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

 

17th September, 2004

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2004 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 24TH AUGUST, 2004.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

7           Acting General Manager's Reports

 

7.1                      

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 24/2004 - SALE OF LAND ADJACENT TO 276 DONCASTER AVENUE & EDWARD AVENUE, KINGSFORD.

2

 

7.2                      

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 25/2004 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

4

 

7.3                      

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 26/2004 - AUTHORISATION TO ENTER INTO A LICENCE AGREEMENT WITH GORDONS BAY AMATEUR FISHING & VOLUNTEER SEA RESCUE CLUB INC.

6

7.4

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 27/2004 - AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH LINKAGE PROJECT - "A REGIONAL STUDY OF CHANGING TOURISM DYNAMICS IN SYDNEY" - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL'S FINANCIAL AND IN-KIND SUPPORT.

12

 

 

8           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 65/2004 - ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN.

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 66/2004 - NEVORIE CRESCENT, MAROUBRA - PETITION AGAINST FOOTPATH CONSTRUCTION.

16

 

8.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 67/2004 - DEMOLITION OF OLD BUS TERMINUS BUILDING MARINE PARADE, MAROUBRA BEACH.

20

 

8.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 68/2004 - LOCAL DISASTER PLANS - EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT.

28

 

8.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 69/2004 - PROPOSED RELOCATION OF A BUS STOP IN DONOVAN AVENUE, MAROUBRA.

31

 

 

9           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 28/2004 - REVIEW OF WARD BOUNDARIES.

35

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 29/2004 - PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES - TENDER NO T017/04.

38

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 30/2004 - REPORT ON INVESTMENTS FOR 2003-2004.

58

 

 

10         Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

10.1                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 71/2004 - 7 HINKLER STREET, MAROUBRA. (DEFERRED)

60

 

10.2                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 72/2004 - 40 FIRST AVENUE, MAROUBRA.

67

 

10.3                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 73/2004 - 51 MOVERLY ROAD, MAROUBRA.

111

 

10.4                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 74/2004 - 18 GOVETT STREET, RANDWICK.

123

 

10.5                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 75/2004 - 37 WINDSOR STREET, MATRAVILLE.

156

 

10.6                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 76/2004 - 164 BROOK STREET, COOGEE.

167

 


 

10.7                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 77/2004 - 68-70 PERRY STREET, MATRAVILLE.

191

 

10.8                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 78/2004 - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANING POLICY NO 71 - COASTAL PROTECTION.

221

10.9

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 79/2004 - 2 BUMBORAH POINT ROAD, PORT BOTANY.

224

 

 

11         Petitions

 

12         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

12.1                        

By Councillor Bastic – Coogee Tennis Club.

272

 

 

13         Urgent Business

 

14         Confidential Reports

 

15         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

17         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………………

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER


 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 24/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

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

 

 

DATE:

16 September, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0240/00

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

At its meeting held on 27 July 2004, Council resolved that further negotiations take place in respect to a possible purchase of the land adjacent to 276 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford.

 

ISSUES:

 

An original valuation was conducted and a market value determined at $90,000.00.  An offer was put forward by the purchase of $30,000.00, which was rejected.  A suggested purchase price of $45,000.00 was indicated by Council and a further offer of $40,000.00 plus expenses has been put forward by the proposed purchaser.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Further negotiations have been undertaken and the most recent offer stands at $40,000.00.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the owners of 276 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington be advised that the offer of $40,000.00 plus GST plus all property transfer associated expenses is accepted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Frazispink Lawyers letter of offer dated 31 August 2004

 

 

 

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

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER



 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 25/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

16 September, 2004

FILE NO:

P/006684 xr P/001262

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

1.         Richard Millard & Darto Darto (T/As Isabella’s Purely Pasta) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 2/183 Alison Road, Randwick.

2.         New South Wales Land & Housing Corporation in relation to a lease over Part of Lot 2 in DP 212919 known as 133A Boyce Road, Maroubra.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

1.         Richard Millard & Darto Darto (T/As Isabella’s Purely Pasta) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 2/183 Alison Road, Randwick.

2.         New South Wales Land & Housing Corporation in relation to a lease over Part of Lot 2 in DP 212919 known as 133A Boyce Road, Maroubra.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 26/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Authorisation to enter into a licence agreement with Gordons Bay Amateur Fishing & Volunteer Sea Rescue Club Inc.

 

 

DATE:

16 September, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1526

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Gordons Bay Amateur Fishing & Volunteer Sea Rescue Club Inc. are seeking permission to renew the licence agreement over the premises they currently occupy on a holding over basis at Gordons Bay.

 

ISSUES:

 

The land is classified as Community and in accordance with Section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993 a public notice process has been undertaken.  One objection to the licence was received.  Three hundred and sixty six signatures of support were received.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

A report is attached detailing the background, summary of the objection and recommendation.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council now enters into a licence with the Gordon’s Bay Amateur Fishing & Volunteer Sea Rescue Club for a period of two years, commencing 1 January 2004 and terminating on 31 December 2005.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Report from Manager Planning, Policy & Performance to Acting General Manager dated 16th August, 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

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

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

 


Memorandum

 

 

 

TO:

A/General Manager

 

FROM:            Manager Planning, Policy and Performance

 

DATE:             16 August 2004                                    FILE:   98/S/1526

 

SUBJECT:       Proposed Licence- Gordon’s Bay Amateur Fishing and Volunteer Sea Rescue Club

 

BACKGROUND

 

Since 1964 the Gordon’s Bay Amateur Fishing and Volunteer Sea Rescue Club Inc. have occupied a boat shed and boat store area on a parcel of land known as 1R Major Street, Coogee, which forms part of Gordon’s Bay Reserve.  A map is attached showing the area occupied by the Club. The parcel of land is owned by Council and as it was never classified, it is deemed to be Community land.

 

The previous licence between Randwick City Council and the Fishing Club was for a period of five (5) years. It was prepared by Council’s solicitors, Bowen and Gerathy and expired on 31 December 2000. 

 

In early 2004 Randwick Council prepared a new licence for the Club.  This licence is for two (2) years only, commencing 1 January 2004 and expiring 31 December 2005.  The licence was prepared and executed by the Club and sent to the June 2004 General Council meeting for authorisation for the affixing of the Seal.

 

However, in responding to a number of concerns made by a resident in relation to the renewal of the licence, Council identified that there was an omission in the process in that Council had not given due public notice of the intention to grant a licence as required under Section 47 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Consequently the existing licence was terminated and Council’s intention to enter into a licence agreement with the Fishing Club was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 contained in subsection one of Section 47. A copy of that advertisement is attached.

 

The period of advertising was completed in mid August and in response Council received a petition in support of granting the licence that was signed by 366 persons as well as a letter from the Clovelly RSL and Air Force Club. One letter objecting to the granting of the licence was received.

 

Another letter of support from the Charing Cross Hotel Fishing Club as well as a further 71 signatories to a petition was received after the closing date for submissions and as such cannot be taken into consideration.

 

All correspondence in relation to the advertising as well as previous correspondence from the objector is identified in the attached file.

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS

 

The objections are addressed as follows:

1.   The Premises  Licensed: In relation to the area licensed, the licence states “ occupy a certain portion of Gordon’s Bay as marked on the map”  This includes the club house and the use of portion of the beach area for the storage of open fishing craft. As there is only one building on the site there would have been no confusion. In the club house there are lockers and members of the club may be allocated locker space for storage of their equipment. The use of the lockers is described in the documented rules of the Club.

 

There is no reason why the proposed licence should be readvertised. The objector had been sent a copy of the draft licence and was therefore able to accurately identify the premises to be licensed.

 

2.   Zoning under Randwick LEP: Comments on the possible rezoning will be forwarded to Strategic Planning. It is not the intent of advertising a licence to review the zoning.

 

3.   Hazards: While the POM stated that “The paths position around the fishing club structure creates a dangerous situation”, the concept of the dangerous situation relates to the fact that the path contains a sharp corner and walkers may perhaps run into each other or the club house. This is in fact no different to many situations that are encountered daily on the streets.  There have been no reported injuries as a result of the boats on the beach.

 

There have also been a number of improvements to the path in this section since the POM was prepared.

 

4.   Proposed Use: The objector states that Council has an obligation to “properly manage, develop, protect, restore, enhance and conserve the environment of “Gordon’s Bay.  Over the past 10 years Council has undertaken extensive work in the area including installing the elevated walkway on the northern side, replacing a retaining wall and Bushcare revegetation and management.

 

During the past year Council has had bush regeneration contractors working one day a week on site (approximately 980 person hours) and volunteers working one day per month (510 person hours). The volunteers are supervised by Council staff and Council provides plants and erosion control materials. All these activities reflect Council’s commitment to this broad obligation. It should also be noted that the POM also has a clear objective of maintaining the Gordon’s Bay Amateur Fishing Club and facilities on site.

 

In considering sustainability Council also needs to take a broader view and consider not only environmental issues but also social and economic. The fishing club is a long established, local recreational club. It is not a closed club and has clear procedures for new members to join. The POM identified that one of the main recreational features of the bay was the Amateur Fishing Club.

 

The covenants of the licensee include a responsibility to maintain the vegetation area to the satisfaction of Council; keep the licensed are and its surrounds free from fish debris, offensive odours, rubbish and other waste material; comply with the prohibition not to clean fish and other marine life on the beach or foreshore area; and not to damage the vegetation area. There is a limitation on the number of boats and what can be stored in them. It is also clearly stated that this is not a professional fishing club.

 

These covenants adequately address the concerns raised by the objector.

 

The proposed use does not constrain public access and passive recreation. The numbers of walkers who use the Coastal Walkway in this section support this contention that access is not limited by the existence of the club.

 

At this stage there are no plans to undertake an extensive restoration and rehabilitation program at Gordon’s Bay. Apart from the fact that the licence is only for a period of two years terminating in December 2005, it is also likely that the scope of any future rehabilitation program would be negotiated with all users of the bay.

 

5.   Plan of Management: The POM is dated October 1994. The authority for the licence with the Gordon’s Bay Amateur Fishing Club is contained in the POM which states some conditions that must be met. The continued existence of the club relates to the core objectives in the POM.

 

The licence was prepared after a review of the Plan of Management, which states under the Master Plan and Management Strategies: The demolition of the existing fishing club structure and construction of a new facility nearby.  The new building shall be designed to be incorporated within the landscape.  The former site of the club house can then be utilised as a public seating area associated within the footpath.  Assets & Infrastructure have advised that the above works are not incorporated into the capital works plan for the next financial year 2004/05 and therefore it is appropriate to enter into a licence agreement with the club for a two year term.

 

 

SUMMARY

 

The Overview of the Master Plan in the POM states that, “ Specific user groups such as the fishing club must be accommodated in an equitable manner whereby their facility requirements are incorporated within the bay without impacting upon the general amenity of the area.”

 

It is Council’s view that this requirement has been met. There was only one objection to the issuing of a licence and an overwhelming level of support for the issuing of the licence.

 

The process for granting a licence over community land has been followed with the advertising of the proposed lease for 28 days notice, advising adjoining owners and placing the notice on the building. 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council now enters into a licence with the Gordon’s Bay Amateur Fishing and Volunteer Sea Rescue Club for a period of two years, commencing 1 January 2004 and terminating on 31 December 2005.

 

 

 

___________________________

Kerrie Walshaw

 


 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 27/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH LINKAGE PROJECT - "A REGIONAL STUDY OF CHANGING TOURISM DYNAMICS IN SYDNEY" - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL'S FINANCIAL AND IN-KIND SUPPORT

 

 

DATE:

17 September, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1491

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Centre for Cultural Research, University of Western Sydney, has recently received advice of its successful application for funding of a proposed study. The project is entitled:

 

“Backpacker cultures, residential communities, and the construction of tourist spaces and landscapes: A regional study of changing tourism dynamics in Sydney

 

The University made an application for funding of this project to the Australian Research Council, under the Australian Research Linkage Projects Programme.

 

ISSUES:

 

The project is to be conducted over three years. It is envisaged that the budget for this project will be approximately $150,000 per annum. The Australian Research Council supports and funds collaborative research projects between University researchers and Industry partners.  It is a requirement of all ARC Linkage applications that Industry partners contribute at least 20% in cash, as well as provide ‘in-kind’ support (access to archives, access to industry expertise and personnel, consultation, etc).

 

In April 2003 the Centre for Cultural Research, University of Western Sydney, wrote to the Mayor, seeking a commitment of financial and in-kind support from Randwick City Council for the proposed study.

 

The Mayor wrote to the University advising of Council’s support, including financial and in-kind assistance, should the grant application be successful.  Proportionally, Council’s commitment was to be $2,500 per annum in cash and approximately $10,000 per annum in-kind support – a total of $7,500 cash and $30,000 in-kind support.

 

The in-kind support was indicated as comprising:

 

$7,500             administrative assistance (setting up meetings, forums and contacts; and for maintaining databases, and access to relevant information)

 

$7,500             community liaison support (provision of meeting rooms, regional contacts, support for focus groups and community forums)

 

$7,500             taskforce/stakeholder forum (to be hosted every year over three years)

 

$7,500             allocation of council staff (salary cost of participation)

 

Having been advised its application was successful, the University is now seeking confirmation of Council’s support.

 

As this matter has not previously been reported to Council, and requires the voting of funds, the matter is now referred to Council for consideration.  No provision has been made in Council’s budget at this time for the project.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The University made its application to the Australian Research Council for funding based on undertaking by Council that it would provide financial and in-kind support, in accordance with the requirements of ARC Linkage projects. The University has been successful in its application, and now seeks Council’s endorsement of its previous commitment.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council endorse the Mayor’s commitment to support this research project, to the extent of $37,500 (comprising $7,500 cash and $30,000 in-kind support) and advise the University accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Outline of Research Project - UNDER SEPARATE COVER.

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 65/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

DATE:

16 September, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/5446

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A comprehensive road pavement asset management plan has been prepared to provide guidelines to better manage Council’s road pavement assets. The road pavement asset management plan has been wholly completed in house by Council’s Road Assets Engineer, Malcolm Hill, in accordance with the International Asset Management Manual published by the Institute of Public Works Engineering, Australia.

 

The completion of this asset management plan is a significant achievement for Council as it documents Council’s current road pavement asset management practices and strategies, identifies deficiencies, recommends areas for progressive improvement and models the most appropriate management of Council’s road pavement assets into the future.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Council’s road pavement assets have a current replacement value of $214,578,000. This represents the community’s most valuable asset group, whilst at the same time poses the greatest risk and financial liability for the financial management of Council’s Assets. This financial liability highlights the importance of managing Council’s road pavement assets in an effective and efficient manner.

 

The principal components of the Road Pavement Asset Management Plan include:

·    Identification of Council’s road assets

·    Level of service provided by the road assets

·    Future transport needs

·    Road Asset lifecycle management

·    Financial Management

·    Asset Management Practices and Strategies

·    Asset Monitoring and Improvement Plan

·    Asset Management Plan Recommendations.

 

One of the key findings of the road pavement asset management plan is that Council needs to lift its annual expenditure on local road pavement rehabilitation from its current level of $2,000,000 per annum to $3,000,000 per annum. Lifting the level of local road pavement rehabilitation expenditure to the $3,000,000 level will gradually arrest the decline in the condition of Council’s road and then start to slowly regain the levels of service provided by improved road condition. Expenditure at the present level of  $2,000,000 per annum preserves the current roughness level of Council’s roads but does not arrest the gradual decline in structural condition of our roads which will result in the eventual pavement failure of  many of our road pavements in future years. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Road Pavement Asset Management Plan highlights the importance of asset management for all of council’s assets. The plan itself will form the template for the production other asset management plans.

 

The adoption of the plan by Council will provide an improved structured and systematic management of Councils road assets.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1.   Council adopt the Randwick City Council Road Pavement Asset Management Plan for the management of Council’s roads;

2.   the Adopted Road Pavement Asset Management Plan be placed on Council’s web-site to provide public access; and

3.   the Road Pavement Asset Management Plan be reviewed annually in conjunction with the preparation of the Council’s Budget and Management Plan to ensure updated information is provided as input into the Council planning process.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Draft Road Pavement Asset Management Plan - under separate cover.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN EARLS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 


Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 66/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

NEVORIE CRESCENT, MAROUBRA - PETITION AGAINST FOOTPATH CONSTRUCTION

 

 

DATE:

16 September, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0564/01

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Works Committee Meeting held on 13 July, 2004, Council resolved:

 

“that the proposed 2004/05 Footpath Construction Programme be approved and   adopted.”

 

One of the streets included in this programme is Nevorie Crescent.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

As a matter of course, each street was checked by the designers and it was decided to construct the footpath on the eastern and southern sides of Nevorie Crescent as shown shaded on the attached plan.

 

A petition with seven (7) signatures has been received by Council. The petition is attached.  The resident who initiated the petition was asked why the residents for No 1, No 3 and No 5 hadn’t been surveyed and stated that she thought that as she already had a majority of the street’s residents sign up, it was not necessary to go any further. However, she volunteered to ask these residents and has verbally indicated that the resident of No. 1 does not want the footpath, the resident of No 3 is in favour of a construction footpath while the resident of No 5 does not care either way.

 

The sentiment expressed in the petition is self-explanatory and it therefore appears that the majority of the residents in the section of the street where Council is about to construct a footpath do not want it. 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As these residents in Nevorie Crescent do not want the footpath constructed, it is considered that this street should be removed from the programme and that the remaining funds be allocated to another street from a future programme which has a similar estimated construction cost.

 

It is considered that Henning Avenue, between Moverly Road and Holmes Street satisfies the above parameters and should therefore take the place of Nevorie Crescent. As such it is considered that the residents of Nevorie Crescent be advised that Council has investigated their request and agreed to abandon the footpath works in this street and the available funds be allocated to provide a footpath on the western side of Henning Avenue between Moverly Road and Holmes Street.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.                  The residents of Nevorie be advised that Council has investigated their request and agreed to abandon the footpath works in this street.

 

2.                  The available funds be allocated to provide a footpath on the western side of Henning Avenue between Moverly Road and Holmes Street.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Petition

Plan of Nevorie Crescent  

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

DESIGN MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 

 




 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 67/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

DEMOLITION OF OLD BUS TERMINUS BUILDING MARINE PARADE, MAROUBRA BEACH.

 

 

DATE:

16 September, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2526

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR OF ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

                       

           

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the ordinary Council meeting on the 27th July 2004 in reference to the future of the Old Bus Terminus Building, Maroubra Beach, Council resolved;

 

that this item be deferred to allow discussions between the Central Ward and other interested Councillors to further review the matter, including heritage and other considerations.”

 

As a consequence of the above resolution a memo was sent on 10th August 2004 from DAIS to the Central Ward Councillors requesting that they further review the options for the future of the Old Bus Terminus Building, Maroubra Beach.

 

A memo signed by the three Central Ward Councillors has now been received by DAIS and they have advised that they support the demolition of the building.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

In the July 2004 a detailed report was submitted to the Council (Attachment 1) outlining options for the future of the Old Bus Terminus Building. This report discussed and estimated costs associated with various options.

 

The recommended option in the July Council report was as follows:

 

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

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

 

It should be noted that since this recommendation to Council the General Manager has received two emails and one letter from local residents requesting the retention of the building. The correspondence expresses community angst in regards to the demolition of old buildings in the Maroubra area. RCC Heritage Planner, Ms Lorraine Simpson has advised Council officers that the building was built in 1927 and that it does not have any significant heritage value and is not included in any heritage listing.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Asset and Infrastructure Services have been advised that this building is not of any heritage significance. The cost associated and ongoing issues with retaining this building seem to outweigh the actual benefit and therefore it seems appropriate that this building be demolished and the area made good with landscaping.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council demolish the existing Old Bus Terminus Building at Maroubra Beach and the surrounding area be made good with appropriate landscaping.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Report 45/2004 to the Ordinary Council Meeting 27th July, 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KERRY COLQUHOUN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR PARKS AND RECREATIONN MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 45/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

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

 

 

DATE:

20 July, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2526

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

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

 

 

BACKGROUND:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Refurbishment of Existing Building

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

 

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

o Existing truss connections rusted and require treatment.

o Exposed rafters damaged in sections.

o Total renewal of storm water fitments and connections.

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

 

 

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

 

Cost of Refurbishment of Existing Building

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS:

 

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

 

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

 

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

                                                     

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Advantages

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

 

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

 

Disadvantages

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Cost

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

 

Professional fees -                    $   20 000

Construction Costs -                 $ 410 000 to $ 460 000

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

 

 

3.2 Option 2 - Relocate Existing Building in New Location

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

 

Advantages

            - Take advantage of northerly aspect in a new position.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Disadvantages

            - Cost to raise and relocate.

 

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

 

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

 

            - Potential visual impact on views from nearby properties.

 

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

 

Cost

Similar potential cost to that identified for Option 1.

 

Professional fees -                    $   20 000

Construction Costs -                 $ 410 000 to $ 460 000

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

 

 

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

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

 

Advantages

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

 

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

 

            -  Designed to suit operational and functional needs of operator.

 

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

 

Disadvantages

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Cost

Professional fees -                    $   40 000

Construction Costs -                 $ 360 000 to $ 410 000

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

 
Advantages

-     Flood level issue gives reason to abandon proposal

 

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

 

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

 

 

Disadvantage

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

 

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

 

Cost

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

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

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

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICHAEL SAVAGE

KERRY COLQUHOUN

DIRECTOR ASSETS & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR PARKS AND RECREATION MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 68/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

LOCAL DISASTER PLANS - EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT

 

 

DATE:

16 September, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1474(2)

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 27 July 2004, Council considered the Director Asset & Infrastructure Services Report 41/2004, tabled as item 7.2 and resolved that Council notes the report and endorses the package of documents to be used in Stage 1 of the Community consultation process.   The report advised that a further report would be submitted on the community consultation process.

 

The package of documents comprised:

 

·    A covering letter to key community groups or individuals;

·    The Context Statement;

·    The draft Community Emergency Risk Register; and

·    A Glossary of Terms.

