  A report from the Taskforce was made available in late 2003.  The key issues, as reviewed, are outlined below.  It is recommended that Council endorse these comments in a submission to be forwarded to the Taskforce for consideration.

 

ISSUES:

 

General

 

Whilst the establishment of a taskforce to investigate the development assessment process is commended, it is disappointing to see that the members of the Taskforce has a low representation of local government.  Nor did the Taskforce include any consumer or community representatives.  The Taskforce members were: N. Bird AM, Chairman; B. McDonald, Penrith City Council; P. Williams, UNSW; E. Crouch, Housing Industry Commission; R. Barnaby, Masterton Homes; J. Heraghty, Office of the Minister; A. Cappie-Wood, DIPNR; A. Spalding, DIPNR.  The secretariat includes one council officer and 2 DIPNR officers.  Without such representation, the investigation, report and recommendations are unrepresentative and do not adequately address the deficiencies and potential for improvements in the process.

 

To achieve realistic improvements in the development process for all parties, it is essential that local government representatives be prominently involved in such taskforces and review committees or the like.  After all, it is local government that must manage and implement the system and be accountable to the community and consumer.

 

In the report a significant emphasis is placed upon the timeliness of the development consent process, rather than on the quality and suitability of the development, compliance with relevant design standards and in particular, community consultation.

 

The time in which it takes to determine a development application is very important and most council’s, including Randwick, have implemented improved processes and benchmarking to significantly improve development application processing times.

 

However, timeliness must be balanced against all of the other competing considerations and community expectations.

 

Council is also concerned with the lack of attention that was given to the submissions already made to the Taskforce by of stakeholders.  Some good suggestions such as “The legislation should be amended to allow councils to charge an additional fee for expedited service, including assessment by an independent planning consultant” have not been addressed in the report.

 

Recommendations of the Taskforce

 

The Taskforce concentrated on four key issues:

1.         A Preferred Model for Quick Approval of Houses and Associated Development

2.         Clear Standards and Controls

3.         Certification of Development

4.         Governance of the Development Assessment Process

 

There were 61 Recommendations made by the Taskforce on these key issues.  These are summarised below, their impacts are discussed and a suggested Council response is given.

 

1.   A Preferred Model for Quick Approval of Houses and Associated Development

 

Through creating a common set of housing standards the Taskforce hopes to achieve the removal of up to 70% of development applications for single houses, alterations and carports, etc from councils’ development assessment systems.  It also wants to return to a single application for dwelling houses.  In doing this it aims to have a seven day average for house approvals and also to create a better balance between an owner’s right to construct a house and the protection of neighbour amenity.

 

Creation of a common set of housing standards

The Taskforces considers that housing standards are critical to the management of approval times.  The Taskforce also believes it is important to define expectations about what owners can build on their block of land and what neighbours can expect to be built next to them.  Other States manage housing approvals through regulated sets of building standards and the Taskforce believes statewide housing standards is a good way of increasing approval times and defining peoples expectations of potential development.

 

Recommendation 1:  A common set of housing standards is needed in NSW.

Response:  The introduction of a ‘one size fits all’ approach of development standards for local development is not supported as it does not accommodate the extremely wide range of environmental, design, amenity and economic considerations and community expectations applicable throughout the state or metropolitan area.  It is also inconsistent with the place based planning approach promoted by the Plan First initiatives.

 

One of the reasons stated for the need for common housing standards is that there are no “State based standards that provide consistency on streetscapes, setbacks…” (pp21).  There is no necessity for consistent streetscapes or setbacks.  Different streetscapes and setbacks contribute positively to an area’s distinct character and often represented different eras of development.

 

”At present the planning system in NSW…allow[s] each council to set its own housing standards…This allows the controls to respond to local and environmental issues…” (pp22).  The ability of council’s to respond to the local environment is important and can only be done with the detailed local knowledge that Council’s have.  Development controls are developed with the benefit of this local knowledge.

 

The Taskforce proposes that to “assess the design outcomes of the proposed common housing standards the design principles from SEPP 65 could be used” (pp 23).  Many of the ten design quality principles promote that context is a very important part of good development:

 

1.   Good design responds and contributes to its context.

2.   Good design provides an appropriate scale in terms of bulk and height that suits the scale of the street and surrounding buildings.

