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

 

6th July, 2004

 

HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 13TH JULY, 2004 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

Committee Members:                  His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson, Crs Andrews, Bastic, Belleli, Daley, Hughes (Deputy Chairperson), Kenny, Nash, Notley-Smith, Procopiadis, Seng (Chairperson), Sullivan, Tracey, White & Woodsmith.

 

Quorum:                                      Eight (8) members.

 

NOTE: AT THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 20TH APRIL, 2004, THE COUNCIL RESOLVED THAT THE HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE BE CONSTITUTED AS A COMMITTEE WHOSE MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND WITH FULL DELEGATION TO DETERMINE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA.

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUIDLING & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING ON TUESDAY, 8TH JUNE, 2004.

 

3           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

4           Mayoral Minutes

 

5           Development Applications

 

5.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 42/2004 - 308-310 ARDEN STREET AND 3 ALEXANDER STREET, COOGEE SECTION 96 MODIFICATION TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF UNIT 16 AND 17 FROM TWO BEDROOMS TO THREE BEDROOMS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BASEMENT CAR PARKING.  (DEFERRED)

2

 

5.2                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 126-130 BARKER STREET, RANDWICK.

20

 

 

6           Miscellaneous

 

6.1                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 43/2004 - DRAFT EXEMPT AND COMPLYING DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN AND ASSOCIATED DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN (AMENDMENT NO. 34.)

36

 

6.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 44/2004 - DRAFT FOOTPATH DINING AND TRADING DCP.

43

 

 

7           General Business

 

8           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 42/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

308-310 Arden St and 3 Alexander St Coogee Section 96 modification to increase the size of unit 16 and 17 from two bedrooms to three bedrooms and provide additional basement car parking.

 

 

DATE:

1 July, 2004

FILE NO:

D0420/2003/GE

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report is referred back to Heath Building and Planning Committee for determination in accordance with Council’s Resolution of the 22nd June 2004. The application was deferred at the Ordinary Council meeting of the 22nd June 2004 so that the applicant and assessing officer could confer over a differing in calculations for Floor Space Ratio and maximum height. The assessing officer and the planning consultant acting on behalf of the applicant have met and the differences in calculations have been identified.

 

ISSUES:

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

The applicant has provided floor space ratio calculations as generated by CAD. As a result of these calculations there is now agreement between both parties of the approved Floor Space Ratio (FSR) at 0.97:1 where previously the applicant cited a lower FSR. The Development Assessment Report stated a floor space ratio of 1.05:1, it is considered from a review of the CAD (which being computer generated are more accurate than scaled off measurements) calculations provided by the applicant that the FSR is probably closer to 1.03:1. This still represents a minor variation from the FSR provided by the applicant, this variation is attributed to void areas being included in Council’s FSR calculations per the definition of Randwick’s Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

Irrespective of the difference in FSR from 1.05:1 to 1.03:1, 1.03:1 still represents a significant variation from the permissible FSR of 0.9:1. The previous report argued that an FSR of 0.97:1 was a variation at the maximum range that Council Officer’s would be willing to support based on amenity and streetscape impacts. Increasing this variation above this to 1.03:1 is not considered to be a reasonable development outcome. The arguments forwarded previously in regard to increasing bulk toward residences in 306 and 312 Arden St are not resolved by a recalculation of the FSR. The effect of this additional bulk is increased opportunity for overlooking, additional overshadowing and visual bulk when viewed from these adjoining residences in Arden St.

Height

 

The original assessment report stated  an external wall height of 13.2m and a maximum height of 13.9m, these measurements are correct when scaled off the submitted northern elevation plans. The applicant argued that the approved plans also had these height ranges. From a review of the approved plans it is noted that these plans are not drawn to a comparable scale to the current Section 96 plans and therefore cannot be compared to the current elevation plans. Whilst these plans are shown at the same scale the plans when scaled off provide differing dimensions with a natural ground level shown at a different level. It is considered that the errors in the plan restrict a proper calculation of the real heights provided.

 

Irrespective of the errors it is noted that the extent of external wall and maximum height is increased with the current section 96 modification where the additional areas at this height from natural ground are increased outwards towards the side boundaries from the approved plans. That is, where previously there was a smaller extent of variation from the height controls this modification seeks to extend the areas breaching the height controls.

 

In estimating the extent of height increase between the current plans and the approved plans the applicant has suggested that the addition is approaching 600mm, it is likely that this increases up to 1.1m but a clear measurement is not possible given the two elevation plans are not of a like scale. 

 

The applicant submitted a sketch plan which provided a further variation to the roof design which would slightly lower the height from the submitted plans. As these plans did not have an identifiable scale the height difference was not readily determinable. Further, it is considered that any additional floor area (footprint) at the greater height cannot be supported. The arguments provided in the original assessment report were amenity impacts to neighbouring properties including additional overshadowing, increased bulk and scale and undesirable precedent within the locality. There are also concerns raised for the built form of the development where the additional footprint at the maximum height does not respect the slope of the land.

 

Privacy

 

The applicant acknowledged that there are valid privacy impacts from the sought amendments in particular where previous roof areas are to be converted into usable terrace areas. To resolve this issue a concept sketch showing additional landscaping and planter boxes around the perimeter was submitted. It is considered that at this height additional landscaping will do little to reduce privacy impacts in particular at this height where ocean winds would restrict available plant species. As the bulk and scale of the modification cannot be supported there was little point in accepting the sketch seeking to improve privacy levels.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The revised calculations of height and floor space ratio have not altered the amenity impacts resulting from the sought variations of the development standards. The further variations from the controls have significant amenity impacts and exacerbate already significant objection against the proposal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

The Council endorse the recommendation of the Development Application Report for 308-310 Arden St and 3 Alexander St Coogee dated 7 June 2004 that was deferred at Councils Ordinary Council meeting of 22nd June 2004.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 36/2004, dated 15 June, 2004.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 36/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

308-310 Arden Street and 3 Alexander Street, COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

15 June, 2004

FILE NO:

D/0420/2003/'A'

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for a Section 96 modification to increase the size of unit 16 and 17 from two bedrooms to three bedrooms and provide additional basement car parking.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 7 June, 2004.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

7 June, 2004

FILE NO:

D0420/2003/'A'

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification to increase the size of unit 16 and 17 from two bedrooms to three bedrooms and provide additional basement car parking.

PROPERTY:

 308-310 Arden St and 3 Alexander St Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 CSA Architects

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The proposed modification seeks to increase the number of bedrooms provided for units 16 and 17, resulting in an extension to the fourth storey to Arden St. The original proposal was amended by condition to reduce the number of storeys, FSR and bulk of the development and was approved at what is considered to be the maximum density that could be supported on the site. This current modification seeks to increase the scale of the development beyond that which is considered acceptable. The modifications have amenity, streetscape and built form impacts and significant neighbour opposition.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the addition of two bedrooms off units 16 and 17 at the fourth floor level. The approved upper level is to be extended by adding  two additional bedrooms west of the existing stairs access. When viewed from Arden St (East elevation) the addition will extend out from the existing upper level by some additional 3.4m.

 

To accommodate the additional two bedrooms additional parking is provided to the basement for the spaces for units 14 and 9 where three spaces are to be accommodated within mechanical car stackers.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Arden St and the eastern side of Alexander St between the intersecting streets of Dudley St and Neptune St in Coogee.

 

The subject site is the combination of three sites reading as two components. The first being Lot A of DP 308966 and Lot B of DP317715 which constitute the Arden St section of the site making up the majority of the site area. The second component is 3 Alexander St site known as consolidated Lot 1 DP 311144 and Lot 2 DP 177453 this section provides the vehicular and service access to the site and a two storey detached building.

 

3 Alexander St                                                                      308-310 Arden St.

 

The total site area is 1,594sqm with a frontage to Arden St of 24.385m and 13.715m to Alexander St.

 

The surrounding locality is defined by the bounding streets of Dudley St, Arden  St, Neptune St and Alexander St. This locality is comprised of a mix of densities and architectural styles with three periods of development represented, the original pre World War 1 bungalows, the mixed use and multi unit developments of the interwar period and 1960s and 1970s residential flat developments. There has been a recent redevelopment trend with the older bungalows being redeveloped into multi unit developments. There have been a number of such developments approved within the locality within the past few years including the recently approved 11-15 Alexander St of a similar scale to the proposed development.

 

Adjacent to the subject site, to the north on Arden St are a pair of semi-detached dwellings (Nos 304-306 Arden St) and a boarding house at the corner of Dudley St. To the south of the property is a four storey red brick multi unit development. Across from the subject site on Arden St are a series of multi unit developments with a general height of four storeys. Running along the northern boundary of the subject site are a number of properties which address Dudley St these include detached residences, multi unit development and commercial properties (Nos 94, 96 and 96A Dudley St). Adjacent to the north of No. 3 Alexander St is a two storey mixed use development with associated garages (92 Dudley St). To the South is a 3 storey residential flat building known as 5 Alexander St.. Along the southern boundary is a 3 storey residential flat building that extends partially alongside the centre of the subject site (7-9 Alexander St). To the South of 310 Arden St is a 3 storey residential flat building known as 312-314 Arden St.

 

Demolition of the existing properties has already commenced and as such construction is soon to commence on the approved development.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Deferred commencement consent was issued at the Ordinary Council meeting of 9 December 2003. The deferred commencement conditions require deletion of a unit, void areas to units 10, 11 and 12 including associated roof terraces and reconfigured unit and the car park layout. These 7 deferred commencement conditions were imposed primarily to reduce the bulk and scale of the development and to minimise impacts on neighbouring properties. Amended plans were submitted and the consent made operable on the 6 February 2004.

 

The current Section 96 application before Council was submitted on the 18 February 2004. When lodged in February the application sought several changes including the extension of the fourth level to provide two additional bedrooms to units 16 and 17, an additional unit to the Alexander St building and additional car spaces through the use of car stackers. The additional level to the Alexander St building was considered to be outside of the scope of a Section 96 application where the additional storey constituted a development substantially different from which consent was granted. The applicant was advised to withdraw this component of the application which was done with new plans submitted on the 5 May 2004. At this time several concerns with the application were raised and it was suggested that the entire application be withdrawn. The applicant elected to proceed with the current application.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised in accordance with the Council’s Policy on Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received:

 

Objections

 

E Mckenzie

96 Dudley St

 

B & L Hammond

94 Dudley St

 

V Rodd

3/5 Alexander St

 

J Hughes

c/- Bradfield and Pritchard Randwick

48 Belmore Rd

Randwick

 

F Lugg

PO Box 92

Enmore

 

I & F Swindelks

3/96A Dudley St

 

·    Development is out of character with streetscape

 

Comment

 

Built form and urban design were considered as part of the assessment of the original application. In assessing the proposed modification it is considered that the extension to the fourth floor to Arden St will reduce the level of articulation currently provided and as such will detract from the quality of the built form.

 

·    Additional bulk as a result of the addition

 

Comment

 

The extension of the fourth storey by some 5.8m in depth will result in additional bulk both from the Arden St streetscape and when viewed from neighbouring properties. The additional bulk is considered unreasonable where the approved density for the site, already above the permissible under the LEP, is considered to be the maximum that can be justified. Any additional bulk results in a building that is out of context with the immediate locality and does not satisfy the objectives of floor area.

 

·    Car stackers being too cumbersome will result in residents parking on street

 

Comment

 

Whilst there is no documented evidence of this being experienced in other similar developments the need to provide additional spaces through the provision of car stackers is not supported where there is the potential for mechanical failure which would render all spaces for that particular unit non-accessible.

 

·    Concern for number of parking spaces

 

Comment

 

The traffic conditions of the immediate locality are noted and was a matter for consideration in the original assessment report not for this modification.

 

·    Loss of privacy request further amendments to provide greater privacy

 

Comment

 

Once approval is issued modifications or amendments can only be made by the applicant further amendments cannot be requested by either affected properties or Council. 

 

·    Plan as submitted is rudimentary with inaccurate detail regarding neighbouring properties

 

Comment

 

Any errors on the plans in relation to site conditions become apparent once an inspection is undertaken.

 

·    Further variation to floor space ratio

 

Comment

 

This is discussed further under Floor Area in the Environmental Assessment Section of this report.