 

The consultation process comprised:

 

·    Advertising in local papers, the council website and using posters, calling for comments and advising the dates of public meetings;

·    A mail out to Presidents and Secretaries of Precinct Committees and Presidents of Chambers of Commerce, inviting comments on the package;

·    A presentation to the Police Accountability Community Team on Tuesday, 3rd August 2004, attended by Precinct Committees and Chambers of Commerce;

·    Three public meetings, the first at Randwick Town Hall on Wednesday evening, the 11th August, the second at Vonnie Young Auditorium, Bowen Library on Thursday evening, 12th August and the third at Vonnie Young Auditorium on Friday morning 13th August.

 

Advertising commenced on Tuesday 2nd August 2004 and comments were sought by close of business, Friday 3rd September 2004.

 

ISSUES:

 

Stage 1 Consultation Process

 

Most of the Precinct Committees and Chambers of Commerce were represented at the Police Accountability Community Team meeting on 3rd August 2004 and had already received the mailed out package.    Discussion on the presentation and package was constructive.   Two members subsequently sent comments on the package.

 

The attendance at the public meetings was poor, with two residents (Phil and Mary Worsley of Maroubra) attending the first meeting and no residents attending the second and third meetings.    At the meeting, Mr and Mrs Worsley contributed ideas about communication and prioritisation of risk abatement measures and subsequently emailed newspaper articles on 9th September 2004 about the Orica complex.   A response has been emailed to Mr and Mrs Worsley, acknowledging their contribution and their willingness to participate in the Stage 2 risk planning process.  

 

This overall low level of attendance at the public meetings was not unexpected, as the package of documents was not expected to raise contentious issues.   There were only two requests for the package of documents during the consultation period.  

 

A written submission was received on the 8th September 2004 from Mr Terry McGuiness on behalf of Randwick City Tourism.   Mr McGuiness had several practical suggestions for inclusions and changes to ratings.  A response has been sent to Mr McGuiness, acknowledging his contributions, which have been incorporated into a revised Risk Register and cleared with the Emergency Risk Management Assessment Committee (ERMAC).  

 

An emailed comment from Dr R Rosen of UNSW was received by the closure date of 3rd September, requesting clarification of a Dangerous Goods matter.  A response has been sent to Dr Rosen.

 

In an emailed comment from John Deegan of The Spot Business Association on 9th September 2004, Mr Deegan suggested that Port Botany and the Airport Authority be represented on the Committee.  A response has been sent to Mr Deegan, advising that Sydney Ports Corporation has been an active participant in the risk assessment process, while Council has stakeholder access to Sydney Airports Corporation Limited (SACL) through SCAL’s Emergency Management Committee.

 

The Bureau of Meteorology provided a response to the previous request for agency comments on the package, in relation to the renaming of the Bureau’s emergency forecasting products.  These product names have been incorporated in the revised Risk Register and Glossary of Terms and agreed by ERMAC members.

 

Although there has been a low level of community interest in the first stage of risk assessments, the second stage should generate a greater level of interest.  

 

Although the consultation period was still in progress, a submission to the NSW Office of Emergency Services was lodged on the due date of 20th August for the Local Government category of the Australian Safer Communities Awards 2004 scheme.   The submission focused on the merits of the package of documents and consultation process.   Receipt of the submission has been acknowledged.

 

Stage 2 Risk Abatement Measures and Review of Randwick DISPLAN

 

Stage 2 includes the development and implementation of specific cost-effective strategies and action plans for increasing potential benefits and reducing potential costs.   This includes developing risk abatement measures and reviewing contingency plans, namely the Randwick Disaster Plan (DISPLAN).  

 

Stage 2 of the Emergency Risk Management planning process will commence in late September and will comprise the following activities:

 

·    Finalisation of the Community Emergency Risk Register and its submission to the Local and State Emergency Management Committees;

·    Development and prioritisation of risk abatement measures for each risk in accordance with the revised Australian/New Zealand Standard AS4360:2004;

·    Review of contingency plans in the Randwick Disaster Plan (DISPLAN);

·    Development of a funding program and strategy for risk abatement measures;

·    Community consultation on the revised DISPLAN, abatement measures and proposed funding program, followed by a report to Council; and

·    Submission of funding proposals for both grant funding under Commonwealth / State / Local Government arrangements and for the Council’s 2005/2006 budget context.

 

This work will be undertaken by the ERMAC as a sub-committee of the Local Emergency Management Committee, with the engagement of interested members of the community as either participants or as a Reference Group.   The timetable for this work will be driven by the budget planning process in early 2005 and the submission date for National Disaster Mitigation Programme funds, normally due in April each year.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council notes the report and endorses the commencement of Stage 2 of the Emergency Risk Management planning process.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

RUSSELL WADE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES & LOCAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OFFICER

CHAIR ERMAC


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 69/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED RELOCATION OF A BUS STOP IN DONOVAN AVENUE, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

16 September, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0243/02

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council received a representation dated 27 January 2004 from Ms Raelene Hartman, 107 Donovan Avenue, Maroubra, concerning a bus stop for the 316 bus route. She stated that the present position of the bus stop, which is designated by Sydney Buses ‘J stem’, is situated outside three driveways to premises nos: 105,107 and 109 Donavan Avenue. She has stated that the present position of the bus stop presents the following unsatisfactory conditions:

 

·    It is on a narrow strip of footpath between driveways of premises nos:105 and 107, and due to the inadequate foot path width, bus patrons tend to wait for the bus on the driveway of her premises at 107 Donovan Avenue;

 

·    The absence of sufficient kerb and guttering that will be convenient for the passengers to alight from or enter the buses;

 

·    Potential risks for the bus partons waiting on her driveway.   

 

ISSUES:

 

The matter was considered by the Randwick Traffic Committee at its meeting held on 9 March 2004. The Sydney Buses representative requested that the matter be deferred for further investigation.

 

On 10 March 2004, Council received a copy of letter dated 9 March 2004 from Ms. Elizabeth Lo, 109 Donovan Avenue, Maroubra, addressed to the Premier, making representation against any proposal for the relocation of the bus stop.

 

On 20 May 2004, Council received another submission from Ms. Raelene Hartman of 107 Donovan Avenue requesting several documents including copies of Traffic Committee’s minutes, a copy of report of the Occupational Health & Safety Assessment carried out by State Transit Authority and relevant policy relating to the safety of the bus stop usage. Council could not obtain from Sydney Buses a copy of their OH&S policy and the assessment.

 

At the Traffic Committee meeting held on August 10, 2004, it was brought to the attention of the Committee of an article in The Daily Telegraph concerning the matter. At this meeting Council’s representative stated that Council cannot accept a situation that encourages bus patrons standing on the adjacent driveway.

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer reported that although he conceded that the relocating the J stem six metres east would not solve all the problems such as insufficient footpath width, illegal parking, etc., he felt that there would be an improvement in terms of safety (reversing vehicles could pose danger to the bus patrons waiting on the driveway), and therefore recommended that the Committee should consider the relocation of the stop. The RTA and Police representatives did not raise objection to the relocation of the bus stop six metres east. However, the Sydney Buses representative objected to the proposed relocation.

 

Council is advised that the RTA’s delegation to Council, in regard to the formal members of the Traffic Committee, do not include Sydney Buses as a member of the Committee. Any representation affecting the operation of Sydney Buses should be made by the RTA representative at the Committee.

 

On 16 August 2004, Ms. Elizabeth Lo of 109 Donovan Avenue, made further representation together with a petition signed by 72 local residents. She has also enclosed a petition signed by 17 persons who live outside the area who visit her and her family.

 

In her petition that was circulated to other residents for signature Ms. Lo has stated the following main reasons for the objection:

 

·    Increased Traffic Hazards:

 

“Moving the bus stop closer to the corner is a traffic hazard as it reduces sight and mobility of drivers. Donovan Avenue is a narrow street and can not accommodate two buses side by side. Moving it closer to the opposite bus stop, will increase the traffic fatalities in the area and the increased chance of collisions.

 

·    Reduce street parking spaces

 

Already there is a parking shortage in the area. Should the bus stop be moved, the on street available parking will further decline, creating several problems”.

 

Council’s Traffic Engineers consider that the above stated reasons could not be supported.

Firstly the proposed relocation will not be closer to the corner (of Paine Street), it will be 48.5 metres away from the intersection, which is more than sufficient to ensure the safety of turning vehicles.

 

Secondly, the proposed position will not be opposite the bus stop on the northern side. Currently the bus stop on the northern side is 10 metres away from the corner, and the proposed location on the southern side will be 48.5 metres away from the corner. It is interesting to note  that the next stop, located at 180 metres west of the present position has been signposted directly opposite each other,  and no adverse problem has ever been brought to the attention of the Traffic Committee.

 

At the meeting of the Traffic Committee held on 14 September 2004, at the request of the RTA representative, the matter was further reviewed. Careful consideration was given to explore all further options available to the Committee. The options considered were:

 

·    Installing BUS ZONE signs at the two extremities of the stop. This was considered unnecessary and further would not be in keeping with other bus stops.

 

·    Relocating the stop six metres west. This will cause the same situation of passengers waiting on the driveway of premises no: 105 Donovan Avenue.

 

·    Relocating the J stem closer the building line at the same location. This will not solve the current problem experienced by the residents of premises no: 107 Donovan Avenue.

 

Accordingly, the Traffic Committee resolved to reaffirm its earlier decision recommending the relocation of the bus stop six metres east.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is therefore concluded that the best option to Council would be to implement the recommendation of the Randwick Traffic Committee for the relocation of the J stem six metres east.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council endorse the recommendation of the Randwick Traffic Committee for the relocation of existing Sydney Buses J stem situated on the southern side of Donovan Avenue, Maroubra, from its present position at a point 54.5 metres west of Paine Street to a new position at 48.5 metres west of Paine Street.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment - sketch of bus stop in  Donovan Avenue, Maroubra

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 



 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 28/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

REVIEW OF WARD BOUNDARIES

 

 

DATE:

17 August, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/4497

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Section 211 of the Local Government Act deals with ward boundaries and states:

 

211 (1) The Council of an area divided into wards must keep the ward boundaries under review:

(2) If:

(a) during a council’s term of office, the council becomes aware that the number of electors in one ward in its area differs by more than 10 per cent from the number of electors in any other ward in its area, and

(b) that difference remains at the end of the first year of the following term of office of the council,

the council must, as soon as practicable, alter the ward boundaries in a manner that will result in each ward containing a number of electors that does not differ by more than 10 per cent from the number of electors in each other ward in the area.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) prevents a council that has become aware of the discrepancy referred to in subsection (2)(a) from altering its ward boundaries before the end of the first year of the following term of office of the council.”

 

ISSUES:

 

In June & August, 1998 reports were submitted to Council suggesting that, because of an imbalance between the number of electors in the five wards, the ward boundaries should be reviewed.  On 18th August, 1998, Council resolved that the matter be received and noted.  Since that time, no further action has taken place on the issue.

 

Section 211 of the Act was amended in August, 2002 which had the effect of requiring Councils to alter their ward boundaries during the subsequent term if the number of electors in one ward differed by more than 10% from any of the others.

 

There has historically been significant differences in enrolments in a number of Wards, but it had previously not been compulsory for Council to take any action.  For example based on May, 1998 Australian Electoral Commission figures the following % variations existed, in comparison to South Ward which had the highest enrolment of 16,692 at that time, were:

 

Ward                                                               Percentage

                                                                        Variation

 

Central                                                             4.77%

East                                                                  13.52%

North                                                               10.84%

West                                                                  9.8%

South                                                               N/A

 

The most recent 2004 figures from the Commission reveal that South Ward has 17,128 electors and the following variations are applicable:

 

Ward                                                               Percentage

                                                                        Variation

 

 

Central                                                             11.32%

East                                                                  24.44%

North                                                               15.68%

West                                                                18.68%

South                                                               N/A

 

It is obvious that the imbalance in electors between the wards is increasing and Council needs to commence action to ameliorate the situation.

 

Prior to altering ward boundaries, Section 210A of the Act requires Council to consult the Electoral Commissioner and the Australian Statistician to ensure that, as far as practicable, the proposed boundaries of wards correspond to the boundaries of appropriate electoral subdivisions and census districts, and to ensure that the proposed boundaries will comply with less than a 10% variation in electors between the largest and smallest wards.  The Council must also prepare and publicly exhibit for 28 days the plan detailing the proposed alteration of ward boundaries, allow a period of a minimum of 42 days for submissions to be received and then consider those submissions.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Section 211 of the Local Government Act requires Council to review any imbalances in elector representation between Wards that are greater than 10%.  As current variations in Wards all exceed the prescribed 10%, and range to as high as 24%, it is necessary for Council to redress this situation.

 

The Australian Electoral Commission is the appropriate body to undertake a review of ward boundaries on Council’s behalf.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Council review its current ward boundaries and utilise the Australian Electoral Commission to undertake this review, with the brief that any suggested options for changing the boundaries needs to achieve a less than 10 per cent variation in the number of electors between the Wards.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 29/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANCY SERVICES - TENDER NO T017/04

 

 

DATE:

15 September, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/07510

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES         

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Open Tenders were called on 4 May 2004 for Professional Consultancy Services and closed on 25 May 2004, with Sixty (60) tenders received.  The list of tenders received is outlined in Appendix B.

 

One tender was received late and was excluded in accordance with the Conditions of Tendering.  One other tender was deemed to be non conforming and was excluded in accordance with the Conditions of Tendering.

 

The Professional Consultancy Services tender was initiated to better manage the engagement of consultants by Council Officers in an accountable, transparent manner and strictly in accordance with Council’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures. The outcomes from this tender will provide substantial efficiencies and improve effectiveness whilst reducing risks to Council in the engagement of consultants by Council’s Officers.

 

The tender offers a three year contract period with Council’s option to extend the contract period for two further 12 month terms.  The cost savings to Council are estimated to be in excess of $200,000 over the term of the contract.  Savings would be attributed to the reduction in the costs associated with issuing multiple contracts for individual consultancy service needs.  The panel contract will enable staff to source the majority of their consultancy needs from the Professional Services Contract.

 

This tender was itself performed in accordance with Council’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures. The probity of the tender and evaluation process has been audited by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu to ensure strict probity procedures were followed.  The possible conflicts of interest in respect to this tender include:

 

1)       personal relationships that may have built up between Council’s Officers and external consultants working in the Local Government Professions.

2)       some of the tendering consultants are currently working for Council as temporary and casual staff.

3)       some of the tendering consultants have current consultancies with Council.

Confidentiality Agreements, Conflict Undertaking and Probity forms were signed by the Evaluation Committee members.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The objective of this tender was to establish a panel of prequalified consultants in the following range of professional consultancy categories listed below:

 

1.   Arborist Services

2.   Acoustic

3.   Architectural

4.   Asset Data Collecting Services

5.   Building Code of Australia

6.   Environmental

7.   Fire Safety

8.   Heritage Planning

9.   Landscape Architectural Services

10. Pipeline Inspection Services

11. Planning

12. Strategic Planning

13. Engineers (Structural, Civil, Electrical, Lighting, Mechanical, Marine, Drainage, Geotechnical, Asset Management Services, Project Management)

14. Traffic ( General, Traffic and Parking, Traffic Counting)

15. Urban Design

 

It was intended a minimum of 3 consultants for each professional consultancy category be sourced, subject to the quantity and quality of tenders received for each category.

 

The contract will enable Council’s Officers to engage consultants from the Contract on an hourly rate basis and or on a lump sum basis.

 

Tender Assessment

Tenders were evaluated strictly in accordance with Council’s Purchasing Policy, Procedures and Evaluation Plan, and in compliance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and Tendering Regulation 1999.

 

A Tender Evaluation Plan was developed and approved by the Director Governance Management and Information Services prior to the tender close, and was noted by the Probity Auditor.  The roles and responsibilities of the Evaluation Committee members, the Probity Auditor and Council are outlined in the Tender Evaluation Plan.

 

The following tender evaluation criterion was used to assess the value for money offered by the tenderers.

 

Mandatory Criteria

·    Experience in fulfilling the requirements of similar contracts

·    Capacity to fulfill the requirements of this tender

 

Desirable Criteria

·    Price

·    Quality Assurance

·    Occupational Health and Safety

·    Environmental policies

·    Tenderers capacity, qualification and previous experience

·    Tenderers financial capacity/stability

 

A detailed breakdown of the evaluation criteria and weightings is outlined in Appendix A. 

Probity

The services of a Probity Auditor were engaged to ensure the evaluation of this tender was fair and equitable and met all probity requirements.

 

A Probity Plan was included as an Appendix to the Tender Evaluation Plan.  The Probity Plan served as a guide to be followed by the Randwick City Council to maintain the integrity of processes adopted with respect to the evaluation of tenders for Professional Consultancy Services.  The Probity Plan addresses the management of probity risk in accordance with the generally accepted ICAC probity principles.  A Probity Auditor from Deloitte reviewed the tender process to determine whether the process has been conducted in a fair and equitable manner with due regard to probity, refer to the Probity Report, Appendix F. 

Tenders Received

Each tenderer was evaluated against the professional services category nominated in the tender submitted.  A summary of the tenderers for each professional services category are listed in Appendix C.

Late Tenders

One late tender was received from Rickard Hails Moretti Pty Ltd.  This tender is ineligible to be considered by Council as the tender was received after the close of tenders.  Reference is made to the Conditions of Tendering, Part A, Clause A7.3.

Non-Conforming Tenders

One non-conforming tender was submitted by Bob and Tillott Associates.  This tender was seriously non conforming and did not meet the mandatory criteria and was excluded from further evaluation.  The information submitted by Bob and Tillott Associates was not in the tender form, with no schedules completed and submitted.  Due to the limited information the Evaluation Committee were unable to evaluate the response as it was seriously non conforming and non compliant with the Conditions of Tendering, Part A, Clause A2.2.

Conforming Tenders

Fifty eight (58) conforming tenders were received and proceeded to a detailed evaluation, refer Appendix B.

 

TENDER EVALUATION

 

The selection of the tenderers was based upon their resultant total value for money score as assessed in accordance with the evaluation criteria outlined in the Tender Evaluation Plan.

 

Tenderers were evaluated against the evaluation criteria outlined in the Tender Evaluation Plan to determine a quality score.  To determine which tenderers offered the best value for money for each professional consultancy category, Schedule B8 criteria (personnel) was assessed.  The Schedule B8 score was added to the rest of the Quality score to determine a total Quality score for each tenderer in each professional consultancy category tendered.  This was then calculated with the Cost Index to determine the Value for Money score.

 

A quality audit was conducted on the individual scores to assess any substantial variations in the scores amongst panel members.  The purpose of this assessment was to ensure that all the information supplied in the Tenders had been comprehensively reviewed in the assessment by the committee members.

 

The Probity Auditor reviewed the process to determine whether the process had been conducted in a fair and equitable manner with due regard to probity.

 

The rates submitted by Command Group were significantly low, thus were excluded in the evaluation of the cost index.  The tender submitted by the Command Group appeared to offer temporary professionals to work within Council, as compared to professional consultancies where Council would outsource the work.  The intent of the tender was to seek external professional consulting firms, as was offered by all other tenderers.  It is recommended not to accept Command Group under this particular tender as the services of Command Group can already be sourced through State Procurement Contract 755 by Council.

 

Pavement Management Services submitted a non conforming price schedule thus could not be assessed in the same manner as the other tender submissions.  Pavement Management Services tendered rates that can not be translated into hourly rates. Services offered by this consultancy relate to pavement condition data collection which includes pavement roughness, cracking, rutting, deformation, structural measurement and pavement failure. The units of measurement for payment are based on length of road assessed.  While this tenderer offered services under Urban Design and all Engineering categories, due to the manner in which their tender was submitted they were assessed against categories Asset Data Collecting Services and Traffic.

 

Selection of Tenderers

It was anticipated that a minimum of 3 tenderers would be selected under each professional consultancy category.  Under some categories additional consultants have been selected to ensure the expertise required by Council for the broad range of projects undertaken, are covered by the tenderers recommended to supply under this contract.

Arborist Services

One tender submission was received by Council from Total Earth Care Pty Ltd. The evaluation committee considered that Total Earth Care Pty Ltd offered good value for money in providing this service. Total Earth Care Pty Ltd offer quality flora and fauna expertise and have been recommended to provide this service under this category.

Acoustic Services

Two tenders were received by Council, being from GHD and Renzo Tonin & Associates Pty Ltd to undertake acoustic services. The evaluation committee considered that GHD and Renzo Tonin & Associates Pty Ltd both offer good value for money in providing this service. GHD and Renzo Tonin & Associates Pty Ltd have been recommended to provide this service to Council.

Architectural

A number of tenders were received by Council to undertake architectural services. The evaluation committee considered that the successful tenderers in Appendix D provided good value for money and a range of specialist services catering for a variety of Council’s needs, right through from commenting on Development Applications to design development.

Asset Data Collecting Services

Five tender submissions were received to provide asset data collection services to Council.  Cardino MBK, Connell Wagner and GHD offer extensive and broad experience in general asset data collection services whilst Australian Water Technologies specializes in water related areas such as storm water pipes, pits, pumps, irrigation, water supply and sewer.  Four were selected due to the close value for money scores of the Connell Wagner and GHD.

 

Pavement Management Services submitted a non conforming price schedule that could not be assessed in the same manner as the other tender submissions. Pavement Management Services tendered rates that can not be translated into hourly rates. Services offered by this consultancy relate to pavement condition data collection which includes pavement roughness, cracking, rutting, deformation, structural measurement and pavement failure. The units of measurement for payment are based on length of road assessed. The evaluation committee have assessed that the rates tendered by Pavement Management Services indicating they offer good value for money, in addition Pavement Management Services gained a quality score of 81.4%, Pavement Management Services are recommended to provide Asset Data Collecting Services.  No other tenderers offer this service to Council and Councils business practice is to undertake pavement condition assessment on an annual basis.

 

Building Code of Australia

Seven tender submissions were received to provide assessments under the Building Code of Australia. The three selected tenderers (see Appendix D) provided good value for money and a high level of expertise and broad experience in Building Code of Australia assessment.

Environmental

Fourteen tender submissions were received by Council to provide environment services. The environmental service category is a very broad professional category covering a vast array of specialties which were reflected in the tender submissions received. The evaluation committee could have chosen all tenderers in this category as they all have there own specialties. The recommended tenderers listed in Appendix D were selected upon value for money, with sufficient consultancies listed to cover the environmental specializations that Council normally engages to fulfill its responsibilities and activities.

 

Patterson Britton and Partners displayed strong skills in water related environmental services which assisted in their selection. New Environment Management and Technology displayed strong skills in the management of projects with respect to the Environment Planning and Assessment Act which assisted in their selection.

 

Kellogg Brown and Root are a very large and multidisciplinary organization, who are able to manage large infrastructure related environmental projects. OTEK Australia are also a very large and multidisciplinary organization, who specialize in environmental projects that are science related such as contaminated sites and waste disposal.

 

MPL Health Safety Environment are recommended as they specialize in environmental matters that relate to developments. AE&D is a small consultancy which specializes in risk assessment to the environment arising from developments.

 

Douglas Partners specialize in ground related environmental matters such as ground water and ground gas movements, who would be used by Council from time to time. 

Fire Safety

Seven tender submissions were received by Council to provide fire safety assessments under the Building Code of Australia.  The three selected tenderers (see Appendix D) provided good value for money and specialist knowledge and experience in this highly technical area.

Heritage Planning

Five tender submissions were received by Council to provide heritage planning services. The three recommended tenderers (see Appendix D) provided good value for money and a high level of technical expertise and experience in heritage projects.

Landscape Architectural Services

Five Tender submissions were received by Council to provide landscape architectural services. The four recommended tenderers listed in Appendix D were selected as offering the best value for money in providing that service.  Four were selected due to the close value for money scores of Hassell and Dickson Rothschild.

Pipeline Inspection Services

Three tender submissions were received by Council to provide pipeline inspection services.  The evaluation committee recommended GHD and Tyco Water as the recommended tenderers in this category as they offered the best value for money.  The third tenderer is not recommended due to the limited quantity of work required in this area and the high hourly rate tendered, being double the lowest rate offered under this category.

Planning

There were a large number of tenderers in the area of Planning services.  Eight tenderers were accepted in the area of statutory Planning. The evaluation committee considered that the recommended tenderers in Appendix D provided good value for money and a range of specialist services which would allow Council the flexibility to match a particular project with the specific strength of the tenderer.  Whilst it is not estimated that Council will use all the agencies in any one year, due to the diversity of Council’s business in these areas it anticipated that Council will require the range of specialties of these agencies during the course of the contract.  In addition, Council has specific time frames for the processing of Development Applications (DA’s), the volume of DA’s received at any one time is subject to change, thus having sufficient providers under this category is necessary.

Strategic Planning

There were a large number of tenderers in the areas of Strategic Planning services.  Nine tenders are recommended for Strategic Planning.  The evaluation committee considered that the recommended tenderers in Appendix D provided good value for money and a range of specialist services which would allow Council the flexibility to match a particular project with the specific strength of the tenderer.  Whilst it is not estimated that Council will use all the agencies in any one year, due to the diversity of Council’s business in this area it anticipated that Council will require the specialties of these agencies during the course of the contract.  In addition, Council has specific time frames in relation to the preparation of a wide range of policy documents including the Strategic Plans, LEP's, DCP's and other codes and guidelines.

Engineers – Structural

A large number of tender submissions were received by Council to provide structural services. The evaluation committee recommended five tenderers, listed in Appendix D, as they offered Council the best value for money.  Structural services are often sought by Council to assess and design buildings and structures.  Sufficient consultants were selected to enable the most appropriate consultant to undertake a particular project. The successful consultants would be likely to be engaged throughout the period of the contract.

Engineers – Civil

A large number of tender submissions were received by Council to provide civil services. The evaluation committee recommended nine tenderers, listed in Appendix D, as they offered Council the best value for money. This consultancy category is one of the most regularly used consultancy services by Council.  The recommended tenderers offer a range of specialties within Civil Engineering, Councils volume and variety of work requires a sufficient panel of consultants in this field to enable the most appropriate consultant to undertake a particular project.

Engineers – Electrical, Lighting

A number of tender submissions were received by Council to provide electrical services. The evaluation committee recommended four tenderers, listed in Appendix D, as they offered Council the best value for money.

Engineers – Marine

A number of tender submissions were received by Council to provide marine services. The evaluation committee recommended five tenderers, listed in Appendix D, as they offered Council the best value for money.  A range of large and small consultancies were chosen as this category is a broad and specialized area. Sufficient consultants were selected to enable the most appropriate consultant to undertake a particular project. Randwick Council is almost surrounded by the marine environment with the ocean on the east and Botany Bay along its southern boundary. The size of the projects can vary from being very small to the very large. Marine engineering is always complex and difficult to implement successfully.

Engineers – Drainage

A number of tender submissions were received by Council to provide drainage services. The evaluation committee recommended five tenderers, listed in Appendix D, as they offered Council the best value for money.  Council is involved in many forms of stormwater drainage engineering and requires sufficient consultancies to service Council’s demands. Drainage services required include assessment of stormwater drainage with respect to development applications, preparation of catchment management plans, drainage investigation, design and rehabilitation of Council’s existing infrastructure. Sufficient consultants were selected to enable the most appropriate consultant to undertake a particular project.

Engineers – Geotechnical

A number of tender submissions were received by Council to provide geotechnical services. The evaluation committee recommended SMEC Testing Services and Douglas Partners as they offered Council the best value for money and they specialized in this area.

Engineers – Mechanical

A number of tender submissions were received by Council to provide mechanical services. The evaluation committee recommended Kinsley Constructions, Connell Wagner and GHD as they offered Council the best value for money.

Engineers – Project Management

A large number of tender submissions were received by Council to provide project management services. The evaluation committee recommended six tenderers, listed in Appendix D, as they offered Council the best value for money.  Six tenderers are recommended as the scope of work is variable so it is important select sufficient consultants to enable the most appropriate consultant to undertake a particular project. A broad range of consultants were chosen to ensure most projects that Council may need to provide could be undertaken by the selected consultants.

Engineer Asset Management Services

A number of tender submissions were received by Council to provide asset management services. The evaluation committee recommended five tenderers, listed in Appendix D, as being successful as they offered Council the best value for money.  Sufficient consultants were selected to enable the most appropriate consultant to undertake a particular project.

Traffic

A number of tender submissions were received by Council to provide traffic consultancy services. The evaluation committee recommended four tenderers, listed in Appendix D, as being successful as they offered Council the best value for money.

Urban Design

A large number of tender submissions were received by Council to provide Urban Design services. The evaluation committee recommended five tenderers, listed in Appendix D, as they offered Council the best value for money and jointly met the specialist skills and experience required in this area.  Whilst it is not estimated that Council will use all the agencies in any one year, due to the diversity of Council’s business in these areas it anticipated that Council will require the specialties of these agencies during the course of the contract.

 

RECOMMENDED CONSULTANT SCHEDULE

 

The table below is a summary of recommended tenderers for each professional services category.  The recommended tenderers quality, cost and value for money scores are outlined in Appendix D.

 

CONSULTANT SERVICE

TENDERERS

Arborist Services

Total Earth Care Pty Ltd

Acoustic

GHD Pty Ltd

Renzo Tonin & Associates Pty Ltd

Architectural

Graham Jahn architects Pty Ltd t/a Jahn Associates Architects

Group GSA Pty Ltd

Kinsley & Associates Pty Ltd t/a Kinsley Constructions Pty Ltd

Buzacott Associates Architects

Tanner & Associates Pty Ltd t/a Tanner Architects

Stephenson & Turner International Pty Ltd

Asset Data Collecting Services

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Australian Water Technologies Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

GHD Pty Ltd

Pavement Management Services

Building Code of Australia

BCA Logic Pty Ltd

MPL Group Pty Ltd t/a MPL Health Safety Environment

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Environmental

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

New Environment Management & Technology Pty Ltd

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

MPL Group Pty Ltd t/a MPL Health Safety Environment

OTEK Australia Pty Ltd

Active Environmental & Development Pty Ltd t/a AE&D

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

Fire Safety

MPL Group Pty Ltd t/a MPL Health Safety Environment

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

BCA Logic Pty Ltd

Heritage Planning

Tanner & Associates Pty Ltd t/a Tanner Architects

Group GSA Pty Ltd

HBO+EMTB

Landscape Architectural Services

URS Australia Pty Ltd

HBO+EMTB

Hassell Pty Ltd

Dickson Rothschild Pty Ltd

Pipeline Inspection Services

GHD Pty Ltd

Tyco Water Pty Ltd

Planning

Peddle Thorp & Walker Pty Ltd t/a PTW Planning Pty Ltd

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

GHD Pty Ltd

Tanner & Associates Pty Ltd t/a Tanner Architects

Architectus Sydney Pty Ltd

Kerry Longford

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Planning Interface (Australia)

Strategic Planning

Peddle Thorp & Walker Pty Ltd t/a PTW Planning Pty Ltd

Graham Jahn Architects Pty Ltd t/a Jahn Associates Architects

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Hassell Pty Ltd

GHD Pty Ltd

Architectus Sydney Pty Ltd

Kerry Longford

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Planning Interface (Australia)

Engineers - Structural

Kinsley & Associates Pty Ltd t/a Kinsley Constructions Pty Ltd

BMD Consulting Pty Ltd

Woolacott Hale Corlett & Jumikis Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Taylor Thomson Whitting Pty Ltd

Engineers - Civil

Kinsley & Associates Pty Ltd t/a Kinsley Constructions Pty Ltd

Bankstown City Council t/a Civic Services Group t/a Civic Design

BMD Consulting Pty Ltd

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

Woolacott Hale Corlett & Jumikis Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

Taylor Thomson Whitting Pty Ltd

Webb McKeown & Associates Pty Ltd

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Engineers – Electrical, Lighting

Kinsley & Associates Pty Ltd t/a Kinsley Constructions Pty Ltd

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

GHD Pty Ltd

Engineers - Mechanical

Kinsley & Associates Pty Ltd t/a Kinsley Constructions Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

GHD Pty Ltd

Engineers - Marine

Webb McKeown & Associates Pty Ltd

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

Gary Blumberg & Associates Pty Ltd

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

Engineers - Drainage

Webb McKeown & Associates Pty Ltd

Bankstown City Council t/a Civic Services Group t/a Civic Design

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

Woolacott Hale Corlett & Jumikis Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

Taylor Thomson Whitting Pty Ltd

Engineers - Geotechnical

SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd

Douglas Partners

Engineers - Asset Management Services

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

GHD Pty Ltd

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

WP Brown & Partners Pty Ltd

Engineers - Project Management

Kinsley & Associates Pty Ltd t/a Kinsley Constructions Pty Ltd

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

Logikon corporation Pty Ltd t/a Aviator Works

MPL Group Pty Ltd t/a MPL Health Safety Environment

Taylor Thomson Whitting Pty Ltd

GHD Pty Ltd

Traffic ( General, Traffic and Parking, Traffic Counting)

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Taylor Thomson Whitting Pty Ltd

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

Urban Design

Graham Jahn Architects Pty Ltd t/a Jahn Associates Architects

Peddle Thorp & Walker Pty Ltd t/a PTW Planning Pty Ltd

Group GSA Pty Ltd

Buzacott Associates Architects

Architectus Sydney Pty Ltd

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s business is diverse, often with a large number of smaller projects undertaken in varying specialist areas.  This can be attributed to the scope of works undertaken by Council in its role in local government and its geographical location.  It is expected that the Professional Consultancy Service Contract will satisfy the majority of Council’s consultancy needs for the term of the contract.  The Professional Consultancy Service Contract will primarily support the Asset and Infrastructure Services and Planning Departments in their core business.

 

TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE

 

The tender Evaluation committee endorses the reports recommendations.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         The tenderers listed in each category of the “Recommended Consultant Schedule” above, for Professional Consulting Services be awarded for a 3 year term with 2 options to extend for a further term of 12 months each be accepted, and that Council enter into Contracts under Clause 19 of the Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999.

 

2.         That authority be granted for the General Manager in conjunction with the Mayor to sign and affix Councils Common Seal to enter into contracts on behalf of Council with the recommended tenderers for Professional Consulting Services, as listed in the “Recommended Consultant Schedule” above.

 

3.         The unsuccessful tenderers be notified of the Tender result.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A)        Evaluation Criteria and Weightings

B)        Tenders Submitted

C)        Summary of Tenderers for Each Professional Services Category

D)        Recommended Tenderers for each Professional Services Category - UNDER SEPARATE COVER.

E)        Tenderers Scores (including Quality, Cost and Value for Money scores) UNDER SEPARATE COVER

F)         Probity Report - UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

KIM DAVIS

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

MANAGER CONTRACTS & PURCHASING

 

 

 

 

 

 


APPENDIX A

 

 

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTINGS

 

 

EVALUATION CRITERIA

TENDER QUESTIONS

TOTAL WEIGHT

STAGE 1 – MANDATORY CRITERIA

 

 

Experience in fulfilling the requirements of similar contract(s)

 

All criteria must be met

Capacity to fulfil the requirements of this Tender

 

All criteria must be met

 

STAGE 2 – DESIRABLE CRITERIA

 

 

 

Quality Assurance

B11

10%

Occupational Health and Safety

B12

5%

Environmental Policies

B13

2%

Tenderer’s capacity, qualifications and previous experience

 

 

- Schedule of compliance

B6

5%

- Schedule of Key Personnel

B8

23%

- Schedule of Supply

B9

10%

- Schedule of Work in hand & Work completed

B10

20%

Tenderer’s financial capacity/stability

 

 

- Financial information

B4

10%

- Insurances*

B5

5%

 

 

 

STAGE 3

 

 

Referee Checks

B10

10%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

100%

 

*  Where tenderers do not have the current levels of insurance required, tenderers must state they will obtain the levels required if awarded the contract.


APPENDIX B

 

TENDERS SUBMITTED

 


1.   AE&D Pty Ltd

2.   Architectus Sydney

3.   Australian Water Technologies (Patrick Carr of)

4.   Aviator Works

5.   BCA Logic

6.   Bob and Tillott (NON-CONFORMING)

7.   BMD Consulting Pty Ltd

8.   Burrell Threlfo Pagen Pty Ltd

9.   Buzacott Associates Architects

10. Candido Associates

11. Cardno MBK

12. Civic Services Group (Civic Design)

13. Command Recruitment Group

14. Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

15. CSK Planning & Assoc

16. Currie & Brown

17. Davis Langdon Aust

18. Dickson Rothschild

19. Douglas Partners

20. Ergo Architecture & Interiors

21. Gary Blumberg & Assoc Pty Ltd

22. Geotechnique Pty Ltd

23. GHD

24. Group GSA Pty Ltd

25. Hassell Pty Ltd

26. HBO & EMTB

27. Jahn Assoc Architects

28. Jamieson Foley

29. KBR Pty Ltd

30. Kerry Longford

31. Kinsley & Assoc Pty Ltd

32. Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

33. McGregor Westlake Architecture Pty Ltd

34. Melocco & Moore (David Melocco)

35. MPL Health-Safety-Environment

36. New Environment Management & Technology Pty Ltd

37. OTEK Aust Pty Ltd

38. Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

39. Pavement Management Services Pty Ltd

40. Planning Interface (Australia)

41. Planning Workshop Australia

42. PTW Planning Pty Ltd

43. Renzo Tonin & Associates Pty Ltd

44. Rickard Hails Moretti Pty Ltd (RECEIVED LATE)

45. Scott Carver Pty Ltd

46. Site Staff NSW Pty Ltd

47. Smec Testing Services Pty Ltd

48. SPD Town Planners

49. Stephenson & Turner

50. Sutherland Koshy

51. Tanner Architects

52. Taylor Thompson Whitting Pty Ltd

53. Total Earth Care Pty Ltd

54. Transport and Traffic Planning Associates

55. Tyco Water Pty Ltd

56. URS Australia Pty Ltd

57. Warrington Fire Research Australia Pty Ltd

58. Webb McKeown & Assoc P/L

59. Woolacott Hale Corlett & Jumikis Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

60. WP Brown & Partners Pty Ltd


APPENDIX C

 

SUMMARY OF TENDERERS FOR EACH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CATEGORY

 

CONSULTANT SERVICE

TENDERERS

Arborist Services

Total Earth Care Pty Ltd

Acoustic

GHD

Renzo Tonin & Associates Pty Ltd

Architectural

Jahn Associates Architects

Group GSA Pty Ltd

Kinsley Constructions Pty Ltd

Buzacott Associates Architects

Tanner Architects

Stephenson & Turner International Pty Ltd

Architectus

McGregor Westlake Architecture Pty Ltd

HBO+EMTB Pty Ltd

Hassell Pty Ltd

GHD

Melocco & Moore Architects Pty Ltd

WP Brown & Partners

Dickson Rothschild

Candido Associates

Ergo Architecture and Interiors

Asset Data Collecting Services

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Australian Water Technologies Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

GHD

Pavement Management Services

Building Code of Australia

BCA Logic Pty Ltd

MPL Health Safety Environment

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

GHD

Davis Langdon Australia Pty Ltd

AE&D

Warrington Fire Research (Aust) Pty Ltd

Environmental

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

New Environment, Management & Technology Pty Ltd

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

MPL Health Safety Environment

OTEK Australia Pty Ltd

AE&D

Douglas Partners Pty Ltd

GHD

Gary Blumberg & Associates Pty Ltd

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Total Earth Care Pty Ltd

WP Brown & Partners

Fire Safety

MPL Health Safety Environment

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

BCA Logic Pty Ltd

GHD

Davis Langdon Australia Pty Ltd

AE&D

Warrington Fire Research (Aust) Pty Ltd

Heritage Planning

Tanner Architects

Group GSA Pty Ltd

HBO+EMTB

Planning Workshop Australia

SPD Town Planners

Landscape Architectural Services

URS Australia Pty Ltd

HBO+EMTB

Hassell Pty Ltd

Dickson Rothschild

McGregor Westlake Architecture Pty Ltd

Pipeline Inspection Services

GHD

Tyco Water Pty Ltd

SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd

Planning

PTW Planning Pty Ltd

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

GHD

Tanner Architects

Architectus

Kerry Longford

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Planning Interface (Australia)

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Hassell Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

Davis Langdon Australia Pty Ltd

Planning Workshop Australia

Dickson Rothschild

Burrell Threlfo Pagan Pty Ltd

Scott Carver Pty Ltd

Sutherland Koshy

SPD Town Planning

CSK Planning & Associates

Strategic Planning

PTW Planning Pty Ltd

Jahn Associates Architects

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Hassell Pty Ltd

GHD

Architectus

Kerry Longford

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Planning Interface (Australia)

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

Planning Workshop Australia

Pavement Management Services

WP Brown & Partners Pty Ltd

Dickson Rothschild

Buzacott Associates Architects

Burrell Threlfo Pagan Pty Ltd

Scott Carver Pty Ltd

SPD Town Planning

CSK Planning & Associates

Engineers - Structural

Kinsley Constructions Pty Ltd

BMD Consulting Pty Ltd

Woolacott Hale Corlett & Jumikis Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Taylor Thomson Whitting

GHD

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

WP Brown & Partners Pty Ltd

Gary Blumberg & Associates Pty Ltd

Geotechnique Pty Ltd

Pavement Management Services

Engineers - Civil

Kinsley Constructions Pty Ltd

Civic Design

BMD Consulting Pty Ltd

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

Woolacott Hale Corlett & Jumikis Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

Taylor Thomson Whitting

Webb McKeown & Associates

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

Gary Blumberg & Associates Pty Ltd

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

GHD

URS Australia Pty Ltd

WP Brown & Partners Pty Ltd

Aviator Works

Geotechnique Pty Ltd

Pavement Management Services

Engineers – Electrical, Lighting

Kinsley Constructions Pty Ltd

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

GHD

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

Gary Blumberg & Associates Pty Ltd

Geotechnique Pty Ltd

Pavement Management Services

Engineers - Mechanical

Kinsley Constructions Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

GHD

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

URS Australia Pty Ltd

MPL Health Safety Environment

Gary Blumberg & Associates Pty Ltd

Geotechnique Pty Ltd

Pavement Management Services

Engineers - Marine

Webb McKeown & Associates

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

Gary Blumberg & Associates Pty Ltd

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

GHD

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

MPL Health Safety Environment

Geotechnique Pty Ltd

Pavement Management Services

Engineers - Drainage

Webb McKeown & Associates

Civic Design

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

Woolacott Hale Corlett & Jumikis Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd

Taylor Thomson Whitting

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

GHD

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

Gary Blumberg & Associates Pty Ltd

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Geotechnique Pty Ltd

Pavement Management Services

Engineers - Geotechnical

SMEC Testing Services Pty Ltd

Douglas Partners

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

BMD Consulting Pty Ltd

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

Geotechnique Pty Ltd

GHD

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

Gary Blumberg & Associates Pty Ltd

Pavement Management Services

Engineers - Asset Management Services

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

GHD

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

WP Brown & Partners Pty Ltd

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Douglas Partners

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

Gary Blumberg & Associates Pty Ltd

Geotechnique Pty Ltd

Pavement Management Services

Engineers - Project Management

Kinsley Constructions Pty Ltd

Patterson Britton & Partners Pty Ltd

Aviator Works

MPL Health Safety Environment

Taylor Thomson Whitting

GHD

OTEK Australia Pty Ltd

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Gary Blumberg & Associates Pty Ltd

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

WP Brown & Partners Pty Ltd

Davis Langdon Australia Pty Ltd

Geotechnique Pty Ltd

Pavement Management Services

Traffic ( General, Traffic and Parking, Traffic Counting)

Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) Pty Ltd

Taylor Thomson Whitting

Cardno MBK (NSW) Pty Ltd

Connell Wagner Pty Ltd

GHD

URS Australia Pty Ltd

Transport and Traffic Planning Associates

Jamieson Foley Traffic & Transport Pty Ltd

Pavement Management Services

Urban Design

Jahn Associates Architects

PTW Planning Pty Ltd

Hassell Pty Ltd

Group GSA Pty Ltd

Buzacott Associates Architects

Architectus

Melocco & Moore Architects Pty Ltd

HBO+EMTB Pty Ltd

Stephenson & Turner International Pty Ltd

McGregor Westlake Architecture Pty Ltd

Dickson Rothschild

WP Brown & Partners Pty Ltd

Planning Workshop Australia

Sutherland Koshy

Candido Associates

Pavement Management Services

 


 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 30/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

REPORT ON INVESTMENTS FOR 2003-2004

 

 

DATE:

15 September, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/0745

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

As Councillors are aware, Council invests as much of its funds as possible, to maximise revenue opportunities.  While the types of investments Council can invest in are strictly controlled by the Minister, Randwick has attempted to ensure these investments provide good returns each year.

 

ISSUES:

 

To assist with Council’s investment strategy, Council utilises the services of a professional adviser, Grove Financial Services.  Grove has provided the following review of the recently completed financial year:

 

“Conditions in the market have been consistent with the scenario we forecast in our review of your portfolio in January.  That is to say, running yields have been higher than in recent years, but there has been less room for capital appreciation from shifting credit margins and favourable interest rate movements.

 

The outlook from here is for credit spreads to remain relatively stable and for longer term interest rates to rise more than short term rates.  This means that the trend is higher yields and lower capital returns is likely to continue.  More detail is enclosed in your portfolio review.

 

Investment managers have been generally active in positioning portfolios to deal with this more difficult environment.  In particular, we have seen a growing use of asset-backed and mortgage-backed securities that offer good running yields and greater protection in the event that credit spreads start to widen.  This effectively represents fund managers putting some “portfolio insurance” in place.

 

Against this backdrop, your portfolio has delivered a creditable return above the bank bill index, net of all Grove and fund manager fees, of 0.39% for the 12 months to June 30.  We hope you agree that for a well diversified portfolio with strong risk management and liquidity characteristics, this is a good outcome.  Full performance details are enclosed.

 

Going forward, we believe managers will continue to deliver above benchmark returns, net of all fees.  For Grove’s part, we are very mindful that interest rate and credit markets are looking riskier and that solid risk management methodologies are key.  Grove’s role is to help clients construct portfolios within structured risk, return and liquidity parameters.”

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council will note that over the year we achieved better than the benchmark, being the bank bill index.  Even after paying Grove’s fees, our result remained about the bank bill rate.  This is a very pleasing result, and demonstrates the value of our investment strategies and the prudent advice we receive from Grove.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report of the Director Governance, Management and Information Services be received and noted, and the report of Grove Financial Services tabled.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 71/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

7 Hinkler Street, MAROUBRA  - DEFERRED

 

 

DATE:

16 September, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 95/2004

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Health, Building & Planning Committee at its meeting held on 7 September 2004 resolved:-

 

that this matter be deferred to the next Ordinary Council Meeting to allow Councillors to further investigate certain issues, including the finish of the fence and its impact on the rest of the street.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider the Development Application Report dated 12 August 2004.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 12 August 2004.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

 

ROMAN WERESZCYNSKI

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

12 August, 2004

FILE NO:

D0095/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(2) to delete Condition No. 3 of Development Consent No 04/00095/GB in relation to front fence and gates

PROPERTY:

 7 Hinkler Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr D M Grace

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Chris Bastic, Anthony Andrews and Ted Seng.

 

The original application details the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including alterations to the front fence by raising the height of existing masonry brick piers to 1725mm and installation of solid aluminium fencing panels. Condition No. 3 of the Development Consent was imposed to have the proposed alterations to the front fence deleted as it does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of Part 4.8 of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The Section 96 application seeks consent to delete Condition 3 of the Development Consent and to raise the height of the front fence to 1800m with the installation of aluminium panels (50% open) in between.

 

The main issue for consideration is that the proposed modifications to the front fence will be out of keeping with the existing established fencing form in the immediate and surrounding streetscape.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is to delete Condition No. 3 of the Consent, which states:

 

“3     The proposed raising of the existing front fence does not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the alterations to the front fence will be out of keeping with the established fencing form. The proposed alterations to the front fence, including the new sliding gate are to be deleted from the application and plans accompanying the Construction Certificate amended accordingly.”

 

The application also seeks consent to raise the height of the front fence to 1800mm and installation of aluminium fencing panels with 50% open design and a new sliding gate.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Hinkler Street, north of Paine Street, Maroubra and is currently occupied by an existing two storey dwelling house.  The site has a frontage width of 13.715m, a side boundary depth of 27.54m and has an overall site area of 377.71m².  The surrounding area is residential in nature and contains a mixture of one and two storey semi-detached dwellings and free standing dwelling houses.

 

The existing fencing form within the immediate and surrounding streetscape is of dwarf masonry walls of up to 600mm in height.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Application No. 95/2004 for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling was approved on 9 March 2004, subject to 20 conditions. Condition No. 3 of the consent required the proposed alterations to the front fence, including the new sliding gate to be deleted.

 

The subject application was lodged on 1 July 2004 which seeks consent to delete Condition No.3 of the consent and to modify the front fence by raising the height of the existing brick piers to 1800mm and installation of aluminium panels with 50% open design in between and a new sliding gate.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposal and Council Plan. The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed modifications on 6 July 2004. As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

No referrals required.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

7.1  Policy Controls

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

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of preferred solutions).

FENCES

P1 Front fences are integrated with streetscape.

S1 Sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

 

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

 

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

N/A

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

No – (a maximum height of 1.8m with 50% open aluminium panel insert and upper two thirds of sliding gate at least 50% open). See Section 9.

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1  Substantially the same

 

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

8.2  Consideration of submissions

 

As noted in Section 5 of this report, no submissions were received during the notification period.

 

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       Fences

Generally the objectives and performance requirements for fences in the DCP are to ensure that front fencing is integrated with the street scape and is compatible with the appearance of the dwelling and any established local fence form and material.

 

Preferred solutions include that solid fences front fences are no higher than 1200mm and other types of fences be 1800mm maximum in height and they be designed so that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

 

It is noted that the proposed front fence fails to comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP in that part of the fence (excluding the piers) will have a solid appearance constructed of brick for its upper two thirds and will have a maximum height of 1.8m, measured from the footpath level.

 

The existing local fencing form within the immediate and surrounding streetscape is of dwarf masonry walls of up to 600mm in height. It is therefore considered that the proposed modifications to the front fence by raising the height to 1800mm will not integrate with the established local fence form and will not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.  

 

However, the applicant was advised that a maximum height of 1.5m at any point, measured from the footpath level in conjunction with the proposed aluminium panels and gates which are to be at least 50% open (when viewed from the street) would provide for an appropriate transition in the streetscape. The applicant has rejected this solution and has requested that the application be determined in its current form.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The application is recommended for refusal, as the proposed modifications to the front fence do not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to modify Development Consent No. 0095/2004 by the deletion of Condition No. 3 of the consent to carryout alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 7 Hinkler Street, Maroubra, for the following reasons:-

 

1        The proposed modifications to the existing front fence, including the new sliding gate do not satisfy the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Part 4.8 Fence of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the proposed front fence and gate will be out of keeping with the established fence form in the Hinkler Street streetscape between Maroubra Road and Paine Street. 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 configuration plans

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 72/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

40 First Avenue, Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

13 September, 2004

FILE NO:

D/502/2004

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No 502/2004 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of a new two storey dwelling including basement parking and new front fence.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 31 August, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

13 September, 2004

FILE NO:

D/0502/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of a new two storey dwelling including basement parking and new front fence.

PROPERTY:

 40 First Ave, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Jovo Predojevic

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Michael Daley, Paul Tracey and Alan White.

 

The estimated cost of the development is $350, 000.

 

The current proposal before Council for determination is the second application for a new dwelling house on the subject site. The first application was refused on the grounds of excessive bulk, unsympathetic relationship to the existing character of the streetscape, variation to the preferred solutions of height and floor space ratio and amenity impacts of solar access and privacy to adjoining neighbours. A new application addressing these concerns has been submitted and is the subject of this assessment report. Objections have been received from neighbouring properties in relation primarily to variation from the preferred FSR, excessive scale, overshadowing and privacy impacts. It is considered that the proposal based on the revised plans and recommended deferred commencement conditions of consent will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements if the DCP.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for demolition of the existing inter-war bungalow and erection of a new two storey dwelling incorporating a basement garage and roof top balcony within a pitched roof. The proposed dwelling has large proportions with extensive architectural detailing to the facade. The footprint is highly articulated taking an irregular form. Living areas are provided to the ground floor with first floor housing bedrooms. The garage to the basement of the site accommodates two vehicles.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of First Ave between the intersecting streets of The Causeway and Duncan St. The streetscape is comprised of a mixture of architectural styles and densities, immediately to the east is a multi unit development constructed some time in the 1960s and to the west is a single storey bungalow of similar design to the dwelling occupying the subject site. It is considered that the subject dwelling is typical of the original built form within this section of Maroubra and is of a scale generally characteristic of this section of First Ave being single storey Californian bungalow. There have been some recent examples of first floor additions which generally retain a consistent roof form of the original character of these dwelling houses. There are examples of larger scale dwellings with differing architectural elements to the original built form of the street however these are not typically found within this section of First Ave.

 

The subject site the dwelling is an intact inter-war period bungalow.

 

The site has an area of 348.4sqm with a frontage of 11.43m. the site has a slight fall from the rear to the street of approximately 1.5m.

 

Opposite to the subject site south-western side of First Ave

Looking east from the subject site towards Duncan St

Looking to subject site the site is obscured behind existing street trees.

 

Opposite the subject site to the south-eastern side of First Ave

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The site was the subject of a development application refusal in 2003 under DA 752/2003. This application was refused on the basis of 5 key reasons for refusal these were:

 

1.         The proposed dwelling is not in accordance with the objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 zone No. 2A (Residential A zone) in so far as the dwelling will adversely compromise the amenity of surrounding residences and is not compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

2.         The proposed dwelling does not satisfy the performance requirements of Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Part 4.3 Floor Area in so far as the building bulk is not compatible with the surrounding built form and its impact is not minimised on neighbours or the street.

 

3.         The proposed dwelling does not satisfy the performance requirements of Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Part 4.3 Height, Form and Materials, insofar as the dwelling presents as a four storey development in a predominantly single storey streetscape, the height does not relate to the dominant pattern of building heights in the immediate locality, the mass and proportions our out of context with the adjoining built forms and the scale of the dwelling will adversely affect the amenity of adjoining neighbours.

 

4.         The proposed dwelling does not satisfy the performance requirements of Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Part4.4 Building Setbacks insofar as insufficient side setbacks are provided so that the dwelling odes not conform with the dominant building footprint within the street, insufficient natural light will be provided to adjoining residences and the environmental amenity of the street will be reduced.

 

5.         The proposed dwelling does not satisfy the performance requirements of Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Part 4.5 Visual and Acoustic Privacy whereby internal living areas will be overlooked, and the amenity of recreation areas and private open space will be impacted by a recreation area some 7m above natural ground where aural privacy will be interrupted.

 

After refusal of the application Council officer’s met with the applicant to discuss the proposal and alternative designs. The key points that the applicant was required to address in any revised plan was:

 

·    bulk and scale

·    reduction in the roof top terrace area

·    Privacy impacts to neighbouring properties

·    Pitched roof form consistent with the surrounding streetscape

 

Based on this meeting a new set of plans were submitted to Council as part of a new development application.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

G Manning

6/42 First Ave

 

A Setic and B Seric

3/42 First Ave

 

WD & JA Fitzgibbon

38 First Ave

 

·          The proposed development exceeds the desired maximum floor space ratio

 

Comment

 

The preferred FSR for the site is 0.6:1, the proposed FSR is 0.77:1, this is above the preferred solution however a merit assessment does allow for a higher FSR provided the performance requirements of the control are achieved. Further discussion on FSR is provided under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·          Side setbacks are not achieved to the eastern side boundary and should be 1500mm.

 

Comment

 

The side setback for a ground floor is 900mm and first floor 1500mm, the proposal achieves 900mm over both floors. Side setbacks are a preferred solution which means variation can be sought for the first floor non-compliance. Further discussion on setbacks is provided under Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·          The development is not consistent with the character of the surrounding streetscape as viewed between the intersecting streets of Duncan St and The Causeway.

 

Comment

 

A full discussion on built form is provided under Environmental Assessment section of this report. It is however noted that the dominant streetscape character is one of Californian bungalows of which a pitched roof is the dominant architectural element.

 

·          Privacy concerns from Juliet balconies at first floor level to the rear

 

Comment

 

Two Juliet balconies are proposed off bedroom 3 and 4 to the rear of the first floor. These balconies are relatively small is scale and being off bedrooms are unlikely to be used intensively however, the balconies, given the elevated position would allow for sightlines into neighbouring properties. It is considered that balconies off bedrooms at first floor level are unnecessary given the extensive terrace areas elsewhere within the development and as such the balconies will be conditioned to be deleted as part of the recommendation for deferred commencement.

 

·          Concerns for noise during construction

 

Comment

 

The proposal is a single dwelling only and as such the extent of construction noise will be limited. Standard conditions of consent will be imposed ensuring that construction times and resultant noise are minimised.

 

·          Concerns for privacy from the roof terrace

 

Comment

 

Privacy impacts will be discussed in greater detail under Environmental Assessment section of this report. It is noted that the design of the roof terrace does minimise sightlines to neighbouring properties.

 

·          Concern for the visual appearance of the air conditioning unit to the front of the roof terrace

 

Comment

 

The air conditioning unit proposed to the roof terrace is recessed within the roof form with the side providing a high solid balustrade which will reduce sound transfer.

 

·          Request a traffic management plan be submitted for the times during construction where on street parking will be affected.

 

Comment

 

A traffic management plan would only normally be requested for a major development. The proposal is for only a single residence where the required machinery would have limited impact on the street. On street parking will only be restricted during construction hours along the frontage (some 11m) which will not have a critical impact on the vehicular movement or parking of the street.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

Assets and Infrastructure Services comments

 

An application has been received for construction of a new dwelling at the above site.

 

Alignment Level Comments

The DPCD Dept is advised that the applicant has shown the incorrect alignment levels on the plans submitted for the development application (the pedestrian gate entrance and driveway entrance need to be lowered).

 

It is recommended that the DPCD Dept have the applicant amend the submitted plans to show the correct Council issued alignment levels, which are:

 

·    Driveway Entrance –       Eastern Edge - RL 38.85.

Western Edge – RL 38.80.

 

·    Pedestrian Gate Entrance – RL 38.80

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0923

 

Landscape Comments

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

 

Drainage Comments

Generally all site stormwater shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrester pit that drains to a minimum 5 metre square base infiltration area. An overflow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit that drains to Council's kerb and gutter

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

(b)   Development Control Plan No. Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements of preferred solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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

 

·      Design minimise  energy  for heating, cooling.

·      High thermal mass materials.

·      Solar hot water systems.

·      Insulated hot water pipes.

·      Hot water tanks and heaters close to rooms where hot water used.

·      Cooking tops located away from windows, fridges and freezers.

·      Task lights.

·      Maximised natural lighting.

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P3  Design minimises use of mechanical appliances.

 

P4  Roof area suitable for solar collectors and photovoltaic cells.

 

P5 Building materials, appliances minimise  energy requirements.

 

P6  External clothes drying area available.

 

P7  Landscape design assists microclimate management.

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

P10  Construction materials are energy efficient and recyclable.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

S2  Private open space

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Yes 4 stars achieved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

 

·      collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

·      do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

·      fit in with hydrology;

·      use on–site stormwater infiltration;

·      maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

·      retain existing trees.

 

P2  Water consumption minimised inside dwelling .

 

P3  Water consumption minimised to landscaping.

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

 

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

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, to be conditioned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, to be conditioned.

 

Yes, to be conditioned.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

·      allows year-round use

·      minimises impact on neighbours

·      addresses privacy and sun access

·      addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

P3  Local indigenous plant species used.

 

P4  Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

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

 

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 

Yes, 43% provided.

 

Yes, 51sqm provided.

 

Yes.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, 35%.

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

>30 to 450m2    0.6:1

 

No, 0.77:1. see Environmental Assessment section of this report.

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

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

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

 

S3  No excavation within 900mm of side boundary.

 

S3  No excavation within 3m of rear boundary.

 

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

 

 

 

Yes, 6.8m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes, performance requirements satisfied where sufficient modulation is provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

 

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

 

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

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, 5.7m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, min 900mm.

 

 

 

No, eastern boundary 900mm however western boundary 1500mm, performance requirements satisfied.

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

P3  Dwellings close to noise sources such as busy roads or industry designed to provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 P1  Buildings provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 

 

 

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Buildings comply with

•AS-2107: Acoustics – recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors.

 

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

 

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

 

S2  Street number displayed.

 

 

S3  Fences comply with fencing requirements.

 

 

Yes, only bedrooms provided at upper level.

 

 

 

 

Yes, subject to deferred commencement conditions.

 

 

Yes, bedroom windows have limited privacy impact.

 

 

Yes subject to deferred commencement conditions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·      enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·      safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

FENCES

P1  Front fences are integrated with streetscape.

S1  Sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

 

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

 

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

Yes

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1       Built form and Streetscape Character

 

The streetscape character of First Ave is varied. From Malabar Rd to The Causeway the street is defined by typically large scale dwellings of a contemporary design incorporating flat rooves and are two or three stories with basement parking. East of The Causeway the streetscape becomes lower in scale with typically the earlier housing stock of this section of Maroubra remaining intact, that is single or two storey Californian bungalows. There have been some examples of second storey additions or new dwellings in keeping with the dominant built form but typically the streetscape is visually consistent. Based on this fairly consistent character of pitched rooves and symmetrical elevations the originally submitted application was deemed to be inconsistent and was refused.

 

The current proposal incorporates a pitched roof and has made some attempt to simplify the built form particularly in relation to the roof top terrace. However, it is still considered that the diminutive gables and associated support columns for front balconies are not in keeping with the character of the streetscape. Whilst the balconies do not have any particular privacy impact facing out to the street they do contribute towards the bulk of the façade and the dwelling in general. Based on retaining the balconies the length of the dwelling is 17.6m at the first floor level which is a significant variation from the preferred solution of 12m, with the balconies deleted the length reduces to 15m. Based on the resultant bulk, the impact to the streetscape character and the significant objection raised by neighbours in regards to scale of the dwelling the deletion of the ground and first floor balconies, the associated gable and support columns is considered reasonable and will be recommended as part of deferred commencement conditions.

 

The façade as a result of this recommended deletion sufficient articulation will be provided by the remaining bay windows and this façade will relate well to the proposed roof form. Where the deletion of the gable does affects the design of the roof the form should revert to a hipped form.

 

West of the subject site larger scale dwellings considered to

be outside of the streetscape of the subject site.

 

Opposite to the above dwellings a large house outside of the

immediate streetscape where the streetscape is defined to be

bounded by The Causeway and Duncan St these houses are

west of The Causeway.

The pitched roof form of properties within the streetscape

bounded by The Causeway and Duncan St.

 

Dwellings at the start of the streetscape to the east of

The Causeway.

 

Immediately to the east of the subject site is a 4 storey multi unit development constructed in the 1960s/70s. Whilst this building is an anomaly within the streetscape and was not approved under the current environmental planning instruments, it does affect the streetscape and as such any built form of the proposed dwelling will be read within the context of this neighbouring development. As such more elongated proportions can be accommodated within this new dwelling as it relates to the scale of the multi unit development.

 

The roof terrace is incorporated within the envelope of the roof. As such it is visually minimised and will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling to the street.

 

On balance the built form of the proposed dwelling can be considered adequate provided that the recommended deletions are implemented otherwise the façade will be overly bulky and will detract from the character of the streetscape.

 

 

The subject site and the multi unit development located to

the eastern boundary.

 

8.2       Density

 

The proposed floor space ratio of the site is 0.77:1 which exceeds the preferred solution of 0.6:1. The variation is some 58.56sqm which represents some 30sqm per level which is typically due to the generous curved stairs on both levels. The applicant sought these stairs to provide internal visual interest and as the proposal is significantly lower in FSR from the previously refused application and incorporates sufficient levels of articulation, on merit the variation can be supported.

 

The performance requirement floor area states:

 

Building bulk must be compatible with surround built forms and must minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours, street and public open scape.

 

The proposal has minimal impact on neighbouring properties as the building is well articulated and sufficient solar access is achieved to both neighbours. The streetscape includes an array of densities however the emerging character will be two storey dwellings. The proposal is basically a two storey dwelling and its additional bulk will not be out of character with the surrounding streetscape including the multi unit development to the east. It should noted that the proposed bulk is only acceptable subject to the deletion of the balconies to the front and rear.

 

8.3       Privacy

 

First floor windows are located off bedrooms. To the eastern elevation there is only one window provided which is a corner window off bedroom 2, given this window is off a low usage room the likelihood of overlooking is reduced substantially so as to not be of concern. To the western elevation there is a window positioned off the stair well, this window shall be conditioned to be of an obscure treatment to reduce the opportunity for sightlines to the neighbouring dwelling.

 

The balconies to the front of the dwelling over the street will not have any privacy impacts.

 

To the rear of the dwelling at the first floor level two Juliet balconies are proposed off bedrooms 3 and 4 it is considered that these balconies will enable viewing to the private open space of each adjoining property and over balconies to the multi unit development.

 

The adjoining property to the east the

number of windows and balcony areas to the

western elevation of the building can be seen.

 

The eastern elevation of the adjoining dwelling there is no

anticipated overlooking likely.

 

Concern has been raised for privacy impacts from the proposed roof terrace. It is noted that the roof terrace is positioned within the roof form of the proposed dwelling. As such most of the area of the terrace is set below the roof which acts as a parapet at a minimum height of 1200mm. This ensure that sightlines to neighbouring properties are minimised and will orient towards the street out over the view of Maroubra basin.

 

8.4       Setbacks

 

The proposed dwelling does not achieve the 1500mm first floor setback to both the eastern and the western boundaries pursuant to the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The relevant performance requirements of the side setback control that must be satisfied before a variation can be supported are:

 

Building forms and setbacks allow occupants and neighbours adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air. Side setbacks adjoining street frontage, regarding corner allotments, must integrate with the established setbacks of the side street and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape.

 

Typically setbacks within this section of First Ave are regular, at approximately 900mm to each side boundaries. The proposed dwelling seeks to maintain this setback which is consistent with the performance requirements where a new dwelling must integrate within the established setbacks of the street.

 

The proposed side setbacks allows for adequate solar access to be maintained to neighbouring properties, no concern is raised with the amount of solar access available to each adjoining property. Sufficient fresh air and ambient light can also be gained to the adjoining properties to both the east and the west.

 

Increasing side setbacks to the proposal will not improve the amenity of neighbouring properties and would compromise the built form of the dwelling. The footprint of the proposed dwelling incorporates sufficient articulation and wall modulation to provide visual relief when viewed from neighbouring properties. It should also be noted that the common boundary with the multi unit development is where a 3.5m driveway is positioned which allows for generous separation between the two developments.

 

The proposed side setbacks for the first floor are sufficient and satisfy the performance requirements of the control.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed new dwelling has been reviewed against all the assessment criteria contained within DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The impact of the new dwelling where it does not achieve the preferred solution of the relevant development control does satisfy the performance requirements and objectives of these controls. The development will ensure adequate amenity to neighbouring properties and  a good relationship to the streetscape subject to the deferred commencement conditions.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to deferred commencement conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under the provisions of Section 80 (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), “Deferred Commencement” to Development Application No. 502/04 for demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new two storey dwelling with associated roof top terrace and basement garaged at 40 First Ave Maroubra subject to the following conditions:

 

The consent shall not operate until the following amendments and material have been submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development:-

 

1.     The two balconies to the first floor southern elevation shall be deleted from the plans. The support columns and associated gable ends shall also be deleted. The associated glass doors shall be converted into standard dimension windows. Any changes to the roof form as a result of the deleted gables shall be hipped in keeping with the approved roof form and be setback to the building alignment.

 

2.   The Juliet balconies to the first floor northern elevation shall be deleted from the plans.

                                                      

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

 

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

 

4.   The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be:

 

·    Driveway Entrance – Eastern Edge - RL 38.85.

Western Edge – RL 38.80.

 

·    Pedestrian Gate Entrance – RL 38.80

 

 

The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council must be submitted on the amended plans. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

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

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

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

 

1          The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 1 of 8 through to 8 of 8 Issue A dated 27/05/04, and received by Council on 22 June 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions, and the details approved pursuant to the deferred commencement 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    Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

3    The development must be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum energy efficiency NatHERS rating of 3.5 stars or equivalent and a NatHERS certificate or equivalent, prepared by a suitably qualified person, is to be submitted to the certifying authority with the construction certificate application.

 

The design of the building must be consistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the energy efficiency rating may necessitate a new or amendment to the development consent prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

4    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.

 

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

 

5    Hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation and must also satisfy any relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

6    A rainwater tank, of sufficient size to provide water for irrigation of landscaped areas, toilet flushing, clothes washing (cold water tap only) within the development, is to be provided to the development in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy

 

The tank is to be located a minimum of 500mm from the side boundaries and is to have a maximum height of 2.4 metres.  The tank is to be installed behind the front building line and is to be located at ground level and be incorporated into the relevant construction certificate plans, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The noise level from the pump is not to exceed 5dBA above ambient background noise, measured at the property boundary and the pump must not be audible within any dwelling located upon any other premises between 10pm and 8am.

 

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

 

7    Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of works.

 

8    External paths and ground surfaces are to be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises in such a manner so as not to result in the entry of water into a building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises.

 

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

 

9    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.

 

10  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.

 

11  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.

 

12  Prior to the commencement of any building works, the person having the benefit of the development consent must:-

 

i)          appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work, and

 

ii)         appoint a principal contractor for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, obtain an owner-builder permit in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and notify the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly in writing, and

                                                  

iii)         unless the person having the benefit of the consent is the principal contractor (i.e. owner-builder), notify the principal contractor of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority, and

 

iv)        give at least two days notice to the Council, in writing, of the persons intention to commence building works.

 

            In relation to residential building work, the principal contractor must be the holder of a contractor licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

13  The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or another certifying authority if the Principal Certifying Authority agrees), in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 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 consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

The principal contractor or owner-builder (as applicable) must ensure that the required critical stage and other inspections, as specified in the Principal Certifying Authority’s “Notice of Critical Stage Inspections”, are carried out to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and at least 48 hours notice (excluding weekends and public holidays) is to be given to the Principal Certifying Authority, to carry out the required inspection, before carrying out any further works.

 

14  A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site, which contains the following details:

·        name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable)

·        name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority,

·        a statement stating that “unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited”.

 

15  An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

The relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and relevant conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Details of the principal building contractor and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 (i.e. Details of the principal licensed building contractor and a copy of the Certificate of Insurance) are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, with the notice of appointment of the PCA / notice of intention to commence building work.

 

17  The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.2% of the cost of the works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

21 All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in force at 1 July 1993.

 

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

 

23  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 made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

24  All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls, shoring, or piling must be designed and installed in accordance with appropriate professional standards and the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards.  Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring or piling are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority for the development prior to commencing such excavations or works.

 

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

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

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

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

 

26  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.

 

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

 

28  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.

 

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

 

30  Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, to the satisfaction of WorkCover NSW and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

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

 

The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

32  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, soil and debris at all times.

 

33  Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval 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 Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

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

 

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

·        location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·        location of building materials for construction;

·        provisions for public safety;

·        dust control measures;

·        site access location and construction

·        details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·        protective measures for tree preservation;

·        provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·        location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·        details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·        construction noise and vibration management.

 

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

 

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

 

Details of the proposed sediment control measures are to be detailed in a soil and water management plan and must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any site works.  The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout construction.  A copy of the approved details must be forwarded to the Council and a copy is to be maintained on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

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

 

36  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.

 

37  A warning sign for soil and water management must be displayed in a prominent position on the building site, visible to both the public and site workers.  The sign must be displayed throughout the construction period.  Copies of a suitable warning sign are available at Council’s Customer Service Centre for a nominal fee.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Security Deposit Conditions

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

 

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

 

a)         $2000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

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

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions

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

 

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

 

41   Construct concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

42   Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

43   Reconstruct the kerb and gutter with associated roadworks along the full site frontage.

 

44   Excavate and regrade Council’s nature strip to suit Council’s issued alignment levels.

 

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

 

46   The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

Alignment Level Conditions

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

 

47   The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $314.00 calculated at $27.50 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

48   The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment must be at least 150mm below the alignment level as specified for the vehicular access.  This condition has been attached to accommodate future footpath construction at this location.

 

Service Authority Conditions

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

 

49   A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

50   The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

Drainage Conditions

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

 

51   Generally all site stormwater shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrester pit that drains to a 5 metre square base infiltration area. An overflow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit to drain to Council's kerb and gutter.

 

The location and details of the proposed internal stormwater pipelines, silt arrestor pit and the infiltration area shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if the Council is not the certifying authority.

 

Notes:

 

a.   The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed:-

 

i.          within the site at or near the street boundary.

ii.          with a child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system (e.g. spring loaded jay-bolt).

iii.         with a minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes (preferably located in the walls of the pit at the floor level) and with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located around the weep holes.

iv.         with the pit floor being a minimum 300mm below the invert level of the outlet pipelines.

v.         with a galvanised heavy duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipes draining to the infiltration pit and the kerb. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

 

b.   The infiltration/rubble pit shall:-

     

i.          have a minimum 300 mm of soil cover (600 mm where the pit is located under a garden/landscaping area).

ii.          be located a minimum of 3.0 metres from the dwelling or other structure (closer if a structural engineer certifies that the infiltration area will not adversely affect the structure) and 2.1 metres from the adjacent side or rear boundaries.

iii.         be constructed with a minimum 200 mm thick layer of 20 mm basalt/blue metal (or similar) that is wrapped in a suitable geotextile material covering with a high filtration rating (Geofabrics Bidim "A" range of filtration fabrics or equivalent). A suitable means of dispersing the stormwater over the area of infiltration is to be constructed.

Note:  other equivalent methods of infiltration may be adopted.

iv.         have a minimum base area of  5.0 square metres (m2).

 

The outlet from the silt arrestor pit to the infiltration area shall be located at least 50 mm below the outlet from the silt arrestor pit to the kerb and gutter.

 

c.   The requirement for an infiltration/rubble pit will not be enforced should the underground soil conditions preclude the construction of the infiltration pit (eg rock is located within 300 mm of the base of the infiltration area). If the infiltration/rubble pit is not constructed then all site stormwater shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter via a sediment/silt arrestor pit (as detailed in note a. above).

 

      All works shall be to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

Landscape Conditions

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

 

52  Landscaping shall be provided to the site to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon neighbouring properties. A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

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

 

54  Landscaped areas must include an area dedicated to on-site composting.

 

55  The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved documentation prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate and shall be maintained in accordance with those plans.

 

56  In order to visually 'soften' the expanses of hard pavement, brick unit pavers or similar shall be used throughout the driveway and carpark areas on the site. Such details shall be shown on the detailed engineering documentation and shall include all structural design details including pavement/subgrade thickness.

 

Such details shall be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard and shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

You are therefore advised to consult with Council’s Building Certification Services or an accredited certifier prior to submitting your construction certificate application to enable these matters to be addressed accordingly.

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Architectural plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 73/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

51 Moverly Road, Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

13 September, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 649/2004

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for a new proposed pergola and outbuilding for 51 Moverly Road, Maroubra.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 10 September, 2004

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

10 September, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 649/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 New proposed pergola and outbuilding.

PROPERTY:

 51 Moverly Road MAROUBRA

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Classic Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application details the erection of a timber frame poly carbonate roof pergola to the rear and part of the western side of the dwelling, and a cabana style outbuilding in the south western corner of the site.

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the premises are part owned by an employee of Council.

 

The main issue is the likely impact that may result upon the amenity of the adjoining premises.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application details the erection of a timber frame, masonry pier and poly carbonate covered roof pergola across the rear of the dwelling and with a return to part of the western side of the dwelling. The pergola will have a depth of 4m and length of 12.3m. It is also proposed to erect a timber frame metal roof outbuilding within the south western corner of the premises adjacent to the existing swimming pool, the structure will have overall dimensions of 3.11m x 7.94m and an area of 25sqm and is intended to be used as a pool house in conjunction with the existing swimming pool.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject premises is on the southern side of Moverly Road and has a street frontage of 15.24m and a depth of 50.73m and an area of 773sqm. There is currently a single storey free standing dwelling and in ground swimming pool on site. Immediately surrounding adjoining the site are a mixture of single and two storey brick and tile roof dwellings.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  No response has been received as a result of this notification.

 

5.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.1  Policy Controls

Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

FLOOR AREA

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

S1 Floor Space Ratio

<300m2              0.65:1

>300 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

>600m2              0.5:1

The proposed FSR of the dwelling and including the outbuilding will be 0.25:1, which complies with the preferred solution of the DCP.

BUILDING SETBACKS

P1  Front Setback

Generally conforms to adjoining development or dominant setback along street.

S1  Front Setback

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

Not applicable.

P2  Rear Setback

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

S2  Rear Setback

No closer than 4.5m to rear boundary.

The DCP is silent with respect to outbuildings, however it is not considered that the rear boundary setback of 750mm will result in any significant impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises

P3  Side Setback

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

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

S3  Side Setbacks

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

The DCP is silent with respect to outbuildings, however it is not considered that the side boundary set back of 450mm will result in any significant impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises.

 

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

Not applicable

 

S3  3.0m for any part of a building more than two levels at that point.

Not applicable

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

Approximately 60% of the site is landscaped area. Complies.

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

Complies.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

Complies.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

Complies.

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

Approximately 30% of the site is permeable, complies.

 

6.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The proposed development is modest in scale with the pergola being in line with the existing eaves of the dwelling with a maximum overall height of 2700mm, and the overall wall height of the pool house being 2600mm at 450mm from the western side boundary and varying from 2600mm to 2930mm at 750mm from the southern rear boundary.

 

On balance, it is not considered that either the new covered pergola to the rear and part side of the dwelling, or the proposed pool house within the rear yard has the potential to result in a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises with respect to overshadowing or outlook and the proposal is an acceptable form of development.

 

7.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling and new outbuilding within the rear of the premises will not result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.649/04 for permission to erect a new covered pergola to the rear of the dwelling and erect a new outbuilding for use in conjunction with the swimming pool at 51 Moverly Road Maroubra subject to the following conditions: -  

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 1-3 inclusive, dated 10th October 2003 and received by Council on the 6th August 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 additions and outbuilding are to be compatible with the existing dwelling house to maintain the integrity and amenity of the existing building and the streetscape.

 

3.         The proposed pool house is not to be used for separate occupation.

 

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

 

4.         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.

 

5.         Hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation and must also satisfy any relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

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:

 

6.         Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

 

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

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council 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:

 

7.         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.

 

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

 

9.         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.

 

10.       Prior to the commencement of any building works, the person having the benefit of the development consent must: -

 

i)    appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work; and

ii)   appoint a principal contractor for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, obtain an owner-builder permit in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and notify the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly in writing; and

iii)  unless the person having the benefit of the consent is the principal contractor (i.e. owner-builder), notify the principal contractor of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

iv)  give at least two days notice to the Council, in writing, of the persons intention to commence building works.

 

            In relation to residential building work, the principal contractor must be the holder of a contractor licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

11.       The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or another certifying authority if the Principal Certifying Authority agrees), in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 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 consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority. Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

The principal contractor or owner-builder (as applicable) must ensure that the required critical stage and other inspections, as specified in the Principal Certifying Authority’s “Notice of Critical Stage Inspections”, are carried out to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and at least 48 hours notice (excluding weekends and public holidays) is to be given to the Principal Certifying Authority, to carry out the required inspection, before carrying out any further works.

 

12.       A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site, which contains the following details:

·    name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable);

·    name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority; and

·    a statement stating that “unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited”.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Details of the principal building contractor and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 (i.e. Details of the principal licensed building contractor and a copy of the Certificate of Insurance) are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, with the notice of appointment of the PCA / notice of intention to commence building work.

 

14.       The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.2% of the cost of the works.

 

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

 

 

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 made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

16.       All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

 

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

 

18.       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.

           

19.       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, soil and debris at all times.

 

20.       Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval 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 Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S: A4 Plans.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

PERRY HEAD

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 74/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

18 Govett Street, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

13 September, 2004

FILE NO:

D0183/2004

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is a Development Application Report for alterations and first floor additions to the existing dwelling house at 18 Govett Street, Randwick (Heritage Conservation Area).

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 23 August, 2004

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

23 August, 2004

FILE NO:

D0183/04

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and first floor additions to the existing dwelling house (Heritage Conservation Area)

PROPERTY:

 18 Govett Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Julius Bockor Architect Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The main issues relate to streetscape, particularly in respect of the Heritage Conservation Area in which the site is located, and the potential visual privacy impacts to adjoining properties.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

It is proposed to make some minor internal alterations to the existing dwelling, which will also involve replacement of some windows on the southern elevation.  A new first floor level is proposed, which will accommodate a playroom, three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a parents retreat.  It is also proposed to replace the existing pergola in the rear yard area. 

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

The subject site is located on the southeastern corner of Mort Street and Govett Street, Randwick.  It has a 24.16 metre frontage to Govett Street, a 4.98 metre frontage to Mort Street, a rear alignment of 12.19 metres to Mort Lane, a maximum depth of 45.7 metres and a total site area of 597.6 sqm.  It is located in the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area. 

The site is improved with a single storey detached dwelling house, and an inground swimming pool and a carport in the rear yard with access to Mort Lane.  The surrounding area is residential in character and consists of detached dwelling houses.  The adjoining sites are occupied by two-storey detached dwelling houses.  See Figure 1 overleaf for an aerial view of the subject site and its surroundings.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

No development application history on file.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

The proposal was advertised and owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development on the 7 April 2004.  As a result of this notification, the following submission was received:

P.J.R. Lysaght – 20 Govett Street

Issue

Comment

The owners consent authority is questionable.

Owners consent has been confirmed.

The development is out of character with others in the street and will have substantial changes to the Govett Street streetscape.

The proposed development is considered to be adequately set back from Govett Street and adequately respects the integrity of the existing dwelling and the streetscape.  Further assessment in this respect is undertaken later in this report.

The proposed first floor windows will have overlooking impacts in the objector’s property.

The first floor windows are considered to be acceptable provided that appropriate conditions are imposed with any approval that will minimise potential overlooking and consequential loss of privacy. Further assessment in this respect is undertaken later in this report.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 23 July 2004 and owners of adjoining properties were notified of their submission on the 29 July 2004.  As a result of this notification, the following submission was received:

P.J.R. Lysaght – 20 Govett Street

Issue

Comment

A brief statement was made saying that the proposal does not in any way address the concerns raised in the previous submission.

See above assessment.

Figure 1:  The subject site and its surroundings


6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Heritage Issues

 

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Consultant for comment.  The following comments were received on 29 April 2004:

 

Site and Surrounding Area:  The site is located within the North Randwick Conservation area and features a modified late Federation Bungalow that has retained its principle form.  Due to the nature of the site the north side elevation of the dwelling is partially visible from the street.  Additions have occurred to the rear and to the side elevation with the latter visible from the street.  The site features two storey development on either side.

 

Significance:  The subject dwelling contributes to the streetscape and the conservation area through its principle form, detailing, materials and fenestration and tis period of construction.  It is a modified representative example of Federation period residential development in the local area.

 

Proposal:  The application proposes the conversion of the roof space to an attic room with dormers to the side pitches of the roof and alteration to the roof form, alterations to ground floor room configuration with the demolition of some existing external rear wing walls, a first floor addition comprising the attic room, 3 bedrooms and a ‘retreat’.  The existing sunroom bay on the northern elevation will be extended to the first floor.  The proposal retains the existing footprint of the dwelling.

 

Submission:  No Heritage Impact Statement was submitted with the application.  Consequently there is insufficient information to assess the application.  The Statement of Environmental Effects address heritage and states, “the extensions to the dwelling will be in keeping with the form and character of the conservation area and will not be visible from Govett Street”, yet this is also insufficient for assessment purposes.  Clause 43 (3) of the Randwick LEP 1998 requires the consideration of report assessing the impact of the proposal.

 

Assessment:  The following issues are raised with the existing scheme:

·    The existing ridge of the front pitch should be retained and not altered.

·    The style of the dormers to the principle roof form, although traditional, is more suited to earlier Victorian period dwellings.  A horizontally elongated ‘eyelid’ type dormer, which is common to Federation period houses, is recommended.

·    The extension of the northern bay to the first floor level creates an atypical roof form for the dwelling type and excessive bulk when viewed from Govett Street.

·    The additions will be visible from Govett Street, particularly the side elevation.  Their form does not read as secondary to principle section of the dwelling, they dominate the original building and do not appear as a separate structure.  If possible locate within the roof structure.

·    The external wall height exceeds the 3.5m allowed to buildings or additions to the rear by the DCP.

·    It is considered that the proposal does not accord with the objective and Performance Requirements of section 4.3 Height, Form and Materials in the DCP in relation to height and scale.

 

Recommendations:

It is suggested that a meeting be organised to discuss these issues and the design of the building be amended to reduce the bulk and scale of the additions, provided a separation between the new and existing roof forms and retain the principle roof form.  It is also recommended that a heritage impact statement be prepared to assess the impact of the proposal on the conservation area and the subject dwelling. 

 

A meeting was held and the applicant amended the plan as an outcome of the meeting.  The amended plans were received by Council on 23 July 2004 and were referred to Council’s Heritage Consultant for comment.  On 30 August 2004, the following comments were made:

 

Amended plans, submitted 23 July 2004, for alterations and additions to the subject dwelling have for the most part addressed the issues raised in the meeting held at Council.  The principal issues raised included the form of the dormer to the side pitch of the existing roof, the alterations to the ridge of the main roof, the bulk and scale of the additions and the impact of the first floor extension to projecting side faceted bay.

 

A Heritage Impact Statement was not received with the original application and one has been submitted with the amended plans.  The HIS, prepared by John Oultram Design, states that the first floor addition to the northern elevation was revised in form and setback creating a form more typical of housing in the area and will be less visible from the street.

 

The amended plans show that the ridge of the roof has been retained and that the dormers have been altered to an eyelid form.  These changes are acceptable and reduce the impact.  The first floor extension to projecting side faceted bay has been revised to form a gable end and has been setback slightly from the faceted ground floor alignment.  The gabled form is more sympathetic to the character of the dwelling although the setback is less than what was discussed in the meeting thereby not reducing the impact of the bulk to the upper level.  It is considered that this element of the addition will still have a significant impact creating an unusual form that will be visible from the streetscape and will compete with the original form of the dwelling.  Although a setback has been made it has not been sufficient to alleviate the impact.  Setting the first floor section back further brings the element closer the dwelling reducing its visual impact on the original section of the dwelling and retaining the dominance of the original section when viewed from the street.

 

 

Recommendations:

 

The following conditions should be included with any consent -

·    The first floor extension to projecting side faceted bay on the northern elevation should be setback 850mm (the approximate length of one window) from its northern alignment.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

·    The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building and the garage are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The above conditions will be included in any consent.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

§ Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

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

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

§ Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Clause 43(2) and 43(3) of Randwick LEP 1998 states as follows:

(2) When determining a development application required by this clause, the Council must take into consideration the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area, including an assessment of:

(a)    the pitch and form of the roof, if any, and

(b)    the style, size, proportion and position of the openings for windows or doors, if any, and

(c)    the colour, texture, style, size and type of finish of the materials to be used on the exterior of the building.

(3) The Council may grant consent to a development application required by this clause only after it has considered a report that assesses the impact of the proposal on the heritage significance of the heritage item and its setting, or of the heritage conservation area.

Assessment in relation to this clause of the LEP is undertaken under Section 6 of this report by virtue of comments made by Council’s Heritage Consultant.

 

7.1  Policy Controls

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

The DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies states that a proposal is deemed to satisfy the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP if it complies with the corresponding Preferred Solutions.  Therefore, the tables below assess the proposal against the relevant Preferred Solutions, and where non-compliance results, assessment is made against the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements in Section 8 of this report. 

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

40% of the total site area is provided as landscaped area.

68% of the site is landscaped area. Complies.

S1

A minimum of 25m² of useable private open space is to be provided.

The rear yard has a single area of 99 sqm. Complies.

S1

Each dwelling must provide an area of private open space capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

The dimensions of the above area are 11 x 9 metres. Complies.

S1

Private open space in the front yard area is located behind the building line.

The above area is located in the rear yard. Complies.

S6

20% of the total site area has a permeable treatment.

More than 20% of the site is permeable. Complies.

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.5:1. Complies.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The external wall height is a maximum of 5.5 metres. Complies.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Not applicable.

S4

The length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

The proposed first floor addition setback varies from 0.5 to 1.7 metres from the southern side boundary. Does not comply – see assessment in Section 8.

S5

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

Not applicable.

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

No change to front setback. Not applicable.

S2

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

The proposed development is at least 14 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

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

There are no additions to the rear of the dwelling that will be within 0.9 metres of a side boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed first floor addition setback varies from 0.5 to 1.7 metres. Does not comply – see assessment in Section 8.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable.

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposed development does not have any windows that directly overlook habitable room windows on adjoining dwellings within 9 metres. Complies.

S1

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

The first floor level has windows that will overlook adjoining properties to the north and south.  Does not comply – see assessment in Section 8.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

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

S9

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

The proposal will not reduce solar access to less than 3 hours on north-facing windows. Complies.

S9

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

The existing ground floor level windows on the adjoining property to the south are currently overshadowed so that they receive less than 3 hours of sunlight per day.  The proposed additions will cause some additional overshadowing of the first floor windows on that adjoining dwelling but they will still receive a minimum of  3 hours per day. Complies.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

Side Setbacks

 

As stated earlier, the proposed development does not fully comply with the Preferred Solution for side setback under Council’s DCP.  The stairwell is set back 0.5 metres from the side boundary and is 3 metres wide.  The remainder of the side setback is 1.7 metres.  It is considered that this non-compliance with the Preferred Solution is acceptable as the degree of non-compliance is minimal and that the majority of the dwelling is set back greater than what the Preferred Solution requires.  Further, it is noted that non-compliance will not have any adverse impacts in respect of light and ventilation to the adjoining dwelling to the south.  Therefore, it is considered that the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP are satisfied.

 

Privacy

 

As stated earlier, the proposed development does not comply with a Preferred Solution in respect of visual privacy.  The first floor windows to the eastern and northern sides of the Parents Retreat are in close proximity to the private open space of the adjoining property to the north, and the windows along the southern elevation of the corridor between Bedroom 3 and the stairwell will have the potential to overlook the private open space of the adjoining property to the south. 

 

In respect of the property to the north, it is also noted that the objector has raised concern with overlooking from the Parent’s Retreat.  Therefore, it is considered appropriate to require that the design of those windows to the northern and southern elevations of the dwelling to be amended by requiring obscure glazing or altered sill heights to ensure that overlooking is minimised.  Appropriate conditions to this effect will be included with any consent.  It is considered that such conditions will address the issue of non-compliance and satisfy the Objectives and Performance Requirements and will adequately alleviate the objector’s concerns.

 

Heritage and streetscape

 

The applicant amended the plans at the request of Council after some issues with its impact on the streetscape were raised.  The comments provided by Council’s Heritage Consultant indicate that the proposed development is considered to be acceptable with the imposition of a condition to increase the northern setback of the first floor extension for the Parents Retreat.  Such a condition will bring that part of the first floor addition closer the bulk of the dwelling, reducing its visual impact on the original section of the dwelling and retaining the dominance of the original section when viewed from the street.

 

It is also considered that the proposed additions are set back behind the existing dwelling adequately to respect the integrity of the dwelling.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

The proposed development complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.  Further, subject to conditions, the proposal will be acceptable on heritage grounds. 

Having regard to all relevant matters for consideration, the proposal will not result in any adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.  Therefore, the proposal may be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.   THAT Council as the consent authority, grant development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 0183/04 for Alterations and first floor additions to the existing dwelling house (Heritage Conservation Area) at 18 Govett Street, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:-

 

DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS

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

 

1.   The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building and the garage are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and finishes (i.e. a sample board keyed to building elevations) are to be submitted and shall include (but not be limited by) the following:-

 

§ Samples of all external materials, including those for the walls and windows;

§ Samples of the proposed roof tiles to be used.  The proposed roof tiles are to match the roof tiles on the existing building as closely as possible; and

§ The colour scheme proposed for all external surfaces of the dwelling.

 

2.   The plans shall be amended to show the following:

 

§ The first floor extension to projecting side faceted bay on the northern elevation should be setback 850mm (the approximate length of one window) from its northern alignment. 

§ To minimise loss of privacy to adjoining property to the south by overlooking, the first floor windows on the southern elevation of the dwelling that extend between Bed 3 and the stairwell are to have a minium sill height of 1.5 metres from the floor, or any part of those windows that are below that height from the floor are fitted with obscure glazing; and

§ To minimise loss of privacy to adjoining property to the north by overlooking, those parts of the first floor windows to the northern and eastern elevations of the Parent’s Retreat shall be fitted with obscure glazing below 1.5 metres from floor level.

 

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

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

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

 

1.   The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A-00 to A-15, Issue B, dated 24 May 2004 and received by Council on 23 July 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and the details approved pursuant to the Deferred Commencement conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

6.   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:

 

7.   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.

 

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

 

9.   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.

 

10. 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

12. The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

16. Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

 

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

 

18. A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that ‘unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited’ and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours.

 

In the case of residential building work, the sign is also required to detail the licence number of the building contractor or the permit number of the owner-builder, in accordance with the Home Building Act 1989 and Regulations.

 

19. 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.

 

20. 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.

 

21. 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

TOM HUTCHISON

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 75/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

37 Windsor Street, Matraville

 

 

DATE:

13 September, 2004

FILE NO:

DA441/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is a Development Application Report for the construction of a hardstand car space at 37 Windsor Street Matraville.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 2 September, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

2 September, 2004

FILE NO:

DA441/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construction of a hardstand car space

PROPERTY:

 37 Windsor Street, Matraville

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mario De Nicola

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors John Kenny, Bruce Notley-Smith and Scott Nash.

 

The application seeks consent to construct a hardstand car space within the front building alignment and construct a second driveway including crossover.

 

The main issues are that the proposal occupies more than the preferred solution maximum of 35% width of the site frontage, the introduction of a second driveway crossing will detract from the existing dwelling and local streetscape, and the proposal will set an undesirable precedent for future development in the vicinity and the resultant loss of an on-street car space.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the construction of a hardstand car space measuring 3.6m in width and 5.5m in depth. The proposal will require the removal of one tree to allow for the new driveway and crossover.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the south side of Windsor Street between Paterson Street and Knowles Avenue in Malabar and is presently occupied by an existing two storey dwelling.  The site has a frontage width of 15.59m, a side boundary depth of 38.04m and has an overall site area of 720m².  Neighbouring the property to the east is a two storey dwelling and to the west is a two storey dwelling.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

There is no history relevant to this proposal.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification 1998.  No submissions were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application was referred to the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services for comment who raised some comments in relation to one street tree and one Cocos Palm (see below). Conditions were also provided for inclusion with any consent granted.

 

The following landscape comments were received.

 

“On the Windsor Street nature strip at the front of the site, towards the eastern boundary, there is one Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leaf Paperbark) of approximately 6 metres in height. This tree appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

It will not be possible to retain this tree and proceed with construction of the proposed driveway and hardstand as shown on the plans, and as such, approval is granted for the removal of this tree subject to a replacement street tree being provided on the nature strip at the applicant’s cost.

 

This species of tree is identified in Council’s Aggressive Rooted Street Tree Policy due to its invasive and aggressive root system, and as such, the applicant will not be charged for loss of amenity.

 

Immediately to the south, within the front yard of the site, there is one Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) of approximately 6 metres in height. This palm appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.”

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The proposal does not involve the development of land >4000m2 therefore is not affected by any master planning requirements.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

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

-           Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

8.1  Policy Controls

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

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements or preferred solutions).

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 

Given the size of the site (720m2) more than half of the site area is available as landscaped area thus complying with the preferred solutions and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

At least 20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 

The proposal will involve the removal of one street tree. Council’s Landscape Officer has agreed to the removal due to the aggressive nature of the roots of the subject tree.

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·      enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·      safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

As described earlier, the property is capable of accommodating 3 vehicles on site therefore complying with the preferred solutions of the DCP.

 

 

 

The dimensions of the proposed space are 3.6m in width by 5.5m in depth which complies with the Preferred Solutions of the DCP.

 

 

The proposal is 3.6m in width and is situated on the boundary with zero setbacks. This does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP.

 

 

There is insufficient detail to ascertain the gradients of the driveway. A site inspection revealed the property slopes away from the road although it is assumed the gradients would comply with the DCP given the minor slope.

 

 

Given that a driveway and crossover already exists on the western side of the property, the proposed hardstand car space exceeds the maximum by 11% (46% width coverage) which does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP.  The performance criteria cannot be met as the proposal would detract from the existing dwelling and local streetscape and will set an undesirable precedent.

 

 

 

The proposal does not provide any landscaping details.

 

 

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.

 

The main issue concerning the proposal relates to non compliances with the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The proposal exceeds the preferred solution that driveways, car parking spaces and car parking structures do not occupy more than 35% the width of the site. As one driveway and crossover already exists on site, the additional driveway and crossover means that the percentage of site width that the two driveways occupy is 46%, or 11% over the preferred solution. The applicant has argued that given that the width of the site at the rear is substantially wider than at the front, an average width should be taken and the percentage be worked out using this average. However, it would be inappropriate to accept this approach given that the objective of the DCP is to minimise the impacts of carparking at the front of properties.

 

Not only does the proposal not comply with the preferred solutions and performance requirements on the DCP as detailed in the table above, the proposal seeks to provide a second vehicular crossing which will set an undesirable precedent and permanently remove one car space from the road.

 

It should be noted that the applicant can already potentially accommodate 3 vehicles on site and given that the existing driveway could be widened to accommodate an extra car (with the relocation of the gas meter), the additional separate parking facility is not considered reasonable.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal to construct a hardstand car space within the front building alignment is contrary to Council’s Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Section 4.7.2 and would result in an undesirable precedent being set in the street. In addition, the site can already potentially accommodate three vehicles with enough space to widen the existing driveway to provide for an additional carspace. The application is recommended for refusal.

 

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. 441/2004 for the construction of a hard stand car space at 37 Windsor Street, Matraville for the following reasons:-

 

1        The proposal does not satisfy “Randwick Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies – Part 4.2.7, Objectives and Performance Requirement P1 as the proposal will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the local streetscape.

 

2        The proposal does not satisfy Randwick Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies – Part 4.2.7, Preferred Solutions S2, as the proposal will occupy more than 35% the width of the site.

 

3        The proposal would result in the loss of one on-street car parking space.

 

4        The provision of a second separate driveway crossing would set an undesirable precedent in the street.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1          A4 Configurations

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

ANDREW BEATTIE

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

STUDENT PLANNER

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 76/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

164 Brook Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

13 September, 2004

FILE NO:

D/162/2004/GE

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report to create new sitting rooms for both approved units 1 and 2 with access to the top floor roof deck areas and new glass enclosures to stairs.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 2 September, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

2 September, 2004

FILE NO:

D0162/2004/GE

 

PROPOSAL:

 To create new sitting rooms for both approved units 1 and 2 with access to the top floor roof deck areas and new glass enclosure to stairs.

PROPERTY:

 164 Brook St Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Manolev Associates P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Council for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Chris Bastic, Ted Seng.

 

The application was lodged on the 11 March 2004 seeking modifications to an approved, but yet to be constructed multi unit development. This proposal has been assessed alongside the Development Application No. 92/2003 which approved the construction of the multi unit development and its subsequent Section 96 modification ‘A’.

 

The proposal seeks to provide additional floor area and improved access to roof top terraces which were the subject of substantial objection as part of this application and DA No.92/2003. The additional floor area exceeds the permissible FSR for the site and as such a SEPP 1 objection has been lodged with this application. The primary issues of the application which remain unresolved are bulk and scale to the street and adjoining properties, privacy impacts and view loss from No. 32 Bay St, the neighbouring property immediately to the west of the site.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the addition of a sitting room to both units 1 and 2 of approved Development Application 92/03. The sitting rooms are to be provided to the upper roof level which will be accessed by external stairs. To this upper level there are currently roof top terraces approved which are accessed by open stairs from the first floor. The proposed stairs are to be enclosed to improve internal amenity for the units. The new sitting room to the roof top area shall have the dimensions of 3130mmx2120mm and are purpose built to take advantage of the extensive views to the north and east. By virtue of the improved access, increased terrace (from section 96’A’ approval) and new sitting area the use of the roof top will be intensified beyond that originally envisaged by Development Consent No. 92/03.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Brook St between the intersecting streets of Dudley and Bay. Bay St, to the south, is closed to vehicles and forms a public reserve. The site is positioned on the corner of Brook and Bay Streets with primary frontage to Brook St and secondary frontage to Bay St. The site has a total area of 371.2sqm.

 

The site is currently occupied by a three storey multi unit development dated from approximately the 1940s of simple symmetrical design incorporating red face brick and a pitched terracotta tile roof. To the street elevation two garages are provided within a sandstone retaining wall.

 

The site rises steeply from Brook St to the rear of the property, the difference in level is some 6m. The site also slopes gently with a cross fall from north to south a difference of some 2.5m.

 

To the west of the site lies a three storey semi-detached dwelling known as No. 32 Bay St. The dwelling has upper level decks with windows that overlook the subject site to gain views to the east. To the north of the site is recently completed five storey development comprising of five units. To the south of the site is the reserve on Bay St. To the east are single and two storey residential dwellings.

 

Consent was issued on 19 June 2003 for a multi unit development and was subsequently modified on the 9 December 2003.

 

 

Subject site existing dual occupancy as viewed from Brook St.

 

Western side of Brook St looking north. The last building to the north of the subject site within this photo is a heritage item No. 152 Brook St.

Eastern side of Brook St the low scale of the adjacent dwelling houses is apparent.

 

The subject site and 162 Brook St looking north. The grade difference between the subject site and the street is apparent.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The existing building was approved as two dwellings, with an additional unit approved in 2001. The building was strata subdivided in 1997.

 

Consent was issued for demolition of the existing three storey building and erection of a dual occupancy development containing 3 bedrooms each over three levels with basement car parking for 4 vehicles and roof top terrace areas on the 19 June 2003. Consent was issued subject to 57 conditions of consent. Of these conditions several were special conditions to reduce amenity impacts to neighbouring properties to the north and west.

 

A section 96 modification was submitted on the 13 October 2003 seeking to delete conditions 2, 3 and 8 and undertake minor alterations.

 

Condition No. 2 read:

 

The roof terrace to unit No. 1 situated on the northern side shall be deleted and replaced with a non-trafficable flat roof. The privacy screen to this area is to be deleted to allow for better view sharing for No. 32 bay St. A light weight translucent balustrade shall be constructed to connect from the stairs to the eastern roof terrace as shown on the plans. The balustrade shall be no higher than 1m.

 

The Section 96 plans sought approval for a terrace area with a width of 1.3m revised from the previously sought 2.6m. A privacy screen was shown as deleted as part of these approved plans as well as the balustrade to be provided being of red cedar construction. Approval was issued for deletion of this condition.

 

Condition No 3 read:

 

The privacy screen proposed to the southern terrace of unit No. 2 shall have a maximum height of 1.6m but shall be constructed of lightweight, opaque materials that provide privacy however reduces visual bulk and retains a light open feel.

 

Approval was not issued for deletion of this condition.

 

Condition No. 7 read:

 

All north facing windows on the northern side of upper ground floor and first floor of the proposed building are to be obscure glazed or contain privacy louvres that prevent overlooking to the future development to the north.

 

Based on the approved plans for the development to the north of the subject site (No. 162 Brook St) privacy was considered to not be such a significant issue to this neighbour, as such approval for deletion of this condition was granted.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP- Public Notification of development Proposal and Council Plans. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

S Wilson & J Peters

32 Bay St

 

·          The additional sitting rooms will decrease views from 32 Bay St

 

Comment

 

View loss was assessed at an on site inspection with the objector on the 9 June 2004. At this time it was noted that the extent of views obscured by the addition of the sitting rooms, primarily to unit 1 was significant and unacceptable. This impact is discussed in further detail under the Environmental Assessment Section of this report.

 

·          The terrace areas increase noise to Brook St we request that the terraces be removed all together

 

Comment

 

The terrace areas were approved under DA No.92/2003 and not the current application and as such noise impacts are not a matter for consideration.

 

·          We request the addition of glazing (opaque) to the eastern side facing No. 32 Bay St

 

Comment

 

This glazing was previously deleted as part of a Section 96 modification. As the current proposal does not seek alteration to the approved balustrade it is beyond the scope of this application to modify this design.

 

·          Floor Space Ratio is excessive and we request a full Council review of the approved FSR as it affects all surrounding residents

 

Comment

 

Once approval has been granted for an application the consent authority is unable to review its decision without the explicit request of the applicant. In this application Council can assess the appropriateness of the additional floor area sought in relation to the existing density of the site and as such the proposed FSR is considered to be an unacceptable increase from the permissible and is one of the reasons for refusal of this application.

 

·          We object to the use of continuing amendments to make substantive changes

 

Comment

 

The applicant under the provisions of the EP&AACT 1979 may seek amendments to an approved scheme either by way of a S96 application or a new development application.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

Building Services comments

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a three (3) storey dual occupancy with basement level car park.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

§ Class 2        -   Residential units

§ Class 7a      -   Car park

 

Background

 

The existing building on site is a post war brick flat building bounded by buildings of a similar nature. A search of Council’s records could not disclose any previous use of a potentially contaminating nature.

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

No information in relation to construction site management has been provided with the application to address issues such as, the location of stock piled material or the storage and disposal of excavated materials, sediment and erosion control, public safety, perimeter safety fencing and construction management.

 

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

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

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

0.65:1

1.22:1

No- SEPP 1.

33 - Building Height

10m external wall height

12m overall height

8.6m external wall height

9.2m overall height

Yes

46 - Vicinity of Heritage Item

Consideration of impact to No. 152 Brook St

Yes, distance greater than 100m too far to have an adverse impact

 

Yes

 

a.    Development Control Plan-Multi Unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements of preferred solutions)

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front  boundary setbacks

P1 The front setback consistent with streetscape/adjoining dwelling.

Side boundary setbacks

P2 Ensure that:

·      solar access is maintained and overshadowing minimised.

·      privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their own spaces provided.

·      Landscaping and privat open space provided.

·      Streetscape amenity is maintained.

Rear Boundary Setback

P3 Ensure that:

·      solar access and overshadowing minimised.

·      Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

·      Building built across site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maximum length of wall section is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

Maximum length any wall section 10 metres. Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes,  minimum average is 5.7m to both northern and southern boundaries.

 

 

 

 

No, 3m minimum average.

 

DENSITY

 

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms

 

 

0.65:1 site less than 700sqm.

 

No, adjoining buildings are primarily single, two or three storeys. The sitting rooms would result in a four storey building which is not consistent with the general scale of the immediate locality.

LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

Flats and apartments

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Private open space is to be reduced by 12sqm per unit however sufficient deck areas are retained.

 

 

 

P2 Landscaped areas around flat buildings be undivided communal open space.

 

 

Landscaped areas are not being altered by this proposal.

 

PRIVACY

 
Visual Privacy

 

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

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Windows are not oriented towards habitable room windows to adjoining properties however the provision of sitting rooms at the upper level will intensify the use of the approved terrace areas which will have privacy implications to No. 32 Bay St.

 

 

 

 
Acoustic Privacy

 

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

“Quiet areas” separate noise generating activities.

 

 

 

 

 

S4 Walls and floors insulation and sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia.

 

 

 

 

It is considered that the additional sitting rooms will generate additional acoustic impacts given the use of the terrace areas will be intensified.

VIEW SHARING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

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

 

 

 

 

 

Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

P1.1 Solar access to existing solar collectors maintained between 9am and 3pm.

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

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

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

 

The development will have impact on views for No. 32 Bay St to the east and over the basin of Coogee towards the beach and out to the Pacific Ocean

 

There has been no attempt made to minimise view loss with the design of the sitting rooms.

The additional shadow cast by the additional storey falls primarily to the Bay St reserve and does not adversely affect solar access to adjoining properties.

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

 

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

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

P7 External lighting not intrusive.

 

There are no concerns for safety and security as a result of this development.

 

PARKING

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

 

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

 

P3 Secure storage for bicycles are provided.

 

There are no additional units or increase in beds provided therefore there is no additional parking demand generated by this proposal. Even if the additional room to the roof were to be converted into a bedroom this would not increase the demand for parking as each unit is already 3 bedrooms.

 

 

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

 

studio apartment*

1 space per two studios

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling
dwelling
                              

Visitor parking is 1 space  per 4 dwellings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1       View Sharing

 

The objectives and performance requirements of View Sharing Part 4.3 of DCP- Multi Unit Housing are:

 

·      The design and location of buildings takes existing topography, vegetation and surrounding development into account.

·      Development minimises effects on views and demonstrates steps that have been taken to mitigate view loss, in particular view loss of significant features.

·      Buildings and dwellings are to be aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

The addition of the two sitting rooms provides for an additional 6.7m of wall at an additional 1.9m height. This height effectively obscures sightlines east for No. 32 Bay St. No. 32 Bay St has two balconies provided to the northern elevation of the semi-detached dwelling. Sightlines were not provided with the application however with the surveyed levels provided and based on a site inspection of the affected property sightlines can be projected and it is clear that views will be interrupted to the east and looking back out towards the direction of Wylies baths.

 

 

The above photos show the two balconies off first and second floor levels to the northern elevation of the affected property No. 32 Bay St (to the west of subject site).

 

 

Eye height from the top balcony where views are retained with the approved plans is approximately RL66.04. When looking east from this balcony sightlines are pitched downwards by an estimated angle of 5 to 10 degrees. The approved roof design allows for views to be retained out over the terrace areas. With the proposed addition of the two sitting rooms the views will be obscured. Whilst it is noted that the proposed new height is similar to the existing ridge of the dual occupancy it should be noted that this roof is pitched thus views are retained around the highest point where the roof slopes down to the height of the eaves and not for a length of 6.7m. 

 

The performance requirements of the DCP for Multi Unit Housing seeks to achieve a fair and reasonable degree of view sharing (section 4.3 View Sharing Performance Requirements). It is considered that given the view loss is a result of a significant variation to floor area requirements the view loss is not considered to be reasonable.

 

In order to be able to sufficiently assess what is a reasonable degree of view sharing reference is made to the planning principle of  Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004). The Commissioner defined the concept of view sharing as:

 

“The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment”

 

Senior Commissioner Roseth adopts a four part assessment test based on the following:

 

            1.         An assessment of the view affected

            2.         An assessment from what part of the property the views are obtained.

            3.         An assessment of the extent of the impact.

            4.         An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact.

 

Applying the above principles to views obtained from No.32 Bay Street from its main living/kitchen and rear balcony areas indicates that the view is a significant view of the east and north-eastern ocean, headland and Coogee Bay valley.

 

The view loss to be assessed under this application is that associated with the addition of two sitting rooms to the approved roof top area, its excessive floor space ratio results in view loss.  The fact that the proposed development does not comply with the critical planning control of floor space ratio creates a building that is designed to capture expansive views from a new upper level addition at the expense of views from the immediately adjoining property No.32 Bay St.

 

The primary view that will be lost is of the horizon and expanse of ocean due east. The quality of views at No. 32 Bay St are being increasingly eroded by developments such as the recently completed development at 162 Brook St directly to the north of the subject site. As such the view loss to No. 32 Bay St as a result of this current proposal needs to be assessed within the context of other recent approvals within this view corridor.

 

It is considered that there is sufficient living areas provided within the approved development with expansive views that can be enjoyed to both the north and the east from living areas. Achieving views at the expense of enjoyment by the property to the rear is not considered to be fair or acceptable.

 

The approved development will result in view loss from the lower balcony and kitchen area however this was considered acceptable provided views were retained at the upper level balcony and from within the secondary living area to this floor.

 

Views from the western side of Brook St similar to that which will be reduced by the proposal for 32 Bay St.

 

8.2     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Objection – Clause 32 of RLEP 1998

 

The maximum floor space ratio for a development in the 2C zone is 0.9:1 however if the site area is less than 700sqm the maximum FSR is 0.65:1. The proposal has an FSR of 1.22:1

 

The proposal therefore seeks to vary development standard Clause 32 Floor Space Ratio contained within Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. An objection under SEPP 1 was submitted with the application. The objection was prepared on the following grounds:

 

·          The permissible FSR for the site is 0.65:1 the proposal has an FSR of 1.22:1 which does not comply with Council’s standard.

·          The proposal will not result in significant overshadowing, views or visual privacy impacts to adjoining properties.

·          The majority of the additional floor are is contained below ground due to the topography of the site.

·          The development will have a similar envelope to existing building

·          The proposal complies with the height standard for the site and compliance with FSR would not result in greater amenity to adjoining properties.

·          If the site was greater than 700sqm then the permissible FSR would 0.9:1 which is closer to the proposed FRS of 1.22:1.

·          The development complies with all other DCP controls which indicate that this redevelopment is not an overdevelopment of the site.

·          The development achieves requirements for articulation and materials to reduce the visual impact of the two additional rooms

·          The proposal is compatible with existing structures and building under construction when viewed from Brook St.

·          The building will not have a significant impact on the streetscape, despite the FSR non-compliance.

 

Based on the above compliance with floor space ratio standard is considered to unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, as the proposal satisfies the intent of the standard.

 

The submitted SEPP 1 objection has been considered on its merits and within the context of the surrounding locality. The approved floor area of the development is 170.6sqm and the applicant seeks to increase this to 211.51sqm.

 

The objective of this requirement is to control the size, bulk and scale of development and minimise amenity impacts on adjoining and neighbouring properties.

 

The subject development has been approved with an FSR of 1.11:1, which is over the maximum permissible FSR however was approved subject to a SEPP 1 objection on the basis that the existing building has an FSR of 0.889:1, and that the proposed building bulk would be consistent with the scale of surrounding development. No. 162 Brook St immediately to the north of the subject site has an approved FSR of 0.9:1 and 160 Brook St 0.88:1. It should be noted that each of these sites have a maximum permissible density of 0.65:1 as all lots are under 700sqm in area and as such a direct comparison is possible.

 

The approved FSR of 1.11:1 is in excess of these adjacent properties however the variation was considered acceptable as the proposal met the stated and underlying objectives of the development standard. The increase to 1.22:1 is considered excessive and any SEPP 1 objection unsupportable on the basis that the proposal results in a built form which is significantly greater than that of the density of the immediate locality and is likely to have significant amenity impacts to the neighbouring property in Bay St, in terms of view loss, privacy and visual bulk and scale.

 

The applicant has argued that the additional bulk is setback from the street elevation where the two sitting rooms are setback approximately 6m from the eastern perimeter of the building’s footprint. The applicant has argued that this setback would minimise the visibility of the additional storey to the street however it is considered that the elevated position of this site and the absence of any buildings to the south of the site (due to location of Bay St reserve) would enable a clear view of the additional storey from the street.

 

The subject site is prominent enjoying an elevated position in relation to adjoining properties and the

streetscape.

 

 

 

The recently completed development at No. 162 Brook St reads primarily as three storeys above basement parking, the approved development will also read as three storeys above basement parking, should the additional sitting rooms be approved then the development will read as having a partial fourth storey which is above what is considered to be a reasonable scale within the locality based on recently approved developments.  The SEPP 1 objection is not well founded and should not be supported.

 

8.3 Bulk and Scale

 

Alongside concerns raised for view loss there are associated amenity concerns for the resultant bulk of the upper level if the sitting rooms are approved. From No. 32 Bay St an additional partial storey off their living areas will result in an increase in bulk where there is a 6.7m wall in close proximity to the boundary. No. 32 Bay St is increasingly being encircled by bulky redevelopments with No. 162 Brook St having been recently completed immediately to the northern boundary.

 

Concerns for the bulk of the additional storey as viewed from the streetscape have been already addressed under density section of this report.

 

 

8.4 Building Setbacks

 

The rear setback for the 2C zone being a minimum of 6m and an average of 8m is not satisfied by this proposed addition at roof top level. The rear setback is 3m which is below the preferred solution. The performance requirements for rear setback is:

 

Buildings are set back from the rear boundary to ensure that:

- there is adequate separation between buildings to maintain reasonable levels of solar access and minimise overshadowing

- reasonable levels of privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces are provided

- opportunities for landscaping, communal recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces are provided.

- buildings are built across a site rather than down its length.

 

It is considered that an additional storey at this reduced setback will have an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring property to the rear where privacy is compromised and there is additional bulk where the outlook from balcony areas and rooms off living rooms to the eastern elevation will be adversely affected.

 

8.5       Privacy

 

The objectives and performance requirements of Privacy Part 4.2 of DCP- Multi Unit Housing are:

 

·      Where there is a horizontal separation of less than 10m between windows, they should offset, angled or screened to reduce potential privacy impacts.

·      A sill level of 1.6m above floor level provides satisfactory protection for overlooking.

·      Windows and balconies of main living areas are located to avoid overlooking of similar windows in adjoining dwellings.

·      Areas of private open space are designed and located to ensure a high level of user privacy.

 

Privacy concerns were raised by the owners of No. 32 Bay St as part of the original application, the subsequent Section 96 and as part of this current notification period. It is noted that the terrace has been previously approved and is not to be revisited as part of this application. However it should be appreciated that by improving usability of this terrace area and its access by enclosing the stairs, that the frequency of occupation of the terrace and the type of use will change. A roof top deck with no shelter and open access would result in a terrace that has marginal use, as a result of the proposed modifications the terrace can support a much more comfortable and therefore intensive use. The result of this intensified use will be aural and visual privacy impacts to the neighbouring property at No. 32 Bay St set only 5.3m from their living areas. This intensification is inconsistent with the performance requirements of Part 4.2 Privacy P1 and P3 of DCP Multi Unit Housing where specific privacy measures should be considered where horizontal separation is less than 10 metres.

 

8.6       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65- Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

Application of Policy-

This Policy applies to development being:

 

(a)        The erection of a new residential flat building, and

(b)       The substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing residential flat building, and

(c)        The conversion of an existing building to a residential flat building.

(d)       If particular development comprises development to which subclause (1) applies and other development, this Policy applies to the part of the development that is development to which subclause (1) applies and does not apply to the other part.

 

The guide stipulates that the SEPP is to be applied where:

 

The proposed works do not fall under SEPP 65 and as such the application was not referred to the Design Review Panel.

 

8.7 Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

The performance requirements of Solar Access and Energy Efficiency Part 4.4 of DCP- Multi Unit Housing are:

 

·      The design, orientation and sitting of new buildings and landscaping minimises loss of solar access to neighbouring properties.

·      Living areas of neighbouring dwellings do not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year.

·      At least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings do not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year.

 

The additional overshadowing as a result of the additional height is minimal and as it falls entirely to the south of the site over Bay St reserve and Brook St will not result in any adverse solar loss.

 

9    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the approved multi unit development have been reviewed against all the assessment criteria contained within DCP for Multi Unit Housing and Local Environmental Plan 1998. The impact of the addition where it does not achieve the performance requirements and objectives of these development standards has unacceptable amenity and streetscape impacts. The SEPP 1 objection submitted with the application is not well founded and as such is not supported.

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

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. 162/04 for to create new sitting rooms for both approved units 1 and 2 with access to the top floor roof deck areas and new glass enclosure to stairs. at 164 Brook St Coogee for the following reasons:-

 

1.   The proposed development does not satisfy the stated and underlying objectives of Clause 32 Floor Space Ratio of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the development has unacceptable adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties and the streetscape, in terms of view loss, privacy and visual bulk and scale.

 

2.   The SEPP 1 objection to the Floor Space Ratio development standard is not well founded in that it does not demonstrate that compliance with the development standard is unnecessary or unreasonable.

 

3.   The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives and performance requirements of the Part 3.4 Density of Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan where the resultant bulk and scale of the development is inconsistent with the desired future character of the area.

 

4.   The proposed development will result in unacceptable levels of view loss for neighbouring properties and is inconsistent with the objectives and performance requirements of the Part 4.3 View Sharing of Multi Uni Housing Development Control Plan.

 

5.   The proposed development will result in unacceptable privacy impacts to adjoining properties and is inconsistent with the objectives and performance requirements of the Part 4.2 Privacy of Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan.

 

6.   The proposed development will result in unacceptable bulk and scale impacts to adjoining properties and is inconsistent with the objectives and performance requirements of the Part 3.3 P3 Building Setbacks of Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Architectural plans

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

AOIFE WYNTER

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 78/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

68-70 Perry Street, Matraville

 

 

DATE:

15 September, 2004

FILE NO:

D/288/2004

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application report for the change of use to a taxi base, in association with an approved vehicle repair workshop at 68-70 Perry Street Matraville.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 26 July, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

15 September, 2004

FILE NO:

D/288/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Change of use to a taxi base, in association with an approved vehicle repair workshop.

PROPERTY:

 68-70 Perry Street Matraville

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 A and E Haddad

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Robert Belleli, Bruce Notley-Smith, Ted Seng.

 

It is proposed to use the existing building on the site as a taxi-depot on a 24-hour basis. The taxi depot will operate in conjunction with the approved vehicle repair workshop on the site. The main issues are related to traffic, parking and noise and whether or not the proposed use is suitable for the site and the 4A Industrial zone having regard to clause 36 of RLEP 1998.  There are two submissions and a petition with 35 signatures opposing the development.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant proposes to use the existing warehouse building as a 24 hour taxi base, in association with a vehicle repairs workshop.  The operation of the taxi base includes:

 

§ Administrative offices and amenities including toilets, changing rooms and staff room.

§ 20 Taxis to operate from the premises.

§ Mechanical repairs workshop for taxi repairs to operate from 8.00am to 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 4.00pm Saturdays.

§ Change over shifts of 3:00am and 3:00pm each day.

§ Maximum 10 employees to be onsite at any one time.

§ 26 car parking spaces are proposed.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northwestern corner of Perry Street and Kelly Lane in the Matraville industrial area.  It has a frontage width of 18.29m, a side boundary alignment of 60.66m to Kelly Lane and has an overall site area of 1055.97m².

 

The site is improved with a single storey warehouse.  It has two vehicle entrance doors – one facing Perry Street and the other facing Kelly Lane.  The warehouse has office facilities at the front of the building fronting Perry Street.

 

Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and its surroundings and Figure 2 shows the existing building on the site.

 

The adjoining property to the east is occupied by Randwick City Council for use as a Resource Recovery Centre (see Figure 3) and the adjoining properties to the north and west are improved with industrial buildings (see Figure 4).  Development to the south is a mixture of industrial and residential (see Figures 5 and 6).  There are three dwelling houses to the northeast of the site on Kelly Lane (see Figure 7).

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

History of Site Usage

Development Application 609/1997 sought approval to use the site as a mechanical workshop and taxi base. Approval was given for use of the site as a mechanical workshop; however the proposed taxi base was not approved. The taxi base proposal was refused on the following grounds:

 

§ The taxi base is defined as a “commercial premises” and hence is a prohibited use within the 4(a) General Industrial Zone under the provisions of the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance.

§ The subject site does not provide sufficient parking to accommodate the needs of the taxi base, including its drivers.

§ The taxi base will adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding area with particular reference to noise, loss of parking, and congestion of traffic.

§ The subject site is not suitable for the taxi base in its location and its design.

§ The taxi base is not in the public interest.

 

Development application 509/1998 was submitted proposing to use the existing building as a 24 hour taxi base with ancillary office space in association with the existing motor vehicle repair shop. The application was withdrawn prior determination, however the assessment report recommended refusal of development consent for a number of reasons including that the taxi base will adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

 

An assessment of the proposal against the previous reasons for refusal of DA 509/98 is provided in Section 8 of this report.

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area

 

Figure 2: The existing building on the subject site

 

Figure 3: Council's Resource Recovery Centre on the northeastern corner of Perry Street and Kelly Lane

 

Figure 4: Industrial buildings to the north of the site

 

Figure 5: Existing development to the southeast of the site

 

Figure 6: Existing development to the southwest of the site

 

Figure 7: Dwelling houses to the northwest of the site fronting Kelly Lane

 

Figure 8: Looking northwest along Kelly Lane (note the large rolling door to the subject building)

 

 

 

 

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development on the 30 April 2004.  As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

Judith Levitt, 85 Perry Street Matraville

Issue

Comment

Perry street has ‘more than its fair share of traffic and resulting noise that accompanies it.’ Raised concern that the proposed taxi base will add to this.

The proposal is considered to be acceptable in respect of its traffic generation.  The site is located in an industrial area on a dual carriageway that is suitable for large volumes of traffic.  In any case, it is considered that the proposed development have a negligible impact in terms of traffic generation. This is discussed in detail later in this report.

Is especially concerned with the Taxi hand over time of 3am and 3pm.

The handover times are considered to be acceptable and any impacts may be ameliorated by appropriate conditions.  In this respect, it is recommended that the door to Kelly Street be closed after an appropriate time and that the handovers occur entirely inside the building. 

The speed limit of the street has been increased to 60km/h when the surrounding streets have 50km/h speed limits. 

Any concerns with respect of the speed limits on Perry Street are not a matter for consideration in this development application.  They must be addressed by having an item tabled at Council’s Traffic Committee.

Water board works in Perry Street will be occurring in the street until December 2004.  This has resulted in the road being narrowed causing a ‘dangerous area that traffic has to flow through.’  An increase in taxi traffic will exacerbate this.

The nature of these works is temporary and does not provide justification for raising objection to any approval of the proposed development.

Unless taxis enter and exit Perry Street from Beauchamp Road, they will pass residential homes. 

As stated earlier, Perry Street is a dual lane carriageway and is designed to carry large volumes of traffic. This issue is further discussed later in this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

E.B. Patterson, 3 Kelly Street Matraville

Issue

Comment

The applicant has run a taxi base in 1997 from the site without Council approval.  This business ‘shut down Kelly and Perry Streets when a fleet of taxis arrived en masse without notice.’

It appears that the site is currently not being used for any unauthorised purpose.  According to Council’s records, it has most recently been used as a motor vehicle repair station with offices at the front.  This is in accordance with the 1997 consent. 

The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and is concerned that there will be 20 taxis as well as 40 private vehicles during shift changes, and 10 employees on site as vehicles are being repaired.

The parking study that has been submitted for assessment by Council finds that the site can wholly accommodate all the parking requirements of the development.  This matter is further discussed later in this report.

Has experienced the delivery of broken down vehicles during the night causing a sleep disturbance with doors banging, garage doors opening and closing and employees talking loudly.

To minimise noise impacts to Kelly Lane residents, the door facing Kelly Lane will be required to be closed at an appropriate time.  A condition will be included with any approval.

The property is not in the middle of an industrial complex but on the edge of one, housing surrounds it.  The existing noise of the industrial area does not excuse additional noise being created.

All land in the vicinity of the site on the northern side of Perry Street (including the objector’s property) is zoned 4A Industrial.  As stated earlier, that land is predominantly industrial but there are three dwelling houses located on Kelly Lane.  However, in respect of noise, it is considered that with appropriate conditions restricting noise, the amenity of those residents will not be unreasonably affected.

The applicant has not addressed the reasons for refusal to Development Application D/609/1997.

The applicant has addressed the reasons for refusal of the draft report that was prepared for DA 509/98 (see Section 4).

 

Petition headed by Mark Merriout of 60D Perry Street Matraville, containing 35 Signatures from properties in Perry Street, Kelly Lane and Beauchamp Road in Matraville.

 

Issue

Comment

Lack of sufficient parking at the site.

As stated earlier, the parking study that has been submitted for assessment by Council finds that the site can wholly accommodate all the parking requirements of the development.  This matter is discussed further later in this report.

Large noise problem due to traffic congestion, change over shift during the night, towing of broken down vehicles at all hours of the day and night.

It is considered that noise impacts may be ameliorated by imposing appropriate conditions including one that limits the use of the Kelly Lane doorway.

Poor location for such a development.

The subject site is located on land zoned for industrial purposes.  The site is considered generally appropriate for the proposed development.

Area is already overdeveloped.

The proposed development uses the existing building.  It is not proposed to make any external additions to the building.

The entire proposal is not in the public interest of the residents of the surrounding area.

Any adverse impacts on the amenity of the residents of the area will be addressed by imposing appropriate conditions.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Engineering Issues

 

The application was referred to the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services for comment.  No objections were raised subject to conditions with any approval.  The following comments were made:

 

Site History

Applications were lodged in 1997 and 1998 for the subject site. The 1997 DA, (607/97), was for change of use to a taxi base and mechanical repair facility; the 1998 DA was for change of use taxi base alone, (the mechanical repair facility was approved in the development consent for DA 607/97).

 

The 1998 DA was withdrawn by the applicant however it appears that the application had not been supported by Council based on both planning concerns and in consideration of objections raised by adjoining owners. The DAIS will not comment on this application with respect to the previous planning concerns however it does appear that some of the planning concerns have been considered in the SEE. The SEE does attempt to address many of the previous concerns of local residents regarding traffic/amenity issues and conditions of consent aimed at minimising the impact of traffic and traffic noise have been included in this report.

 

Landscape Comments

The development application does not propose significant works to the existing structure and surrounds onsite. The scope for additional landscaping of the site is limited and given that the application is purely for a change of use no landscaping conditions have been included within this report. The DPCD is requested to contact the DAIS should it be considered that additional landscaping of the site is required as part of determining this application.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is not required for this development.

 

Traffic Comments

The applicant intends to use the Perry Street entrance as the main point of access to the site for all vehicle movements outside of standard work hours. The access from the loading dock into the factory building itself is approximately 2.5metres in width which is at the lower end of the scale. The applicant has stated that this loading bay has satisfactorily been used for vehicular access into the building for a number of years and all vehicles excluding the combination of a tow truck with long vehicle in tow can access the site using this driveway/loading dock. The existing access way off Kelly Lane will not be used outside of standard working hours or on Sundays and a condition to this effect has been included within this report. Limiting the use of the Kelly Lane driveway will minimise the impact of traffic noise on residents to the east/north-east of the development site

 

The submitted plans show a total of 26 car spaces being provided on the site, 23 within the building, and a further three within the Perry Street setback (though it is noted that Space 26 is of insufficient length, according to AS2890.1:1993). Neither Council’s DCP – Parking, nor the RTA’s Guide to Traffic Generating Developments specifically reference Taxi Base use. The original development consent issued for the repair shop conditioned for a minimum of 12 car spaces being allocated; hence this proposal provides a total of 14 additional car spaces, for both private and taxi vehicles. The applicant has stated that the vehicle repair shop will never generate a parking demand for 12 vehicles excluding taxis operated by the applicant, (the predominant use of the vehicle repair business is to service and maintain the applicant’s taxis). Allowing for the fact that some of the 12 vehicle spaces allocated for the repair shop will be available for taxi parking or taxi base use in general the 14 spaces specifically designated for the taxi base should be capable of addressing the parking demand generated by taxi and private vehicles. Notwithstanding the need for Council to be satisfied that the proposed parking provision is adequate, the applicant has been conditioned to ensure that all parking associated with the taxi base, together with all change over activities, are undertaken wholly within the site. Given the nature of the business, (all taxis being owned and operated by the applicant), it does not appear difficult for the applicant to co-ordinate the taxi change over process such that these conditions are complied with. 

 

The SEE indicates that a number of the taxis are leased/operated on a weekly basis whereby taxis do not need to be changed over on a 12 hour shift basis at the taxi base, (the drivers of these vehicles would only need to attend the taxi base one to two times per week).

 

The DAIS is of the opinion that the major concern for residents in the vicinity of the development site would be associated with the “3am taxi change over”. As suggested by the applicant in the S.E.E. Report, it is recommended that a Management Plan is prepared and submitted for approval, the aim of such plan being to limit and offset the number of taxis and private cars arriving and/or leaving the site at any one time. A condition to this effect has been included within this report.

 

The issue of congestion in Kelly Lane was raised in objections to the 1998 Development Application. Recommended conditions of consent in this report requiring all parking and change over activities to be undertaken within the site should address these concerns. The applicant has indicated that parking restrictions in Kelly Lane could be imposed without having any impact on the proposed development. The DAIS is of the opinion that, (subject to consent being issued), the situation be monitored and parking restrictions imposed should the need arise. Compliance with the recommended conditions of consent would mean that any congestion in Kelly Lane would be associated with the parking of vehicles not linked with the operation of the proposed taxi base.

 

The applicant was requested by Council to prepare a parking study.  The study was submitted and referred to the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services for comment.  The following comments were made:

 

Reference is made to the above application, to a site meeting held in June 2004 with Larissa Ozog, Shaun Hehir, John Flanigan and the applicant for DA 288/2004, (Mr A Haddad), and to a request from Council to the applicant for the applicant to engage a suitably qualified traffic engineer to prepare a parking analysis for the proposed development.

 

The applicant was advised at the June site meeting that the parking analysis would have to be a “worst case scenario” analysis and the suitability of the site’s parking provision would be measured based on the applicant being able to demonstrate that all parking/change over activities could be accommodated wholly within the development site’s parking provision.

 

In response to Council’s request a parking analysis was lodged with Council. The parking analysis was prepared by a suitably qualified/experienced traffic engineer who has had extensive experience in Local Government traffic matters and private sector consultancy work, (both within the Sydney metropolitan area and country local government areas). The parking analysis models the taxi base parking on a worst case scenario, (as requested by Council), and concludes that the development site’s parking provision is capable of meeting the demand generated by the proposed development.

 

Council’s Development Engineer-Coordinator and Traffic Engineer have considered the report and believe that the analysis accurately reflects the operation of the proposed taxi base and that it models the parking demand on what could reasonably be expected as a worst case parking generation. The proposed development is therefore considered supportable on the basis of the stated parking provision and the DEPCD is advised that the following recommended conditions were included in the latest DAIS report on this Development Application, (dated 9/9/2004):

 

7.   All car parking associated with operation of the taxi base, (i.e. driver’s private vehicles, taxi vehicles and staff vehicles), must occur wholly within the development site. All taxi change over activities must be undertaken wholly within the existing building located within the development site.

 

8.   All vehicular entry/exit movements into/from the site outside of standard working hours, (i.e. after 6.00pm and before 7.30am Monday to Friday; before 7.30am after 5.00pm on a Saturday and all day on a Sunday), must be made using the Perry Street driveways. The only exception to this provision would be emergency towing operations involving vehicles the combined length of which would preclude access to the internal area of the existing building via the loading dock driveway.

 

9.   Prior to the operation of the taxi base the applicant shall submit to Council for approval, and have approved, a detailed traffic management plan that demonstrates strategies for ensuring that all taxi vehicle change over activities are undertaken wholly within the building and that all parking associated with the taxi base is undertaken wholly within the site. The management plan should include both taxi change over shifts however it should concentrate on the traditional “3am shift”. The management plan should reference the use of the Perry Street driveway as the vehicular entry/exit point during the hours referred to in the above condition.

 

The DAIS is of the opinion that strict compliance with the above conditions will alleviate the majority of concerns raised by objectors regarding parking, traffic and amenity issues. The parking analysis submitted gives Council surety that Conditions 7 and 9 can be complied with.

 

6.2  Health and Building Issues

 

The application was referred to the Manager of Environmental Health & Building for comment.  No objections were raised subject to conditions with any approval.  The following comments were made:

 

The proposal

 

The proposal consists of an application for change of use to a taxi base. The current use of the site is as a motor repair shop, however an inspection conducted on 13 July revealed that the premises is vacant.

It is proposed that a total of 20 taxis will be managed from this site, with 10 employees. It is proposed that driver changeovers will occur at 3pm and 3am. The building will not provide fuelling facilities.

         History

A search of Councils records show that two previous applications for use of the site as a taxi base have been made to Council.

Development Application 609/1997 applied for use of the site as a mechanical workshop and taxi base. Approval was given for use of the site as a mechanical workshop; however the proposed taxi base was not approved. Review of the delegated report for this development application shows that the taxi base proposal was refused on the following grounds:

·    The taxi base is defined as a “commercial premises” and hence is a prohibited use within the 4(a) General Industrial Zone under the provisions of the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance.

·    The subject site does not provide sufficient parking to accommodate the needs of the taxi base, including its drivers.

·    The taxi base will adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding area with particular reference to noise, loss of parking, and congestion of traffic.

·    The subject site is not suitable for the taxi base in its location and its design.

·    The taxi base is not in the public interest.

Development application 509/1998 was submitted proposing to use the existing building as a 24 hour taxi base with ancillary office space in association with the existing motor vehicle repair shop. The application was withdrawn prior determination, however the report prepared by Council recommended refusal of development consent for a number of reasons including that the taxi base will adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

         Key Issues

Acoustics

A Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) has been submitted with this development application. The potential for the proposed use of the site to have impact on the acoustic amenity of the area is acknowledged in the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE), though the SEE only identifies noise associated with additional traffic. The SEE suggests that Council may manage this potential by imposing a condition requiring that all taxi change over activities occur within the existing building, however an inspection of the building undertaken by Council’s Environmental Health Officer revealed that the building is unlikely to have sufficient acoustic dampening ability.

 An inspection of the site proposed for the taxi base was conducted on 13 July 2004. This inspection revealed the following:

·    There are residential areas within 100m of 68-70 Perry Street, which are considered sensitive noise receivers.

·    The building comprises of a brick base with corrugated iron walls (see photo 1). The roof of the building includes an area made of glass (see photo 2). It is considered that the building has little noise insulating qualities, and it is expected that any noise made within the building is likely to be audible outside the premises.

·    The neighbouring commercial premises are the Randwick Council recycling depot with operating hours of 9am to 3pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 12pm on weekends. There is also an office systems centre located at 66 Perry Street with standard business hours.

An acoustic report was requested by Council, and was received on 20 August 2004. The report is titled Proposed taxi base 68-70 Perry Street, Matraville Environmental Noise Assessment (report number: 2004557/1208A/R0/VF). The report has been prepared in accordance the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Guidelines, namely the Industrial Noise Policy and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance) and the relevant Australian Standards. The report concludes “that in all cases noise emissions from the development would easily comply with EPA guidelines and will not adversely affect the properties.”

The Environmental Health Unit has assessed this report and accepts its findings. The report recommends two development controls. The Environmental Health Unit recommends that these development controls be included as conditions of consent.

 

On 10 September 2004, the following additional comments were made:

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

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

Further conditions were recommended and will be included with any approval.

 

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 4a Industrial under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  Clause 15 of LEP 1998 states that business premises are a prohibited use in the zone.  However, clause 36 of the LEP allows for the proposed development.  It states as follows:

 

(1)    Despite clauses 15 and 16, the Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development on land within Zone No 4A or 4B for the purpose of business premises, but only if it is satisfied that:

 

(a) the proposed development is of a type appropriate for an industrial zone and, where the proposed development may otherwise have been carried out within a business centre in the locality, suitable land for the development is not available in that business centre, or

 

(b) the proposed development is intended to serve the daily needs of the workforce of the industrial area.

 

The applicant has supplied written documentation from two real estate agents stating that there are no sites in a business zone in the area that would be suitable for the proposed development.  Correspondence has also been submitted by the Matraville Chamber of Commerce that states that the proposed development will assist in serving the needs of the workforce in the industrial area.  The applicant has forwarded this documentation to address the requirements of clause 36 of the LEP.

It is considered that the arguments put forward by the applicant are valid and satisfy the requirements of clause 36.  Further, it is considered that the proposed use is more appropriate in an industrial zone than a business zone due to the land area that is required by its use.  It is also considered that the increased presence of taxis in the area will provide increased opportunities for workers in the industrial area to successfully hail taxis.  This will provide a service in terms of increased transport opportunities.

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed development satisfies clause 36 of LEP 1998 and is permissible with the consent of Council.

 

7.1  Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The Parking DCP identifies that business premises would require that the site provide parking for 4 vehicles based on the requirement of 1 space per 40 sqm of GFA.  However, it is considered that the proposed use is not clearly defined under the DCP for the purposes of determining demand for car parking on the site.  Therefore, the applicant was required to prepare a parking study for consideration by Council. 

 

The parking study concluded that the site can accommodate all parking needs on site.  The Director of AIS agreed with the findings of the parking study and considered that the proposal is acceptable with respect to parking.  Further detailed assessment of the findings of the parking study is provided later in this report.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1     Assessment against concerns raised in DA 509/98

 

The following examines the reasons for refusal for the most recent previous development application to determine whether or not those issues have been addressed or resolved in the subject development application.

 

1.   The application does not comply with the provisions of clause 36 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

The previous development application was not accompanied with the necessary documentation to provide evidence that there were no other suitable sites for the proposed taxi base in commercial zones in the area.  As stated in Section 7 above, it is considered that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the requirements of clause 36 by demonstrating that there are no other suitable sites for the proposed use and that it will provide a service to the workers in the area.

 

2.   The site does not provide sufficient on site car parking to accommodate the needs of the taxi base, including drivers and staff, and the motor vehicle repair shop.

 

As stated elsewhere in this report, the parking demands of the development have been determined by the parking study that was prepared in respect of the proposed use.  It has been determined that the site will be able to accommodate all parking demands on site that the proposed use will generate.  Further assessment of the findings of the parking study is provided later in this report.

 

3.   The taxi base will adversely impact on the amenity of the surrounding area with particular reference to noise, loss of parking and congestion of traffic.

 

The Environmental Noise Assessment report that was proposed in respect of the site has been examined and appropriate conditions have been formulated to address any concerns that may arise in respect of noise.  The report, itself, contained conditions that have been imposed and Council’s Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services and Manager of Environmental Health & Building have recommended further conditions with any approval that will address likely noise related matters. 

 

4.   Having regard to the site’s location, configuration and the buildings design and layout, the site is not suitable for the taxi base.

 

Any shortcomings in respect of the design and siting of the building that may have been considered to deem its use as a taxi base are considered to be resolvable by imposing conditions that limit the use of the Kelly Lane door and vehicle movements on that Lane, and contain all change-overs to the inside of the building.

 

5.   The taxi base is not in the public interest.

 

It is considered that as the subject development is generally acceptable subject to imposition of appropriate conditions, and it will not adversely impact on the amenity of the locality.

 

8.2     Site Suitability

 

The subject site is located in the Matraville Industrial area on land zoned for industrial purposes.  The proposed development is permissible under clause 36 of LEP 1998.  The proposed “business use” is different to most typical business operations in that it requires a larger amount of floor area due to the fact that it will accommodate vehicles. 

 

The surrounding area is a mixture of industrial and residential development.  All land to the north of Perry Street in the vicinity of the site is zoned industrial and land to the south of Perry Street is zoned Special Uses and residential 2A.  Perry Street is a dual lane carriageway and can accommodate larger volumes of traffic.

 

Having regard to the amount of existing industrial land uses in the vicinity of the site as well as other factors such as the zoning of the land and existing road network in the area, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

 

It is further noted that any potential adverse impacts may be addressed by imposing conditions that will minimise those impacts to an acceptable level.

 

8.3     Traffic & Carparking

 

In terms of traffic generation, it is considered that the proposed development will have relatively negligible impact.  As stated elsewhere, Perry Street is a dual lane carriageway and can accommodate larger volumes of traffic.  It is reasonable to suggest that this is partly why the land in the area has been zoned for industrial purposes.

 

In terms of parking, as stated earlier, the applicants parking study indicates that the site can accommodate all the parking demands inside the building and estimates a peak parking demand of 19 spaces on a worst case scenario.  The report recognises that the previous development consent for use of the site as a motor vehicle repair shop requires 12 parking spaces.  This means that a total of 14 spaces remain for use of taxis and the private vehicles of taxi drivers and employees of the vehicle workshop. 

 

Despite the findings of the parking study, which suggest that adequate parking spaces are accommodated for the proposal taking into consideration fluctuating demand due to shift changes, it is considered that there may be times when the demand for parking exceeds the number of spaces provided.  If the vehicle workshop on the site was only to be used for the purposes of servicing the taxis that are based at the site, the availability of parking would increase and be better able to meet any unexpected peaks in demand.  Not only would it minimise the demand on parking from employees of the workshop but also the use of the hoists and spaces for servicing of clients vehicles.  This would effectively allocate 12 additional spaces for use for the taxi base.  Therefore, it is considered appropriate that the vehicle workshop be required only to provide services to the taxis on the site and no other vehicles.

 

By limiting the use of the vehicle workshop for taxis only, this would reserve the use of the 23 internal spaces in the building for taxi-changeovers and parking of the private vehicles of taxi drivers and staff.  To limit any potential adverse impacts created by vehicles seeking parking associated with the use of the site, adequate measures need to be taken to best ensure that such activities can be undertaken inside the building on the site.  One such critical measure is to provide parking on the site to satisfy demand above what may ordinarily be expected to occur on the site.  Therefore, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition with any consent that requires that the vehicle workshop only be used to service taxis on the site.

 

Further, in order to ensure that the operation of the taxi changeover occurs with minimal impact on the parking capacity of the building, a condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring the applicant to submit a traffic management plan which provides strategies for ensuring that the changeover is staggered in a manner that will allow the parking needs of the development to be accommodated on the site.

 

8.4     Site Management Issues

 

The use of the site as a 24-hour taxi base has the potential to generate noise which may interfere with the amenity of nearby residential properties.  Noise would especially be of concern to residents at night when the background noise levels from Perry Street would be less than during the day.  The predominant noise impacts associated with the use would include opening and closing of car doors, bonnets and boots, loud voices and radios.  Whilst these noises are commonly associated with a mechanical repair workshop and taxi base there would be substantially more potential activity associated with a 24 hour operation.

 

However, it is considered that the potential amenity impacts would be mitigated by recommended conditions of consent which will require noise attenuation to the Perry Street door and ramp and by limiting the use of doors to Kelly Lane and restricting vehicle movements and requiring all parking associated with the taxi base to be undertaken wholly within the site.

 

A condition of consent requiring the submission of a plan of management will also be imposed to establish performance standards which are to be achieved by the taxi operation and set requirements and procedures that will ensure the taxi base operations take place without adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties. 

 

9.    CONCLUSION

The proposed use of the site as a taxi base is a land use that would not ordinarily be permitted on the site if it was not for clause 36 of LEP 1998 which allows such a use provided that certain requirements be met.  The applicant has demonstrated that there are no other suitable sites in commercial zones for the proposed use in the area.  The applicant has submitted noise impact and parking studies.  These studies have formed the basis for the formulation of the conditions that are considered to be adequate in addressing the concerns raised by residents in the area.  Having regard to all matters for consideration, it is considered that the proposed development is suitable for the site.  Therefore, the application is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.  THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/288/2004 for change of use to a taxi base, in association with the approved vehicle repair workshop at 68-70 Perry Street Matraville subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.   The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans prepared by Architectural Drafting Studio (consisting of 1 un-numbered sheet only) and received by Council on 22 April 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 applicant/operator of the use shall prepare a Plan of Management for the use.  The Plan of Management shall specify how the premises are to be operated as a taxi base, and shall address issues including, but not restricted to, the following:

 

§ Details of taxi cabs operating or being managed from the site;

§ Maintaining good relations with the neighbours;

§ Noise;

§ The use of external areas;

§ The use of stereos and like equipment;

§ The carrying out of activities likely to cause nuisance;

§ The parking of vehicles;

§ The registering of complaints;

§ Dealing with complaints;

§ Number of employees/taxi drivers;

§ Maintenance of landscaping;

§ Details of deliveries, unloading and loading of goods;

§ Disposal of waste;

§ Washing of vehicles.

 

In addition, the Plan of Management must include a documented system for minimising the potential for noise nuisance to be created from the premises, in particular the management of staff during the change over periods should be addressed to eliminate the potential for sleep disturbance.  A complaint management protocol is to form part of this document. A formal and documented system for the recording and resolution of noise complaints made to the business by residents is to be developed. All complaints are to be attended to in a courteous and efficient manner and referred promptly to the shift supervisor. The appropriate remedial action, where possible, is to be implemented immediately and the shift supervisor is to contact the complainant within 48 hours to confirm details of action taken. The business operator must make available the incident book to Council officers, upon request.

 

The Plan of Management shall be submitted to an approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development prior to the commencement of the use and the use shall be operated in accordance with the approved Plan of Management at all times. 

 

3.   The use of the site as a motor vehicle repair workshop shall be limited to the servicing and repairs of taxis that are based on the site under this consent and is not to be operated in a manner that provides services to any other vehicles.  The workshop shall only operate between the hours of 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 4 pm on Saturdays.

 

4.   The number of taxis to be operated or managed from the site, including any taxis kept on the site for repair or held in reserve, and any other taxis whose drivers commence or end their shifts at the site, shall not exceed 20 on any day.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

9.   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:

 

10. All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in Force at 1 July, 1993.

 

11. 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.

 

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

 

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

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s approval is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical phase inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon shall be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by the Principal Certifying Authority) is also required to ensure that the relevant site management, public safety and sediment and erosion requirements specified in Council’s consent are being satisfied.

 

13. 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.

 

14. 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.

 

15. A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that ‘unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited’ and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours.

 

In the case of residential building work, the sign is also required to detail the licence number of the building contractor or the permit number of the owner-builder, in accordance with the Home Building Act 1989 and Regulations.

 

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

 

17. 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.

 

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

 

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

 

19. Provide emergency lighting to the building, in accordance with the provisions of Clauses E 4.2 of the Building Code of Australia and AS/NZS 2293.1 (1998).

 

20. Provide exit signs to satisfy the provisions of Clause E4.7 of the Building Code of Australia and AS/NZS 2293.1 (1998). Exit signs must be visible at all times to indicate the way to a position of egress from the building to the satisfaction of Council.

 

21. Provide portable fire extinguishers to the building, to satisfy the provisions of Clause E1.6 of the Building Code of Australia and AS 2444 (1995).

 

22. Provide fire hose reels to the building in accordance with the provisions of Clause E1.4 of the Building Code of Australia and AS 2441 (1988).

 

23. Upon satisfactory completion of the works, the owner is required to submit a final fire safety certificate to the Council regarding the installation of the fire safety measures contained within the building, in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

      An annual Fire Safety Statement must also be submitted to Council on an annual basis, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations.

 

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:

 

24. The ramp at the Perry Street entrance door should be modified to prevent any metal to metal contact and to even out the start of the ramp so that the vehicles do not bottom out under the front bumper when they leave.  Details of compliance with this condition are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the relevant building works.

 

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

 

In this regard, the operation of the premises and plant and equipment shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background (LA90), 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

26. 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.

 

27. The project specific criteria for noise emissions shall be in accordance with the acoustical report dated 16 August 2004, prepared by Acoustic Logic Consultancy, when measured at the nearest affected boundary:

 

 

Day (7am – 10pm)

Evening (6pm – 10pm)

Night (10pm – 7am)

Perry Street

53 LAeq (15mins)

50 LAeq (15mins)

38 LAeq (15mins)

Kelly Lane

53 LAeq (15mins)

50 LAeq (15mins)

45 LAeq (15mins)

 

 

28. No vehicle movements associated with the taxi base shall occur via the Kelly Lane entrance between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am, Mondays to Sundays.

 

29. Any doors opening onto Kelly Lane shall remain closed between the hours of 10:00pm and 7:00am, Mondays to Sundays.

 

30. The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance or damage to other premises.

 

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:

 

31. The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance and there are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

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

 

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

 

a)         $2000.00         -           Security damage deposit

 

The damage deposit may be provided by way of a cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council that no damage has occurred to the Council assets such as roadway, kerb, guttering, drainage pits footway, or verge. The applicant is to advise Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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

 

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

 

a)         $1000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)   Reconstruct a full width concrete heavy duty vehicular crossing and layback opposite the loading dock entrance to the site in Perry Street.

 

b)   Construct a splayed concrete heavy duty vehicular crossing with a centrally located, 6.00m wide, layback at kerb opposite the proposed car spaces at the western end of the site in Perry Street.

 

c)   Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback in Perry Street, and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

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

 

36. The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

37. All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines.

 

38. All car parking associated with operation of the taxi base, (i.e. driver’s private vehicles, taxi vehicles and staff vehicles), must occur wholly within the development site. All taxi change over activities must be undertaken wholly within the existing building located within the development site.

 

39. Prior to the commencement of the taxi base on the subject site the applicant shall submit to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval, and have approved, a detailed traffic management plan that demonstrates strategies for ensuring that all taxi vehicle change over activities are undertaken wholly within the building and that all parking associated with the taxi base is undertaken wholly within the site. The management plan should include both taxi change over shifts however it should concentrate on the traditional “3am shift”. The management plan should reference the use of the Perry Street driveway as the vehicular entry/exit point during the hours referred to in the above condition.

 

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

 

40. The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and has determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0923.

 

The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

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

 

42. The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $503 calculated at $27.50 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage to Perry Street. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

43. A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

44. The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·    A sign adjacent to this pit stating that:

 

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

 

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

 

Advisory Conditions

 

A1.    The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

A2.    Upon receipt of  noise complaints to Council, which upon review, warrants further investigation, Council will request that an acoustic compliance report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council, which demonstrates and certifies that noise emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy, conditions of Council’s approval and the report titled Proposed taxi base 68-70 Perry Street, Matraville Environmental Noise Assessment (report number: 2004557/1208A/R0/VF). , to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Plans

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

ROMAN WERESZCZYNSKI

TOM HUCHISON

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER