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

 

23 July 2004

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 27TH JULY 2004 AT 6:00 PM

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 22ND JUNE, 2004.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 13TH JULY, 2004.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           Acting General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                        

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 18/2004 - SALE OF LAND ADJACENT TO 276 DONCASTER AVENUE & EDWARD AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

1

 

6.2                        

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 19/2004 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

5

 

 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 40/2004 - ON-STREET PARKING POLICY.

8

 

7.2                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 41/2004 - LOCAL DISASTER PLANS - EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT.

13

 

 

7.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 42/2004 - 2004-2005 REGIONAL ROADS BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT.

16

7.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 43/2004 - SSROC SUPPLY OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND SERVICES.

19

7.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 44/2004 - KENSINGTON/WEST KINGSFORD LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SCHEME.

24

 

7.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 45/2004 - OLD BUS TERMINUS KIOSK/CAFE, MARINE PARADE, MAROUBRA BEACH.

35

 

7.7                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 46/2004 - GRAFFITI MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME - SIX MONTH TRIAL.

41

 

7.8                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 47/2004 - LOCAL ROAD REHABILITATION INCLUDING ROADS TO RECOVERY.

47

 

7.9                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 48/2004 - STATUS REPORT - SUPPORT FOR ANTI-SMOKING BAN ON COUNCIL BEACHES, PLAYGROUNDS AND OVALS.

50

 

7.10                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 49/2004 - PUBLIC PATHWAY ADJACENT TO PROPERTY 15 FENTON AVENUE, MAROUBRA.

53

 

 

8           Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

8.1                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 45/2004 - PRINCE HENRY HOSPITAL SITE DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN (LEP) (AMENDMENT NO. 28) AND DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN (DCP).

59

 

8.2                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 46/2004 - 4A EASTBOURNE AVE, CLOVELLY.

82

 

8.3                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 47/2004 - 172 BEACH STREET, COOGEE.

111

 

8.4                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 48/2004 - 2A STEPHEN STREET, RANDWICK.

129

 

8.5                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 49/2004 - 28 WINCHESTER RD CLOVELLY.

203

 

8.6                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 50/2004 - COMMUNITY FACILITIES LEASE/HIRE POLICY.

246

 

 

8.7                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 51/2004 - AFFIXING COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION.

249

 

8.8                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 52/2004 - AFFIXING COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION.

251

 

8.9                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 53/2004 - COUNCIL'S SMALL GRANTS PROGRAM (SECTION 356) TO NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY GROUPS AND ORGANISATIONS.

253

 

 

9           Petitions

 

10         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

10.1                    

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Sullivan, White, Andrews, Procopiadis & Tracey – Health, Building & Planning Committee Meeting, Tuesday, 13th July, 2004 – Item 5.1 - Director Planning & Community Development's Report 42/2004 – 308-310 Arden Street and 3 Alexander Street, Coogee.

279

10.2

By Councillor White – Congratulations to Residents Selected for Olympic Games.

279

10.3

By Councillor Sullivan – Grant Reserve Playground.

279

10.4

By Councillor Sullivan – Parking Meters in Randwick City.

279

10.5

By Councillor Sullivan – Parking Meters in Randwick City – Public Meeting.

280

10.6

By Councillor Daley– Establishment of Partnership Register.

280

 

 

11         Urgent Business

 

12         Confidential Reports

 

12.1                        

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 19/2004 - COURT ORDERS IN DEFAMATION & NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS - N&L SHALHOUB AND J BUCHANAN (FURTHER REPORT).

281

 

 

13         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

14         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

……………………………………………

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER


 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 18/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

SALE OF LAND ADJACENT TO 276 DONCASTER ADVENUE & EDWARD AVENUE, KINGSFORD  

 

 

DATE:

22 July, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0240-00

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 9 December 2003, Council resolved that a formal valuation be undertaken at the owners of 276 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford expense and should the owner wish to proceed with the purchase, Council would initiate the reclassification of the portion of land as operational, subject to the consent of the Minister of Lands, and the land would be offered for sale with consideration of the market rate based on a formal valuation.  It was resolved that all legal, survey, valuation and application and other costs associated with the reclassification, closure, sale and transfer of land would be borne by the purchaser.

 

ISSUES:

 

A selection of three (3) Valuers was offered to the proposed purchaser, who chose Quotable Valuer Australia Pty Limited.  The valuation was undertaken and the current market valuation advice received on 17 May 2004 considered the land value at Ninety thousand dollars ($90,000.00).

 

A copy of the valuation was provided to the proposed purchaser and to Council.

 

A subsequent approach has been received from the purchaser’s solicitor, offering Thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) and asking that consideration be given to a number of issues being:

 

a.       The adjoining owner, being the proposed purchase, is the only likely purchaser.

b.       The said parcel of land and actual shape makes it unusable and cannot be developed.

c.       Additional to point (b) above, that the shape of the particular parcel would make it difficult for the proposed purchase to develop this parcel even if amalgamated with his property.

d.       The said land would not and could not be sold on the open market.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The proposed purchaser is offering less than one third of the current market valuation price.

 

The valuation took into account the subject land is to be amalgamated within the adjoining land should the purchase be successful and that the land is triangular in shape and level.  It is noted that the amalgamation of the subject land with the adjoining property would provide a larger land holding, an open space area and buffer between the house and the street and footpath, increasing security and privacy.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the owners of 276 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington be advised:

 

1.       That the Current Market Valuation of Ninety thousand dollars ($90,000.00) stands.

2.       That the offer of Thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) is rejected.

 

That should the owner of 276 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington not wish to pay the current market valuation price that the land is cleared of all vegetable matter and fencing and returned to Council for use as a pocket park.

 

That Council maintain the subject parcel as the land is Crown Land dedicated as a reserve for public recreation under the care and management of Randwick City Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Frazispink Lawyers letter of offer dated 8 July 2004

 

 

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

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

 



 

 


 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 19/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

21 July, 2004

FILE NO:

P/007876 xr P/001345 xr P/001105 xr P/003369 xr P/001994 xr 98/S/2994

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

1.       Patchanee Davies (T/As Thai Fire Fry) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 20 Perouse Road, Randwick.

2.       Jeannette Horrocks (T/As The Globe Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 203 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

3.       Karim Elfar (T/As Vista Del Mare Restaurant) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 186 Arden Street, Coogee.

4.       Kirrilea Brook & Marianne Coulson (T/As Essence Fine Foods) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 116 Avoca Street, Randwick.

5.       Mrs E Mastoris (T/As Coogee Yeeros Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 204 Arden Street, Coogee.

6.       Maroubra Diggers Swimming Club Inc in relation to a licence of Part of Lots 1211, 7026-2027 DP 752015 more particularly known as the Club Room at Des Renford Aquatic Centre.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

1.       Patchanee Davies (T/As Thai Fire Fry) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 20 Perouse Road, Randwick.

2.       Jeannette Horrocks (T/As The Globe Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 203 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

3.       Karim Elfar (T/As Vista Del Mare Restaurant) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 186 Arden Street, Coogee.

4.       Kirrilea Brook & Marianne Coulson (T/As Essence Fine Foods) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 116 Avoca Street, Randwick.

5.       Mrs E Mastoris (T/As Coogee Yeeros Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 204 Arden Street, Coogee.

6.       Maroubra Diggers Swimming Club Inc in relation to a licence of Part of Lots 1211, 7026-2027 DP 752015 more particularly known as the Club Room at Des Renford Aquatic Centre.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 40/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

ON-STREET PARKING POLICY

 

 

DATE:

16 July, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2714

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The City of Randwick has a network of public roads with a total length of 316 km; 20 km of these roads are Regional Roads and the remaining 296 km are local streets under the care, control and responsibility of Council.

 

The parking supply within the City of Randwick has a large on-street component. An estimated 60,000 parking spaces are available on-street within the Council area, generally as kerbside parking.

 

On-street parking is normally unrestricted on local residential streets. However, parking along various shopping strips is subject to period parking restrictions operative during business hours.

 

Studies have shown that while the supply of kerb space remained constant, the demand for on-street parking in the inner Sydney Metropolitan Councils’ areas increases approximately between 2% and 3% per annum, due to changes in land use/transport systems, especially the growth in car ownership rates. People are now making more trips and travel greater distances by car.

 

In recent years, Council has come under increasing pressures from resident communities to give priority to and provide sufficient on-street resident parking spaces.

 

Council is also receiving increasing representations from the City’s Chambers of Commerce, Business Associations, Sporting Organisations, etc for the provision of increased parking on street to cater not only for the needs of shoppers and visitors to the various retail/business establishments, but also for the patrons of restaurants, cultural and entertainment centres and recreational facilities.

 

The provision, control and regulation of on-street parking have therefore emerged as an important element within Council’s Planning and Development objectives and overall Transport Philosophy for the City.

The attached report: “City of Randwick On-Street Parking Policy” sets out a strategy for continuously improving this position.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Policy aims to optimisie the use of on-street parking spaces for the differing needs of the various users in different parts of the City, and create an environmentally friendly Parking Control System. It is considered that the On-Street Parking Policy will contribute to an economically strong and yet a more a vibrant City by developing a more coherent and balanced parking regime on-street.

 

Council has a direct delegation from the Roads and Traffic Authority to approve the kerbside parking restrictions, subject to consultation with the Randwick Traffic Committee. The principles of the Policy have therefore been developed keeping in mind the philosophies and strategies of other transport agencies such as RTA, Police and State Transit Authority.

 

The attached “City of Randwick On-Street Parking Policy” has been considered and endorsed by MANEX for submission to Council.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the On-Street Parking Policy incorporates the philosophy and planning purposes associated with kerbside parking and servicing in the City, and makes strategic recommendations to guide the future implementation of kerbside parking schemes, and should therefore be considered by Council for adoption.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1)       The City of Randwick On-Street Parking Policy be adopted by Council;

 

2)       The Policy Register be updated accordingly; and

 

3)       Council seek the support of other agencies such as RTA, Police and State Transit Authority, as well as State Members of Parliament for Heffron, Coogee and Maroubra, for the gradual implementation of the Policy.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

City of Randwick On-Street Parking Policy .

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 


CITY OF RANDWICK

 

ON-STREET PARKING POLICY

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The City of Randwick is strategically located in the Sydney Region. With 3.7 Square kms of land area and approximately 122,000 population, the City forms one of the densely populated local government areas in the Region.

 

It offers excellent recreational facilities along its coastal boundaries and is in the immediate vicinity of Centennial Park and other conveniently located parks and playgrounds such as Moore Park and Heffron Park. Excellent Golf Courses (the Australian, Eastlakes, Randwick and St Michaels) and the Randwick Race Course further enhance the outdoor sporting activities.

 

A major Teaching Hospital and a world renowned University are located within its boundaries. Randwick is within 20 minutes drive of the City of Sydney which is the financial and commercial capital of Australia.

 

Randwick is a multi-use City, easily accessible to a wide range of activities and opportunities offering a high standard of living for its residents and visitors. The provision, control and regulation of on-street parking are considered as an important element in achieving this strategy.

 

The parking supply within the Randwick City has a large on-street component.  This On-Street Parking Policy has now been developed to ensure that all on-street parking spaces are used in the most appropriate manner catering for the differing needs of the various users in all parts of the City.

 

OBJECTIVES

 

The objectives of this On-Street Parking Policy are to:

 

1.       Ensure that a balanced and rational distribution of kerbside parking is practised across the City;

 

2.       Provide sufficient on-street resident parking in those residential precincts, where the competition for kerbside parking from non-residents severely restricts opportunities for residents in obtaining parking in the immediate or close proximity of their residences;

 

3.       Provide more and better managed parking for shoppers and other short stay users;

 

4.       Provide a more responsive parking regime that will reflect the demands of various precincts at different times of the day and week;

5.       Rationalise all day on-street commuter and student parking in and around all business centres, and discourage long-term parking in the vicinity of major institutions such as the University of New South Wales and Prince of Wales Hospitals;

 

6.       Implement an On-Street Parking Control System which is simple, legible, uniform, clearly understood, easily enforceable and efficient, taking into account the standards and policies of other agencies such as RTA, Police, Sydney Buses and Australian Road Rules;

 

7.       Control the use of Loading Zones so that service vehicles (panel vans/utilities/ lorries) can obtain more efficient access and parking availability;

 

8.       Achieve consistent and co-ordinated parking enforcement throughout the City, including Council’s off-street public parking areas;

 

9.       Assist private land owners (eg. McDonalds at Kingsford, Coles at Maroubra Junction) in eliminating improper use of their off-street parking facilities; and

 

10.     Devise an effective enforcement strategy for implementation in areas where high levels of illegal parking restrict turn over rates of parking to the deterrent of patrons and visitors to adjoining retail and business establishments.

 

PRIORITIES IN KERBSIDE PARKING ALLOCATION

 

The demand for on-street parking has always been far greater in the business centres than the supply. Studies have shown that while the supply remains constant, the demand for on-street parking in areas of inner Sydney Metropolitan Councils increases approximately between 2% and 3% per annum, due to changes in land use/transport systems. It is necessary therefore, to impose restrictions and limitations in order to allocate kerbside space rationally and to establish a priority for such allocation.

 

The various areas in the City have different mixes of users and accordingly the priorities may vary from area to area. However, the following general order of priorities will be followed in the allocation of kerbside parking spaces:-

 

i.        Pedestrian movement and safety;

 

ii.        Vehicle movement and safety;

 

iii.       Public transport needs;

 

iv.       Servicing of businesses (eg: Loading Zones, Taxi Ranks);

v.       Resident Parking;

 

vi.       Special Zones, such as authorised parking for essential services;

 

vii.      Shopper and client parking (short-term parking);

 

viii.     General Parking (all day / unlimited parking).

 

A balance is required in the allocation and distribution of parking, however when conflicting priorities occur, they will be resolved generally in the above mentioned order and limited to the time period for which a restriction is needed.

 

The allocation of kerbside parking in accordance with the above stated priorities can be effectively undertaken by the adoption of the following action strategy. 

 

ACTION STRATEGY

 

1.       Progressively investigate No Stopping, No Standing and No Parking zones in the City with a view to:

 

i.    Ensuring that these restrictions comply with the  standards stipulated by the RTA,  and are in accordance with Australian Road Rules; and

 

ii.    Eliminating or reducing these restrictions, where possible, so that the kerb space can be utilised for meeting other priority needs.

 

2.       Review kerbside parking restrictions along bus routes to enable implementation of bus priority measures and introduce, where appropriate, dedicated bus lanes during peak periods of need, in consultation with the relevant Chamber of Commerce and Business Associations;

 

3.       Provide after-hours parking at Bus Zone locations, where possible, for the benefit of other users outside bus operating hours;

 

4.       Review Loading Zone / Truck Zone restrictions, and where possible, provide general parking outside the hours of their usage by service vehicles;

 

5.       Convert existing Truck Zones to Loading Zones, in direct consultation with adjoining businesses, for the purpose of reducing the number of kerbside controls, thereby achieving simplicity in signposting;

 

6.       Review the locations of Taxi Ranks in the City, in consultation with New South Wales Taxi Council and the local Chamber of Commerce to maximise accessibility;

 

7.       Continue to ensure adequate and effective parking facilities for disabled persons in order to increase their mobility within the City;

 

8.       Continue to discourage and restrict the use of public ways as ‘unauthorised’ Construction Zones that facilitate private building operations;

 

9.       Expedite the introduction of ‘area-wide’ Resident Parking Schemes and the introduction of ‘area-wide’ Visitor Parking Permit Schemes;

 

10.     Progressively extend Resident Parking Schemes and Visitor Parking Permit Schemes to other residential precincts as justified;

 

11.     Devise an effective enforcement strategy for implementation in areas where high levels of illegal parking restrict turn over rates of parking to the deterrent of patrons and visitors to adjoining retail and business establishments;

 

12.     Gradually modify the existing system of period parking throughout the City with a view to achieving a more simple and consistent approach in both operating times and permitted parking periods, reflecting more closely the needs of extended trading hours;

 

13.     Install Signage which is simple, uniform, clearly understood, easily enforceable, efficient and cost effective, taking into consideration the standards adopted in the Australian Road Rules;

 

14.     Maximise the use of street furniture (such as electric light poles) for sign installation, thereby reducing the number of sign poles, for the purpose of reducing the clutter and enhancing the streetscape; and

 

15.     Prepare a Strategic Plan for Parking Management to set out key activities, priorities, funding and resource allocation to ensure that the City’s On-Street Parking resources are maintained as efficient and cost effective, and reflects an improved corporate image.

 

 

*******

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 41/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

LOCAL DISASTER PLANS - EMERGENCY RISK MANAGMENT

 

 

DATE:

22 July, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1474(2)

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 28 May 2002, Council approved the undertaking of emergency risk assessments by the Emergency Risk Management Assessment Committee (ERMAC), a sub-committee of the Local Emergency Management Committee. 

 

The conduct of the assessments has been in accordance the process derived from the NSW State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 (the SERM Act) and guidelines produced by the State Emergency Management Committee.   These guidelines require that the community be engaged in a consultation process at successive stages of the Emergency Risk Management process.

 

ISSUES:

 

The ERMAC has conducted the analysis of the risks through monthly meetings and research activities.   This has been a protracted process due to the challenging subject matter (Randwick being the first council in the region to embark on this process), notwithstanding that the ERMAC members were available only on a part-time basis.

 

The ERMAC has developed two principal documents for consultation, namely a Context Statement and a draft Community Emergency Risk Register.  The purpose of the Context Statement is to define the scope of the Emergency Risk Management process in relation to risk assessments and to situate the process in the local context.  

 

The Risk Register contains the major risk categories that qualify as requiring a “significant and coordinated emergency response”, should a major incident or event occur in the Randwick local government area.    The Risk Register also forms the basis for the next stage of the Emergency Risk Management process, which is the development of response measures for each risk.  In turn, these response measures become part of the review of the existing provisions of the Randwick Disaster Plan (DISPLAN).

 

The ERMAC also found it necessary to develop a Glossary of Terms, to assist in the community’s understanding of terms and expressions used in the risk analysis process and thereby encourage greater involvement in the overall process of reducing risk exposure and enhancing public safety during emergencies.

The attached package of documents for Stage 1 of the community consultation process includes:

 

·    A covering letter to key community groups or individuals;

·    The Context Statement;

·    The draft Community Emergency Risk Register; and

·    A Glossary of Terms.

 

The scope of the consultation for Stage 1 will include:

 

·    Advertising to increase public awareness of the stages of the process;

·    An invitation for interested parties to comment on the package of documents;

·    A presentation to be made to the Police Accountability Community Team on Tuesday 3rd August 2004;

·    Two public meetings to be conducted during the evening, the first at the Council on Wednesday 11th August and the second at Vonny Young Auditorium at Bowen Library on Thursday 12th August 2004;

·    One public meeting to be conducted on the morning of Friday 13th August 2004 at Vonny Young Auditorium; and

·    An invitation for groups or individuals to register their interest in Stage 2.

 

The closing date for comments on the document package is Friday 3rd September 2004.  A further report on the outcomes of the consultation process will be submitted to Council’s September meeting.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Randwick City Council is still the lead council in undertaking this risk assessment process, which will lead logically into the development and review of contingency planning for emergency incidents and events.   This process enables the community to engage in the assessment and planning process, which will heighten the level of awareness of emergency response networks and procedures.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council notes the report and endorses the package of documents to be used in Stage 1 of the Community consultation process.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Covering letter to key community groups of individuals

2. Context Statement

3. Draft Community Emergency Risk Register and

4. Glossary of Terms

 

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

RUSSELL WADE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

CHAIR ERMAC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 42/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

2004-2005 REGIONAL ROADS BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT

 

 

DATE:

21 July, 2004

FILE NO:

F20004/06616

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Advice has been received from the Roads and Traffic Authority that the annual funding for the maintenance of regional roads to Council under agreement for Block Grant of Assistance to Council for 2004-2005 is $203,000.

 

This Agreement is similar in content to that of previous years with the $203,000 being the sum total of two components being Roads and Ex 3x3. The  “Ex 3x3 Council Determined” component has been provided as a component of the Block Grant, following cessation of the 3x3 Council determined program. This “Ex 3 x3” component is available for road works as determined by Council on Regional Roads.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Roads and Traffic Authority has also offered $191,000 for the Traffic Facilities component. The works under Traffic facilities would include traffic signs, line marking and maintenance and installation of new facilities on Regional and Local Roads. The Council in the past has not accepted the Traffic Facilities grant and the Roads and Traffic authority has been responsible for carrying out the required maintenance.

 

The reasons for not accepting the grant are as follows

 

1.       In the past, due to lack of funding, the Roads and Traffic Authority has not carried out the required level of maintenance. Consequently, it is estimated that the cost to upgrade facilities to an adequate standard, is $350,000. If Council accepts this grant it will also have to accept the responsibility of maintaining an infrastructure that has not been satisfactorily maintained and this could involve Council accepting a liability currently assumed by the Roads and Traffic Authority.

2.       Allocating staff from Council’s own resources would be necessary to supervise and carry out new signs and markings and maintenance works.

Council has undertaken a full inventory of signs on behalf of the Roads and Traffic Authority, and discussions between Councils and the Roads and Traffic Authority remain unresolved.

 

The estimated annual maintenance cost of existing facilities, is $190,000, with an approximate $70,000 of new facilities installed each year. Notwithstanding the issue of existing facility upgrade, the proposed allocation is insufficient to fund current maintenance and the installation of new facilities.

 

Until such time as alternative arrangements are agreed upon, it is recommended that the traffic facilities component not be accepted.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

If Council wishes to participate in the Block Grant’s arrangements for 2004-2005 accepting the conditions of the grant and notifying the RTA accordingly is necessary. The conditions are the same as those applied in previous years and acceptance is recommended.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1.       Council accept the Block Grant of $203,000 for Regional Roads Maintenance Programme 2004-2005.

 

2.       The Agreement of Block Grant of Assistance to Council for Regional Roads be executed and forwarded to Road and Traffic Authority.

 

3.       Council not accept the Traffic Facility grant of $191,000 and notify the Roads and Traffic Authority accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

2004-2005 Regional Block Grant Agreement (under separate cover).

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 


Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 43/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

SSROC SUPPLY OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND SERVICES

 

 

DATE:

20 July, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/3028

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 26 June 2001, Council accepted tendered rates for SSROC (Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils) Tender No.153 Supply of Road Making Materials. Since that time, Council’s capital works roads programme and relevant maintenance activities have been completed in accordance with the supply contract. This contract expired on 30 June 2004.

 

The renewal of the contract for Supply of Road Construction Materials and Services, for the period 1 July 2004 to September 2006, was prepared to provide benefits to member Councils of SSROC (as well as City Of Sydney and Burwood Council) for the purchase of road construction materials, with the procurement of these services as a group of Councils.

 

At the agreement of the SSROC member Councils, a consultant (Complete Urban Solutions Pty Ltd) was engaged under the following stages:

 

Stage 1    Consultation with participating Councils and industry, development of tender / contract documentation, management of the tender process, assistance to the tender assessment committee, reporting of tender finding for endorsement by Council.

Stage 2    Perform the duties as Superintendent  These duties encompass responsibility for management of issues relevant to all Councils such as management of rebates, assessment of rise & fall, auditing, and assessment of project documents such as Environmental Management Plans.    

 

A Tender Assessment Committee conducted evaluation and analysis of the tenders and has provided a Tender Assessment Report for the consideration of SSROC Councils. 

 

ISSUES:

 

The tender was called on May 11, and tenders closed at 2.00pm on Tuesday 1 June 2004 at Hurstville City Council.

 

The following goods and services were specified in the tender:

 

Specification 1 - Recycled Concrete

Specification 2 - Spray Sealing

Specification 3 - Cement Stabilisation

Specification 4 - Foam Stabilisation

Specification 5 - Supply of Asphaltic Concrete

Specification 6 - Supply and Lay of Asphaltic Concrete

Specification 7 - Mill and Fill of Asphaltic Concrete

Specification 8 - Pavement Patching

Specification 9 - Profiling

 

A Tender Assessment Committee comprising the SSROC Executive Director, SSROC member Council representatives and consultant representatives, conducted the evaluation and analysis of all received tenders.

 

The Tender Assessment Report is attached and provides:

 

·    Assessment Committee membership;

·    Selection Criteria and weightings;

·    Summary of received submissions;

·    Tender analysis process;

·    Recommendation of preferred tenderers;

·    Tender scoring and comparative pricing schedules.

 

The tenders received and their assessment scores are as follows:

 

Good / Service

Tenderers

Assessment Scores

Recycled Concrete

Concrete Recyclers

Metropolitan Demolition

Breen Holdings

62.41

62.36

36.22

Spray Seal

SAMI

Tropic Asphalts

63.11

54.19

Cement Stabilisation

Stabilised Pavements

Pavement Salvage

Declined to accept

 

 

 

Foam Stabilisation

Stabilised Pavements

Pavement Salvage

75.61

62.84

Asphalt Supply

Pioneer Road Services

Emoleum

Boral Asphalt

NACE

FRH Astec

80.16

73.73

61.79

56.30

36.26

Asphalt Supply, Deliver, Lay

Emoleum

NACE

Pioneer Road Services

Boral Asphalt

Tropic Asphalts

FRH Astec

85.77

72.29

67.20

63.33

55.67

36.15

Mill & Fill

Emoleum

Pavement Salvage

Tropic Asphalts

NACE

Boral Asphalt

FRH Astec

82.57

79.89

68.09

56.93

51.79

35.55

Pavement Patching

Tropic Asphalts

Pavement Salvage

Emoleum

Boral Asphalt

74.61

70.74

65.35

48.69

Profiling

Pavement Salvage

Emoleum

Boral Asphalt

81.92

65.31

51.22

 

For the item Recycled Concrete, the Tender Assessment Committee recommended Concrete Recyclers as the preferred tenderer for supply and deliver, and recommended all tenderers for the supply only of recycled product.  The tender submitted by Breen Holdings, received a low score, and provides poor value for money. Consequently, Council should not accept this offer.

 

The Tender Assessment Committee (TAC) agreed to “decline to accept any of the tenders” for Cement Stabilisation in accordance with the Local Government Regulation 1999 – Sect 19 (1) (b).  The TAC, after lengthy review, considered the rates did not reflect the best value in the marketplace, for the two Councils who had nominated quantities for use, so the tenders were both rejected.

 

Councils who require the service of Cement Stabilisation will be required to Tender or obtain quotations on a needs basis.

 

The committee also agreed that it was appropriate to arrange for a Financial Analysis of Tropic Asphalts.

 

General Comments

 

Contract supply period

The supply period for this contract, was originally specified as 24 months, but has been extended to 27 months, to disassociate the end of the contract from the end of the financial year. This arrangement compliments the programming structure, and allows works programmed to 30 June 2006, to be completed and invoiced under the contract prior to 30 September 2006.

 

Financial Benefits

The pricing structure has been modified for this contract, however, tendered rates continue to provide regional benefits when compared to Council based purchasing.

 

Additional costs savings are provided through contract rebates including:

 

Volume Based Rebate – A rebate is payable to SSROC for goods and services volumes exceeding the Collective Councils Annual Indicative volumes.

 

Time Flexible Works Rebate – A rebate is payable to individual Councils for mill and fill works programmed in accordance with the contract. The rebate is equal to 10% of all rates and fees relevant to the works nominated.

 

An additional seasonal rebate has been offered outside the tender schedule items, by Emoleum, for nominated works in July, August and September. This rebate is payable to SSROC.

 

It is expected that the total value of Council activities completed under this contract, will exceed $3.5 million annually.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The SSROC Supply of Road Construction Materials and Services tender, has been evaluated by the nominated Tender Assessment Committee, and preferred tenderers recommended for the associated eight specifications.

 

This contract provides regional purchasing power for Council activities exceeding $3.5 million annually, and participation is recommended.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1.       the Tender Assessment Report for the Supply of Road Construction Materials and Services be noted;

 

2.       Council  accept the offers tendered by the preferred tenderers as detailed below, subject to the preferred tenderers submitting all necessary documentation required to carry out their obligations under the  contract, and a successful financial analysis being returned for Tropic Asphalts;

Good / Service

Preferred Tenderer

Recycled Concrete Supply Only (3 tenders max.)

Metropolitan Demolition

Concrete Recyclers

Recycled Concrete Delivery (1 tender max)

Concrete Recyclers

Spray Seal

SAMI

Foam Stabilisation

Stabilised Pavements

Asphalt Supply (3 tenders max.)

Pioneer Road Services

Boral Asphalt

Emoleum

Asphalt Supply, Deliver, Lay

Emoleum

Mill & Fill

Emoleum

Pavement Patching

Tropic Asphalts

Profiling

Pavement Salvage

 

3.       The General Manager in consultation with the Mayor, be authorised to sign the contracts with preferred tenderers for the commencement of services on 1 July 2004 or thereafter, and expiring on 30 September 2006;

 

4.       The official seal of Randwick City Council be affixed to the Contract Documents.  

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

SSROC Supply of Road Construction Material and Services Tender.

Tender Assessment Report

 

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER  

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 44/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

KENSINGTON/WEST KINGSFORD LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SCHEME

 

 

DATE:

20 July 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/4405

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 6 December, 2003, resolved that:-

 

“a)       The Kensington / West Kingsford Local Area Traffic Management Plan incorporating the partial closure of Boronia Street at Anzac Parade, and the introduction of traffic calming measures at various locations within the area, as shown on the plan attached to the Director Asset & Infrastructure Services’ report, be adopted as Council’s Concept Plan for public exhibition;

 

b)         Residents of Kensington / West Kingsford within the area bounded by South Dowling Street, Southern Cross Drive, Gardeners Road, Anzac Parade, Doncaster Avenue, Alison Road and Dacey Avenue be notified by letter box drop, to be carried out at the end of January 2004, seeking comments on the proposed measures within 28 days from the date of notice;

 

c)         An advertisement be placed in the Southern Courier outlining Council’s actions;

 

d)         The Director Asset & Infrastructure Services report back to Council’s meeting in April 2004 recommending a final plan of proposed measures for implementation as part of the 2004/2005 Capital Works Programme;

 

e)         Six months after the completion of works detailed in this resolution, a report be prepared for Council regarding the effectiveness of the implemented Traffic Management Plan;

 

f)          The following traffic management devices be introduced on a 3 month trial basis commencing in January, 2004 in West Kensington to prevent the use of residential streets by through traffic:

 

i)        A speed control device (angled slow point, squeeze point or similar treatment) in Virginia Street, Kensington at a mid block location between Ingram Street and Myrtle Street;

ii)       The introduction of a “NO RIGHT TURN BUSES EXCEPTED” restriction facing the northbound traffic in Virginia Street at the Baker Street intersection;

iii)      A kerb blister to prohibit left turning supplemented by a “NO LEFT TURN” sign facing the eastbound traffic in Lenthall Street at its intersection with McDougall Street; and

iv)      A kerb blister to prohibit left turning, supplemented by a “NO LEFT TURN” sign facing the eastbound traffic in Lenthall Street at its intersection with Milroy Avenue.

 

g)   During the exhibition period, consideration be given to signs being erected adjacent to the intersection of Boronia Street & Anzac Parade indicating the proposed closure at this location, with a view to informing residents, motorists and interested parties of the proposed closure and that the signs bear relevant contact details which indicate where submissions on this issue may be lodged”.

 

Council’s exhibited Concept Plan was the outcome of the Randwick Traffic Committee’s consideration of a series of traffic volume counts and speed survey data, which resulted in the Traffic Committee’s decision in recommending various measures incorporated in Council’s Plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

In response to the public consultation undertaken as a consequence of Council’s Resolution, a total of 162 submissions have been received. Each of the submissions has been carefully considered.

 

The various submissions from local residents could be summarised relating to one or more of the following issues:-

 

1)       The proposed measures will be a first step in reducing the speed and volume of traffic in the Study area to acceptable levels;

 

2)       The speed control measures that have already been introduced by Council on the northern section of Tunstall Avenue and at the intersection of Addison Street have assisted in reducing traffic speeds at these locations;

 

3)       The proposed traffic calming measures are generally acceptable although the exhibited plan did not provide details of estimates on the effects of the proposed works on speed and volume on those streets and neighbouring streets;

 

4)       Proposed edge line treatments for Cottenham and Mooramie Avenues are not acceptable to residents on urban design grounds;

 

5)       The proposals did not address the problems encountered by unfamiliar motorists travelling south in Tunstall and Cottenham Avenues faced with the right turning prohibitions at Gardeners Road;

 

6)       Nothing has been included in Council’s plan to alleviate illegal parking on footpaths (e.g. Cottenham Avenue in the vicinity of Edward Avenue);

 

7)       Continuous illegal parking on bicycle lanes and within the statutory 10 metre length of ‘No Stopping’ areas at numerous intersections, by students of University of New South Wales, have not been addressed;

 

8)       The proposed Local Area Traffic Management measures would do little for pedestrian safety (e.g. top of Boronia Street);

 

9)       Some additional measures are required at the following locations:

 

i.        Roma Avenue at the intersection of Cottenham Avenue;

ii.        The 90 degree bend where Roma Avenue meets with Kensington Road;

iii.       The intersection of Todman Avenue and Balfour Road;

iv.       Additional measures such as ‘No Stopping’ restrictions to supplement the already implemented speed control measures in Addison Street in the vicinity of Balfour Road.

 

10)     The information provided in the letter to the residents did not include the proposed measures for the West Kensington area, however, these proposals will not minimise the volume of traffic in Lenthall Street.

 

In the light of residents’ comments, Council’s Traffic Engineers carried out further investigations and proposed additional measures for the consideration of Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

The Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 8 June, 2004, concurred with Council’s Engineers’ proposals to incorporate the following additional/modified works at the following locations:-

 

1)       Provision of vehicle deflection/squeeze points in lieu of edgeline treatments in Cottenham, Mooramie and Doncaster Avenues at intersections with Koorinda Avenue;

 

2)       A pedestrian refuge in Roma Avenue, immediately west of Cottenham Avenue, together with ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at the approach and departure sides of the pedestrian refuse, and an additional STOP sign to reinforce existing STOP control restriction at this location;

 

3)       Installation of ‘No Right Turn at Gardeners Road’ signs in Tunstall Avenue and Cottenham Avenue, north of Tresidder Avenue for southbound vehicles;

 

4)       The existing double centreline and associated rumble bars in Cottenham Avenue in the vicinity of Edward Avenue be shifted east, providing a two metres wide parking lane on the western side of the street, leaving a four metres wide traffic lane in each direction of travel;

 

5)       Signposting of the statutory ‘No Stopping’ restriction at various intersections where illegal parking by students of UNSW inhibit pedestrian and vehicle safety;

 

6)       Signposting a 15 metre length of ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the northern side of Addison street, immediately east of Balfour Road;

 

7)       Rumble bars to be installed on the existing double centreline on the 90 degree bend where Roma Avenue meets Kensington Road;

 

8)       Balfour Road at  Todman Avenue – relocation of the existing STOP controls and provision of associated kerb blisters, construction of a pedestrian refuge on the southern leg of the intersection and introduction of a ‘No Right Turn 6AM-10AM; 3PM-7PM MON-FRI’ restriction for east bound vehicles on Todman Avenue;

 

9)       Implementation of the following measures at the intersection of Anzac Parade and Boronia Street:

 

a)   Extension of the median island in Anzac Parade across its intersection with Boronia Street, for the purpose of prohibiting the right turn in and right turn out to and from Boronia Street;

 

b)   Deletion of existing bus lane adjacent to the median island, for northbound traffic, and dedication of the kerbside lane on the western side as Bus Lane, between Boronia Street and Alison Road; such proposal to be associated with introduction of ‘B’ signal phase for buses, to facilitate bus priority at the existing signals;

 

c)   Retention of existing bicycle lane on the western side at the approach to Alison Road;

 

d)   Provision of AM peak Transit Lane on the second lane on the western side for northbound traffic;

 

e)   Adjustment to the median island, to provide one additional northbound lane whilst retaining three southbound lanes south of Alison Road; and

 

10)     With implementation of the above measures at the Anzac Parade and Boronia Street intersection, RTA’s concurrence to be sought for the provision of a ‘shared through & right turn lane’ for the southbound traffic in Anzac Parade approaching Todman Avenue intersection (this arrangement is aimed at providing additional right turn facilities at Todman Avenue), and extension of the length of existing right turn holding bay.

 

In regard to proposed measures for West Kensington (slow point treatment in Virginia Street and kerb blisters with “No Left Turn” signs in Lenthall Street at McDougall Street and Milroy Avenue intersections), Council’s Traffic Engineers are in the process of carrying out additional investigations relating to traffic volumes, speed, origin/destination data, etc to enhance their submission to the Traffic Committee on these issues.

 

It is therefore considered that Council should defer the West Kensington proposals to allow such further investigations by Council’s Traffic Engineers.

 

It should be noted that the original proposal presented by the consultant Mr. Christopher Stapleton recommended the following prime strategies, viz:

 

·    Changing the phasing and priorities of signals on Anzac Parade and Gardeners Road to discourage cross traffic movements taking short cuts;

 

(Council’s present Traffic Engineers are of the view that this is a broader holistic approach but impractical to achieve due to difficulties associated with the regime of the RTA’s Coordinated Traffic Signal System).

 

·    Introduction of major semi road closures at five locations to discourage current through traffic routes, and introduction of minor semi road closures at seven locations to prevent new through traffic routes forming;

 

(Council officers are of the view that these road closures would cause significant disruptions to the local residential community including School Bus routes, and result in significant loss of parking, whilst the measures suggested are relatively costly to implement).

 

·    Introduction of speed management devices at 20 locations on seven residential streets.

 

(In consideration of all submissions received from local residents and working with the Randwick Traffic Committee, Council Engineers have now identified additional locations within the Study Area for possible traffic calming treatments).

 

Most of the streets within the Study Area are now subject to a 50 km/hour speed restriction. The suggested proposals by Council’s Traffic Engineers have been developed on the premise that where the 85th percentile recorded speeds exceed 55km/hour, line marking treatments would suffice to reduce speeds and minimise costs, however where the speeds exceed 60km/hour some form of physical treatments have been proposed.

 

There is an expectation by the local resident community to eliminate through traffic and contain vehicular speeds within the statutory limits. Council Engineers are of the view that such an amenity is virtually impossible to totally achieve.

 

The Study Area is located in the immediate proximity of a major transport corridor (a major ring road link: connecting M5 / Southern Cross Drive / Eastern Distributor) serving the Sydney Region. Two major institutions viz: the Prince of Wales Hospital and the University of New South Wales are located on the perimeter of the area. Major sporting events at the nearby Sydney sporting grounds, The Australian and Eastlakes Golf Courses and the Randwick Race Course are constant traffic generators. The area is within 15 minutes drive of the Sydney CBD. The Study Area’s location in relation to these attractions makes it extremely difficult to totally remove or contain traffic filtering through the area.

 

Should Council approve the recommended traffic calming measures outlined in this report, the total cost of such works are estimated to be $200,000. The Study Area has attractive environmental qualities, and any traffic calming devices should therefore be carefully designed so that they blend with and enhance the urban design characteristics of this unique residential neighbourhood.         

 

In recent years, Council has come under increasing pressures from various resident communities for the provision of traffic calming measures on their streets. Council has recently approved some treatments in other parts of the City (eg: Denning Street, Elphinstone Road, Gilderthorpe Avenue, Storey Street, Snape Street, Maroubra Road, etc).

 

The Traffic Section receives an average of at least one proposal every week requesting some form of traffic calming measures on Council’s network of 300 kms of local streets.  Funding is the prime constraint due to other relatively severe black spot locations that need to be treated on a priority basis. No funds are available from other sources such as State government’s grants through the RTA for the purpose of implementing traffic calming measures on local streets. Such funds are limited to treat black spot locations only; these are mostly on a 50/50 basis.

 

Although certain Precinct Committees actively pursue their representations, there remains the philosophical argument relating to sharing of limited Council’s funds justifiably between the communities.

 

The most effective means for Council would therefore be to participate with and assist other agencies such as RTA and Police in promoting road safety and driver awareness in their attempts to target the issue of speeding and drink driving. The increased use of speed cameras has substantially reduced the incidents of speeding in the past ten years. Engineering programs have not proven as effective as awareness programs and policing such as RBT and speed monitoring by cameras.

 

The three most critical issues affecting the Study Area of Kensington/ West Kingsford could be summarised as follows:

 

1.       The safety of pedestrians and occupants of motor vehicles, due to large number of accidents involving right turning vehicles, at the intersection of Anzac Parade and Boronia Street;

 

2.       The high volume of traffic experienced in Lenthall Street; and

 

3.       The traffic speed and non-local traffic filtering through the residential streets.

 

In regard to issues associated with the Boronia Street and Anzac Parade intersection, following strong representations by Council during the last year, the RTA has now provided a grant of $160,000 as part of National Black Spot Program to be spent on the package of various works proposed by Council to enhance the safety of the intersection of Anzac Parade and Boronia Street. Council should therefore expedite these works during this financial year to fully make use of the RTA’s grant.

 

The Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services has already made submissions to the RTA proposing a package of measures to upgrade the road network and key intersections along South Dowling Street and Southern Cross Drive, such work to be suitably designed to reduce pressure on the existing street network in the area by discouraging traffic passing through the Randwick LGA.

 

The RTA has agreed to investigate feasible traffic modelling to incorporate Council’s objectives and work closely with Council to formalise an acceptable package of road improvements as part of the State Government’s 10 year and $80 million program for “Roads Boost for South Sydney”. It is hoped that these measures would provide some relief to residents of Lenthall Street and the West Kensington area.

 

In regard to the implementation of traffic calming measures in the West Kingsford area as outlined in this report, no funds are available in Council’s current year (2004/2005) budget. 

.

CONCLUSION:

 

Council has been anxious for sometime to implement a system of traffic calming devices in the Kensington / West Kingsford area.

 

Following public consultation of the original scheme, Council’s Traffic Engineers, in consultation with the Randwick Traffic Committee, have now formalised a scheme which proposes the introduction of traffic control devices at several locations in the West Kingsford area. It is considered that the Scheme should be adopted by Council for implementation as part of the next year’s (2005-2006) budget.

 

One major component of the Scheme is the treatment of Boronia Street at the intersection of Anzac Parade, and Council has successfully negotiated and obtained a black spot grant of $160,000 from the RTA.

 

It is considered that Council should, without further delay, authorise implementation of the package of works proposed for the purpose of prohibiting the right turn in and right turn out of vehicle movements to and from Boronia Street at Anzac Parade. The concurrence of the RTA is required for the detailed design for these works as proposed by Council.

 

The West Kensington proposals should be reviewed when the results of RTA’s traffic modelling associated with the proposals to upgrade the road network and key intersections along South Dowling Street and Southern Cross Drive are available.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.       The West Kingsford Local Area Traffic Management Scheme incorporating traffic calming measures at several locations within the area, as detailed in Attachment - A, be approved for implementation, and funding for these works be included in the next year’s (2005 - 2006) budget;

 

2.       The RTA’s concurrence be sought for the design details of proposed works in Anzac Parade, Randwick, in the vicinity of Boronia Street and Todman Avenue, as detailed in Attachment - B;

 

3.       Following the concurrence of the RTA, the works outlined in B above be implemented as soon as practical during the current financial year, for which a sum of $160,000 has already been allocated by the RTA as part of the year 2004 - 2005 National Black Spot Program.; and

 

4.       The West Kensington proposals be reviewed when the results of RTA’s traffic modelling associated with the proposals to upgrade the road network and key intersections along South Dowling Street and Southern Cross Drive are available.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachments A and B

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 


 

 

 

ATTACHMENT - A   

 

The West Kingsford Local Area Traffic Management Scheme

Details of Proposed Traffic Calming Measures

 

1.       Tunstall Avenue, north of Gardeners Road – provision of kerb blister and central median island;

 

2.       Tunstall Avenue, between Gardeners Road and the northern boundary of the Australian Golf Course – shifting the centreline and line marking the parking lane on the eastern side of Tunstall Avenue;

 

3.       Tunstall Avenue at Tresidder and Goodrich Avenues- vehicle deflection/’squeeze points’;

 

4.       Speed control measures on the northern section of Tunstall Avenue (already implemented);

 

5.       Speed control measures in Addison Street (already implemented);

 

6.       Cottenham Avenue at Borrodale Road – vehicle deflection/’squeeze point’;

 

7.       Day Avenue at Eastern Avenue – ‘squeeze point’ incorporating pedestrian refuge;

 

8.       Eastern Avenue at Goodrich Avenue – vehicle deflection/squeeze point’;

 

9.       Cottenham Avenue, south of Roma Avenue – pedestrian refuge island;

 

10.     Balfour Road at Addison Street – central median island;

 

11.     Provision of vehicle deflection/squeeze points in lieu of edge line treatments in Cottenham, Mooramie and Doncaster Avenues at intersections with Koorinda Avenue;

 

12.     A pedestrian refuge in Roma Avenue, immediately west of Cottenham Avenue, together with ‘No Stopping’ restrictions at the approach and departure sides of the pedestrian refuse, and an additional STOP sign to reinforce existing STOP control restriction at this location;

 

13.     ‘No Right Turn at Gardeners Road’ signs in Tunstall Avenue and Cottenham Avenue, north of Tresidder Avenue for southbound vehicles;

 

14.     The existing double centreline and associated rumble bars in Cottenham Avenue in the vicinity of Edward Avenue to be shifted east, to provide a two metres wide parking lane on the western side of the street, leaving a four metres wide traffic lane in each direction of travel;

 

- 2 -

 

15.     Signposting of the statutory ‘No Stopping’ restriction at various intersections where illegal parking by students of UNSW inhibit pedestrian and vehicle safety;

 

16.     A 15 metre length of ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the northern side of Addison street, immediately east of Balfour Road;

 

17.     Rumble bars to be installed on the existing double centreline on the 90 degree bend where Roma Avenue meets Kensington Road;

 

18.     Balfour Road at  Todman Avenue – relocation of the existing STOP controls and provision of associated kerb blisters, construction of a pedestrian refuge on the southern leg of the intersection and introduction of a ‘No Right Turn 6AM-10AM; 3PM-7PM MON-FRI’ restriction for east bound vehicles on Todman Avenue;

 

 

 

*******

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT - B   

 

Details of Proposed Works in Anzac Parade in the

Vicinity of Boronia Street and Todman Avenue

 

 

1.   Implementation of the following measures at the intersection of Anzac Parade and Boronia Street:

 

a)   Extension of the median island in Anzac Parade across its intersection with Boronia Street, for the purpose of prohibiting the right turn in and right turn out to and from Boronia Street;

 

b)   Deletion of existing bus lane adjacent to the median island, for northbound traffic, and dedication of the kerbside lane on the western side as Bus Lane, between Boronia Street and Alison Road; such proposal to be associated with introduction of ‘B’ signal phase for buses, to facilitate bus priority at the existing signals;

 

c)   Retention of existing bicycle lane on the western side at the approach to Alison Road;

 

d)   Provision of AM peak Transit Lane on the second lane on the western side for northbound traffic;

 

e)   Adjustment to the median island, to provide one additional northbound lane whilst retaining three southbound lanes south of Alison Road; and

 

2.   Implementation of the following measures at the intersection of Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue:

 

a)   Provision of a shared ‘through & right turn’ lane for the southbound traffic in Anzac Parade approaching Todman Avenue intersection (this arrangement is aimed at providing additional right turn facilities at Todman Avenue); and

 

b)   Extending the length of existing right turn holding bay at the approach to the Todman Avenue intersection.

 

*******


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 45/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

OLD BUS TERMINUS KIOSK/CAFE, MARINE PARADE, MAROUBRA BEACH

 

 

DATE:

20 July, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2526

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

1.0       INTRODUCTION

 

The Maroubra Beach Masterplan had nominated the Old Bus Terminus Building, Marine Parade to be converted into a Kiosk/Café. In response to this a design was undertaken by an Architectural Consultant for the conversion.

 

A development application was then lodged in June 2003 for the conversion of the old bus terminus building into a Kiosk/Café. In the process it was established that the Kiosk/Cafe is located in the 1:100 year flood zone and therefore cannot be converted into a kiosk at the current floor level. As a consequence of this issue a decision needs to be made as to the future of the building.

 

2.0       BACKGROUND

 

In the development assessment process it was found that the building was located in a flood zone. The development assessment team from Randwick City Council does not allow new construction works to take place in an area impacted on by the 1in a 100 year flood level. As a consequence the application was not approved and a new submission would be necessary if a new proposal is to be undertaken.

 

The new submission would require the floor level of any proposed facility to be raised by approximately 1 metre above the existing floor level of the kiosk.

 

Preliminary discussions have been undertaken with the Department of Lands and they have stated that they would accept a new or relocated facility as long as it is in the general area. This would need confirmation after Council decides on their preferred course of action.

 

Refurbishment of Existing Building

It is evident that the existing structure is in a very poor state of repair. If the existing building was to be refurbished it would necessitate considerable materials renewal for construction, including:

 

o     Perimeter timber boarding, fascia and valance work require substantial upgrade and replacement.

o     Existing truss connections rusted and require treatment.

o     Exposed rafters damaged in sections.

o     Total renewal of storm water fitments and connections.

o     Demolition of internal toilets, associated linings and eastern wall left only the decorative truss structure and north and south facades in a usable condition.

 

Notwithstanding the level of demolition work and materials upgrade, it was earlier deemed to be important to maintain the building character in the Maroubra Beach Masterplan, such that sympathetic detailing and materials selection was adopted in the architectural design. Therefore the proposed refurbishment design repaired and extended the existing building.

 

Cost of Refurbishment of Existing Building

The estimate for the refurbishment project is between $310,000 and $340,000 at the current floor level, subject to finalisation of external works and internal fitout. 

 

The relatively high cost of the refurbishment is a function of the following components:

 

Ø   High service and infrastructure costs for food outlet relative to size of total facility.

 

Ø   High “restoration” cost elements including roofing material, timber detailing and boarding.

 

NOTE: It should be noted that this project would be undertaken as a build/lease/transfer scenario. This means that the cost of the building works would be borne by the winning tenderer. The tenderer would offset this cost against future rent payable to Council. Council would after the term of the lease (10-20 years) retain the asset.

 

3.0       DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

 

As a consequence of the flood issue it is necessary to reassess the most appropriate outcome for this building. The following options are discussed to offer alternatives so a decision on the building’s future can be made:

 

Option 1 -              Raising the existing building to an acceptable level above the flood level in its existing location.

 

Option 2 -              Raise the existing building to acceptable level above the flood level & relocate to a better orientation to take advantage of site aspect and access. The building would appear original however be largely new.

 

Option 3 -              Demolish the existing building and build a new purpose designed facility in the general area, suitably designed for site aspect, access and function.

 

Option 4 -              Demolish the existing structure, do not rebuild, and make the area good.

 

 
3.1   Option 1 - Raising the Existing Building to an Acceptable Level in its Existing Location

 

To satisfy the 1:100 year flood level it is necessary to raise the proposed level from RL 5.690 to RL 6.65 a difference of 960mm.This would require the building of retaining walls, steps, ramps etc.

 

Advantages

- Retain site identity and community recognition as the original location for the building.

 

- Minimize site disruption and potential concerns of neighbours over views to water.

 

Disadvantages

- Cost to raise building would be significant given that potential items for salvaging would be limited and that such a construction procedure would involve sequential demolition of the entire building and reconstruction in predominantly new material.

 

- Given the extra cost to raise the building one would question whether retaining the same position and westerly orientation would be appropriate from a functional perspective.

 

- Potential difficulties and cost to configure surrounding pavement in an accessible manner to invite patronage.

 

            -  Visual quirk of raising the building 1 metre higher than at present.

 

  - The practicality of raising the existing building to a floor level 1 metre above existing      site level or relocating the existing building is seriously questionable. The layout of    the Kiosk/Café arising from the existing bus terminus building is compromised and not functionally ideal. 

 

Cost

When considering the extent of reconstruction and large area of paving works, mounding, retaining walls and storm water re-direction, there could be a possible cost impost of between $100,000 and $120,000.

 

Professional fees -                    $   20 000

Construction Costs -                 $ 410 000 to $ 460 000

Total Cost of Project -           $ 430 000 to $ 480 000

 

 

3.2 Option 2 - Relocate Existing Building in New Location

 

Raise the existing building to acceptable level above the flood level & relocate to a better orientation. The building would appear original however be largely new.

 

Advantages

            - Take advantage of northerly aspect in a new position.

 

- Retain precinct identity even though its new position may not relate to the original road and tramway lines.

 

            -  Opportunity to move closer to leisure activity area of the beach.

 

- Subject to determining actual location, it could be argued that this option was consistent with the original site master plan for the Kiosk.

 

Disadvantages

            - Cost to raise and relocate.

 

- Difficulties and costs to configure surrounding pavement in an accessible manner to invite patronage.

 

            - Visual disassociation from original location (loss of site integrity).

 

            - Potential visual impact on views from nearby properties.

 

- The practicality of raising the existing building to a floor level 1 metre above existing   site level or relocating the existing building is seriously questionable. The layout of    the Café/Kiosk arising from the existing bus terminus building is compromised and not functionally ideal. 

 

Cost

Similar potential cost to that identified for Option 1.

 

Professional fees -                    $   20 000

Construction Costs -                 $ 410 000 to $ 460 000

Total Cost of Project -           $ 430 000 to $ 480 000

 

 

3.3 Option 3 – Demolish Existing Building and Build New Purpose Designed Facility in General Area.

 

New building set at the appropriate level for 1:100 year floods, in the general area, suitably designed for site aspect, access and function.

 

Advantages

- Purpose-designed facility to maximise outlook and take advantage of the site features (view, solar, etc.).

 

- Building could be low profile to reduce height impact for neighbouring properties, particularly given floor level being raised to meet flooding standards.

 

            -  Designed to suit operational and functional needs of operator.

 

- Potential for a lower cost structure using new materials and avoiding heritage style detailing.

 

Disadvantages

            - Loss of landmark building to the area with all its historical association.

 

            - Compromises site master plan’s proposed use of Old Bus Terminus.

 

- Potential impact on neighbouring buildings regarding views etc, were it located beyond the corner of the Surf Club.

 

-  Provides a facility that may be in competition with the other council owned premises at the beach pavilion

 

- There are no identified funds in the current Council budget to allow for a Consultant Architect for the design and documentation of a new building. Therefore Council would need to identify approximately $30 000 in 2005/2006 budget to fund for the engagement of the required consultant services.

 

Cost

Professional fees -                    $   40 000

Construction Costs -                 $ 360 000 to $ 410 000

Total Cost of Project -           $ 400 000 to $450 000

 

It may be possible to fund the demolition and making good the site from the McKeon Street Upgrade budget in the current year.

 

Funds for the engagement of an Architect to design the new kiosk/ café would need to be identified in the 2005/06 Council budget.

 

3.4 Option 4 - Demolish the Existing Structure and Do Not Build a Kiosk/Café

Demolish existing structure, do not rebuild, and make the area good.

 

Council needs to assess the sentimentality associated with the Old Bus Terminus Building compared to the benefits of a purpose built facility. It may cause some community angst if the building is demolished.

 
Advantages

-     Flood level issue gives reason to abandon proposal

 

-     Does not provide a facility that is in competition with the existing Pavilion Café

 

-     Will remove any further Council resources being required for the project.

 

 

Disadvantage

-     Demolition of building will reduce Council’s potential future rental return from the facility

 

-     The community may be remorseful of losing a link with the past.

 

Cost

Cost of demolition and make and make good $ 30 000 to $ 40 000

 

Funds may be available from the McKeon Street budget in the current year to allow for demolition of the building and making good the site.

 

4.0       RECOMMENDATION

 

That

 

1)       Council undertake Option 4 as described in this report and demolish the existing structure.

 

2)       The kiosk/café not be rebuilt and the area be made good with landscaping and paving. Funds for the demolition be made available from the Maroubra Beach Project.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICHAEL SAVAGE

KERRY COLQUHOUN

DIRECTOR ASSETS & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR PARKS AND RECREATION MANAGEMENT OFFICER


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 46/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

GRAFFITI MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME - SIX MONTH TRIAL

 

 

DATE:

22 July, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2143

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

By a Council resolution dated 24 February 2004 the Council resolved that:

 

“ a) In accordance with Clause 19(3) (e) of the Local Government (Tendering) Regulations 1999, Council reject all tenders due to the fact that it is inappropriate to commit the forthcoming Council to the expenditure levels detailed in the tender recommended for acceptance. Further, the Council delegate authority to the Mayor and General Manager to negotiate a six month trial with Urban Management Systems Pty Ltd; and

 

   b) The unsuccessful tenderers be notified of the tender result.”

 

This report will set out the outcome of the negotiations between Council officers and Urban Management Systems Pty Ltd (UMS) to date, the various options open to Council and the pros and cons of each option.

 

ISSUES:

 

Graffiti Management Programme

 

By a Council resolution dated 23 September 2003, the Council resolved, among others, that:

 

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

b) A report be submitted to the Council in December, 2003 outlining the progress of developing and implementing a Council funded multi-faceted programme”

 

Pursuant to the above resolution, Council Officers commissioned a graffiti audit and proceeded to develop a multi-faceted graffiti management programme involving the outsourcing of graffiti spotting, removal and database development services.

 

Tender

 

The Council at its Ordinary Council meeting on 25 November 2003 noted the details of the said programme and further resolved that the programme include a performance based contract with provision for short termination notification by Council.

 

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

 

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

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

B.   the systematic ongoing removal of new graffiti; and

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

 

2. The reduction of billposters to an acceptable level at minimal cost through the ongoing removal of billposters and enforcement action (As the issue of illegal billposting is closely related to that of graffiti, in that both lead to ‘visual pollution’ of the environment, it was felt that there would be operational efficiency and attendant costs savings in getting a single contractor to deal with both issues).

 

Tenders were called on 20 January 2004 for a period of two (2) years with the option, at the discretion of the Council, for extending the Contract for two (2) further periods of twelve (12) months each. Tenderers were to price for the graffiti education and billposter removal works on a provisional basis. Provision was made in the Tender for early termination for specified breaches of the Contract including not meeting specified performance targets. Performance targets include, among others:

 

1.       A 60% reduction in the incidence of new graffiti at the end of the 1st year of the Contract from the number of incidences found in the first month of the contract, a further 30% reduction at the end of the 2nd year of the contract from the number of incidences at end of the 1st year of the contract, and a further 10% reduction at the end of the 3rd year and 4th year from the number of incidences at end of the previous  years;

2.       Timely removal of graffiti and billposter within 48 hours of identification/notification, timely inspection of Council areas;

3.       Inspection of high priority areas every 48 hours and remaining areas every 7 days.

4.       Maximum of 1 complaint per 1000 inspection and removal activities.

 

The performance based programme should therefore see a substantial reduction in the cost of graffiti removal (cost of ongoing removal of new graffiti and liaisons with property owners) over the contract period, in tandem with the anticipated reduction in the incidence of graffiti. Thus, by the end of the first year of the contract, the cost of graffiti removal should be down to 40% of the expenditure during the 1st year of the contract, and by the fourth year it should be down to 25% of the initial expenditure.

 

Following a 3-week tendering period, the Tender closed on 10 February 2004. Five tenders were received which were evaluated by the Evaluation Committee according to specified criteria. At the end of the evaluation process, it was found that UMS had the highest quality score and offered the highest value for money to Council. Accordingly, via a report dated 24 February 2004, it was recommended to Council that:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

However, the Council, by a resolution dated 24 February 2004, rejected all tenders and requested Council officers to negotiate a 6-month trial with UMS instead, as it deemed it inappropriate to commit the forthcoming Council to the expenditure levels detailed in the tender recommended for acceptance.

 

Negotiation

 

Pursuant to the above resolution, Council officers and UMS started negotiating a 6- month trial of the graffiti management programme. Enclosed here collectively as Appendix 1 is the correspondence between both parties (1. Council letter dated 4 March 2004; 2. UMS letter dated 10 March 2004; 3.  Council letter dated 24 March 2004; and 4. UMS letter dated 30 March 2004).

 

UMS is not in favour of a trial for the following reasons:

a)       A 6-month trial would not be cost effective;

b)       A 6-month trial would not be effective in combating graffiti as based on their experience a 2 to 3 year programme is required to virtually eliminate graffiti;

c)       Components such as Community Education need to be undertaken over a 2 to 3 year period and may take a further few years to produce sustainable results;

d)       If a trial is undertaken, there could be a danger that if the Total Programme does not continue, Community expectations could be raised, putting Council under pressure to continue the programme.

 

However, should Council insist, they are prepared to undertake a 6-month trial of the whole programme based on the Tender Rates together with the following additional costs (exc GST) of $6,000 ($3,000 for initial administration and $3,000 for community education) to fastrack the programme.

 

At Council’s request, UMS also agreed to reduce the tendered UMS rate of $27.15, being the administrative cost of obtaining the consent of the each property owner for graffiti removal work, to $15.00.

 

When quizzed on whether UMS will be able to measure the outcome or success of a 6-month trial, UMS admitted that it would not, and that at least a 12 month trial will be necessary to measure outcomes. However, UMS emphasised that real graffiti reduction does not occur until the latter part of the first year and continually in subsequent years and that a two to three year programme is required to virtually eliminate graffiti. It said “Components such as Community Education need to be undertaken over a two or three year period to be effective and may take a further few years to produce sustainable results”.

 

Options

 

Option 1 – Undertaking a trial of the whole programme

 

A trial of the whole programme has the apparent advantage that Council gets to trial all components of the programme and is not tied down to a long- term contract and the attendant expenditure levels. In fact, the reason for the resolution to have a 6-month trial was motivated by the outgoing Council deeming it inappropriate to commit the forthcoming Council to the expenditure levels detailed in the tender recommended for acceptance.

 

The primary purpose of trialling a programme is to be able to determine at the conclusion of the trial, whether to proceed with the full programme. However, according to UMS, there is insufficient time under a 6-month trial to assess the success or failure of the trial. The initial graffiti audit, establishment of a tag database and the removal of existing graffiti would take a total of 4 months, leaving only 2 months of ongoing removal to report on. Thus, under this option, it will be impossible to measure the outcome or success of the trial.

 

According to UMS, a 12 month trial period is the minimal time period required for measurable outcomes.

 

However, undertaking a trial of the programme with UMS, whether 6-month or 12 month, raises two major issues.

 

First, is the issue of cost effectiveness. A break down of the estimated cost to undertake a 6-month or 12 month trial with UMS and the estimated total cost to undertake the programme for two years under the terms of the original Tender are annexed as Appendix 2, 3 and 4 respectively. It can been seen that the estimated total cost for the 6 month trial ($265,250.80) and 12 month trial ($337,048.61) is between half to more than two thirds the cost of undertaking the programme for 2 years ($458,471.23 [$493,098.73 less difference in discount to cost of liaison with property owners]).

 

The reason for this is that the initial administration cost of the programme, as well as the initial graffiti removal cost, comprise a large part of the cost and are fixed irrespective of the length of the programme or trial. Also, quite a few items are lump sum costs, which have to be paid at the outset of the programme. It is expected that through continuous removal and education, the number of graffiti incidents will reduce significantly and thus operational cost will be reduced significantly in the later stages of the contract.

 

The second issue concerns the continuity of the programme. The way the current resolution is worded; there is no option for Council to instruct UMS to continue with the programme after the trial, without having to go through another tender exercise. This may not only result in a new contractor being appointed, but also disrupt ongoing graffiti removal works for 3 to 5 months.  As rapid ongoing graffiti removal underpins the whole graffiti management programme, such disruption is likely to unravel any progress made previously. Also, the initial set up costs of the programme (e.g. setting up a database) would have to be incurred again by the Council, if there is no option to continue the programme automatically.

 

Option 2 – Re-Tender Original Programme

 

The original programme is for a period of two (2) years with an option for extending the contract for two (2) further periods of twelve (12) months each and is estimated to cost the sum of $458,471.23 (calculated on the basis of the price tendered by UMS for implementing the programme over a two (2) year). As all previous tenders, including that of UMS was rejected by a Council resolution dated 24 February 2004, the only available option is for the Council to invite fresh for a similar programme.

 

This option, being over a longer time period has the definite advantage of offering better measurable outcomes. As noted earlier, according to UMS, a 2 to 3 year programme is required to virtually eliminate graffiti.

 

This option is also the most cost effective as the substantial initial set-up cost is spread over a longer time period. By having the option to extend the contract period instead of having to go for a fresh tender at the expiry of the trial, the re-incurring of the initial set-up cost is not only avoided, the continuity and effectiveness of the programme is also not disrupted.

 

CONCLUSION

 

It is impossible to measure the outcome or success of a 6-month trial. A 12-month trial period may give measurable outcomes. However, the estimated total cost for a 6 month or 12 month trial is between half to more than two thirds the cost of undertaking the programme for 2 years. Also, at the conclusion of the trial, there is bound to be a time lapse involved in putting in place a new contract for graffiti management. Because of the nature of the graffiti problem, a disruption of this kind to ongoing graffiti removal will unravel any progress made during the trial period with regards to graffiti abatement. Having to go for a fresh tender, after the conclusion of the trial, will also mean that the substantial initial set-up cost for a graffiti programme will have to be re-incurred.

 

A two to three year programme, as provided for in the original tender, not only provides better outcomes and value for money to Council, but is necessary to virtually eliminate graffiti. Since, all previous tenders submitted in response to Tender No. T001/04 have been rejected by an earlier Council resolution, the only option available to Council is to invite fresh tenders for the Graffiti Management programme as set out in the said Tender Specifications.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1)       Note that a 6-month trial with UMS is not viable as it will not provide measurable outcomes and is not cost effective; and

 

2)       agrees to invite fresh tenders for the Graffiti Management Programme as set out in the Tender Specifications.

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

Correspondence between Council and UMB (Appendix 1)

Breakdown of estimated cost of 6-month trial (Appendix 2)

Breakdown of estimate cost of 12 month trial (Appendix 3)

Breakdown of estimated cost of 2 year programme (Appendix 4)

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ACTING MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 47/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

LOCAL ROAD REHABILITATION INCLUDING ROADS TO RECOVERY

 

 

DATE:

21 July, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/07156 & F2004/06616

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has allocated $2,000,000 for the rehabilitation of local roads in the 2004-2005 financial year.

 

In addition $701,552 is available for local road rehabilitation under the Federal Government’s Roads to Recovery Programme. 

 

ISSUES:

 

The decision process for the treatment of road sections in the network, aims to ensure budget spending maximises the benefit to the whole community, and requires consideration of the pavement management system (PMS), and project level assessment.

 

The PMS provides a mechanism for prioritising the approximately 1400 road sections into a manageable subset for assessment and works programme development, based on factors such as condition and usage.

 

The project level assessment considers site constraints which may affect the feasibility of a treatment; the requirement for further testing to confirm the type of treatment; and the requirement for more detailed analysis for the design of a treatment.

 

The selection of sections for treatment, has also considered the grouping of pavement works into locality worksites, to minimise site establishment fees under the road works contract.

 

Projects located at Houston Road, Kingsford and Boundary Road, Clovelly, previously adopted by Council for completion under the Roads to Recovery Programme, are programmed for 2004-2005.

Following, are the provisional lists of road sections for road pavement works under the Local Roads Rehabilitation Programme, and Roads to Recovery Programme.

 

Local Roads Rehabilitation Programme

STREET

FROM

TO

SUBURB

ROBEY STREET

FITZGERALD AVENUE

MURRAY STREET

MAROUBRA

JERSEY ROAD

ROBEY STREET

BUNNERONG ROAD

MATRAVILLE

DIVE STREET

JERSEY ROAD

BEAUCHAMP ROAD

MATRAVILLE

HOWELL STREET

POULET STREET

EASTERN ROAD

MATRAVILLE

POULET STREET

BEAUCHAMP ROAD

DAUNT AVENUE

MATRAVILLE

WINDSOR STREET

PATTERSON STREET

KNOWLES AVENUE

MATRAVILLE

PRINCE EDWARD STREET

IRETON STREET

RAGLAN STREET

MALABAR

WILD STREET

HINKLER STREET

COBHAM AVENUE

MAROUBRA

HINKLER STREET

PARER STREET

KINGSFORD STREET

MAROUBRA

MONS AVENUE

MAROUBRA ROAD

MALABAR ROAD

MAROUBRA

MIDDLE STREET

FORSYTH STREET

KENNEDY STREET

KINGSFORD

NORTON STREET

BOTANY STREET

WILLIS STREET

KINGSFORD

KEMMIS STREET

CLOVELLY ROAD

FRENCHMANS ROAD

RANDWICK

HOOPER ST

CARRINGTON RD

ALBION ST

RANDWICK

NOLAN AVENUE

FERN STREET

SEAVIEW STREET

CLOVELLY

JACQUES STREET

BUNNERONG ROAD

ANZAC PARADE

KINGSFORD

WALLACE STREET

ANZAC PARADE

WALLACE LANE

KINGSFORD

BOTANY STREET

STURT STREET

RAINBOW STREET

KINGSFORD

MUNDARRA STREET

BATTERY STREET

CLOVELLY ROAD

CLOVELLY

SMITHFIELD AVENUE

BROOK STREET

THE END

COOGEE

JENSEN PLACE

MALABAR ROAD

THE END

SOUTH COOGEE

NURLA AVENUE

LITTLE BAY ROAD

BINDA CRESCENT

LITTLE BAY

BROWN ROAD

BROOME STREET

THE END

MAROUBRA

BROOME STREET

MEAGHER AVENUE

BROWN ROAD

MAROUBRA

BROOME STREET

TYRWITT

FITZGERALD AVENUE

MAROUBRA

MALABAR ROAD

BEAUCHAMP ROAD

THE END

MAROUBRA

SHIRLEY CRESCENT

JORDANS LANE

BUNNERONG ROAD

MATRAVILLE

HASTINGS ST

LITTLE BAY ROAD

MACQUARIE STREET

LITTLE BAY

BARKER STREET

DAY LANE

ANZAC PARADE

KENSINGTON

MCDOUGALL ST

BAKER ST

LENTHALL ST

KENSINGTON

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roads to Recovery Programme

STREET

FROM

TO

SUBURB

HOUSTON ROAD

DAY AVENUE

GARDENERS ROAD

KENSINGTON

BOUNDARY STREET

ST THOMAS STREET

OCEAN STREET

CLOVELLY

HIGH STREET

BOTANY STREET

AVOCA STREET

RANDWICK

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Projects for completion under the 2004-2005 Local Roads Rehabilitation and Roads to Recovery Programmes have been prioritised utilising Council’s Pavement Management System, and project level assessment.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

 That 2004-2005 Local Roads Rehabilitation and Roads to Recovery Programmes be implemented in accordance with the priorities listed in Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 


Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 48/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

STATUS REPORT - SUPPORT FOR ANTI-SMOKING BAN ON COUNCIL BEACHES, PLAYGROUNDS AND OVALS.

 

 

DATE:

22 July, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1116

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In the ordinary Council Meeting of the 25th May the following resolution was adopted:

 

a)   Receive a report from the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services outlining the details of the Manly decision and presenting options on legality issues, appropriate signage, fines, policing, and any other related issues; and

 

b)   Seek to generate a uniform approach across all Sydney Councils with beaches by referring the matter to the Sydney Coastal Councils organisation.

 

In response to the above resolution Council officers have investigated this matter further and provide this report on the current status of this issue.

 

BACKGROUND

 

At the Ordinary Meeting held at Manly Council on Monday 17th May 2004 the following was resolved:

 

Subject to the General Manager being satisfied that Council is within its Statutory Powers to regulate, that in view of the significant adverse environmental impacts of cigarette butts and in the interest of better community health and amenity that Council:

 

1.       Supports a ban on smoking within 10 metres of all children's play areas under Council's care.

 

2.       Supports a ban on smoking around all Council playing fields and sporting grounds.

 

3.       Supports the erection of suitable signage highlighting both the adverse environmental and public health issues.

 

4.         Supports ensuring that events run or sponsored by Council should be smoke free.

 

5.         Supports a ban on smoking on Manly's ocean and harbour beaches and call on the General Manager to bring back to Council a staff report on the implementation of this motion.

 

6.         That, in regard to banning smoking on Manly's beaches, a program of community consultation be carried out by Council.

 

7.         That, concurrent with the community consultation program, Council facilitate an education campaign on this issue that specifically targets not just residents but our many day visitors.

 

8.       That we approach the Federal Government to assist with the administration of the policing of this matter.

 

Manly Council received a national response to the issue of banning of smoking on beaches. It was widely debated in the media and this has highlighted this as an issue in a number of communities.

 

A number of coastal councils expressed interest in this issue and generally coastal councils have requested that this issue be further investigated. As a consequence of this issue a full group meeting (June 19 2004) of the Sydney Coastal Council Group, discussed in detail the issue of banning of smoking on beaches and playgrounds. Councillor Margaret Woodsmith and Mr Tony Watson, Council Officer, attended on Council’s behalf.

 

A SHOROC meeting was held on the 21 st July 2004 where an Officer’s report was submitted summarising actions/resolutions by the SHOROC Councils.  Manly, Mosman, Pittwater and Warringah Councils have all in essence passed resolutions supporting the banning of smoking at beaches, playgrounds and public reserves and have sought reports from Council’s Officers concerning implementation, costs, policing and legal issues related to the implementation of the ban.  Waverley Council has also stated their support for the banning of smoking on beaches.

 

Randwick City Council have written to the Sydney Coastal Council Group Inc (SCCG) and requested to be informed of any legal advice on this matter.  In the letter to SCCG, Randwick City Council requested that SCCG encourage a uniform approach across all Sydney Councils to the banning of smoking on beaches, playgrounds and sporting grounds.

 

ISSUES:

 

The main issues related to this matter at this time are:

 

1.       definitive legal advice

2.       education on the issue of smoking on beaches playgrounds and ovals and in particular the impact of cigarette butts on the environment

 

Legal Advice

Legal advice pertaining to this issue is complex. Various powers in the Local Government Act 1993 (section s632, s633) can assist in making public places safer and prohibiting certain activities. A council may erect notices in a public place, including a public beach and public land. Generally these notices relate to such issues as the drinking of alcohol, controlling animals etc.

 

Legal advice has not yet been sought by the SHOROC Councils nor by Waverley Council.  However, under section s632 of the LGA, it is an offence to act contrary to a notice erected by a Council.

 

Education

The issue of education has been a major component in the discussions surrounding the banning of smoking. Initial discussions by relevant Councils suggest if people more thoroughly understand the impact of cigarettes on the environment they may be more willing to adhere to the banning of smoking in public places. Once the ban on smoking has been implemented by Council, proposals for education and awareness will need to be developed to ensure community awareness.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Randwick City Council Officers are currently investigating the issue of smoking on beaches, playgrounds and sporting grounds. They are liaising with other coastal councils and the SCCG to ensure a uniform approach to this issue.

 

After receiving a response from the SCCG concerning the resolution of the legal status of banning smoking at beaches, playgrounds and sporting grounds, a detailed report will be prepared for Council discussing the power of Council to enforce a smoking ban, the relevant process and the likely costs associated with this undertaking.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Asset & Infrastructure Services Report dated 22nd July, 2004 in relation to support for Anti-Smoking Ban on Council’s Beaches, Playgrounds and Ovals, be noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PARKS & RECREATION CO-ORDINATOR

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 49/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

PUBLIC PATHWAY ADJACENT TO PROPERTY 15 FENTON AVENUE, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

22 July, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0284/00

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

At its Meeting held on 10th February 2004, Council resolved:

 

“that Council advise the Department of Lands that it is prepared to accept the pathway which runs from the rear of the Seals Club to Fenton Avenue and its care, control and management as a public road in compliance with Section 151 of the Roads Act 1993.”

 

A copy of Mayoral Minute 1/2004 dealing with this matter is attached and is self explanatory.

 

ISSUES

 

Following Council’s Resolution, transfer of the pathway was finalised by notice in the Government Gazette dated 20th February 2004.

 

Confirmation was received from the Seals Club dated 5th May 2004 that the Club is prepared to meet all costs associated with of surveying, resurfacing  the pathway, installing appropriate lighting and if necessary, erecting a fence running east to west alongside number 15 Fenton Avenue Maroubra.

 

A letter dated 19th May 2004 was forwarded to the owners of property 15 Fenton Avenue advising inter alia:

 

“Council now proposes to fence the northern boundary of this road which adjoins your property and to construct a paved footway and street lighting in order to give effect to Council’s Resolution.

 

Preliminary investigation indicates that there is an encroachment of your property onto the public road.  In relation to this matter you are requested to contact Council’s Director Asset & Infrastructure Services, Mr Mick Savage, phone 9399 0905 to discuss an appropriate course of action.”

 

The owners of the property submitted a letter to Council dated 16th June 2004.  A copy of this letter was forwarded to all Councillors.  A copy is also available on the Council’s file.

 

Information from the Department of Land & Water Conservation indicates that the owners of 15 Fenton Avenue held an authorised occupancy over the site of the laneway adjoining their property from 1986 to 1994.  In October 1994 the owners requested termination of the occupancy and this was done on the understanding that they no longer wished to occupy the laneway.  The owners have continued to occupy the land since that time.

 

The Department of Land & Water Conservation by letter dated 26th March 2003 advised the owners as follows:

 

“Reference is made to your freehold property known as lot A DP 347032 fronting Fenton Avenue Maroubra Beach and the Crown public pathway enclosed within the premises.

 

Your occupation of this pathway has no authorisation.  You are hereby directed to restore the pathway and make it available for public use by 30th May 2003 in accordance with Section 107 Roads Act, 1993.  No extension beyond this time will be available.

 

A need for use of the pathway by the public has been identified.”

 

This direction was not complied with and the public pathway is still not available for use by the public.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The owners of property 15 Fenton Avenue Maroubra have continued to enjoy use of the public pathway adjacent to their property without authorisation for a considerable period of time.  The Department of Land & Water Conservation established that there is a need for use of the pathway by the public and this was the basis for Council agreeing to accept transfer of the pathway in February 2004.  Given these circumstances it is not appropriate for Council to consider leasing the pathway to any adjoining owner.

 

It is now proposed that fencing be provided along the northern side of the pathway, street lighting be installed and the pathway be paved.  Removal of the existing fencing across the eastern end of the pathway will open the pathway to allow public access as envisaged by Council’s previous resolution.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council confirm its previous decision to establish the public pathway adjacent to property number 15 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra and the property owners be advised accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Mayoral Minute No 1/2004

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

 

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 1/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

CROWN LAND AT REAR OF SEALS CLUB - PROPOSED TRANSFER TO COUNCIL

 

 

DATE:

9 February, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0284/00

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

I have received a number of representations from the Seals Club and pedestrian users of this Club complaining about the physical closure of a pedestrian walkway which runs to the rear of the Club from Fenton Avenue as shown on the attached sketch. (Attachment “A”).

 

A site investigation indicates that the pathway appears to be a driveway for the adjacent property to the north and has been physically closed at the rear of this property, preventing pedestrian access at the rear of this neighbouring property.

 

ISSUES:

 

Officers from the Department of Lands have written to and met with the owner of the adjoining property, issuing instructions to open up the end of this Crown right-of-way to provide pedestrian access at this location.   To date, the right-of-way remains physically closed.

 

Late last year I met with relevant officers from the Minister’s office and the Department of Lands to try to solve this problem and suggested that Council could accept the transfer of this pathway and take over its care, control and maintenance under Section 151 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

In a letter dated 17th December, 2003, the Acting Regional Manager for the Department of Roads states inter alia:

 

“In order for this action to proceed it will be necessary for Council to provide written acceptance of the proposal.

 

On receipt of such acceptance, the transfer will be effected by notification in the Government Gazette.”

In a response letter of the same date I advised of my support for this transfer and indicated that Council would consider this matter at the next available opportunity.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The pedestrian pathway is used by employees of the Seal Club and the general public  and, as such, should be kept open and accessible at all times.

 

I consider that Council should take the necessary steps to have this pathway transferred to Council as a dedicated public road for the purposes of pedestrian access.  This would occur in compliance with Section 151 of the Roads Act, 1993, which states inter alia:

 

151      (1)        The Minister may, by order published in the Gazette, transfer a specified Crown Road to another roads authority.

 

(2)        On the publication of the order, the road ceases to be a Crown Road.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council advise the Department of Lands that it is prepared to accept the pathway shown on Attachment “A” and its care, control and management as public road in compliance with Section 151 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment A

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 45/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Prince Henry Hospital Site Draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) (Amendment No. 28) and Draft Development Control Plan (DCP)

 

 

DATE:

12 July, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/4151/4

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report outlines the amendments to the draft planning controls for the Prince Henry site following public exhibition. These controls provide a site specific planning framework for redevelopment and conservation of this significant site, and incorporate best practice planning and design requirements with an emphasis on ecologically sustainable development (ESD), and reflect the site’s unique built and natural heritage.

 

The draft plans have been publicly exhibited (January – February 2004, and March – April 2004) and consultation with relevant State government agencies has been undertaken. The draft plans have also been referred to the Randwick-Waverley Design Review Panel for comment.

 

This report reviews the issues raised in submissions and explains the revisions and enhancements made to the draft plans to address these issues where appropriate.

 

The report recommends that Council endorse the draft LEP Amendment No. 28 (at Attachment 4) and the draft DCP (at Attachment 5), as amended, and that the draft LEP Amendment No. 28 be forwarded to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Planning Administration) requesting that the draft LEP be made in accordance with the provision of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

 

1.         LOCATION AND PLANNING CONTEXT

 

The Prince Henry site is located at 1430 Anzac Parade, Little Bay. The Prince Henry site and adjacent golf course (The Coast Golf Course) are currently zoned 5 Special Uses under Randwick LEP 1998. Both also lie within a heritage conservation area under this LEP.

 

The draft LEP Amendment No. 28 proposes to rezone the majority of the former Prince Henry Hospital site to 2D Residential D (Comprehensive Development), along with areas to be rezoned to 6A Open Space and 7 Environmental Protection. It also proposes to rezone the Coast Golf Course to 6A Open Space. The rezoning of this land is to ensure the Prince Henry site and the adjacent golf course have the most appropriate zoning for their current and future land use.

 

The draft LEP Amendment No. 28 applies to the Prince Henry site and The Coast Golf Course (refer to Attachment 4). The draft DCP applies to the area of the Prince Henry site that will be redeveloped, known as the 'DCP area' (refer to Figure AA of the DCP in Attachment 5), comprising approximately 35 hectares of the 83.9 hectare site.

 

2.         BACKGROUND

 

A summary of key stages in the planning for the redevelopment of the site, including the master plan and LEP/DCP process to date is provided below:

 

March 2003                 Revised master plan for the Prince Henry Site lodged with Council.

 

May 2003                    Council adopted this master plan with variations and reaffirmed its

resolution to prepare a draft LEP/DCP for the site.

 

November 2003           Required statutory (Section 62) consultations on draft LEP Amendment undertaken with relevant State government authorities.

 

December 2003           Draft LEP/DCP reported to Council in December 2003 for endorsement to exhibit.

 

21 Jan-18 Feb 2004     Public exhibition of draft LEP/DCP.

 

February 2004             Rezoning Proposal for part of the subject site lodged by Landcom (to include the Australian Graduate School of Management Site as part of the site, rezoning it to part 2D residential and part 6A open space. The proposal also involved rezoning the 10th Green of the Coast Golf Course to 2D residential to create better safety for golfers and future residents, transfer of other land to open space to create a continuous landscaped buffer along the eastern edge of the DCP site).

 

24 February 2004        Rezoning proposal and necessary changes to LEP/DCP to include these areas in the draft plans, reported to Council and endorsed for re-exhibition.

 

31 March – 30 April     Re-exhibition of draft LEP and draft DCP.

2004

 

3.         DRAFT LEP – SUMMARY OF REVISIONS

 

Following the two public exhibition periods, the draft LEP Amendment No. 28 has been refined, in response to submissions and government agency comments. The key refinements, minor in nature, are as follows:

 

·    Extension of the 10 metre wide golf course buffer (north of Pine Avenue) along the eastern edge of Lot 42 so there is a continuous link of open space (zoned 6A) along the eastern edge of the development area.

·    A site specific clause has been added to allow non residential uses (such as business, local shops, medical centres, restaurants) at ground and first floor levels within the 2D zone part of the Prince Henry site where an activity strip is marked (Randwick LEP 1998 currently allows these uses at ground floor level only in the 2D zone where an activity strip is marked).

·    A new subclause has been added to Clause 40A (Master Plans), which adds the ‘identification, extent and management of watercourses, wetlands and riparian land’, to the list of key requirements that a master plan must address. This will ensure that the identification and management of these natural features occurs at the master plan stage of development.

·    Clause 42D (Development in, on, or adjacent to a watercourse or wetland) has been refined following further clarification by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) in terms of the application of riparian land widths and the classification of the watercourses within the LEP area. This clause applies only to watercourses marked on the map (ie those within the Prince Henry site).

·    The definition of ‘riparian land’ has been simplified and the definition of ‘watercourse’ has been refined to specify a stream of water or channel ‘marked on the map’ (ie draft LEP Amendment No. 28 - Sheet 1 of 3), as there are no other watercourses marked on any other Randwick LEP 1998 maps as yet (refer to Section 9 of this report for more detail).

·    LEP (Sheet 1 of 3) – Zoning – the labelling of watercourses has been amended to reflect the refinement of Clause 42D, with the two categories of watercourse within the subject site clearly identified as Category 2 and Category 3 (refer to Section 9 of this report for further details).

·    LEP (Sheet 2 of 3) – Built Form Controls – correction of the FSR for lots 5, 6-7, 9, 16, 17 and 22-30; and increase in FSR for mixed use development (lots 18 and 19) from 0.9:1 to 1.2:1 (refer to Section 9 of this report for more detail). The variations noted on this map have also been refined and simplified for greater clarity and workability. Relevant DCP figures also amended accordingly.

·    Minimum landscaped area requirements increased from 30% to 40% for most development lots.

·    Number of storeys for Type F development has been reduced from 6 storeys to 5 storeys to ensure a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres for all floors can be achieved (note: there is no change to the maximum height in metres).

 

These matters are outlined in more detail in Section 9 of this report.

 

4.         DRAFT DCP – SUMMARY OF REVISIONS

 

As with the draft LEP, the draft DCP has been refined and subject to minor revisions in response to Government agency comments, and submissions. Key changes to the draft DCP include:

·    Revision of Part 5 of the DCP (Sections 5.1-5.3), and Appendix D to reflect the newly gazetted State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) – Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) (refer to Section 10 of this report for more detail)

·    FSRs amended to ensure consistency with changes to draft LEP

·    Building envelopes – explanation and performance criteria/controls strengthened to provide greater clarity (Section 4.1);

·    Building depth – new section (Section 4.3 of DCP) added to provide greater explanation of this component of the building envelope;

·    Build to lines removed from Precinct maps – this requirement is considered to be sufficiently controlled by the building envelopes, setbacks, and “match building alignment” controls and DCP text amended accordingly (Section 4.5 of DCP);

·    Number of storeys of Type F – relevant figures and text amended to reflect change in maximum number of storeys from 6 to 5;

·    Landscape – the site’s landscape context (Section 2.5) has been strengthened to provide greater explanation of the roles of the golf course buffer, and amended to include the two small parks created at the end of view corridors in Precinct P1, created as a result of inclusion of the AGSM site and 10th Green in the DCP area.

·    Aboriginal Archaeology objectives and requirements (Section 2.7) – in response to the Department of Environment and Conservation’s (DEC) submission, these requirements have been strengthened to ensure the site’s aboriginal archaeological heritage is adequately protected

·    Storage – minor amendment to provide greater clarity

·    Development adjacent to watercourses – new section added to the DCP (Section 4.9) to provide greater guidance for development adjacent to watercourses, consistent with the requirements in draft LEP Amendment No. 28;

·    Part 7 – precinct specific controls – these sections have been amended to include more detail, better explanations and provide greater clarity;

·    Definitions – definitions (including dwelling house, multi unit housing) added to provide greater clarity;

·    Appendix E added to DCP – Watercourse categories and Riparian land widths, and Appendix F added – Specific Elements Conservation Policies;

·    Minor typographical changes to text;

·    Minor Changes to DCP maps for greater clarity and to ensure consistency with amendments to draft LEP maps. Whilst some of the maps and figures can be A3 size, all have been produced at A4 size for reporting to Council.

 

These changes are explained in more detail in Sections 9 and 10 of this report where necessary.

 


 

5.         PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION:

 

The draft plans were publicly exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (EP&A Act) 1979, the DUAP (Department of Urban Affairs and Planning – now DIPNR) Best Practice Guideline “LEPs and Council Land – Guideline for Councils using delegated powers to prepare LEPs involving land that is or was previously owned or controlled by Council”, and in accordance with Randwick City Council’s Public Notification DCP. Details of the public exhibitions are provided below.

 

Public Exhibition: January-February 2004

 

The draft LEP and draft DCP were publicly exhibited for over 28 days from 21 January to 18 February 2004. Public notification included a notice in the local newspaper on 20 January 2004.

 

The draft plans were forwarded to 15 State government agencies, including the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR), the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (National Parks and Wildlife branch), the RTA, STA and the NSW Heritage Office for comment during public exhibition (see Section 6 of this report for more details). These agencies were also consulted in November 2003 during the preparation of the draft plans.

 

A total of 101 written notices were sent to adjoining and nearby landowners in accordance with Council’s Public Notification Policy. The following groups/individuals were also sent written notices advising of the public exhibition:

-     Coastal Council

-     The Coast Golf Club

-     Gurriwal Aboriginal Corporation

-     The Hon. Bob Carr, MP

-     La Perouse Precinct Committee

-     La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council

-     Matraville Chamber of Commerce

-     The Metropolitan Land Council

 

The draft plans were available for viewing at the Council’s Administration building, at Bowen and Matraville Libraries, and also on Council’s website.

 

Public Exhibition: March – April 2004

 

As outlined in Section 2 of this report, in February 2004, Landcom lodged a proposal to rezone the adjacent AGSM site and the 10th Green of the Coast Golf Course to part 2D residential and part 6A Open Space, and to develop this land in conjunction with the master plan area.  The draft plans were amended to incorporate this additional land, and were endorsed by Council for re-exhibition at the Council meeting on 24 February 2004.

 

The draft plans were re-exhibited for over 28 days from 31 March to 30 April 2004. Written notices were sent to the State government authorities, the same adjoining and nearby land owners, and the same groups/individuals as the January-February 2004 public exhibition. Public notification included a notice in the local newspaper on 30 March 2004. The draft plans were available for viewing in the same locations as the previous exhibition.

 

A total of 5 submissions were received from the two exhibition periods: 3 (Coles Myer, Planning Matters and Landcom (initial submission)) from the first, and 2 (Landcom and Stockland) from the second exhibition. The matters raised in these submissions are addressed in Section 9 of this report.

 

6.         PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONSULTATION:

 

The draft LEP Amendment No. 28 was forwarded to 15 State government agencies for comment under Section 62 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) in December 2003 and March 2004. All of these government agencies were also consulted during the Prince Henry master plan assessment process. It is noted that during and prior to the first public exhibition, a number of agencies indicated that they had no comments to make, and that further consultation was not required.

 

Responses were received from 7 State government agencies. Many of the submissions received responded to the second public exhibition of the draft plans, and focused on the changes to the draft plans resulting from the inclusion of the AGSM site and 10th Green of the golf course to the DCP area.

 

The key issues identified in these submissions are identified below.

 

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) – NSW National Parks and Wildlife (NPWS)

 

Comment:

The DEC noted the changes to the draft plans [ie the inclusion of the AGSM site and the 10th Green of the golf course] and their re-exhibition. The DEC’s submission indicated they generally support the proposed amendments to the draft LEP, and noted that the additional areas [AGSM site and 10th Green] do not contain any known Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub and do not have any development constraints in terms of endangered flora.

 

The submission recommended that, given the high Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity of the former Prince Henry site, the Aboriginal Heritage Management Strategies (particularly Sections 6.2, 7.2, 7.4 and 7.6 of the Archaeological Management Plan (AMP)) be incorporated in the LEP and DCP as appropriate.

 

Response:

Additional detail from these sections of the AMP has been added to the draft DCP (Sections 1.9 and 2.7) to ensure the Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity of the Prince Henry site is sufficiently protected.

STA

 

Comment:

The STA indicated they have no objection in principle to the proposed rezoning of land. The STA submission noted that the proposed changes to the draft plans will result in a small number of dwellings (approximately 8) being over 400 metres walk from the nearest bus stop, and commented that residents/visitors of these lots would be less likely to use public transport.

 

Response:

The STA’s comments are noted, however due to site constraints, namely heritage and topography, it is not possible to relocate these dwelling allotments so they are within 400 metres of the nearest bus stop. Whilst it would be ideal to have all dwellings within the development within 400 metres of a bus stop, it is noted that the estimated 8 dwellings represents a minor 1% of total dwellings proposed under the master plan for the site, and the distance  from the nearest bus stop is not significantly greater at less than 600 metres.

 

RTA

 

The RTA raised no objection to the draft LEP, and commented that the draft plan appears to be consistent with previous RTA advice provided in April 2003 [by way of comment on the master plan for the site] and December 2003.

 

Department of Community Services (DOCs)

 

The Department of Community Services noted the proposed amendments to the draft plans and indicated they have no further comments to make.

 

Department of the Environment and Heritage (formerly the Australian Heritage Commission)

 

Comment:

A response from the Federal Department of Environment and Heritage was received advising that the Australian Heritage Commission [who were consulted on the master plan and the preparation of the draft LEP/DCP] no longer exists as a statutory body. The Department indicated that based on the information provided on these draft plans, it would be more appropriate to consult with the relevant State government authority.

 

Response:

The Department’s comments were noted. Relevant State government agencies, namely the NSW Office of Heritage, the Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW National Parks and Wildlife), and the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (which incorporate the former Department of Land and Water Conservation) were all consulted prior and during both exhibitions of the draft plans. No objections were raised by any of these agencies, nor any of the other agencies consulted.

 

 

NSW Heritage Office

 

Comment:

The NSW Heritage Office’s submission notes that the draft LEP will result in the conservation of a number of items of heritage significance, and raises no objection to the draft plan. The submission notes that the draft LEP contains appropriate provisions to facilitate the conservation of buildings, works, relics, places and precincts. It also notes that the proposed rezoning of the former Prince Henry Hospital Site and Coast Golf Course will allow continued use and conservation of the heritage items in an appropriate manner, the draft LEP is therefore supported by the NSW Heritage Office.

 

The NSW Heritage Office’s submission requested that if the draft LEP was amended (in response to public exhibition) that a copy be provided to the NSW Heritage Office with changes highlighted, together with the rationale for the changes.

 

Response:

Whilst draft LEP Amendment No. 28 has undergone minor changes and refinement, the heritage provisions in the draft LEP Amendment No. 28 remain unchanged. A copy of the revised LEP Amendment No. 28 will be provided to the NSW Heritage Office following Council’s consideration of this report and receipt of any changes required by Parliamentary Counsel.

 

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR)

 

DIPNR provided comments in response to both exhibitions. These comments are summarised and addressed below (refer to Attachment 1 of this report for more detail).

 

Issue – Definition and categorisation of watercourses:

DIPNR’s submission suggested a revised definition of watercourse for the LEP.

 

In discussion with Council officers, DIPNR provided additional information on the rationale for the recommended riparian land widths around watercourses, and the categorisation of these watercourses.

 

DIPNR’s submission indicated the northern and southern watercourses within the LEP area are Category 2 watercourses, which should be protected by riparian land 20 metres wide measured from the top of each bank (giving a total corridor width of approximately 40 metres). The central watercourse was identified as a Category 3 watercourse, which should be protected by riparian land 10 metres wide measured from the top of each bank (giving a total corridor width of 20 metres).

 

DIPNR has confirmed that this categorisation of watercourses is based on the system developed for the Riparian Corridor Management Study for Wollongong LGA as a result of a Commission of Inquiry in 1999, which is being applied in a standardised manner by DIPNR for watercourse classification in other locations. DIPNR has indicated that a number of classifications exist with varying riparian land requirements, and has confirmed that some watercourses in highly urbanised areas may be classified as requiring a zero metre wide buffer of  riparian land.

 

Comment:

The definition of watercourses in the draft LEP Amendment No. 28 has been amended accordingly.

 

The relevant clauses in draft LEP Amendment No. 28 have been refined in consultation with DIPNR and contain minimum numerical riparian land widths as per DIPNR’s comments. Clause 42D (Development in, on, or adjacent to a watercourse or wetland) of draft LEP Amendment No. 28 applies only to mapped watercourses (that is, only to those within the Prince Henry site). However, this clause has been set up so that it can be easily amended to apply to other watercourses within the Randwick LGA in the future, once they have been accurately mapped and appropriate riparian land widths established.

 

The draft LEP Amendment No. 28 zoning map has also been amended to reflect the above refinements, clearly illustrating the two different watercourse categories. The DCP has also been amended to include a section on ‘Development adjacent to watercourses’, which reflects the provisions contained in the LEP.

 

Issue – Biological Linkages:

DIPNR’s submission commented that a bushland corridor (which provides a north-south biological link within the LEP area) should be identified on the LEP map, and should be zoned 7 Environmental Protection. It also commented that biological linkages should be provided between remnant vegetation and the watercourses on site.

 

Comment:

Revisions of the draft plans have created a continuous open space link running north-south between the Coast Golf Course and the DCP area which will be redeveloped. This link comprises a 10 metre wide buffer north of the community centre allotment (and Pine Avenue) being a steep vegetated area and golf course buffer, and an 18 metre wide buffer south of Pine Avenue, providing for pedestrian/cycle access within a vegetated golf course buffer. Whilst the primary function of the buffer is to thus provide separation (for safety) between the two land uses, it will also play a number of other roles including a habitat corridor, water management and recreation (via a shared pedestrian-cycle path south of Pine Avenue) on the flatter land.

 

The respective widths of these buffers are considered to be appropriate, and all will provide valuable, and significantly enhanced habitat areas that currently do not, and previously did not, exist on the site.

 

The provision of a virtually continuous north-south vegetated buffer along the eastern edge of the prince Henry redevelopment area, ranging in width from 10-18 metres is considered to be consistent with the master plan objective which stated “provision of bushland corridors to ecologically link north and south”. This buffer, together with the parks and street trees to be planted both within the site and along Anzac Parade will ensure good biological linkages with existing native vegetation (such as the large 5.8 hectares of the remnant Jennifer Street bushland at the southern edge of the site).

The draft LEP proposes to rezone the Coast Golf Course from 5 Special Uses to 6A Open Space. This rezoning will afford any remnant native vegetation within the golf course appropriate protection, due to the objectives of this zone, and the limited types of development permissible in this zone. The draft LEP Amendment No. 28 proposes two additional objectives for the 6A Open Space zone (Clause 18(1) of Randwick LEP 1998): to identify and protect natural features that contribute to the character of the land; and to enable the sustainable management of the land. These additional objectives will further strengthen the nature of the 6A Open Space zone.

 

Further, it is noted that the Coast Golf Course is an existing land use that is unlikely to change in the future. As such it is considered that the proposed 6A zoning will protect existing remnant native vegetation which, together with the golf course and riparian buffers, will provide biological linkages for birds and animals within the LEP area.

 

It is also noted that the Plan of Management for this land will, through appropriate planting, form a link between existing patches of remnant native vegetation, thereby enhancing its values as a habitat corridor, which currently does not exist.     

 

 

Issue – suggested amendments to draft DCP:

DIPNR’s submission suggested a number of minor amendments to the draft DCP including the addition of objectives and key design principles seeking to protect and enhance remnant native remnant vegetation, riparian corridors and wetland areas with the site.

 

Comment:

Amendments have been made to the draft DCP as appropriate (refer to Attachment 1 of this report for more detail).

 

DIPNR has confirmed that the issues raise have been resolved to their satisfaction, and they raise no objection to the draft plans.

 

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL

 

The draft plans were forwarded to the Parliamentary Counsel for the required legal review and comment in mid March 2004. Parliamentary Counsel advised that the plans should be re-sent for legal review and comment following the March-April 2004 public exhibition and any subsequent refinements made. No other issues were identified at this time.

 

The draft LEP has been refined following the March-April 2004 public exhibition, and has been forwarded to the Parliamentary Council in mid July. A response has not yet been received, nevertheless, the Parliamentary Counsel comments will relate to the legal interpretation and not any content of the LEP.

 

Parliamentary Counsel's comments will be provided upon reporting to the Minister, and will not delay the process.

 

7.         TECHNICAL OFFICER COMMENTS:

The draft plans were circulated to relevant technical officers within Council for comment during the exhibition period. Specific comments received are summarised below.

 

Council's Bushland and Landscape Officers have provided input into the list of recommended species contained in Appendix A, and have reviewed this list throughout the DCP preparation process. Council Bushland officers have also been involved in discussions with DIPNR representatives regarding the golf course and riparian buffer requirements, notably habitat and remnant vegetation requirements.

 

Council's Health and Building Team has provided specific comment on the Acoustic Privacy (Section 4.11) and Contaminated Land (Section 5.7) sections of the draft DCP. These sections have been refined to reflect officer comments and ensure consistency with Council requirements.

 

8.         DESIGN REVIEW PANEL COMMENTS:

 

In accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Better Quality Design of residential Flat buildings (SEPP 65), the draft DCP was referred to Council’s Design Review Panel (The Panel). Clause 27 (c) of SEPP 65 identifies one of the functions of a Design Review  as providing independent advice to Councils on the design content of draft LEPs and DCPs, having regard to the design quality principles contained in the SEPP. The Panel’s comments are attached as Attachment 2 and are summarised and addressed below.

 

Comment:

Panel considered that the vistas are generally well maintained, however reiterated earlier comments (made at previous meetings) that view lines over houses are considered to be a second or third rate option, as there is always the risk they could be built out in the future. The Panel noted the removal of the house at the eastern end of NR 1 (proposed as part of Landcom’s rezoning proposal for the AGSM site) as a positive outcome.

 

Response:

The draft plans were amended following Landcom’s proposal to rezone the AGSM site and 10th green of the golf course. Amendments included the removal of two houses at the end of two significant vistas to the coast, ensuring these views are retained as public views, and will not be built out in the future.

 

 

Comment:

Some members of the Panel commented that the re-alignment of the “roads” (private driveways) around Lots b and c to orientate these lots to the primary street (NR1) would allow allotments on the southern side of street NR1 to have a better relationship with lots on the northern side of this street.

 

Response:

This comment was supported by Council officers and the draft plans have been amended accordingly.

Comment:

The Panel reiterated previous comments that the built form in Precinct 3 (site of future aged care/nursing home facility) remains an odd arrangement.

 

Response:

Noted, however it is understood that the alignment of property boundaries in this precinct is influenced by the location of a significant rock crop (Lot 20) and significant trees (Lot 22-30), and the boundary alignment between these two lots is irregular to allow provision of driveway access to Lot 20 whilst minimising impacts on the rock outcrop. Part 7 (Precinct Controls) of the DCP has been revised to clarify this.

 

Comment:

The Panel noted the proposed FSR for the site and the 13 associated variations and suggested that Council Officers review to see if it can be simplified somewhat.

 

Response:

The variations noted on the LEP built form control map have been refined and simplified.

 

Comment:

30% - 40% landscaping on sites seems quite low, especially with the definition of hard and soft landscaping.  This is a very low minimum and will leave a small area available for private open space. 40% to 50% is the preferred minimum range.

 

Response:

The minimum landscaped area requirements have been increased from 30% to 40% for all lots across the site, with the exception of Lot 32, which is atypical as it includes an extension to an existing heritage building. The minimum landscaped of Lot 32 has been increased from 20% to 30%.

 

Comment:

The Panel commented that the content of “Desired Future Character” sections require review.

 

Response:

These sections have been refined and strengthened to provide greater context and clarity.

 

Comment:

The Panel noted concern over the maximum height of front fencing at 1.8 metres. A maximum height of 1.2 metres is recommended.

 

Response:

This DCP provision has been revised.

 

Comment:

Swimming pools should not be counted as part of the landscape area, particularly given water restrictions and the proximity of the site to Little Bay beach. Also, the requirement for one mature tree per site is considered sufficient for dwelling houses; however provisions requiring additional trees for larger sites are needed.

 

Response:

It is noted that swimming pools are permitted under the Exempt and Complying provisions, however the BASIX requirements will effectively discourage pools through the BASIX scoring system (making it difficult to reach the required score to receive a BASIX certificate) as they are not considered to be sustainable in water conservation terms.

 

The landscape sections of the DCP have been amended to clarify the requirements for mature trees (that is, a minimum of 1 large tree for single dwellings and additional mature trees for multi unit dwelling lots). These details, together with view analysis, are to be shown on landscaping plans, submitted at DA stage.

 

 

Comment:

The graphics of the document are confusing at times and need to be improved to remove possible ambiguities.

 

Response:

The graphics have undergone revisions to provide greater clarity.

 

9.         ISSUES:

 

Key issues raised in submissions are summarised and addressed below. Attachment 1 provides additional detail on these matters.

 

FLOOR SPACE RATIO (FSR)

 

Matters raised in submissions:

Landcom’s submission indicated that a correction of the FSR controls for Lots 5, 6-7, 9, 16, 17, and 22-30 (all exhibited at 0.9:1) was required. Landcom confirmed that this adjustment was required due to an error in calculations from the master plan proposed built form estimations discussed and agreed with Council officers for inclusion in the draft LEP for exhibition, and that the FSR controls should be as follows:

-     for Lots 6-7, 9, 16 and 17 the FSR should be 1.0:1; and

-     for Lots 5 and 22-30 the FSR should be 1.2:1.

 

Landcom also confirmed that the correction in FSR would not result in an increase in yield (ie number of apartments) proposed on the site.

 

Comment:

The miscalculation of FSR is noted and it is understood that there will be no increase in the number of dwellings (apartments) or building height/scale as a result of correcting the FSR for these lots.

 

The relatively small size of these lots means this increase in FSR equates to a relatively small increase in actual floorspace per lot. Further, the maximum building height and building envelope requirements, which control the bulk and scale of development, remain unchanged. As such, the massing and scale of buildings will remain consistent with that identified in the master plan

 

In addition, it is also noted that the minimum landscaped area requirements for all lots within the DCP area (except lot 32 which is atypical as it allows for an extension of an existing heritage building) have been increased from 30% to 40%, to ensure appropriate private open space provision across the site. The minimum landscaped area for Lot 32 has been increased from 20% to 30%.

 

Recommendation:

That the FSR controls contained in the draft LEP Amendment No. 28 for  Lots 6-7, 9, 16 and 17 the FSR be amended to be 1.0:1; and for Lots 5 and 22-30 the FSR be amended to be 1.2:; and that the draft DCP be amended to reflect this change.

 

Matters raised in submissions:

Stockland’s submission noted that, as part of the tender process they have been involved in for the development of sites in the northern half of the Prince Henry site (DCP area), they have undertaken a detailed review of the draft LEP/DCP controls.

 

Stockland’s submission indicated that they consider the building heights and volumes set out in the draft envelope controls are both appropriate and sustainable. The submission also stated that Stockland generally supports the workability and functionality of the building envelopes contained in the draft LEP/DCP, however, in some instances there is a significant disparity between the envelope and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) controls – in that the building envelope allows a greater gross floor area than can be achieved under the FSR.

 

The submission identified Lots 3-4, 5, 6-7 and 16 (all within DCP Precinct 1) as areas of disparity and proposed varying increases in FSR for these lots (all Type D, exhibited as 0.9:1) ranging from 1.19:1 to 1.36:1 (Refer to Attachment 3).

 

Lot E1, also in Precinct 1 (Type B, exhibited as 0.75:1), was also identified in Stockland’s submission as a disparity,

 

Stockland’s submission recognises that the building envelopes do not have to be filled, however they believe in this instance, it is important to do so, to achieve the urban outcomes for this site. Their submission indicated that by filling the building envelopes, the following advantages are anticipated:

-     a better urban scale and relationship with surrounding development;

-     clear definition of important vistas, entries and corners;

-     increased privacy (both visual and acoustic);

-     improved solar access and dwelling outlook;

-     strong street edge to Anzac Parade; and

-     all dwellings will have a street address.

 

Comment:

The FSR controls are not the only controls that apply to development. They work together with the LEP maximum building height and minimum landscaped area controls, as well as with the DCP building envelope and building setback controls. The DCP notes that the building envelope is the maximum area within which a building can be built (DCP Section 4.1). It also states that in some instances it may not be possible to achieve the maximum building envelope due to site constraints (such as the need to match building alignment or setback with adjacent heritage building, ensure significant views are maintained, ensure overshadowing of adjacent properties and/or bushland is minimised), and that it is necessary to comply with all other controls within the DCP when designing a building.

 

The building envelopes in the DCP have been designed to facilitate the built form framework identified in the 2003 master plan, ensuring that controls allow buildings of an appropriate height and scale as set out in the master plan. The building envelope controls reflect the key design principles of the 2003 master plan and at the same time are flexible enough to allow a number of different building footprint configurations.

 

The draft DCP build-to-line requirement (which aims to ensure a strong, relatively continuous street edge along identified street frontages) has been amended. Rather than being marked on the precinct plans (as exhibited), Section 4.5 (Setbacks) of the DCP has been amended to include a clearly written control which requires a strong predominantly continuous built edge to the primary street frontage and public parks and pathways. This amendment will ensure the key design principles and built form outcomes identified in the draft DCP, 2003 master plan and Stockland’s submission can be achieved, without a need to increase FSR.

 

During the review of submissions, Stockland's calculations were further clarified with Stockland representatives. Council officers advised Stockland that where an adjacent footpath or 'private driveway' formed part of a lot, it was to be included as part of the lot area calculations. Stockland indicated that this would alter their FSR calculations, reducing the disparity initially identified in their submission for some lots, with a small discrepancy (in the order of 0.1:1)  remaining for Lots 3-4, Lot 16 and Lot E1 [it is noted that Lots3-4 and E1 were not identified by Landcom as lots where there was an error in FSR calculation]. This alteration is not considered significant to warrant changes that would apply across the category types that apply across the entire DCP area.

 

NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRE – FSR and SUPERMARKET

 

Matters raised in submissions:

Two submissions (Stockland and Landcom) proposed that the maximum FSR for the neighbourhood centre (Lots 18 and 19) be increased as these two lots form the local centre for the site and will be characterised by mixed use development.

 

Landcom’s submission proposed that the FSR of both lots be increased from 0.9:1 (exhibited) to 1.2:1. Similarly, Stockland proposed the FSR for Lot 18 be increased to 1.28:1, and the FSR for Lot 19 be increased to 1.16:1.

 

Landcom’s submission indicated an increased FSR was necessary to provide approximately 4,000m² of retail/commercial floorspace, which would allow the provision (potentially) of a small to medium sized supermarket, plus accompanying specialty retail to meet local convenience needs, in addition to the original commitment for a small medical centre.

 

Stockland’s submission argued that an increase in FSR in this location would result in a better urban outcome, including a strong built form defining the site’s main entry at Pine Avenue, and with better amenity due to greater shielding of noise from Anzac Parade via strategic siting of buildings and better definition and surveillance of open space within these two lots.

 

Neither submission proposed an increase in height.

 

Comment:

Given the mixed use nature of Lots 18 and 19, an increase in FSR from 0.9:1 to 1.2:1 is considered appropriate. These lots are located adjacent to Anzac Parade, in the most accessible location within the site.

 

The relatively small size of these lots (approximately 4500m² and 5870m² respectively) means that an increase in FSR will result in a relatively small increase in actual floorspace. The maximum height control for these two lots (4 storey maximum), and the building envelope control remains unchanged, ensuring a negligible increase in building bulk and scale, while allowing for a larger floor area on the ground and first floor areas for retail/commercial uses and loading areas to be accommodated and well designed.

 

Recommendation:

That the draft LEP be amended to permit a maximum FSR of 1.2:1 for Lots 18 and 19, and that the draft DCP be amended accordingly to reflect this change.

 

Matters raised in submissions:

Coles Myer’s submission (supported by Preliminary Economic Opinion by Leyshon Consulting) noted that there is an opportunity to provide a greater level of retail than is currently envisaged by the LEP amendment and draft DCP – specifically a supermarket of 2,500m² would improve viability, without causing a significant impact on other retail centres including Maroubra Junction and Matraville.

 

Comment:

Council officers believe that a small to medium sized supermarket (approximately 1,500m²-2,500m² in size) would be appropriate within the neighbourhood shops (Lots 18 and 19) at the Prince Henry site. It is considered that a supermarket of this size would be sufficiently large enough to provide for local, convenience needs of the future residents of the site and residents of Little Bay and La Perouse, without competing with nearby Maroubra Junction, Randwick City’s main town centre. A key objective of recent (Maroubra Junction and Kensington) and current (Matraville) town centre planning control reviews has been to consolidate retail activity within the existing town centres and ensure long term viability of the town centres.

 

The draft DCP for the Prince Henry has been amended to note that there is potential for a supermarket (1,500m²-2,500m² in size) to be located within Precinct 2 (Lots 18 and 19), subject to design requirements (including the provision of active street frontages), and being supported by an economic analysis provided at DA stage (which, amongst other things, addresses how the proposed supermarket and associated retail would work together with the retail within the existing 3B zone land opposite the Prince Henry site on the western side of Anzac Parade).

 

A small to medium sized supermarket would also allow support retail to be accommodated within the two neighbourhood centre lots, as well as on the land already zoned 3B (5 lots) on the opposite side of Anzac Parade.

 

A further consideration is the size of Lots 18 and 19, as well as site constraints such as the proximity of Lot 18 to Flowers Ward 1 (heritage), and the narrow width of the existing road that runs north-south between Lot 18 and Flowers Ward 1, that will potentially influence the size of the supermarket.

 

It is noted that the current redevelopment of Maroubra Mall at Maroubra Junction will include in a larger size Coles supermarket approximately 3,500m² in size, as well as a smaller major tenancy (occupancy yet to be confirmed), approximately 1,100m² in size.

 

A small to medium supermarket (1,500m²-2,500m² in size) is therefore considered to be an appropriate size for this location, subject to detailed DA assessment – large enough to meet the convenience needs of the future and existing residents in surrounding suburbs, without undermining the viability of the nearby town centres.

 

RESTRICTION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TO GROUND LEVEL ACTIVITY STRIPS

 

Matters raised in submissions:

One submission (S.Smits, Planning Matters) suggested that non-residential uses (business premises, local shops, medical centres or restaurants) should be permissible on both the ground and first floor levels of designated activity strips within the site. Clause 35A of Randwick LEP 1998 currently limits these uses to the ground floor on land identified as an activity strip. The master plan indicates these uses are proposed for the two lowest floors and at least 2 levels of non-residential uses should be permissible in this location to provide a core of local services.

 

Comment:

The draft LEP Amendment No. 28 has been amended to permit business uses at ground and first floor levels where activity strips are identified within this site. This site specific amendment is considered appropriate given the defined, limited commercial area within the 2D zone at the Prince Henry site and the benefit of providing for both retail and commercial uses as well as the medical centre.

 

INCONSISTENCY WITH AMENDED MASTER PLAN

 

Matters raised in submissions:

One submission (S.Smits, Planning Matters) commented that there are a number of minor inconsistencies between the 2003 master plan and the draft LEP/DCP. It also appears that the total gross floor area in the amended master plan is considerably higher than can be achieved by applying the draft LEP Amendment No. 28.

 

Comment:

The gross floor areas that appeared in the 2003 master plan were indicative only, and were not adopted by Council, as the purpose of a master plan is to provide a broad, planning framework (and not this level of detail).

 

The draft LEP and draft DCP reflect the broad design principles of the 2003 master plan. Any inconsistencies between the master plan and the draft plans have been adjusted (as noted above), or are minor in nature and when assessing development applications, the LEP/DCP will take precedence.

 

BUILDING DEPTHS OF PRECINCT 1

 

Matters raised in submissions:

One submission (S.Smits, Planning Matters) commented that the proposed maximum depth of 13 metres for apartment buildings in Precinct 1 is considered to be too restrictive. A maximum depth of 18 metres, consistent with the guidelines in the State government’s Residential Flat Design Code is more appropriate. A maximum depth of 18 metres is considered to give much greater scope for design innovation and should be applied to this site to allow consistency and flexibility.

 

Comment:

Due to the historic road alignments and the heritage buildings being retained on site, the Prince Henry site is characterised by irregularly shaped lots. This, together with constraints such as key view corridors, maximising solar access, and alignment with existing heritage buildings, provision adequate landscaped areas within each lot, and the alignment of new buildings to create an appropriate relationship with existing heritage buildings, has influenced the design of the building envelopes, setback and alignment requirements in the draft DCP.

 

A building envelope depth of 13 metres is considered to be appropriate in this instance, as it responds to the specific characteristics of the lots within Prince Henry site, as well as maximising sun and daylight access and natural cross-ventilation. In addition to this 13 metre building depth, the building envelopes allow an additional minimum articulation depth of 2 metres on each side of the building (for balconies, terraces, entrances etc), resulting in a minimum total depth of 17 metres, which is consistent with the 18 metre building depth guideline contained in the Residential Flat Design Code.

 

MINOR CHANGES

 

A number of minor corrections and amendments have been made to the draft plans to address comments made in submissions. Refer to Attachment 1 for more details.

 

 

10.       OTHER ISSUES:

 

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY

(BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: BASIX) 2004

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 (BASIX SEPP) is effective from 1 July 2004. This policy aims to encourage the provision of more sustainable homes in NSW. The BASIX SEPP will be integrated into the planning system in a series of stages over the next 2 years and replaces a number of Council policies in relation to ecologically sustainable development (ESD).

 

BASIX is an Internet based tool designed to assess the potential performance of residential development against a range of sustainability measures. The first stage of BASIX focuses on energy (including thermal comfort) and water conservation. Some aspects of landscaping and stormwater are incorporated in the indices due to their relationship with water and energy efficiency.

 

Through the internet based assessment tool, the proposed development is allocated scores for different components of water conservation and energy efficiency, and a BASIX Certificate is only issued if the proposed development meets the required conservation and efficiency standards set out in the BASIX SEPP. The BASIX Certificate must be lodged with the development application.

 

Applicants will be responsible for undertaking a BASIX assessment for each residential development proposal as part of the development application process.

 

 Stage 1 of BASIX, effective from 1 July 2004, applies to all dwelling houses. Sections 1.8 (Development Application Process), 4.5 (Landscape and Biodiversity), 5.1 (Energy and Greenhouse), 5.2 (Total Water Cycle Strategy), and Appendix D (Total Water Cycle Strategy) have been modified to reflect the requirements of the BASIX SEPP for dwelling houses. A new section (Section 5.3) has been added to the DCP to explain the BASIX requirements for dwelling houses.

 

The draft DCP notes that these sections (with the exception of Section 5.3) continue to apply to multi unit and mixed use development on the site. The Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) is currently preparing Stage 2 of the BASIX SEPP, which contains requirements for multi unit housing. At this stage, DIPNR anticipates these requirements will be on exhibition for public comment in August this year (2004), and expect they will come into effect in October this year. The draft DCP notes that when Stage 2 of the BASIX SEPP comes into force, certain multi unit housing requirements (currently in the draft DCP) will no longer apply.

 

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STORIES IN EXTENSION TO DELANEY BUILDING

 

Issue:

Currently, the draft plans allow a 6 storey extension to the Delaney Building, with minimum floor to ceiling heights of 2.4-2.5 metres. The maximum height in metres of this extension is governed by the height of the ridge of the Delaney building (extension matches the ridge height).

 

Comment:

A minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres is considered necessary to ensure a satisfactory level of amenity to all dwellings. As the extension to the Delaney Building will be located on the existing building's southern side, it is even more important that a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 is provided, rather than the 2.4-2.5 metres proposed.

 

This minimum floor to ceiling height is consistent with the guidelines contained in the State government's Residential Flat Design Code, and consistent with the requirements for multi uni housing in Council's Kensington Town Centre, Bundock Street, and Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCPs.

 

The maximum height of the extension (currently aligned with the ridge of the existing Delaney Building) will remain unchanged, and a decrease in the number of storeys from 6 to 5 will allow a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 to be achieved for all floors.

 

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the LEP built form control map (Sheet 3 of 3) be amended so that a maximum of 5 stories is allowed for Type F (Lot 32), and that the DCP figures 6 and 7 and the cross section in Figure 20 be amended to show a maximum of 5 storeys, instead of 6, to be consistent with the DCP text.

 

CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LAND

 

As previously reported to Council (Report 118/2003, 16 December 2003), the draft LEP identifies roads and public open spaces, including an area for a community centre. Under the Local Government Act (LG Act), public land is classified as either ‘community’ (for public purposes) or ‘operational’ (eg. Works depots). Classifications may specifically be undertaken via a draft LEP; however the LG Act also provides that public land is automatically classified as ‘community’ within 3 months of Council ownership. As the identified lands are not yet in Council ownership and are appropriate to be classified as ‘community’, the draft LEP does not require specific classification provisions for this site.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The draft LEP has been prepared and exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the EP&A Act and Regulations. The provisions of S.66 and S.67 of the Act have been complied with in relation to public involvement in the preparation of the draft LEP. The draft LEP is consistent with all State Environmental Planning Policies, Regional Environmental plans and Ministerial Directions under S.117 of the Act, and the S.71 Determination has been taken into consideration. The draft DCP has also been prepared in accordance with the Act and Regulations and relevant State policies and guidelines.

 

It is considered that all issues have been addressed and that the draft LEP and draft DCP provide a sound, site specific planning framework for this significant site, incorporating best practice planning and design requirements, with an emphasis on ecologically sustainable development (ESD), and reflecting the site’s unique built and natural heritage.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that:

 

1.       Council endorse the following amendments to the draft plans:

a)       the FSR controls contained in the draft LEP Amendment No. 28 for  Lots 6-7, 9, 16 and 17 the FSR be amended to be 1.0:1; and for Lots 5 and 22-30 the FSR be amended to be 1.2:1; and that the draft DCP be amended to reflect this change;

b)       the draft LEP be amended to permit a maximum FSR of 1.2:1 for Lots 18 and 19, and that the draft DCP be amended accordingly to reflect this change; and

c)       the LEP built form control map (Sheet 3 of 3) be amended so that a maximum of 5 stories is allowed for Type F (Lot 32 – Delaney building extension), and that the DCP figures (6 and 7) and the cross section in Figure 20 be amended to show a maximum of 5 storeys, instead of 6, to be consistent with the DCP text.

 

2.       Endorse the draft Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No. 28)(as amended) for the Prince Henry site and agree to forward the draft LEP to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning (Planning Administration) requesting that the draft LEP be made;

 

3.       Adopt the draft Development Control Plan (as amended) for the Prince Henry site, to commence in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Regulation upon public notification of the LEP gazettal and DCP commencement date; and

 

4.       Agree that the Director, Planning and Community Development, may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors if required, in the finalisation and printing of the DCP.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

All under separate cover

1. Summary of Submissions Received

2. Design Review Panel Comments

3. FSR Table

4. Draft LEP Amendment No. 28

5. Draft Prince Henry site DCP    

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

 

………………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

monica cologna

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

senior planner

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 46/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

4A Eastbourne Ave, Clovelly

 

 

DATE:

20 July, 2004

FILE NO:

DA-226/2004

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling house at 4A Eastbourne Ave Clovelly.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development application report dated 8 July, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESCZCZYNSKI

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

8 July, 2004

FILE NO:

D/0226/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and first floor additions to existing semi-detached dwelling house

PROPERTY:

 4A Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Lacoste & Stevenson Architects

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Bradley Hughes, Murray Matson, Margaret Woodsmith.

 

The proposal involves making alterations at the existing ground floor level of the semi-detached dwelling, and demolishing the existing first floor level of the dwelling and erecting a new first floor level.  Decks are proposed at the front and rear of the new first floor level.

 

The relevant issues relate to floor area, height, building setbacks and privacy.  It is considered that the proposed development is acceptable in the context of its surroundings. 

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to retain the existing garage and make internal alterations at ground floor level to provide for new living and bedroom areas and a new bathroom.  The existing first floor level is to be demolished and a new first floor addition is proposed that will accommodate living and dining areas and a terrace at the front and one at the rear.

The proposal is shown on amended drawings received by Council on 27 May 2004.  The proposal was amended by setting the first floor area further back from the front boundary of the site and by providing obscure glazing to the northern section of the east-facing windows.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Eastbourne Avenue between Shackel Avenue and Ocean Street, Clovelly.  It has a 6.9 metre frontage to Eastbourne Avenue, a maximum depth of 37.0 metres and a total site area of 228.1 sqm.  It is improved with semi-detached two-storey dwelling house with garage at the front of the site.  The surrounding area is residential in character and consists of a mixture of dwelling houses and residential flat buildings.  The adjoining site to the west is improved with the semi-detached twin to the dwelling on the subject site and the adjoining site to the east is improved with a two storey dual occupancy that is currently under construction.  Figure 1 shows an aerial of the subject site and its surroundings, and Figures 2, 3 and 4 show the subject site and surroundings at ground level.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

DA 541/92: On 25 January 1993, the Council approved alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house, including a first floor addition.  The dwelling exists on the site in the form of that approval.

 

Figure 1: Subject site and surrounding area

 

Figure 2: Streetscape of Eastbourne Avenue looking northwest, showing subject site (right dwelling of semi-detached pair shown in the middle)

 

Figure 3: Streetscape of Eastbourne Avenue looking northeast, showing subject site (right dwelling of semi-detached pair shown in the middle)

 

Figure 4: Looking from the rear yard area of the adjoining site to the east, looking towards the rear of the existing dwelling on the subject site and the residential flat building on the site that adjoins the subject site to the west.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 8 April 2004, and the amended plans were notified on 8 June 2004.  As a result of these notifications, Roderick Plaister and Irene Foster, of 6 Eastbourne Avenue, lodged a submission in each instance.  The following table summarises the issues raised in both submissions:

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed development does not comply with the maximum permitted FSR.

The amended drawings have reduced the gross floor area to a level that is considered to be acceptable.  See Assessment Section.

The proposed development does not comply with the maximum permitted height.

The proposal complies with respect to height.

The proposed development has a bulky first floor addition that will be unacceptable.

The amended drawings have set the first floor addition further back from the street in a manner that is considered to be acceptable.  See Assessment Section.

The proposed will cause overshadowing.

The proposal complies with respect to solar access.

The proposed will cause loss of privacy.

It is considered that any potential loss of privacy has been addressed.  In any case, conditions requiring further details to ensure prevention of overlooking are included in the recommendation.

The proposal will have noise impacts.

There is nothing to suggest that the proposal will result in additional noise impacts.  The proposed development is for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house.  Given the density of some of the development in the area, it is not considered that the proposed development will produce any greater sources of noise.  In any case, privacy screening and louvres on the side elevation windows will assist in dampening any noise.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

No referrals required.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

The proposal has been assessed in relation to compliance with the following controls:

§ Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

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

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

§ Building Code of Australia.

 

7.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Clause 29 of LEP 1998 contains provisions relating to Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.  In this respect, it is considered that the proposed development will be compatible with the scale of buildings in the surrounding environment.  The proposed additions integrate with the existing building and provide for an improved presentation to Eastbourne Ave resulting in a positive contribution to the Foreshore area. Further, the proposal will not result in any significant view loss to adjoining and neighbouring development.

 

7.1  Policy Controls

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

Landscaping

In respect of landscaping provisions of the DCP, the proposal does not involve any extension to the ground level.  Therefore, landscaping matters are not applicable.

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.93:1.  Does not comply – See Environmental Assessment.

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The maximum external wall height is 6.7 metres. Complies.

S1

External wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5 m.

No building proposed at rear of the site.  Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

No cut or fill proposed. Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

No excavation proposed. Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

See above.

S5

The second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and further, the design respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

The proposed first floor addition extends close to the front of the existing ground floor level.  No setback is proposed.  Does not comply – see Environmental Assessment.

 

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed development does not reduce the overall front setback of the building.  Not applicable.

S2

No part of the building is closer than 4.5m from rear boundary.

The proposed first floor addition is 7 metres from the rear of the site.  Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level.

The proposal does not involve additions at ground floor level.  Not applicable.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed first floor level is set back 0.9 metres. Does not comply – see Environmental Assessment.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

The proposal will not be three storeys at any point.  Not applicable.

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Habitable room windows within 9m of another dwelling’s windows are offset by 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing below 1.5m above floor level.

The proposed development has a continuous window at first floor level along its eastern elevation that will look directly onto habitable room windows of the adjoining dwelling to the east.  Does not comply – see Environmental Assessment.

S1

Direct view into open space of an adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m and is beyond a 45 degree angle.

The windows on the eastern elevation at first floor level and the rear first floor deck will overlook the rear yard of the adjoining dwelling to the east.  Does not comply – see Environmental Assessment

S1

Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more or fixed obscure glazing below that height.

The proposed east-facing windows have a sill height of approximately 0.9 metres from the floor. Does not comply – See Environmental Assessment. 

 


Foreshore Development

 

 

Performance Requirements

Assessment

P1

No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.

The site is not an identified property.  Not applicable.

P2

Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

Will be addressed by condition.

P3

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

The proposal is not a stepped building.  Not applicable.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

The proposed setbacks are acceptable to ensure retention of views. Complies.  See further discussion in Environmental Assessment.

P5

Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.

No ancillary structures proposed.  Not applicable.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

New dwellings comply with a minimum of 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

The proposed development is not a new dwelling.  Not applicable.

S2

Private open space receives at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

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

S2,8

North-facing windows to living areas receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

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

S9

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained between 9am and 3pm each throughout the year.

The proposal will not overshadow solar collectors on adjoining properties. Complies.

S9

North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.  If currently less than 3 hours, it is not further reduced.

According to the shadow diagrams and giving consideration to separation of buildings in the surrounding area, the proposal will not reduce solar access to less than 3 hours on north-facing windows of adjoining properties. Complies.

S9

Principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.  If currently less than 3 hours, it is not further reduced.

According to the shadow diagrams and giving consideration to separation of buildings in the surrounding area, the proposal will not reduce solar access to private open space to less than 3 hours of adjoining properties. Complies.

 

      


8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

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

8.1    Floor Area

The proposed development does not comply with the DCP Preferred Solution for floor space ratio. 

The relevant Objective and Performance Requirement are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale, are compatible with the existing character of the locality and also minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

The amended plans show that the proposal involves an addition of 27 sqm of floor area at first floor level.  It is also noted that the amended plans show that the proposed first floor level is set back further from the front boundary that was originally proposed.  It is considered that the extent of building bulk would not be incompatible with the nature of development in the area, particularly given the bulk and scale of development in the area (see Figures 2 and 4).  Further, the proposal will not result in adverse amenity impacts to the adjoining and neighbouring properties.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the Objective and Performance requirements of the DCP.

8.2    Height, Form and Materials

The proposed development does not comply with the DCP Preferred Solution for front setback of first floor additions to semi-detached dwellings.

The relevant Objectives are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and should be compatible with the existing character of the locality and, with respect to additions, that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

The relevant Performance Requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting, where relevant, characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets.  Further, in respect of semi-detached dwellings, development should integrate with the streetscape and the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

The amended plans show that the first floor addition will be set back the same distance from the front boundary as the existing first floor level.  It is considered that the amendments to the plans will significantly reduce visual bulk when viewed from the street.  Further, the existing semi-detached dwellings do not display the symmetrical qualities normally associated with such buildings, largely because of the differences in front setback and the alterations that have been done to both dwellings over time.  Therefore, the proposed first floor addition will not have an adverse impact on the architectural integrity of the semi-detached pair.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant Objectives and Performance requirements of the DCP.

8.3    Building Setbacks

The proposed development does not comply with the DCP Preferred Solution for side setback at first floor level.

The relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours and, with respect to front boundary setbacks, that the proposal generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape.

It is noted that the existing first floor level is set back 0.9 metres from the side boundary.  However, it does not extend as far back over the ground floor level as the proposed new first floor level.  Nonetheless, the proposed building bulk is considered to be acceptable given its compatibility with the varying forms of development in the area (see Figures 2 and 4) and that the proposal will not result in a significant loss of ventilation and natural light.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant Objectives and Preferred Solution above. 

8.4    Visual and Acoustic Privacy

The proposed development does not comply with the DCP Preferred Solutions for visual privacy. 

The relevant Objective is to ensure that new buildings and additions meet the occupant and neighbours requirements for visual and acoustic privacy.

The relevant Performance Requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

It is noted that the existing first floor level of the dwelling has windows along its eastern elevation that overlook windows on the building under construction on the adjoining site.  In respect of the proposed east-facing windows, they are shown with privacy louvres and part of those windows is to be fitted with obscure glazing.  It is considered that these measures will ensure that loss of privacy is minimised to the rear yard area and habitable room windows of the adjoining property.  In respect of the proposed rear deck, it is noted that the louvred screen along the eastern side of the dwelling will extend to the end of that deck.  This will prevent loss of privacy to the adjoining property.  Appropriate conditions will be imposed to ensure that those louvres screens are constructed and designed in a manner that prevents overlooking.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant Objective and Preferred Solutions above.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

For the most part, the proposed development complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the Preferred Solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.  Where compliance has not been achieved with the preferred solutions, the proposal satisfies the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP.

 

Having regard to all the relevant matters for consideration, the proposal will not result in adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

The proposal is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.

 

10.       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 226/04 for alterations and first floor additions to existing semi-detached dwelling house at 4A Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly, 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 of Planning and Community Development:

 

1.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and finishes shall be submitted in the form of a sample board keyed to the elevations of the proposed building.

 

2.       Detailed design and samples of the proposed louvres are to be provided demonstrating their effectiveness for prevention of overlooking from the eastern side elevation windows and the first floor rear deck.

 

Evidence required to satisfy these conditions must be submitted to Council within 6 months of the date of this consent.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

B.       Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement conditions, to the satisfaction of Council, Council grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 226/04 for alterations and first floor additions to existing semi-detached dwelling house at 4A Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly, subject to the following conditions:-  

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA102 to DA104 and DA 200 to DA 203 and DA 300, Issue B, dated 25 and 26 May 2004 and received by Council on 27 May 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the details approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

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

 

2.       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.

 

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

 

4.       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 manufacturer’s details.

 

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

 

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

 

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 application.  Absorption pits or soaker wells shall only be provided if soil conditions are suitable to facilitate the absorption of stormwater and must be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises.  Stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance.

 

Details of any excavation or drainage 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 Assets & Infrastructure Services 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 group of conditions have been applied to ensure the structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises:

 

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

 

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

 

13.     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.

 

14.     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.

 

15.     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.

 

16.     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.

 

17.     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.

 

18.     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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Details of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia must be included in the plans / specification for the construction certificate.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

TOM HUTCHISON

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 47/2004   

 

 

SUBJECT:

172 Beach Street, Coogee   

 

 

DATE:

15 July, 2004

FILE NO:

D/0203/2004   

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Health Building and Planning Committee at its meeting dated Tuesday 8 June 2004 resolved that:

 

“ this application be deferred to the next meeting of the Health, Building & Planning Committee to allow for further on-site inspections by Councillors in the company of Council officers, to address the location of the proposed balustrades.”

 

The application seeks permission to construct a spa pool and timber balustrade at the front deck level of the existing dwelling house.

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution an on-site inspection was arranged with the applicant on 8 July 2004 at 8.30am.  All Councillors were advised of the date and time of the inspection and invited to attend.

 

Councillor Belleli in the company of Council’s Manager Development Assessment and the Assessment Officer attended the on-site meeting on behalf of Council.  Mr Mitchell Reid on behalf of the objectors at 170 Beach Street was also present.  The architect of the application and owner of the subject property did not attend the inspection.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The site inspection has been undertaken and as such the application is referred back to Council for its consideration and determination.

 

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. 0203/2004 for permission to construct a spa pool and timber balustrade at front deck floor level of the existing dwelling at 172 Beach Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions: -

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered CC03B, CC06A, CC08A-10A Issue A, dated 20 May 2003 and received by Council on 23 March 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

3.       A timber balustrade and gate having a height of 1m (measured from the front ground floor deck level) is to be provided to the western side of the spa pool, as shown on a facsimile from Habitat Architects, dated 17 May 2004 and received by Council on 17 May 2004.  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

8.       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.

 

9.       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.

 

10.     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.

 

11.     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.

 

12.     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.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and to maintain public safety and amenity:

 

13.     For the purposes of section 20 of the Act, the prescribed standards in accordance with which access to the water in a spa pool is to be restricted are that the spa pool must be covered or secured by a child-safe structure (such as a door, lid, grille or mesh) that is fastened to the spa pool by a child-resistant device.

 

 

14.     Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

The operation of spa pool pump and equipment is restricted, if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, the equipment shall not be operated during the following hours, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

§ before 8:00am or after 8:00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

§ before 7:00am or after 8:00pm on any other day.

 

15.     The Spa pool is to be provided with a child resistant barrier, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

A sign shall be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the document entitles “Policy Statement No. 9.4.1; Guidelines for the Preparation of Posters on Resuscitation”, published in 1985 by the Australian Resuscitation Council and the sign must bear a notice that contains the words “YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE SUPERVISED WHEN USING THIS SWIMMING POOL”, together with details of resuscitation techniques (for adults, children and infants) set out in accordance with the document entitles “Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation: published by the Australian Resuscitation Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 203/2004, dated 25 May, 2004.   

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCYNSKI

FRANK KO

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

27 May, 2004

FILE NO:

D/0203/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construction of a new spa pool at the front deck level of the existing semi-detached dwelling house.

PROPERTY:

 172 Beach Street, COOGEE.

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mrs P Godwin

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Chris Bastic, John Procopiadis.

 

The application seeks consent to construct a spa pool and timber balustrade at the front deck level of the existing semi-detached dwelling.  The estimated cost of development is $5,000.

 

The main issues for consideration are the siting of the proposed spa and the potential for noise and privacy impacts. These issues are addressed in Section 7.3 of this report.  

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

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

 

-     Construction of a spa pool at the front deck level above the existing garage; and

-     Construction of a section of new timber balustrade 7.9m in length and 1m in height, adjacent to the existing northern side boundary wall/fence.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Beach Street between Carr Street and Dudley Street and has a frontage to Beach Street of 6.68m, a rear boundary of 7.15m, a southern side boundary of 36.23m, an irregular northern side boundary of approximately 36.27m and an area of 234sqm. The site contains a two storey semi-detached dwelling house. The northern wall of the dwelling is a common wall, shared with the adjacent semi-detached dwelling at 170 Beach Street.

 

Most of the site is set well above the level of Beach Street such that the site drops steeply from the front of the dwelling down to street level. The surrounding area is largely residential and includes detached dwelling houses, semi-detached dwelling houses and multi-unit housing buildings.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    HISTORY OF SITE USAGE RELEVANT TO THE APPLICATION

 

03/00411/GA

New front garage with deck above and new balconies to front of existing semi-detached dwelling. Approved on 16/06/03.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposal and Council Plans.  The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on 31 March 2004. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Robert Dwyer & Ruth Maddigan - 174 Beach Street, Coogee

 

1)         The siting of the spa on the front terrace of the property is entirely inappropriate. 

 

Comment:

 

It is acknowledged that the location of the proposed spa has the potential to cause disturbance to the occupants of the adjoining properties in terms of privacy and noise.  However, it is noted that the subject and adjoining properties all overlook their neighbour’s front decks and garden areas and these areas can all be used for social and outdoor entertaining purposes. It is therefore considered that the proposed spa is acceptable as it will be an additional facility to the existing deck which can be used for social and entertaining purposes (see Section 7.3 for detailed discussion).

 

2)         The noise associated with the use of the spa would destroy their amenity.

 

Comment:

 

The applicant has stated in the Statement of Environmental Effects accompanying the application that the equipment associated with the proposed spa will be located below the balcony, in the subfloor area.  This issue is addressed in detail in Section 7.3 of this report. 

 

3)         The location of the spa presents a safety hazard to the occupants of the adjoining properties.  Young children could easily access the terrace area from the adjoining houses and the street. A safety fence would be inappropriate to, and destroy the sympathetic restoration/refurbishment of the front elevations of this row of circa 1912 dwellings.

 

Comment:

 

As stated in the Statement of Environmental Effects, the proposed spa will be equipped with clip-down covers, which will restrict access to the water contained in the spa pool.  In addition, the applicant is prepared to install additional fencing and a gate, to match the balustrade, across the western side of the spa, which will also provide some additional screening when viewed from the ground floor of the adjoining properties. To ensure the spa pool meets the requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations, relevant conditions have been included in the recommendation of this report to address the safety issue (see Section 7.3 for detailed discussion).

 

Simon Poidevin - 170 Beach Street, Coogee

 

1)         The spa is in a dangerous location with ready access to his young children and the addition of security fence would be of detriment to the existing preservation of the front elevations of this row of circa 1912 dwellings.

 

Comment:

 

As noted previously, the spa will be equipped with clip-down covers, which will restrict access to the water contained in the spa pool and be required to comply with the requirements of Swimming Pools Act 1992 (see Section 7.3).

 

2)         The dwelling at No. 174 Beach Street have bedrooms immediately above the spa area and the noise associated with the use of the spa would be exceptionally distressing to the neighbouring properties.

 

Comment:

 

It is acknowledged that the use of the spa pool may result in noise generation and to an extent will depend on the actions of individuals using the spa.  Given the existing front deck can be used as an outdoor entertaining area, which may generate more noise than the spa, it is therefore considered unreasonable to refuse the application based on the above issue. However, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition in the recommendation of this report to restrict the hours of operation of the spa equipment (see Condition 14).   

 

3)         The spa’s location on the front terrace will have adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining neighbours in terms of privacy, security and safety.

 

Comment:

 

This issue is addressed in Section 7.3 of this report.

 

5.2  Support

 

The applicant’s architect has responded to the matters raised in the two letters of objection and the comments are as follows:-

 

1)     Safety

 

The proposed spa complies with the requirements of Swimming Pools Act 1992.  Access to the water contained in the spa pool will be restricted, a secured cover will be provided at all times when the spa pool is not in use.

 

2)     Noise

 

a.   The subject property and its neighbours each have one bedroom at the front on the first floor, and one or two bedrooms at the rear.  One of the immediately adjoining properties (174 Beach Street) has a swimming pool in its rear yard, as do other properties (168 and 168A Beach Street) in the same row of attached houses.

b.   A spa pool is a permissible use on this site.  Whether a spa pool is located to the front or the rear garden, its use will be the same.  The use of a swimming pool potentially could generate more noise than the use of a spa, which is a passive use.

c.   The spa pool plant will be completely contained within a masonry and concrete subfloor space, and consequently will not have adverse noise impacts on neighbouring properties.

d.   The street (eastern) side of these properties is exposed to the sounds of road, wind, ocean and the public to a much greater degree than the western side; and consequently the ambient noise level is higher on the east side.

e.   Sound generated on the eastern side will dissipate more readily, as there are few reflective surfaces.

 

3)     Privacy

 

a.         The spa is sited in a position that is well screened from view from 174 Beach Street by a timber balustrade that forms a part of the original consent.

b.         The spa is screened from view from 170 Beach Street by a timber balustrade that will extend one metre above deck level.  The sketches SK01 to Sk03 dated 15 April 2004 demonstrate that a person using the spa is well screened from 170 Beach Street, as that person’s head would be closer to deck level than to the top of the balustrade.  The only point from which the spa would be visible from a neighbouring property would be from the first floor balcony of 170 Beach Street, looking down to the south.  Even this view will be partly screened by the balustrade.

c.         Planting to the east of the spa will provide additional privacy.

d.         The existing properties all overlook their neighbour’s front gardens.  All have outdoor deck or garden areas at ground floor level that are exposed to their neighbours’ view.  Many have first floor balconies that also overlook their neighbours’ properties.  All neighbours accept this situation.

 

4)     Security

 

The propose spa will have no effect on the security of neighbouring properties.

 

5)     Passive recreation

 

Sitting in a spa is passive recreation.  It will not compromise the current passive recreation uses.

 

In the row of attached houses (166 to 176 Beach Street), only the subject site has a truncated back yard.  Due to the geometry of the subdivision, the other properties all extend much further to the west.  Some of them incorporate swimming pools.  The subject site has a small garden area at its rear.  The proposed spa pool provides an amenity for the property without further reducing the area of the western garden, and without adversely affecting the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

6.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.  The site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

6.1  Policy Controls

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

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

7.1   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

Clause 29: Foreshore scenic protection area

 

Clause 29 of the LEP requires that Council can only grant consent after consideration has been given to the aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore.

 

The proposed spa would not detract from the character of the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

7.2   Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Foreshore Development

 

The objective of the DCP is to protect the landscape qualities and aesthetic appearance of ocean foreshore areas.

 

 

The performance requirements include that ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments and are sympathetic to the landscape and visual qualities of the foreshore.

 

It is noted that the proposed timber balustrade will be the only structure that will be visible from the street.  The spa pool will be sited in the deck level, behind the planter boxes.  It is not considered that the proposed structure will detract from the appearance of the dwelling or the character of the locality as it represents a minor structure on the site.

 

7.3 Amenity

 

As noted above, concerns are raised regarding the location and safety of the proposed spa pool and the noise generated from the spa pump and equipment.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed spa pool will be located adjacent to the existing stairway to the main front entry of the adjoining dwelling at 170 Beach Street and a section of 1m high timber balustrade will be erected adjacent to the existing northern side boundary fence/wall to minimise the capacity for privacy loss to the front deck/garden areas of 170 and 174 Beach Street.  It is acknowledged that the use of the spa pool has the potential to cause disturbance (in terms of noise and privacy) to the occupants of the adjoining properties when it is in use.  Notwithstanding the potential problems with the spa, it is noted that the subject and adjoining properties (Nos. 170, 172 & 174) all overlook their neighbour’s front decks and garden areas and all neighbours are aware of the situation.  In addition, the existing front deck area can be used for outdoor entertainment purposes and the spa pool will be an additional facility for that purpose.   

 

         In terms of the noise from the equipment associated with the spa, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in that the spa pump and equipment will be located within the sub-floor area, under the ground floor deck level.  Any noise generated from the spa pump and equipment is likely to be absorbed by the existing concrete brick/sandstone.  However, in order to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents, an appropriate condition has been included to ensure the operations of the spa equipment will not cause any undue noise to the adjoining properties (see Condition 14). 

 

         It is acknowledged that the use of the spa may result in noise generation and the level of noise generated will depend on the actions of individuals.  It is difficult for Council to control the level of noise generated from the use of the spa, other than its associated equipment.  However, by restricting the hours of operation of the spa pool pump and equipment, the full use and operation of the spa pool will be restricted.      

 

In terms of the safety issue, the proposed spa pool is considered to be acceptable in that it will be equipped with the clip-down covers, which will restrict access to the water contained in the spa pool.  In addition, the applicant is prepared to install additional fencing and a gate to the western side of the spa, which will prevent unauthorised access to the spa when it is not in use. Appropriate conditions have been imposed in the recommendation of this report to address the safety matters (see Conditions 3, 13 & 15).  

 

8    CONCLUSION

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and may be approved subject to appropriate conditions.  Having regard to all relevant matters for consideration, the proposal is unlikely to 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. 0203/2004 for permission to construct a spa pool and timber balustrade at front deck floor level of the existing dwelling at 172 Beach Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions: -

                                                                                                           

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered CC03B, CC06A, CC08A-10A Issue A, dated 20 May 2003 and received by Council on 23 March 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

3.       A timber balustrade and gate having a height of 1m (measured from the front ground floor deck level) is to be provided to the western side of the spa pool, as shown on a facsimile from Habitat Architects, dated 17 May 2004 and received by Council on 17 May 2004.  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

8.       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.

 

9.       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.

 

10.     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.

 

11.     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.

 

12.     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.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and to maintain public safety and amenity:

 

13.     For the purposes of section 20 of the Act, the prescribed standards in accordance with which access to the water in a spa pool is to be restricted are that the spa pool must be covered or secured by a child-safe structure (such as a door, lid, grille or mesh) that is fastened to the spa pool by a child-resistant device.

 

14.     Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

The operation of spa pool pump and equipment is restricted, if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, the equipment shall not be operated during the following hours, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

§ before 8:00am or after 8:00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

§ before 7:00am or after 8:00pm on any other day.

 

15.     The Spa pool is to be provided with a child resistant barrier, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

A sign shall be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the document entitles “Policy Statement No. 9.4.1; Guidelines for the Preparation of Posters on Resuscitation”, published in 1985 by the Australian Resuscitation Council and the sign must bear a notice that contains the words “YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE SUPERVISED WHEN USING THIS SWIMMING POOL”, together with details of resuscitation techniques (for adults, children and infants) set out in accordance with the document entitles “Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation: published by the Australian Resuscitation Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 48/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

2A Stephen Street, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

20 July, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 290/2003

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for a Section 96 modification of condition No. 2 to vary west facing dining room window finish, alteration to internal layout of bedroom1, delete condition no. 7 to allow for a revised RL for the rear yard, increase capacity of water tank to 5000L, deletion of condition No. 80.1 to provide planter beds of 600mm, vary condition no. 80.2 planter boxes to the front terrace shall be reduced to 700mm to the middle of the terrace and other amendments to windows and internal layout.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 8 July, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

8 July, 2004

FILE NO:

D0290/2003/GA 'A'

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification of condition No. 2 to vary west facing dining room window finish, alteration to internal layout of bedroom1, delete condition no. 7 to allow for a revised RL for the rear yard, increase capacity of water tank to 5000L, deletion of condition No. 80.1 to provide planter beds of 600mm, vary condition no. 80.2 planter boxes to the front terrace shall be reduced to 700mm to the middle of the terrace and other amendments to windows and internal layout.

PROPERTY:

 2A Stephen St Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Louise Thurgood Phillips

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. Deferred commencement consent was issued by Council on the 9 December 2003 subject to 87 conditions of consent for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling with associate double garage and swimming pool.

 

The consent became operable on the 3 March 2004, a construction certificate has been issued for the new dwelling and construction has commenced on the site.

 

The proposed modifications are a result of a revised design of some elements of the new dwelling and a review of special conditions imposed as part of the original consent. One objection was received to the proposed modifications, as many of the special conditions initially imposed were to satisfy amenity concerns raised by this objector.  Some compromise amendments were agreed between the assessing officer and the applicant. Based on these amendments it is considered that all reasonable objections raised have been satisfied and the modifications sought can be supported.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The Section 96 modifications sought are:

 

·          Variation of Condition No. 2 to allow the dining room window to the western elevation to be clear glass rather than opaque with the provision of external louvres for privacy. 

·          Provision of extended window openings to the southern elevation and deletion of the kitchen window on the western elevation. 

·          Bedroom 1 reconfigured with the ensuite relocated to its western side, and the bench seat in the south-west corner deleted.

·          Deletion of Condition No. 7.  Instead the applicant has agreed that the pool coping be built to a height of RL 61.27 and the deck area to be built to a height of RL 61.10.

·          Extension of the family room in part by approximately 700mm  to provide for a uniform rear building line

·          Condition No. 23 varied to provide a rainwater tank of 5000L.

·          Deletion of Condition No. 80.1.  Instead the planter boxes are to have a width of 600mm (reduced from the approved 1000mm) and the landscape plan varied accordingly.

·          Deletion of Condition No. 80.2.  Instead the planter box on the western boundary of the front terrace has been reduced to have a clear width of 550mm, with a return of 1500mm along the front (northern) and rear (southern) edge of the terrace.

·          Deletion of Bedroom 3 door to the first floor rear balcony.

·          The applicant has agreed to delete windows W1 and W12 to the family room on the eastern and western elevations as shown on the S96 ‘A’ plans.

·          The eastern elevation window (W35) to Bedroom3 reduced in size and repositioned along the wall to the north.

·          The western elevation window (W17) to Bedroom 2 reduced in size and repositioned along the wall to the north.

·          Deletion of western elevation window (W18) to first floor bathroom.

·          Deletion of eastern elevation windows (W30 and W31) at first floor level to the void entry.

·          Modification to the internal layout of the laundry and ground floor WC and as agreed with the applicant the eastern wall of the ground floor WC is increased by a further 500mm and the window (W11) to the guest WC increased in length by 1000mm from that shown on the Section 96 ‘A’ plans.

·          The incorporation of a water feature on the eastern side of the western courtyard and consequently amendment of Condition 3 to reflect this arrangement.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Stephen Street, between Wentworth Street and Stephen Lane and is identified as Lot 6 in DP 28555 and is fairly regular in shape, having a total site area of 417.3m2.  The site is currently a construction site with works having commenced for the approved dwelling. The site falls from the rear (south) to Stephen Street at the front (approximately between 2m to 2.6m) and has a cross-fall, east to west, between 200mm and 900mm approximately.

 

The adjoining property to the west is No. 2 Stephen Street and the rear of that property wraps around the subject site with a driveway and two storey garage/studio located on the southern boundary of these two properties. The remainder of the Stephen Street subdivision is of a regular pattern.

 

4.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application, as originally lodged, was the subject of amended plans to satisfy concerns raised by the assessing officer and Council’s Heritage Planner. Following discussions and meetings with Council Officers, amended plans were received on the 12th September, 2003 and were re-notified and advertised until the 1st October, 2003. These plans were then approved on the 9th December, 2003.

 

The Section 96 modification was lodged on the 30 April 2004. After notification of the plans, a meeting was held between the assessing officer and the applicant to discuss amendments to the subject Section 96 modification to address the concerns of the affected neighbour to the west.  At this meeting, the applicant offered some concessions to the plans, including deletion of windows and a further lowering of the swimming pool and spa coping. Based on these changes the proposal is considered acceptable.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

B Smith

2 Stephen St

 

·    Objection to dining room window (W5) having clear glass, louvres will not be fixed.

 

Comment

 

It is noted that the difference in finished floor level between this room and the adjoining property (No. 2 Stephen St) is 1.43m.  As such, 2A Stephen Street being the higher property will be able to overlook the adjoining neighbour. Accordingly, the applicant has agreed for this window to have an obscure treatment as conditioned by the original determination.

 

·    Objection to the kitchen window comprising of clear glass

 

Comment

 

The kitchen window has been deleted as part of this modification.

 

·    Objection to the lounge window being clear glass

 

Comment

 

No amendment is proposed for this window therefore the finish is not a matter for consideration under this modification.

 

·    Objection to bathroom window having clear glass

 

Comment

 

No amendment is proposed for this window therefore the finish is not a matter for consideration under this modification.

 

·    Objection to level of pool being raised as there are privacy impacts

 

Comment

 

A compromise has been reached between the approved height of the pool and associated coping and the level requested. The approved level was RL 60.50m, the applicant sought a level of approximately RL 61.50 and the agreed level will be RL 61.27. This is a reduction of approximately 200mm.  An on-site inspection was undertaken by the Assessment Officer who determined that no direct line of sight to the adjoining property was possible from the agreed level. The deck area is to have an RL of 60.10 which, whilst 600mm higher than that approved, sightlines into No. 2 Stephen Street will not be possible.  As such, it is considered that the objection cannot be sustained if the pool coping and deck are constructed to the agreed levels.

 

·    Water accumulation concerns against the retaining wall from raising the level of the rear yard

 

Comment

 

The rear of the site including the run off from the swimming pool will be drained to the street in accordance with Condition No. 28.

 

·    Deletion of condition No. 80.1 in regard to reducing width of planter boxes will impact on the structural intent of adjoining walls and privacy to No. 2 Stephen St

 

Comment

 

The intention of the planter boxes around the perimeter of the rear of the site was to provide landscaping to achieve a height of approximately 4m. The applicant seeks to plant lilly pillies which can achieve this height within 600mm of soil width.

 

The width of a planter box will not affect the structural integrity of a self supported structure.

 

·    Reducing the width of the planter boxes to the front terrace will have safety impacts as well as increased overlooking

 

Comment

 

It is unclear how the planter boxes which have been constructed into the roof over the garage could have safety or structural impacts on the adjoining property. The intent of the condition was to provide privacy to a bedroom window to the eastern elevation of No. 2A Stephen St. The south eastern corner will have a width of 1500mm which will allow for extensive planters which will provide sufficient screening. Plantings to the remaining 700mm of planter box will also provide adequate visual and aural barrier as would have been achieved by 1500mm of planter.

 

·    Concern for bench seat for aural privacy reasons

 

Comment

 

Any seating on the terrace whether fixed or movable will have the same amenity impact to neighbouring properties.  Accordingly the objection cannot be sustained

 

·    Pool equipment doors opening to the west will have noise impacts

 

Comment

 

The pool equipment is to be enclosed in an attenuated enclosure. The door will only be opened for initiating operation of the equipment and as such noise impacts will not be significant to neighbouring properties regardless of which direction the door opens.

 

·    Area of on site composting will have smell and vermin impacts

 

Comment

 

The location of the composting bin has been already approved and is not the subject of this modification. It should be noted that compost bins are sealed and do not emit a smell or allow access to vermin.

 

·    The reflection pond will encourage mosquitos

 

Comment

 

The water feature was previously deleted from the proposal when it was located against the western boundary fence given the possible aural impact from a pump due to its proximity to the neighbouring property.  There was, however, a clear intent to allow it in its currently proposed location, setback from the neighbouring property with any pump noise attenuated by the courtyard wall.  It is considered unlikely that the future occupiers would let the water stagnate in the pond, as any mosquitoes would affect the future occupiers, as well as being unsightly. 

 

Provision of native violets to the passage between 2 and 2A Stephen St will impact on the stability of the boundary wall from water seepage due to watering

 

Comment

 

Native violets have previously been approved as part of the landscape proposal and do not form part of as part of this modification.

 

·    Details have not been provided for roof top exhaust, clothes drying facilities and AHD levels of the south boundary.

 

Comment

 

This information is provided at construction certificate stage.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The modifications sought were minor in nature and did not require technical officer comment.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

7.1       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

 

 

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

Clause 43 Heritage Conservation Area

Consideration of impact

As per original approval

Yes modification does not affect the conservation area.

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1  Substantially the same

 

The proposed modifications whilst numerous are minor in nature. Individually the works do not alter the nature or scale of the development and even considering the possibility of a cumulative impact of the total modifications sought, the proposal still results in a development substantially the same as that for which consent was granted.

 

8.2  Consideration of submissions

 

The submissions have been 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.

 

9.1       Privacy

 

Privacy was a major consideration as part of the original assessment. The protection of privacy through conditions of consent was primarily to the benefit of No. 2 Stephen Street. The key conditions imposed were for planter beds around the perimeter of the site to allow for planting to achieve a height of 4m, planter boxes to the terrace area over the garage to the front of the dwelling, a lowering of the RL of the pool and associated decking to the rear of the site, kitchen and dining room windows to have opaque glass to a height of 1500mm from ground level and privacy screens to front and rear balconies to the first floor. As detailed in The Proposal section of this report some of these special conditions are being varied by this S96 modification.

 

In regard to the planter/landscaping beds around the perimeter of the eastern and western boundary of the site being reduced from the approved width of 1000mm to 600mm, no specific concern is raised as landscaping to a height of 4m can still be achieved in a width of 600mm, as demonstrated by the landscape architect for the proposal. The proposed trees will be lilly pillies which are native to the locality and readily achieve a height of 4m. These trees provide sufficient screening and will ensure the intent of Condition No. 80.1 will be satisfied.

 

Planter boxes, with a width of 1500mm were approved by Condition No. 80.2 to the western edge of the terrace above the garage.  By reducing the planter boxes to a clear width of 500mm adequate landscape screening can still be achieved.  The intention of the condition was to provide a visual barrier between the two terrace areas, screening from a bedroom window to 2 Stephen St and aural privacy. It is considered that the amount of planting that can be achieved in 500mm is sufficient to provide a good level of screening, especially as the planter box returns along the southern edge of the terrace for 1500mm at the south-west corner of the terrace, thus providing an adequate screen along the western boundary to the south.  This will screen the bedroom at 2 Stephen Street and provide a sound barrier from within the dwelling when doors are open.  The privacy sought by this condition is still achieved through the proposed modification.

 

The intention of lowering the level of the pool and associated deck to the level of the terrace from the rear of the house was to provide additional privacy between the adjoining properties. An engineering report submitted with the application indicates that the amount of excavation necessary to achieve this RL (RL 60.50) is sizeable and likely to affect the structural integrity of the southern boundary wall. This boundary wall has been constructed without footings and as such could be compromised by the level of excavation required. The applicant sought to delete this condition and have the level of the pool and associated decking at RL 61.50, which is approximately the height of an existing elevated terrace.

 

A site inspection of the property was undertaken after the proposed coping areas of the deck had been pegged out by a surveyor and a ladder was provided to the height of the proposed RL.  It was noted, from the inspection that sightlines were difficult to achieve beyond the existing dividing wall, lattice work and landscaping.  To ensure, however, that there is not an extensive level difference between the pool and the adjoining properties a compromise was reached between the assessing officer and the applicant.  Instead of Condition No. 7 being deleted, the condition should be varied so that the finished level will be RL 61.27 for the pool coping which is 650mm higher than the level indicated by Condition No. 7.  This level will ensure there are no sightlines possible into the rear yard of No. 2 Stephen St, either towards the centre of the site or on the boundary, even without the provision of landscaping.

 

The RL of the proposed decking associated with the pool should be RL 61.10.  Whilst this is 600mm higher than the approved deck level, it is considered, from an inspection of the property, that sightlines into the adjoining property would be difficult to achieve at this height.  As such, no additional privacy impacts are envisaged by this raising of the level of the deck to RL 61.10.

 

The applicant sought to replace opaque glass to the dining room and replace it with louvres, however, this is not a satisfactory outcome, given the level difference between this section of the site and the adjoining property to the west.  Accordingly, the applicant has agreed to delete this modification.

 

Privacy screens are not being altered by this modification. Amendments to window locations and dimensions as detailed under The Proposal section of this report will not result in any additional overlooking.

 

It is considered that the proposed modifications will not alter the level of privacy originally provided by the original conditions of consent.

 

9.2       Floor Area

 

The proposed modifications provide for an additional 2.17sqm of floor area, this will provide for a Floor Space Ratio of 0.62:1. The approved FSR was 0.61:1 which represents a very minor increase from the permissible FSR of 0.6:1. As the original FSR was supported on the grounds that the variation was minor at 4.5sqm and that compliance would not significantly alter the bulk or scale of the proposal and that the impact to streetscape and neighbours is acceptable, this additional variation of 2.17sqm is also supportable for the same reasons.

 

9.3       North Randwick Conservation Area

 

The proposed modifications are minor in nature and do not affect the approval in regard to its impact on the North Randwick Conservation Area. As such the application was not referred for technical comment to Council’ Heritage Planner and no issues are raised with the proposal from a heritage perspective. The proposal is consistent with the objectives and performance requirements of the Draft DCP North Randwick Conservation Area.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications are relatively minor in nature seeking changes to the layout of the development and seeking an alternative to some of the special conditions imposed as part of the original determination. The proposal, subject to the amendments agreed to by the applicant, is considered to be acceptable. The development will not impact on the amenity of adjoining neighbours, the character of the streetscape and conservation area or compliance with the performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. 

 

11.       RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.         THAT Council, as the responsible authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to modify Development Consent No. 290/03 for the demolition of the existing house and structures and the construction of a two storey dwelling house with semi-basement garage at 2A Stephen Street, Randwick, as follows:-

 

Condition No. 1 is amended to read:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered with Job No. 1516-03 and drawing numbers 01C-04C with amendment date 29 August, 2003 and received by Council on 12 September, 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by Front Gate Detail Drawing, Amendment A, dated 5 February, 2004 and the sample board received by Council on 30 January, 2004, as may be amended by the Section 96 modification ‘A’ plans numbered with Job No. 1516-03 and drawing numbers 01 E through to 04E with amendment date 5 April, 2004 and  Landscape Plans with Job No. 0146 and drawing numbers L01 and L02, Issue C dated 23 April, 2004, all submitted to Council on the 30 April 2003, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on those Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Condition No. 2 is amended to read:

 

2.         The dining room western windows shall have opaque glass to a height of 1.5m above the ground floor level to minimise privacy impacts to 2 Stephen Street.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

Condition No. 7 is amended to read:

 

7          The pool and spa surrounds (coping) shall have an RL of 61.27, which is approximately 620mm above the RL of the rear terrace. Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

Condition No. 23 is amended to read:

 

23.       A rainwater tank shall be provided at ground level for the collection and reuse of roof water designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy and shall be connected for the internal purpose of toilet flushing and clothes washing (cold water only) and also allow for other authorised uses such as landscape watering. Overflow shall be directed to Council’s approved Stormwater System or a suitable absorption area (design by professional engineer).  Details of the location of the pump, and colour of the tank, structural engineer’s specifications for installation and plumbing shall be provided to the Director Planning & Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

Condition No. 80 is amended to read:

 

80.       Landscaping shall be provided to the site to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon neighbouring properties. A landscape plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect or horticulturalist shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued.   The landscaping plan shall reflect the amended architectural plans as conditioned by this consent and shall include the following:-

 

1.   Landscaping beds with a minimum clear width of 600mm along the eastern and western boundaries of the rear yard from the southern end of the rear terrace to the rear southern boundary and along the length of the (rear) southern boundary.

 

2.   A planter box with a minimum clear width of 500mm shall be located along the western boundary of the garage roof returning 1500mm along the southern and northern boundaries of the garage roof with appropriate screening species to soften the junction between the garages at 2 and 2a Stephen Street and minimise overlooking.

 

3.   A planting schedule that utilises predominantly local indigenous species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions, their mature heights, supply size and planting details.

 

4.   An area and facilities dedicated for onsite composting.

 

5.   Porous paving in all pathways, wherever practicable, and in the rear yard to maximize on-site absorption of rainwater.

 

Delete the following conditions:

 

Condition 6 – DELETED

Condition 3 - DELETED

 

Additional conditions

 

88.       Windows (W1 and W12) in the eastern and western elevations of the family room shall be deleted from the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

89.       The eastern wall of the ground floor WC shall be set back 2.4m from the eastern boundary and shall be shown as such on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

90.       The length of the window (W 11) to the ground floor WC shall be relocated 500mm to the east and shall be shown as such on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced architectural plans

Director of Planning and Community Development’s report dated 1 December, 2003

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCYNSKI

AOIFE WYNTER

A/DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 99/2003

 

 

SUBJECT:

2A Stephen Street, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

1 December, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0290/2003

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for the Development Application No 290/03 for the demolition of the existing house and structures and construction of a new dwelling house and garage.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 21 November, 2003

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

21 November, 2003

FILE NO:

D/0290/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of existing house and structures and construction of a new dwelling house, double garage and swimming pool

PROPERTY:

 2A Stephen Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Ms Phillips Thurgood

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors John Procopiadis, Dominic Sullivan and Paul Tracey.

 

The application proposes the demolition of the existing single storey house and double garages to the street and the construction of a new two storey dwelling house with new double garages to the street.

 

The existing house has been extensively altered, internally and externally, such that very little original detail remains.  Council’s Heritage Planner is satisfied that the building is a non contributory building in the conservation area and that the degree of reconstruction required for restoration would not be in accordance with Burra Charter principles.

 

The original proposal was considered unsatisfactory in relation to its height, scale, form, massing, colour and materials and front setbacks.  A series of meetings were undertaken with the applicant that have resulted in the amended plans now before Council for consideration.

 

Objections to the proposed development principally relate to the visual form of the proposal in the streetscape and its impact to the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area. Concerns have also been raised by immediately adjoining properties in relation to privacy and shadow impacts from the proposal. 

 

The proposed double garages located on the street boundary are a similar height to those already existing, with their width reduced when compared to the width of the existing garages.  Given that there is no rear lane or side street access to the site, it is considered reasonable to maintain double garages to the street front.

 

The amendments to the original proposal included increased front setbacks of the dwelling, redesign of the pedestrian entry to the site to provide an open fence and landscaped areas, change of balustrade detail to terrace area over the garages from a solid to open design, introduction of a gable element to the front of the dwelling to reflect similar gables evident in the neighbouring properties, use face brick work to the front of the dwelling and changed roof form to the rear to minimise overshadowing to neighbours. 

 

Council’s Heritage Planner considers that the amended plans generally address heritage concerns and the form and massing of the proposed development will not detract from the streetscape of the conservation area.  Conditions of consent are recommended to minimise privacy impacts.

 

Accordingly, the recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.         THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes demolition of the existing dwelling house and garages and the construction of a new two storey dwelling house, lap pool, spa and deck to the rear and with a double garage at the property boundary to Stephen Street.

 

The proposed new dwelling house consists of the following:-

 

Basement Level

 

·          Double garage, plant room, hallway and internal access and stairs to first floor level.

 

Ground floor level

 

·          Entry, hall and internal stairs to basement garage and first floor level.

·          Lounge area opening onto a front (north facing) terrace over the garage area.

·          Dining area opening onto a central (west facing) courtyard.

·          Laundry and WC.

·          Kitchen and family room opening onto a rear (south facing) terrace.

 

First floor level

 

·          Internal stairs to ground floor level, hall and void area over entry on the ground floor level.

·          Bedroom 1 (with ensuite) opening onto a north facing balcony.

·          Bathroom opening onto a north facing balcony overlooking the central courtyard.

·          Three bedrooms with Bedrooms 2 and 3 opening onto a rear (south facing) balcony.

 

3.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Stephen Street, between Wentworth Street and Stephen Lane and is identified as Lot 6 in DP 28555 and is fairly regular in shape, having a total site area of 417.3m2.  Existing on the site is a single storey dwelling house with double garages to Stephen Street with a terrace over (see Figure 1).  The site falls from the rear (south) to Stephen  Street at the front (approximately between 2m to 2.6m) and has a cross-fall, east to west, between 200mm and 900mm approximately.

 

 

 

Figure 1 – subject site from Stephen Street

 

Located on the adjoining site to the east (4 Stephen Street) is a single storey Federation dwelling house elevated with respect to Stephen Street (its relationship with the subject site can be seen in Figure 2).

 

 

Figure 2 – 4 Stephen Street adjoining the subject site to the east

 

Located on the adjoining the site to the west is a single storey Post War dwelling house (2 Stephen Street), with single garage to the street on its eastern boundary with the subject site.

 

 

Figure 3 – 2 Stephen Street adjoining the subject site to the west

 

4.         APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The application was lodged on the 11th April, 2003 and was notified and advertised until the 14th May, 2003.  Following a preliminary assessment, the applicant was advised that the proposal was considered unsatisfactory and was given the opportunity to provide amended plans.

 

Following discussions and meetings with Council Officers, amended plans were received on the 12th September, 2003 and were re-notified and advertised until the 1st October, 2003.

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The original proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with the Randwick Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Eight (8) submissions were received from the following:-G Naher of 51 Wentworth Street, Randwick; A Johnstone of 6 Stephen Street, Randwick; K and H Callander of 49 Wentworth Street, Randwick; M and A Malpas of 4 Earl Street, Randwick; P Barker of 4 Stephen Street, Randwick; B Smith of 2 Stephen Street, Randwick; S Vitale Keyes-Pearce of 4 Monmouth Street, Randwick;  Warren Long of Longitude Planning (on behalf of 2 Stephen Street, Randwick) of PO Box 4033 Illawong.

 

The amended proposal was notified and advertised and the following submissions were received:-

 

Objections

 

Longitude Planning Pty Ltd

(on behalf of 2 Stephen Street)

P O Box 4033

Illawong   NSW   2234

 

·          Original objections to the proposal are maintained, specifically in relation to heritage conservation, streetscape, height, form and materials, the siting and bulk of the garage component and general impacts on the amenity of 2 Stephen Street.

·          The existing garage is an intrusive element in the streetscape and it is not agreed that the proposed solution is the best in terms of visual character.  As the existing garage structure and the whole building is to be demolished, it is not appropriate to compare any new proposal to that existing when assessing the suitability of the proposed development.  Instead an optimum design outcome should be sought in terms of the streetscape, visual impact, privacy and heritage conservation.

·          From the street level, the building will present as a three storey building.  An alternate arrangement for the car parking under the building would allow for a single driveway and a substantial area in front of the site for landscaping and a pedestrian entrance.  Such a design would also remove the substantial front terrace formed by the garage roof and would improve the amenity of both 2 and 4 Stephen Street in terms of privacy, outlook and overshadowing.

·          The proposed two storey dwelling, double garages and roof terrace will be an anomaly in this part of Stephen Street, totally out of character with the surrounding development because of the excessive height and scale of the dwelling and the unsympathetic arrangement of the garages and high front walls that will be a dominant element in the streetscape.

·          The proposal will not be consistent with the landscaping and open space objectives of the DCP, especially given the amount of hard surfaces provided by way of a lap pool, spa and paving.

·          The proposed development will not make a positive contribution to the streetscape and will compromise the heritage significance of the conservation area in which it is located.  The existing single storey dwellings at Nos. 2, 2A and 4 Stephen Street represent a compatible row of dwellings in terms of their height, style and form.  This arrangement will be severely compromised by the proposed development.

·          The height of the proposed building will be excessive and will not relate to the surrounding streetscape or the immediate context.  It will be a dominant element in the streetscape because of its excessive height  and mass, uncharacteristic roof forms, window and door proportions and the absence of front garden and any significant landscaping.

·          Impacts relating to visual and acoustic privacy, the open outlook from the front of the dwellings and overshadowing could likely be resolved to an acceptable degree by a proposal that was consistent with the height and scale of the surrounding development.

A S Johnstone

6 Stephen Street

Randwick   NSW   2031

 

·          The amended proposal does not address the previous concerns raised with the original proposal. This design could be acceptable in more north-eastern suburbs but not in a heritage area.  The proposal should be refused and a proposal congruous with the streetscape, neighbour relations and heritage listing should be submitted.

 

M and A Malpas

48 Earl Street

Randwick   NSW   2031

 

·          The scale and bulk of the amended proposal is still entirely out of character with the surrounding dwellings, in particular the properties to the east and west.

·          The north facing windows will overlook the backyard and pool area of 48 Earl Street is located across the road to the north of 2A Stephen Street.

·          The proposed home will completely dominate the street and this can’t be appropriate in a heritage conservation area.

 

B Smith

2 Stephen Street

Randwick   NSW   2031

 

·          The proposal is incompatible with the streetscape of Stephen Street and the heritage conservation area by nature of its height, bulk and design.

·          The proposal will have an adverse visual impact on the outlook and amenity on the streetscape of Stephen Street and more specifically properties in Monmouth, Wentworth and Earl Streets.

·          The ground floor is proposed on the same level as the garage roof thereby creating an above ground three storey residence to the street.

·          The consent for alterations and additions at 2 Stephen Street was conditioned to reduce the height to RL 67.24 in order that it appeared visually lower than the existing residence at 2A Stephen Street.  Other applications for first storey additions in the immediate vicinity have been rejected by Council without exception

·          Substantial excavation is proposed under the ground to form a basement with internal stair access that could easily have been designed to locate the garages under the house with landscaping to the front.

·          If high fencing is out of character with the heritage conservation area and pedestrian amenity then it should also apply to the front garages proposed along the front boundary.

·          The lack of landscaping at the front street level is out of character with all other properties on the southern side of Stephen Street.

·          The first floor balcony on the northern elevation is incompatible with the streetscape.

·          The windows on the northern elevation are excessive in size and should reflect traditional proportions.  As such, there should be consistency with other developments as conditioned, especially the consent for alterations and additions at 2 Stephen Street.

·          The windows on the southern elevation are excessive in size and will have adverse privacy impacts on the backyard, pool and cabana of 2 Stephen Street and the rear yard of 4 Stephen Street.

·          There will be a substantial increase in overshadowing to 2 and 4 Stephen Street.

·          There will be a substantial loss in light to both 2 and 4 Stephen Street.

·          Due to overshadowing and reduction in light to Bedrooms 2 and 3 of 2 Stephen Street, these will become cold rooms and also a reduction in the energy efficiency of the dwelling house at 2 Stephen Street.

·          The ground floor entry and first floor walkway is excessive in size and reduction of which, would considerably alleviate overshadowing and bulk.

·          Loss of privacy to the lounge/dining room, Bedrooms 2 and 3, rear yard, pool and cabana (now used as fourth bedroom and study) by way of the entertaining area above the garages; first floor balcony from the master bedroom; balcony on the southern elevation; balcony over the courtyard on the western elevation, courtyard on the western elevation, walkway on the first floor, all clear glass windows on the western elevation and the southern window to the main bedroom, even though shutters are proposed.

·          There will be a substantial increase in noise due to the courtyard on the western side and its relationship to the living and dining rooms of the proposed dwelling house.  As well, the proposed water feature will cause noise as it is in close proximity to eastern windows of 2 Stephen Street.

·          The proposed privacy screens to balconies are not permanent structures and are removable and as such will lead to privacy impacts.

·          Glazed roofing over the ground floor rear patio will be hazardous due to the strong south-west prevailing winds and consequent falling branches of trees and glare it will create causing a fire hazard.

·          The above ground level pool should be in ground for privacy and security fencing reasons.

·          The plans do not indicate the roof top exhaust for air conditioning plant nor the location of the pool and cabana of 2 Stephen Street on the shadow diagrams.

·          Approval of this structure will ultimately lead to the destruction of the North Randwick Conservation Area.

 

P Barker

4 Stephen Street

Randwick

 

·          The front alignment is not consistent with the other houses in the block, i.e. Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8 Stephen Street.

·          Overshadowing from the proposed development will put the rear yard of 4 Stephen Street in almost total shade in June and July, not to mention 2 Stephen Street.

·          The second storey extends too far to the south and it will take all natural light from the kitchen window, laundry and hallway of 4 Stephen Street.  This will mean using electric light from mid-afternoon.

·          The plan shows a basement but it is unclear whether this is for garages only or if it extends further thus making it a three storey house.  No. 4 Stephen Street is a Federation house which should not be overshadowed by a 2/3 storey house, alien to other surrounding houses in a heritage conservation area.

 

G Campbell and K Well

8 Stephen Street

Randwick

 

·          The changes to the front façade of the proposed development are noted, however, given that the ground floor will be on the same level as the existing garages, this will continue to give the impression from the street of a three storey dwelling.  This is inconsistent with the current ambience of the area.  The garages are referred to as “basement garages” giving the impression that they are underground.  This is not the case, as they are totally above street level.

·          The changes made to the dwelling will not reduce the impression of a building towering over both of its neighbours.  The height of the roof line should not be above those of its adjoining neighbours.  The amended proposal appears to have a more intrusive impact on the area than the previous proposal.

·          If approved, the amended application would be inconsistent with previous decisions taken by Council in respect to development applications in the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area, including that for 8 Stephen Street.

·          The proposal is totally out of character with the surrounding properties and inconsistent with the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area.

 

6.         TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1       Heritage Conservation

 

Council’s Heritage Conservation Planner has provided the following comments in relation to the amended proposal:-

 

The subject site is within the North Randwick Conservation Area and is occupied by a single storey dwelling elevated above the street over a pair of garages.  To the east of the site, at no.4 Stephen Street, is a single storey Federation style detached cottage set at a slightly higher level than the subject dwelling.  It is likely that the subject dwelling was originally in a similar style to no.4, but has been substantially altered.  To the west, at no.2 Stephen Street, of the site is a single storey cottage apparently constructed in the post war period, set at a slightly lower level than the subject dwelling.

 

The application proposes demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey dwelling, over street level garages.

 

In relation to the demolition of the existing cottage, it is noted that the dwelling has been extensively altered internally and externally and retains very little evidence of its original internal and external detail.  I am satisfied that the building is a non-contributory building in the conservation area and that the degree of alteration would require considerable reconstruction which would not be in accordance with Burra Charter principles.

 

In relation to infill development, the Draft Development Control Plan for the North Randwick Conservation Area has the objective that new buildings be in keeping with their neighbours and the conservation area, without pretending to be anything other than a modern building.  This may be achieved by designing in keeping with the street’s established scale, height, form, setbacks, massing, colour and materials, without being overly imitative.  Concerns were raised in relation to the front setbacks, the height and scale, and the form and massing of the original proposal.  A series of meetings were held with the owner, their planning consultant and heritage/conservation architect, and final amended plans have now been received.  As compared to the original proposal, the final amended plans have increased the front setback of the dwelling, somewhat reduced its height and scale, and reconsidered the dwellings interface with the street.

 

In relation to front setbacks, the proposal has been redesigned to increase its upper ground floor and first floor setbacks.  At upper ground level setbacks of the front wall of the dwelling and the front verandah relate to the setbacks of the front wall and front verandah of the adjacent dwelling to the east.  At first floor level, the bulk associated with the upper level balcony has been reduced, including the extent of the roof and privacy blades to the sides of the balcony.  It is considered that the upper ground floor level setbacks of the proposal are consistent with adjacent dwellings to the east and west, and that the first floor setbacks will minimise the dominance of the dwelling in the streetscape.  In relation to height and scale, the proposal has been redesigned so that the wall heights and overall heights of the dwelling have been reduced.  The increase in the front setbacks of the proposal, in conjunction with the reduction in height, will considerably improve the compatibility of the proposal with the predominantly single storey scale of the Conservation Area.

 

In terms of form and massing, it is noted that the proposal incorporates a pair of street level garages similar to the existing pair of garages.  The amended drawings have minimised the height of the proposed garages so as not to significantly exceed the height of existing garages.  The original proposal incorporated a pedestrian entrance gateway, so that the front boundary wall extended across the full width of the site.  The current proposal has redesigned the pedestrian entry to provide an open fence and landscaped areas to either side of the entry steps.  The design of the fencing relates to the design of the railing to the terrace above the garages.  It is considered that the height of the proposed fencing is compatible with fencing to adjacent properties and that the pedestrian entry treatment will relate the proposal to the front garden settings of adjacent properties.  It is considered that the form and massing of the proposal will not detract from the streetscape of the Conservation Area.

 

It is considered that the final amended plans which have been submitted generally address the heritage concerns which have been previously been raised.

 

In terms of materials and finishes the Draft Development Control Plan for the North Randwick Conservation Area notes that an important part of the heritage value of the area derives from its predominantly single level face brick construction, with slate and terracotta tiled roofs.  It is noted however, that the dwelling to the east has a painted finish to original face brickwork, while the dwelling to the east has face brickwork walls.  The final amended plans propose the use of face brickwork for the front section of the dwelling and bagged brickwork for the rear section, and a tiled roof.  The lower ground floor garages are to be faced with stone.  There are no objections to the proposed combination of face brickwork and bagged brickwork provided the colour scheme is compatible.  It is considered that the use of face brickwork will improve the compatibility of the proposal with the overall characteristics of the Conservation Area and maintain a precedent for the retention of face brick walls to existing dwellings in the Conservation Area.

 

6.2       Asset and Infrastructure Services

 

Council’s Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services has provided the following comments in relation to the proposed development as amended:-

 

6.21     Landscape

 

There are no existing trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order on the site, however, there is one large Pine tree in the adjoining property to the south, whose canopy slightly encroaches over the common boundary, as well as a small Bottlebrush in the adjacent property to the east, against the existing brick wall. Both these trees should not be adversely affected by the proposed development.

 

In order to ensure a satisfactory level of privacy and screening between adjacent properties, a screen/hedge attaining a minimum height at maturity of 3 metres is to be provided along the southern, western and eastern sides of the rear yard, as has been shown on the plans provided.

 

6.22     Drainage Comments

 

Generally all site stormwater shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrester pit that drains to a minimum 5 metre square base infiltration area. An overflow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit that drains to Council's kerb and gutter.

 

The Environmental Planning and Community Development Department is to condition development consent for site drainage requirements.

 

7.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site area (417.3m2) of the proposed development is less than required for the submission of a master plan (4,000m2)

 

8.         RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)            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. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

 

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

43

Heritage Conservation Area

Demolition of existing dwelling house and garages and construction of a new dwelling house, pool, spa and garages

Refer Heritage comments previous in report and Environmental Assessment below

 

(b)            Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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

 

·      Design minimise  energy  for heating, cooling.

·      High thermal mass materials.

·      Solar hot water systems.

·      Insulated hot water pipes.

·      Hot water tanks and heaters close to rooms where hot water used.

·      Cooking tops located away from windows, fridges and freezers.

·      Task lights.

·      Maximised natural lighting.

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P3  Design minimises use of mechanical appliances.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

S2  Private open space

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Yes 3.5 stars

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes – living room

No – family room

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes – Cross ventilation provided

 

 

No solar collectors evident on adjacent properties

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

 

·      collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

·      do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

·      fit in with hydrology;

·      use on–site stormwater infiltration;

·      maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

·      retain existing trees.

 

P2  Water consumption minimised inside dwelling .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P3  Water consumption minimised to landscaping.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

 

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

 

 

Yes – by condition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes – by condition

 

 

 

Yes – by condition

 

 

Yes – by condition

 

 

 

Yes – by condition

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.

 

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 – 45.6%

 

 

Yes – 40.7m2

 

 

Yes – 3.5 x 4.6

 

 

Yes – Rear Yard

 

 

 

No – Private open space is largely in shadow at the winter solstice.

Raised level of pool impacts on

 privacy of adjoining neighbours - refer Environmental Section of report

 

 

 

Yes – by condition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – 13.6% refer Environmental Assessment section of report

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

0:6.1

No –

0.61 : 1

Refer  Environmental Assessment section of report

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

 

S3  No excavation within 900mm of side boundary.

 

 

S3  No excavation within 3m of rear boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – East elevation

3.9 – 7.4

 

 

No – West elevation

4.8m – 7.4m

 

 

 

 

No >1m

 

 

No – Garage abuts western boundary

 

No – Pool within 3m of rear boundary

 

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

 

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

 

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

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

No Garages - nil

Dwelling - 6.09m

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

 

 

 

Yes – 11.56m

 

 

 

 

 

EAST

Ground Floor - Yes

1.2m, 1.5m and 1.7m

 

First Floor - No

1.2m, 1.5m &

1.7m

 

 

WEST

Ground Floor - Yes

900mm, 1.5m, and 4.2m

 

First Floor- No

900mm, 2m &

3.9m

 

 

 

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

 

 

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

 

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

 

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

 

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

S1, 2,3 Front doors visible from street.

 

 

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

 

 

 

S2  Street number displayed.

 

 

S3  Fences comply with fencing requirements.

No – Front door located on eastern sides of dwelling house

Yes – lounge and terrace and main bedroom overlook the street

 

Yes – by condition

 

Yes –  Refer Environmental Assessment section of Report

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·              enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·              safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Yes – 2 spaces provided

 

Yes – 5.8m x 3.1m

 

 

 

 

 

 

No – Garages set on western side boundary

 

 

 

 

 

No - Garages forward of building line 6.09m- refer Environmental section of report

 

No – Garages 63.8% of site frontage

FENCES

P1  Front fences are integrated with streetscape.

S1  Sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

 

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

 

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

Refer Environmental Assessment section of report

 

(c)            Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The proposal provides two (2) car parking spaces in accordance with the requirements of the Development Control Plan – Parking

 

(d)            Rainwater Tank Policy

 

Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy, effective from the 15th October, 2003, requires all new development to install a rainwater tank for the collection and reuse of roof water.  This should be connected for the internal purpose of toilet flushing and clothes washing (cold water only) and then allow for other authorised uses such as landscape watering, refilling of swimming pools and the like.  An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation.

 

(e)            Development Control Plan - North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area

 

The heritage value of the conservation area is largely derived from its Federation and Inter-War housing, its predominantly single level scale, face brick construction, dominant slate and terracotta tiled roofs and well established cultural plantings.  Also of importance is the continuing physical and historical links with Centennial Park, especially to houses fronting Darley Road.

 

Part 3 of the Draft Development Control Plan – North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area 1998 (Draft DCP). relates to demolition and new building work.  Prior to demolition being permitted, Council must be satisfied that the structure no longer has historical, social, aesthetic or other significance and that it makes little positive contribution to the streetscape.  In this regard, Council’s Conservation Planner has advised (refer Section 6.1 previous in report) that the building has been extensively altered, both internally and externally and retains very little evidence of its original detail. As such, it would require considerable reconstruction, which would not be in accordance with the Burra Charter principles. Accordingly, demolition of the building is considered acceptable, subject to the new replacement building making a positive contribution to the significance of the area, or the very least remaining neutral with respect to the significance of the area.

 

With regard to new building work, the Draft DCP outlines streetscape design principles that seek to ensure compatibility with neighbouring buildings and the streetscape.  These principles include building form and massing, contextually fit, scale and proportion, setbacks, siting, materials, and detail.  These issues are discussed below in the Environmental Assessment section of the report.

 

9.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1       Heritage conservation area and streetscape

 

The primary area of concern raised in the objections to the amended proposal relate to the contextual fit of the new building within the streetscape and its impact on the surrounding heritage conservation area.  In particular the areas of concern relate to the perceived three storey form to the street and the consequent height of the proposal with respect to the single storey form of the buildings on the adjacent properties to the east and west.  This is considered by many of the objectors as a dominant and intrusive element in the streetscape within a heritage conservation area.  Also, stated areas of concern within the streetscape context are the following:-

 

·          inconsistent front alignment with neighbouring buildings;

·          building bulk, scale and mass to the street;

·          uncharacteristic roof forms, window and door proportions; and

·          absence of traditional front garden and landscaping.

 

The visual appearance of three storeys to the street derives from the replacement of the existing street front double garage, with a new double garage and a two storey dwelling house, such that the ground floor of new dwelling house is in approximate alignment with the terrace area forming the garage roof.

The overall level of impact on the streetscape and the heritage conservation area is considered acceptable for the following reasons:-

 

·          No alternate access to the site is provided either from the rear or to the side. Therefore maintaining existing garaging to the street is a reasonable approach in the circumstances, especially given that the adjoining property to the west also has a garage located on the front property boundary, to a similar height.

 

·          The degree of variation in height between the proposed and existing terrace level on the top of the garages is relatively minor being approximately in the order of 160mm to 190mm.

 

·          Compared to the existing garages, the width of the proposed garages has been reduced from 7.9m to 6.45m along the street boundary, the entry along the eastern end of the front boundary widened and planting introduced into this area.

 

·          Stone cladding to the garage/terrace structure and base of the front fence integrates with similar treatments within the conservation area.

 

·          The introduction of an open wrought iron balustrade to the front terrace (as opposed to the solid balustrade in the original application) along with the reduction in garage width means that the proposed double garages are an improvement on that already existing on the site.

 

·          Setting back the garaging on the site would not necessarily create any substantial increase in landscaped area but would create a larger paved area at street level in the form of a driveway. The amended proposal is considered to be a more sympathetic approach.

 

·          Other two storey dwelling houses and second storey additions that sit alongside single storey neighbours are not uncommon within the conservation area and neither the DDCP nor the LEP exclude two storey dwellings within the conservation area.  Within the immediate context two storey development can be seen at 10 and 12 Stephen Street in the form of two Victorian terraces that sit immediately above the high point in the road cutting.  There is also a two storey residential flat building located on the north-east corner of Stephen and Earl Streets that presents a two storey wall directly on its boundary with Stephen Street.  As well, a three storey residential flat building sits above street front garages at 30 Stephen Street to the east.

 

·          The topography of the site is such that there is a significant fall in levels from 2.1m to 2.6m approximately from the rear to the street front, with approximately half the change in levels occurring within the front 6m of the site (i.e. in the area of the proposed garages).  The sudden change in levels is evident in the height of the front verandah in relation to the road level as can be seen in Figure 1 previous in the report.  The proposal retains approximate existing ground floor levels to minimise the extent of cut to the rear of the site, which is considered a reasonable approach.

 

·          The front northern ground floor wall of the proposed new dwelling is set back 6.09m and is setback further than the existing front wall of the single storey residence.  This introduces a staggered front setback line between 4 Stephen to the east, with the front wall setback of 4.8m and 2 Stephen Street to the west, with the front wall setback of 7m.  Similarly the roof over the ground floor terrace of the proposed new dwelling is recessed behind the verandah roof of the dwelling on the adjoining property to the east.

 

·          At the front, the proposed upper level of the new dwelling house is recessed in relation to the ground floor wall (approximately a further 1.5m).  The top floor balcony to the street is setback 5.1m from the front boundary and is consistent with the front northern wall of the dwelling house to the east and the alignment of the front balcony of the dwelling to the west.  The setback between the ground and first floor level serves to minimise the visual bulk of the building to the street, as does the predominant hipped roof forms to the street.  The front presentation of the proposed new building has been further articulated by the introduction of a gable feature as a reflection of adjoining houses.

 

·          The parapet roof form of the bagged rear pavilion apparent on the northern elevation is set well back (approximately 18.5m) on the site and will appear as a recessive element to the street. The parapet roof has been introduced to the rear to minimise overshadowing impacts to adjoining neighbours.

 

·          The pattern and location of the fenestration on the northern front elevation has been broken up into vertical elements and is

 

9.2       Privacy

 

The adjoining neighbour to the west (2 Stephen Street) and the neighbour opposite (48 Earl Street) have both raised privacy issues arising from the proposed new dwelling house.

 

The rear yard of 48 Earl Street is located opposite (to the north) of the subject property.  The rear yard contains a swimming pool and is the principal private open space of this dwelling house (see Figure 4 below).  The pool is screened from the subject property by a large street tree. As well, adequate separation is provided between the two properties by the road reserve of Stephen Street.  Accordingly the objection cannot be sustained.

 

 

Figure 4: Pool area 48 Earl Street

looking south to 2A Stephen Street

 

No. 2 Stephen Street has raised privacy issues arising from overlooking from windows, balconies and pool area to their property and also to 4 Stephen Street, although it should be noted that 4 Stephen Street did not raise any issues in these regards.

 

Due to the elevation of the ground floor level above the existing ground line along the majority of the length of the western elevation of the building, ground floor windows will over look a standard 1.8m dividing fence.  This is similar to the existing situation with the current dwelling on the site (see Figures 5 and 6 below).

 

 

Figure 5- Western boundary fence

 with eastern wall of 2 Stephen Street

 

 

Figure 6 – Southern end of existing house

 with lattice/boundary fence on left of photo

 

A lattice screen is fixed to the top of the masonry fence for the predominant part of the length of the western boundary of the site.  Even if the existing lattice screen were to be continued along the top of the masonry fence to minimise overlooking from the ground floor of both 2 and 2A Stephen Street, it would not be a totally satisfactory solution in regard to the kitchen and dining room western windows which are not sufficiently off-set from opposite eastern windows of 2 Stephen Street (i.e. they are offset less than 45 degrees). It is therefore considered appropriate that they should have opaque glass to a height of 1.5m above the ground floor level of the proposed new dwelling house.  An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

A courtyard central to the western elevation is proposed.  This is raised approximately 1m to 1.5m from existing ground level, such that it will be at the same level as the ground floor level of the proposed house, with a water feature placed on the western boundary, adjacent to the eastern windows of 2 Stephen Street.  Both acoustic and visual privacy have been raised as concerns by 2 Stephen Street in relation to the central courtyard and water feature and are supported given the proximity to bedrooms of 2 Stephen Street.  In order to minimise privacy impacts, the raised courtyard should be separated from the side walkway by a wall located 1m (minimum) from the western boundary.  The stairs along the boundary could then be deleted along with the water feature, which may be relocated onto the eastern side of the new courtyard wall. Appropriate conditions of consent are contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

The two windows on the northern end of the eastern elevation of 2 Stephen Street are highlight windows with a raised sill heights (see Figure 5) and overlooking with regard to these windows does not present any significant issues from either the ground or first floor levels of the proposed house.  Overlooking from the front terrace and balcony to either 2 or 4 Stephen Street is not considered significant as privacy screens are proposed to both the eastern and western elevations of the first floor balcony and an appropriate condition of consent is contained in the Recommendation to ensure that they are a minimum height of 1.5m from the balcony floor level.

 

The upstairs western and southern window to the proposed Bedroom 1 as well as the proposed north facing balcony off the bathroom may provide opportunities to look down into the ground level windows on the eastern elevation of 2 Stephen Street.  It is considered that the bathroom balcony should be deleted and the bathroom be enlarged to cover this area to ensure appropriate waterproofing over the ground floor.  A north facing window to the enlarged bathroom could be considered as long as it contains opaque glass.  Additionally, the western and southern windows proposed for Bedroom 1 should be opaque glass to a height of 1.5m from the first floor level to minimise overlooking to the ground floor eastern windows of 2 Stephen Street. Appropriate conditions of consent are contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

The windows to the hallway overlooking the internal courtyard are marked on the elevations as “obscure glass” and this is considered acceptable to ensure the privacy of east facing windows opposite in 2 Stephen Street.

 

Overlooking from the rear (southern) first floor windows and first floor balcony is not considered to warrant any major change to their design, given that the windows open into bedroom and the minimal depth of the balcony (approximately 1m) will hinder its use as an entertaining area.  As well, the balcony is proposed to have external shutters. It should be noted that the two storey “cabana” to the rear of the subject site, which forms part of the property of 2 Stephen Street, already overlooks the rear yard of 2A Stephen Street. Given the highly urban nature of the locality, overlooking cannot be entirely avoided.  It is considered that landscaping along the rear yard (see Section 9.4 of report) will minimise the two way overlooking to an acceptable level. 

 

It is acknowledged that one of the issues of concern raised by 2 Stephen Street is that privacy screens are removable and as such an appropriate condition of consent is included within the Recommendation of the report to ensure that they remain in situ.

 

The rear yard of the property has an area of lawn in its south-eastern corner (see Figures 7 and 8 below) raised above the general level of the rear yard.  It is proposed to locate a lap pool, spa and deck raised between approximately 90mm to 310mm above the already raised level.  While this does not raise significant overlooking issues to the rear due to the height of the rear masonry fence and lattice screening, it is considered that elevated level in relation to the private open space of the adjoining properties to the east and west are not desirable.  As such, it is considered that the pool and spa surrounds, as well as the proposed deck should be lowered to the proposed terrace level (i.e. a reduction of 1m approximately), with the proposed deck replaced by permeable pavers.

 

Location of air conditioning condenser units have not been detailed on the amended plans.  Accordingly appropriate conditions of consent have been included within the Recommendation to ensure that they will not be visible from the street and will not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997.

 

 

Figure 7 – Rear yard

with cabana of 2 Stephen Street

 

 

Figure 8- Raised lawn area in existing rear yard

 

9.3       Overshadowing

 

The immediately adjacent properties to both the east and west have raised concerns regarding the level of overshadowing from the proposed development, particularly to the rear yards of both properties.   In addition, No. 4 Stephen Street also raises issues regarding loss of light to the western windows, being the hall way, kitchen and laundry, while No. 2 Stephen Street considers that the loss of light to their second and third bedrooms will make them colder and reduce the energy efficiency of their house.

 

The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that there will be an increase in the extent of the shadow cast when compared to the existing dwelling house on the site, however the amended proposal is considered to meet the solar access requirements as set out in the preferred solutions of the DCP.  In this regard, the proposal does not reduce either the amount of morning sunlight currently available to the private open space of 4 Stephen Street, nor the currently available afternoon sunlight to 2 Stephen Street.  The proposal impacts predominantly on bedroom windows of 2 Stephen Street and as identified in the submission the hall, kitchen and laundry windows of 4 Stephen Street, not north facing living area windows.  Accordingly the objections relating to the shadow impacts of the proposed development are not sustainable. 

 

9.4       Landscaping

 

The proposal provides 45.6% of the total site area as landscaped open space, with private open space provided by way of a rear yard, with minimum dimensions and area in accordance with the preferred solutions for private open space as contained in the DCP.  The applicant has provided a preliminary landscaping plan that indicates that privacy hedging is to be provided to the rear and side boundaries of the rear yard in planter beds of minimal width (600mm).  While this may alleviate to a certain extent, the privacy impacts associated with an elevated pool, spa and deck in the rear yard, it is considered that a more sustainable approach is to lower the level of the pool to the same level as the under cover rear terrace, as previously discussed and increase the width of the garden beds in the rear yard to a clear width of 1m.  Additionally, by removing the deck and incorporating permeable paving in the open space of the rear yard, the amount of permeable open space deficient in the proposal before Council (13.6%) will be maintained to an acceptable level, in accordance with the preferred solutions. Appropriate conditions of consent for suitable landscape plans to be provided with the construction certificate application are contained within the Recommendation. 

 

9.5       Floor space

 

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 applies to the site.  The amended proposal has a FSR of 0.61:1.  This represents a variation of 4.5m2 approximately to the preferred solution.  This variation is minor and is considered acceptable as compliance with the preferred solution would not significantly alter the bulk or scale of the proposal.  The impact on the streetscape and neighbours are considered acceptable, subject to conditions as detailed previously in the report.

 

9.6       Height

 

The amended proposal seeks a variation to the maximum permissible wall height of 400mm maximum.  The variation sought relates predominantly to the parapet roof (approximately 500mm) included in the external wall height calculation.   The parapet roof is located to the rear of the main hipped roof presented to the street.  Compliance with the preferred solution for external wall height (7m) may be achieved with a hipped roof as originally proposed to the rear of the proposed hipped roof at the street front of the dwelling house, however, this presents a bulkier roof form and would increase shadows at 9.00am and 3.00pm to adjacent properties to the east and west.  Accordingly the variation to the preferred solutions in relation to external wall height is considered acceptable.

 

9.7       Setbacks

 

The amended proposal seeks variations to the preferred solutions for the first floor setbacks to both the eastern and western side boundaries for the dwelling house and the western and front boundary setback for the double garage.

 

The alignment of the double garage to the front boundary has previously been discussed in the report and is considered acceptable in the circumstances.  The alignment of the western wall of the garage/terrace area with the western boundary is also considered acceptable as it abuts the garage of 2 Stephen Street, which is similarly built to the boundary.  A planter box with a clear width is proposed along the western edge of the terrace above the garage, which will soften the junction between the two structures.  It is considered however, that the width of the planter should be increased such that the eastern edge of the planter is in alignment with the western wall of the proposed dwelling house.  This will help minimise any overlooking from the terrace back to the south between 2 and 2A Stephen Street, as well as minimise the view to the street of the bagged rear pavilion, while not significantly decreasing the size of the terrace area over the garage area. An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

The variation sought to the preferred solutions for the first floor eastern setback relates to the wall of Bedroom 4 that projects 300mm beyond the general alignment of the first floor wall.  This wall contains a window along its entire eastern elevation.  It is considered that this section of wall can achieve compliance without significantly compromising the useability of the fourth bedroom.  Further, the length of window to this room could be reduced by half from its southern end to provide an adequate off-set to the kitchen window of 4 Stephen Street. An appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

The variation sought to the preferred solutions for the first floor western setback relates to the rear (southern most) section of western wall.  This is considered acceptable given that the bulk of the building on the western side has been alleviated considerably by the proposed courtyard centrally located along this elevation.  Additionally the windows in this section of wall both have raised sill heights (approximately 1.7m from the level of the first floor) and will not adversely affect the privacy of 2 Stephen Street.

 

9.8       Fences

 

The front of the proposed double garage with the wrought iron balustrade to the terrace above presents as the front fence for approximately two thirds of the front boundary.  This has been previously discussed in the report and represents a reduction in length compared to the length of the existing garage located on the front boundary (1.4m approximately).  Although this is not considered an ideal solution, it is acceptable in the circumstances.  The remaining one third of the front boundary is proposed to be fenced with an open metal fence consistent with the balustrade to the top of the terrace over the garage, with some landscaping introduced immediately behind within the property. Along with the stone cladding to the garage it is considered to be an improvement to the existing situation and therefore acceptable. Conditions requiring details of materials, finishes and colours are contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

 

9.9       Glazed roofing

 

Concerns have been raised that the glazed roofing to the rear ground floor terrace will cause a nuisance by way of reflection and will be unsafe if flying branches caused by strong winds hit it.  An appropriate condition of consent is contained in the Recommendation of the report requiring the glass to be toughened glass and non reflective.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal has been amended satisfactorily by increasing the ground and first floor setbacks to the Stephen Street, reducing the bulk of the rear roof form (and thereby minimising overshadowing to adjacent properties), the introduction of privacy screening to front and rear balconies, decreasing the overall length of the garages along the front boundary, introducing a gable element to the street similar to the roof forms of the immediately adjacent properties to the east and west and the proposed use of face brickwork to the front of the dwelling house. Council’s Heritage Planner considers that the amended proposal generally address the heritage concerns raised by a new infill development, given the site constraints, and that the form and massing will not detract from the streetscape of the North Randwick Conservation Area.

 

The amended proposal only introduces minor variations to the preferred solutions for floor space, external wall height and setback requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and the associated impacts are considered acceptable subject to conditions of consent as contained with the Recommendation below. 

 

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 290/03/GA for demolition of existing house and structures and construction of a new dwelling house, double garage and swimming pool at 2A Stephen Street, Randwick, subject to the following deferred commencement conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

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

 

1          The colours, materials and finishes of the 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 (i.e.- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development. 

 

2          The awning over the rear ground floor terrace shall be toughened glass to minimise safety hazards and the reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 per cent in order to minimise glare to adjoining properties.  The details and samples of the glass to be used are to be submitted with the colour and material schedule for the approval of Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

3          Details of the design, height, materials and structure of the front fence and gates to are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.  Fencing and gates are to be compatible with the architectural style of the building and streetscape.

 

4          Details of the design and finish of the proposed garage doors are to be submitted for approval of the Director of Planning and Community Development.

 

B.        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 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 290/03/GA for demolition of existing house and structures and construction of a new dwelling house, double garage and swimming pool at 2A Stephen Street, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered with Job No. 1516-03 and drawing numbers 01C-04C with amendment date 29 August, 2003 and received by Council on 12 September, 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.         The kitchen and dining room western windows shall have opaque glass to a height of 1.5m above the ground floor level to minimise privacy impacts to 2 Stephen Street.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

3.         The stairs along the western boundary of the site and the water feature on the western boundary shall be deleted and a 1.8m masonry wall shall be located on the western side of the courtyard 1m (minimum) from the western boundary.  This condition has been imposed to minimise privacy impacts to 2 Stephen Street.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

4.         Privacy screening to front and rear balconies shall be to a minimum height of 1.5m from the balcony floor level.  Details demonstrating compliance shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

                                           

5.         The northern balcony located off the bathroom balcony shall be deleted and a roof shall be located over the kitchen below.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

6.         The corner western and southern windows of Bedroom 1 shall be opaque glass to a height of 1.5m from the first floor level to minimise overlooking to the ground floor eastern windows of 2 Stephen Street.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

7.         The pool and spa surrounds shall be the same RL as the proposed rear terrace level (RL 60.50), with the deck replaced by permeable pavers at the same level to minimise overlooking to adjoining properties.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

8.         The first floor eastern wall of Bedroom 4 shall be in alignment of the first floor eastern wall of Bedroom 3, with the length of the window to Bedroom 4 reduced to 1.6m (maximum) from the northern end of Bedroom 4 to minimise privacy impacts to 4 Stephen Street and improve the streetscape appearance of the new building.  Amended plans in compliance with the above shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

9.         Demolition materials shall be recycled wherever practicable to promote environmental sustainability.

 

10.       Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

16.       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.

 

17.       All existing outbuildings on the site must be demolished and removed in conjunction with the development.

 

18.       Internal or external clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Should external clothes drying facilities be provided, the facilities must be adequately screened by vegetation and details are to be incorporated into the landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

22.       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.

 

23.       A rainwater tank shall be provided at ground level for the collection and reuse of roof water designed and constructed in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy and shall be connected for the internal purpose of toilet flushing and clothes washing (cold water only) and also allow for other authorised uses such as landscape watering.  The rainwater tanks shall be located at the rear of the premises only, have a maximum height of 2.4m above ground level, have a maximum diameter or width of 2.4m and be located not less than 500mm from a side or rear boundary.  Overflow shall be directed to Council’s approved Stormwater System or a suitable absorption area (design by professional engineer).  Details of the location of the pump, and colour of the tank, structural engineer’s specifications for installation and plumbing shall be provided to the Director Planning & Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

27.       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 a LAeq, 15 min descriptor and adjusted in accordance with NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

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:

 

28.       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.

 

29.       The finished ground levels outside of the building are required to be not less than:

 

·        150mm below the internal floor level of the building, or,

·        100mm below the internal floor level of the building in sandy, well drained areas, or,

·        50mm below the internal floor level of the building where an external paved area or slab is provided adjacent to the building, which is graded not less than 50mm over the first 1m away from the building,

 

Details of stormwater drainage are to be provided in the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

30.       External paths and ground surfaces are to be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises in such a manner so as not to result in the entry of water into a building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises.

 

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

 

31.       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.

 

32.       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.

 

33.       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.

 

34.       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.

 

35.       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.

 

36.       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:

 

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

 

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

 

38.       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.

 

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

 

a)         all of the premises adjoining the subject site to the east (4 Stephen Street and the west/rear (2 Stephen Street).

 

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

 

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

 

40.       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.

 

41.       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.

 

42.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

b)       Prior to the pouring of concrete for the swimming pool [i.e. specified floor levels) showing the land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the pool is being constructed at the approved levels and in the correct location as conditioned by this consent.

 

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

 

46.     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:

 

b)   car parking and vehicular access

c)   landscaping

d)   stormwater drainage

e)   external finishes and materials

f)    swimming pool safety fencing/barriers and acoustic enclosure to pool

 

47.       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.

 

48.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

50.       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.

 

51.       A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that ‘unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited’ and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours.

 

In the case of residential building work, the sign is also required to detail the licence number of the building contractor or the permit number of the owner-builder, in accordance with the Home Building Act 1989 and Regulations.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

57.       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.

 

58.       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.

 

59.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

61.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Details of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia must be included in the plans / specification for the construction certificate.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and to maintain public safety and amenity:

 

64.       Swimming pools are to be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with AS 1926-1986.

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

Temporary pool safety fencing is to be provided pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

A sign shall be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the document entitled “Policy Statement No.9.4.1: Guidelines for the Preparation of Posters on Resuscitation”, published in 1985 by the Australian Resuscitation Council and the sign must bear a notice that contains the words “YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE SUPERVISED WHEN USING THIS SWIMMING POOL”, together with details of resuscitation techniques (for adults, children and infants) set out in accordance with the document entitled “Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation” published by the Australian Resuscitation Council.

 

65.       Swimming pools are to be designed and installed in accordance with the following general requirements:-

 

·        Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

·        All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises.

 

·        Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection and occupational health and safety.

 

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

 

·        Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·        Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

·        The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant Environmental Protection Authority Guidelines

 

67.       Prior to demolition of any building constructed before 1970, the person acting on this consent shall submit a Work Plan prepared in accordance with Australian Standards AS260-2001, Demolition of Structures by a suitably qualified person.  The Work Plan shall outline the identification of any hazardous materials, including materials containing asbestos and surfaces coated with lead paint and the plan should detail the method of demolition, the precautions to be employed to ensure public safety and to minimise any dust nuisance and methods of disposal of any hazardous materials.  A copy of the work plan is to be forwarded to the Council prior to commencing such works.

 

68.       The removal, cleaning and disposal of any lead-based paints must be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures, The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the requirements and guidelines of the Environmental Protection Authority.

 

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

 

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

 

70.       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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

72.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

76.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $277 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:

 

77.       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.

 

78.       The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

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

 

79.       Generally all site stormwater shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrester pit that drains to a 5 metre square base infiltration area. An overflow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit to drain to Council's kerb and gutter.

 

The location and details of the proposed internal stormwater pipelines, silt arrestor pit and the infiltration area shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if the Council is not the certifying authority.

 

Notes:

 

a.         The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed:-

 

i.    within the site at or near the street boundary.

ii.    with a child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system (e.g. spring loaded jay-bolt).

iii.   with a minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes (preferably located in the walls of the pit at the floor level) and with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located around the weep holes.

iv.   with the pit floor being a minimum 300mm below the invert level of the outlet pipelines.

v.   with a galvanised heavy duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipes draining to the infiltration pit and the kerb. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

 

b.         The infiltration/rubble pit shall:-

     

i.    have a minimum 300 mm of soil cover (600 mm where the pit is located under a garden/landscaping area).

ii.    be located a minimum of 3.0 metres from the dwelling or other structure (closer if a structural engineer certifies that the infiltration area will not adversely affect the structure) and 2.1 metres from the adjacent side or rear boundaries.

iii.   be constructed with a minimum 200 mm thick layer of 20 mm basalt/blue metal (or similar) that is wrapped in a suitable geotextile material covering with a high filtration rating (Geofabrics Bidim "A" range of filtration fabrics or equivalent). A suitable means of dispersing the stormwater over the area of infiltration is to be constructed.

Note:  other equivalent methods of infiltration may be adopted.

iv.   have a minimum base area of  5.0 square metres (m2).

 

The outlet from the silt arrestor pit to the infiltration area shall be located at least 50 mm below the outlet from the silt arrestor pit to the kerb and gutter.

 

c.         The requirement for an infiltration/rubble pit will not be enforced should the underground soil conditions preclude the construction of the infiltration pit (eg rock is located within 300 mm of the base of the infiltration area). If the infiltration/rubble pit is not constructed then all site stormwater shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter via a sediment/silt arrestor pit (as detailed in note a. above).

 

All works shall be to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

Note:

 

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

 

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

 

80.       Landscaping shall be provided to the site to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon neighbouring properties. A landscape plan prepared by a qualified landscape architect or horticulturalist shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued.   The landscaping plan shall reflect the amended architectural plans as conditioned by this consent and shall include the following:-

 

1.           Landscaping beds with a minimum clear width of 1m along the east and west boundaries of the rear yard from the southern end of the rear terrace to the rear southern boundary and along the length of the (rear) southern boundary.

 

2.       A planter box with a width of 1.5m from the western boundary of the garage roof with appropriate screening species to soften the junction between the garages at 2 and 2a Stephen Street and minimise overlooking.

 

3.       A planting schedule that utilises predominantly local indigenous species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions, their mature heights, supply size and planting details.

 

4.       An area and facilities dedicated for onsite composting.

 

5.       Porous paving in all pathways, wherever practicable, and in the rear yard to maximize on-site absorption of rainwater.

 

81.       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.

 

In order to ensure a satisfactory level of privacy and screening between adjacent properties, a screen/hedge attaining a minimum height at maturity of 3 metres is to be provided along the southern, western and eastern sides of the rear yard, as has been shown on the plans provided.

 

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

 

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

 

83.       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.

 

84.       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.

 

85.       In order to visually 'soften' the expanses of hard pavement, brick unit pavers, stencilled concrete (or similar) shall be used throughout the driveway areas on the site. Such details shall be shown on the detailed engineering documentation and shall include all structural design details including pavement/subgrade thickness.

 

Such details shall be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

86.       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.

 

87.       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.

 

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

A2       The applicant is advised that compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia may necessitate variations to the development consent plans.  In this regard, any variations which alter the configuration, size, floor layout or design of the building, may necessitate an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application), and Council’s Building Surveyor or an Accredited Certifier should be consulted prior to the lodgement of an application for a Construction Certificate.

 

A3.      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

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

TOWN PLANNER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 49/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

28 Winchester Rd Clovelly

 

 

DATE:

9 July, 2004

FILE NO:

D1204/2003

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The application was referred to the Health Building and Planning Committee for determination at its meeting of the 11 May 2004. At this meeting the application was deferred to ‘give the applicant the opportunity to submit amended plans satisfying Council’s DCP requirements regarding the maintenance of the ridge lines. The plans are to be returned to the Health Building and Planning Committee for resolution’

 

A meeting was held between the applicant and Council Officer’s on the 11 June 2004, at this meeting concept sketches were submitted for consideration and were deemed to be acceptable for lodgement.  Amended plans were submitted on the 25 June 2004 and notified for a period of 7 days.

 

ISSUES:

 

The recommendation of the original report was for a deferred commencement consent subject to:

 

a)         Bedroom No. 2 shall be deleted from the plans so that the first floor addition is set behind the roof ridge line in accordance with Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. Amended plans shall delete this bedroom and provide a hipped roof extending from this point. The roof shall have a pitch and design in keeping with the existing roof.

 

The applicant has sought to achieve the increased front setback of the upper level without deleting bedroom 2 and by altering the design of the dwelling.

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

The FSR of the original proposal was 0.69:1; the FSR as a result of the amended plans is 0.72:1. This is above the preferred solution 0.65:1. The original assessment report dated 12 April 2004 provided arguments for variation to the preferred floor space ratio. It is considered that the difference of some 8sqm is not substantial and can be supported within the context of compatible development in Winchester Rd. The variation of some 40sqm from the preferred solution is considered acceptable given the increase in FSR has allowed for a redesign of the first floor to set the first floor addition entirely behind the ridge of the existing roof and does result in an additional adverse amenity impact.

 

First floor setback from ridgeline

 

The amended design has provided a first floor addition set entirely behind the front ridge in accordance with the preferred solution provided under Part 5 of DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual occupancies.

 

Built form

 

The submitted plans provide for a complete set of plans formalising the amended front elevation which were previously shown in sketch form. The built form of the development including the set back of the first floor addition some 2200mm from the ridge of the roof is acceptable.

 

Submissions

 

The amended plans were notified for a truncated period of 7 days. The following submissions were received:

 

A Grant

18 Winchester Rd

 

H & F McCloskey

16 Winchester Rd

 

H Curry

24 Winchester Rd

 

V Wall

26 Winchester Rd

 

G Harris

30A Winchester Rd

 

T Ovadia

30 Winchester Rd

 

Hoi Polloi Consultants

18 Belmore Street, Rozelle (on behalf of T. Ovadia, 30 Winchester Rd)

 

·    The development is excessive and not in character with the locality

 

Comment

 

This objection was addressed as part of the original assessment report, the proposed amendments provide an improved aspect to the streetscape.

 

·    FSR is exceeded and is a gross over development

 

Comment

 

This objection has been addressed in the previous assessment report as well as under Floor Space Ratio section of this report.

 

·    The development extends into the rear yard beyond that of adjoining residences

 

Comment

 

As discussed in the original assessment report DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies specifies a rear setback of 4500mm, the development exceeds this three fold. It is considered that there is no amenity impact from the rear building alignment to neighbouring properties.

 

·    Why can’t No. 28 be brought forward of the ridge towards the street

 

Comment

 

As this would be inconsistent with Council’s preferred design solution for additions to semi-detached dwellings with issues in relation to streetscape and visual cohesion between the two attached dwellings. The intention of the amended plans was to set the first floor back behind the ridge of the existing roof.

 

·    The council recommendations have not been implemented where the front room is not deleted but placed onto the rear of the house

 

Comment

 

The intention of the deletion was to set the addition behind the ridge of the existing roof, the easiest way to achieve this through deferred commencement plans was by deleting a bedroom 2, as discussed in the original assessment report reducing the FSR was not the primary motivation for the modification. The amended plans were the result of discussions with Council officers and the outcome is considered satisfactory.

 

·    The DA has a higher FSR than the original

 

Comment

 

This has been discussed as part Floor Space Ratio section of this report.

 

·    1800mm wall is proposed outside our rear living area

 

Comment

 

This is the height of a standard dividing fence; any concerns with the fence should be discussed with neighbouring property in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act.

 

·    Amendments do not address Council’s concerns adequately by moving floor area to the rear of the first floor level, amendments are not substantially the same as previous application

 

Comment

 

Refer to discussion of impacts of the changes to the configuration of floor space in the proposal under Floor Space Ratio, above. The applicant has chosen to amend aspects of the plans related to the setback of the first floor level and the amended proposal is considered to be substantially the same as that originally proposed in terms of number of rooms, scale and bulk.

 

·    Availability of reasonable alternatives, particularly location of additional bedroom at ground floor level

 

Comment

 

The proposal is considered to be reasonable in the context of surrounding development and the impacts on adjoining properties. A scheme providing additional bedroom accommodation on the ground floor level would reduce landscaping opportunities and potentially reduce the amenity of living areas on the subject site by removing direct access to private open space.

 

·    Bulk and physical overbearing

 

Comment

 

The proposed lengthening of the wall to the southern boundary is not considered to result in significant bulk and scale impacts on the attached dwelling to the south. Council’s DCP allows for a nil setback where semi-detached dwellings are extended along a common wall and the proposal is well setback from the rear boundary, achieving the preferred solution under the DCP of 4.5 metres.

 

·    Sail cloth is not shown

 

Comment

 

This is achieved through a condition of consent as proposed with the original recommendation.

 

·    Plans do not alter the rear roof scape

 

Comment

 

There was no request by Council to amend the roof design of the rear of the dwelling.

·    Overshadowing implications

 

Comment

 

Amended shadow diagrams have not been submitted as part of the amended plans however as the proposal does not include any increase in height and simply moves the bulk of the first floor towards the rear of footprint the variation to shadow is readily assessed. The level of overshadowing to No. 30 Winchester Rd is largely unavoidable due to the orientation of the subdivision pattern. Whilst the altered first floor position will result in increased shadow to the rear of the property, there will be additional solar access available towards the front of the dwelling, in the morning period.  Refusal of the application on the basis of overshadowing alone would be unreasonable considering that each first floor addition within Winchester Rd will have a similar impact on the adjoining property to the south particularly where that dwelling is attached.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The proposed amendments satisfy the intention of deferred commencement condition 1 included in the recommendation of the original Director of Planning and Community Development Report dated 21 April, 2004 and the Health Building and Planning Committee’s resolution of 11 May 2004.

 

The modifications generally comply with performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and do not substantially alter the development from that of which the assessment report originally considered.

 

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 1204/2003 for alterations and first floor addition to the existing semi-detached dwelling house at 28 Winchester Road subject to the following conditions:-

 

1          The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 137.10.03 Sheet 01 dated 23/06/04 and stamped received by Council on 25/06/04, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, 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 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 provided in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

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. Face brick shall be retained to the ground floor and any rendered treatment to the first floor shall be matched as closely as possible to the existing brick colour.

 

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

 

4.         The pergola shown to the northern boundary and to the rear first floor deck shall be deleted and replaced with a retractable and removable sail cloth. Details shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the relevant building works.

 

5.         The rear first floor balcony shall be fitted with privacy screens to the northern perimeter with a minimum height of 1500mm to preserve privacy to adjoining properties. Details of the privacy screen shall be submitted to Council as part of amended 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:

 

7.        Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter and details are to be included in the construction certificate details for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

8.        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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

·          has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $3,000.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11.      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.

 

12.      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.

 

13.      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.

 

14.      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.

 

15.      The building works are to be inspected by the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) to monitor compliance with Council’s approval and the relevant standards of construction.

 

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant building inspections, is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

16.      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.

 

17.      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.

 

18.      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.

 

19.      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.

 

20.      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.

 

21.      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.

 

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

 

            a)       30 Winchester Rd

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Details of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia must be included in the plans / specification for the construction certificate.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 reduced plans

Director of Planning and Community Development Report dated 21 April, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCYNSKI

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

21 April, 2004

FILE NO:

D1204/2003/GA

 

PROPOSAL:

Alterations and first floor addition to the existing semi-detached dwelling house.

PROPERTY:

28 Winchester Rd, Clovelly

WARD:

North Ward

APPLICANT:

David Freed

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 former Councillor Freda Backes and Councillors Dominic Sullivan and Paul Tracey.

 

The main issues of this application include the built form of proposal and its compatibility with the semi-detached dwelling, bulk and scale, loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and variation from the preferred solution for floor space ratio. Several letters of objection have been submitted in relation to this proposal. The concerns raised relate to building design, bulk and rear alignment. Amended plans were submitted which resolved many of Council officer concerns and subject to deferred commencement conditions deleting floor area at the front of the first floor addition and setting the first floor behind the roof ridge the application will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for alterations to the existing semi-detached dwelling and a first floor addition. To the ground floor internal alterations are proposed to the existing internal layout and new window openings are provided. Extending out from the rear of the existing dwelling a new addition is proposed which will provide for dining and living rooms. A new first floor addition is proposed which will provide three bedrooms and associated bathrooms. To the ground floor a stepped dividing wall is provided to the northern elevation which will provide screening from a courtyard area which is provided within the side setback. To the first floor a deck is provided off the master bedroom. A retractable sail cloth is proposed to provide cover to the deck and courtyard areas.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Winchester Rd in close proximity to the intersection with Burnie St Clovelly. The site is regular in shape and has a total area of 307.69 with a frontage of 6.73m and a depth of 45.72m. The site is currently occupied by a semi-detached dwelling.

 

30 Winchester Rd                                                28 Winchester Rd

 
 

 


The streetscape is comprised of predominantly single detached and semi-detached dwelling houses. There are some examples of first floor additions which have been constructed in a sympathetic form. Within the streetscape there is a clear pattern of hipped and gable roof ends where most additions are sympathetic to the built form of the existing dwelling.

 

Top left: Eastern side of Winchester Rd looking North

 

Top right: Eastern side of Winchester Rd looking South

 

Bottom Left: Western side of Winchester Rd looking South.

 

 

The site immediately to the north includes a pair of semi-detached dwellings known as 24 and 26 Winchester Rd. Approval was granted in 2002 for the concurrent redevelopment of these two dwellings providing for a first floor addition. The first floor additions to the pair of semi-detached dwellings has been constructed forward of the ridgeline.

 

                        24 & 26 Winchester Rd- approved in 2002 over FSR and reduced setbacks.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

After a preliminary assessment of the application a letter of issues was forwarded to the applicant. This letter raised several issues with the proposed development:

 

·          The roof form is considered to be inconsistent with the character of the existing semi-detached dwelling. It is recommended that the roof form be amended to be a hipped roof in keeping with the existing form. The gabled form does not improve the façade of the dwelling and detracts from the existing built form.

 

·          The first floor addition should be set back behind the ridge of the existing roof.

 

·          The pergola over the rear deck contributes to bulk and removing this would minimise concerns from neighbours for bulky structure beyond the rear alignment. The pergola/retractable roof attached to the 1800mm high wall also contributes to bulk.

 

·          It is considered that the internal amenity of the dwelling will be poor with difficult to furnish rooms and poor internal planning with a laundry and pantry within the living areas. Greater consideration to the internal layout should be given.

 

·          The metal deck roof beyond the area covered by the pergola should remain roof finish only and not be for habitable/trafficable purposes to reduce the potential for overlooking for neighbouring properties.

 

·          FSR has been calculated as exceeding the preferred solution, it is considered that FSR should be closer to that which is preferred under the DCP.

 

As a result of this letter of issues a meeting was held between the assessing officer, applicant and architect. Amended plans were received in response to the issues raised and incorporate the following amendments:

                                                           

·          The first floor roof be converted to a hipped roof form and the front gable be deleted. A hipped roof would be consistent with the pitch and form of the existing roof.

 

·          The pitch of the roof would mean that the additional floor area forward of the ridge would not be overly visible from the street and setting the addition back further would delete a bedroom which is required.

 

·          All pergola structures will be converted to a retractable sail cloth shade structure to minimise bulk. The dividing wall will remain at 1800mm for the length of the site other than for the section alongside the courtyard area.

 

·          The applicant noted my comments about internal amenity however they preferred an interesting space and as there are no specific controls relating to internal amenity under DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies no specific amendment was necessary or reasonable.

 

·          The finish of the deck area was agreed to a condition requiring such could be imposed.

 

·          The FSR of adjoining properties exceeds that proposed with this application. It has been noted that the FSR of both Nos. 24 and 26 Winchester Rd exceeded the preferred solution with a maximum FSR approved at 0.74:1.

 

The amended sketches submitted to Council are considered to adequately address most of the concerns as initially raised. In the final assessment of the application it was considered reasonable to further modify the proposal to delete bedroom 2 which would set the first floor addition behind the roof ridge and result in a closer to FSR which is closer to the preferred solution. This modification will be achieved through deferred commencement conditions.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

Objections

 

F & T Ovadia

30 Winchester Rd

HJ Curry

26 Winchester Rd

 

V & A Wall

26 Winchester Rd

 

A & G Grant

18 Winchester Rd

 

F & M McCluskey

16 Winchester Rd

 

B & D Beynolds

24 Winchester Rd

 

G Harris

30A Winchester Rd

 

R & B Ingram

32 Winchester Rd

 

·                      Excessive floor space ratio

 

Comment

 

The FSR of the proposed development exceeds the preferred solution of 0.6:1 being 0.69:1. Floor Area is discussed in greater detail under the Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·                      The building is excessively bulky

 

Comment

 

The building bulk is generated by the inappropriate façade roof element, by pergola structures and generous floor to ceiling heights. It is considered that the amended plans and proposed conditions of consent, reducing floor to ceiling height to 2700mm for first floor and deleting bedroom 2 will reduce the apparent bulk of the development.

 

·                      Impact on streetscape from an overbearing development out of character

 

Comment

 

The relationship between the proposed development and the streetscape is vastly improved by the submitted amendments to the roof design where the roof is now hipped. It should also be noted that there are currently several two storey dwellings and semi-detached dwellings within the street that are of a significant bulk and scale.

 

·                      Overshadowing to properties to the south

Comment

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application are discussed in further detail under the “Solar Access” section of this report. It is noted that there will be overshadowing to No. 30 Winchester Rd, the adjoining semi-detached dwelling which is to the south of the subject site. Existing shadows are already significant and it is considered that some level of additional overshadowing is unavoidable due to the orientation of the site.

 

·                      The rear of the building exceeds that of 24 and 26 Winchester Rd

 

Comment

 

The preferred solution for rear setback is 4500mm, the proposal is setback a minimum of 13m from the rear boundary. It is also considered that the rear alignment satisfies the performance requirements. Setbacks are discussed further under the Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·                      Loss of privacy to No. 30 Winchester Rd

 

Comment

 

Privacy is discussed further under the Environmental Assessment section of this report. The party wall between No. 28 and 30 Winchester Rd does not provide for any windows and the dividing fence will provide privacy from the use of the rear yard. A privacy screen to the rear first floor deck will prevent sightlines into the adjoining private open space at No. 30 Winchester Road.

 

·                      The design is unbalanced and clumsy with an impact on the character of the of the semi-detached dwelling

 

Comment

 

Built form and consistency between the two attached dwellings is discussed in further detail under the Environmental Assessment section of this report. It is considered that the amended siting and design changes to the roof form will ensure there is no impact on the character of the existing and semi-detached dwellings. This concern is considered to be rectified by the amended roof design to a hipped form and deleting bedroom 2.

 

·                      The unusual form will restrict future development rights of No. 30 Winchester Rd.

 

Comment

 

The revised form of the dwelling will allow for a mirror reflection to be lodged for 30 Winchester Rd. The proposed addition will not restrict the ability of the semi-detached dwelling to erect a first floor addition it is more likely to result in an easier approval process.

 

·                      Extending past the rear alignment will create a precedent

 

Comment

 

Each application is assessed on its individual merits. It is considered that for the subject site there is no amenity impact as a result of a rear alignment being beyond the setback of adjoining properties. Any future applications for properties within the locality would be assessed and any anticipated amenity impacts given due consideration.

 

·                      Extending past the rear alignment would reduce access to open air

 

Comment

 

It is not considered that the construction of an additional storey to a dwelling house would restrict access to air. It should also be noted that the building extends past no. 26 Winchester Rd by only 3m excluding rear first floor deck.

 

·                      Privacy impacts as a result of extending past the rear alignment

 

Comment

 

The concern of the neighbours is that the occupants of the new dwelling will look back into adjoining dwellings. It should be noted that the only windows provided to the northern elevation which extend past the neighbour’s rear alignment are located as corner wrap around windows to a bedroom. Windows off a bedroom are considered to result in a lower level of overlooking as the room is a low usage habitable room. Further, being wrap-around windows located in the corners of the room any real opportunity for direct sightlines with regular arrangement and use of the room would be difficult.

 

·                      The proposal is taller than No. 26 Winchester Rd

 

Comment

 

The proposed external wall height of the dwelling is 7400mm. This exceeds the preferred solution however much of this variation is due to the provision of a skillion roof towards the rear of the dwelling. The external wall height of No. 26 Winchester Rd is 5.8m which does satisfy the preferred solution however above that is a pitched roof raising the overall height to that above the subject dwelling. Irrespective of this, as the floor to ceiling heights are to be lowered by condition in the order of 300mm this brings the external wall height down closer to the preferred solution of 7m. Height is discussed in greater detail under the Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application does not require specialist input from other technical officers in Council.

 

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.

 

(b) Development Control Plan- Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Roof area suitable for solar collectors and photovoltaic cells.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

S2  Private open space

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Yes good level of solar access available to living areas and courtyard area.

 

 

Yes adequate solar access to private open space.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes adequate shading provided to west facing windows.

 

No, however due to orientation of the site and adjoining property being south facing semi-detached dwelling the proposal meets the performance requirements.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes adequate solar access in the afternoon period to private open space.

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

 

       collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

       do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

       fit in with hydrology;

       use on–site stormwater infiltration;

       maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

       retain existing trees.

 

P2  Water consumption minimised inside dwelling .

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

 

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

 

 

Suitable condition attached to recommendation

.

 

 

 

Yes, subject to relevant condition of consent.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 

Yes 68% of total site area provided as landscaped.

 

In excess of 25sqm provided and minimum dimensions provided.

 

Yes well designed private open space.

 

 

 

 

Yes, in excess of 20% provided as permeable.