 

·    Overshadowing as a result of additional height

 

Comment

 

Shadow diagrams were not submitted with the proposal it is however noted that there will be some level of increased overshadowing as a result of the extension to the fourth storey. As the proposal is recommended for refusal a request for further solar access analysis was not requested of the applicant.

 

·    Loss of privacy

 

Comment

 

It is possible there will be additional overlooking as a result of the intensification of the fourth floor terrace areas by providing additional access off the new bedrooms. It should however be noted that the terrace was approved as part of the original application.

 

·    Extra traffic movements

 

Comment

 

Some of the objection related to the Alexander St building additional storey, as this has been withdrawn from the application these points are not included as part of the objections.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application was not referred for technical officer comment as the proposed modifications did not alter the comments previously provided.

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 - FSR

0.9:1

0.97:1 Approved

 

1.05:1 Proposed

No

33 - Building Height

10m External wall height

 

12m Overall Maximum

13.2m

 

 

13.9m

 

No

 

(b)   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65- Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

The original plans were referred to the Design Review Panel for comment, a number of issues were raised primarily relating to bulk and scale and poor internal amenity for units. Amended plans were submitted which resolved some of the panel’s concerns. The deferred commencement conditions were then imposed to rectify the remaining issues to a level where Council could support the application. It is considered that the modifications currently sought by increasing the bulk of the development will reduce the quality of the development below that which consent was issued. As such the application cannot be supported as it will not meet the minimum requirements of several of the SEPP’s design principles specifically Principle 2- scale and Principle 4- density.

 

The Section 96 modification was not referred to the Design Review Panel as the consent authority has the discretion whether or not to refer a matter under Part 4 Clause 30 of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 Modification of Consent (1B). It should however be noted that an applicant in seeking to modify a consent under (1A) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 must provide a design verification statement including a statement that the modifications do not diminish or detract from the design quality, or compromise the design intent, of the development for which the development consent was granted. Such a statement was not provided with this application and it is considered that the modifications do in fact compromise and diminish the quality and design intent of the development. As the application was not supported by the Department of Planning and Community Development the proposal was not forwarded to the Design Review Panel.

 

8.         SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1  Substantially the same

 

The application as submitted, including the additional storey to the Alexander St building, was considered to not be substantially the same as that for which consent was issued. As such this component of the application was withdrawn.

 

The remaining modifications for the additional bedroom to units 16 and 17 and the car stackers are considered to be consistent with the nature of approved development. The modifications will not result in a development substantially different from that for which consent was granted. It should however be noted that this does not result in a development that meets the relevant assessment criteria under DCP for Multi Unit Housing or LEP 1998.

 

8.2  Consideration of submissions

 

The objections were previously discussed under Notification 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       Floor Area

 

The approved FSR is 0.97:1 based on the deferred commencement plans. The proposed FSR based on the modification will be 1.05:1. The maximum permissible FSR for the site is 0.9:1. The approved plans varied the maximum permissible FSR by way of a SEPP 1 objection which was supported. It is considered however that the additional FSR is excessive and will contribute unreasonably to the bulk of the development having streetscape and amenity impacts. The approved variation of 110sqm whilst numerically large satisfied the applicable objectives and performance requirements of the development standard and the SEPP 1 objection was supported. This Section 96 application seeks a total variation of some 240sqm which is not reasonable and being almost double the original variation cannot be supported due to the increased amenity impacts of the proposal.

 

The purpose of the floor area control is to establish reasonable upper limits for development to reduce the potential for adverse impacts on nearby and adjoining development. The additional 130sqm of floor area sought will increase the fourth level to Arden St further towards the neighbouring properties of 306 Arden St and 312 Arden St and further back into the subject site. To No. 306 Arden St the number of windows affected by the development will be affected where the footprint of this storey is no longer restricted to just the front section of the subject site. The provision of a sliding door off the proposed bedroom will provide an intensification of the terrace area associated with this unit which in turn will have privacy (aural and visual) implications for this adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

To the south No. 312 Arden St there are also concerns for increased privacy impacts from

the intensification of the approved roof terrace area. As the photos below indicate the fourth floor will correspond with the 3 and 4 storey building known as 312 Arden St where habitable windows and balconies are positioned. It is also noted that the additional floor area will extend the amount of shadow experienced to this southern elevation.

 

Photos showing North-east and North-West elevation of 312 Arden St note the balconies and windows to this northern elevation.

 

To the streetscape the fourth storey was originally designed as a as a partial storey reading as a pop up roof element to the development. This element provided the upper level of two units and access to the designated private open space however was intended to be visually unobtrusive of a reduced scale. The overall front elevation to Arden St was designed to read as primarily three storeys with a small fourth level, this design resulted in a development that responds well to the scale of adjoining properties and the intended future character of this section of Arden St. A good level of articulation and modulation was provided by this partial upper storey.  By extending the footprint closer to that of the lower floor footprint the degree of modulation is lowered and the bulk of the façade is increased. The visual interest of the façade will be compromised and the quality of the built form reduced.

 

The proposed additional floor area compromises the amenity of neighbouring developments and the visual appearance of the development when viewed from Arden St.

 

9.2       Height

 

The approved plans had a compliant external and overall maximum height. The proposed extension of the fourth/upper level increases the height of the development. This is due to the slope of the land whereby the further deeper into the site the footprint extends the higher the building envelope. The maximum external wall height becomes 13.2m from the permissible 10m. The maximum overall height increases to 13.9m from the permissible 12m, the variation is considered considerable.

 

The purpose of the height standard is to protect the amenity of surrounding areas. The amenity implications of additional overshadowing have been already considered under Floor Area section of this report. The additional height sought with this proposal at the highest point is some 3.5m. The additional height is due to the extension of the building footprint where  the site slopes away and the distance to natural ground is greater. The additional 3.5m is a significant increase and one which will considerably extend the shadow length at the winter solstice. The approved plans through deferred commencement conditions sought to reduce the height of the development towards the centre of the site to reduce shadow length to 312 Arden St and 7-9 Alexander St. Whilst the additional height is located closer towards the Arden St end of the development it is considered that the addition will increase the height of the shadow over additional habitable rooms on the northern elevation of 312 Arden St. It should also be noted that solar access has continued to be of concern for the residents of this development.

 

The additional bulk of this increase of 3.5m beyond the approved height of the development does not respect or relate to the slope of the site. The intention of the DCP and SEPP 65 is for developments to follow the lie of the land terracing down with the slope. The extension of the upper level towards the west does not reflect the slope and as such results in the significant variation from the permissible height. When viewed from the north or south of the site the building will be bulky and inconsistent with the topography of the site.

 

From west of the site the additional height extends the bulk of the development both vertically and horizontally reading as a five to six storey building extending across most of the width of the site. The additional partial storey does not provide any architectural detail which could minimise this bulk and the proposed built form disrupts the symmetry of the development.

 

The additional height cannot be supported given the adverse amenity, bulk and scale repercussions.

 

9.3       Parking

 

The approved plans complied with the necessary number of parking spaces for the number of bedrooms provided, in actuality the approved plans resulted in an excess of two spaces. Even if the proposed modification was approved then there would still be no need for any additional spaces. There is no specific objection raised for providing additional car parking spaces however given the additional number is achieved through car stackers there is a concern raised. Council’s Parking DCP does not encourage the use of stackers and given their mechanical limitations it is considered to be an unnecessary burden on the development. Further, the stackers are provided to a unit where there is no intended increase in bedroom numbers such that there is no apparent need. Should the stackers malfunction then there is a further demand placed on already limited on-street parking.

 

9.4       Privacy

 

Privacy has been discussed previously under the floor area and height sections of this report. It is considered that there will be an intensification of the approved roof top terrace areas where there is improved access to this area from the additional sliding door off the proposed bedroom. The additional access will make the deck terrace area more usable primarily to the side boundaries out the front of the new bedrooms. In this location there are habitable windows to adjoining buildings at the same height. It is considered that any intensification of the terrace areas which will have an impact on the privacy of adjoining properties cannot be supported.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification to provide an additional second bedroom to units 16 and 17 constituting an extension to the fourth floor does not meet the purpose or objectives of the relevant development standards of floor space ratio and maximum height. The additional floor area will result in an unacceptable increase in building bulk and will compromise the design of the development. The additional floor area results in a significant amenity impact for neighbouring properties such as overshadowing, loss of privacy and perceived building bulk. This building bulk is also apparent from Arden St and has an adverse impact on the quality of built form and its relationship to the streetscape.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 420/03 for Section 96 modification to increase the size of unit 16 and 17 from two bedrooms to three bedrooms and provide additional basement car parking. at 308-310 Arden St and 3 Alexander St Coogee for the following reasons:-

 

1.         The proposal does not satisfy the Design Principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65.

 

2.         The proposal does not provide a Design Verification required under Part 4 Clause 30 (1A) State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65.

 

3.         The proposal is inconsistent with the purpose of Clause 33- Building Heights of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in relation to external wall height and overall height where the amenity of adjoining properties will be adversely affected.

 

4.         The proposal does not comply with the numerical requirements of Clause 33- Building Heights of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 where the external wall height is 13.2m and overall maximum 13.9m.

 

5.         The proposal is inconsistent with the purpose of Clause 32-Floor Space Ratio of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 where the additional bulk will impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.

 

6.         The proposal does not comply with the maximum permissible FSR of 0.9:1 stipulated in  Clause 32-Floor Space Ratio of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 where the proposed FSR is 1.05:1.

 

7.         The proposal will have an adverse impact on the built form of the development and its relationship with streetscape.

 

8.         The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan Multi Unit Housing Part 4.4 Solar Access and Energy Efficiency whereby the proposal will have an adverse impact on the solar access enjoyed by adjoining properties.

 

9.         The proposal will result in overlooking to adjoining properties inconsistent with the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan Multi Unit Housing Part 4.2 Privacy.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 architectural plans.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

AOIFE WYNTER

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

29 June, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 84/04

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification to development consent to increase the floor  space of the approved dry cleaners and Laundromat.

PROPERTY:

 126-130 Barker Street Randwick

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Urbis JHD

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application seeks consent to modify the proposed development to enlarge the area of the approved addition to the existing commercial premises from 67sqm to 96sqm.

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillor’s Matson, Woodsmith and Seng.

 

The main issue is if there will be any significant additional impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises resulting from additional floor space being provided to the approved dry cleaning and Laundromat.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The original development consent detailed the extension to the eastern side of the existing Service Station Convenience Store to accommodate a new dry cleaning and Laundromat business. Development consent was originally granted under delegated authority on the 28 th April 2004.

 

The proposed modification seeks consent to vary the proposal to enlarge the area of the approved addition from 67sqm to 96sqm. The proposed modification will increase the overall length of the addition from 12.84m to 16.48m, the width of the building remains unaltered and the side boundary setback of 1060mm to the eastern side boundary also remains unaltered.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject premises is on the corner of Barker and Botany Streets and at present a service station and convenience store operating on the site. The immediate locality contains a mixture of local business uses, the UNSW Campus, the Prince of Wales and Women’s Hospital, the Inglis horse sales complex, and semi detached and free standing dwellings and multi unit housing development.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

The original development consent, DA 228/80, which detailed the erection of a convenience store to the existing service station was approved by the Land & Environment Court on the 16th September 1981. The premises has also been the subject of a number of previous development applications relating to the convenience store and service station use, the most recent being DA 157/94 for alterations to the convenience store.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

R & D Stokes and S Day of 132 Barker Street Randwick

 

-the increased area to the addition is not a minor change and is merely a deception to allow for the proposal to be originally approved and later increased in area.

-it is unreasonable for such a development to be allowed in a residential area.

-the development will block sunlight from their rear yard.

-the amendment will result in a significant impact upon their privacy and ability to utilize the rear yard area.

 

I & M Millican owners of 74 Botany Street Randwick

 

-the development will create extra traffic congestion in an already heavy traffic area.

-there will be excessive noise created.

 

W & J Blance of 72 Botany Street Randwick

 

-the use will result in a fire risk due to sparks from electric motors.

-there will be noise nuisance as a result of equipment used at the premises.

 

S & M Kanapathipillai of 2/131A Botany Street Randwick

 

-the applicant claims that the original plans were incorrect, therefore the original application should be refused.

-allowing a dry cleaning business in this area will add to chemical pollution and traffic congestion.

-the development will result in noise nuisance.

-the proposal will increase the noise from the air compressors and washing machines.

-the hours of operation will result in their family being affected late at night and early in the morning.

-there will be an increase in air and chemical pollution.

-potential fire hazard.

-additional traffic congestion will result in security issues.

-there will be a loss of property value.

-there will be a possible increase in littering.

-such developments should not be encouraged in residential areas.

 

Comment:

 

It should firstly be noted that the application to modify the development consent does not offer an opportunity for Council to revisit the overall merits of the original application and the impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises has been thoroughly addressed in the assessment of the original application.

 

The issue of development consent does not absolve the responsibility of the operators to ensure that the operation of the business will not result in a nuisance to the adjoining premises with respect to noise or other issues and suitable conditions of consent were imposed with the original consent.

 

The proposed modification seeks to increase the floor area of the new retail portion of the building to 98sqm and the overall length of the building from 12.84m to 16.48m. The justification for the proposed increased floor area is that the original plans were concept plans only, were incorrectly submitted and do not provide an adequate floor area for the operation of the business.

 

It is considered on balance, that the proposed modification of the original consent will not intensify the approved use in that it is not proposed to install any additional equipment to the premises and that there will not be a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises.    

 

6.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is prohibited under the LEP. The proposal details alterations to the existing non conforming use situation which was the subject of Development Application, 228/80, which detailed the erection of a convenience store to the existing service station. Consent to this application was granted by the Land and Environment Court on the 16 th September 1981. 

 

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

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-           Building Code of Australia.

 

As has been discussed the proposal is an extension of an existing service station and convenience store which currently enjoy existing use rights as defined under the provisions of Section108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and as such no environmental planning instrument or development control plan are relevant, the application is considered on its merits and the likely impact upon the amenity of the surrounding premises. Clause 42 of the regulations, also permit the enlargement, expansion and intensification of existing uses.

 

7.       SECTION 96 ASSESSMENT:

 

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria has been complied with: -

 

7.1       Substantially the Same Development:

 

The proposed modification to the original development consent must be able to demonstrate that the development is substantially the same development. It is considered

that the proposed additional floor area to the building will not alter the overall scope of the approved development and use and therefore the proposed modification satisfies the definition as to what may be considered under an application to modify the consent.

 

8.     ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The salient point of the proposal is the assessment of any additional impact of the proposed development upon the amenity of the adjoining premises which may result from providing additional floor space and extending the building an additional 3.64m towards the rear of the site.

 

On balance, it is not considered that the proposed modified development will result in any significant additional impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises with respect to overshadowing, loss of privacy, additional traffic generation or potential for any nuisance to be caused to the adjoining residents.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification to the original consent satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in that it will constitute substantially the same development, and in addition the proposed modifications will not result in any significant additional adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape. It is therefore considered that modifications to the original Development Consent are reasonable.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to vary conditions of Development Consent No.84/04 for permission to extend the retail portion of the premises to include a dry cleaners and Laundromat as follows:-

 

Condition No.1 is altered to read as follows

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 2058-Sk1, issue A, dated 7th July 2003 and received by Council on the 11th February 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans received by Council on the 14th May 2004, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 plans

Delegated Report dated 28 April, 2004

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                             DELEGATED REPORT

        Report of the Director of Planning –28th April 2004

 

 

PROPERTY:  126-130 Barker Street Randwick                                                                           

WARD:                           West

 

FILE REF:                      DA 84/04

 

APPLICANT:                7-Eleven Stores

 

OWNER:                        RG Withers Nominee Pty Ltd

 

PROPOSAL:                  Extend retail portion of premises to include a dry cleaners and Laundromat

 

VALUE OF WORK:     $ 50 000

 

BCA

CLASSIFICATION:     6

 

DATE SUBMITTED:    11th February 2004

 

ADVERTISING:           Neighbourhood notification

 

AUTHOR:                       Perry Head

 

1.         DESCRIPTION OF LOCALITY:

 

The locality contains a mixture of local business uses, the UNSW campus and the Prince of Wales and Women’s Hospital, Inglis Horse Sales complex and a dwellings and multi unit housing development. The subject premises is on the corner of Barker and Botany Streets and at present contains a service station and convenience store.

 

2.         RELEVANT HISTORY:

 

The premises has been the subject of a number of previous applications the most recent being 157/94, for alterations the existing convenience store.

 

3.         DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:

 

The proposal details the erection of a brick metal roof addition to the side of the building to provide for a new laundry and dry cleaners to be operated between 7.00am to 7.00pm seven days a week, the building will contain two dry cleaning machines, two washing machines, two iron presses, a shirt press, gas boiler and air compressor. The development will provide for 67sqm of additional area to the building, having overall dimensions of 12.84m x 6.02m with a side boundary setback of up to 1000mm.

 

4.                     ZONING AND STATUTORY CONTROLS:

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is prohibited under the LEP. The proposal details alterations to the existing non conforming use situation which was the subject of a Development Application, 228/80, which detailed the erection of a convenience store to the existing service station. Consent to this application was granted by the Land and Environment Court. 

 

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

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-           Building Code of Australia.

 

4.         POLICY CONTROLS:

 

As has been discussed the proposal is an extension of an existing service station and convenience store which currently enjoy existing use rights as defined under the provisions of Section108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, and as such no environmental planning instrument or development control plan are relevant, the application is considered on its merits and the likely impact upon the amenity of the surrounding premises. Clause 42 of the regulations, also permit the enlargement, expansion and intensification of existing uses.

 

6.         REFERRALS:

 

No referrals required.

 

7.         NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSIONS:

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 16th February 2004.  As a result of this notification the following submissions were received.

 

W  & J Blance of 72 Botany Street Kingsford

 

-objects to further development of the 7-11 store.

-the premises already trades 24 hours a day.

-there are already noise nuisance from the motors and equipment on site.

-a nuisance is caused by head lights from vehicles leaving the premises.

-the extension of the 7-11 store is unnecessary.

-are willing to attend a Council meeting if required.

 

S & M Kanapathipillai of 2/131A Botany Street Kingsford

 

-there will be an impact upon their privacy as the proposed development will bring customers to the rear of the building.

-there will be a harmful increase in air and chemical pollution.

-the security of their premises will be compromised by the increased use of the premises adjacent to their premises.

-there will be a loss of value to their premises.

-the new Laundromat will increase traffic congestion to the street.

-there will be an increase in the possibility of littering.

-there are already two Laundromats in close proximity to this premises.

 

G Cromie & D Wegg of 134 Barker Street Randwick

 

-there will be an impact upon their privacy in that the rear yard of their premises will be exposed to employees and customers.

-there will be an increase in noise pollution from the premises.

-there will be a loss of property value.

-there is already a problem with parking in the street which will be increased by this use.

-there will be an increase in rubbish and littering.

-there may be decreased security and further problems with the convenience store robberies.

 

D & R Stokes and S Day of 132 Barker Street Randwick ( 2 submissions )

 

-the proposed use will result in an invasion of privacy.

-the building will block out available light to their premises.

-there will be a noise nuisance arising from the dry cleaning facility as the machinery will be sited only 3m from their premises.

-there will be increased traffic congestion and traffic problems with people dropping off and collecting dry cleaning.

-the use of chemicals, detergents and solvents so close to their dwelling is of concern and may lead to impacts upon their health, and there is no mention as to how and where these will be stored.

-the proposed development will completely block out the view of the rear yard of their premises which may lead to any person breaking into their home being undetected, or unheard due to the operation of their premises.

-entry and reversing traffic from the premises will be hazardous due to the position of the driveway adjacent to the entry path of their premises.

-the storage and disposal of chemicals may result in the risk of fire.

-there will be a loss of property value.

-there is no community need for an additional dry cleaners in this area.

-an extension of time is sought to enable time to canvas the rest of the neighbourhood.

 

K Martin 70A Botany Street Randwick

 

-the new business will create more noise as a result of the delivery of dry cleaning equipment and supplies.

-there is no need for another dry cleaning business in this locality.

-there is no extra parking provided as part of this application.

 

J Minary of 135 Botany Street Randwick

 

-the area is already adequately catered for by other dry cleaners.

-the existing business operates 24 hours a day seven days a week.

-there will be further noise nuisance caused by the additional business.

-there is already nuisance caused by car headlights entering and leaving the premises.

-no local people use the convenience store.

-if there are any meetings called to discuss this matter wishes to attend.

 

Petition from surrounding residents of Barker, Botany and Middle Streets

 

-the use will result in traffic congestion.

-there will be a threat to pedestrian safety.

-there will be an invasion of privacy.

-there will be a noise nuisance and pollution leading to fire safety and loss of property value.

-there is no community need for another Laundromat.

-requests that Council stop the proposed development.

 

Comment:

 

At present this area of the site is used for the storage of the bulk waste bins associated with the existing convenience store and visually the proposed building will improve the overall appearance of the site as viewed within the local streetscape, a condition of consent is included to require that the materials and finishes used are compatible with the existing building to ensure that the development will be properly integrated.

 

The existing parking to the premises already exceeds the requirement of the Parking DCP with a requirement of 6 spaces, and there being 11 spaces provided on site.

 

Conditions of consent have been included to address the objectors concerns with regards to the storage of detergents and dry cleaning fluid used at the premises, and that the operation of the business not cause any nuisance to the adjoining premises. It should be noted that the eastern wall of the building is to be solid masonry, which will assist in noise attenuation to the objector’s premises. The immediately adjoining premises at 132 Barker Street has no windows in the side elevation adjoining the site and therefore the only impact upon light to the adjoining premises may be to the rear yard.

 

The applicant has also responded to the residents concerns and has formally advised of the following matters;

 

-the use will be operated entirely by staff, customers will not be operating the equipment.

-given that the existing use includes a service station and convenience store it is not considered that the Laundromat would generate any significant volume of traffic.

-the use of the premises is orientated towards the front of the site with no rear access for staff or customers.

-the proposed new use will not increase noise from vehicles entering the premises.

-the operation of the existing business is not the subject of this proposal.

-delivery activities for the actual Laundromat use, including waste management and cleaning products will be only 2 to 3 times a week.

-the proposed hours of use are to be 7.00am to 7.00pm and will not contribute to any late night or early morning noise.

-the actual parking provided on site exceeds the DCP Parking controls by an additional 5 spaces, and the use will not reduce or obstruct these spaces.

-from a security point of view the use will operate independently from the service station and convenience store and the proposed use will not reduce the levels of on site security.

-the proposed use will be managed to ensure that there will not be a nuisance to adjoining premises with respect to pollution and any conditions of consent will be complied with.

-the proposed use is a relocated business from another location along Barker Street and therefore there will not be any concentration of similar business use.

-it is considered that the proposed use will not result in any unreasonable impacts on the surrounding residential amenity.

 

8.         SECTION 79C 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.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

 

The proposed alterations to the existing building to provide for a drop off Laundromat and Dry Cleaners complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

10.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and may be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

 

11.       RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council's Team Leader under delegated authority from the General Manager, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.84/04 for  permission to carryout alterations to the existing service station convenience store to provide for a drop off Laundromat and dry cleaners 126-128 Barker Street Randwick subject to the following conditions: -                                                                       

 

1          The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 2058-Sk1, issue A, dated 7th July 2003 and received by Council on the 11th February 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 adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

 

3          The storage of boxes, cartons, pallets, goods or any other material relating to the operation of the business other than a commercial garbage bin must be wholly contained within the premises.

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7          There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

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

 

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

 

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:

 

9          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:

 

10        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.

 

11        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.

 

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

 

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:

 

15        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.

 

16        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.

 

17        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.

 

18        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.

 

19        A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any 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.

 

20        Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during 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.

 

21        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.

 

22        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.

 

23        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.

 

24        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.

 

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) 1996.

 

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

 

In this regard, any variations that may be required to satisfy the BCA provisions, which alter the configuration, size, for, layout or design of the building, may necessitate a prior amendment to the development consent (under section 96 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979), and Council’s Assessment Officer should be consulted prior to the lodgement of an application for a Construction Certificate.

 

 

 

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

 

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

DATE: .........................................                              

 

 

Having considered the report of the Assessment Officer and after having taken into account Council's Local Environmental Policies and Codes I determine that the application subject of this assessment report should be determined in accordance with the recommendation.

 

I have exercised my delegation of authority, in accordance with the instrument of delegation dated 6th March 2002, to determine this application.

 

 

 

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

 

TEAM LEADER

 

DATE:....................................


 

 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 43/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Draft Exempt and Complying Development Control Plan and associated Draft Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No. 34)  

 

 

DATE:

28 June, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/4842

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Exempt and Complying Development Development Control Plan (DCP) lists the types of development that are classified as Exempt development or Complying development and the conditions and circumstances in which these may be carried out. It is an expansion of the former Local Approvals Policy 1998. The purpose of this report is to outline and seek support for the proposed amendments to the DCP that will improve the efficiency and performance of the DCP for both Council and the community. A Local Environmental Plan (LEP) is required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) to give force to any exempt and complying development controls.

 

Exempt development is those forms of minor development that can be carried out without the consent of Council, subject to compliance with specific development criteria, and includes minor building works such as garden sheds, water tanks, internal alterations to dwellings and barbeques.

 

Complying Development encompasses a range of low impact developments that may be carried out if it complies with specific preset requirements and a Complying Development Certificate is issued by Council or an Accredited Certifier. Complying Development includes certain alterations and additions to buildings, new single storey dwellings, replacements of shop fronts and internal fit outs.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

The history of exempt and complying development at Randwick City is as follows:

 

3 September 1996        The original Local Approvals Policy commenced with amendments being made in June 1998.

 

10 March 2000            Local Environmental Plan (LEP) (Amendment No. 13) Exempt and Complying Development was gazetted. The LEP enabled Randwick Development Control Plan (DCP) for Exempt and Complying Development.

 

17 June 2002               LEP (Amendment No. 25) Exempt and Complying Development (first amendment) was gazetted. This enabled a revised Exempt and Complying Development DCP that included a new user-friendly format and became effective on 1 July 2003.

 

11 March 2003            Following a number of Legislative amendments and the introduction of the new zones under Randwick LEP 1998, Council resolved to prepare a new Exempt and Complying LEP (second amendment) and DCP to address these issues.

 

24 February 2004        Council endorsed the Draft Exempt and Complying Development Development Control Plan and associated Draft Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No. 34) for public exhibition.

 

16 March 2004 to        The draft plans where available for public exhibition and comment 16 April 2004                       at Council’s Administration Building, the Bowen Library and on                                         Council’s web site.

 

ISSUES:

 

Draft DCP Amendment

 

The current DCP has been reviewed by Councils Development Assessment, Environmental Health and Building and Strategic Planning staff. In addition to addressing the new zonings and legislative changes, the review has also included ESD measures, where appropriate, to address Council’s ESD and Rain Water Tank Policies.

 

The key amendments include:

·        Revised introductory section to ensure the DCP format is consistent with Council’s other DCPs.

·        Addresses a number of grammatical, numerical and formatting errors.

·        Addresses a number of criteria that required clarification.

·        Review and update of the existing exempt and complying items with minor modifications to meet current standards and conditions.

·        Includes as exempt development the new categories of Filming, Low Impact Telecommunication facilities (this will not change the current status of low impact telecommunication facilities and is consistent with the Telecommunications (Low Impact Facility) Determination 1997 that already applies to Randwick City) and updates the Water Tank criteria as already applicable to Council under recent amendments to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 4 (SEPP NO. 4) – ‘Development without Consent’.

·        Includes as exempt development the new categories of Solar Panels, Road Banners and A frame signs, as requested in a previous Council resolution.

·        Includes restrictions on development in the new Zone No. 7 - Environmental Protection and Zone No. 2D – Comprehensive Development.

·        Includes First Floor Additions to detached single storey dwellings as complying development, subject to strict development limitations.

·        Includes a number of ESD related criteria in relation to landscaping and building works in both the Exempt and Complying Development sections of the DCP.

·        Amendments to the definitions to be consistent with Randwick LEP 1998.

·        Review and update of the complying development certificate conditions.

 

Draft LEP Amendment

 

There is a statutory requirement for all exempt and complying DCPs to relate to an enabling LEP. As a result, any changes in the DCP also require amendments to the LEP to enable its implementation. The draft LEP also proposes to insert a definition for Low Impact Telecommunication Facilities into Part 5 of the Randwick LEP 1998 that is consistent with the definition in the Commonwealth’s Telecommunications (Low Impact Facilities) Determination 1997, which already applies to Randwick City.

 

A draft LEP amendment has been prepared to address this matter and is attached to this report (Attachment 1).

 

PUBLIC EXHIBITION

 

The draft plans where placed on public exhibition at the main Administration Building, the Bowen Library and on Council’s Web site from the 16 March to 16 April 2004. Six submissions where received:

 

1. The Roads and Traffic Authority raised no objection to the draft plans.

 

2. The NSW Heritage Office raised no objection to the draft plans, however requested that a rewording be made in the draft DCP in regards to items on the State Heritage Register and section 63 of the Heritage Act.

 

Comment: The comments are noted and have been incorporated into the draft DCP.

 

3. The Department of Environment and Conservation raised a number of minor issues related to recent legislation changes and to departmental name changes. They also made a number of suggestions in regards to managing asbestos removal, noise protection, managing fire risk and waste management in relation to demolition activities.

 

Comment: The comments are noted and have been incorporated into the draft DCP.

 

4. Mr Allan Graham recommended the inclusion of ‘election signage’ as an exempt development. The relevant State and Commonwealth legislation provide for election signs but do not exempt them from the need to gain consent to erect election signs.

 

Comment: Given the temporary nature and therefore minimal impact of election signage, the category has been included in the draft DCP as exempt development, subject to controls consistent with the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Act 1912 and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.

 

5. The Spot Precinct Committee raised objections to the inclusion of first floor additions to single storey free standing homes citing privacy, over shadowing and street scape concerns.

 

Comment: First floor additions are not permitted in heritage conservation zones or on heritage items and as such are not permitted in The Spot area. In addition, privacy and design controls are consistent with the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP and the set backs of 5m from the front of the house are designed to minimise the impact on street scape. The area allowed is limited to only allow a bedroom and bathroom or two small bedrooms on the first floor, minimising privacy and over shadowing concerns. 

 

6. Council’s Assessment Team raised a number of issues relating to privacy around decks and pools, clarification of the definitions contained in Part 4 and ensuring consistency with other relevant Council DCPs.

 

            Comment: The comments are noted and have been incorporated into the draft DCP.

 

In addition, the introduction of the State Government’s BASIX (Building Sustainability Index) has required a number of amendments to ensure that the DCP complies with the new State Environmental Planning Policy, which came into effect on the 1st July 2004.

 

As a result of the comments provided during the public exhibition, a number of further amendments to the draft DCP have been made, however these changes are considered to be minor of nature and do not change the intent of the DCP, as such it is not considered necessary to re-exhibit the draft plans. All the proposed amendments to the draft DCP are indicated in the attached document with highlights and strike through.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The draft LEP has been prepared and exhibited in accordance with requirements of the Act and Regulation. Council was able to exercise its delegations under s65 of the Act to exhibit the draft LEP and the provisions of s66 and s67 have been complied with in relation to public participation in the preparation of the draft LEP. The draft Plan is not inconsistent with any relevant SEPP, REP or Directions under s117.

 

The draft LEP was exhibited in accordance with the Department of Infrastructure Planning & Natural Resources ‘Best Practice Guidelines for LEPs and Council Land’ as required when any land owned by Council may be affected by an LEP.

 

The draft Plan has been forwarded to Parliamentary Counsel for an opinion and requires insertion of the date of Council’s date of endorsement of the draft LEP and DCP. As the LEP proposes to incorporate SEPP provisions and seek exemption to SEPP No. 4, it will need to be referred to DIPNR who will refer the LEP to the Minister for gazettal.

 

This report recommends that Councils adopt the draft LEP and draft DCP for Exempt and Complying Development. The changes have clarified, simplified and improved the efficiency of the DCP for both Council and the community, while maintaining the quality of development and promoting environmentally sustainable development.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

a)       Endorse draft Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No. 34) - Exempt and Complying Development and agree to forward the draft Local Environmental Plan to the Minister for gazettal;

 

b)      Adopt the draft Development Control Plan for Exempt and Complying Development dated 13 July 2004 in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to commence upon public notification of the gazettal of Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No. 34).

 

c)       Agree that the Director of Planning and Community Development may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors if required before gazettal of the Local Environmental Plan and finalisation and printing of the Development Control Plan.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment 1 - Draft Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No. 34)

Attachment 2 - Draft Exempt and Complying Development Development Control Plan (UNDER SEPERATE COVER)   

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ROSS ANTHONY

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIroNMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


Attachment 1 - Draft Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No. 34)

 

 

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979

 

RANDWICK LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1998 (Amendment No.34)

 

 

I, the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, in pursuance of section 70 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, make the local environmental plan set out hereunder.

 

 

Minister for Infrastructure, Planning

 and Natural Resources

 

Sydney, 2004

 

 


Citation

 

1.         This plan may be cited as Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No.34) – Exempt and Complying Development.

 

Aims, objectives etc.

 

2.         The aims of this plan is to provide for exempt and complying development in the local government area of Randwick.

 

Land to which this plan applies

 

3.         This plan applies to all land in the local government area of Randwick.

 

Relationship to other environmental planning instruments

 

4.         This plan amends Randwick Local Environmental 1998 in the manner set out in clause 5.

 

Amendment of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

5.         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 is amended:

 

(a).       By deleting clause 25 A

 

(b).       by omitting from clause 26(1) the words “14 May 2002” and by inserting instead the words “day/month/year”.

 

(c).       by omitting from clause 26(2) the words “14 May 2002” and by inserting instead the words “day/month/year”.

 

(d).       by omitting from clause 26(3) the words “14 May 2002” and by inserting instead the words “day/month/year”.

 

(e).       by deleting clause 26A

 

(f).       by inserting in clause 49, in alphabetical order, the following words:

 

“low impact telecommunication facility means a telecommunication facility as defined by the Telecommunications (low impact facilities) Determination 1997”.

 

(g).       by inserting in clause 49, in the definition for public utility undertaking, before the words “telecommunication facilities”, the following words:

 

“low impact”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Note:  “day/month/year” to be included following adoption of DCP by Council.


 

 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 44/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Draft Footpath Dining and Trading DCP

 

 

DATE:

1 July, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/4356

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting of 8th June, 2004, the Health Building and Planning Committee resolved to defer consideration of the draft Footpath Dining and Trading Development Control Plan (DCP) to seek further clarification on the A-Frame provisions and advice on these from the newly appointed Council Access Committee.

 

The Access Committee considered the draft DCP on 17th June, 2004, and recommends that Council not support A-Frame signs on footpaths. With respect to footpath dining and trading, the Access Committee supports the provisions in the draft DCP, subject to minor changes to incorporate reference to access for people with disabilities. The Access Committee’s memorandum is attached at Attachment B and is summarised below.

 

ISSUES:

 

ACCESS COMMITTEE COMMENTS

 

The Access Committee summarised the important issues in relation to A-Frames as:

 

§  Enforcement and monitoring impossible;

§  Further dangers to disabled people and those with mobility problems;

§  Contrary to principle of uniformity throughout the CBD for footpath trading;

§  Dangerous particularly in high winds;

§  Visual clutter;

§  High administration/enforcement costs for Council;

§  Undesirable to have commercial use of public space;

§  A-Frames usually repeat information existing on shops.

 

These issues are discussed under the heading A-Frames below.

 

 

With respect to footpath dining and trading, the Access Committee urges that enforcement be strictly policed and that the following be added to the draft DCP:

 

§  a definition of access for people with disabilities;

§  'access for people with disabilities' instead of 'disabled access'; and

§  the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Advisory Notes for Access to Premises’.

 

These issues have been addressed in the draft DCP.

 

PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS

 

A-FRAME SIGNS

 

A representation was made at the previous Health Building and Planning Committee meeting by Mr John Harkins of 37 Perouse Road, The Spot. Mr Harkin made the following points in relation to A-Frame signs:

 

§  The draft DCP maximum dimensions of 700mm x 500mm are inadequate.

§  The industry standard size is 900mm x 600mm (or 970 x 610mm with handles).

§  The content of A-Frames should be able to duplicate other advertising on the site.

 

A survey was also made of eight nearby and similar Sydney Councils, namely Botany, Leichhardt, Manly, North Sydney, Parramatta, Sydney City, Waverley and Woollahra Councils. Five of the eight Councils prohibit A-Frame signs. Two of those five Councils encounter significant problems with policing the large number of illegal A-Frames. Hence, whether permissible or not, A-Frames raise enforcement issues for Councils.

Of those Councils which permit A-Frames, sizes range from 0.8m2 (Leichhardt) 1200mm x 900mm (Waverley). Four of the eight Councils permit goods displays on footpaths and no concerns were raised in relation to their enforcement.

 

The Councils which permit A-Frames and goods displays regulate them via a licensing system which requires submission of an application, payment of annual fees and current public liability insurance. This is the case in the draft DCP.

 

Waverley Council does not permit A-Frames signs in the main commercial precinct of Bondi Junction and is proposing likewise for Bondi Beach. This is based on the principle that main commercial areas already have prime exposure, high pedestrian and vehicular traffic and do not need additional advertising, as well as the safety aspect on busier and more congested footpaths. 

 

A-Frames, as a form of outdoor advertising, are permissible in Council’s LEP and the draft DCP with development consent. Council has a number of options, as follows:

 

i.        Discourage A-Frames in the draft DCP and note they are inappropriate, as per the recommendations of the Access Committee; or

ii.       Provide limits as per the draft DCP by permitting the industry standard only, as exempt development (subject to obtaining a Local Approval under the Local Government Act, 1993) and requiring a DA and an LA for larger A-Frames.

 

Enquiries have been made with signage manufacturers as to the industry standard size for A-Frame signs. All manufacturers contacted advised that the standard is 900mm x 600mm. Should the second option above be appropriate to Council, these controls should be incorporated as the criteria for exempt development in Council’s Exempt and Complying Development DCP (also being reported to Council). A-Frames above the standard size should require development consent. This issue has been amended in the draft DCP according to these figures. These provisions allow for tightly controlled provisions for A-Frames and to address access issues and thus, this limited allowance for A-Frames is considered appropriate. 

 

With respect to advertising content, it is considered that if existing advertising is effective, there should be no need for A-Frames to duplicate such advertising and the provision in the draft DCP has been retained.

 

APPROVALS PROCESS

 

The draft DCP has been amended to clarify the approvals process. The use of a footpath for outdoor dining requires development consent under the EP& A Act, 1979, and approval under the Roads Act, 1993, and the Local Government Act, 1993. Footpaths adjacent to classified roads require the concurrence of the RTA. This is obtained by Council via its Traffic Committee processes. Approved uses require an approval and/or a license from Council and current public liability insurance.  

 

A-Frame signs will require Local Approval under the Local Government Act if they comply with the exempt development criteria (the subject of a separate report to the Committee). Conditions can be imposed upon a Local Approval for an A-Frame in relation to location, design requirements, public safety, liability and insurance. A-Frames that exceed the exempt development limits and all goods displays, will require both Local Approval and development consent. All goods displays and footpath dining will require a license from Council and current public liability insurance.

 

Proposals for restaurants which occupy the airspace above footpaths (that is, on trafficable awnings) require the same process as for footpath dining, in addition to an airspace lease with Council and the approval of DIPNR (where Council is also the roads authority).

 

SUMMARY OF DCP CHANGES

 

Subsequent to the previous Health Building and Planning Committee meeting, a number of minor changes have been made to the draft DCP, to clarify the approvals process and A-Frames. These include maximum sizes for A-Frames signs as discussed above and, clarification of Appendix 1 of the draft DCP (Statutory processes flow chart).

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Minor changes have been made to the draft DCP for clarification and typographical changes.

 

The draft DCP provides for an appropriate balance between allowing for commercial uses and activity on and above footpaths, while ensuring that the primary purpose of access is not unnecessarily impeded. However, major concerns with A-Frame signs remain a significant issue. The public benefits versus the private gain need to be carefully considered by the Council before the draft DCP is adopted.  

 

Council may approve the plan with the alterations described in the report and included in Attachment A. Council is required to give public notice of its decision within 28 days after the decision is made for the Plan to come into effect.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council,

 

1.       Adopt the draft Footpath Dining and Trading DCP (at Attachment A) to commence in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulation upon public notification of the DCP commencement date.

2.       Repeal DCP No. 20 “Restaurants on Public Road Footways, Airspace above Roads and Public Land”, in accordance with the Act and Regulation, upon public notification of this draft DCP. 

3.       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:

 

Draft DCP

Access Committee Memorandum (18/06/04)

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

JANE FLANAGAN

MANAGER – ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & BUILDING SERVICES

STRATEGIC PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Memorandum

 

 

TO:

Director of Planning and Community Development

CC:                  Coordinator Community Development

 

FROM:            Cr Robert Belleli

 

DATE:             18 June 2004                           FILE:   98/S/4318

 

SUBJECT:       Access Committee Recommendations on Footpath Dining and Trading Draft Development Control Plan.

 

The Health, Building, and Planning Committee at its meeting held on 8 June 2004 resolved that a report in relation to the Footpath Dining and Trading Draft Development Control Plan and Enforcement be brought back to Council in one month and in the interim, the Randwick Access Committee be invited to comment on the impact of the draft Plan.

 

The Access Committee reviewed the draft DCP at its meeting on Thursday 17 June and has considered the impact of Footpath Dining and trading on people with a disability, in particular, those with mobility problems, in wheelchairs, those with impaired vision, older people and families with children in prams / pushers.

 

In principle the Access Committee does not support the recommendation to Council of the placement of A Frame Signs on footpaths throughout the Randwick LGA, because of the dangers and difficulties it poses to residents and visitors with a disability.  The Committee believes that all residents should be afforded the opportunity to travel throughout the LGA, independently with dignity and without fear of obstacles that may cause them harm.

 

The following is a summary of important issues identified in relation to ‘A’ frames by the Access Committee for Council’s consideration.

 

1.       Enforcement and Monitoring of the signs would be impossible for Council to achieve; this would result in an increase in non compliance to the regulations.

 

2.       Present further dangers to those individuals mentioned above and would not meet with the idea of uniformity throughout the CBD for footpath trading.

 

3.       The signs are dangerous to the public particularly in high wind areas/situation.

 

4.       Due to the inability of monitoring, the signs will obstruct the footway and become aesthetically unappealing (old, damaged, illegible), resulting in visual clutter.

 

5.       Procedures for regulating the use of the signs will create serious and time consuming policing and approval work for staff, with high associated administration costs.

 

6.       Widespread use of “public” space such as a footpath, for the purpose of commercial advertising, is an undesirable principle.

 

7.       The information contained on the ‘A’ frames usually repeat information that is already displayed externally on the shops.

 

Recommendation:

 

That Council does not approve A Frame Signs on the footpaths within the Randwick City Area.

 

Footpath Dining and Trading.

 

In principle the Access Committee does support the approval by Council of Footpath Dining and Trading inclusive of the regulations and standards that are contained in the Report, in particular, the Access Committee would like to note the following:

 

      1.   The Committee agrees with the uniformity of placing the dining areas flush to the             kerb.

 

2.   The Committee agrees with the idea of providing a painted line which would ensure a     better chance of conformity to regulations and space which has been granted for use.

 

3.   The Committee would like to strongly suggest that enforcing and monitoring of the          regulations be strictly adhered to.

 

Suggested additional changes to the DCP document:

 

Part 1

1.6 Add definition of access for people with disabilities as follows:

 

            “The DDA Advisory Notes for Access to Premises define a continuous

            accessible path of travel as an uninterrupted route to or within

            Premises or buildings and providing access to all services and

            facilities. It should not incorporate any step, stairway, turnstile,

            revolving door, escalator, hazard or other impediment which would

            prevent it from being safely negotiated by people with disabilities”.

 

 

      Part 2

      Objectives. Change 'disabled access' to 'access for people with disabilities'.

.

      3.6 Accessibility. Change 'disabled access' to 'access for people with disabilities'.

 

       Under Performance Criteria.

      1. After Building Code of Australia add 'and the Disability

      Discrimination Act (DDA) Advisory Notes for Access to Premises’.

 

 

 

 

________________

Cr Robert Belleli

Chair

Randwick City Council Access Committee

 

 

G:\BusinessPaper\DPE\H040701-DPE-944.doc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT A (Shaded wording shows alterations from the exhibited draft DCP)

 

 

 

Footpath Dining & Trading

Draft Development Control Plan

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Cost:       $11.00 including GST

 

 

 


CONTENTS

Part 1     GENERAL INFORMATION

 

1.1          Introduction...............................................................................................................................

4

1.2          Citation......................................................................................................................................

4

1.3          Land Covered By This Plan...................................................................................................

4

1.4          Interpretation............................................................................................................................

4

1.5          Relationship To Other Plans................................................................................................

4

1.6          Definitions................................................................................................................................

5

1.7          Purpose Of The Plan..............................................................................................................

5

1.8          Consent Authority, Owners’ Consents and Statutory Processes..................................

6

1.9          Date Of Approval and Commencement..............................................................................

7

1.10        Information Required To Be Lodged With A Development Application........................

7

1.11        Council Responsibilities.......................................................................................................

9

1.12        Fees and Charges..................................................................................................................

9

1.13        How To Use The Plan............................................................................................................

9

Part 2     DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN CONTROLS

 

2.1  Location and Layout of Footpath Trading Activities..................................................................

10

2.2  Use of footpath airspace for outdoor dining………………………………………………

12

2.3  Operating Hours..............................................................................................................................

14

2.4  Amenity..............................................................................................................................................

14

2.5  Furniture, Umbrellas and Lighting...............................................................................................

15

2.6  Advertising and Signage................................................................................................................

16

2.7  A-Frame Advertising Structures…………………………………………………

16

2.8  Goods Displays……………………………………………………………

18

Part 3     MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 

 

3.1          Consumption of Alcohol........................................................................................................

19

3.2          Health and Safety....................................................................................................................

19

3.3          Litter and Cleanliness............................................................................................................

19

3.4          Toilets and Sanitary Facilities...............................................................................................

20

3.5          Car Parking..............................................................................................................................

20

3.6          Accessibility…………………………………………………………………………

20

APPENDIX

 

1.            Statutory Processes Flowchart.............................................................................................

21

2.            Recommended Locations.....................................................................................................

22

3.            Recommended Furniture.......................................................................................................

23

4.            Recommended Planter Boxes, Screens and Shade Structures...................................

24

5.            Standard Conditions Of Consent.........................................................................................

25

5a.        Standard Conditions Of Consent – Footpath Airspace…………………………………… 

28


PART 1      GENERAL INFORMATION

 

 

 


1.1                                                                                                                                                                        Introduction

 

This Development Control Plan (the Plan) provides objectives and performance criteria for outdoor dining and trading activities on, and over public footpaths, malls and associated public spaces. 

 

The Plan should be referred to in plans of management for proposed outdoor dining in public space areas.

 

The Plan has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act) and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000.

 

Council is required by Section 79 of the Act to take this Plan into consideration when determining development applications to which this Plan applies.

 

1.2      Citation

 

The Plan may be cited as the Randwick City Council ‘Footpath Dining and Trading Development Control Plan’.

 

1.3      Land Covered by this Plan

 

The Plan applies to all land within the Randwick Local Government Area.

 

1.4      Interpretation

 

Terms in the Plan generally have the meaning ascribed to them in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.  Where the meanings of terms differ, definitions have been provided (see Part 1.6).

 

1.5      Relationship To Other Plans

 

The Plan replaces Randwick DCP No. 20 Restaurants on Public Road Footways, Airspace above Roads and Public Land, 1994.

 

The Plan should be read in conjunction with the following:

 

-      Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998, as amended,

-      Randwick Exempt and Complying Development DCP,

-      Randwick Outdoor Advertising DCP,

-      Randwick DCP - Parking;

-      NSW Food Act and food safety standards incorporated therein, and

-      Other relevant statutory plans, Council and Technical Reports and, other policies.

 

1.6      Definitions

 

‘A-Frame Sign’

A freestanding, relocatable, two-sided structure, generally located on a footpath outside a commercial business and, which contains advertising, flush on the face of the sign, relating to an adjacent business or product sold therein. 

 

‘Access for people with disabilities’

 

The DDA Advisory Notes for Access to Premises define a continuous

accessible path of travel as an uninterrupted route to or within

Premises or buildings and providing access to all services and

facilities. It should not incorporate any step, stairway, turnstile,

revolving door, escalator, hazard or other impediment which would

prevent it from being safely negotiated by people with disabilities.

 

‘Clear Zone’

An unobstructed pedestrian corridor, which provides a continuous, accessible path of travel on a footpath.

 

‘Footpath airspaceis a footpath awning directly above a ground floor premises.

 

‘Footpath Trading Activity’

Use of a public footpath, directly in front of the related premises only, for outdoor dining or other trading activity, including advertising and the display of goods.

 

“Furniture and Fittings’

Items including tables, chairs, menu boards, umbrellas, lighting devices, screens and planter boxes.

 

‘Goods Displays’

The display of goods on a public footpath abutting the shopfront of an associated approved business premises, whether by the use of a freestanding structure or not.

 

‘Outdoor Dining Area’

An outdoor area where food and beverages are served in conjunction with adjacent premises, that is approved for use as an indoor restaurant or cafe.

 

‘Public Utility’

A structure owned by Council or a statutory body and located within a road reserve, for example, telegraph pole, rubbish bin, seating, street sign pole, bus stop sign or other structure.

 

‘Registered Food Premises’

All types of premises that deal with the sale, distribution or storage of food and includes all areas associated with those premises.

 

 

1.7       Purpose Of This Plan

 

The purpose of this Plan is to:

 

-           provide provisions for footpath trading activities used in conjunction with associated, approved, indoor premises only;

 

-           specify objectives and performance criteria for footpath trading activities to ensure access, safety and amenity of public footpaths is maintained, while facilitating active and lively street frontages; 

 

-           encourage people’s enjoyment of the public domain provided it does not unnecessarily clutter the footpath, does not create access difficulties for the disabled and less mobile and, does not introduce commercial uses that are more appropriately located indoors;

 

-         promote a high quality visual environment to ensure footpath trading is compatible with other community use of the footpath and contributes to the amenity of adjacent properties; and

 

-         ensure that proposed footpath trading activities do not adversely impact upon the amenity of adjacent residences and that management measures are implemented to minimise any impacts.

 

The Plan provides for development consent and approval under the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EPA) Act, 1979, and the Roads Act, 1993.

 

 

1.8      Consent Authority, Owners’ Consents And    Statutory Processes

 

Proposals for outdoor dining on public footpaths require the following processes:

 

·      development consent and approval under the Roads Act and the Local Government Act, and current public indemnity insurance; and

·      if adjacent to a classified road, the concurrence of the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA).

 

Proposals for the use of footpath airspace for outdoor dining require the above as well as the following processes:

 

·      lease agreement with Council for use of the airspace; and

·      the approval of the Director-General of DIPNR (if Council is also the roads authority).

 

Proposals for A-frame signs and goods displays require the following processes:

 

·      Local Approval or development consent and Local Approval if not exempt development;

·      current public indemnity insurance.

 

Appendix 1 contains a summary of the approvals process. Applications for all uses will be assessed against the criteria in Parts 2 and 3 of this Plan.

 

Applicants are required to maintain current public liability insurance, indemnifying Council against damage to third parties and against the issue of licences (in the case of A-Frame signs). Applicants should consult with Council’s Property Officer for information regarding insurance.

 

Applicants should note the following steps if a DA is required:

 

i)        Obtain the written consent of the Council (generally the owner of land upon which all roads are built) and the owner of the associated business premises to lodgement of the DA.

ii)       Lodge a combined DA, Roads Act and Local Government Act Approvals Application (with requisite fees).

iii)      Council seeks RTA concurrence (for outdoor dining and goods displays and A-frames adjacent to a classified road), and consent of the appropriate roads authority (goods displays and A-frames).

iv)       Council assesses the DA under relevant legislation and policies.

v)       Council issues conditional approval (seven year maximum for outdoor dining under the Roads Act).

vi)       Applicant pays annual licensing fees to Council and maintains public liability insurance.

vii)      An applicant for the use of airspace for outdoor dining are required to lease airspace owned by a roads authority (Council).  If the lease is granted by a roads authority other than the RTA, the approval of the Director-General of DIPNR is required.

viii)     Applicant obtains a liquor licence (from Liquor Administration Board) if alcohol is to be served on the footpath (outdoor dining uses only).

ix)      Licensed area must be used in accordance with the development consent conditions (which also forms part of the licence agreement). 

 

1.9      Date Of Approval And Commencement

 

The Plan was adopted by Council on ________________, 2004 and shall take effect from ____________, 2004. 

 

1.10    Information Required With Applications

 

Applicants should consult the Randwick DA Guide and the DA Lodgement Checklist for a comprehensive list of requirements to be submitted with a development application.

 

All applications for approval (DA and LA) must include the following information:

 

(a)      Scaled site plans, elevations (1:100) and reduced A4 plans which show:

-           the building line of the shop/business and adjoining shops/businesses;

-           the distance to doorways and/or building corners, with the width of the shop frontage and footpath/public area;

-           the proposed location and size of the footpath trading activity;

-           the kerb line of the street, the building line and existing features such as trees, public utilities, parking restrictions, traffic lights and pedestrian crossings;

-           details of any proposed furniture and fittings including the design, construction, dimensions, colours and materials;

-           the number of tables with dimensions; and

 

-           photographs of display goods/articles should also be provided.

 

(b)      A statement of environmental effects which addresses all of the relevant criteria of this Plan, including the following:

-         site suitability, existing use and compatibility of proposed use with adjacent uses;

-         assessment of the ability of existing premises to accommodate additional patron load including adequacy of space and capacity of food preparation and storage areas, waste storage and toilet facilities to meet increased needs of additional patrons and staff;

-         the operating hours of the premises;

-         the need for the proposal (if A-frames or goods displays);

-         compatibility of proposed furniture, fittings and structures  with the streetscape;

-         pedestrian and vehicle accessibility and safety including an assessment of vehicle and pedestrian sight lines;

-         method of securing A-frames or goods displays;

-         details of the type, location and design of heating and lighting devices;

-         likely noise impacts of proposed management measures; 

-         proposed waste management measures;  

-           likely impacts of proposal on heritage and conservation values, where applicable; and

-         whether the indoor premises are licensed to serve alcohol and whether it is proposed to be served within the outdoor dining area.

 

Applicants are advised that, notwithstanding the performance criteria set out in this Plan, all applications are considered on their merits. There may be circumstances which do not lend themselves to footpath trading, particularly outdoor dining, for example, narrow or cluttered footpaths, busy pedestrian and on-street areas, (such as pedestrian crossings, loading bays, clear ways and bus stops), narrow shop frontages and certain heritage items. Temporary or mobile food service providers or vendors are not appropriate as outdoor dining areas.

 

Furthermore, while Council recognises the need for businesses to promote themselves by advertising and displays, the design and location of these structures can adversely affect access, safety and amenity, if not managed effectively.

 

A-frames and goods displays are generally not acceptable on footpaths. Unsuitable locations include steep slopes, narrow or cluttered footpaths, high wind areas and heritage streetscapes. 

 

However, A-frames and goods displays may be permitted in limited circumstances and only where they comply with the criteria in all Parts of this Plan particularly Parts 2.7 - 2.8. Accordingly, applicants are advised to survey local conditions and consult with Council officers prior to lodging an application.

1.11    Council Responsibilities

 

Council retains management and ownership of its footpaths at all times. Council has the right to access and remove all trading items at any time for any purpose deemed suitable by it.

 

No compensation is payable in the event of Council or any statutory authority carrying out works which require the removal, cessation and/or alteration to any approved footpath trading activity.

1.12    Fees And Charges

 

Council has a schedule of fees and charges for the use of its footpaths. These relate to applications, yearly licence/permit fees and cleaning fees. The schedule varies according to locality and is updated every year. Applicants should consult Council officers for applicable fees and charges prior to lodging an application. 

 

1.13    How To Use This Plan

 

The Plan is divided into three main parts, which are:

 

Part 1     General Information

              Is the purpose and introduction of the DCP.

 

Part 2      Development and Design Controls

Is about siting and designing footpath trading activities.  The key elements are footpath widths, the use of airspace, amenity, design, hours of operation, furniture, fittings and advertising.

 

Part 3     Management Guidelines

Is about providing safe and healthy footpath trading activities.  Key elements are health, cleanliness, safety, the consumption of alcohol, maintenance and toilets.

 

A flowchart at Appendix 1 illustrates the statutory process.

 

Appendices 2-4 contain recommended layouts, furniture, planter boxes, screens and shade structures.

 

Appendix 5 has examples of standard conditions of consent.

 

Appendix 5a has examples of standard conditions of consent for the use of footpath airspace for outdoor dining.


PART 2      DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN CONTROLS

 

 

 


Objectives

 

•        To maintain the primary function of footpaths as public pedestrian corridors and domains, while encouraging reasonable opportunities for outdoor dining and other footpath trading activities.

 

•        To promote safe and healthy outdoor environments.

 

§   To allow for the use of airspace over public roads and public land for dining, only where appropriate.

 

•        To ensure footpath trading activities are compatible with surrounding land uses.

 

·            To ensure consistent and unobstructed access to footpaths and adjacent buildings is maintained, particularly for those with physical and vision disabilities.

 

•        To ensure access for people with disabilities'is provided to both internal and external dining areas and all associated facilities.

 

•        To ensure that the amenity of adjacent residences is not adversely affected.

 

•        To enhance the social and aesthetic aspects of the City’s streetscapes.

 

•        To maintain safe conditions for motorists and cyclists.

 

•           To require high quality furniture and fittings that enhance the streetscape.

 

•           To ensure that any footpath advertising is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, is provided in suitable locations, does not impede access and is of high quality design and finish.

 

•        To have regard to the heritage significance of an item or area, where applicable.

         

2.1      Location And Layout of Footpath Trading      Activities

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

Proposed footpath trading activities will be considered only in conjunction with an approved or proposed associated indoor business in contiguous premises (food premises in the case of outdoor dining and any other type of business in the case of A-frame signs or goods displays). 

 

1.       Comply with the following criteria (all exclusive of any other obstruction) for footpath trading activity areas:

 

(i)       Clear zone minimum width 2.0m.*

 

(ii)      Kerb setback 0.6m.**

 

(iii)     Clear zone minimum width 2.5m for locations adjacent to classified roads, busy footpaths and, footpaths in excess of 4m width.

 

(iv)      Where no footpath trading occurs in a locality, a proposed footpath trading activity is to be provided adjacent to the kerb.

 

(v)      Locating footpath trading adjacent to the building line is not favoured as it unsuitable for people with vision impairment.  A footpath trading activity proposed to be located adjacent to the building line, must demonstrate consistency with existing footpath trading activities, exceptional circumstances and/or a public benefit.

 

(vi)      For trading areas longer than 10m, provide a 1.5m break in the centre of the trading area (excluding doorways and other essential openings)

 

(vii)     Where trading activities adjoin, provide a minimum break of 1.0m between each activity.

 

(viii)    Provide a minimum break of 1.0m from public utilities including fire hydrants, rubbish bins, seats, telephones, bicycle stands, bus shelters, taxi ranks and parking meters.

 

(ix)     Provide a minimum break of 0.5m from all other street furniture including bollards, tree pits, street lights and traffic and electricity poles. 

 

(x)      A-frames and goods display stands require footpath widths of a minimum of 3.0m.

 

(xi)     Only that part of the footpath or public place directly in front of a restaurant/cafe may be used for footpath trading. The area may not extend to the area in front of neighbouring properties.

 

(xii)    Seating may not be located next to the building line and the kerb side at the same time.

 

* A minimum clear zone width of 2.5m applies to land affected by Randwick Junction DCP.

 

If the minimum criteria in 1(i) – (iii) cannot be achieved, applicants must demonstrate the following:

(a)      Existing levels of public access and safety will be maintained for the footpath and the adjacent road, and

 

(b)      No unreasonable impacts on amenity or streetscape.

 

** 2.   The following kerb setbacks apply regardless of footpath width:

(a)      0.9m adjacent to loading zones

(b)      1.0m adjacent to “No Standing” zones

(c)      1.5m adjacent to pedestrian crossings (applies both from kerb and the crossing),

(d)      1.2m adjacent to angle parking

(e)      is not appropriate adjacent to a disabled parking space or a bus stop.

 

3.       Use existing public furniture or utilities to help define a footpath trading area subject to the above applicable criteria.

 

4.       Locate all furniture and fittings within the approved licensed footpath trading area.

 

5.       (a)      Comply with a footpath gradient (crossfall) range of 1:100 to 1:40        (maximum), or

 

          (b)      Demonstrate to Council that suitable access can be provided if a        proposal is located on grades outside this range.

 

Note: References to footpaths in this Plan relate to existing grades. Structures or works to change footpath levels (for example, platforms) will generally not be supported, unless it can be demonstrated that pedestrian access on the footpath and to premises will not be impaired.

 

6.   Locate the footpath trading area consistent with adjacent footpath trading activities, existing public utilities, landscaped areas and open spaces to provide consistent pedestrian access subject to the minimum setbacks above.

 

See Appendix 2 for recommended locations.

 

2.2                   Use of Footpath Airspace for Outdoor Dining

 

The use of airspace above footpaths (roads) and public spaces by the conversion of awnings to balconies to provide first floor dining is generally not favoured by Council. It can result in additional noise, amenity and safety issues.

 

1.   However, Council may consider proposals for the conversion of an existing awning only on sites with the following features:

 

(a)  current approval for first floor dining in the contiguous indoor premises,

(b)  a  Business zoning,

(c)  not located adjacent to residential premises or residential zones, and

(d)  located in a continuous retail strip where awnings are an integral feature of the architectural elements of the streetscape.

 

2.   The Council may consider proposals for the construction of new first floor balcony awnings and their use for outdoor dining in Business zones only, where an applicant can demonstrate compliance with the following criteria:

 

(a)  approval for first floor indoor dining in the contiguous premises;

(b)  location in a continuous retail/commercial strip;

(c)  awnings on adjacent buildings;

(d)  design complements existing awnings;

(e)  alignment consistent with existing awnings (minimum kerb setback 600mm);

(f)   height related to building height and height of adjacent awnings; cantilevered over footpath; and

(g)  additional awnings may not be attached to existing fixed awnings.

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

A proposal for the use of footpath airspace for outdoor dining must demonstrate compliance with the following performance criteria:

 

a)   Design of the balcony must be compatible with the streetscape and with the architectural integrity of the building.

 

Demonstrate that the proposal:

 

b)   Will not adversely affect the heritage significance of a heritage item or a heritage conservation area.

 

c)   Will not adversely affect the amenity and safety of the footpath below or the adjacent road.

 

d)   Will not obstruct the visibility of traffic signs and signals or pedestrian crossings.

 

e)   Will not hinder the use by pedestrians and vehicles of the footpath and adjacent road.

 

f)    Will not adversely affect the amenity and safety of adjoining properties in terms of noise, overlooking or security.

 

g)   Will not adversely affect views.

 

h)   Is not located on a corner site unless visibility, traffic, safety and aesthetic issues are not adversely affected.

 

i)    Is consistent with the use of other adjacent awning balconies.

 

j)    Is not enclosed.

 

Standard conditions may be applied by the Council where a proposal is approved. Examples are contained in Appendix 5a.

 

Note: A lease from the roads authority* is required for use of the airspace above a road owned by it. Where the roads authority is other than the RTA, the approval of the Director-General of DIPNR is required to the lease. * Council is the roads authority for local and public roads except for classified roads where the authority is the RTA.

 

2.3      Operating Hours

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

The following standard hours of operation apply for all applications:

 

1.   Comply with the approved hours of operation of the related indoor premises subject to the limitations in the criteria below.

 

2.   Outdoor dining areas in Business zones:

 

(i)       General Business zones: up to 11:00 p.m. Mondays to Saturdays and to 10:00 p.m. Sundays.

(ii)      Local Business zones up to 10:00 p.m. Mondays to Saturdays and up to 9:30 p.m. Sundays.

 

3.   Outdoor dining areas in potentially sensitive areas (for example, in proximity to residential zones or premises):

(i)       Generally up to 9:30 p.m. 

(ii)      Further limitations may also be appropriate in areas within proximity to any residential premises.

 

4.   Premises may be permitted a 30 minute period after the above-mentioned hours in which to vacate the outdoor dining area, provided this is within the approved hours of operation of the indoor premises.

 

5.   Variations to the above hours may be permissible only based on:

 

(i)       The merits of the proposal

(ii)      Existing hours of operation of the indoor premises, and/or

(iii)     Proximity of residences. 

 

2.4      Amenity

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

1.         Demonstrate that the proposal will not have unreasonable impacts on the amenity of adjacent residences. A plan of management should be submitted and include the following:

 

(i)       Measures to minimise noise impacts.

(ii)      Measures to minimise nuisance from lighting and heating devices.

(iii)     Procedures for minimising and managing waste, for example, provision of ashtrays, the disposal of bottles, how and when waste will be removed, waste collection and storage areas.

(iv)      Description of steps to be taken to ensure behaviour of patrons entering and leaving premises does not impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood.

 

2.5       Furniture, Umbrellas And Lighting

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

2.5.1    Furniture And Fittings

 

1.         Comply with relevant Australian Standards for all furniture and fittings.

 

Demonstrate that furniture and fittings:

 

2.       Dimensions fit into the footpath trading area.

 

3.       Are safe, sturdy, but not bulky, waterproof and weather resistant, can be easily removed at the close of business each day, will not damage the footpath or other public infrastructure or pose a trip/fall hazard or inconvenience to the public.

 

4.       Are weighted down or otherwise secured so as to prevent accidental dislodgement (e.g. umbrellas, A-frames).

 

5.       Visually complement and be physically aligned with other street furniture (including adjacent footpath trading areas) and adjacent public utilities.

 

6.         Are of a single, cohesive style to promote visual unity and enhance the streetscape.

 

7.       Define a footpath trading activity by landscape planter boxes and flowerpots, bollards or screens (all to a maximum 1.2m height and maximum 1.8m length) provided they are located within the boundaries of footpath trading area and are removable at the close of business or otherwise designed as an integral part of a public open space area. Fittings are supplied and maintained at the expense of the applicant.

 

8.       Do not define the footpath trading area by full height solid or plastic screens or any other type of enclosure.

 

Note:  Council reserves the right to require the replacement of inappropriate tables and chairs as a condition of the licence.

 

2.5.2    Umbrellas

 

Provide:

 

1.       Heights consistent with adjacent umbrellas or shade structures (if applicable) with a minimum height clearance from the footpath of 2.6 metres when open.

 

2        Unimpeded views (if existing) of traffic signals, signs and pedestrian crossings.

 

3.       Unimpeded views (if existing) of historic facades or vistas of valued or historic streetscapes.

 

4.       A safe and secure anchor point, (permanently fixed and which does not pose a trip hazard when the umbrella is in storage).

 

5.       Pinnacle vents to reduce wind loading.

 

6.       No overhang of any roadway.

 

7.       Fire-retardant materials if located near a heating device.

 

8.       Market style, not beach umbrellas.

 

Do not:

 

9.       Provide umbrellas where building awnings exist unless it can be demonstrated that both can be appropriately accommodated within the space.

 

2.5.3    Lighting And Heating 

 

1.       Provide lighting and/or heating adequate for safety and amenity for all patrons.

 

2.         Demonstrate that lighting and/or heating will not cause a potential nuisance.  

 

2.6       Advertising And Signage

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

1.       Comply with Randwick Outdoor Advertising DCP.

 

2.       Do not include permanent advertising on furniture and other fittings including planter boxes.

 

3.         Signage should not be provided within footpath trading areas except on umbrellas, shade structures, and screens and only where it is incidental. Incidental signage includes business identification, and/or a product brand which is a core part of the business and, which is supplied by the premises to their patrons within the footpath trading area.

 

4.       Incidental signage is limited to one product, logo or business name being advertised and must be a minor element of the supporting structure.

 

5.       Signage on screens is limited to a maximum 30% coverage of the total screen surface.

 

6.       Menu boards, where provided, must be attached to the related building and not be freestanding.

 

7.       Bill posters are not supported as they are an inappropriate use of the road reserve, they increase litter, are unsightly and, rarely relate to adjacent business premises.

 

8.       Do not include revolving parts, flashing lights, highly reflective surfaces. 

 

2.7    A-Frame Advertising Structures

 

Extension of general retail space onto the footpath is generally not encouraged. It is not associated directly with people using the footpath or for adding vitality when dining and socialising and, generally reduces access and visibility along footpaths.

The provision of A-Frame signs and goods displays (section 2.8) may be appropriate in certain circumstances, subject to all relevant criteria in the Plan and compliance with the performance criteria set out below.

 

Note, that proposals for A-Frame signs may be exempt development only if they comply with the limits and requirements in Randwick Exempt and Complying Development DCP.

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

Comply with:

 

1.       Minimum footpath widths of 3.0m.

 

2.         Maintain a minimum clear zone of 2m.

 

3.         Locate adjacent to the kerb line with a minimum setback of 0.6m.

 

4.       Minimum 2m setback from a building corner at intersections or at arcade entries.

 

5.       Maximum height 1200mm and width 600mm.

 

6.       Maximum of one sign per commercial business or multiple occupancy commercial tenancy.

 

7.       Do not affix, or restrict access to, any public utility.

 

8.       Locate away from official traffic signs, so as not to distract drivers’ attention or be confused with instructions given by traffic signals. 

 

9.       Be safely anchored, secured and positioned so as not to pose a hazard or inconvenience to pedestrians especially those with a disability or, to traffic safety.

 

10.     Use durable, fade proof materials of a high aesthetic and professional quality.

 

11.     Have a design theme compatible with adjacent elements within the footpath.

 

12.     Content must relate directly to an activity carried out on or, associated with the related business premises.

 

13.     Content must not substantially duplicate advertising or signage elsewhere within the footpath trading area or on the frontage of the associated indoor premises. 

 

2.8       Goods Displays

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

Comply with:

 

1.       Minimum footpath widths of 3.0m.

 

2.         Provide abutting the shopfront only and, only where other footpath trading activities exist adjacent to other adjoining shopfronts. 

 

3.       Do not affix advertising or signage.

 

4.       Use for the orderly display of goods which are sold in the contiguous business premises. 

 

5.       Maximum of one stand per commercial business or multiple occupancy commercial tenancy.

 

6.       Maximum display width of 1.0m measured at right angles from the front of the premises.

 

7.       Maximum length of 50% of the total length of the shopfront.

 

8.       Do not affix, or restrict access to, any public utility.

 

9.       Do not pose a hazard or inconvenience to pedestrian movement or access to premises.

 

10.     Do not display food.


PART 3      MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

 

 


3.1       Consumption Of Alcohol

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

1.       Provide a copy of any current On-Licence issued under the Liquor Act, 1982, which must be extended to include the footpath if alcohol is to be served there.

 

2.       Comply with the On-Licence requirements.

 

3.         Submit a ‘house’ policy that describes the measures to be taken to minimise harm associated with alcohol consumption to ensure the responsible service of alcohol.

 

3.2      Health And Safety

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

1.       Comply with the Food Act, 2003, and Food Safety Standards. Where a significant increase in the number of patrons will be accommodated in an outdoor dining area, it may be necessary to upgrade existing facilities.

 

2.         Provide furniture, fittings, A-frames and goods display stands constructed to recognised acceptable standards.

 

3.       Provide clear sightlines from the indoor premises to the outdoor dining area.

 

4.       Loudspeakers and cash registers are not permitted within a footpath trading area.

 

Note: Council may mark licensed areas by paint, survey nails, etc. These marked areas ensure accessibility corridors are maintained and the terms of public liability and indemnity insurance are not compromised.

 

3.3      Litter And Cleanliness

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

1.       Demonstrate that rubbish generated by a footpath trading activity will be effectively cleaned by dry processes.

 

2.             Provide a schedule of proposed maintenance and cleaning of the footpath trading area. 

 

3.       Provide a Waste Management Plan for rubbish removal.

 

4.       Provide windproof design ashtrays of a type approved by Council, in smoking areas.

 

5.       Do not use disposable tableware.

 

3.4      Toilets and Sanitary Facilities

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

1.       Provide adequate toilet and sanitary facilities to cater for patrons.

 

2.       Comply with Part F2 of the Building Code of Australia (which includes requirements for disabled toilets).

 

3.5    Car Parking

 

Performance Criteria and Controls

 

1.       Comply with Council’s Parking DCP for the use of airspace for outdoor dining.

 

3.6      Accessibility

 

Criteria for access for people with disabilities have been included throughout this Plan. In addition, the following criteria will ensure equity and safety in all new footpath dining proposals.

 

Performance Criteria

 

1.       Access must be provided from the footpath dining area to the internal area and sanitary facilities of the associated indoor premises, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) Advisory Notes for Access to Premises.

 

2.       If access cannot be achieved, demonstrate unjustifiable hardship, as required under the Disability Discrimination Act.  

 

 

APPENDICES

 

Appendix 1.        Statutory Processes Flow Diagram

 

*  A classified road means any of the following roads: main road, a State highway, a freeway, a controlled access road, a secondary road, a tourist road, a tollway, a transitway, a State work (Roads Act, 1993).

 

**  Council is the roads authority for all public roads in its area except where the Regulations declare it to be another authority.

 

 
 


 


Appendix 2.         Recommended Locations

 

Diagram 1:          Suitable locations for outdoor dining areas adjacent to     classified roads, busy footpaths and footpaths greater than 4m width.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Diagram 2:      Suitable locations for outdoor dining areas generally where no outdoor dining exists in the locality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix 3.        Recommended Furniture and Associated Elements

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Appendix 4.      Recommended Planter Boxes, Screens & Shade Structures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

             

 
 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Appendix 5                       Standard Conditions Of Consent

 

1.       Amplified music, entertainment, or any other ancillary activity is not permitted within an outdoor dining area, except with prior development consent (Details of such proposals must accompany an application for consent).

 

2.       Outdoor storage is not permitted in association with a footpath trading area.

 

3.       Furniture, fittings, A-frames and goods display stands shall be covered in suitable rubber stoppers or similar devices to prevent damage to the footpath pavement.

 

4.       Umbrellas, A-frames, goods display stands and heating devices shall be removed in windy conditions and otherwise removed outside of the approved hours of operation.

 

5.       Furniture and fittings including planter boxes (operators’ own) and screens shall be removed from the road reserve and stored inside the associated business premises outside of the approved hours of operation.

 

6.       Details of any wired electrical facilities outside the face of the building must be provided with a development application.

 

7.       Heating devices must turn off automatically if overturned to prevent injury to patrons and property.

 

8.       Heating devices must be removed from public land and appropriately stored when not in use.

 

9.       Direct access to gas mains and the use of extension cords for heating devices is not permitted. 

 

10.     All required exits shall remain clear at all times.

 

11.     Any dog within a licensed footpath trading area shall be under the effective control of its owner or handler.

 

12.     Food premises shall not permit live animals in areas in which food is handled except an assistance animal, which is permitted only in dining and drinking areas and other areas used by customers.

 

13.     Preparation of food and/or drinks is not permitted within a footpath trading area.

 

14.     The operator of a footpath trading area shall ensure that the footpath surface is maintained free of grease, foodstuffs and associated litter at all times.  

 

15.     All furniture and fittings shall be kept clean and, in safe and working order.

 

16.     An approved A-frame or goods display stand shall be kept in good repair and erected in a safe manner and shall not be altered in any way without the approval of Council.

 

17.     The structural design of the A-frame, its materials, edging, impact absorption mechanism, collapsing mechanism and wind loading shall be certified in accordance with Council’s specifications.

 

18.     The use of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or nuisance.

 

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

 

20.     The applicant is required to have current public liability insurance cover for the amount of $10 million against any claim, which may arise as a result of the approved activity. A copy of the policy shall be forwarded to Council before a footpath trading area is used.

 

21.     In respect of an applicant’s public liability insurance for approved A-frames and goods display stands, an applicant shall indemnify the Council with respect to (i) damage caused to a third party by an A-frame or goods display stand while on the road reserve and (ii) the grant of the approval and licence for the A-frame or goods display stand.

 

22.     The applicant is required to indemnify Council against all claims, which might arise from the use of the road reserve.

 

23.     Licence holders must display a current licence card clearly and legibly on the related shopfront window at all times.

 

24.     A-frames and goods display stands must have a current licence card clearly and legibly attached to the structure.

 

25.     Failure to display a current licence is a breach of the licence terms and conditions and may result in the revocation of the licence by Council.

 

26.     A transfer of business ownership requires a new business owner to apply for a transfer of ownership of a footpath trading licence into their name.

 

27.     The applicant must bear the cost of repairing any damage to the road reserve that results from the approved use.

 

28.     Bill posters are not permitted anywhere within the road reserve.

 

29.     Advertising and signage shall not contain material, which may cause offence to a reasonable person.

 

30.     Advertising and signage shall not contain revolving parts, flashing lights or highly reflective surfaces.

 

31.     The A-frame sign and/or goods display stand shall be removed from the road reserve and placed inside the associated business premises outside the approved hours of operation of the associated business premises.

 

32.     The A-frame sign and /or goods display stand is approved for a period of 12 months. To continue lawful use after this period, the applicant shall lodge a new application with Council and pay an annual administration fee in accordance with Council’s Annual Schedule of Fees and Charges.

 

33.     The content of the A-frame sign is limited to a non-English language to a maximum of 50% with an English translation provided on the sign.

 

34.     Premises which serve alcohol within a footpath trading area shall be licensed Liquor Administration Board under the Liquor Act (NSW) 1982. 

 

35.     Cardboard, foam or polystyrene boxes shall not be displayed within a footpath trading area unless they are in a suitable enclosure.

 

36.     Trolleys and/or shopping baskets shall not be displayed or stored within a footpath trading area.

 

37.     No food shall be displayed within a footpath trading area.

 

38.     No sharp, protruding objects (e.g. uncovered hardware items) shall be displayed within a footpath trading area.

 

39.     All goods shall be securely anchored or supported so as to ensure a safe environment for the public.


 

Appendix 5a                     Standard Conditions Of Consent – Footpath Airspace

 

1.       Submission of an acoustic report which is to include assessment of noise from use of the outdoor balcony.

 

2.         The first floor balcony shall not be screened or enclosed.

 

3.         Pergolas shall not be permitted.

 

4.       Amplified music, entertainment, or any other ancillary activity are not permitted.

 

5.       The applicant is required to enter into a lease of the footpath airspace with Council (see details in Part 1 of this Plan).

 

6.         Shall not be used exclusively for the purposes of a bar.

 

7.       The use shall not extend beyond the boundary of the existing awning.   

 

8.       The balcony shall be designed by a suitably qualified structural engineer.

 

9.         The balcony shall be cantilevered over the footpath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.


Reply sent

Name and Address

Submission – summary of issues

Council Comment

 

Yes

 

The Spot Precinct

P. O. Box 72

St. Pauls. 2031.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Location adjacent to kerb:

 

is unworkable especially on narrow footpaths e.g. in The Spot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

will expose patrons to heat and rain.

 

 

 

 

will result in more congestion, as staff would need to cross the footpath.

 

 

 

 

 

barriers separating dining from through-fare would be better for the sight-impaired. 

 

 

barriers may assist in preventing ‘area creep’ by restaurants.

 

 

1. The DCP requires location of footpath trading adjacent to the kerb, only where no footpath trading exists. This will leave the building line free for pedestrian access and as an orientation mark for vision-impaired people. Existing operations will not be affected unless they expand.

 

Where other adjacent dining establishments exist adjacent to a building line, proposals will also be considered adjacent to a building line.

 

Locations, which cannot comply with minimum width, clear zone and setback requirements or justify departures, are unsuitable and footpath trading will not be permitted.

It may be that locations with narrow footpaths will be confined to existing operations with limited opportunity to accommodate additional footpath trading

 

Part 2.1(1)(ii) of the DCP requires a 0.6m kerb setback. Operators can install umbrellas during operating hours to protect patrons. Otherwise, the location, building/footpath may be unsuitable for footpath trading.

  

Current levels of pedestrian flow and safety will need to be considered by an applicant and by Council. Where a proposal will reduce these levels, an applicant will need to justify the use in terms of the purpose and objectives of the DCP. Operators also need to implement safe work practices and policies.   

 

Kerb location is preferred to this approach. However, generally, separation of activities is encouraged e.g. by flowerpots, bollards or screens (Pt 2.4.1(7) of DCP).

 

The licence between an applicant and Council specifies the licence area. A permit is required to be affixed on the shopfront. Use of the footpath outside of the licensed area is a breach of the agreement.

 

 

 

2. Lighting by table or electrical lamps may pose a fire risk or risk from trailing wires/Ambient public lighting would be adequate. 

 

 

 

3. Permitting A-Frames is against the aim of the DCP ‘to enhance the social and aesthetic aspects of the City’s streetscapes’.

 

 

 

If A-Frames are permitted, a control prohibiting attachment of brochures, flyers and business cards should be included.

 

4. Grounds for exemption from performance standards too broad. Must not detract from purpose and objectives of DCP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exemptions should be referred to Council for determination to improve public comment.

 

 

 

5. Compliance and enforcement by Council is most difficult aspect of footpath dining, specifically,

i.          non-provision of windproof ashtrays.

ii.          Dirty tables/bird mitigation methods.

iii.         Inadequate footpath cleaning.

iv.         Inadequate securing of furniture against winds.

2. Part 2.4.3 recommends that lighting and heating be adequate for safety and amenity. Additional criteria will be included to It is the responsibility of the operator to demonstrate the adequacy of devices so they do not cause a potential nuisance.

 

3. Extension of retail space into footpaths in this way is generally discouraged but consideration will be given in certain circumstances where relevant criteria are satisfied. Some locations do not lend themselves to A-Frames and the onus will be on an applicant to justify a proposal.

 

The definition of A-Frame can be amended to incorporate this. Or it can be included as a standard condition of consent.

 

4. There are 8 circumstances in the DCP, which allow for variations to the performance criteria subject to justification.   DCP performance criteria can be advisory only, and reflect Council policy on a subject matter. The DCP recognises that in some locations, compliance with the criteria may not be possible. To be just, it allows applicants to lodge an application and argue in a S.E.E. for approval based on compliance with the purpose and objectives of the DCP.

 

All DAs are publicly notified and an opportunity for comment given. While it would increase processing times to refer all such applications to Council, councillors can refer any matter they wish.  

 

5. Enforcement is possible only with the resources available. Compliance also depends on good practices by operators, education and peer pressure from industry groups.

 

Part 3 requires windproof ashtrays, a schedule of footpath cleaning and a waste management plan. Part 2.4 requires furniture and fittings to be weighted down. Relevant standard conditions of consent become part of a licence agreement, breach of which may lead to its cancellation. In addition, the applicant requires public liability and indemnity insurance.

 

Yes

Andrew Tosti

P O Box A640

Sydney South. 1235

 

1. Footpath seating becomes an obstruction and safety concern especially on narrow footpaths.

 

2. Stricter rules required, public safety should come first. Refuse use if performance criteria not met.

 

3. Only small table and chairs should be permitted on narrow footpath with adequate width for pedestrians.

 

 

4. Too open to challenge especially minimum clear zone widths and kerb setbacks.

 

5. Restaurants exceed allowable area and place other items on footpath. These limits not enforced.

 

 

6. A-Frames need more rigorous policing to ensure no public obstruction and injury claims.

1. Addressed in issue 1. above.

 

 

2. Addressed in issue 4. above.

 

 

3. The DCP requires minimum clear zones so pedestrians can negotiate a footpath. An applicant must demonstrate compliance or justify departures.

 

4. See issue 4. above.

 

 

5. See issue 1. in 1st submission in relation to ‘area creep’ and comments on issue 5 re. enforcement and breach of licence agreement.

 

6. See comments on issue 3 and 5 of 1st submission.

 

Yes

Paul Chilcott

P O Bo 172

St Pauls. 2031

1. A-Frames signage should be no more than 50% language other than English.

 

 

 

 

2. Footpath trading should be defined.

 

3. Certain types of footpath trading should be prohibited e.g. spruiking, hawking, vending or promotional give-aways and provision for one-off activities e.g. fund raising, petition signing and political promotional activities should be via a permit system. 

1. Proposed amendments to Randwick Exempt and Complying Development DCP include a limit on non-English signage content (50% maximum) unless an English translation is included on the sign.  Appendix 5 of the draft DCP has been amended to include this condition.

 

2. Footpath Trading Activity is defined in the DCP.

 

3. The DCP states that temporary or mobile food service providers or vendors are not appropriate as outdoor dining areas and loudspeakers are not permitted in outdoor dining areas.  Local Approval under the LGA 1993 is required for a range of activities including trade or business, busking, use of loudspeakers, public addresses, and the display of articles on a footpath.  

 

Draft amendments to the Exempt and Complying Development DCP propose a category for election signs and materials, including requirements for location and removal.