3.   Good design achieves an appropriate built form for the site

4.   Good design has an appropriate density for a site and its context

8.   Good design responds to the social context

(pp23; emphasis added)

 

It is therefore contradictory to use SEPP 65 design principles, which emphasise context in planning, to assess common statewide housing standards.

 

It is noted that Randwick’s exempt and complying controls already allow for houses as complying development, however, the controls are suited to Randwick City’s local circumstances.  A model approach to standards could be provided and adapted to local circumstances, to ensure that quality is not compromised for faster approval.

 

Recommendation 2:  To develop a mandatory set of complying standards for single dwelling houses in NSW that will be incorporated into the (proposed) mandatory exempt and complying provisions in the (proposed) integrated plan (LEP) template.

Response:  Council does not support the creation of a mandatory set of complying standards for single dwelling houses in NSW.  Exempt and complying standards for many types of development, including single dwelling houses, are best set at the local level because the controls can be more easily tailored to suit the context of the area.  This is especially more important in older areas, such as Randwick, where allotment patterns are established and rarely altered.  In these areas controls, such as setbacks, need to be locally set due to the dimensions of the existing allotment patterns and existing development. 

 

The Taskforce report advises that only 7.5% of development approvals fell within the category of ‘complying development’ in 2000/2001, which is far below the 60% originally anticipated.  Whilst it is clear that a 60% target is unlikely to be achieved (and probably not desirable), significant increases on the current proportion of complying development to local development is quite achievable with further encouragement, guidance and direction from DIPNR, such as an updated SEPP 60.

 

Randwick City Council has developed a comprehensive Development Control Plan for Exempt and complying Development and Council’s Building Certification Services currently processes almost 15% of development as ‘complying development’, in an average period of 10 days, which is commendable for an inner-city council.  Future amendments to the Development Control Plan will also provide further increases in the proportion of complying development.

 

The preparation of a comprehensive exempt and complying DCP also enables a significant proportion of minor works and development to be carried out as ‘exempt development’ which would not be included in such statistics.

 

It is however essential that Council’s be allowed to identify the scope and criteria for exempt and complying development, to ensure that it still maintains the characteristics of the area and community expectations with DIPNR providing appropriate guidance and directions.

 

A preferred alternative would be to give councils a defined time, eg one year, to produce their own exempt and complying DCP, based on a model criteria set by DIPNR and having regard to the characteristics of the locality, which would be accepted to the satisfaction of DIPNR.  With this alternative Councils could ensure that controls suited the local area while DIPNR would be able to be confident that controls sufficiently encouraged exempt and complying development.

 

Recommendations 3:  That DIPNR undertake a review of the impact of the proposed housing standards.

Response:  Whilst any new measures should have appropriate monitoring and review, Council does not support this as it does not support one common set of housing mandatory standards.

 

Recommendation 4:  That DIPNR investigate appropriate exempt and complying development controls for commercial and industrial development.

Response:  Council supports the extension of SEPP 60 as a guide for councils to extend their provisions for these specific land uses.

 

Approval Mechanisms – Complying and Local Development

The Taskforce wants to greatly increase the utilisation of complying development.  The Taskforce particularly wants to increase the proportion of houses being assessed as complying development.  The Taskforce also wants to increase the flexibility of complying development.

 

Recommendations 5-7:  That DIPNR review the exempt provisions in SEPP 60, with a view to adopt them as part of the (proposed) mandatory integrated plan template.  That the EP&A Act be modified to allow councils and certifiers to impose conditions on complying development certificates to make non-complying developments comply, where the breach of a single standard occurs.  That DIPNR investigates opportunities to increase complying development use in environmentally sensitive areas.  The Taskforce’s preferred outcome is that single dwelling houses in environmentally sensitive areas would only be assessed against (proposed) additional provisions for special environmentally sensitive areas, having already satisfied the complying development standards.

Response: Council would support a review of exempt provisions as part of the integrated plan template as a model only; not as mandatory.  Similarly Council would support opportunities to increase complying development in environmentally sensitive areas as a model only, not mandatory.  Council does, though, support the recommendation to impose conditions on complying development certificates to make non-complying developments comply, where the breach of a single standard occurs.  This would provide for approval rather than the current requirement to refuse the complying DA and require a full DA..

 

Randwick City Council’s exempt and complying DCP already includes the vast majority of the provisions contained in SEPP 60 and in some areas Randwick City Council’s DCP includes a wide range of development as complying development which is consistent of that contained in SEPP 60 DIPNR should continue to consider each council separately (eg as done for SEPP 53).

 

Complying development could also be extended to encompass specific works to a heritage item as identified in Council’s LEP.

 

Recommendation 8:  That DIPNR investigate opportunities to introduce a combined approvals system for those circumstances where a separate DA and CC is still required to enable the construction of a single dwelling house (eg in conservation areas, environmentally sensitive areas, etc).

Response:  Council supports this recommendation to simplify the processing of single dwelling houses.

 

Recommendation 9:  That DIPNR implements a monitoring and review program if common housing standards are implemented.

Response: Again, whilst any new measures should have appropriate monitoring and review, Council does not support this as it does not support one common set of housing mandatory standards.

 

Recommendation 10:  That DIPNR request the Department of Local Government to monitor the granting of complying development certificates by private certifiers and councils.

Response:  Council fully supports this recommendation to keep track of complying development in NSW.  Council keeps up-to-date statistics on all certificates determined.

 

2.   Clear Standards and Controls

 

      Through the preparation of clear standards and development policies the Taskforce hopes to achieve a consistent approach to policy preparation by all State agencies and councils.  This is hoped to produce clear knowledge of the rules that should be followed when lodging a DA, the criteria used to assess DAs and also the expected outcomes of development.  It also aims to create a better understanding of what applications neighbours can comment on.  Clear definitions and statewide standards for housing is hoped to lead to greater consistency across councils and better management of minor development.

 

Development Standards and Controls

Development standards and controls are a critical part of any development assessment decision as they are a means of documenting council and State government agency expectations on what criteria and outcomes a development will need to achieve to be approved.

 

Recommendations 11-13:  That DIPNR prepare ‘Best Practice Guidelines for Writing Clear Standards and Developing Policy’ in consultation with local government and State agencies, for local government and State agencies.  The Taskforce also recommends that DIPNR educate council’s in the writing of clear standards and policies

Response:  Council supports these recommendations that help council’s improve their plan preparation (LEPs/DCPs), assessment process and conditions of consent.

 

      Model Provisions and Standard Definitions

The Taskforce considered ways of assisting the consistent interpretation of issues across plans, minimising administration costs and improving accessibility of the planning system for all users.  The Taskforce believes consistent formatting across councils is a good way of addressing the issues above.

 

      Recommendations 14, 16, 17:  That the format of a local plan (LEP) be regulated by the State government with mandatory (eg standardised zones, definitions, contemporary version of the model provisions, exempt and complying provisions, monitoring and review every four years) and some flexible (eg locality statements) provisions.

      Response:  A regulated format of a local plan, containing fixed and flexible content, is supported for consistency, but would be acceptable as a guide only.  Council would support the mandatory monitoring and review of LEP provisions every four years, but only if council was supported through an increase in resources.  A comprehensive LEP review requires significant staff resources and a four year frequency would virtually require a continual comprehensive LEP review on Council work programs.  The costs to Councils should be addressed and sufficient resources provided.  Council would similarly support standardised zones if it were a model, not mandatory, or if variations were allowable to suit local circumstances.  Council supports a review of the model provisions, to remain as a ‘model’ and with a commitment to keep the model provisions up-to-date (note that DIPNR’s current model provisions were produced in 1980).

 

      Recommendation 15:  That the EP&A Regulation 2000 be amended so that new local plans be prepared in accordance with the regulated template.

Response:  Council would support this, if the regulated template was a model only.

 

Advertising and Notification

The involvement of the community has been part of the EP&A Act since its inception in 1979.  If the standardisation of housing standards was to go ahead the Taskforce proposes limiting notification as is described in Recommendations 18-19 below.

 

Recommendations 18-19:  That if a proposed single dwelling house complies with the common housing standards, or can be made to comply with the imposition of conditions, that notification be limited to the fact that an approval has been granted.  If a single dwelling house does not comply with the common housing standards and has to be assessed as a DA, notification will be limited only to consultation on the impacts of the variation only.

Response:  It is unclear whether if the house complies with the common housing standards that it becomes complying development, to be processed through the complying development system, or if it is processed through the development application system.

 

Recommendation 20-3:  That DIPNR creates and finalises a model notification policy and include it in the (proposed) integrated plan template.  The Minister may consider mandating the policy to ensure consistent use by all councils.

Response:  Council supports the concept of a model notification policy but objects to it being mandated, unless once again, local changes are possible with justification.

 

The Building Sustainability Index (BASIX)

BASIX is an integrated sustainability tool that operates via a web-based program that allows applicants to self assess their proposals and vary the sustainable measures used in a development to meet a minimum overall level.  BASIX aims to consolidate the best information about all aspects of sustainable planning and building.  The Taskforce feels consideration needs to be given to implementation and training for BASIX to be successful.  The Taskforce is concerned about how BASIX will relate with the Building Code of Australia and NatHERS.

 

Recommendations 24-25:  That BASIX is endorsed and that it must dovetail with the Building Code of Australia (BCA), NatHERS and other existing guidelines, andin consultation with the community.

Response:  Whilst Council supports the development of an integrated Sustainability tool, a major concern is that the structure of BASIX sets a minimum for sustainability requirements and does not allow Council to directly influence the benchmark of sustainability provisions required. This is particularly relevant to Councils, such as Randwick City, that are advanced in their sustainability requirements.

 

It is essential that BASIX does not conflict with existing energy efficiency controls and sustainability provisions in the Building Code of Australia.  This could complicate the approvals process for dwellings and result in additional requirements and delays in the processing of DAs.

 

Council supports the recommendation that DIPNR continue to develop BASIX in consultation with the relevant stakeholders.  Further to this, Council suggests that additional communication occur between DIPNR and councils regarding the impact of BASIX on existing Council Codes and Policies, such as Stormwater Codes.

 

Recommendation 26:  That DIPNR prepare a BASIX education strategy for councils and private certifiers.

Response:  Council strongly supports that DIPNR prepare a suitable communications and education strategy, with a particular focus on training for councils and private certifiers in the implementation of BASIX.

 

Council also supports that DIPNR should give priority to the resources of this recommendation. In addition, Council suggests that DIPNR formalise such initiatives through the development and resourcing of a ‘BASIX Implementation Plan’ that incorporates providing extension officers to assist Council staff and fact sheets for applicants that explain the tool and associated procedures. In addition, the cost to Councils of implementing BASIX should be addressed and further support and resourcing (as part of a BASIX Implementation Plan) be provided for:

 

- Community access to internet will fall to Council

- Training of library staff where internet is available to assist or field questions

- Community internet access at CSC and staff training

- Delivery to non-English speaking members of the community and those with disability

- Community acceptance and trials. Although industry has been consulted Council is not aware of any feedback from the community being incorporated.

 

Recommendation 27:  That accreditation schemes for building industry practitioners to be accredited to certify compliance of development designs and certify and inspect construction compliance with BASIX.

Response:  Council supports this recommendation.

 

Recommendation 28-29:  That DIPNR develop a SEPP, EP&A Regulation or as part of the fixed content of the (proposed) integrated plan template to introduce BASIX.

Response:  It is critical that DIPNR make an on-going commitment to reviewing the BASIX tool every 1-2 years at minimum, to accommodate changes in technology and practice towards keeping the tool state-of-the-art. This is particularly relevant if the implementation of BASIX were to proceed in a manner whereby Council cannot


mandate sustainability provisions above the requirements in the tool.  Any additional sustainability provisions should be reasonably flexible and performance based, as full compliance for ‘in-fill’ urban development may not always be achievable or reasonable, whereas on other occasions going above the provisions may be suitable.

 

State Agency Consultation and Concurrence

Originally State consultation and concurrence provisions were a means to ensure councils had the benefit of detailed State agency knowledge when assessing a DA but they have evolved into applications in their own right.  The Taskforce believes that with councils developing their own expertise, State agency involvement often unnecessarily prolongs the process.

 

Recommendations 30-31:  That DIPNR leads a review of SEPPs to remove, as far as possible, consultation and concurrence provisions in favour of a more strategic approach and review the system of integrated development approvals to assess whether the original intent of the 1998 legislation has been achieved in simplifying and integrating development approvals.

Response:  Council supports these Recommendations, to streamline the numerous SEPPs (now up to SEPP 71) and review the integrated development process, which has not achieved a more simple or efficient assessment where State agencies are involved.

 

3.   Certification of Development

     

The Taskforce hopes to improve the certification process by toughening levels of Government accreditation, auditing and regulation of the certification process and by removing local governments’ responsibility to audit certifiers and also reducing the amount of conditions that councils place on house approvals.  These changes are hoped to increase the level of community confidence in certifiers and to clarify the roles and responsibilities of certifiers in the community.

 

      Role of Certification

      Certification has led to increased caution in the way that councils write conditions of consent as Council’s do not always have faith in the certifier.  This has meant council’s require far greater detail during the initial stages of a DA, that they put longer and more complex conditions on development consents, as well as Council’s being unwilling to expand complying development.

 

The changes to the legislation, in effect, resulted in the necessity to consider all relevant matters, such as environmental and amenity impacts and the potential impact of the development upon the locality and public infrastructure.  Whilst this may not be a positive outcome, it is an inevitable outcome if Council’s only have one opportunity to assess the potential impact of extremely complex development proposals having a wide range of environmental impacts.  The deficiencies in the current legislation for certification processes and the conduct of a few questionable certifiers has also significantly contributed to this dilemma.

 

Recommendations 32-34:  The Taskforce wants private certifiers to be audited by the Department of Commerce (Home Building Service) instead of by local councils.  The
Home Building Service would also be required to review the accreditation, auditing and education processes of certifiers.

Response: The recommendation to remove local governments responsibility for auditing certifiers is supported and it is considered most appropriate and effective for the Accreditation and Auditing of Accredited Certifiers including managing compliance against accredited certifiers to be carried out by DIPNR.

 

The transfer of responsibility for the Establishment of the Building Professionals Board and auditing and accreditation of certifiers from DIPNR to the Department of Commerce is not supported, at this stage, as it is considered that such a transfer would have a detrimental impact upon the operation of the auditing and accreditation process, which DIPNR has only recently come to grips with and managed the complexity of the legislation. 

 

The transfer would also in effect separate the certification requirements from the accreditation and auditing processes, which may result in inconsistencies and confusion between the legislation and requirements imposed upon accredited certifiers.

 

      Better Process and Practice

The Taskforce wants to improve processes and practice for certification partially through legislative change and education.

 

Recommendation 35:  The Taskforce recommends for the Home Building Service/Building Professionals Board, in consultation with DIPNR, to implement the Campbell Inquiry reforms.

Response:  The principles of recommendation 35 are supported, in that the key reforms identified in the Campbell Inquiry and subsequent Environmental Planning & Assessment Amendment (Quality of Construction) Act 2003 should be implemented as soon as practical.

 

It is, however, considered that the reforms identified in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Amendment (Quality of Construction) Act 2003 have in some cases impractical and may result in a number of difficulties in finalising developments.  In some other areas the Legislation may not go far enough to identify the responsibilities of the PCA and to endeavor to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the relevant development consent.

 

The Legislation does not address the complex issue of how unauthorised building works can be resolved as failure to obtain a construction certificate and have the relevant mandatory inspections carried out will result in a development which can never be legally occupied, irrespective as to whether or not the development fully complies with the relevant Building Code of Australia requirements.

 

To further improve the operation of the Quality of Construction Act, the following amendments are suggested.


 

 

·    The introduction of mandatory critical stage inspections are supported, however, they should be able to be specified by the PCA (rather than in the Legislation) prior to or upon the appointment of the PCA.

 

·    The Legislation should include specific penalty provisions, including the issuing of Penalty Infringement Notices upon the principal contractor or owner/builder in relation to a failure to comply with the mandatory inspection requirements specified by the PCA.

 

·    The inability to issue an Occupation Certificate if one or more of the critical stage inspections have been carried out, should be deleted and replaced with a requirement that the PCA must ensure that the development us not inconsistent with the development consent and Building Code of Australia upon issuing an interim or final occupation certificate.

 

The Legislation should specifically preclude the issuing of any in retrospective construction certificates or amended construction certificates as the issuing of such has the potential to defeat the purposes of the Legislation and will inevitably result in the proliferation of substandard constructed buildings throughout New South Wales.

 

·    The issue of how best to manage unauthorised building works needs to be addressed, to firstly discourage such actions from taking place and imposing significant penalties accordingly.  Secondly to provide a process in which the Council can determine whether or not the unauthorised building works are able to be accepted (i.e. after the submission of relevant certification, documentation and inspections) to ensue that relevant building and development standards have been satisfied and to enable the legal occupation of the building should the Council determine that the relevant standards have been reasonably satisfied.

 

For example, the Building Certificate provisions under Section 149A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act could be reviewed and expanded to in effect legalise the occupation of the subject building, subject to the building be occupied in accordance with relevant development consents.  However, it is equally important that the fees for such a certificate be deregulated to enable the necessary resources to be provided to such an assessment to achieve full cost recovery for Council.

 

·    The current $600 Penalty Infringement Notice for carrying out development without or not in accordance with the relevant development consent should be increased to a minimum of $1500 for a corporation for each offence and $750 for an individual for each offence.

 

·    Introduce Penalty Infringement Notice provisions in relation to a failure to obtain a construction certificate and failure to obtain and occupation certificate, the same value as detailed above.

 

Recommendation 36: That DIPNR, in consultation with the Home Building Service, amend its ‘Guiding Development: Better Outcomes’ guidelines to introduce provisions for councils to improve the approval process including the complying development process and issues relating to consent conditions, etcetera.

Response:  This recommendation is supported.

 

Recommendation 37:  That DIPNR prepare a ‘ready reckoner’ checklist for use by certifiers.

Response:  Council supports this recommendation to help improve outcomes by certifiers.

 

4.   Governance of the Development Assessment Process

 

The Taskforce hopes that the reform of councils’ assessment processes will achieve better strategic planning and policy making by councillors, increase opportunities for independent decision making by technical experts, an improved work environment for council assessment staff, improved levels of training for staff and councillors and improved monitoring of the overall system.

 

The Role of Councillors

The Taskforce wants the role of councillors to be defined.  The Taskforce wants councillors to focus on establishing a strategy for the future of the council area, then to ensure that strategy is achieved through the budgeting and policy development process.

 

Recommendations 38-41:  That the Local Government Act 1993 (charter) be amended to provide greater clarity in regard to the role of councillors.  Also, that councillors be required to attend a mandatory training course that will specifically focus on broader strategic roles and responsibilities.

Response:  Council supports this recommendation, to ensure that councillors are given clear opportunities and access to the required information to undertake their roles, in full knowledge of the statutory and best-practice requirements.

 

Development Assessment Panels

The Taskforce reviewed the roles of different development assessment panels that are currently being used by different councils.  Development Assessment Panels were viewed as being positive for the efficiency of council development assessment processes.

 

Recommendations 42-45:  That the Minister amend the EP&A Act to provide for the establishment of independent development assessment and hearing panels (IHAPs) within councils.  That guidelines are developed to assist councils that do not already have established panels to develop IHAPs.  That DIPNR work with councils to establish regional panels where requested.  That DIPNR amend SEPP 65 to recognise that where a council has an IHAP that it can carry out the functions of a Design Review Panel subject to suitable membership.

Response:  Council supports these recommendations.  Randwick Council has a Design Review Panel, operating in conjunction with Waverley Council, and which has assisted in improving development outcomes.  The IHAP panel process may further enable councils to delegate their DA determination role and focus more on policy direction within councils.

Recommendation 46:  That the Minister amend the EP&A Act to require all councils to report annually on how they achieved specific performance benchmarks, to ascertain their effectiveness in reducing determination times and achieving quality outcomes.

Response:  Council supports this recommendation, although efficiency measures will need to be balanced with the likely improved results.  For this, effectiveness will need to be measured by both qualitative and quantitative measures.

 

Council proposes a review of the current fee structure for SEPP 65 Design Review Panels as currently Council does not cover costs with he flat $600 rate.

 

Randwick City Council and most other Council’s already implement such benchmarks, which are identified and reported upon through the statutory management plan process.

 

Assessment Staff

The Taskforce views one of the major problems keeping council’s from maintaining an effective assessment process is the inability to secure and retain professional staff.  There is also thought to be a general shortage of planners.

 

Recommendations 47:  That DIPNR recommend to the Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) that it develop a Professional Planning Practice course.

Response:  Council supports this recommendation, as a means of ensuring that planning staff gain and retain adequate professional standards, or to assist others, such as council officers, to gain the skills to move into planning positions.

 

Recommendation 48-49:  That DIPNR encourage councils to educate their communities about councils’ development assessment process and that PIA develops a mentoring program for junior assessment staff.

Response:  Council supports this recommendation, to improve guidance and information to applicants and consumers, if appropriate resources were made available.

 

Recommendation 50-52:  That DIPNR allocate resources to planning education in NSW.

Response:  Council supports this recommendation.  Council would like to see the development of improved and practical practice notes, including model conditions of consent.  Council also recommends that DIPNR provide training and education on the development of appropriate, relevant and reasonable conditions of development.

 

Development Assessment Systems Management

Good governance of a council or State government agency’s development assessment system is vital to ensure that the process is efficient.  Successful best practice documents have been developed by UNSW and DIPNR and Council’s often prepare their own guidance or procedures manual.

 

Recommendation 53:  That DIPNR review the appropriateness of applying Sections 102-104 (process challenges) of the EP&A Act to local development approvals.

Response:  Council welcomes this recommendation.  Currently Sections 102-104 set out restrictive procedural requirements for development which may create other unnecessary further procedures and delay.

 

Recommendations 54-55, 61:  That DIPNR update ‘Guiding Development: Better Outcomes’, to include provisions on the development of policy and procedures for managing the development assessment process, including a model delegation policy, and that it provides adequate resources for its effective implementation.

Response:  Council welcomes these recommendations that support improved council process through professional advice.

 

Recommendation 56:  That DIPNR amend the Regulation to provide greater clarity in regard to the interpretation of ‘not inconsistent’ in construction certificate, to reduce the number of Section 96 applications.

Response:  Council does not view the increase in Section 96 applications to be a problem.  It also does not attribute the increase to the differing interpretations of ‘not inconsistent’ but rather because Section 96 applications are a simpler way of getting minor amendments to an approval rather than the other option, which is a Section 82A review.  In fact Council believes Section 96 1 and 1A applications are easier to process than Section 82A reviews.

 

Recommendations 57-58:  That DIPNR develop an action plan to implement the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) recommendations relating to development assessment fees.  Also that DIPNR and the Department of Local Government provide for the use of fast track DA fees in EP&A Regulation.

Response:  Council’s development processes could be improved if fast-track development application processes were encouraged for dwellings, additions and other small-scale development.  Council recommends the deregulation of the development application fee structures to provide full cost-recovery of services provided (subject to appropriate justification and accountability provisions), to facilitate improved resources for DA assessment and allow council’s to charge higher fees for expedited services.

 

Recommendation 59:  That DIPNR commence the collection of annual statistics for construction certificates and complying development certificates granted.

Response:  Council supports the collection of statistics for NSW.  Randwick Council already collects statistics and finds it a useful tool specifically for the benchmarking of performance, which is carried out on an ongoing basis and is reported on in Council’s quarterly Management Plan and Annual Report.

 

Recommendation 60:  That DIPNR and the Department of Local Government, in consultation with local government and the development industry, develop appropriate benchmarks to measure the development assessment performance of councils.

Response:  Council supports the implementation of appropriate benchmarking standards.  Council already has its own self-assessment technique that uses a system of objectives, performance indicators, performance targets and strategies by which to assess itself.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The above comments will be forwarded to the Taskforce, subject to Council’s endorsement.  The Taskforce’s proposed changes would have significant impact on the development assessment system and in strategic planning, in the revision of LEPs/DCPs, particularly in standardising procedures.  However, this should be balanced against the need for council’s to plan for local variations and address community issues, and to extend best-practice in issues such as sustainability requirements.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council note and endorse the comments made in this report and forward it to the Local Development Taskforce, DIPNR.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SARAH HUDSON

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

STUDENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 3/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Submission to the Section 94 Review Taskforce

 

 

DATE:

29 January, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/0895

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) notified Council on 30 September 2003 of a Taskforce to review the Section 94 contributions system and the range of development levies under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. This is one of a number of taskforces established by DIPNR, at the Ministers request, to review different major issues in the planning system.

 

This S94 taskforce will examine, among other things, the impact of the levies on the affordability of housing, their effectiveness in delivering infrastructure at a local level and whether alternatives to the current system exist, such as flat rate levies. The review will also examine existing accountability arrangements and identify ways in which the system could become more transparent and the community more confident about Section 94 expenditure.

 

Workshop sessions were held by DIPNR in November 2003 in regional and metropolitan NSW. Council officers attended on 25 November 2003 for a discussion that involved issues identified by DIPNR and issues of concern raised by the attending Councils and other government bodies.

 

Council forwarded a submission to the S94 Taskforce on S94 Contributions (see Attachment 1), endorsing key S94 issues. This report summarises the taskforce process and Council officer submission which, given a due deadline of 23 January 2004, was not able to be reported for Council endorsement before submission.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

The current Taskforce recommencing a review of the S94 Contributions System that began with a S94 Review Committee and report in 2000. The report, titled ‘Review of the Developer Contributions System’, addressed issues of concern and made recommendations for changes either in the Act, Regulations or to develop practice notes. These recommendations were not implemented.

 

The terms of reference for the current Taskforce include an examination of the recommendations of the 2000 report and a thorough examination of alternatives to levying under the EP & A Act 1979, such as flat rate levies and developer agreements.

 

The taskforce is also required to analyse data on the existing S94 system, including contributions collected, use of developer agreements and how S94 funds have been expended. In addition, the review will examine funding alternatives for local infrastructure, having regard to the impacts of local Council rate pegging and debt servicing.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council’s submission noted support for the review of the current S94 Contributions system, however, it also stressed that a system of developer contributions is essential for Councils to fund new public infrastructure and community facilities. The submission also placed emphasis on the difficulty of inner city/established areas experience when funding services under S94, particularly if land is required, and the ongoing costs of maintaining these facilities once they have been constructed. This issue of long-term maintenance was raised to be included in the review.

 

The current S94 system is complicated and inflexible in enabling Council’s to provide the most appropriate and timely provision of new facilities

 

The previous 2000 report by DUAP raised the potential for a range of practice notes and model approaches to aid Councils through the S94 Contributions process. These issues include nexus, leasing of facilities, cash flow analysis, arbitration and cross boundary plans. While Council agreed that many of these issues should be reviewed, the submission stressed that ad hoc amendments and additions to the existing system would not be adequate and could result in a more complicated system. A single comprehensive new approach is required.

 

The submission briefly commented on the proposal for alternatively using flat rate levies instead of the current system. Given the difficulty inner city Councils such as Randwick have in establishing nexus, developing apportionment and developing significant funds for projects, the flat rate levy could be beneficial in its certainty and efficiencies of process. Issues of how the flat rate levy will be generated were raised, as was the need to vary the flat rate levy if justifiable. It was noted that Councils should be involved in the process which determines the flat rate fee or any alternative approaches.

 

Council has been notified of legislation before the State Parliament, known as the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning Agreements) Bill 2003. Council has serious concerns regarding the apparent lack of notification to local government of this legislation, its implications and details. This legislation could allow developers to approach the Minister directly and broker planning agreements without going through Councils. Such planning agreements could allow developer contributions in return for amending planning instruments, rezoning and /or altering development standards. Council believes this will result in a loss of transparency in decision making and the potential compromising of publicly exhibited and gazetted Council planning instruments and policies.

 

While the closing date for submissions to the Taskforce was the 23 January 2004, should Council wish to add to or amend the Council officer submission, these will be forwarded with a request for the Taskforce to consider the additional matters from Randwick City.  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended:

 

1.         That Council note and endorse the submission made to the S94 Taskforce, dated 13 January 2004.

2.         That the Director of Planning and Community Development forward a letter to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources detailing Council’s concerns with regard to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Planning Agreements) Bill 2003.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Submission to the DIPNR Section 94 Taskforce Review. (UNDER SEPARATE COVER.)

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STEVE ROSELAND

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER