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

 

15th October, 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, 19TH OCTOBER, 2004 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 12TH OCTOBER, 2004.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2004.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2004.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

7           General Manager's Reports

 

7.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 31/2004 - DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST RETURNS.

2

 

7.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 32/2004 - UPDATE – INTERIM MANAGEMENT - SNAPE PARK TENNIS CENTRE.

4

 

7.3                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 33/2004 - HEFFRON PARK - PLAN OF MANAGEMENT.

7

 

 

8           Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

8.1                      

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 75/2004 - COUNCIL OWNED FICCUS HILLII GROWING OUTSIDE 2 GREVILLE STREET, CLOVELLY.

10

8.2                      

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 76/2004 - 2004-2005 LOCAL AMENITY PROJECT FUNDING.

14

 


 

8.3                      

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 77/2004 - PATHWAY LIGHTING AT MALABAR WETLANDS, MAROUBRA.

20

 

8.4                      

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 78/2004 - PROPOSED LEASE OF PORTION OF MELODY STREET, COOGEE, TO COOGEE PUBLIC SCHOOL.

23

 

 

9           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES’ REPORT 32/2004 – LEGAL SERVICES TENDER – NO. T020/04.

29

 

10         Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

10.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 83/2004 - 7 TOWER STREET, COOGEE.

41

 

10.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 84/2004 - 88 BEACH STREET, COOGEE.

75

 

10.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 85/2004 - 141-151 ALISON ROAD, RANDWICK.

152

 

 

11         Petitions

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Report

 

13.1                      

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 34/2004 – MATERIAL RECYCLING FACILITY – BUNNERONG.

 

 

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

……………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 31/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST RETURNS

 

 

DATE:

7 October, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/0077

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report draws to the attention of the Council the provisions of the Local Government Act relating to requirements for General Managers with respect to the lodgement and tabling of Disclosure of Interest Returns.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Local Government Act requires Councillors and designated staff to lodge Disclosure of Interest returns in accordance with Section 449 and Schedule 2 of the Local Government (General) Regulation. Section 450(A) of the Act requires General Managers to keep a Register of Returns and to table Returns at the first Council meeting after the last date for lodgement (30th September, 2004).

 

In tabling the Register of Disclosure of Interests, I report that all Councillors and staff have submitted their duly completed returns within the prescribed time, with the exception of S. Knight, Tree Preservation Officer, who has left Council’s employ.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is now necessary for the Disclosure of Interests Register to be tabled at this Council Meeting and the Council has discharged its duty in relation to the past disclosure year.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        the contents of the General Manager’s Report 31/2004 dated 7th October, 2004 be received and noted; and

 

(b)        it be noted that the Disclosure of Interests Register has been tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 19th October, 2004.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 32/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Update – Interim Management - Snape Park Tennis Centre

 

 

DATE:

14 October, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/ 06336

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Council meeting on 24 August 2004 Council resolved that the management of the Snape Park Tennis Centre be put to tender. The tender documents and agreement to lease are currently being finalised and it is expected that the tender will be advertised at the earliest the 19 October 2004, or if not  on 26 October 2004.

 

The previous lease had lapsed and the tenant’s lease was on a month-to- month basis until they relinquished their lease on 30 September 2004.  Appropriate action was taken to ensure that there were no outstanding monies owing including rates and rent and that the tenant paid for all cleaning and outstanding maintenance that was his responsibility in terms of the lease. A condition inspection was conducted at the time of handover.

 

Council management agreed to assume responsibility for the Centre’s operation initially until the end of October in order to accommodate activities that were planned and advertised across the handover period and to provide more time to develop a clearer understanding of the patronage of the centre.

 

ISSUES:

 

Management - Regular users:

A number of strategies were put in place to identify the regular users which include coaches, the French School and a local competition group. There are also some regular users (e.g. dance groups and a playgroup) of the hall at the Centre.

 

The coaches use the courts on Monday to Friday between 3.30pm and 10pm, Saturdays and Sunday mornings. The French School uses all the courts for one and a half days each week during their school terms which are different from the Australian school terms..

 

Processes have been put into place in relation to insurance requirements, issuing of keys and invoicing directly from Council with all regular users.

 

Casual Users:

Signs were put up on the site over 4 weeks ago informing people of the change and providing a phone number for further contact. This enabled Council to gain a good idea of the extent of casual users.

 

As it appeared that the casual users largely attended the courts on the weekends, a decision was made to close the courts during the week for casual use (regular users have been issued with a key) and only employ casual staff for 12 hours over the weekend. The person on duty is available for any casual hirers and in addition is responsible for keeping the facilities clean.

 

Any casual users who wanted to play tennis during the week have been directed to the other tennis centres at Latham Park and Coogee. As most of the callers appeared to be ignorant of the availability of other tennis facilities Council will need to provide information on tennis facilities on the RCC website and by any other appropriate means.

 

Maintenance and Security: An inspection of the premises prior to handover identified some outstanding maintenance and repairs and the tenant agreed to pay all work that was outstanding under the conditions of the lease. Over the past week electrical, plumbing glazier and carpentry maintenance has been carried out. A trade waste agreement is in place and fire protection works planned.

 

The locks were changed and a key schedule prepared.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Whilst managing a tennis centre is not core Council business, Council will need to assume the responsibility for a four to six month period until the tender is finalised. The key reasons for this include:

 

·        Existing Users. There are a number of regular groups and individuals, including tennis coaches who use the courts and it is important that Council works to ensure that there will not be a significant disruption to these activities.

·        A Sporting Facility  continues to be available, on a more limited basis, to the community

·        Impact on tendering process. Apart from the desire to lessen the impact on individuals, a well patronised Centre will add value to the tender price. There are a number of actual advantages to the tendering process if the Centre is operational.

 

The costs of managing the centre include lost rental, wages, utility costs and waste charges. It is envisage that assuming management responsibility will be a cost neutral activity in the short term while it is acknowledged that there are long term financial and community benefits.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That this report be noted

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 33/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Heffron Park - Plan of Management

 

 

DATE:

14 October, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/06879 06879

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24 August 2004 Council discussed submissions from both the Bunnerong Gymnastics Association and Randwick Hockey Club in relation to each club’s proposed development projects for facilities in Heffron Park. 

 

As there have been a number of requests coming in from different sporting groups who wished to expand and/or develop facilities at Heffron Park, Council Officers supported a review of the existing Plan of Management and draft master plan prior to making any recommendations about changes. It was identified that support for one proposal, such as the improvement of the hockey fields may impact on other users such as the cricket and any proposal should not be considered in isolation.

 

ISSUES:

 

Definition of Terms

The following describes the various instruments that are discussed in this memorandum.

       Plan of Management. It is a requirement under Section 35 of the Local Government Act (1993) that a Plan of Management is required to govern the use and management of community land. Section 36 prescribes the process for preparing a draft management plan

       Landscape (Master) Plan. This is a plan that will set the future development and layout of the park catering for both active and passive recreational activities

       Master Plan –LEP 98 – Statutory requirement.

Under Randwick LEP 1998 any sites over 4000m² requires the adoption of a Master Plan by Council before Council grants consents to any developments.

 

Council may waive the requirement for the Master Plan if it is satisfied that the proposed development is:

 

-        of a minor nature

-        ancillary to the current use of the site

-        subject to adequate guidelines and controls already in place for the site

Please note that when the Council officers were discussing the need for the master plan at the meeting on the 24 August they were referring to a landscape master plan.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The preparation of the draft Plan of Management for Heffron Park commenced in November 1994 and was completed in 1997.  The POM outlined a range of recommendations and projected that these would cost $8.6 million over a 20 year period of implementation.  Given the long period for implementation it is expected that only a percentage of the recommendations and strategies have been implemented by this date.

 

In 2000- 2001 a draft landscape (master) plan was prepared based on the strategies in the draft POM. This draft landscape plan was rejected by both the community and the Council with most of the community objections relating to traffic concerns due to the proposed relocation of some of the fields and users.

 

Any planning for future uses in Heffron Park needs to be considered in terms of the draft POM. The major reasons for preparing the POM were the need to maximise effective use of the park, minimise conflict between user groups and prevent the alienation of public land by vested interest groups and these drivers are still highly relevant.

 

STRATEGY

The existing Plan of Management will be reviewed and updated to incorporate current user needs and demands, changes in the demographic profile and changes in regional trends in sport and recreation participation over the past 10 years.

 

The landscape (master) plan will be prepared as part of the draft Plan of Management. This visual plan will identify building envelopes, locations of playing fields and other facilities, parking and access.

 

The Draft Plan of Management will come back to Council for adoption within 6 to 9 months and regular reports on its progress will be provided to Councillors.

 

There will be extensive consultation during this process. A User group will be established to assist Council in determining the requirements and priorities for Heffron Park.   There will also be consultation with the broader community users and local residents.

 

When the draft Plan of Management is completed and adopted by Council at the same time Council could give consideration to waivering the Master Plan requirement under the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The project will be funded with $100,000 from the existing Section 94 contributions plan and will be recouped when the next Section 94 work plans are developed.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In the past there had been an “ad hoc” approach to the planning of Heffron Park which has resulted in a high concentration of sports facilities throughout the park which somehow detracts from the park’s potential to fulfil a range of community recreational needs.

 

The reserve is significant in meeting the sports needs of the community but the demand for facilities exceeds the capacity of the park. It is critical that any future developments maximise the multi- use options and ensure that there is minimal alienation of public land by any vested interest groups.

 

The preparation of the draft Plan of Management is the critical and it has been identified as a high priority project that will be undertaken and completed within this current 2004/2005 year.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that:

 

1.       $100,000 be allocated from the Section 94 contributions

2.       A draft Plan of Management for Heffron Park is prepared and brought back to Council within 9 months

3.       Regular updates are provided to the Councillors on the progress of this project

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 75/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICCUS HILLII GROWING OUTSIDE 2 GREVILLE STREET, CLOVELLY

 

 

DATE:

14 October, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0346/03

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Greening Randwick Committee at its meeting held on 12th October, 2004 recommended:-

 

that this matter be deferred to the next Council meeting to allow Councillors to better assess the reasons for refusing the removal of this tree.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider the Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services’ Report No. 77/2004.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 77/2004 from Greening Randwick Committee 12/10/04.

 

 

………………………………

 

RUSSELL WADE

 

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 77/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS HILLII GROWING OUTSIDE 2 GREVILLE STREET, CLOVELLY

 

 

DATE:

6 September, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0346/03

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 2 Greville Street, Clovelly, has written to Council highlighting the problems he is experiencing with tree roots from a Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside his property.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Barker has highlighted a range of problems associated with the tree growing outside his property and these range from branches growing into powerlines, ongoing footpath damage, large branches falling without warning, root damage to the roadway itself, to potential damage being caused to his heritage property.

 

A site inspection has confirmed these problems and reinforced the fact that roots from the tree were causing ongoing and increasing damage to the footpath, kerb and gutter and roadway.

 

The tree concerned is in excellent health and is one three growing along the southern side of Greville Street, Clovelly.

 

The tree is approximately 10-12 metres in height and around the same dimension across the canopy.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The roots of this tree cause ongoing damage to the adjacent footpath and it seasonally drops copious amounts of fruit onto the footpath and nature strip.

 

Both these problems constitute a very real liability issue for Council – although the footpath can be repaired (only a temporary measure) and the fruiting issue is seasonal.

 

Branches have to be regularly pruned out of the domestic service wires/overhead powerlines and the canopy creates significant shadowing of the adjacent footpath at night.

 

The removal and replacement of this tree would certainly fall within the parameters set out in Council’s recently adopted resolution relating to aggressive-rooted street trees and its removal would not have a major impact on the surrounding streetscape.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Council-owned Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 2 Greville Street, Clovelly, be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tree species – as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Resident's letter dated 8 August, 2004

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 76/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

2004-2005 LOCAL AMENITY PROJECT FUNDING

 

 

DATE:

1 October, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/06616

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In September 2003, Council made application to the Roads & Traffic Authority for Local Road amenity and road safety related projects for 2004-2005, funded through 50:50 arrangements. The RTA has recently advised Council of its approved funding program for 2004-2005. Under the current Memorandum of Understanding, Council is required to provide formal acceptance of the funding allocations.

 

ISSUES:

 

Provision was made in the 2004-2005 budget for the following Local Road amenity and road safety related projects:

 

Project Description

 Council

 Grant

Randwick Bicycle Plan

$50,000

$50,000

Roundabout, Walsh Ave/Donovan Avenue Intersection, Maroubra

$35,000

$35,000

Roundabout, Darley Road/Govett Street, Intersection, Randwick

$35,000

$35,000

Roundabout, Clovelly Road/Fern Street, Intersection, Clovelly

$40,000

$40,000

Roundabout, Carrington Road/Bream Street Intersection, Coogee

$32,500

$32,500

Roundabout, Boyce Road/Royal Street Intersection, Maroubra.

$30,000

$30,000

Roundabout, Sturt Street/Paton Street Intersection, Kingsford

$40,000

$40,000

Roundabout, Dacre Street/Fishermans Road, Intersection, Malabar

$35,000

$35,000

Pedestrian Refuge intersection Cook St/Frances Street, Randwick

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge Clovelly Road, Beach Street and Keith Street

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge Clovelly Road at Knox St, Clovelly

$7,000

$7,000

Pedestrian Refuge Clovelly Road Arden Street and Beach Street

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Lights Coogee Bay Rd/ Byron St Intersection, Coogee

$80,000

$80,000

 

 

 

 

 

Further, a National Blackspot Programme project involving a median closure in Anzac Parade at Boronia Street, Kensington, has been fully funded by the RTA.

 

In addition, the Roads & Traffic Authority has advised that Council has successfully secured funding in the amount of $3,000 each, for the installation of kerb blisters to the pedestrian crossing in Bowral Street, Kensington, and modifications to the pedestrian crossing in Maroubra Road at Flower Street, Maroubra. These projects have been sufficiently funded and are now complete.

 

Council has allocated $80,000 to the relocation of traffic signals in Coogee Bay Road at Byron Street, Coogee. This allocation is to be matched by the RTA, and discussions are ongoing.

 

Council has allocated $50,000 for implementation of the Randwick Bicycle Plan to be matched by the RTA. Discussions regarding this funding are ongoing.

 

A number of submitted projects were unsuccessful in receiving RTA funding. Council’s budgeted allocations to these projects totals $269,500. It is proposed that these funds be put into the Council’s Financial Reserve, pending the General Manager’s organisational review and a further report being placed before Council.

 

Should funding from the RTA not be available for implementation of the Randwick Bicycle Plan, these funds should also be placed in the Council’s Financial Reserve, pending the General Manager’s organisational review.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Nil

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Sufficient funding for all RTA projects for 2004-2005 has been allowed for in Council’s current budget, and allocations totalling $269,500 to projects which did not receive Roads & Traffic Authority funding in 2004-2005, should be re-allocated to implementation of the West Kensington Local Area Traffic Management Scheme.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        Council accept the proposed RTA grants for 2004-2005;

 

(b)        Council re-allocate the $269,500 allocated for projects which did not receive Roads & Traffic Authority funding in 2004-2005, to Council’s Financial Reserve, pending the General Manager’s organisational review and a further report being submitted to Council; and

 

(c)        Council re-allocate the $50,000 allocated for implementation of the Randwick Bicycle Plan to the Council’s Financial Reserve, pending the General Manager’s organisational review and a further report being submitted to Council.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

RTA Notification of funding dated 14 July 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

RUSSELL WADE

MALCOLM HILL

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 





 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 77/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

PATHWAY LIGHTING AT MALABAR WETLANDS, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

7 October, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/07519

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter was forwarded to Council from a resident of Malabar Road, requesting for the provision of pathway lighting along the northern side of the Malabar Wetland, in Maroubra.

 

To further investigate this matter, an Officer of Council conducted a site inspection soon after this request. 

 

ISSUES:

 

With reference made to the location plan for Malabar Wetland (Attachment 1), pedestrian walkways extend along the northern borders to provide access between Anzac Parade, Malabar Road, Manwaring Avenue and other nearby intersecting streets. 

 

Inspections revealed that this area is managed by Randwick City Council, whereby the section of walkway from north to south has existing streetlights and the section from east to west does not have streetlights.

 

The residents concerns were regarding the provision of adequate lighting for pedestrian safety along the walkway in question.  This wetland area and associated pathways are situated within close walking distance to St Spyridon College, Pioneers Park, and nearby bus stops along Anzac Parade.  These are some contributing factors towards the frequency of use of the walkway.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council owes a duty of care to ensure that all footpaths are maintained to an acceptable level of service.  In determining this level of service, both physical and environmental factors are considered, including the presence of adequate lighting. 

A quotation was sought for the design and installation of public pathway lighting to meet the requirements as set out in AS/NZS1158.3.1.1999.  A quotation was obtained from Precision Sports and Area Lighting Pty Ltd to the sum of $27,020 (excluding GST).  This quotation includes:

 

·        Design and supply of four Urban 80-watt luminaries fitted with rear glare shields and mounted on 5.5 metre lighting columns;

·        Supply and installation of all electrics;

·        All associated civil works; and

·        PE cells for all light fittings (enables lights to turn on/off based on natural light levels).

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Should Council resolve to adopt these recommendations, Council will be required to meet the sum of $27,020 (excluding GST) for the design and supply of public pathway lighting along the northern pathway at Malabar Wetland and also the associated operational costs as set out by Energy Australia.  These amounts will be funded from the 2004/05 Asset Management Street Lighting Budget.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

·          Council provide lighting along the northern pathway at Malabar Wetland and to allocate the necessary funds from the street light maintenance budget. 

·          That the resident be advised of Council’s actions.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.       Cadastral location map for Malabar Wetlands

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

RUSSELL WADE

ANNIE SHUM

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ANCILLARY ASSETS ENGINEER

 

 

 


 

 


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 78/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED LEASE OF PORTION OF MELODY STREET, COOGEE, TO COOGEE PUBLIC SCHOOL

 

 

DATE:

7 October, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/07133 & R/0516/00

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES        

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received a request from the Coogee Public School P&C Association, to lease the unformed section of Melody Street, between Carr Street and Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

 

ISSUES:

 

The issue of the requirement for additional land for the Coogee Public School, has been considered by Council on a number of previous occasions.

 

The subject land is located in Melody Street south of Stark Street, is primarily grassed with some large trees, and slopes to a steep gully on its eastern side. There is a concrete footpath aligned north-south along the western edge of the land, and a path aligned east-west across the land connecting to a path adjacent the school leading to Coogee Bay Road.

 

A brief history is as follows:

 

·    In 1988 the Department of Education sought to acquire the unformed portion of Melody Street for its use. Council advised that it did not favour acquisition, due to access and amenity issues, and the Department of Education advised it would take no further action in 1989.

·    Coogee Public School P&C applied to acquire the land in 1992. Council advised an approval from Department of Land and Water Conservation was unlikely due to future access requirements for 86 and 88 Melody Street. The possibility of a lease was suggested.

·    Coogee Public School P&C applied for a lease of the area 1993, endorsed by Coogee Public School.  No suitable resolution was reached after both a public meeting, and further meeting between P&C and local resident representatives. No recommendation was able to be made to Council, this was subsequently noted and no further action taken.

 

Coogee Public School P&C Association supported by Coogee Public School, is requesting a lease for the purposes and to the extent described below.

 

Coogee Public School has a current enrolment of 480 students. With the increased needs for students to participate in a variety of activities at the school, we acknowledge that our playground is quite crowded. Our interest in the Melody St land is to make available an increase in the play space available for student activities.

 

Our school hours are 8.30am - 3pm. I do not envisage the space being used outside those hours. The bulk usage for the space would occur from 1.15 - 1.45pm M-F. There would be incidental use by class groups at other times according to need.

 

Activities on the site would range from free play to organised curriculum activity in support of any of the six Key Learning Areas. Much of the organised activity would be of a low noise nature.

 

To effectively utilise the site some landscaping could be necessitated. The area concerned is in Melody St from Stark St junction to Melody St Sth. The Eastern boundary would be the school and the Western Boundary the footpath on the Eastern side of the home and flats on the Melody St, Stark St junction.

 

The lease requested by the P&C and School, is covered by Sections 153, 154, 155, 156 and 157 of the Roads Act, 1993, an extract of which is attached in attachment 1. Key elements of the provisions are:

 

·    A roads authority may lease land comprising a public road if in its opinion, the road is not being used by the public.

·    Before granting a lease, the roads authority must provide notice of the proposed lease in a local newspaper, and to the owner of each parcel of land adjoining the length of public road concerned.

·    Any person may make submissions to the roads authority with respect to the proposed lease.

·    After considering any submissions, the roads authority may grant the lease, either with or without alteration, or may refuse to grant the lease.

·    The term of a lease, together with any option to renew, must not exceed 5 years.

·    Only structures comprising a fence or a temporary structure that can easily be demolished or removed, would be considered.

 

Issues were raised by local residents against the previous application for lease of this area, and while no further consultation has been undertaken, a number of these and other issues remain relevant.

 

1.       Any lease would be to the owner of land adjoining the public road, in this case the Department of Education, and hence would require application by the Department;

 

2.       A concrete footpath across the proposed lease area continuing along the existing western edge of the School, provides access to Coogee Bay Road from the tramway reserve and Carr Street. This graded access provides a suitable  alternative for pedestrians and prams to the staired access in front of No.’s 88 and 86 Melody Street.

 

Due to public liability concerns, the proposed lease area would require fencing, thereby impeding pedestrian and pram usage of the existing graded access, and requiring exclusive use of the staired access in front of No.’s 88 and 86 Melody Street.

 

3.       The proposed lease would complicate the future provision of vehicular access to No.’s 88 and 86 Melody Street;

 

4.       The proposed lease area currently provides a form of open space to the community, and consequently this area would be lost to public access;

 

5.       It is probable that adjacent residents would experience a greater level of noise from the use of the proposed lease area;

 

6.       The contours of the proposed lease area fall south to north and west to east, and fill/excavation to provide a flatter area would be undesirable.

 

A photograph of the proposed area  from the northern end of Melody Street, is provided in attachment 2.

  

Leasing clauses of the Roads Act require public notification, and opportunities for public submissions, however, given the extent of the potential lease area, and history of local community concerns, it is considered that the Coogee Public  School P & C Association be advised that Council will not agree to a lease of the section of Melody Street adjacent to the school.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Should Council accept this Report’s recommendation, there wil be no financial implications for Council, however, should Council wish to proceed to public consultation stage, then staff costs and advertising costs in the order of $1,500 would be incurred.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council has received a request from the Coogee Public School P&C Association, to lease the unformed section of Melody Street, Coogee, between Carr Street and Coogee Bay Road. It is considered that the Coogee Public School P & C Association be advised that Council will not agree to a lease of the section of Melody Street adjacent to the school, as issues raised against previous application for lease of this area, remain relevant.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Coogee Public School P & C Association be advised that Council will not agree to a lease of the section of Melody Street adjacent to the school.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Extract Sections 153 - 157 Roads Act 1993

Photograph of proposed lease area from north end Melody Street 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

RUSSELL WADE

MALCOLM HILL

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 




 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 32/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

LEGAL SERVICES TENDER NO. T020/04

 

 

DATE:

15 October, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/5343 xr F2004/08012

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Following approval by the General Manager, and authority being granted by Council for the issue of tenders for Legal Services, open tenders were called for the establishment of a panel contract comprising suitably qualified law firms to provide a broad range of legal services to Randwick City Council.  Open tenders were called on 15 June 2004 for Legal Services and closed on 6 July 2004, with 18 tenders received.

Advertisements for the tender were placed in the Local Government Tenders section of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Southern Courier on Tuesday 15, June 2004 and Tuesday 6, July 2004. The tender was advertised on Council’s internet site from the date of issue to the tender closing date.

The term of the contract is three (3) years from the date of commencement with two (2) options to extend of 12 months each, at Council’s discretion.  Legal services were sought in the following Areas of Law:

·    Local Government

·    Administrative Law

·    Environmental Planning, Building and Development Control

·    Contract and Procurement Matters

·    Debt Recovery

·    Industrial Relations & Employment

·    Property

·    Insurance (Excluding Workers Compensation)

·    Information Technology

·    Protection of the Environment and Public Health

·    Other General Legal Services

BACKGROUND

 

Council’s “Legal Matters – Solicitors” Policy No. 1.01.03, has been in place from 21 May 1985.  The Policy Statement advises “That the legal firm of Bowen and Gerathy be retained by the Council as its solicitors in respect of all local matters such as conveyancing, rate recoveries, prosecutions in the Local Court and the like and that the firm of Deacons, Graham & James be retained by the Council for the provision of all specialist legal work.”

At its meeting held on 27 April, 2004 (Mayoral Minute 20/2004) Council resolved that the General Manager:

 

1.   Arrange the invitation of tenders for the provision of legal services to Council in accordance with Council’s Purchasing Policy and the requirements of the Local Government Act and Tendering Regulation; and

2.   Prepare a report for Council’s consideration on the establishment of a panel of suitably qualified law firms to provide the required services.

Pursuant to the above resolution, the Manager of Contracts & Purchasing engaged in a comprehensive consultation process and needs analysis with management to ascertain departmental legal requirements. Council Officers prepared a tender based on these requirements to invite interested parties to tender for the provision of a variety of legal services to Council.

The contract is estimated to have a value of $500,000 per annum.

Council currently spends well in excess of $100,000pa on legal services provided by various legal firms.  Based on this level of expenditure it was agreed that there was a compelling requirement to commence the tendering process and to establish a panel of suitably qualified law firms to provide both statutory and needs-based legal services to Council.  It is a requirement of the NSW Local Government Act and Tendering Regulation to invite tenders for any contract for services involving expenditure in excess of $100,000pa.

The tendering process was initiated and the Tender Evaluation Plan and methodology were developed by Kim Davis, Manager Contracts & Purchasing and approved by Gordon Messiter, the General Manager at the time. An Evaluation Committee was formed, comprising representatives from each department within Council.  Members of the Evaluation Committee used the Evaluation Plan and methodology to determine which firms offered the best value for money in the provision of legal services to Council.

Probity Advisors from Deloitte Touché Tohmatsu were engaged to ensure the evaluation was conducted equitably and within a probity rich environment.

 

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 General Manager prior to the tender close, and was endorsed 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.

 

PROBITY

 

The services of a Probity Auditor from Deloitte Touché Tohmatsu 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 Legal Services.  The Probity Plan addresses the management of probity risk in accordance with the generally accepted ICAC probity principles.  The Probity Auditor reviewed the tender process to determine whether the process has been conducted in a fair and equitable manner with due regard to probity.

 

TENDERS RECEIVED

 

Each tenderer was evaluated against the Area of Law nominated in the tender submitted.  A table outlining the tenderers for each Area of Law is listed in Appendix E.  Eighteen (18) tenders were received from the following firms:

1.   AO Ellison Solicitors

2.   Abbot Tout Solicitors

3.   Bowen & Gerathy Lawyers

4.   Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers

5.   Cuttler Hughes & Harris

6.   Deacons

7.   Eakin McCaffery Cox, Solicitors

8.   Ebsworth & Ebsworth Lawyers

9.   Forbes Dowling Pty Ltd

10. Gells Lawyers

11. Hunt & Hunt Lawyers

12. Leitch Hasson Dent Solicitors

13. Maddocks Lawyers

14. Marsdens Law Group

15. Moray & Agnew Solicitors

16. Pike, Pike & Fenwick Solicitors

17. Sparke Helmore Lawyers

18. Turner Freeman Lawyers

 

LATE TENDERS

 

No late tenders were received.

 

 

CONFORMING TENDERS

 

All tenders met the mandatory requirements and proceeded to a detailed evaluation.

 

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

 

The objective of the evaluation was to select the tenderer(s) offering the best value for money. Price was placed as the priority in determining best value for money, with the quality score representing a weight of 33% and the cost index representing a weight of 66%.  A sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of the tender evaluation having regard to the criteria weighting and scoring. 

The evaluation criteria and criteria weightings applied to this evaluation process are shown in Appendix D.

 

Tender Evaluation Process

 

The evaluation was conducted in five stages:

1.   An initial cull of any seriously non-conforming tenders i.e. late tenders, tenders not following the instructions set out in the tender, or tenders which clearly were not of an acceptable standard to warrant further detailed evaluation. No tenders were culled in this initial stage.

2.   The evaluation committee undertook an objective analysis of tenderers’ ability to meet both mandatory and desirable criteria.  

2.1. The tendered information and specific questions were listed under the evaluation criteria and weighted in order of importance to the overall evaluation. Team members scored the criteria individually in accordance with the evaluation plan and the scores were averaged into a final score.  Each tenderer was assessed and scored separately for evaluation criteria ‘C’ and ‘G’ against each Area of Law tendered.  All scores were added and recorded as the total quality score for each tenderer. (Attachment A)

2.2. Each of the tenderers’ prices was calculated against the percentage of time allocation of personnel as provided by the tenderers for each Area of Law.  A number of clarifications were required due to inconsistencies in the tenderers submission of percentage allocations of personnel. (Attachment B)

3.   Three referee checks were undertaken on each tenderer in order to determine their capacity to provide the services required.  Each referee check was scored and forms part of the quality score.

4.   A sensitivity analysis was undertaken to address areas of significant concern.  A review of the quality scores was conducted and an assessment of the personnel against each Area of Law tendered.  

5.   This Tender Evaluation Report detailing the benefits and risks of each short-listed tenderer and the final recommendations of the preferred tenderers for each Area of Law for the consideration of Council.

Evaluation Committee

 

Mark Hummerston

Director, Governance, Management and Information Services

Randwick City Council

 

Tim McCarthy

Manager, Asset Management, Asset and Infrastructure Services

Randwick City Council

 

Kerry Kyriacou

Manager, Development Assessment, Planning and Community Development

Randwick City Council

 

Kim Davis

Manager, Contracts & Purchasing, Governance, Management and Information Services

Randwick City Council

 

Probity Auditor

 

Andrew Marsden, Senior Analyst, Probity Risk, Enterprise Risk Services, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.

 

Evaluation Criteria and Methodology

 

It was proposed that at least 2 tenderers be selected on the panel for each Area of Law. A Value for Money methodology was employed to evaluate the tenderers in each Area of Law. The value for money was calculated whereby the Total Quality Score represents a weighting of 1/3rd and the Total Cost Index represents a weighting of 2/3rds.

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

(a)        Compliance with the contract

(b)       Capacity and resources of the Tenderer to provide legal services

(c)        Experience and expertise in providing legal services in the Tenderer’s nominated Area(s) of Law

(d)       Quality assurance procedures

(e)        Financial capacity

(f)        Occupational Health and Safety

(g)        Demonstrated ability and expertise and key personnel to provide legal services in the relevant Area of Law together with a demonstrated record of quality, reliable, accurate and timely advice in relation to that Area of Law

(h)        Availability and ongoing commitment of key nominated personnel (including partners and senior associates) to act for Council

(i)         Resources, capacity and availability of staff to provide prompt, authoritative and appropriate legal services to Council. This will include demonstrated ability to meet deadlines

(j)        A willingness to work in a cooperative way with Council staff (and where necessary, other legal service providers) to ensure that services meet performance standards and timetables. Demonstrated evidence of willingness to work should be provided with the tender submission

(k)       A competitive and cost effective fee structure. This would also include a prompt billing or account format that identifies and itemises time and activity precisely and provides a running total in each matter

(l)         The approach to managing and avoiding conflicts of interest in the context of the relevant Area of Law

(m)       Preparedness to provide effective communication and feedback to Council and report regularly as to the progress of each matter. A willingness to undertake in conjunction with Council, periodic reviews of the quality, type and extent of services provided

(n)        The availability of ready access to nominated solicitor/s for consultation, advice, or provision of legal services at times and at locations that take account of the needs of the Council

(o)       Insurance

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

 

EVALUATION PROCESS

 

Probity

 

Andrew Marsden, the Probity Auditor from Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, gave a presentation on probity and process issues. No personal disclosure issues were deemed to create a conflict.

There was discussion concerning how to factor the tenderers’ surcharges into the evaluation procedure and clarification that the minimum allowable insurance cover was $10 million for both professional indemnity and public liability. It was also agreed that if a tenderer stated that they were compliant and in actuality were not that they would be marked down for that evaluation criteria.

 

Tenderers Conflict of Interest

 

The following conflicts of interest were identified:

1.   Cutler Hughes and Harris: Councillor Woodsmith’s son Michael Gorge was identified as a partner of the firm. This was stated on the tender. The firm has excluded Michael from the proposed Council team.

2.   Ebsworth & Ebsworth: The proposed Client Relationship Partner, Freida Stylianou, is related to a Councillor. The exact relation is not stated on the tender.

3.   Maddocks: Primary contact and partner Stan Kondilios is a Councillor at Botany Council. No conflict of interest is specified in the tender, this possible conflict was raised by an Evaluation Committee member.

These potential conflicts of interest were assessed by the Evaluation Committee and were deemed not significant enough to exclude any of the above tenderers from further evaluation.

 

EVALUATION FINDINGS

 

Review of the desirable non‑cost / qualitative criteria

 

All tenderers were assessed and scored against the evaluation criteria listed in the tender document and weighted in the Evaluation Plan (Attachment D).  Key elements of the tender included the provision of non complex advice and significant non compliance with the contract terms and conditions.  Outlined below is a summary of responses received regarding non compliance or alternatives and the provision of informal advice submitted by each tenderer:

AO Ellison Solicitors

·    Offer an additional service, being contract provisions review service

·    Charges apply for provision of advice for non-complex matters

·    Did not offer a retainer fee for the provision of advice for non-complex matters.

Abbot Tout Solicitors

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters.  10min phone advice and regular informal on-site consultations free.

Bowen & Gerathy Lawyers

·    Non-compliance. Alternative price basis proposed.

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters. Phone and email advice free.

Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters. 18min phone advice free.

Cuttler Hughes & Harris

·    Non-compliance. General Conditions of Contract clauses: 3.2 and 3.3 Supply of Services, 8.1 (b) (c) Intellectual Property, 9.1 Contract Material, 14 Indemnities. Alternative clauses were offered.

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters. 30min phone advice free.

·    Potential conflict of interest.  Councillor Woodsmith’s son Michael Gorge was identified as a partner of the firm. This was stated on the tender. The firm has excluded Michael from the proposed Council team

Deacons

·    Non-compliant. No insurance details available to be provided upon renewal.

·    Charges apply for provision of advice for non-complex matters.

·    Quick phone advice free.

Eakin McCaffery Cox, Solicitors

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters. 60min phone advice free.

·    John Cox willing to attend Council on fortnightly basis to discuss issues with client liaison officer.

Ebsworth & Ebsworth Lawyers

·    Charges apply for provision of advice for non-complex matters.  Advice charged at hourly rates. Open to discussion of a retainer fee for the provision of advice for non-complex matters.

·    Potential conflict of interest.  The proposed Client Relationship Partner, Freida Stylianou, is related to a Randwick Councillor. The exact relation is not stated on the tender.

Forbes Dowling Pty Ltd

·    Non-compliant. No professional indemnity or workers compensation insurance details provided.

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters.

Gells Lawyers

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters.

Hunt & Hunt Lawyers

·    Information regarding status and cost of potential subcontractors was not provided.

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters.  Phone advice not requiring a formal written response is free of charge.

Leitch Hasson Dent Solicitors

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters.

Maddocks Lawyers

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters.  Advice for minor matters not requiring formal advice free.

·    Potential conflict of interest.  Primary contact and partner Stan Kondilios is a Councillor at Botany Council. No conflict of interest is specified in the tender, this possible conflict was raised by an Evaluation Committee member.

Marsdens Law Group

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters. Phone advice not requiring written confirmation free of charge.

Moray & Agnew Solicitors

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters. General advice free.

·    Clarification of the status of Moray & Agnew’s public liability insurance. Their tender document stated possession of business continuity and consequential loss insurance, on 9 August, 2004 the exact nature of business continuity and consequential loss insurance was confirmed that business continuity insurance is inclusive of public liability insurance.

Pike, Pike & Fenwick Solicitors

·    Non-compliant. Professional Indemnity insurance under-required $10 million.

·    Charges apply for provision of advice for non-complex matters.

·    Minor ad hoc advice to General Manager or Directors free.

Sparke Helmore Lawyers

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters, including phone advice and ad hoc general advice.

·    Following clarification of professional indemnity insurance held by Sparke Helmore. Sparke Helmore’s tender document stated $1.5 million plus top up, on 6 August, 2004 it was confirmed that the top up exceeded $10 million.

Turner Freeman Lawyers

·    Non-compliant. Professional Indemnity insurance under-required $10 million.

·    No charge for provision of advice for non-complex matters.  Phone advice and confirmation memo free.

Review of the Cost

 

To determine a true cost, tenderers were evaluated against the calculation of the tendered hourly rates and the percentage of time allocated to work for each Area of Law.

Tenderers were also required to submit fixed prices for legal services, disbursement costs and any cost associated with the provision of advice.  The cost associated with the provision of advice was measured as part of the quality assessment.  The fixed prices and disbursement costs were not calculated as part of the cost index, this is due to the inconsistencies across the tenders submitted and the actual processing costs would be reflective of the hourly rates tendered.  The Probity Advisor confirmed that the calculation of the tendered hourly rates and the percentage of time allocated to work for each Area of Law represented an equitable comparison of price.

Outlined below is a summary of surcharges, costs submitted and discounts offered by each tenderer:

AO Ellison Solicitors

·    Charges incurred for advice for non-complex services

·    Disbursements are charged at cost

·    Travel costs are applicable outside 80km radius of Council

·    Discounts offered based on annual usage

Abbot Tout Solicitors

·    No additional surcharges, costs or discounts

Bowen & Gerathy Lawyers

·    Travel costs are applicable, staff time charged whilst travelling

Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers

·    No additional surcharges, costs or discounts

Cuttler Hughes & Harris

·    Travel costs are applicable outside Sydney CBD

·    Discount 20% on product liability and professional indemnity advice, 5% on environment and planning advice

Deacons

·    Charges incurred for advice for non-complex services, unless quick phone advice

·    Disbursements charged at cost

Eakin McCaffery Cox, Solicitors

·    No additional surcharges, costs or discounts

Ebsworth & Ebsworth Lawyers

·    Charges incurred for advice for non-complex services

·    Travel costs are applicable

·    Discounts are negotiable

Forbes Dowling Pty Ltd

·    No additional surcharges, costs or discounts

Gells Lawyers

·    Travel costs are applicable, staff time charged whilst travelling

Hunt & Hunt Lawyers

·    Travel costs are applicable, staff time charged whilst travelling

·    10% discount offered across all hourly rates except fixed price fees.

Leitch Hasson Dent Solicitors

·    No additional surcharges, costs or discounts

Maddocks Lawyers

·    Discounts are negotiable

Marsdens Law Group

·    Staff time charged whilst travelling other than to/from Council or the NSW Land and Environment Court

Moray & Agnew Solicitors

·    Travel costs are applicable, staff time charged whilst travelling

Pike, Pike & Fenwick Solicitors

·    Charges incurred for advice for non-complex services

·    Travel costs are applicable, staff time charged whilst travelling

·    Discounts are negotiable

Sparke Helmore Lawyers

·    Travel costs are applicable, staff time charged whilst travelling

·    Volume discounts and capped fees

Turner Freeman Lawyers

·    Travel costs are applicable

Value for money assessment:

A summary of the Value for Money scores and sensitivity analysis scores are outlined under Attachment C.

However, it became apparent to the Evaluation Committee that the weighting of the criteria, which were set under the evaluation plan approved by the (former) General Manager, placed undue weight on price and therefore impacted on the assessment of quality.  Under the plan, the quality score was weighted at 33% and the cost index at 66%.

The Evaluation Committee was not satisfied that the 33% to 66% split was appropriate. Subsequent enquiries confirmed that a 50% to 50% split for quality and cost was the more usual approach.  However, the Evaluation Committee was advised that as the evaluation plan had been approved prior to the closing of tenders, it was not open – nor was it appropriate under good governance procedures – for the weighting to be changed.

Further, it appeared that continuing with the assessment would result in up to seven law firms on a panel list, providing services to Council. There was a concern that this would militate against forming good working relationships with the providers of legal services to Council – even though the formation of a strong working relationship between Council and its lawyers is of importance in managing legal costs and outcomes.

 

EXTERNAL REPRESENTATION

 

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 Probity Auditors report is outlined in Attachment F.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The concerns of the Evaluation Committee were the subject of discussion with the General Manager.  

The General Manager is of the view that the provision of legal services to Council is an important matter, requiring careful review. The concerns about the evaluation criteria suggest that the current tender process may have placed undue emphasis on price, without sufficient regard to quality and the importance of the professional and working relationship between Council and its lawyers.

 

Evaluation Committee Endorsement

 

Tenders were evaluated strictly in accordance with Council’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures and the Local Government Act 1993 and Tendering Regulations 1999.

Following a rigorous evaluation process of all submitted tenders, the Evaluation Committee is confident in its recommendation that the services offered by the recommended tenderers conform to Council’s requirements.

All tenders were submitted by the due date and time and were all acceptable for evaluation.

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Hummerston

Director, Governance Management & Information Services

 

Tim McCarthy

Manager, Asset Management

 

 

 

 

Kerry Kyriacou

Manager, Development Assessments

 

Kim Davis

Manager, Contracts & Purchasing

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.       Council’s “Legal Matters – Solicitors” Policy No. 1.01.03 be rescinded.

2.       No tender be accepted.

3.       Authority is granted for the General Manager to enter into negotiations with any of the tenderers, with a view to securing the provision of legal services on a temporary basis.

4.       After a review of the evaluation criteria and weightings by the General Manager, new tenders be called for the provision of legal services to Council.

5.       All tenderers be notified of the tender result.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER -

Attachment A: Scoring the Non-Cost/Qualitative Criteria

Attachment B: Cost Index of Price/Rates Tendered

Attachment C: Value for Money Scores

Attachment D: Evaluation Criteria and Weightings

Attachment E: Tenderers for each area of Law

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 83/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

7 Tower Street, COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

11 October, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 188/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No 188/2004 for the demolition of the rear shed and attic, and to reconfigure the ground floor and new first floor addition containing bedroom, study and ensuite.

 

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 28 September 2004.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

28 September, 2004

FILE NO:

04/00188

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolish rear shed and attic, reconfigure ground floor and new first floor addition containing bedroom, study and ensuite

PROPERTY:

 7 Tower Street, Coogee

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Samantha Small

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors Murray Matson, Bradley Hughes and Margaret Woodsmith.

 

The proposed application is for the demolition of an outbuilding, reconfiguration of the internal ground floor area to create an open plan living area, new front fence and carparking space, and addition of a new first floor containing area bedroom, ensuite and study.

 

The subject site is located in a 2A residential zone and the proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council. The site contains a two storey dwelling (the first floor has a small attic) that is one half of a semi. The surrounding area consists primarily of one and two storey dwellings interspersed with four storey multi-unit housing developments.

 

The proposed development does not comply with several preferred solutions of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP, including floor space ratio (FSR) and setbacks. A performance based assessment has been submitted arguing the proposal is consistent with the scale, height and setbacks of surrounding developments and that the proposal will not result in adverse amenity impacts in terms of privacy, overshadowing, and view loss.

 

Objections were received with respect to the proposal and included the following: view loss, excessive FSR, streetscape impact, inconsistent with design of adjacent semi, overshadowing, privacy, roof drainage, inappropriate setbacks, precedent and loss of property values.

 

The assessment of the application reveals that whilst the proposal does not comply with FSR and setback preferred solutions, the proposal is consistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development, is appropriate in the streetscape and will not result in adverse overshadowing, privacy, drainage or view loss impacts subject to conditions.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed development seeks Council consent for the following works:

 

·    demolition of the attic section of the dwelling and outbuilding at rear,

·    internal alterations to the existing ground floor involving a reconfiguration of rooms, new bathroom and laundry, new open plan living/dining/kitchen at rear,

·    addition of a new first floor containing a bedroom, ensuite and study,

·    new car parking space within front yard,

·    new front fence.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Tower Street slightly south of its intersection with Melrose Parade, Coogee. The site contains a regular rectangular shaped allotment with dimensions 40.53m x 6.165m/6.24m and an area of 240.3 sq.m. The site contains a semi-detached dwelling with 3 bedrooms (including one bedroom and an ensuite located in the attic). The front fence to the site is a 1.8m high thatch fence. Adjacent to the south of the site is the other half of the semi-detached dwelling. The two halves of the semi are different in size, shape, scale, form and design. The adjacent dwelling to the north is a recently completed two storey dwelling. Further to the south is another recently completed large three storey dwelling at 11 Tower Street.

 

The area consists primarily of single and two storey residential dwellings exhibiting a variety of shapes and forms interspersed with three to four storey multi-unit housing developments. There is no consistent dwelling type, design or pattern in Tower Street.

 

  

 

Image shows 9 Tower on left and 7 Tower on the right behind the trees.

 

      

 

       No 11 Tower Street to the south of the site. No 9 & 7 Tower taken from the southeast.

 

    

 

            Dwelling nearly finished adjacent to the north of the site at 5 Tower Street.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A pre-lodgement meeting was held with respect to the proposal on 22 December 2003. At the meeting and by way of correspondence, issues were raised with the applicant with respect to landscaped area, FSR, solar access, design in relation to semi-detached dwellings and view loss.

 

The development application was submitted on 19 March 2004 and the applicant has submitted amended plans on 15 September 2004 that reduce the size of the first floor bedroom and set the first floor elevation 1m further back from that originally proposed, alter the roof shape and removes the privacy screen to improve the views to the adjacent property to the north.

 

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

Jason Young & Catherine Downs

5 Tower Street

Clovelly NSW 2031

 

Submitted 6 objections in total for the following reasons:

 

·    Statement says that no views are affected and this is a knowingly misleading statement,

·    The current proposal obliterates ALL water and coastline views from our main living space. This is not in keeping with the principle of view sharing,

·    The proposed balcony is oriented to a very busy public walkway; therefore the proposed large side privacy screens and roof serve to impede our view whilst not facilitating privacy,

·    Adverse visual impact to streetscape created by an inconsistent design.

·    Upper level should be setback to improve views, retain the existing line of site and FSR reduced to achieve compliance.

·    The proposal is for one half only of a semi detached cottage to have a first floor addition sited at the very front of the semi with a balcony and roof extending further forward than the existing downstairs front wall.

·    The proposed roof would protrude seven metres in front of the existing roof. It is not uncommon for semis with first floor additions on one side to extend 2 or 3 metres ahead of the roof, this proposal does seem excessive.

·    The impact on us would be obliteration of all water views from the main living area of our property at number five. Currently we enjoy views of the coastline to the south. Our home is designed around this view and we plan to make this our home for many years to come.

·    The proposed FSR exceeds the DCP preferred ratio by 14 sq.m.

 

Peter & Sheryn Verran

1 Melrose Pde,

Clovelly NSW 2031

 

·    Setback – our property has 2 balconies and main living area looking directly into the proposed main bedroom, we therefore request a set-back of 2 metres and one-way glass in balcony doors.

·    Guidelines – Randwick Council guidelines for 2nd storey additions in semi dwellings state that a set-back of within roof line be kept. This is not the case in this development.

 

Richard Salmon

2 Hamilton Street,

Coogee NSW 2034

 

·    Box gutter will cause water penetration problems to 9 Tower Street.

·    Intrinsic problems with box gutters include: corrosion of materials exacerbated by the high salt content of the sea spray, failure of the sealants at lapped joints, failure due to tradesman walking on it, pending due to buckling and lack of adequate fall, corrosion due to pending of water, blockage due to obstruction weeds growing in silt build up, blockage due to objects such as paper and plastics blown up onto the roof, birds nests and dead birds, in heavy downpours the water can shoot over the rainwater head or gutter at the open ends, overflow at the sides under flashings due to blockage occurring.

·    It is noted that the application exceeds the floor space allowed by Council.

 

L C Hunt

9 Tower Street

Clovelly NSW 2031

 

·    The front extension will increase shading to the front courtyard area at 9 Tower. It will lessen the already minimal hours of sunlight to that area.

·    The proposed balcony at 7 Tower will directly overlook my courtyard and will afford no privacy whatsoever. The courtyard is used regularly as an outdoor area for eating, reading, gardening and to enjoy the pleasure of the only remaining water aspect. The privacy screen erected at the southern end of the balcony would only fulfil the purpose of providing privacy if there was an adjoining balcony at 9 Tower. There is not.

·    The proposed 600mm increase in height to the roof of the ground floor at the rear of the property will result in significant increased shading.

·    No attempt made to setback behind existing roof form,

·    Poor aesthetic effect that will impact streetscape.

·    Whole roof should slope away from 9 Tower.

·    Strong objection to the box gutter which will cause water problems with water flowing onto roof and into property at 9 Tower Street.

 

Jim Demetriou Consultants

On behalf of Jason Young and Catherine Downs

46 St Pauls Street,

Randwick NSW

 

·    FSR significantly exceeds the Council maximum by 14 sq.m or an excess in length of 3.30m. If the proposed upper addition were to be reduced by this length along with the removal of the upper deck and associated privacy screen, then the excess in FSR would not impact as much on my clients and their views would remain.

·    The proposed development does not comply with several performance requirements of the DCP. The excess FSR result sin view loss, adversely impacts on the streetscape and the adjacent semi-detached cottage with its excessive bulk and scale.

·    The proposal is one half in a pair of semis and the adjacent semi will be significantly and adversely impacted in terms of scale, bulk, and streetscape by not locating the bulk behind the existing roof ridge line.

·    In relation to the building design, there is no justification put forward by the applicant to suggest that Council should look favourably on allowing the upper floor addition in this proposal to be sited so far forward of the front of the main existing roof form.

·    Loss of views. There will be an absolute loss of views from any position in 5 Tower Street. Submitted photomontages show this. There is nothing restricting the applicants ability to modify the design to enable view sharing by shifting the upper level behind the building line.

·    Proposal would set an undesirable precedent.

·    Resale value of semi will be affected.

 

5.2  Support

 

J Goodridge & R Roberts

11 Tower Street,

Clovelly NSW 2031

·    Support the quality renovation,

·    We know Council will act professionally and fairly.

 

N Watt

1 Tower Street,

Clovelly NSW 2031

 

·    I do not have any objections with the design of 7 Tower Street. It incorporates the objectives of the DCP, heights, set backs, view sharing, overshadowing and privacy.

·    I do not have any issues with the contemporary style of development.

·    In conclusion this proposal considers the fact that we live in an urban environment and has been designed accordingly.

 

6.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

- Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

- 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:-

 

Residential

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

No adverse impact, site minimally visible from foreshore but blends in with two storey context, shapes and forms

 

6.1  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).

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

S2  Private open space

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

 

 

S9  Solar access to solar collectors on adjacent buildings maintained between 9.00am and 3.00pm each day.

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

NA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NA, part of a semi, adjacent dwelling has no north facing windows.

 

 

 

Complies. Proposal improves solar access to adjacent southern property by demolition of rear garage

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Neighbours solar access improved at rear due to demolition of shed. 3 hours to adjacent yard achieved with good solar access in afternoon.

 

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.

 

 

Condition to be imposed ensuring compliance.

 

 

NA for alterations and additions.

 

 

 

 

Condition to be imposed ensuring compliance.

 

 

Condition to be imposed ensuring compliance.

 

Condition to be imposed ensuring compliance.

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Complies, 51% provided.

 

 

Complies. 68.4 sq.m. rear yard.

 

 

Complies. Rear yard 6.24m x 11m.

 

Complies. Private space both at front and rear.

 

 

Complies. The rear space becomes more usable with the demolition of the rear shed which results in a larger  yard that is more accessible to solar access.

 

 

 

 

 

 

33.3% of the site is soft permeable. Large areas in the front and rear yards contain turf or plants.

The proposal increases the permeability by removing the rear shed.

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

>30 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

>600m2            0.5:1

No.

Site area 240 sq.m. Total GFA 170 sq.m. FSR 0.72:1 exceeds 0.65:1 by 0.07:1. see section 7.1.1 below

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

S5  Second storey potion of a semi is confined within a existing roof space or setback from the front elevation and respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi.

 

Complies. External wall height varies between 6.2m and 6.5m.

 

NA.

 

 

 

Complies. Proposal consistent with other two storey buildings with similar setback and contemporary style facades.

NA

 

 

NA

 

 

NA

 

 

Complies. 2nd storey is 11.5m long on boundary.

 

 

 

 First floor set infront of roof pitch. Roof of semi not traditional roof. See assessment section 7.1.3, Height Form and Materials.

 

Complies. View analysis provided, see assessment section 7.1.4 View Sharing.

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

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

 

Rear Setback

 

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

 

Side Setback

 

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

 

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

Front Setback

 

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

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Proposal is set slightly back from adjacent building to north to allow views.

 

 

 

 

Complies. The existing rear setback of 10m remains unaltered.

 

 

 

NA.

 

 

No setback to southern boundary, setback to northern boundary 800mm to 1.5m. Does not comply. See section 7.1.2 Building setbacks

 

 

NA

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed first floor balcony has no northern privacy screen to preserve views to the adjacent neighbour.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies, proposal improves surveillance from the new first floor bedroom.

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies. Fence and garage door 50% open.

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 maximum of 1 in 6. The gradient for the first 5m from street not more than 1 in 8.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

Complies. 1 space required. No spaces onsite currently. 1 proposed in front yard.

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

NA

 

 

 

 

 

Driveway width 38% of block width. This is acceptable given very narrow block width of 6.24m.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

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).

NA.

 

 

Complies. A full height thatch fence exists currently. Proposal provides full height garage door, front door and wall, most of which is 50% open.

 

Proposed height mainly 1.8m high. Height to be reduced to 1.8m throughout.

 

7.     ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

7.1  Floor Area

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale, compatible with the existing character of the locality and also minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65 :1 applies.  The proposed development has and FSR of 0.72:1 which exceeds the DCP preferred solution by 0.07:1 or 16.8 sq.m.

The applicant submits the following reasons to justify the departure from the preferred solutions:

 

·      The bulk of the proposal is less than the neighbours on either side,

·      The scale of development is similar to the neighbour to the south but less than the neighbour to the north,

·      The bulk of the proposed development is less than some neighbours in the area, equal to some neighbours in the locality and greater than some neighbours immediately opposite,

·      The two storey scale of the proposal is typical of modern buildings in the locality,

·      The bulk and scale of the building as seen from the street is one which is broken down by the use of solid and void spaces, balcony, screens, nib walls,

·      The proposed development fits well with its neighbours,

·      The proposed building has a similar scale to other modern dwelling houses in the locality,

·      This proposal allows view sharing between neighbours to obtain some views of the foreshore and beyond,

·      The area in question is undergoing change and this proposal reinforces the nature of the street,

·      The proposal will aid in enhancing the neighbourhood,

·      The street character will be improved by the design and scale of development,

·      There are no adverse environmental impacts occasioned by the proposed development,

·      Complies with the objectives of the zone.

 

The proposed exceedance in floor space of 16.8 sq.m is relatively minor. The envelope of the proposed first floor is much smaller than the first floor envelope of the nearest two storey buildings at 5 and 11 Tower Streets in terms of both length and width. From the street, the proposal will appear as a two storey development that is consistent with (if not less than) the height and scale of the newer developments at 5 and 11 Tower Street. The proposal will not be out of character with the adjacent half of the semi and will not appear excessively bulky as it only protrudes forward of the roof line by 4.5m (of which half of this is obscured by roof). The removal of 16.8sq.m of floor space to ensure strict compliance with the preferred solutions will not result in an improved design or better amenity to neighbours. The bulk and scale of the proposal is lesser than surrounding buildings and the numerical non-compliances is borne mainly out of the very small lot size of 240 sq.m. It is considered that the FSR proposed for the site and the bulk and scale of the proposal are consistent and compatible with adjacent and surrounding development and there would be no advantage to adjacent and surrounding neighbours in terms of amenity by imposing strict compliance with the preferred solutions. The minor exceedance in FSR is therefore considered reasonable, and the proposal meets with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

7.2  Building Setbacks

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours, and with respect to front boundary setbacks that the proposal generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape.

Preferred solutions include that side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level and 1.5m at first floor level, and that no part of the building is closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary.

 

The proposed first floor has no setback to the southern boundary as the building is a semi and the proposed setback to the northern boundary is 800mm to 1.5m.

 

The non-compliance to the northern boundary is for a length of 5.5m in the middle of the building and the separation between the two first levels where the non-compliance occurs is 1.6m. It is considered that the non-compliance is minor and that given the separation is between a bathroom and a bedroom and provided appropriate materials are used in the glazing of the window, the separation is not unreasonable. Solar access to the northern side of the building would not be advantaged by a reduced setback as the adjacent dwelling to the north is a large two storey building sited on slightly higher ground therefore completely overshadowing the proposed first floor addition. The separation is considered sufficient in terms of ventilation given the site is located within 100m of the coast and is subjected to constant coastal winds and breezes year round. 

 

The non-compliance to the southern boundary is unavoidable given the house is one half of a semi detached dwelling. Complete compliance with the first floor setback requirements on both sides would result in an awkward shaped first level that would be too narrow to be rendered usable and would appear out of character in the streetscape which exhibits symmetrical two storey buildings.

 

The proposed setbacks are therefore considered reasonable and do not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjacent neighbours.

 

7.3  Height, Form & Materials

 

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

The relevant performance requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets.

 

Preferred solutions include that the external wall height of the building not exceed 7m, the length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a side boundary, and that 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 respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

The proposed development complies with the height requirements and is consistent with the intent of the DCP in proposing a two storey development. The surrounding area is characterised by two storey development and the proposal is consistent with this setting.

The proposed 1st floor has a length of 11.5m to the northern boundary and 3.5m to 4.5m to the southern boundary, most of which is obscured by the adjacent roof form.

 

The proposed first floor sits forward of the central roof pitch of the semi’s. The roof form of the existing semis is not uniform in that no 9 Tower Street has a hipped shaped roof and no 7 Tower Street (ie the subject site) has a gable roof protruding from the hipped midsection. The intent of the control is ensure that additional storeys are kept behind the roof pitch to reduce their visibility from the street and preserve the roof shape and façade of the semi. In streets where there is a consistent and unaltered roof pattern, it is important to keep the integrity of the roof shape to maintain the character of the streetscape. Tower Street contains one semi-detached dwelling at no.s 7 and 9. The streetscape exhibits a variety of one and two storey dwellings in an array of styles and forms. The proposed additional first floor to the site is therefore not inappropriate given the existing semi does not have a uniform roof shape worthy of preserving, is not located in a street where there is a large number of high quality preserved semis, and is not of a excessive bulk and scale that would make it detract from its other half.  The contemporary look is appropriate in a street which has undergone recent development change. If this application were approved, it is likely that the other half of the semi would be redeveloped at some time in the future to form a contemporary two storey semi.

 

The addition forward of the roof pitch is therefore considered appropriate and meets with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

7.4  View Sharing.

 

The DCP requires thatbuildings are designed to allow a sharing of views”.

 

The subject clause does not state what is view sharing or when view sharing is reasonable. In this regard, Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004) has established a planning principle for the concept of view sharing:

“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 based on the following:-

 

1.   An assessment of the view affected,

 

Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views.

 

2.   An assessment from what part of the property views are obtained,

 

Protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

3.   An assessment of the extent of the impact,

 

This should be done for the whole property, not just the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sales of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

4.   An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact.

 

A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

The proposal will result in view loss from the first floor of the adjacent building to the north, known as 5 Tower Street, Coogee. The nearly finished development at 5 Tower Street contains a first floor balcony and a full wall height window to the living room facing the southern boundary. Concerns were raised by the residents of 5 Tower Street with respect to view loss of the coast, bay and island to the south as a result of the first floor addition. In response to this the applicant set the first floor back a further 1m, deleted the side privacy screen and changed the roof shape in an attempt to improve the view to the adjacent neighbour.

 

         

 

1. View to south-east from living room         2. View to south-east hard up on living

window at adjacent dwelling to north            room window at adjacent dwelling to

at 5 Tower Street                                           5 Tower Street

 

  

 

3. View to the south from front balcony        4. View to south-east from balcony of 5

of 5 Tower Street.                                          Tower Street.

 

  

 

5. View impact from living room of 5            6. View impact from amended proposal

Tower St under original proposal.

 

1. Assessment of the view affected.

 

Views available to 5 Tower Street are two-fold. Firstly, views are available to the southeast from the front balcony (shown pictures 3 and 4 above) to the ocean, wedding cake island and the coast. Views to the south and southwest from the front balcony are largely obscured by 11 Tower Street (shown in pictures 3 and 4 above). Secondly, views are available from the side boundary south facing living room window. Views from the living room window are mainly to the southeast and include the ocean, wedding cake island and part of the coast line as well as 11 Tower Street (depending on where you stand within the living room – photos shown above in pictures 1 and 2). The water views and wedding cake island (icon) views are considered to be high value views.

 

2. Assessment from what part of the property views are obtained.

 

The view partly affected by the proposal is to the southeast from the south facing living room window of the first floor of 5 Tower Street. There is no view loss to the first floor front balcony of 5 Tower Street. Depending on where you stand in the living room, views are currently available to all areas just mentioned. In the amended proposal, part of this view is blocked by the awning to the balcony (shown in picture 6 above). You would see the same amount of view sitting as you would standing as the window is full wall height.

 

View Loss to side boundary living room window at 5 Tower Street.

 

The view loss from the living room window depends on where you stand in the room and how far from the window you stand. If one were to stand close up to the window and look south, part of the view to the south would be blocked. If one were to stand several metres back from the window on a 45 degree angle, the view is partly obscured by the balcony awnings (as shown in picture 6 above) however the first floor building envelope is not visible. The line of site to obtain views from the living room window (which faces a side not a front boundary) at 5 Tower Street is entirely over the subject property at 7 Tower Street. The proposed first floor setback is inconsistent with the setback of the dwellings at 5 and 11 Tower Street which are both sited 1m forward of the proposed development. A preferred solution of the DCP is to maintain a consistent front building alignment in the street. This was the original proposal (shown picture 5 above) however the development was pulled back 1m to improve the views to the adjacent neighbour at 5 Tower Street. The floor level of the proposed first floor is also lower than the first floor level of 5 Tower Street (due mainly to a fall in land height but also because 5 Tower Street has higher ceiling heights). Given the height controls and setback requirements in the DCP and that the view from the living room window is to a side boundary, it is reasonable to expect that the proposed first floor should be in alignment with 5 Tower Street and the outlook from the side boundary living room window lost. This is not however the case, primarily because the applicant has amended the plans pulling back the upper level to open up a view passage to the ocean from the living room window of 5 Tower Street. The roof of the awning structures slightly obscures this view and their deletion would result in a clear view to the ocean and wedding cake island from most of the living room, standing or sitting. It is considered that the proposed design preserves the predominant view lines from the side boundary window at 5 Tower Street, even though the court recognises that the expectation to retain these views is often unrealistic.

 

3 Assessment of the extent of the impact.

 

The impact of view loss is to the living room side boundary window at 5 Tower Street for a small area if one were to stand hard up to the window and look directly south. There is no view loss to the front balcony and no other rooms in the dwelling have significant views.

 

4  Assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact.

 

The proposed development does not comply with Floor Space Ratio or side setback solutions of the DCP. The issue of view loss is not associated with floor space, rather it is front setback. A development that fully complied with floor space requirements could easily be subject to the same problem in trying to have a consistent front setback with surrounding buildings but in doing so creating a view loss to the side boundary window of 5 Tower Street. The issue of view loss is therefore tied more closely in this instance with setback rather than floor space (which the exceedance is relatively minor in any case). The proposed development will have virtually no impact to the views of the southeast currently obtained from the front balcony. The proposed development in terms of the view from the front balcony is therefore considered reasonable.

 

In summary, the primary ocean view available to 5 Tower Street is from the balcony. It is considered that the view from the side living room window, whilst significant, is a secondary view. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has made significant amendments as mentioned previously to preserve the view. It is considered that these efforts significantly reduce the view loss impact and result in a reasonable view sharing outcome.

 

The proposed first floor setback in terms of view loss is therefore supported subject to conditions ensuring the view is not blocked and the awnings are deleted.

 

7.5 Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

The objective of the DCP is to ensure that new buildings and additions meet the occupant and neighbours requirements for visual and acoustic privacy.

 

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

 

The proposed first floor front balcony creates overlooking opportunities to the front yards of adjacent properties. Whilst privacy to these yards is important, they do not constitute the primary open space to the adjacent dwellings whose main yard area is at the rear. View loss impacts would be created by the implementation of privacy screens to the proposed first floor balcony for the subject site and the adjacent dwelling to the north. View loss is a significant issue in the area where views of the coast, ocean and wedding cake island are highly valued by residents. It is considered that the minor overlooking to the front yards of adjacent dwellings by the balcony is not significant to warrant privacy screens given good privacy is available to the rear yards.

 

Cross viewing is available between the proposed front balcony and the adjacent first floor balcony to 5 Tower Street. The proposed first floor balcony is located slightly lower than the 5 Tower Street balcony due to a fall in land height between the buildings and differing floor to ceiling heights. The amended plans removed the side privacy screen to preserve neighbours views to the coast. To front balconies, which are highly visible from the street, privacy is not highly valued over views. The proposed cross viewing is therefore considered reasonable.

 

7.6  Fence

 

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.

 

Comment: The front fence to the site currently contains a full height thatched fence. It is proposed to remove this and replace it with a full 1.8m – 2m high front door, wall and garage door. The proposed vehicle access door and front door are made of timber slats and are 50% open. The portion of the site covered by a full height wall is 2m. It is not considered that this is a significant width to require a redesign given a high degree of cross surveillance will be available via the two doors. Given there is a context of unopen high front fences/walls, the non-compliance proposed is for a short 2m distance and the proposal results in a vastly significant improvement in terms of casual surveillance, no objection is raised.

 

7.7   Issues raised in submissions not already addressed in report.

 

·      Adverse impact to other half of semi adjacent to the property at no 9 Tower Street (on southern side) as a result of the proposed box gutter.

 

Comment: The applicant has redesigned the pitch and shape of the roof so that the bulk of the roof water drains to a central area and then to the northern side of the site. The proposed box gutter drains water from its own surface and no other roof surface. Notwithstanding this, there are still maintenance issues relating to the cleaning of the box gutter. It is considered that a condition can be imposed to ensure that the box gutter is kept clean and tidy at all times.

 

8    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development is generally consistent with the aims, objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The proposed development is consistent with the bulk and scale of adjacent and surrounding buildings and does not result in adverse amenity impacts to neighbours by way of privacy, overshadowing or unreasonable view loss. The proposal is recommended for approval subject to 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 04/00188 to Demolish rear shed and attic, reconfigure ground floor and new first floor addition containing bedroom, study and ensuite at 7 Tower Street, Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A01b – A04b, dated March 2004 and received by Council on 15 September 2004 and plans numbered A05b and A07b, dated July 2004 and received by Council on 15 September 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3          At no time shall any privacy screening devices be placed or erected on the northern side of the first floor balcony. The glazing to the first floor balustrade shall be clear/transparent glass.

 

4          The fence on the street alignment is to be a maximum height of 1.8m at any point, to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the adjoining development and streetscape.

 

5          All plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rainwater heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within the building.

 

6          The proposed klip-lok metal awning to the upper level front balcony and roof overhang at the front elevation shall be deleted.

 

7          External clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

8          The box gutter is to be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure no water spillage to the adjacent properties.

 

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

 

9          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.

 

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

 

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

 

11        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.

 

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

 

13        All new landscaped areas must contain a predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

Landscaped areas must include an area and facilities dedicated for onsite composting and porous paving should also be used in all pathways, wherever practicable, to maximize on-site absorption of rainwater and details are to be provided on landscape plans if new landscaping is proposed.

 

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:

 

14        Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter and details are to be included in the construction certificate details for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

15        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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

·          has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $3,000.

 

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

 

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

 

17        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:

 

18        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.

 

19        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.

 

20        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.

 

21        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.

 

22        The building works are to be inspected by the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) to monitor compliance with Council’s approval and the relevant standards of construction.

 

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant building inspections, is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

25        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

 

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

 

27        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.

 

28        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.

 

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

 

29        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.

 

A         ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

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

 

            a)     Part 3.1                        -           Site preparation

            b)     Part 3.2                        -           Footings and slabs

            c)     Part 3.3                        -           Masonry construction

            d)     Part 3.4                        -           Framing (floors, walls and roofs)

            e)     Part 3.5                        -           Roof and wall cladding

            f)      Part 3.6                        -           Glazing

 

            g)     Part 3.7                        -           Fire safety

            h)     Part 3.7.1                     -           Fire separation

            i)      Part 3.7.2                     -           Smoke alarms

            j)      Part 3.7.3                     -           Heating appliances

 

            k)     Part 3.8                        -           Health and amenity

            l)      Part 3.8.2                     -           Room heights

            m)    Part 3.8.3                     -           Facilities

            n)     Part 3.8.4                     -           Natural and artificial lighting

            o)     Part 3.8.5                     -           Ventilation requirements

 

            p)     Part 3.8.6                     -           Sound insulation

            q)     Part 3.9                        -           Safe movement and access

            r)      Part 3.9.2                     -           Balustrades, design, location and height

            s)     Part 3.11                      -           Structural design manuals

 

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

 

A2       The applicant is advised that the development consent plans do not indicate compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia and compliance may necessitate variations to the development consent plans.  In this regard, any variations which alter the configuration, size, for, layout or design of the building, may necessitate an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application), and Council’s Building Surveyor or an Accredited Certifier should be consulted prior to the lodgement of an application for a Construction Certificate.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 configurations

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

LUKE JACKSON

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 84/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

88 Beach Street, COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

11 October, 2004

FILE NO:

912/2003

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No 912/2003 for the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a new, 3 part 4 storey multi unit housing development containing 6 dwellings and basement carparking for 13 vehicles with rear lane access.

 

 

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 6 August 2004.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

6 August, 2004

FILE NO:

03/00912

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolish existing buildings and erection of a new part three part four storey multi unit housing development containing six dwellings and basement carparking for 13 vehicles with rear lane access.

PROPERTY:

 88 Beach Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Seaside Development P/L, C/O SPD Town Planners, Spiro Stavis/Genevieve Slattery, Level 5, 110 -114 Kippax St, Surry Hills

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Councillor Murray Matson, and former Councillors Marjery Whitehead and Judy Greenwood.

 

The proposed application is for the demolition of existing buildings and removal of trees onsite and the erection of a part 3/part 4 storey multi unit housing development containing six dwellings and a basement carpark accessed via a car lift accessed off Beach Lane at the rear. Reconstruction and widening of Beach Lane is proposed to ensure adequate vehicle access to the site. The application is the subject of amended plans which have reduced the height of the overall development and the upper level bulk by setting back the upper floor from the front and rear elevations.

 

The subject site is located in a 2B zone and contains a two storey residential flat building with a double garage at the rear. The surrounding area exhibits a variety of development types and scale from single storey dwellings to four storey multi-init housing developments.

 

The proposed development does not comply with the numerical floor space ratio (FSR), height and external wall height requirements and State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objections have been submitted arguing that the proposal is consistent with the general height, bulk and scale of adjacent and surrounding development and that the proposal will not result in significant amenity impacts in terms of privacy, overshadowing, view loss and solar access.

 

Objections were received to the proposal and included the following: excessive height, FSR, external wall height, scale and bulk, privacy impacts, amenity impacts, overshadowing, tree loss, parking issues, impacts to lane, construction impacts to lane and buildings, view loss, streetscape issues, overdevelopment, non-compliance with zoning and setting a  precedent.

 

The assessment of the application reveals that whilst the proposed development does not comply with the numerical height and floor space standards, the proposal is consistent with the scale and bulk of adjacent development, the proposal will not visually dominant the streetscape and will be consistent with the adjacent buildings in terms of height and scale from the street level.  The proposal has also been designed to minimise impacts to adjacent developments in terms of view loss, privacy and overshadowing. The proposal generally complies with the objectives and performance requirements provisions of the Multi-Unit Housing Development Control Plan and provides adequate parking and vehicular access.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed development seeks Council consent to demolish the existing buildings on site and erect a part three /part four storey development containing 4 x 3 bedroom units and 2 x 2 bedroom units sited over a basement carpark. The carpark is accessed via a car lift from a driveway accessing Ocean Lane at the rear. The carpark at basement level contains 11 spaces, 1 visitor/carwash, 1 resident and 1 waiting bay are proposed to be located at the rear of the site on ground level.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Beach Street slightly north of its intersection with Arcadia Street. The site contains a rectangular shaped allotment with dimensions 17.01m x 48.16m (southern side boundary)/48.925m (northern side boundary) with a total area of 820.3 sq.m. The site level falls 8.5m from the rear to the front of the site and has a cross fall of 1.5m from the north to the southern boundary. The site contains a two storey residential flat building with a double garage at the rear which is accessed off Beach lane. The site is located behind a high retaining wall that fronts Beach Street and there is a considerable drop of some 4m – 5m from the footpath to the actual carriageway. Several large trees are located at the site including a pine tree at the front of the site and a palm tree at the rear of the site.

 

Development adjacent to the site is a three storey multi-unit housing development to the south which curves around the corner of Beach Street and Arcadia Street and a part three part/four storey residential flat building to the north known as “Wandal”. Both of these buildings have a front setback to Beach Street of approximately 6m – 6.5m. Development to the rear of the site across Beach Lane is a two storey dwelling which has a balcony that captures extensive views over the development at 90-96 Beach Street towards the Ocean and Coogee. Across Beach Street to the east are one and two storey dwellings. The area consists of a mix of residential uses and scales from single freestanding dwellings to four and five storey multi-unit housing developments.

 

    

 

   1. Subject site taken from the northeast.            2.Tree in front of subject site and adjacent “Wandal” units at right.

 

    

 

3. Adjacent units to south.                         4.Windows of the adjacent units to the north, facing the boundary of the subject site

 

    

 

5.Rear of site with palm that obscures views.     6.Rear of site showing current vehicle access.

 

    

 

7.Entry point to Beach Lane from Alison Rd. 8.View of ocean and Coogee from rear lane.

 

    

 

9.Dwelling at rear across Beach Lane.               10.Beach Lane looking north.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A pre-lodgement application (PL -0014/03) was submitted to Council on 18 March 2003 to demolish the existing building and structures and erect a multi-unit housing development comprising 7 units with basement carparking. Concerns were raised by Council officers with respect to the excessive height, floor space and bulk of the building which appeared to be designed more to 2C zone controls. It was suggested in the letter to the applicant dated 23 April 2003 to delete the entire upper floor or significantly reduce its apparent scale.

           

The current development application was submitted to Council on 7 October 2003 and was notified extensively and advertised on 22 October 2003. The plans were similar to the pre-lodgement plans and Council officers held several meetings with the applicant after the end of the notification dates requesting amendments to the proposal to reduce the height, bulk, scale and associated impacts to adjacent and surrounding properties. Objections to the original proposal are listed in section 5.1 Objections, following. In response to meetings with Council officers, several amendments were discussed and plans received on 1 April 2004 reducing the overall height of the proposal, reducing the upper level and number of apartments (This resulted in the deletion of 1 unit, a reduction in FSR from 1.02:1 to 0.91:1 and a reduction in height from 12.9m to 11.8m). The roof terrace was also deleted and the rear of the building further reduced by 570mm by way of amended plans submitted on 9 June 2004. The amendments were renotified and objections to these plans are outlined following in section 5.1 Objections.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised and in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Objections to the original plans notified and advertised on 22 October 2003 are as follows:

 

Stephen O’Neill

351 Alison Road, Coogee

 

·    Overdevelopment of block resulting in another high rise building that will appear almost 8 stories high from Beach Street

·    The impact of 13 cars continuously using a grossly under prepared road, along with the transportation of materials by trucks, which are going to be at a minimum large tip trucks, be taken into account.

·    Concern over the impact of the trucks on the hedge which is the boundary and the retaining wall the road sits on. If the trucks use this road for access that wall will almost certainly collapse towards the house bringing sections of road with it.

 

Keith Murdoch,

91 Beach Street,

Coogee 2034

 

·    Significant height non-compliance in 2B zone. Corridor effect created by a combination of the height and setback too close to boundary.

·    Height will create privacy issue by providing direct view into courtyard and kitchen. Existing structure complies with height restrictions, the new one should too.

·    Removal of long established trees causing privacy issue. Ocean views at expense of privacy has already occurred at 96 Beach St, residents are determined not to have a repeat of this.

·    Serious violations occurred while 96 Beach was being constructed (eg trucks and cranes arriving at 5am, excess noise outside of hours, no observance of rules and regulations which was also not enforced by Council).

 

Mrs Hargraves

79 Beach Street,

Coogee 2034

 

·    Proposal does not comply with 2B zone, exceeds height and given existing high retaining wall, the proposal would tower above and overshadow the eastern side of beach Street.

·    Four storey development completely unsuitable on the site and does not conform to the LEP.

 

Jacqui Guy

68 Beach Street

Coogee 2034

 

·    12 metre height of building in breach of existing 2B zoning.

·    Density proposed is in excess of 2B zoning.

·    Inappropriate vehicle access to parking via Beach Lane South; safety concerns re entry to Alison Road. Lane is too narrow for 13 vehicles.

·    Tower design would provide a corridor effect.

 

Chris Noonan & Glenys Rowe

PO Box 2124,

Clovelly NSW 2031

 

·    Removal of trees that are integral part of streetscape. Removal of these would reduce amenity.

·    Contravenes 2B zone. Maximum allowable height is 9.5m yet plans propose 12m.

·    Density exceeds limits of 2B zone. Approval would set a dangerous precedent.

·    Character of street would be undermined by an aesthetically uncharacteristic design.

 

John Langford

President

Randwick Residents Action Group

42 Mount Street

Coogee NSW

 

·    Proposed FSR of 0.89:1 exceeds the maximum FSR permitted by 37%. Proposed height exceeds maximum height and external wall height by 36% and 84%.These excesses mean the proposal is unlikely to be compatible with the neighbourhood.

·    Some buildings in the area exceed density and height controls including older buildings and newly approved ones. The existence of these buildings provides no sound planning grounds for new development to exceed current 2B standards.

·    Traffic ingress-egress via lane off Alison Road appears inadequate to serve the proposed and existing development. Garbage trucks already have problems accessing the site.

 

John & Del Buchanan

83 Beach Street

Coogee NSW

 

·    Gross non-compliance with density, height and wall height pertaining to 2B zone. Approval would set a precedent.

·    Applicant sites adjacent developments as justification for exceeding standards but this is weak. Restrictions were imposed to limit the size of buildings. The height would be greater than for “Wandal” and the proposal is higher than the older building (ie “Wandal”) which sits higher up the slope.

·    Rear lane access for vehicles is required. Lane is too narrow and garbage trucks and other large vehicles have access difficulties. Reconstruction of lane is needed to make lane usable. These facts suggest the scale of the new development should be minimised.

·    SEPP 1 should not be supported.

 

M C Knibbs

349A Alison Road,

Coogee NSW 2034

 

·    A change in zoning would have to be made to before the application could be considered.

·    Height and floor space exceedances.

·    Height is incompatible with adjacent buildings.

·    Given impact created by the proposed carpark, it is fanciful to suggest that Beach Lane can be widened. The lane is predominantly laid up to the boundaries of all existing properties in the lane and can’t be widened.

·    Removal of large trees replaced by building which will result in loss of early morning sun.

·    It is not necessary for the proposed building to exceed height and FSR requirements except for the need of the developer to achieve maximum financial and commercial benefit.

·    Beach lane should not be used as a means of egress/ingress for construction, materials and equipment when the lane has just been resurface. Earth moving equipment and heavy machinery associated with construction will damage the lane.

·    Property at living level has ocean views to the east across the top of the existing property and no such views will be available because of the height proposed.

 

Rohan Delikhan

6/84 Beach Street,

Coogee NSW 2034

 

·    Concern over number of additional vehicles accessing the lane as there is already significant congestion in the lane. 9 or more vehicles at peak time will make it very difficult getting in or out.

·    Object to widening the lane by tearing down hedges and plant life (which attract birds and insects). The lane has character and is one of the last of its kind reflecting the areas more rural roots.

·    Object to removal of two black pine trees which are a hundred years old, provide privacy, shade and the wonderful scent of pine.

·    Large footprint, large number and size of apartments, creating a densely populated block.

 

Keith Murdoch

91 Beach Street,

Coogee NSW 2034

 

·    Height substantially outside restrictions imposed by 2B zoning. Corridor effect created by height, setback and adjacent buildings.

·    Height invades privacy. New structure should comply with all requirements.

·    Removal of trees results in privacy loss and maximises views onsite.

·    Strong objection to removal of old tree on eastern boundary.

 

Glenn & Jennifer Atkins

89 Beach Street,

Coogee NSW 2034

 

·    Application breaches zoning restrictions of height and floor space.

·    Privacy issues and tree preservation,

 

Marise & Stephen Weir

87 Beach Street,

Coogee NSW 2034

 

·    Breaches zone restrictions of height and density, building as high as building to the north, creates a corridor effect.

·    Loss of trees creating privacy issue.

 

Peter Dean & July Slatyer

(owners of 5/84 Beach Street, Coogee),

Martin Street,

Brighton Vic 3186

 

·    Proposal is too big and is wrong for this residential zone. Proposed height is far too high,

·    Proposal significantly exceeds external wall height.

·    Proposal is way over FSR by 25%. Combined result of height and floor space non-compliance means the proposal achieves an additional level.

·    Proposal will block out light, outlook and views from all the southern windows without relief. Unit 5 has all views to Coogee Beach and Wedding Cake Island lost.

·    Problematic parking and load on the lane is understated.. Beach Lane is a dangerous point for pedestrian vehicular conflict, footpath should be considered. Also has a blind bend and a steep exit onto Alison Road. Entrance often gets blocked due to accidents.

·    Noise of garage door and lift mechanism.

·    Privacy invaded by a number of balconies overlooking all south facing windows of 84 Beach Street.

·    Landscaped areas comply but are unsympathetic to established trees and offer little visual separation and attract a large number of native birds. The large trees on the northern boundary should stay.

·    Footpath on Beach Street should be kept open at all times during construction. Beach Lane should also be kept open at all times during construction. Designated construction vehicle zone should be acquired and not in front of neighbouring properties driveways.

·    Oppose roof space as recreation areas as they create noise and privacy issues.

 

       James & Lesley Allen

       Unit 7/84 Beach Street,

       Coogee

 

·    Breaches LEP. In particular, the  zoning, height and floor space. Cumulative non-compliances create an obtrusive building in height, size and bulk. Proposed plantings will not soften impact of building and will take up to 20 years to reach maturity.

·    DCP – Multi-Unit Housing.

-     Privacy issues created by roof top terrace and associated noise.

-     14m wall length on northern elevation, exceeds 10m max. Elevation will be mainly blue and black brick with some timber cladding creating an intimidating and cumbersome appearance. Use of light and unobtrusive building materials complementing existing vegetation has not been considered.

-     Balconies and windows coupled with location of main entrance is problematic. Noise from pedestrian access will be intrusive. Privacy or residents along southern boundary at 84 Beach Street will be dramatic.

·    Application does not consider SEPP 65 or refer to it.

·    Development breaches RCC controls. Blatant disregard of council’s controls along with applicants audaciousness that council should overlook these discretions sets a dangerous precedent.

·    Supporting documentation on streetscape, character and visual qualities by Dr Richard Lamb does not even reference council’s LEP when reviewing the proposal.

·    No consultation was undertaken with surrounding residents when writing the report referred to above. If such an approach was taken it would have ensured a better understanding of residents expectations.

·    Suggestions are made for conditions.

 

       Ralph Slatyer

       (owner unit 1/84 Beach St)

54 Musgrave St

Yarralumla

 

·    Endorses objection from 5/84 Beach Street.

·    Breach of clauses 32, 33(1), 33(3) and 42 of LEP.

·    Proposed structure is too high (cl.33(1)), walls are too high(cl.33(3)) and the floor space is too large (cl.42), use of roof serves as another floor.

·    Outlook form all south facing windows of 84 Beach St would be severely compromised and concerns are raised for the loss of views from unit 1 (clause 42).

·    No provision for view sharing. Front walls of proposed structure should be no closer than the present building.

·    Access and parking is a problem and this would be made worse by the proposal unless careful attention is given to it both during construction and later.

·    I oppose the use of roof space for recreational purposes. It would generate noise and invade privacy and other structures would be built which would effectively add another floor.

·    The large trees are attractive, provide privacy and provide a habitat for birds. They should not be removed.

 

Mrs Z Kaye & Mr Snow

2/84 Beach Street,

Coogee

 

·    Damage to bird life. Objector notes a variety of species including rare ones which use the tree.

·    Top two storeys are excessive. Footpath along the fence line will create noise and privacy problems. FSR indicates too many people.

·    Excessive cars will create vehicular conflict along the very narrow lane. No construction traffic should be allowed in the lane.

·    Bond should be imposed to ensure adjacent buildings aren’t damaged during construction.

 

Glenn & Jennifer Atkins

Residents Against Non-Compliance

89 Beach Street,

Coogee

 

·    Development creates a dangerous precedent.

·    Development is in clear breach of zoning controls.

 

Leigh Sutherland

2 Moore St,

Coogee 2034

 

·    Plan should be rejected because it does not comply with the 2b zoning.

·    All development in the area should comply.

·    Zoning reflects that the area should not be covered with flats.

 

Keith Murdoch

91 Beach Street

Coogee

 

·    Area is zoned 2B, the proposal contains elements that clearly come with 2C zoning, setting a precedent without rhyme or reason except developer wants to maximise return on the development.

·    Removal of old trees and associated wildlife.

·    Use of rooftop will erode privacy and promote noise pollution.

 

Willana & Associates (on behalf of Peter Dean)

PO Box 170

Randwick NSW 2031.

 

·    Non-compliance with 2B zone, FSR, height and external wall height,

·    Multi-Unit housing DCP

-     Site Planning. Proposal should be scaled down as the lot is narrow.

-     Height. Potential loss of privacy and views should be considered in height to minimise the amenity impacts to adjoining residents and the streetscape.

-     Building Setbacks. Maximum length of wall and potential impact to loss of privacy and streetscape issues.

-     Density. Appropriate bulk/height needs to be considered in relation to adjacent buildings.

-     Privacy. Impact to property to north from windows and balconies of proposed residences.

-     View Sharing. Impact of view loss and view sharing needs to be considered given excessive height.

 

       Jacqui Guy

      68 Beach Street

Coogee 2034

 

·    12m height of building in breach of existing 2B zoning,

·    Density proposed in excess of 2B zoning,

·    Inappropriate vehicle access to parking via Beach Lane South; safety concerns re entry to Alison Rd.

·    Tower Design would provide “corridor effect”.

 

Objections to the amended plans notified and advertised on 30 June 2004 are as follows:

 

       John & Del Buchanen

       83 Beach Street,

       Coogee 2034

 

·    Strong objection to the plans.

·    Lists changes proposed.

·    Questions relevance of FSR being 0.71 if floor space below existing ground level were ignored.

·    Proposal complies neither with height nor floor space requirements of the LEP.

·    Allowing the proposal would seriously compromise the integrity of the LEP that residents believe Council should be defending.

·    Some six months of time have already been wasted on this proposal. It should now be firmly refused.

·    Maximum height and external wall height of building is 9.95m, thus both maximum allowable building height of 9.5m and the maximum allowable wall height of 7m are exceeded.

·    New FSR is 0.91 or 40% greater than the FSR permitted.

·    FSR is 0.71 if the floor space below ground level were ignored – so what? The below ground floor area cannot be ignored and in any case the density would still be greater than the allowable 0.65:1 FSR.  FSR for a neighbourhood primarily concerns the population density and bears upon the amenity and adequacy of the services and infrastructure nearby.

·    Amended proposal grossly exceeds height and density controls and the SEPP 1 objections should be rejected and the application refused.

 

James & Lesley Allen

7/84 Beach Street,

Coogee NSW 2034

 

·    Expectation for Council to undertake its responsibility and ensure all new proposals comply with the LEP,

·    Contravening controls, which have gone through extensive community consultation and which set the ground rules for developers to work with, without reasonable justification indicates blatant disregard for amenity of area for the short term gain of developers.

·    The resubmitted plans still conflict with the LEP in that:

-     The maximum height of the building above ground level is still the parapet of the SE corner of the top floor and, at 9.95m, it still exceeds the 9.5m maximum allowable heights in a 2B zone.

-     The maximum allowable wall height (7m) is exceeded at the same location by nearly 3m.

-     While there has been a reduction on floor area, the proposed figure is 40% above the maximum permissible in the LEP. Confusion over intention referred in the letter that if the floor space below the existing ground level were ignored, the FSR would only be 0.71:1.

·    Application should be firmly refused due to non-compliances.

 

Rohan Delikhan

6/84 Beach Street,

Coogee, NSW, 2034

 

·    Maximum height of building exceeds that allowable in a 2B zone – ie 11.4m on the southern elevation and 9.95m in the southeast corner.

·    Rooftop terraces are likely to significantly impact on my building in terms of privacy and noise. These common areas should not be allowed in the development.

·    The FSR proposed is 0.91 compared with 0.65 maximum permitted by the LEP. Whether or not some of this is below ground seem irrelevant as high GFA allows a high population density which again has significant noise, traffic and privacy implications for the neighbourhood around Beach Lane.

·    Size and extent of excavation could damage building at 84 Beach Street.  The building currently has no structural problems. Possibility of damage to buildings structure and foundations seems quite high given the steep slope and large retaining wall.

·    Development at 96 Beach Street caused damage to the retaining wall and this has not been repaired.

·    Concern that a structure outside the zoning requirement will have a great impact.

·    How does developer guarantee no damage will occur to my building? If there is damage will the Council bear responsibility for timely rectification?

 

Paul Worcester

4/84 Beach Street,

Coogee NSW 2034

 

·    Strong objection as plans still do not comply with the 2B zoning in the following areas: FSR 0.91:1 is still 40% greater than the LEP 0.65 maximum, The maximum height exceeds allowable, maximum external wall height exceeds maximum.

·    No assessment undertaken on the stability of the Beach Street retaining wall and the stresses created by the excavation process. Precedent has been set with the collapse of the Arcadia St retaining wall after the 96 Beach Street development damaged it and repairs have not been completed.

·    Yet another example of overdevelopment by stealth. 

·    Traffic in beach lane will be dangerously increased and the entry/exit point into Alison Road is inadequate to deal with the increased traffic.

 

Chris Noonan and Glenys Rowe

82 Beach Street,

Coogee NSW

 

·    Strong objections as the proposal still doesn’t comply with the Zone 2b objectives.

·    Maximum wall height of building is 7m while the planned wall height of this building reaches 10m. Maximum height above ground level should be 9.5m, where in this case it is 9.95. The maximum floor space allowed is 0.65 in a 2B zone and this plan offers 0.91:1.

·    The developer has made an effort to amend plans since the original submission, but the original plans were outrageously non-compliant.

·    We regret that these plans still do not fit in with local guidelines and urge that it must be rejected on the basis of the preservation of the purposes and characters of the different zonings within the municipality.

 

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  Building and Construction 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.

6.2  Engineering Issues

 

An application has been received for construction of a residential flat building at the above site containing 7 units with basement carparking via a car lift.

 

Landscape Comments

There are several trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order at this site that will be affected by this proposal. All existing trees are shown as being removed on the plans provided, and approval is granted for this as they are all either insignificant, in poor condition or unsuitable.

 

There are two (2) Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palms), about 2m tall in the front yard along the southern boundary. Approval is granted for the removal of both of these palms.

 

There is one Metrosideros excelsa (NZ Christmas Tree) in the front yard near the front property boundary. It is a poor specimen, and as such, approval is granted for its removal.

 

There is one Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) on the small grass nature strip above the retaining wall. To avoid future encroachment of fronds onto the public footpath, this palm should also be removed.

 

There is one tree (species undetermined), approximately 7 metres in height along the front property boundary that appears in poor condition. Approval is granted for the removal of this tree.

 

There is one large Pinus species (Pine tree) approximately 8 metres in height by 6 metres in width, in the northeast corner of the front yard. Although this tree is large, it is exotic in origin, and considering its excessive leaf and fruit fall, approval is granted for its removal subject to more suitable advanced native trees being provided in its place.

 

There is another Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) in the front yard, about 3 metres tall, near the northern property boundary. Approval is granted for the removal of this palm

 

There is one Lagunaria patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus) approximately 7 metres in height in the front yard, near the northern side of the site. It is considered insignificant, and as such, approval is granted for its removal. To the west, there is one dead Metrosideros excelsa (NZ Christmas Tree), about 6 metres tall that should also be removed.

 

In the rear yard, there is one Erythrina x sykesii (Coral Tree), of approximately 10 metres in height, close to the northern boundary. It appears in reasonable condition and provides screening and privacy between this site and the adjacent block of units to the north; however, approval is granted for its removal subject to more suitable native screen trees being provided in its place.

 

There is another large Pinus species (Pine tree) of approximately 12 metres in height and 8 metres in width in the rear yard. It is quite significant, however, as stated for the Pine tree in the front yard, due to their non-native origin as well as excessive leaf and fruit fall, it would be more appropriate to remove this tree and replace it with more suitable native trees. To the south of this tree, there is another Pinus species (Pine Tree), about 9 metres tall. It is a poor specimen, and as such, approval is also granted for its removal.

 

There is one Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) and one Erythrina x sykesii (Coral Tree), both about 4-5 metres tall at the rear of the site. Neither is considered significant, and as such, approval is granted for their removal subject to replacements being provided within the site.

 

The proposed use of Olea europaea (Olive Tree) is not supported due to this species self seeding properties, and is to be replaced with a suitable alternative on the landscaping plans and planting schedule submitted for the construction certificate application.

 

Councils’ Landscape Technician requests that further details/supporting documentation be provided, with the Landscape Plan for the Construction certificate, regarding the proposed tree plantings over the excavated basement carpark, in order to ascertain whether this proposal is feasible.

 

Drainage Comments

 

On-site stormwater detention is not required for this development however the stormwater discharge from the site is not to exceed 25 litres per/second for the 1 in 20 year storm

 

Traffic Comments

The DPCD Dept is advised that the AIS Dept has discussed the increasing  submissions  with car lifts and has concluded that it does not support any proposed car lifts due to:
The proposal may cause queuing and reversing out on to Council’s roadway.
Possibility of mechanical malfunction making the carpark useless indefinitely.

 

Inability to condition the development to ensure it has suitable strata funds to carry out repairs.

 

Should the DPCD Dept consider approving the proposed car lift they should consider including conditions which deal with the following:

 

·    Training of all residents using the car lift be required as part of the strata management. The training of the residents should be conducted by suitably qualified instructor.

 

 

 

·    Details of the car lift operation and safety requirements should be included in any contract of sale.

 

·    Sufficient strata management fees are available for necessary mechanical repairs.

 

·    The proposed waiting bay fronting Beach Lane be suitably signposted for exclusive use as a waiting bay.

 

The DPCD Dept is to determine whether the carpark layout complies with Council’s DCP

Parking.

 

BEACH LANE RECONSTRUCTION COMMENTS

The DPCD Dept is also advised that the AIS Dept does not support vehicular access from Beach lane without major reconstruction of Beach Lane to allow vehicles to pass safely at its northern end. The applicant has agreed in principle to this requirement and details submitted after a recent meeting between the AIS Dept and the applicant’s representatives has shown that Beach Lane can be reconstructed to provide satisfactory vehicle travel path at the northern end of Beach Lane.
The AIS Dept would like the actual extent of works and its design resolved prior to issuing a Construction Certificate. The AIS Dept has included relevant conditions in this report.

 

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 – Multi Unit Housing

-     Development Control Plan – Parking

-     S94 Contributions Plan

-     Building Code of Australia

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31 - Landscape Area

 

31 (2) 50% of total area or 410.15sq.m.

 

31 (3) Not more than 50% over basement (max 205 sq.m)

413.45 sq.m. (50.4%)

 

 

191.10 sq.m.

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

32 - FSR

0.65:1

0.91:1

No (SEPP 1 Objection refer below)

33 - Building Height

33(3) 7m External Wall Height

 

 

 

3

 

3 (1)9.5m overall height

 

 

 

4.5m - 11.4m (11.4m maximum only occurs at stairs to roof, average height between 8.5m and 10m).

 

 

4.5m - 11.4m (11.4m- as above, maximum at stairs to roof, average height between 8.5m and 10m).

 

No (SEPP 1 objection, refer below)

 

 

 

No (SEPP 1 objection, refer below).

 

 

(b)   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1

 

The applicant has submitted two SEPP 1 objections for non-compliances relating to Clause 32 (1) Floor Space and Clauses 33(1) Height and 33(3) External Wall Height. The reasons provided for the non-compliances are listed below.

 

SEPP 1 Objection to Clause 32 (1) - Floor Space.

 

(a) The character, size, bulk, scale, height, setbacks and external appearance of the proposed development are not inconsistent with that of other development in the vicinity

 

The proposed development is of a high quality design and is not inconsistent in character, size, bulk, scale height, setbacks and external appearance with the existing adjoining development and other development in the immediate locality, namely the adjoining buildings at Nos. 84 and 90 – 96 Beach Street, and the three and four storey scale of existing residential flat buildings to the east, south east and south of the site.

 

(b) The proposed development provides appropriate useable private and communal open space areas for future residents

 

The LEP requires the provision of 50% of the site area as landscaping.. The proposed development satisfies this minimum requirement with the provision of 50.4% of the site area as landscaped area, of which 222.35 sqm or 53.8% is soft landscaping.

Each dwelling will have private open space areas in the form of substantial sized decks having areas and dimensions in significant excess of the numerical requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

 

Communal open space is located around the perimeter of the site.

 

(c) There will be no unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining properties

 

The proposal is satisfactory in terms of its potential impacts on adjoining properties in respect of overshadowing, loss of privacy, and views and visual impacts.

 

Privacy

 

The proposal has been designed to minimise privacy impacts to the proposed units and to surrounding neighbours. Potential overlooking is limited by way of separation distances, difference in levels, the incorporation of privacy screens, location of windows and use of landscaping. The proposal will not impact on the amenity of future occupants of the development or adjoining properties in terms of loss of privacy.

 

Overshadowing Impacts

 

Extent of overshadowing is within acceptable limits. During mid winter there will be a limited impact from shadows to windows to living areas contained in dwellings in the adjoining building to the south. The private open space to neighbouring dwellings will continue to receive more than the minimum three hours of sunlight during the worst part of the year.

 

Overshadowing impacts are considered acceptable and the development complies with the intent of the objectives in relation to solar aspect.

 

Views and Visual Impacts

 

The proposal is larger and bulkier than that which currently exists. The proposal has a similar setback to adjacent buildings and is compatible in height and side setbacks with neighbouring buildings. Existing views to the south and southeast for the front balcony of the two storey dwelling to the rear will not be impacted by the proposal.

 

Compliance with the objectives of the zone and purpose of the standard.

 

The development is consistent with the underlying purpose of the floor space ratio development standard in that:

 

·    it is not inconsistent with other development in the locality in terms of its design, character, height, bulk, scale, size, and setbacks and the amount of private open space afforded,

·    the height of the building is consistent and compatible with that of existing adjoining development and other development in the vicinity along Beach Street, and the bulk and setbacks of the proposed building provide an appropriate infill building from within the streetscape,

·    it contributes positively to the desired future character of the streetscape and the locality,

·    it will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy or views, overshadowing and visual impact;

·    it will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of the existing residential development of the area nor will it result in any unreasonable adverse impacts;

·    it provides adequate open space areas for private and communal recreation;

·    it is not inconsistent with the scale and character of the streetscape.

·    If the area below existing ground level were excluded from the GFA calculations due to the fact that it poses no adverse impact on adjoining properties or streetscape, the proposal would have a GFA of 584.3 sq.m, representing an FSR of 0.71:1. This is a departure of only 51.105sq.m or 9.58% from the 0.65:1 development standard.

 

Comment: The proposed development has an FSR of 0.91:1 resulting in a non-compliance of 0.26:1 or 213 sq.m. The proposed fourth level (ie the top floor) is set back from the proposed third floor below by 3m – 4m fronting Beach Street. The lower three levels have a consistent setback with adjacent development. This has the effect of reducing the buildings visual bulk from the street frontage and the road level further below, giving the building the appearance of a three storey development. This design allows a visual transition between the bulk of the adjacent building to the south and the adjacent building to the north effectively marrying their bulk. From street level the proposal will appear consistent with adjacent buildings and will not visually dominate the streetscape nor will it detract from it.

 

The bulk of the building is stretched along the site and the building envelope is much longer than the adjacent buildings (12m longer than the adjacent units to the south and 15m longer than the adjacent building to the north). The buildings length is articulated with a narrow section in the middle (containing stairwell and lift) which essentially creates two segments.

 

The additional bulk at the rear does not result in adverse amenity impacts to adjacent buildings in the form of privacy loss, overshadowing, overlooking, or significant view loss as is discussed in greater detail in section 7 of this report.

 

The surrounding development in the area exhibits buildings of varying scale which currently exceed the FSR control for the 2B zone. Notably, 90 Beach Street (adjacent to the subject site on the south side) was approved by Council with an FSR of 1.06:1 in December 2000, on the basis of the existing use rights that applied to the site, and that a significant amount of the floor space that was proposed below ground level, thereby not contributing to the overall bulk and scale of the building.

 

The level of floor space proposed in the subject development above ground level is 0.71:1 which provides for a resultant built form which will be consistent with the scale of adjacent and surrounding buildings.

 

It is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and that despite the large numerical exceedance in floor area, the proposed bulk of the building is compatible with adjacent buildings and will not result in additional amenity impacts to adjacent and surrounding residents (matters relating to privacy, shadowing, etc are addressed further in the report).

 

SEPP 1 Objection to Clause 33 – Height.

 

Clause 33(1) – The maximum height for a building …….within Zone No 2B is 9.5 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.

 

Clause 33(3) The maximum height for any external wall of a building …….within Zone No 2B is 7metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the underlying purpose of the floor space ratio development standard in that:

 

·    it is not inconsistent with other development in the locality in terms of its design, character, height, bulk, scale, size, and setbacks;

·    the height of the building is consistent and compatible with that of existing adjoining development and other development in the vicinity along Beach Street, and the design, bulk and setbacks of the proposed building provide an appropriate infill building form within the existing Type 7 streetscape,

·    it contributes positively to the desired future character of the streetscape and the locality,

·    it will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing, views and visual impact,

·    it will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of the existing residential development of the area nor will it result in any unreasonable adverse impacts, and

·    it is not inconsistent with the scale and character of the streetscape.

·    The original design had a maximum ridge and external wall height of 12.9m to the southern face of the glazed elevation. The proposal has now been reduced to 11.4m at this same position,

·    The parapet on the eastern front has been reduced by 2.26m resulting in a maximum height of 9.95m (on the S/E corner),

·    In addition to lowering the building across the entire site, the amended proposal has removed much of the area previously identified by Council as being bulky, namely the front and rear elevations, by setting back the uppermost levels from the perimeter of the building, which has had an effect of also improving views from the units on the upper floors to the north, looking back across to Coogee Beach.

·    The reduction in height has improved the proposal’s performance in terms of overshadowing of adjoining properties, as is evidenced in the shadow diagrams.

·    The rear elevation varies between 7.74m on the north western corner and 8.74m on the south western corner. The front elevation has a height of 8.5m on the northeastern corner. In this regard, the front and rear elevations of the amended proposal are fully compliant with the 9.5m maximum building height.

 

Comment: The proposed height has been reduced significantly from the original application. The front and rear elevations have been redesigned to remove significant bulk. Setting these levels back significantly reduces their visibility from the street and lane.

 

From the southern elevation, the proposal exceeds the maximum height of 9.5m for a very small portion at the front elevation and through the middle of the site (at the stairwell and for a small part over the front half of the building). The height exceedance for these points varies between 30cm and 1.9m (in the middle to the stairwell). Due to the fall in height across the site, the height to the southern elevation will always be much higher than the northern elevation. The unusual slope of the site makes it difficult to design a building in full compliance with the height controls whilst being consistent with the height of adjacent buildings. The steep slope from front to back and side to side poses a significant design challenge requiring appropriate and sensitive stepping and setbacks in the design to ensure the building relates to the topography of the site and the adjacent buildings without creating amenity impacts. The external wall height on the southern side is the same as the overall height. The external wall height however is exceeded throughout.

 

From the northern elevation, the entire building sits well below the 9.5m height line except for a small section toward the front of the building where the building protrudes through the 9.5m height line by approximately 20cm. The 7m external wall height maximum is generally exceeded however the height is less than the adjacent “Wandal” building to the north.

 

The exceedances in height proposed are consistent with adjacent buildings which have external wall heights varying between 7m and 12m. Importantly, the adjacent buildings have a three to four storey bulk/height consistent with the proposed development. From the streetscape the proposed height will bridge the height of the two adjacent buildings. The proposed development will not appear as the dominant element in the street nor will it appear out of context with the adjacent and surrounding built forms. The additional height does not result in privacy, view loss or overshadowing concerns as discussed further in this report.

 

The proposed height is considered to be appropriate and the objection under SEPP 1 is well founded.

 

(c)    State Environmental Planning Policy 65 (SEPP 65).

 

The proposed development was referred to the panel meeting of 10 November 2003 who commented as follows:

 

INTRODUCTION

 

It was noted that this was a development application and the first Panel meeting with the applicant.

 

A copy of the ten SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles are attached.  The Panel’s comments, set out below, are to assist Randwick Council in its consideration of the application, and to assist applicants to achieve better design outcomes in relation to these principles.

 

The absence of a comment under any of the heads of consideration does not necessarily imply that the Panel considers the particular matter has been satisfactorily addressed, as it may be that changes suggested under other heads will generate a desirable change.

 

The Panel draws the attention of applicants to the Residential Flat Design Code, as published by Planning NSW (September 2002), which provides guidance on all the issues addressed below.

This document is available from the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources.

 

Note:

To address these Panel's comments, the applicant may need to submit amended plans.  Prior to preparing any amended plans, the applicant should discuss the Panel's comments and any other matter that may require amendment with the assessing Planning Officer.

 

When addressing the Panel's comments by way of amendments, if the applicant does not propose to address all or the bulk of the Panel's comments, and wishes to make minor amendments only, then it should be taken that the Panel considers the proposal does not meet the SEPP 65 requirements.  In these instances it is unlikely the scheme will be referred back to the Panel for further review.

 

PANEL COMMENTS

 

1.         Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The proposal fits well into its context and did not appear to adversely impact neighbours

 

2.         The Scale of the Proposal

 

The proposal is compatible with the scale of adjoining buildings.

 

3.         The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The buildings are well configured on the site, however it is suggested that a BCA check of the proposal be carried out.

 

 

4.         The Proposed Density

 

The panel, is aware that the proposal exceeds the allowable FSR for this area, however considers that it is not a matter for the committee to determine.

 

5.         Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Overhangs to windows and doors should be introduced on the northern elevation to provide shading and weather protection.

 

6.         The Proposed Landscape

 

The Panel is skeptical of the long term survival of the proposed roof top planting proposal.  An alternative planting solution is required such as podium planter boxes with a larger soil volume and the use of low growing hardy shrubs or ground covers.  Particular attention needs to be paid to species selection, given the exposed nature of the roof top terraces.

 

Boundary interface to the southern side of the property needs to be reconsidered to address levels, functionality, and practicality of planting and maintenance of the proposed raised planters shown on elevations.

 

Deep soil planting should be introduced at the rear of the site and around the car park area to achieve additional tree planting.

 

Substantial greening in the northern part of the site, where the large pine tree currently exists, should be provided.  Specific tree species should be nominated on the DA plans at the front of the site, (Beach St) Particular attention to species selection is required due to the exposed nature of the site.

 

A minimum soil depth of 1200-1300mm is required for planting upon podiums is required.

 

7.         The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

           

Small windows within the second bedrooms towards the rear of the site should be larger to increase daylight and cross ventilation. 

 

It is suggested that opportunities to increase solar access & light penetration through the use of top light windows, skylights and roof penetrations be explored.

 

The provision of a covered outdoor area for unit one would prove beneficial, to enable privacy and a useable open space area.

 

Stairwell to have translucent rather than opaque glass, to allow natural daylight to enter the building.

 

8.         The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

9.         Social issues

 

The Panel considers that a small adjustment to stairways and entries could make it easier to manipulate furniture within the building.

 

10.       The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The elevational proportions and treatments are satisfactory.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel would like to see the matters raised in this report addressed.  Subsequently the Panel believes that subject to minor amendments this proposal should progress to its subsequent stages.

 

7.1  Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan Multi Unit Housing

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

 (how applicant has achieved performance requirements or preferred solutions)

 

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

 

Front  boundary setbacks

P1 The front setback consistent with streetscape/adjoining dwelling.

Side boundary setbacks

P2 Ensure that:

     solar access is maintained and overshadowing minimised.

     privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their own spaces provided.

     Landscaping and private open space provided.

     Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 4 metres from any side boundary.

 

No part closer than 2.5 metres.

 

Maximum length one section of wall 10 metres

 

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

 

 

The front setback at 6 – 6.5m is consistent with the setback of the adjacent buildings.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies, average setback to both sides approximately 4m to 4.5m

 

 

 

Complies. Minimum is 2.5m with maximum 7.5m.

 

Complies. Maximum is 10m on southern boundary.

 

 

Complies.

 

 
Rear Boundary Setback

P3 Ensure that:

     solar access and overshadowing minimised.

·      Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

·      Building built across site.

 

 

S3 Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 6 metres.

 

 

 No part closer than 4.5 metres.

 

 

Maximum length of wall section 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

 

 

Complies. Minimum setback to rear of units is 6.5m (setback from car lift to rear is 1m).

 

Complies. Rear setback 6.5m to 8m. Walls of open air car lift protrude from rear setback to 1m from the rear boundary.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

General

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

 

 

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

 

 

Complies.

 

DENSITY

 

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms

 

 

 

Complies. The proposed FSR for the site is exceeded. This is consistent with surrounding buildings which also exceed density controls. The three storey appearance of the building is compatible with adjacent and surrounding buildings.

 

FENCES

 

P1

·      Front fences consistent  with  streetscape.

·      Entrances highlighted.

·      Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

 

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

 

 

 

Complies. No front fence is proposed. Due to the steep grade at the front and across the site, a terraced landscaped area is proposed. The wall height of the terrace to the street varies between 500mm and 1.2m

 

LANDSCAPING AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

 

Landscaped Areas

P1 Sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

 

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

 

 

Complies. Main communal landscaped areas are on the north side and at the front.

 

 

P2 Landscaped areas around flat buildings be undivided communal open space.

 

 

Complies. The main communal area is on the northern side boundary where a bbq area is provided.

 

 

Private Open Space

General

P3   

·      Provides privacy.

·      is accessible from main living areas.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Complies. All private areas are designed and oriented to achieve maximum privacy and adjoin living areas.

 

Complies. Front balconies and terraced areas are a feature of the streetscape to capture views to the east. The proposal is consistent with this context.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

All units easily comply.

 

PRIVACY

 
Visual Privacy

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Complies. Windows, walls, terraces and balconies are designed and angled away from openings to adjacent properties which minimises impacts between properties.

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Complies. Private areas design to southern side to avoid overlooking from units to the north.

 

VIEW SHARING

 

 
Acoustic Privacy

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

“Quiet areas” separate noise generating activities.

 

P4 Building construction minimises transmission of noise.

 

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

 

 

 

 

S4 Walls and floors insulation and sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia.

 

 

 

 

Complies. Conditions will be imposed to ensure compliance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies. View impacts from the proposal are to adjacent flats to the north and a two storey dwelling at the west. Building has been designed to ensure main views to adjacent buildings are preserved. This is assessed further below.

 

 

 

 

 

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies. The subject site is heavily overshadowed by the adjacent units to the north. The proposed building has been designed to enable maximum sun penetration from the west and the east.

 

Complies. No impact to living areas of adjacent units to the south. All living areas to those units front the street and are east facing.

 

Complies. Principle usable open space to adjacent southern units is to the front of the site. The rear landscaped area is a steep vegetated area which provides unusable but visually aesthetic space.  The proposed development casts shadows to this area however good solar penetration is retained to this space between 11am and 2pm at the winter solstice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Building Layout, Design and Construction

 

P4 Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

·      Living areas are orientated to         the north.

·      Larger windows are located on the north.

 

 

 

 

 

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

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars.

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

 

Note:

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies. All units achieve 3.5 to 4.5 stars.

 

Complies. Living areas at rear oriented to the north. Living areas to the front are oriented to the east and northeast.

 

 

P5   Roof design and orientation suitable for solar collectors.

 

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

 

Complies. The proposed large flat roof enables it to be used as a solar collector.

 

 

P6 Heat loss is minimised in plumbing and services.

 

 

Complies.

 

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.

 

 

 

High degree of surveillance provided by orientation of buildings and living areas to street.

 

Complies. Front walls are low height.

 

Complies, parking is internal.

 

 

 

Complies, visitor space clearly marked.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

Complies.

 

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.

 

 

 

Complies, parking accessed off rear lane.

 

 

 

1 space provided in the basement carpark..

 

 

 

 

 

Bike rack provided in basement carpark for three bikes. DCP requirement is 1 for every 3 units and proposal complies.

 

 

 

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
                           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 x 1.2 = 2.4

 

4 x 1.5 = 6

 

Total required for residential 8.4.

12 provided. Complies

 

 

Visitor parking is 1 space  per 4 dwellings.

 

 

2 visitors required. 1 provided. 1 resident space to be allocated to visitors. Resident space at ground level to be allocated to for visitors.

 

DRIVEWAYS AND MANOUVERING AREAS

 

P1 Driveways and manoeuvring areas minimised.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

 

S2  Vehicles enter parking spaces with a single turn and leave in no more than 2 turns.

 

 

Complies. Turning area provided within basement carpark and diagrams submitted showing turning circles.

 

 

P3 Driveways and access roads avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

 

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

P4 Space between boundaries and driveways, access ways and parking spaces enables landscaping and planting.

 

S4  Driveways have a minimum width of 3 metres and be at least 1 metre from any side or rear fence.

 

Complies.

 

 

P5 Materials and finishes consistent.

 

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

 

Complies.

 

 

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

 

S6  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6 or 1 in 5  for ramps over 20m (see Parking DCP).

 

No gradient. Lift proposed.

 

STORAGE

 

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Complies. Storage areas are proposed within the basement garage above the car parking spaces as well as internally within the units.

 

 

 

BARRIER-FREE ACCESS

 

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

 

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

 

Disabled access only available to the units by lift from the carpark. Access is constrained by the steep slope of the site.  Conditions to be imposed that compliance is achieved in accordance with BCA.

 

 

P2  Dwelling requirements are: 

 

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3  and so on.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

6 dwellings proposed, no barrier free units necessary.

 

 

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

 

 

NA.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

WASTE MINIMISATION AND MANAGEMENT

 

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities are  provided.

 

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

Holding at least a single day’s waste.

Landscaped areas provide composting.

 

Basement garbage storage areas provided and external garbage areas provided at rear. Complies with requirements. Conditions to be imposed.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

NA.

 

 

P3  Collection  facilities  complement design of t and is not obtrusive.

 

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

 

Facilities provided within the basement carpark and at the rear of the site. Facilities not visible from Street level.

 

 

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   Privacy

 

Balconies and terraces are proposed at all levels. These balconies are located fronting Beach Street to access views to the ocean, along the rear southern boundary to access views to Coogee Beach and small balconies are located at the rear and on the northern side of the front building. The balconies are positioned so that overlooking to adjacent properties is minimised.

 

The south facing balconies at the rear face the development to the south. The adjacent development to the south has main living rooms and balconies oriented to the east, southeast and south. The proposed south facing balconies will overlook the landscaping of the adjacent building (this is a large landscaped area sited on a steep slope which serves an aesthetic purpose only and is unusable)  to the south and the rear of the building which is predominantly wall area punctured with large bedroom windows. Due to the curving nature of the adjacent southern building and the orientation of the proposed balcony, the site line available to users of the balcony is directly south towards Coogee Beach. The distance between the balcony and bedrooms to the adjacent southern building that would be visible given the line of site is 21m at a minimum. This separation ensures a high degree of privacy between the buildings. Further, as the new landscaping to the rear of the adjacent southern building matures, a green visual screen will form providing additional privacy.

 

The balconies facing the east will provide views to the ocean and over the dwellings and their yards to the east (these dwellings front Moore Street, Beach Street and Arcadia Street). East facing windows to “Wandal” to the north and east facing balconies and windows to the adjacent southern property enjoy this view as well. Whilst the proposed development creates a view over many rear yards, these yards are located at a minimum 30m from the balconies and are located at a much lower elevation. The main site line from the balconies is over roof tops and it is not considered that the proposed balconies will significantly diminish the amenity enjoyed by surrounding residents. The sheer distance to the surrounding buildings effectively restricts any reasonable ability to overlook.

 

The proposed north facing balconies to the eastern section of the building have dimensions 1.2m wide x 4.4m long and serve to provide light and ventilation rather than usable private open space.  These balconies face the side windows of units located in the adjacent building to the north. The privacy impacts from this to the units in “Wandal” to the north are minimal due to their small size and because they are attached to the rear of the kitchen rather than a usable outfacing living area.

 

The west facing balconies to the rear at the first and second floors are attached to bedrooms. The second floor balcony is small and serves a light and ventilation purpose only while the first floor balcony is wedged in-between two bedrooms and is not in alignment with the main east facing balcony to the adjacent property to the west.

The proposed balconies are designed with consideration of the neighbours privacy and overall will have very minimal adverse impact to the amenity and privacy of adjacent and surrounding residents.

 

8.2 View Sharing

 

The DCP-Multi Unit Housing requires thatbuildings are designed to allow a sharing of views”.

 

The subject clause does not state what is view sharing or when view sharing is reasonable. In this regard, Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004) has established a planning principle in respect to the concept of view sharing:

 

“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 based on the following:-

 

1.   An assessment of the view affected,

2.   An assessment from what part of the property views are obtained,

3.   An assessment of the extent of the impact,

4.   An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact.

 

An assessment based on this method of analysis is provided for the potential view loss from the first floor of the building to the west across Beach Lane, known as 349A Alison Road, Coogee and “Wandal” at 84-86 Beach Street.

 

                           

 

1. View of ocean and Coogee from rear lane.

 

 

 

    

 

2.Rear of site with palm that obscures views.        3.Rear of site showing current vehicle   access.

 

349A Alison Road contains a two storey dwelling with a first floor balcony facing Beach Lane which has views to the southeast and south (of the ocean and Coogee beach). The main view is to the south and southeast over 90 Beach Street (shown in photo 1 above). The view to the east (across the subject site) is very limited (shown photos 2 and 3 above) and is greatly obscured by palm trees and the existing building. The view loss created as a result of the proposed development is relatively minor and is not considered significant given the commanding views to the ocean and Coogee beach to the south and southeast will remain. The proposed development will not have significant impact on view loss to 349A Alison Road Coogee.

 

Units located on the southern side of “Wandal” at 84-86 Beach Street (to the north of the subject site) have south facing windows. Units fronting Beach Street have large east facing sunrooms and part of the window faces south and captures views of the ocean and Coogee. The existing building and pine trees obscures any view to the south for the bottom two floors located within the “Wandal” apartments. The top floor south facing units within “Wandal” currently enjoy views to the south and south east. The proposed building has been designed to preserve and enhance views to the front unit and its sunroom by setting the entire upper level back behind the sunroom window and removing the existing trees.  It is considered that this is a good example of view sharing as the design is mindful of preserving existing views and is arranged specifically to allow this to occur. 

 

Overall, the proposed development does not result in unreasonable view loss impacts and is consistent with the principle of view sharing.

 

8.3 Solar Access

 

The subject site is located south of the large residential flat building to the north known as “Wandal”. This building casts significant shadows on to the subject site and restricts designs attempting to capture northern sunlight. Given this constraint the living rooms to the front section of the proposed development (which are most affected by the shadows) are oriented to the east to capture morning sunlight and the dining room is angled to the northwest to capture sunlight from that direction. This design ensures optimum solar penetration to main living areas and is supported. The rear units obtain good solar penetration from the north.

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the application demonstrate that the impact to the property to the south is mainly in the morning and afternoon. Good levels of solar penetration will be maintained to the adjacent southern property in accordance with Council guidelines.

 

8.4 Parking

 

The proposed development contains 11 residential spaces in the basement carpark (including a wider bay for disabled parking) and 2 spaces at ground level (1 for residents and 1 as a carwash/visitors space). The DCP requires 8.4 residential spaces and 1.5 (rounded up to 2) visitors spaces. The proposal therefore complies with residential space requirements but not visitors. A condition will be imposed requiring the two ground level spaces to be allocated for visitors spaces.

 

The proposed car lift is objected to by Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Section due to assumed maintenance and operational difficulties. The applicant has submitted a traffic and parking assessment by a suitably qualified consultant which concludes that the design and specifications for the lift will fully comply with the relevant Australian Standards for car lifts. No objection is raised to the car lift subject to conditions ensuring appropriate maintenance and operation.

 

The internal manoeuvring area within the basement car park is adequate. The applicant has provided turning circles which indicate that vehicles will be able to manoeuvre so that they can enter and exit in a forward direction.

 

8.5 Issues raised in Submission

 

·    The impact of 13 cars continuously using a grossly under prepared road, along with the transportation of materials by trucks, which are going to be at a minimum large tip trucks, be taken into account.

 

Comment: A traffic study was submitted with the development application. Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Services section has reviewed the traffic impact and has raised no objection. The traffic study submitted made the following conclusions:

 

-     The traffic generation arising from the development is very moderate and equates to one additional vehicle movement every 30 minutes at peak times. This will have minimal impact in terms of the performance of the road system. Notwithstanding, works are proposed that will result in improved safety and amenity and will benefit existing residents.

 

The rear lane proposed to be used for the subject development has very few properties that back onto it. The primary use for rear lanes is for vehicle access.  Even if the peak generation of vehicles in the lane was as high as five vehicles per half hour, the lane could easily cope given it is to be widened. It is considered that the proposed development will not significantly impact the lane and given the applicant proposes to widen the lane, no objections are raised with respect to the car park and its likely traffic generation.

 

·    Concern over the impact of the trucks on the hedge which is the boundary and the retaining wall the road sits on. If the trucks use this road for access that wall will almost certainly collapse towards the house bringing sections of road with it.

 

Comment: Conditions will be imposed ensuring the construction phase of the development is managed effectively.

 

·    Significant height non-compliance in 2B zone. Corridor effect created by a combination of the height and setback too close to boundary.

 

Comment: This matter been addressed previously. The proposed development will not create a corridor effect. The site is located on top of a 3-4m high retaining wall which fronts the carriageway at Beach Street. The opposite side or eastern side of Beach Street is sited at ground level and has one and two storey dwellings. The very nature of the street with its high retaining wall precludes a corridor effect unless development occurs to the east of Beach Street.

 

·    Removal of long established trees causing privacy issue. Ocean views at expense of privacy has already occurred at 96 Beach St, residents are determined not to have a repeat of this.

 

Comment: This matter is addressed in the landscaping section of the technical officers comments on section 6.2 Engineering Issues above. Council’s landscaping section supports their removal for replacement by native species. Loss of ocean views is also addressed in section 7.

 

·    Serious violations occurred while 96 Beach was being constructed (eg trucks and cranes arriving at 5am, excess noise outside of hours, no observance of rules and regulations which was also not enforced by Council).

 

Comment: The alleged non-compliance in other developments is not a matter for consideration in the subject application.  Conditions will be imposed to restrict construction hours and any breaches of the conditions will be subject to the regulatory provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

·    Traffic ingress-egress via lane off Alison Road appears inadequate to serve the proposed and existing development. Garbage trucks already have problems accessing the site.

 

Comment: A plan submitted for the widening of the lane will address these issues. Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Services Section supports the road widening subject to conditions.

 

·    Object to removal of two black pine trees which are a hundred years old, provide privacy, shade and the wonderful scent of pine.

 

Comment: This matter is addressed in the Technical Officers comments in section 6.2 above.

 

·    Beach lane should not be used as a means of egress/ingress for construction, materials and equipment when the lane has just been resurface. Earth moving equipment and heavy machinery associated with construction will damage the lane.

 

Comment: Access to the site via Beach Lane for construction purposes is the only viable means of accessing the site for construction vehicles. No objections are raised to this subject to conditions ensuring the lane is not blocked or damaged without rectification.

 

·    How does developer guarantee no damage will occur to my building? If there is damage will the Council bear responsibility for timely rectification?

 

Comment: Conditions have been imposed to ensure neighbouring properties are protected during the construction phase, including the requirement for a dilapidation report.

 

9    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development is considered appropriate for the site despite the non-compliances with floor space and height controls. The scale of development is consistent with surrounding development and the building will not appear out of context or dominant from the streetscape. The proposal will not result in the adverse loss of amenity to adjacent owners and overall is considered worthy of approval subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT the Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP No. 1) in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 33(1), 33(3) and 32(1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (relating to floor space ratio and external wall height) on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objective of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality, and that the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources be advised accordingly:

 

B.        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 03/00912 for demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a new part three part four storey multi unit housing development containing six dwellings and basement carparking for 13 vehicles with rear lane access at 88 Beach Street, Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01, dated 01.04.04  and received by Council on 12 August 2004, and plans numbered  DA 02 – DA 10, dated 09.06.2004 and received by Council on 12 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 car parking space designated for residents at the ground floor at the rear of the site adjacent to Beach Lane shall be designated for visitors purposes.

 

3.         The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be in accordance with the colour, materials and finishes board submitted to Council and titled “exterior finishes for 88 Beach Street Coogee” and received by Council on 7 October 2003.

 

4.         The proposed car lift is to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Australian Standards for car lifts. Details to be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

5.         Lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents or motorists and to ensure that light overspill does not affect the amenity of the area.

 

6.         A single common television aerial, and/or satellite dish (having a maximum diameter of 700mm and not located on the front or street elevation of the building) is to be installed to serve the development.

 

7.         In accordance with the provisions of clauses 143A and 154A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, a ‘Design Verification Certificate’ must be provided to the Certifying Authority and the Council, prior to issuing a construction certificate and an occupation certificate, respectively.

 

8.         All plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rainwater heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within the building.

 

 

ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & ENERGY EFFICIENCY: 

 

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

 

9          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.

10        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.

 

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

 

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

 

12        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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The tank is to be located a minimum of 1.5m 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 and landscape 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.

 

SECTION 94:

 

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

 

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

 

a)   for the provision or improvement of open space               $ 8196.00

b)   for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $ 3624.00

c)   Administration fee $425.00                                                         $ 425.00

 

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

 

(This calculation is based on a credit for the existing building which has 3 x 2bedroom units and 1 x 1 bedroom unit).

 

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

 

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

 

In this regard, the operation of the premises shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background (LA90), 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with Environmental Protection Authority guidelines for tonality, frequency weighting, impulsive characteristics, fluctuations and temporal content, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Environmental Noise Control Manual, Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

18        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.

 

19        A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration 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 and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

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:

 

20        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.

 

21        The location of the discharge point serving the car park mechanical ventilation system is to be not less than 6m from a property boundary and it must discharge vertically and satisfy the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1668.

 

Details of compliance are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

22.       Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of waste and recyclable materials.

 

A Waste Management Plan is to be submitted to Council and approved by Council’s Manager of Waste Services, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste; construction waste; materials to be re-used or recycled; facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and the on-going management of waste.

 

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

 

23.       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.

 

24.       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.

 

25.       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.

 

26.       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.

 

27.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

29.       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:

 

30.       A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby land/premises and the report is to detail any possible damage which may occur to adjoining or nearby premises that may be caused by the proposed building, excavation and shoring works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

32.       A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, including ancillary structures located upon:

 

§  All of the premises adjoining the subject site

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

35.       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.

 

36.       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.

 

37.       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.

 

38.       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.

 

39.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

41.     All building, demolition and associated site works (including the delivery of equipment, goods and materials to the site) 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.

 

42.     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works and the delivery of equipment, goods and materials 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.

 

43.     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.

 

44.     A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics/vibration shall be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council upon commencement of works, certifying that noise and vibration emissions from the construction of the development complies with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Noise Control Manual published by the Environment Protection Authority and relevant conditions of approval.  In support of the above it is necessary to submit all relevant readings and calculations made.

 

Should noise and vibration emissions not comply with the terms and conditions of consent, work must cease forthwith and is not to recommence until details of compliance are submitted to Council.

 

45.       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.

 

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

 

47.       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.

 

48.     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.

 

49.     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.

 

50.     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”.

 

51.     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.

 

52.     During demolition excavation and construction works, dust emissions must be minimised, so as not to result in a nuisance to nearby residents or result in a potential pollution incident.

 

Adequate dust control measures must be provided to the site prior to the works commencing and the measures and practices must be maintained throughout the demolition, excavation and construction process, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

·        Provision of geotextile fabric to all perimeter site fencing (attached on the prevailing wind side of the site fencing).

·        Covering of stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material with adequately secured tarpaulins or plastic sheeting.

·        Installation of a water sprinkling system or provision hoses or the like.

·        Regular watering-down of all loose materials and stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material.

·        Minimisation/relocation of stockpiles of materials, to minimise potential for disturbance by prevailing winds.

·        Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A soil and water management plan (SWMP) must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority and implemented prior to the commencement of any site works or activities.

 

The soil and water management plan must contain a site plan, detailing:

 

·      the slope of the land

·      site access points and access control measures

·      location and type of all sediment and erosion control measures

·      location of existing vegetation, to be retained

·      material stockpile or storage areas and methods of sediment control

·      location of existing and proposed drainage systems

·      proposed disposal of site water

·      location of building operations and equipment

·      proposed re-vegetation details

 

All soil and water management measures must be maintained at all times throughout demolition, excavation, building and site works and a copy of the soil and water management plan is to be kept on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

55.     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

 

56.     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.

 

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

 

58.     The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $5 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council.

 

59.     At no time shall traffic on Beach Lane be blocked by any vehicles (including construction vehicles) or materials before, during and after development of the site. At no time shall materials be stored on the public footpath/laneway and at no time shall any vehicle be parked on Beach Lane.

 

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

 

60.     The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the B.C.A. or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.  The smoke detectors located within the stairway, corridors or the like must be interconnected.

 

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

 

61        Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities being provided to the residential flat building, in accordance with Parts D3 and F2 of the Building Code of Australia. Details of compliance is required to be provided in the relevant plans/specifications for the construction certificate for the development.

 

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

 

62        Prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, the applicant must lodge with Council a Bond (i.e. a deposit refundable in terms of the approval) in the form of cash or cheque, or bank guarantee (acceptable under Council policy 3.02.08), for the amount of $150,000.00. This Bond is to ensure the reconstruction of Beach Lane as well as other infrastructure works conditioned in the development consent and making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Should the applicant wish to lodge a bank guarantee for the above amount the bank  guarantee is to have no set expiry period.

 

The Bond will be released upon the applicant meeting the costs and conditions for Council to carry out the infrastructure works and obtaining an occupation certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

Replacement of the asphalt footpath in Beach St with a concrete footpath and returf the nature strip to Council’s requirements.

 

Replace the existing timber rail fence adjacent to the footpath with a galvanized handrail located on top of the large retaining wall in Beach St.

 

Carry out all works associated with extending Council’s underground stormwater system up Beach St to opposite the site frontage.

 

Reconstruct Beach Lane as set-out in the design approved by Council’s Asset & Infrastructure Services Dept including a concrete heavy-duty vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

Construct a kerb and gutter for the full site frontage in Beach Lane except opposite the vehicular entrance and exit points.

 

64        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.

 

65        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.

 

66        Prior to the issuing of the construction certificate for the development the applicant must submit to Council for approval and have approved the following design and construction set-out plans approved by Council’s Asset & Infrastructure Services:

 

Reconstruction of Beach Lane going from the southern extremity of the site to Alison Rd.

 

Note: The applicant is to address retaining wall issues on all sides of Beach Lane at this location as well as the possible increase in the size of the dedicated splay at the northeast corner of 349a Alison Rd.

 

The applicant must contact Council’s Development Engineer Co-ordinator (John Flanigan – 9399 0924) or Council’s Manage Design (Frank Rotta – 9399 0906) regarding Council’s requirements for the extent of works and recommended design & set-out methods.

 

67        Prior to the commencement of demolition/building works the applicant is to have the northern end of Beach Lane reconstructed as per the Council approved plan mentioned in the previous condition.

 

68        Prior to the commencement of demolition/building works the applicant is have a Construction Traffic & Pedestrian Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified person in accordance with relevant standards outlining the proposed measures to be implemented during the construction stage/s addressing the following matters:

 

·    Proposed truck access routes including size and frequency of trucks.

·    Truck manoeuvrability via the reconstructed section of Beach Lane

·    Proposed measures used for pedestrian safety along Beach Lane and Alison Rd.

·    Proposed parking arrangements for trucks and construction workers.

 

Note: The plan is to be submitted to Council for approval prior to the commencement of demolition/building works.

 

69        Prior to the issuing of the construction certificate for the development the applicant must submit to Council for approval and have approved the following design and construction set-out plans approved by Council’s Asset & Infrastructure Services:

 

Extension of Council’s stormwater drainage line up Beach St to outside the site frontage. The applicant must contact Council’s Design Manager (Frank Rotta – 9399 0906) regarding the detail required on the submitted plans.

 

(Note: The applicant must meet the full cost for all works associated with approved drainage works. This shall include meeting the cost for Council to check the submitted design and to supervise the subject works)

 

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

 

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

 

Beach St Frontage -match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

Beach Lane Frontage - 60mm above the road centerline level in the laneway at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage.

 

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

 

71        The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the roadway in Beach Lane and the footpath in Beach St must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

72        The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $1,123.00 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.

 

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

 

73        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.

 

74        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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i.          Roof areas

ii.          Paved areas

iii.         Grassed areas

iv.         Garden areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

78        All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to the proposed extended Council drainage system at the front of the property in Beach St.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

81        A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system; and

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bay/s.

 

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

 

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

 

Notes:-

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

88      The garbage room areas will have to be designed so as to be able to contain a total of 8 x 240 litre bins (4 garbage bins & 4 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

89      The garbage storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste to the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

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

 

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

 

91        The landscaped areas shown on the plan number 3006-01, Issue B, dated 20/05/03, drawn by Peter Glass and Associates, shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, the certifying authority or {the Director of Assets & Infrastructure in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979}, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). The documentation is to include:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The applicant shall provide documentary evidence, from suitably qualified personnel, stating the proposed tree plantings over the excavated basement carpark are feasible, and are capable of sustaining the proposed trees for their life term.

           

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

                       

Olea europaea (Olive Tree) is to be deleted from the landscaping plan and planting schedule due to its self-seeding properties. Suitable alternatives shall be used in its place.

                       

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

 

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

 

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

 

g.         The landscape plan shall show a minimum number of 2 x 100 litre broad canopied trees (not palms) suitably located (deep soil areas) along the northern property boundary to compensate for the loss of several trees on this side of the site. The plan shall also show a minimum number of 2 x 75 broad canopied trees (not palms) suitably located (deep soil areas) elsewhere within the site. The trees selected shall be of a species that attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

           

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

 

i.          The plan shall respect the prevailing coastal influences and the coast's special design considerations and requirements, and shall be designed accordingly. Generally, species selection shall be restricted to local indigenous coastal species, that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

j.          In order to reduce the amount of stormwater generated from the site, porous paving shall be used in all pedestrian pathways not over the excavated basement carpark or ‘on slab’. Details are to be provided with the construction certificate application.

 

k.         Location of easements within the site and upon adjacent sites (if any).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

94        The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu Turf or similar. Such works shall be installed prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

Tree Management

 

97        Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 2 x 100 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) along the northern side of the site, as well as 2 x 75 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) elsewhere within the site. The species selected shall be those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

d.   Two (2) Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palms), in the front yard along the southern boundary.

e.   One Metrosideros excelsa (NZ Christmas Tree) in the front yard near the front property boundary.

f.    One Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) on the small grass nature strip above the retaining wall.

g.   One tree (species undetermined), along the front property boundary.

h.   One large Pinus species (Pine tree) in the northeast corner of the front yard.

i.    One Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) in the front yard, near the northern property boundary.

j.    One Lagunaria patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus) in the front yard, near the northern side of the site.

k.   One dead Metrosideros excelsa (NZ Christmas Tree), in the front yard, near the middle of the site.

l.    One Erythrina x sykesii (Coral Tree), in the rear yard, close to the northern boundary.

m.  One large Pinus species (Pine tree) in the rear yard, close to the northern boundary.

n.   One Pinus species (Pine Tree) in the rear yard, to the south of the large Pine tree.

o.   One Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) and one Erythrina x sykesii (Coral Tree), both at the rear of the site.

 

98        A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque for the amount of $7,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

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

 

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

 

Advisory Conditions

 

1.         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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a) Part C3        -         Protection of openings

b) Part D3        -         Access for people with disabilities

c) Part E1         -         Fire fighting equipment

d) Part E2         -         Smoke Hazard Management

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

f)  Part F2         -         Sanitary and other facilities

 

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.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4       Reduced Plans

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

LUKE JACKSON

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 85/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

141-151 Alison Road, RANDWICK   NSW  2031

 

 

DATE:

13 October, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 243/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No 243/2004 for the adaptive re-use of heritage items into 3 commercial units, demolition of all other structures and construction of a part 3 and part 4 storey mixed retail/commercial and residential development containing 4 retail units, 1 commercial suite and 19 dwelling units and basement carparking for 33 vehicles.

 

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 11 October, 2004.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

11 October, 2004

FILE NO:

D/0243/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Adaptive re-use of heritage items into 3 commercial units, demolition of all other structures and construction of a part-3 and part-4 storey mixed retail/commercial and residential development containing 4 retail units, 1 commercial suite and 19 dwelling units and  basement carparking for 33 vehicles.

PROPERTY:

 141-151 Alison Road, Randwick

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Exceland Property Group (NSW) Pty Limited

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $5,000 000.

 

The proposal is for the adaptive re-use/conversion of heritage items into three commercial tenancies, demolition of all other structures and construction of a part-3 and part-4 storey mixed retail/commercial and residential development, containing 4 shops, 1 commercial suite, 19 apartments and carparking for 33 vehicles.

 

The development application applies to the land comprising No 141-143 and No. 145-147 Alison Road each containing one heritage terrace, No. 149 Alison Road containing one single-storey terrace, and No. 151 Alison Road containing an existing commercial premises formerly used as a funeral parlour.

 

On 25 March 1997, Development application No. 314/96 to demolish the existing two terrace houses was refused by Council and a subsequent appeal to the Land and Environment Court was dismissed by judgement on 19 June 1997. A subsequent development application (DA No. 813/2000) was lodged on 31 August 2000, which essentially involved retention and restoration of the existing heritage terraces and their adaptive reuse for low income rental accommodation, alterations and additions to the existing Randwick Labor Club and construction of a new 5 level building containing gaming areas, function rooms, roof terrace, and car parking. This DA was approved on 6 December 2002.

 

The current proposal excludes the Randwick Labor Club, involves construction of a residential building at the rear of the heritage terraces that will be similar in height bulk and scale as that previously approved under DA No. 813/2000, and introduces a new mixed-use component over No. 149 and 151 Alison Road.

 

Following concerns raised by Council’s officers regarding the height, bulk and scale of the current proposal, the applicant has amended the proposal primarily by lowering the height of the building proposed at the rear of the existing heritage terraces to match the height of the previously approved building under DA No. 813/2000, and by increasing the side and rear setback of the top floor level of the part of the development proposed on No. 151 Alison Road.  These amendments will reduce the impact of visual bulk and scale in the surrounding streetscape and improve the relationship with the heritage items.

 

The subject proposal has been referred to the Urban Design Review Panel to ensure compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) and the accompanying Residential Flat Design Code. The Panel advised that the design of the proposal is acceptable subject to minor changes to allow improvement in its layout and amenity impacts. The applicant has amended the proposal to incorporate the Panels recommendations.

 

The existing heritage terrace at No. 141-143 and No.145-147 Alison Road are classified as low-cost residential buildings pursuant to SEPP No. 10 – Retention of Low Cost Rental Accommodation because the last use of these properties since becoming vacant was as boarding houses. Accordingly, the development application has been referred to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) for the Director-General’s concurrence. DIPNR has assessed the proposal and has granted concurrence to the proposed development subject to conditions requiring the imposition of rent-capping to four dwelling units.

 

The adaptive re-use of the heritage terraces for commercial tenancies is prohibited in the Residential 2C zone. The applicant is relying on the provisions of Clause 47 - Conservation Incentives of the Randwick LEP 1998 to allow the use to be permissible in the zone and vary the development standards applicable to the site. Under clause 47, Council must be reasonably satisfied that the necessary funding for the immediate and ongoing conservation of the heritage item would not be available unless the development is allowed to proceed.  The applicant has demonstrated to Council that the conservation of the heritage item depends on the granting of consent for the proposed development. In addition, the proposed development will not adversely impact on the heritage terraces or detrimentally affect the amenity of the locality in which the heritage items are situated.  As such, it is considered that the proposed development represents an appropriate use of clause 47 and there is adequate justification for the relaxation of the nominated standards.

 

The applicant advises that the premises at No. 151 Alison Road enjoys the benefit of existing use rights as a business premises such that the proposed retail/commercial use in this allotment is permissible pursuant to Clause 41(1)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. The applicant’s advice has been assessed and, through legal advice provided by Deacons, found to be valid. Accordingly, the proposed extension of the non-conforming use in the form of the proposed retail units on this allotment is made pursuant to Section 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and clauses 44 to 46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. As such, the provisions (objectives, controls or standards) of the Randwick LEP 1998 which would otherwise prohibit/restrict the proposed use do not apply. However, the provisions of the Randwick LEP 1998 and any other relevant planning instruments and DCPs have been considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal on No. 151 Alison Road. This assessment indicates that the part of the development on No. 151 Alison Road will be consistent with the character of existing development in the immediate locality and meets most of the performance criteria set by Council’s statutory and policy documents in relation to the protection of residential amenity, streetscape, bulk and scale, visual impact, privacy, solar access, energy efficiency, safety and security and access for people with disability.

 

Given the reliance on conservation incentives, and notwithstanding the benefits of existing use rights, the proposal does not comply with the statutory controls for FSR, landscaped area and building height for which the applicant has submitted SEPP No. 1 objections. An assessment of the SEPP 1 objections lodged with respect to the non-compliances indicates that strict compliances with the controls would be unreasonable and unnecessary, and that the objections are considered to be well founded.

 

The proposal also does not comply with the carparking requirements of Council’s DCP – Parking with a shortfall of 8 carparking spaces. Appropriate justifications have been provided by the applicant’s traffic consultant which have been found to be reasonable and acceptable.

 

Overall, the proposal achieves increased economic viability of the subject land whilst also providing community benefit of considerable magnitude by restoring the existing terrace houses as highly graded items of local significance and providing for low-cost accommodation through a number of rent-capped dwelling units.

 

The recommendation is for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal comprises the following:

 

·        Conversion and adaptive re-use of the two existing terrace-houses located at No. 141-143 and No.145-147 Alison Road (identified as heritage items under the Randwick LEP 1998) into three commercial units. This adaptive re-use of the heritage terraces is prohibited in the Residential 2C zone. However, the applicant is relying on the provisions of Clause 47 - Conservation Incentives of the Randwick LEP 1998 to allow the use to be permissible in the 2C zone and vary the development standards applicable to the site.

 

·        Demolition of  the following buildings/structures:

 

§  rear wings and garages at the rear of the heritage terraces at No. 141-143 and No. 145-147 Alison Road.

 

§  Single storey residential building at No. 149 Alison Road

 

§  Demolition of existing two-storey building at No. 151 Alison Road (ie., the former funeral parlour premises)

 

·        Construction of a mixed retail/commercial and residential building containing 19 dwelling units, 4 retail shops, 1 commercial suite and a basement carpark with 33 carparking spaces. This building will comprise the following:

 

§  a four-storey section at the rear of the heritage terraces at No. 141-143 and No. 145-147 Alison Road containing 1 commercial suite, and 10 residential units (comprising 4 x 2 bedroom and 6 x 1 bedroom units).

 

 

§  a part-three and part-four storey building over No. 149 and No. 151 Alison Road containing 4 retail shops and 9 residential units (comprising 1 x 2 bedroom, 6 x 1 bedroom, and 2 x studio units). The applicant advises that the premises at No. 151 Alison Road enjoys the benefit of existing use rights as a business premises such that the proposed retail component is permissible pursuant to Clause 41(1) (d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

The proposal will also have three levels of basement carparking containing a total of 33 carspaces with vehicular access from Elizabeth Lane. The basement levels will be fully below the ground level of Elizabeth Lane. Pedestrian access to the new section will be via Elizabeth Street.

 

As the proposed building fronts Elizabeth Street and wraps around Alison Road to the north and Elizabeth Lane to the south, it predominantly would appear as a masonry builtform with paint-render finish at its lower and middle levels while the upper level would comprise a lightweight metal-framed structure with zinc panelling. 

 

A 6m wide courtyard/landscaped podium area will be provided at the rear of the terraces to be used as communal open space for the residents of the new building abutting this courtyard/landscaped area. There will also be upgraded deep soil landscaping areas with a maximum width of 3.5m at the front of the terrace houses.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Alison Road between Botany Street and Elizabeth Street, Randwick. The site is generally rectangular in shape with a frontage to Alison Road of 27.06m, to Elizabeth Street of 38.15m, to Elizabeth Lane of 26.58m, and a western boundary of 38.34m, having a total site area of 1025.7 sqm. Existing on the site are two two-storey terraces at No.141-143 Alison Road (known as Rexmere, a Victorian boom style terrace, 1884) and No. 145-147 Alison Road (known as Hillcrest, Victorian terrace) which are included in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as heritage items; a single storey terrace building at No. 149 Alison Road; and a two storey commercial/residential building on the corner of Alison Road and Elizabeth Street at No. 151 Alison Road (ie., the former funeral parlour premises) is also situated on the northern end of the site. These existing developments are distributed over three allotments as follows:

 

·        Lot 1 DP 609890 being No. 141-143 Alison Road (comprising one heritage terrace)

·        Lot 1 DP 74946 being No.145-147 and No. 149 Alison Road (comprising one heritage terrace and an adjoining single storey terrace)

·        Lot 1 DP 625792 being No. 151 Alison Road (comprising an existing commercial unit used formerly as a funeral parlour and currently as community facility by the Salvation Army)

 

The Randwick Junction Precinct is characterised by a mixture of both residential and commercial development. To the east, on the opposite side of Elizabeth Street, is a row of older style two-storey shops/commercial buildings forming part of the Randwick Junction commercial area. To the south opposite Elizabeth Lane are four storey residential flat buildings which front Silver Street. To the west directly abutting the site is the Randwick Labor Club, a five-level brick and concrete building fronting Alison Road. To the north on the opposite side of Alison Road is a three storey residential flat building.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

4.1     APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Application No. 314/96 to demolish the existing two terrace houses was refused by Council on 25 March 1997 and a subsequent appeal to the Land and Environment Court was dismissed by judgement on 19 June 1997. Council’s expert evidence in the proceedings provided an alternative to the demolition of the terrace houses involving the demolition of only the rear sections of the heritage items which are only of limited heritage value, and construction of a 3-4 level building at the rear.  Council asserted that such an alternative scheme would allow the highly graded core of the original terraces to remain intact whilst also allowing the reactivation of the boarding house accommodation as part of an integrated site redevelopment, which would retain and restore the period terraces. 

 

Accordingly, Development Application No. 813/2000 was lodged on 31 August 2000 consistent with the alternative scheme suggested by Council in the proceedings mentioned above. It proposed demolition of rear portion of the existing terrace houses and construction of a new 5 level building (2 below ground and 3 above) forming an extension of the existing club premises and the adaptive reuse of the terraces for low income accommodation. This DA was subsequently amended to include 10 dwellings for low income accommodation with either an ensuite and kitchenette or shared kitchen. These amended plans also introduced a courtyard between the rear of the remnant terraces and the proposed new building and reduced the dominance of the new development over the terraces by lowering the overall height.

 

On 27 August 2002, Planning NSW granted concurrence to the application in accordance with SEPP 10 Retention of Low Income rental accommodation. Accordingly, DA No. 813/2000 was granted deferred commencement consent on 3 March 2003. The consent became fully operable on 11 March 2003. The applicant advises that whilst the consent has never been taken up, it is still valid. 

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification. No submissions were received in response to the notification/advertising of the proposal.

 

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     Environmental Health Comments

 

The Environmental Health Services advise as follows:

 

“Key Issues

 

Contamination has been addressed with the detailing of existing and previous uses of the commercial premises.

 

Noise is considered a potential issue and appropriate conditions have been placed in this report.

 

Recommendations

Should the approval be granted to the application appropriate conditions should be included in the development consent.”

 

 

6.2     Building Comments

 

The Building Control Services advises that no objection is raised in relation to building and BCA matters subject to conditions should approval be granted.

 

6.3     Heritage Comments

 

Council’s Heritage Planner advises as follows:

 

“The subject site is occupied by a double storey building formerly used as a funeral parlour on the corner of Elizabeth Street, together with a single storey terrace, and two double storey terraces, listed as heritage items under Randwick LEP 1998.  To the west of the site is the 5 storey Randwick Labor Club building.

 

The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for the buildings notes that they have aesthetic significance and complement the surrounding heritage items within the streetscape.  According to the sheet, the terraces are fine examples of the grand buildings of the speculative boom in Randwick Junction around the turn of the century.

 

A development application for nos.135-147 Alison Road, comprising the Labor Club building and the two terraces (DA/813/2001) was approved in December 2002.  This application proposed additions to the Labor Club building.  Concerns were raised in relation to height and design of the new building to the rear of the terraces, and amended drawings were received.  A number of consent conditions were included in relation to preparation of a Conservation Management Plan and Maintenance Schedule for the terraces.  The current proposal does not include any work to the Club building.

 

The current application proposes to demolish the existing double storey building on the corner of Elizabeth Street, and to construct a mixed commercial/residential development to the rear and side of the terraces, comprising ground level commercial floor space and upper level residential floor space.  The application proposes comprises three and four levels over three levels of basement car parking.  The rear wings to each of the heritage items are to be removed and they are to be converted from residential to commercial use.

 

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Jackson Teece.  The Statement identifies aspects of the proposal which will respect the heritage significance of the items, and aspects which will have a low-medium level adverse impact on heritage significance.  The Statement concludes that the proposal will not compromise the “interpretability” of the heritage items or the conservation area, and will have less heritage impact than the previous proposal.

 

In relation to the proposed demolition of the existing rear wings of the terraces, there were concerns in relation to the previous proposal that the removal of the rear wings would result in the loss of significant surviving fabric and destroy the arrangement and relationships of significant spaces within the building.  The Statement notes that the proposal will retain the significance of the Alison Road streetscape, that the rear wings of the terraces are considered visually as secondary components, and have been significantly modified.  It is noted that the demolition of the rear wings was approved as part of the previous proposal.  There are no heritage objections to this aspect of the proposal.

The proposal provides a separation of around 6m between the new development and the rear of the remnant terraces, providing open space between the commercial and residential floor space in the new and existing building, and a limited curtilage to the terraces.  This separation is similar to that which was proposed by the previous application.  My previous memo raised concerns in relation to the height of the new development to the rear of the terraces.  It was noted that the new development will have a height of around 14m, with a ceiling height for the top floor unit of around 4m.  It was considered that there was considerable scope for reduction in the overall height of the proposal, and amended plans have now been received.  As compared to the previous plans, the amended plans have set back the top floor of the development from the rear of the terraces, resulting in a similar envelope to the previous development application.

 

In relation to the design of the new development, it is noted that the existing building on the corner of Alison Road and Elizabeth Street is of a two storey scale, while the proposed new building is of three storey scale.  The existing corner building has a similar setback to the existing terraces, while the proposed new building has no setback from the street.  My previous memo raised concerns that the setbacks, scale and bulk of the proposed new building were incompatible with the adjacent heritage items, and would reduce their streetscape visibility, and detract from their heritage significance.  As compared to the previous plans, the amended plans have set back the top floor of the development from the southern and eastern boundaries to Elizabeth Street and Elizabeth Lane, reducing the scale and bulk of the proposal.  It is considered that the amended plans have addressed previous concerns and will minimize impact on the adjacent heritage items.

 

Details of materials and finishes for the new development have been provided with the proposal, however no details for the terraces have been provided, and these should be submitted for assessment.  Consent conditions should also be included requiring submission of a Conservation Management Plan and Maintenance Schedule for the terraces.

 

Appropriate conditions should be included in any consent should approval be granted.”

 

6.4     Road Widening / Splay Corner Comments

 

The Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises as follows:

 

“Council met with the applicant’s Planning Consultant on 7/9/2004 to discuss various engineering / planning concerns regarding the original application. At this meeting the Development Engineer Coordinator recommended that the applicant dedicate 1.2 metres of land for road widening purposes along the Elizabeth Lane site frontage, (this dedication would allow for construction of a footpath). The applicant has not complied with this requirement however a dedicated walkway has been provided along the existing Elizabeth Lane frontage. The provision of a dedicated walkway will allow the site’s garbage bins to be presented to Elizabeth Street without the need for the bins to be taken onto the actual Elizabeth lane carriageway.

 

The DAIS preferred position was to have land dedicated to Council however given that the Labour Club building, (located immediately west of the development site), and other buildings along the northern side of Elizabeth Lane have structures on the boundary, (thereby precluding any future footpath construction / road widening), the proposal is considered satisfactory.

 

The issue of splay corner provisions was also discussed on 7/9 and the DAIS advised that splay corners at the intersection of Elizabeth Lane and Elizabeth Street and the intersection of Elizabeth Street and Alison Road were preferred. The applicant’s Planning Consultant commented that a splay corner was not required at the intersection of Alison Road and Elizabeth Street because the footpaths were wide and traffic movements into and from Elizabeth Street at this intersection were left in and left out. The DAIS is in general agreement that the need for a splay corner could be deleted however the applicant would need to establish that adequate pedestrian sight lines can be provided/maintained, (a condition to this effect has been included within the report). The modified design along the Elizabeth Lane site frontage enables a 1.5m by 1.5m splay to be provided.”

 

6.5     Encroachment Comments

 

The Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises as follows:

 

“The DAIS does not support any encroachment of structures into the road reserves adjacent to the development site, (the DPCD’s attention is drawn to a number of encroachments with the proposed balconies and impose conditions if the DAIS position is supported).”

 

6.6     Landscape Comments

 

The Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises as follows:

 

“On the nature strip in front of 145 Alison Road, towards the western boundary, there is one Platanus x hybrida (London Plane Tree) of approximately 4-5 metres in height. This tree appears in reasonable condition and forms part of an established avenue planting of this species in this street. This tree should remain largely unaffected by the proposed works, and as such, the applicant will be required to ensure its retention.

 

In the front yard of 145 Alison Road, near the eastern boundary, there is one Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) of approximately 10 metres in height. This palm appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Protection measures will be necessary in order to ensure the retention of this palm as is shown on the plans.

 

On the nature strip in front of 151 Alison Road, towards the western boundary, there is one Platanus x hybrida (London Plane Tree) of approximately 4-5 metres in height. This tree appears in reasonable condition and forms part of an established avenue planting of this species in this street. This tree should remain largely unaffected by the proposed works, and as such, the applicant will be required to ensure its retention.

 

In the rear yard of 145 Alison Road, close to the common boundary of 147 Alison Road, there is one Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) of approximately 10 metres in height. This palm appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. It will not be possible to retain this palm and proceed with construction of the proposed basement carpark as indicated, and as such, approval is granted for the removal of this palm subject to a suitable replacement being provided in its place.

 

Immediately to the south, there is one Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm) of approximately 5 metres in height. This palm appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. It will not be possible to retain this palm and proceed with construction of the proposed basement carpark as indicated, and as such, approval is granted for the removal of this palm.

 

In the rear yard of 145 Alison Road, against the southern boundary, there is one Cupressus sempervirens (Pencil Pine) of approximately 6 metres in height. Although covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, this tree appears in poor condition, and as such, approval is granted for its removal.

 

The DPCD is advised that the proposed application does not comply with Council’s LEP landscaping requirement for multi unit housing, zone 2C. The DPCD is requested to contact Council’s Landscape Technician should any comments be required regarding the non compliance.”

 

6.7     Drainage Comments

 

The Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises as follows:

 

“On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

The DPCD is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the AIS Department has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required submit detailed drainage plans to the PCA for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.”

 

6.8     Traffic Comments

 

The Department of Assets and Infrastructure Services advises as follows:

 

“The expected peak flow volume of approximately 20 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Elizabeth Lane as a result of this development.

 

All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

The driveway opening at the Elizabeth Lane frontage must be 5.5 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 5 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site.

 

Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

The proposed development does not comply with the parking requirements in Council's DCP - Parking. A number of the parking spaces are difficult to enter/exit however the spaces generally comply with dimensions specified in AS 2890.1 – 2004.

 

The DPCD is to determine whether the internal driveway gradients comply with Council's DCP - Parking.

 

The DPCD is requested to consider the suitability of the proposed loading bay.”

 

Comment: The driveway gradients are consistent with Council’ DCP-Parking. An appropriate condition has been applied to ensure that the loading dock functions adequately.

 

6.9     Issues Raised by External Bodies

 

6.9.1  Department of Infrastructure, Planning & Natural Resources

 

On 30 July 2004, the Director General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources granted concurrence to the development application in accordance with SEPP 10 subject to the following conditions:

 

“1.     That two (2) x studio units and two (2) x one bedroom units in the proposed strata plan shall be retained in rental tenure on the open market for a period of 6 years from the registration of the strata plan.

 

2.       Rent levels for the units referred to in condition 1 shall be not more than $159/week for the studio units and not more than $265/week for the one-bedroom units. The rents shall be updated at the beginning of each financial year utilising the guidelines issued by the NSW Office of State Revenue for land used and occupied primarily for a boarding house. The guidelines for the 2004 tax year where less than full board and lodging was provided currently specify rates for single accommodation (currently the $159/week for the studio units) and shared accommodation (currently $265/week for the one bedroom units). This rent shall cover any additional facilities or benefits (such as car parking) provided to the lessee of those units. No additional rent, fee or charge may be levied for any additional facilities or benefits provided to the lessee under the rental agreement.

 

3.       A positive covenant shall be created under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act, to give effect to Conditions 1 & 2 above. Such covenant shall not be revoked or modified without the prior approval of Council. The covenant shall be submitted for Council’s approval with the strata plan and shall be registered simultaneously with the strata plan.

 

4.       Statutory declarations shall be submitted to Council annually from the date of registration of the strata plan by the respective owners of the units referred to in condition 1 for a period of six years documenting rent levels charged including rent receipts.”

These conditions will be applied accordingly should approval be granted for the proposal.

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

7.1     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The subject site is zoned Residential 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (LEP 1998), and contains two heritage items. 

 

The adaptive re-use of the existing heritage terraces for commercial use and the provision of retail uses in No. 151 Alison Road are prohibited in the Residential 2C zone. The applicant is relying on the provisions of Clause 47 - Conservation Incentives (Randwick LEP 1998) and the existing use rights provisions contained in Section 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and clauses 44 to 46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 to allow these commercial/retail uses to be permissible in the 2C zone, and enable Council to consider approval of the application. The following table indicates the proposal’s compliance with the numerical controls:

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31(2) – Landscape Area (minimum)

50% of site area

512.8 sqm

18% of site area

184 sqm

No*

31(3)- Landscaped Area over basements (maximum)

Not to exceed 50% of landscaped area requirement

 256.4m2

25% of landscaped area

130 sqm

 

 

Yes

32(1) – FSR

0.9:1

 

2.2:1

or

1.64:1 (excluding heritage items (conservation incentives) and proposed building on 151 Alison Road (existing use rights))

 

No*

 33 (2)– Building Height

12m

 

Max 14.48m to the ridge over the proposed building on 151 Alison Road.

Max 13.88m to top of ridge of the proposed building at the rear of the heritage terraces.

 

No*

33 (4)- External Wall Height

10m

 

Max 14.48m to top of lift over the proposed building on 151 Alison Road.

Max 13.08 to the highest wall of the proposed building at the rear of the heritage terraces. 

No*

* SEPP 1 Objection provided in support of this non-compliance.

 

8.       POLICY CONTROLS

 

The following Development Control Plans (DCPs) applicable in the subject site:

 

·        DCP – Multi-unit housing

·        DCP - Parking

 

The application of the controls contained in these DCPs to the proposed development is addressed in Section 9.2 below.

 

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     Statutory Controls

 

9.1.1  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

9.1.1.1       Clause 12 - Zone No.2C  (Residential C Zone)

 

The subject site is zoned Residential 2C under Randwick LEP 1998 and the proposed commercial/retail activity is prohibited within the zone.

 

In relation to the part of the proposal on Lot 1 DP 609890 being No. 141-143 Alison Road, and Lot 1 DP 74946 being No.145-147 and No. 149 Alison Road, the applicant is relying on the provisions of Clause 47 - Conservation Incentives of the Randwick LEP 1998 to allow the use to be permissible in the 2C zone and vary the development standards applicable to the site (this is assessed in Section 9.1.1.3 below).

In relation to the portion of the development over No. 151 Alison Road, the applicant claims the benefit of existing-use rights as a business premises to allow for the proposed retail use. Section 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act affords protection to uses operating under a lawful consent to continue even if a subsequent planning instrument prohibits that use. The protection extends to allowing the rebuilding, alteration or extension of a structure housing a non-conforming use (with Council’s consent).

 

The applicant’s claim to existing use rights has been assessed and found to be valid as confirmed in legal advice received from Deacons dated 7 July 2004. Accordingly, the proposed extension of the non-conforming use is pursuant to Section 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and clauses 44 to 46 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. These provisions of the Regulation are taken to be incorporated in the Randwick LEP 1998 and thereby referred to in the Act as “the incorporated provisions”. Section 108(3) of the Act provides that any provisions in an instrument that would derogate (that is, detract from) the “incorporated provisions” have no force or effect. This effectively means that provisions (objectives, controls or standards) of an environmental planning instrument which would restrict the change or extension of an existing use do not apply. Accordingly, objections under SEPP No. 1 in support of variance from the FSR, height and landscape standards are not required in respect of the portion of the proposed development over No. 151 Alison Road.

 

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 108(3) of the EP&A Act, the provisions of relevant planning instruments including such aims and objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal. As such the proposal has been assessed in accordance with the following documents :-

 

-         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

-         DCP – Multi-unit Housing

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

-         Building Code of Australia (BCA)

 

as a guide to the type of development envisaged on the site and its ‘reasonableness’. The part of the development on No. 151 Alison Road, as assessed in relevant sections of this report below, is considered consistent with the character of existing development in the immediate locality and meets most of the performance criteria set by Council’s DCP – Multi-unit Housing in relation to the protection of residential amenity, streetscape, bulk and scale, visual impact, privacy, solar access, energy efficiency, safety and security and access for people with disability.

 

9.1.1.2       Clause 45 - Heritage Council Notification

 

The Interim Strategy adopted by the Heritage Council in November, 1997 sets out circumstances where the consultation requirements of REPs and LEPs may be assumed to be satisfied without referral to the Heritage Council. The interim strategy only applies to a development application involving demolition of a heritage item or structure that is not an item of State or Regional Significance, is not covered by an Interim or Permanent Conservation Order, and is not listed on the State Heritage Register.

The Heritage Items on the site are not covered by an Interim Heritage Order, are not listed on the State Heritage Register and are not of State or Regional Significance.  Further, Council has taken into account advice from suitability qualified heritage experts in the assessment of the development application in accordance with the Heritage Council’s interim strategy. As such the consultation requirements of the LEP have been satisfied.

 

9.1.1.3       Clause 47 – Conservation Incentives

 

Clause 47 of Randwick LEP 1998 states:

 

(1)      Despite any other provision in this plan, the Council may, in respect of a heritage item, grant development consent for any purpose, but only where it is satisfied that:

 

(a)    the proposed use would not adversely affect the amenity of the locality in which the item is situated or the heritage significance of the item, and

 

(b)    the conservation of the heritage item depends on the granting of the consent.

 

(2)      When considering an application for consent to erect a building on land on which a heritage item is located, the Council may, for the purpose of determining the floor space ratio, and whether the proposed development will meet the landscaped area and parking requirements, exclude the gross floor area of the heritage item from its calculation of the  floor space ratio of the proposed development, but only where the Council is satisfied that the conservation of the heritage item depends on it making the exclusion and the amenity of the locality in which the item is located will not be adversely affected.

 

The purpose of clause 47 is to introduce incentives to encourage the conservation of heritage items. In order to satisfy Council that the conservation of the heritage item depends on the granting of consent for a form of development that is prohibited in the zone and relaxation of the nominated standards, the applicant has submitted an economic assessment prepared by Dr. Peter Abelson of Applied Economics Pty Ltd. The assessment assessed the following schemes for the retention of the terraces:

·        Scheme 1a - refurbishment of the terraces and the adjoining single storey cottage essentially within the same footprints, as 11 units.

 

·        Scheme 1b- refurbishment of the terraces as two single dwelling houses alongside the cottage.

 

·        Scheme 1c- refurbishment of the terraces as two 2-bedroom units alongside the cottage.

 

·        Scheme 2 - refurbishment of the terraces and their land as 11 low cost boarding housing units.

 

·        Scheme 3  -  refurbishment of the terraces and their land as part of an overall mixed commercial and residential development as proposed in the development application.

The economic assessment of the first four schemes concludes that none of them are financially viable.  The fifth scheme (the current proposal) generates a “just adequate return” to cover the refurbishment costs for the terrace houses and allow for their on going conservation. The economic analysis allows for an increased floor area to accommodate the proposed mixed development resulting in an estimated annual net revenue of $492,000 which represents a first year return of 5.4 per cent on total capital employed. The assessment deems this to be “…just an acceptable return allowing for expected increases with inflation and the comparative return on rental investment elsewhere currently in Sydney of less than 3 per cent” such that “... a lower return would not be commercially attractive”.

 

Accordingly, the application represents an appropriate and proper use of clause 47 which enables an assessment of the application in terms of its compliance with the relevant development standards and merits of the proposal to proceed.  Should approval be granted for the proposal, a suitable condition will be included in the recommendation to ensure that the necessary conservation works are implemented in conjunction with the proposed development.

 

Clause 47 of RLEP 1998 also requires Council to be satisfied that the proposal will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality in which the heritage item is situated or the heritage significance of the item.  It is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact on the significance of the heritage items and that the amenity impacts on adjoining and neighbouring residents arising from the proposal would be minimal and acceptable given the context of the site and the architectural resolution of the development.  These matters are addressed in detail below.

 

9.1.2  Floor Space Ratio

 

A floor space ratio of 0.9:1 is applicable to this site pursuant to Clause 32 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The new development has an overall floor space ratio of 2.2:1.  However, if the floor area comprising the existing heritage terraces (in accordance with their respective Conservation Incentives) the overall FSR would be reduced to 1.97:1, which does not comply with the maximum permissible floor space ratio control contained in Randwick LEP 1998. It should be noted that in relation to the heritage terraces, the exclusion of its floor space is only allowed where the Council is satisfied that the conservation of the heritage item depends on making the exclusion and the amenity of the locality will not be adversely affected.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 32 of Randwick LEP No 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

1.       Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

 

The FSR control in question is a development standard contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

2.       The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

The stated object/purpose of the standard, as outlined in Randwick LEP 1998, is:

 

To establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential, business, industrial and special use zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.”

 

3.       Consistency of the development with local planning objectives for the locality

 

The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that it will promote heritage and conservation values by conserving, and effecting the adaptive re-use of, the existing heritage terraces resulting, overall, in a better urban environment whilst ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for both residential and commercial/retail uses in close proximity to the Randwick Junction Town Centre with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses. Specifically in relation to FSR, the proposal will support the aims and provisions of Randwick LEP 1998 which recognise the benefits of mixed-use zones in terms of enhancing the vitality of urban areas and the importance of extending the urban environment by encouraging development of land within residential zones for other purposes.

 

4.       Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed FSR control would be unreasonable in the subject site in that it would not achieve a reasonable level of redevelopment for the subject land given existing site constraints posed by the location and condition of the existing heritage terraces on-site which in turn isolates the remaining land on No. 149 and No. 151 Alison Road thus also limiting their redevelopment potential.

 

In contrast, the proposed development would allow for a reasonable redevelopment of the land but with a bulk and scale that would be visually compatible with surrounding buildings when viewed from adjoining public spaces and private properties. To the west of the proposed building is the existing Labor Club building which is significantly higher than the proposal and is the dominant built form in this part of the locality. To the south opposite Elizabeth Lane are three-storey multi unit housing buildings over ground level car parking which present as 4 storey buildings. The bulk and scale of the proposed building would be not be incongruous in this setting and would represent an appropriate transition between neighbouring buildings providing for harmony and continuity in the streetscape.  Furthermore, the subject site is located close to the Randwick Junction Town Centre which is a commercial zone with maximum permissible FSR of 2:1.

 

As discussed in Section 9.3 below, the façade of the new building will be designed to reduce its apparent scale and respond to the building’s use and contextual character, including a balance of vertical and horizontal elements which provide symmetry to the building, and articulation and modulation that breaks the visual bulk of the building form.

 

In addition, the new building will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access and privacy (see Section 9.6 below). In particular, the shadow diagrams reveal that the impact of the proposed building at the rear of the terraces and on No. 151 Alison Road will be minimal with most of the shadow falling on Elizabeth Lane, driveways and parking areas.   

 

In view of the above it is considered that the compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

 

5.       Whether the objection is well founded.

 

          An assessment of the SEPP No. 1 objection indicates that the applicant  has:

 

§  Articulated the underlying and stated objectives of the standard clearly.

 

§  Demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts.

 

§  Addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying stated objectives of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality, and objectives of the Act.

 

§  Stated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, namely:

 

·        the bulk and scale of the building when viewed from adjoining public spaces and private properties is visually compatible with surrounding buildings;

·        the building is significantly lower than the Labor Club building to the west, which is the dominant built form in this part of the locality;

·        the buildings on the southern side of Elizabeth Lane, to the rear of the site, are three (3) storey multi-unit housing buildings over ground level parking, which read as four (4) storey buildings. The pitch of their roof forms also adds to their height;

·        the proposed development would not be incongruous in the setting and would represent an appropriate visual transition between neighbouring buildings, providing harmony and continuity in the streetscape;

·        the façade of the new building has been designed to minimise the perception of bulk and scale and respond to the contextual character of the area surrounding the site. The façade is composed of a balance of vertical and horizontal elements which provide symmetry to the building and clearly define a base, middle and top;

·        the proposed new building achieves articulation and modulation due to architectural design, and the proposed materials and finishes also contribute to the “breaking-up” of the building;

·        will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing and visual impact

·        will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of the existing residential development of the area; and,

·        provides high quality residential, commercial and retail accommodation.

 

It is considered that SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

9.1.3    Landscaped Area

 

Clause 31(2) of Randwick LEP 1998 requires that development other than for the purpose of a dwelling house, within the 2C zone must provide a minimum of 50% of the total site area as landscaped area.  The proposed development would provide approximately 18% of the total site area as landscaped area thereby not complying with this requirement.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to the provisions of SEPP 1 and has argued that strict compliance with clause 31 is unnecessary and unreasonable. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

1.       Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

 

          The landscaping control in question is a development standard contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

2.       The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

          The stated object/purpose of the standard, as outlined in Randwick LEP 1998, is:

 

                            “To establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban run-off and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes.”

 

3.       Consistency of the development with local planning objectives for the locality

 

          The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that it will promote heritage and conservation values by conserving and, promoting the adaptive re-use of, the existing heritage terraces resulting, overall, in a better urban environment whilst ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for both residential and commercial/retail uses in close proximity to the Randwick Junction Town Centre with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses. Specifically, in relation to landscaping, the proposal will provide a courtyard to the rear of the heritage terraces which will give an outdoor recreation and entertainment area for the future occupants of the residential component as well as an appropriate curtilage for the heritage terraces.

 

 

4.       Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

             It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed landscape control would be unreasonable in the subject site in that it would hinder an appropriate level of redevelopment of the subject land given existing site constraints posed by the location and condition of the existing heritage terraces on-site which in turn isolates the remaining land on No. 149 and No. 151 Alison Road thus also limiting their redevelopment potential.

 

          In contrast, the proposed development would allow for a reasonable redevelopment of the land and still provide for a courtyard to the rear of the heritage terraces which will adequately provide for an outdoor recreation and entertainment area for the future occupants of the residential component whilst responding well to the physical constraints of the site. Further, the proposed planter bed and water feature in the courtyard will soften the appearance of the new development and improve the amenity of the courtyard.  The front yard areas of the heritage terraces will also be landscaped to enhance these areas and provide shade in summer.

 

          Whilst there is a significant proportion of hard landscaping on the site, the inclusion of a stormwater detention system within the development will control urban run-off from the site.

 

          Given the nature of the proposed development and its reliance on Clause 47 of the RLEP 1998, it is considered that strict compliance with the landscaped area provision is unnecessary and unreasonable under the circumstances. Further, the objection can be supported on the basis that the proposed development meets the objectives of Clause 31 of the RLEP 1998 in respect to bulk, scale and amenity provision of landscaped area and character.

 

5.       Whether the objection is well founded.

 

An assessment of the SEPP No. 1 objection indicates that the applicant has:

 

§  Articulated the underlying and stated objectives of the standard clearly.

 

§  Demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts.

 

§  Addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying stated objectives of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality, and objectives of the Act.

 

§  Stated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, namely:

 

·        the proposal provides a visually appealing and cohesive landscape design to soften the appearance of the proposed building and provide an attractive presentation to surrounding areas;

·        a generous communal courtyard and roof top terrace are proposed to provide opportunities for passive recreation for the future residents of the building;

·        provides a landscaped courtyard which creates a generous curtilage between the proposed new building and the heritage items; and

·        each of the units contained within the proposed development will have generous private open space areas, in the form of balcony or terrace.

 

It is considered that SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

9.1.3    Building/External Wall Height

 

Clause 33 of the Randwick LEP 1998 sets a maximum 12 metre overall height and 10 metre wall height limitation on buildings (other than a dwelling house) in the Residential 2C zone affecting the site, as measured from existing ground level. The proposal would have a maximum overall height of approximately 13.88 metres to the top of ridge of the proposed building at the rear of the heritage terraces at No. 141-143 and No. 145-147 Alison Road, which does not comply with the 12 metre overall height requirement. The proposed building will also have a maximum external wall height of 13.08m metres to the top of the highest wall in the proposed building the rear of the heritage terraces,  resulting in non-compliance with maximum wall height requirement pursuant to clause 33(4) of Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1) in respect to the non compliance with the maximum permissible overall height and external wall height limit and has argued that strict compliance with clause 33 of Randwick LEP No 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

1.       Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

 

The building and external wall height controls in question are development standards contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

2.       The stated object or purpose of the standard

 

The underlying objectives of the standard, as outlined in Randwick LEP 1998, are to:

 

·      Minimise the impact of the development adjoining the nearby land;

·      Control the bulk and scale of development through the imposition of appropriate height limits and

·      Ensure that there is a sympathetic transition between the prevailing scale and character of existing building in the locality and new development.

 

In addition, the purpose of the building heights standard as stated in Randwick LEP 1998 is;

 

" to set upper limits for the heights of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding area”.

 

3.       Consistency of the development with local planning objectives for the locality

 

The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that it will promote heritage and conservation values by conserving and adaptively re-using the existing heritage terraces resulting, overall, in a better urban environment whilst ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for both residential and commercial/retail uses in close proximity to the Randwick Junction Town Centre with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses. Specifically, in relation to height, the proposed development will provide an appropriate builtform and edge to Alison Road and Elizabeth Lane having regard to the character of the neighbouring Randwick Junction Town centre.

 

4.       Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed height control would be unreasonable in the subject site in that it would not achieve a reasonable level of redevelopment for the subject land given existing site constraints posed by the location and condition of the existing heritage terraces on-site which in turn isolates the remaining land on No. 151 Alison Road thus also limiting the latter’s  redevelopment potential.

 

In contrast, the proposed development would allow for a reasonable redevelopment of the land and still result in a building which will be compatible in height with neighbouring buildings and the predominant scale of buildings in the locality. As discussed previously the applicant has amended the proposal to lower the height of the three-storey building at the rear of the terraces commensurate with the height of the previously approved building under DA No. 813/2000 and therefore would not have overbearing impact on the heritage items. Furthermore, the provision of the central courtyard (which provides a reasonable a curtilage for the Heritage terraces) would ensure that the proposed new building would not have an overbearing impact on the heritage items. In relation to the section of the proposed building on 151 Alison Road, the applicant has also amended the proposal to increase the setback of the top floor level from the Elizabeth Street and Elizabeth Lane buildings to further reduce the impact of visual bulk and scale.

 

A measure as to the suitability of the development is the extent of impact to adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing and loss of privacy. The additional height of the proposal both at the rear of the terraces and on No. 151 Alison Road will not result in excessive overshadowing impacts to adjoining properties during the midwinter period as indicated in the accompanying shadow diagrams.

 

The development meets the stated and underlying objectives of the height standard. As such it is unnecessary and unreasonable to enforce the height standard in the circumstances of the case.

5.       Whether the objection is well founded.

 

An assessment of the SEPP No. 1 objection indicates that it has:

 

§  Articulated the underlying and stated objectives of the standard clearly.

 

§  Demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts.

 

§  Addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying stated objectives of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality, and objectives of the Act.

 

§  Stated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, namely:

 

·        the proposed building is compatible in height with neighbouring buildings and the predominant scale of buildings in the locality;

·        the building is significantly lower than the adjoining Labor Club building which is in excess of 20m high;

·        the scale of the building and the setting back of the upper level from Alison Road minimises the perception of height and bulk;

·        the building has been generously setback from the heritage items on the site to provide a reasonable curtilage and ensure that there are no overbearing impacts in respect of these buildings;

·        the heritage items screen the majority of the proposed new building from Alison Road;

·        the part of the building located on the corner of Alison Road and Elizabeth Street  is deliberately built to the alignment of the street to provide a strong corner address. The upper level is generously setback some 15.8m from the Alison Road frontage so that it does not read as a level from the front of the building;

·        presents an appropriate visual transition between the properties around the subject site;

·        contributes positively to the desired future character of the locality;

·        will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing and visual impact will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of the existing residential development of the area;  and

·        provides high quality residential accommodation.

 

It is considered that SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

9.2     Policy Controls

 

9.2.1  DCP - Multi-unit Housing

 

The DCP – Multi-unit Housing applies to all land within the City of Randwick that is zoned Residential 2C and 2B. As the subject site is located in a Residential 2C zone, the proposal has been assessed against the DCP and found not to comply with the Preferred Solutions/LEP Controls contained in the DCP in regards to the following: 

 

DCP Control

 

 

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Height

(LEP Control)

Max Building Height = 12m

 

 

 

 

 

 

Max External Wall Height = 10m

 

Max 14.48m to the ridge over the proposed building on 151 Alison Road.

 

Max 13.88m to top of ridge of proposed building at rear of heritage terraces

 

Max 14.48m to the ridge over the proposed building on 151 Alison Road.

 

Max 13.88m to top of ridge of the proposed building at the rear of the heritage terraces.

No

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

No

 

 

 

No

Setbacks

(Preferred Solution)

Min average Setback = 5m. No part of the building is closer than 3.5m.

 

S3   Rear Boundary:

Min average Setback = 8m. No part of the building is closer than 6m

 

Zero setback from eastern and western side boundaries.

 

 

 

Zero setback from rear southern boundary

No

 

 

 

 

No

Density

(LEP Control)

0.9:1 for Residential 2C

 

 

 

1.97:1 for proposed building on No. 141-143, No. 145-147 and No. 149 Alison Road

No

Landscaping

(LEP Control)

Landscaped area = 50% of site area

 

18% of site area

No

 

The non-compliances with FSR, landscaping and height have been addressed in Sections 9.1 above. In relation to setbacks, the non-compliance with the preferred solution is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·        The proposal provides adequate separation distances to existing surrounding residential buildings ranging from 10m to residences opposite Elizabeth Street to 12m to residences opposite Elizabeth Lane.

 

·        Reasonable levels of privacy will be achieved between the proposed development and existing surrounding properties

 

·        No detrimental overshadowing neighbouring residential properties will occur (see Section 9.6.1 below)

 

·        Landscaping will be provided in the form of the internal courtyard at the rear of the heritage terraces.

 

·        The characteristics of the site with three street frontages and the commercial component of the development lend itself to a footprint which create a strong urban edge to the street.

 

9.2.2  Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The total carparking requirement for the proposal under the DCP – Parking is 41 carspaces comprising of 19 residential, 5 residential visitor and 17 commercial carspaces. The proposal will provide 33 car parking spaces of and, therefore, will be deficient by 8 car spaces. The parking spaces will be allocated to provide 19 residential spaces and 14 retail/commercial spaces. The applicant’s traffic consultant has provided the following justifications for the shortfall in carparking:

 

§  the long stay tenant parking demand likely to be generated by the retail and office tenancies will be met

 

§  due to the relatively small size of the retail tenancies, retail customers are likely to be drawn from the local area such that they are not likely to generate any significant short-stay parking demand.  In any event, even if parking was available for retail customers in the basement carpark they would be unlikely to use them, preferring to park on-street

 

§  as with retail customers, resident and commercial visitors are likely to be reluctant to enter the basement carpark, preferring instead to park on-street

 

§  the resident parking allocation (19 spaces) satisfies Council’s requirements

 

§  the minor shortfall in commercial/retail carparking (3 spaces) is considered acceptable as the site is well served by public transport, and a proportion of tenants/employees will travel to the site by bus

 

§  as the courier loading space and 6 commercial parking spaces on Basement Level 1 will be occupied primarily during office hours, these spaces could be made available for residential visitors outside of office hours.

 

The justifications for the shortfall in carparking are considered adequate and acceptable especially having regard to the ready availability of public buses along Alison Road and Belmore Road.

 

All carspace dimensions and aisles widths will comply with the DCP – Parking with the exception of carspace No. 6 in Basement level 3. A condition will be applied requiring compliance should approval be granted.

 

The proposal provides for a loading dock within basement level 1. A condition will be applied requiring adequate access and security arrangements for the loading bay in relation to the residential carpark.

 

9.3     Urban Design

 

Following initial concerns raised by Council officers in relation to the potentially bulky and overbearing impact of the proposal on the heritage terraces, the visual bulk and scale to Elizabeth Street, and the potentially overbearing effect of the proposed buildings on the residential properties on the southern-side of Elizabeth Lane, the applicant has undertaken the following amendments to the proposal:

 

·        reduce the number of apartments from twenty (20) to nineteen (19), incorporating 2 x studios, 12 x 1 bed and 5 x 2 bed apartments

·        provide for six (6) additional parking spaces and one (1) loading bay

·        lower the building at the rear of the existing heritage terraces to RL 78.40, commensurate with the height of the previously approved building (DA813/2002);

·        provide for operable glass louvres to the stairwell fronting Elizabeth Street;

·        increasing the setback of the uppermost level on the proposed building on No. 149 and No. 151 Alison Road from the Elizabeth Street and Elizabeth Lane  boundaries and convert this level to a two (2) bedroom apartment

·        include a pergola structure to the north-facing balconies on the uppermost level.

·        delete the Juliet balconies on the southern elevation at First Floor Level

·        provide for storage for twenty (20) residential and twelve (12) retail/commercial garbage bins

·        an internal corridor has been provided along the Elizabeth Lane frontage to allow movement of bins between the basement and Elizabeth Street for weekly collection

·        various minor internal reconfiguration works have been made to permit access to the new bin storage areas

 

Accordingly the proposed building will have an external treatment that will reduce its apparent scale and respond to the buildings use and contextual character. The proposal will also enhance the streetscape through the introduction of a building with a modern design, and a strong urban edge to Alison Road. Furthermore, the façade composition exhibits a balance of vertical and horizontal elements, which provide symmetry to the building and clearly define a base, middle and top. The proposed building would appear as a solid masonry podium with a scored and painted render finish at its lower levels.  At the upper level of the proposed building on No. 149 and No. 151 Alison Road, a lightweight metal framed structure with zinc clad roof will be installed.

 

The sloping roof of the upper level and lowered height to the pergolas at the northern edge of the new building facing the terraces will reduce the bulk and scale of the building and adds visual interest to the section of the building which is most visible from Alison Road. Specifically, the massing, proportions and restrained detailing of the proposed contemporary building does not compete with the architectural qualities of the heritage items. The use of a lightweight structure at the upper level in a neutral colour will allow this upper level to recede into the background and not draw attention away from the simple forms of the terraces.

 

The applicant has provided a photographic sample of the proposed treatment to the façade which indicates that the elevations to the street will be rendered and painted with appropriate colours and textures. The application of appropriate colours to the different sections of the external wall and appropriately selected materials for features such as louvres, frames, grilles and decking will be important to the outcome of the design. Accordingly, a condition will be applied requiring the submission of a sample board of the external colours and textures appropriately linked to a coloured elevation of all frontages to the building prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

The proposal will have a common central courtyard which will be located above the podium at Level 1 that will have planter beds to contain enhanced landscaping, and seating areas and timber decking. Under the provisions of SEPP 65, an Interim Design Review Panel reviewed the proposal on 3 November 2003 Plan and raised a number of issues in relation to the proposal. The Panel has provided comments as listed below (with Council’s comments attached):

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The Panel commented that:

 

·      No real heritage concerns are evident in the proposal.

 

·      The amount of commercial space is commended.

 

·      In Elizabeth Street the awning at the south end could be wider and longer to increase shelter.

 

·      An opportunity for coordinated footpath and street tree planting in Elizabeth Street exists.

 

·      The Panel considers this proposal to generally be a good response to the site.

 

·      The corner element is proposed to align with site boundaries and this is considered a positive aspect. The combination of the corner element with the setback from the heritage item is a well considered response.

 

Council’s comments: The Panel is generally satisfied with the proposal’s relationship to its context. Notwithstanding, Council has required of the applicant additional reductions in the height of the proposal for the section of the proposed building at the rear of the existing terraces, and additional increase in side and rear setbacks for the upper-most floor of the section on No. 151 Alison Road, to further ensure compatibility of the proposal to existing development in the surrounding streetscape. In addition, the applicant has responded to the Panel’s recommendation regarding awnings by providing two (2) additional awnings on the Elizabeth Street frontage to provide additional weather protection and street address for the retail tenancies located at this point.

 

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The Panel commented that the scale of the proposal is satisfactory in relation to existing development in its immediate locality as described in point 1 above.

Council’s comments: The Panel’s support of the scale of the proposal is noted having regard to the non-compliance of the proposal to the FSR and building height provisions of the Randwick LEP. The amendments to the height and upper floor setback of the proposal has further reduced the scale of the proposal.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The Panel considered that the rear of the development (to Elizabeth Lane) is well resolved. The applicants were requested to consider the possibility of opening the fire stair, subject to BCA standards, to provide for articulation in the façade. Accordingly, a BCA assessment will be required if the staircase is opened.

 

Council’s comments: The applicant has responded to the Panel’s suggestion in relation to the fire stair on the Elizabeth Street frontage by “opening up” the stairway by replacing the solid enclosing eastern wall with operable glass louvres thus providing further articulation in the Elizabeth Street elevation.

 

4.       The Proposed Density

 

The Panel has raised no objections in relation to the density of the proposed development.

 

Council’s comments: The Panel has raised no objection to the proposed density of the development is noted. The applicant has lodged a SEPP No. 1 Objection to the FSR standard which has been assessed in Section 9.1 above and found to be well-founded. Furthermore, the proposal has a bulk and scale that will not be out of character nor visually intrusive compared with that of the immediate surrounding developments.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

The Panel has raised no objections in relation to resource and energy use and water efficiency of the proposed development.

 

Council’s comments: The proposal has been designed to maximize northern solar access for all but 4 dwelling units, and to allow for primary living areas with direct access to outdoor terraces and balconies to facilitate natural ventilation.

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

 

The Panel advises that

 

·        Species appear to be incorrect on drawings and the labeling requires verification.

 

·        Mature plants should be introduced to allow for amenity to be maximized.

 

·        The Panel considers that landscaping and some form of shelter and screening should be provided on the roof terrace to enhance its amenity and usability. Communal facilities such as a bbq and seating should be considered.

 

·        A deeper planter over the ramp in the courtyard should be provided to create a minimum soil depth of 1.2m.

Council’s comments: to address the Panel’s concerns, the applicant has amended the proposal as follows:

 

·        additional native species have been provided;

·        the paved courtyard has been replaced with a timber decked courtyard; and

·        species selection and identification has been reviewed to ensure accuracy.

·        the proposed roof terrace has been provided with an awning providing shelter for the new seating proposed on this lever. A BBQ and basin in addition to planter boxes around the northern and eastern sides of the roof terrace are also provided in order to provide a pleasant and useable outdoor open space for future residents of the building;

·        the planter beds in the communal courtyard have been increased in depth so that they now vary between 1.2m and 1.45m;

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The Panel commented that:

 

·        The position of fire stair compromises the layout of unit 2.

 

·        The single bathroom for the two bedrooms is too small.

 

·        It is considered that there is good overall internal planning.

 

Council’s comments: The applicant has responded by amending the proposal as follows:

 

·        the fire stairs adjacent to Unit 2 repositioned to allow improved internal amenity

·        the bathrooms to the two (2) bedroom apartments have been increased in size

 

8.     The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

The Panel has raised no objections in relation to the safety and security aspects of the proposed development.

 

Council’s comments:  The proposal will provide balconies and windows that allow for surveillance to all street frontages, pedestrian entrances, the curtillage of the proposed building and neighbouring properties without compromising privacy. The incorporation of retail and commercial uses at ground floor will provide active frontages to Alison Road and Elizabeth Street thus ensuring further security and safety around the site.

 

9.       Social issues

 

The Panel has raised no objections in relation to social issues relating to the proposed development.

 

Council’s comments:  The applicant advises that the proposal will have a mix of apartment layouts and aspects that will meet the existing and future needs of the community. The proposal is considered appropriate in terms of the context of the surrounding community which comprises the University of NSW, Randwick TAFE, Prince of Wales Hospital and Randwick Junction Town Centre.

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The Panel advises that:

 

“The aesthetics are considered to be very good and the panel recommends that the design architect for the project to be encouraged to continue the fine detail through the design development documentation phases of the project.

 

The base wall of the proposal is considered too dark. Alternative options are required to be considered.

 

Now that the rear wings of the heritage items are to be demolished the design of the rear elevations should be well resolved to respect the terrace from and its relationship with the new building.”

 

Council’s comments:  The applicant proposes to provide a new colour for the proposed base of the building which will be lighter than that originally proposed as recommended by the Panel. A condition requiring a sample scheme of materials and colours linked to a coloured elevation will be applied accordingly should approval be granted for the application.

 

11.     Summary and Recommendations

 

The Panel in its summary recommended that if the applicant addressed all the issues as outlined in the Panel’s comments above, in association with the assessing planner, it would not require the proposal to be reviewed again.

 

9.4     Site Suitability

 

The subject site comprises a three allotments (Lot 1 DP 609890 being No. 141-143 Alison Road, Lot 1 DP 74946 being No.145-147 and No. 149 Alison Road, and Lot 1 DP 625792 being No. 151 Alison Road) that abut each other and, as such, allows for an integrated development such as that proposed. No. 141-143, No. 145-147 and No. 149 Alison Road will have the benefit of Conservation Incentives pursuant to Clause 47 of the Randwick LEP 1998 while No. 151 Alison Road enjoys the benefit of existing use rights that allow for redevelopment of the site to the scale proposed which is considered to be a reasonable level of redevelopment consistent with the objectives of the Randwick LEP 1998. The subject site is located close to the Randwick Junction Town Centre which is well served by an existing road and services infrastructure, community facilities and retail and commercial uses in the locality.

 

9.5     Heritage Impact

 

The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for No. 143 Alison Road, “Rexmere” notes that the building was constructed in 1884 and is amongst the oldest surviving buildings in Alison Road.  The building has aesthetic significance and is a fine example of a type becoming increasingly rare in Randwick City.  The Sheet for No.145 Alison Road, “Hillcrest” notes that the building was constructed during the 1880s and has aesthetic significance.

 

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Jackson Teece.  Clause 43(2)  of LEP 1998 requires Council when determining a development under the clause, to take into consideration the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance  of the heritage item or 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 finish of the materials to be used on the exterior of the building.

 

          Council may grant consent to a development application 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.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has assessed the Heritage Impact Statement as well as the amendments to the proposal as described in Section 9.3 above. In particular, the reduction in the height of the new building at the rear of the terraces commensurate with that approved previously (under DA No. 813/2002) and the increased set back of the top floor of the development from the southern and eastern boundaries to Elizabeth Street and Elizabeth Lane would minimise the impact of the proposal on the heritage items by reducing the scale and bulk of the proposal. Accordingly, the Heritage Planner recommends appropriate conditions to be applied to the proposed development should approval be granted.

 

The Statement identifies aspects of the proposal which will respect the heritage significance of the items, and aspects which will have a low-medium level adverse impact on heritage significance.  The Statement concludes that the proposal will not compromise the “interpretability” of the heritage items or the conservation area, and will have less heritage impact than the previous proposal.

 

9.6     Impact on adjoining development

 

9.6.1    Overshadowing

 

The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that at 9.00 am in the winter solstice, overshadowing will occur predominantly upon the existing residential flat building at No. 7 Silver Street to the south-west. By 12 noon the proposal will predominantly overshadow Elizabeth Lane and the drive-ways of the properties to the south of this lane. There will be some overshadowing of the ground floor level of No. 7 Silver Street at 12 noon however, this will not be significant as the ground floor level of No. 7 Silver Street contains a carpark. By 3.00 pm, the proposal will overshadow Elizabeth Street to the east with only minimal overshadowing of the properties located on the eastern side of Elizabeth Street. The applicant has submitted elevational shadow diagrams, which indicate the impact on the elevation of properties immediately south of the proposal. The diagrams demonstrate that all dwellings in these buildings will maintain solar access for at least three hours per day, with most dwellings being completely unaffected by the development. Overall, the external impact of overshadowing is considered acceptable having regard to the north-south orientation of the site and given that the overshadowing impact of the proposal will mainly fall on Elizabeth Lane and the car parking areas of the properties to the south and Elizabeth Street to the east.

 

Internally, the proposed building at the rear of the heritage terraces will receive direct northern sunlight in winter on the upper levels 2 and 3 at 9.00 am gradually increasing to the lower levels of this building at 12 noon and to the eastern end of the building by 3.00 pm. The provision of a podium level with a central courtyard will provide open daylight to these lower floor units. The dwelling units to the northern front of the proposed building over on Nos 149 and 151 Alison Road will receive good solar access throughout the day the winter solstice while the units located to the rear of this building will all have east-facing balconies and windows that will receive direct solar access in the winter mornings.

 

No objection in relation to overshadowing has been received.

 

9.6.2  Overlooking

 

The proposed building will have juliette-type balconies linked to living rooms on south-facing elevations which will not be conducive to overlooking of the existing residential flat buildings to the south. Furthermore, the proposal has a separation of 12-15m to surrounding residential properties which will adequately mitigate against any overlooking concerns. 

 

Overall, the proposal will not give rise to any adverse overlooking both internally and externally.

 

9.6.3  Loss of views

 

The topography of the locality is such that existing buildings surrounding the subject site do not enjoy any significant views that may be obstructed by the proposed development. Accordingly, the proposal will not result in any view loss to neighbouring properties.

 

9.7     Traffic and access

 

Access into the development is via a two-way single entry/exit driveway from Elizabeth Lane. This entry/exit point is linked to a two-way 5.8m accessway leading to two basement levels of car park for the commercial and residential users with 6m wide aisle widths serving 33 carparking spaces and 1 loading dock.

 

The applicant’s Traffic Report indicates that the proposed development would generate an additional some 30 vehicular trips per day two-way during peak hours. The Report has assessed the impact of this additional traffic generation on the existing road network capacity and finds that

 

·        The Alison Road/Elizabeth Street, Elizabeth Street/Silver Street, and Elizabeth Street/Elizabeth Lane intersections operate satisfactorily under both existing and projected post-development traffic demand

 

·        The additional traffic demand on the intersections as a consequence of the proposed development has only a minor effect on intersection performance.

 

Accordingly, the Report states that the proposed commercial-residential development will have no unacceptable traffic implications in terms of road network capacity. The Report concludes with the finding that the proposed development will have no unacceptable traffic-related environmental effect because:

 

·        It is expected that the majority of traffic generated by the proposed development will approach/depart via Alison Road, a classified State Road. It is the role of Alison Road to convey traffic to/from the proposed development site.

 

·        The additional traffic demand on the local residential street system as a consequence of the proposed development is likely to be minor.

 

Council’s traffic engineer considers the traffic generation from the proposed development to be low and concurs with the findings of the applicant’s Traffic Report not to have any noticeable effect on the performance or amenity of the surrounding road network. 

 

Ramp grades and transitions, access aisles, height clearances and column locations are generally in accordance with Australian Standard  (2890.1 – 1993) which is considered acceptable by Council’s traffic engineer.

 

9.8     Social impacts

 

DIPNR has assessed the proposal under the requirements of SEPP 10- Retention of Low Cost Rental Accommodation and granted concurrence to the development.  The conditions imposed by DIPNR will require four dwelling units to be rent-capped with appropriate restrictions placed on the strata title of these units. The proposed dwellings are adequate in size for this type of accommodation and will provide a reasonable level of amenity for their occupants.  The proposal will assist in maintaining the quantity of  affordable housing stock within Randwick.

 

The proposal will increase the availability of housing and promote the objectives of the zone. The effect of the proposal would be to bring more people to the site and the demographic characteristics of this population are likely to include, single persons or share households linked to nearby educational/institutional uses; young couples such as first home buyers; and “empty nester” households. It is likely that there will be a mix of incomes amongst residents with some units being owner occupied and others being rented. The added population will generate additional needs for businesses, employees and patrons in the nearby Randwick Junction Town Centre which will in turn encourage the location of services and facilities into the area. The increase in density is not considered to generate an unreasonable demand on the availability of services.

 

9.9     Ecologically Sustainable Development

 

In line with the Local Government Amendment (Ecologically Sustainable Development) Act 1997, Council requires appropriate consideration to be given to the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development in the assessment of development applications.

The proposed development will be well served by public buses along Belmore Road, Alison Road and Avoca Street linking the subject site to the CBD, Railway Square, Bondi Junction, Maroubra Junction, Clovelly and Coogee. The consolidation of the subject site for a mixed residential and commercial/retail use in close proximity to established commercial areas served by good public transport linkages is not only desirable but also in keeping with an increasing trend towards the promotion of public transport usage as a primary means of enhancing ecological sustainability and the reduction of greenhouse gases in the Sydney Region.  The proposal would assist in encouraging the use of public transport in line with ESD principles.

 

The proposal will incorporate sustainability measures including the use of passive design and sun control elements, building layout and orientation to create units that maximise solar access and cross ventilation, provision of a central courtyard open to the sky, and achievement of 3.5 stars energy rating for all proposed units.

 

The proposal is considered acceptable in relation to Ecologically Sustainable Development issues.

 

9.10   Site Remediation

 

In regards to the history of the use of the subject site the applicant has provided advice indicating that all necessary searches have been carried on the previous uses of the subject site and that this research did not identify any previous uses which would have the potential to cause contamination at the site. The applicant further advises that the subject site has not been used for a purpose listed as a Potentially Contaminating Activity in Council’s Contaminated Land Policy. Accordingly Council’s Environmental Health Officer raises no objections to the proposed development in relation to contamination.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

Under clause 47, Council must be reasonably satisfied that the necessary funding for the immediate and ongoing conservation of the heritage item would not be available unless the development is allowed to proceed.  The applicant has demonstrated to Council that the conservation of the heritage item depends on the granting of consent for the proposed development. 

 

The proposed development will not adversely impact on the heritage terraces or detrimentally affect the amenity of the locality in which the heritage items are situated.  As such, it is considered that the proposed development represents an appropriate use of clause 47 and there is adequate justification for the relaxation of the nominated standards.

 

The SEPP 1 objections lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the floor space ratio, landscaping and height are considered to be well founded in the circumstances. The proposal will not have a significant impact on the amenity of surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, privacy and car parking.

 

The proposal achieves the increased economic viability of the subject land whilst also providing considerable community benefit by restoring the existing terrace houses as highly graded items of local significance and providing low-cost housing in the form of rent-capped units.

 

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

 

11.     RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT the Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEPP No. 1) in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 31, 32 and 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (relating to landscaped area, floor space ratio and building heights) on the grounds that the proposed use complies with the objectives of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Natural Resources be advised accordingly.

 

B.       THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0243/2004 for the adaptive re-use/conversion of heritage items into three commercial units, demolition of all other structures and construction of a part-3 and part-4 storey mixed retail/commercial and residential development, containing 4 shops, 1 commercial suite, 19 apartments and carparking for 33 vehicles at 141-151 Alison Road, Randwick subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

The consent shall not operate until the following amendments and details have 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 development are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

          Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) linked to coloured elevations are to be prepared and submitted for approval.

 

2.       Amended roof plan commensurate with the amended details submitted to Council on 27 September 2004 shall be prepared and submitted for approval.

 

3.       Amended north elevation commensurate with the amended details submitted to Council on 27 September 2004 shall be prepared and submitted to Council for approval.

4.       Details of a public access to the loading dock in relation to the security of the residential carpark. Public access to the loading dock shall be maintained at all times and in this regard any security gates or roller door provided to secure residential carparking spaces shall be located so as to provide unimpeded public access to the loading dock.

 

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

 

6.       Details of the proposed paint scheme of the two heritage terraces are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development.  Unpainted surfaces, eg- brickwork/stonework are to remain unpainted.

 

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

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 03 to DA05 Issue B, DA06 to DA09 Issue C, DA11 Issue C, DA12 to DA13 Issue B, and DA14to DA15 Issue C stamped received by Council on 27 September 2004, and DA16 Issue B stamped received by Council on 6 October 2004, the application form, and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the details/amendments approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.       The external colours, materials and finishes of the proposed development shall be in accordance with the details and plans submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Environment pursuant to the deferred commencement condition.

 

3.       An archival recording of the property shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and 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.  This recording shall be in accordance with the Guidelines for the preparation of archival recordings set out by the NSW Heritage Office.  Three copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library.

 

4.       The conservation policies set out in the Conservation Plan carried out by Jackson Teece Chesterman and Willis Pty Ltd, and in particular the Schedule of Conservation Works to 143 and 145 Alison Road, are to be implemented in conjunction with the proposed development.

 

5.       An architect suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation shall be engaged to oversee the carrying out of Conservation Works to ensure the use of technically sound and appropriate construction methods.

 

6.       A Maintenance Schedule for nos.143 and 145 Alison Road is to be prepared, as recommended by the Conservation Plan, in accordance with the information sheet on Preparing a Maintenance Plan contained in The Maintenance of Heritage Assets: A Practical Guide, prepared by the NSW Heritage Office.  The Maintenance Plan is 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.  Maintenance and repair is to be carried out on an ongoing basis, to ensure timely maintenance and repair of the heritage item.

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

7.       In accordance with the provisions of clauses 143A and 154A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a ‘Design Verification Certificate’ must be provided to the Certifying Authority and the Council, prior to issuing a construction certificate and an occupation certificate, respectively.

 

8.       A single common television aerial, and/or satellite dish (having a maximum diameter of 700mm and not located on the front or street elevation of the building) is to be installed to serve the development.

 

9.       Street numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

In this regard, prior to occupation of the building, an application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director Planning & Community Development, together with the required fee, for the allocation of an appropriate street number/s to the development.

 

10.     A separate Development Application is required to be submitted to and approved by Council with regard to each separate proposed usage of the building prior to occupancy.

 

11.     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.

 

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

 

13.     A rainwater tank, of sufficient size, shall be provided for each and every dwelling in the subject development in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy. The noise level from any pump used in conjunction with the rainwater tank provision 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. Details of the rainwater tank provision are to be submitted to the Director – Planning and Community Development for approval prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Alternatively, where it can be demonstrated, to the satisfaction of Council, that the installation of rainwater tanks is prohibitive due to site constraints, or where the rainwater supply will not meet the demand requirements of each and every dwelling, then an alternative off-set provision promoting sustainability and innovation within the development may be put forward for consideration.  This sustainable development provision must be provided in addition to Council’s standard sustainability requirements for developments and may include measures such as, greywater utilisation, renewable (solar) energy utilisation, larger communal and/or private landscaped areas, or other innovative features of the development promoting ecologically sustainable development.

 

14.     The enclosure of balconies is prohibited by this consent.

 

15.     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.

 

16.     The consent of Council must be obtained prior to the erection of any advertising unless exempted under Council’s Development Control Plan - Exempt and Complying Development.

 

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

 

18.     All loading and unloading associated with the use or operation of the premises shall be carried out within the designated loading dock

 

19.     Development consent is required to be obtained in relation to the specific ‘use and operation’ of commercial tenancies/occupancies and ‘shop fit out works’, in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

20.     Lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents or motorists and to ensure that light overspill does not affect the amenity of the area.

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy SEPP 10 requirements for low-cost rental accommodation.

 

21.     Two (2) x studio units and two (2) x one bedroom units in the proposed strata plan shall be retained in rental tenure on the open market for a period of 6 years from the registration of the strata plan.

 

22.     Rent levels for the units referred to in condition No. 18 shall be not more than $159/week for the studio units and not more than $265/week for the one-bedroom units. The rents shall be updated at the beginning of each financial year utilising the guidelines issued by the NSW Office of State Revenue for land used and occupied primarily for a boarding house. The guidelines for the 2004 tax year where less than full board and lodging was provided currently specify rates for single accommodation (currently the $159/week for the studio units) and shared accommodation (currently $265/week for the one bedroom units). This rent shall cover any additional facilities or benefits (such as car parking) provided to the lessee of those units. No additional rent, fee or charge may be levied for any additional facilities or benefits provided to the lessee under the rental agreement.

 

23.     A positive covenant shall be created under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act, to give effect to Conditions Nos. 18 and 19 above. Such covenant shall not be revoked or modified without the prior approval of Council. The covenant shall be submitted for Council’s approval with the strata plan and shall be registered simultaneously with the strata plan.

 

24.     Statutory declarations shall be submitted to Council annually from the date of registration of the strata plan by the respective owners of the units referred to in condition No. 18 for a period of six years documenting rent levels charged including rent receipts.

 

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

 

25.     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.

 

26.     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.

 

27.     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.

 

28.     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.

 

29.     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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

31.     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:

 

32.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, including ancillary structures located upon:

 

§  All of the premises adjoining the subject site

 

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

 

33.     A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby land/premises and the report is to detail any possible damage which may occur to adjoining or nearby premises that may be caused by the proposed building, excavation and shoring works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

38.     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.

 

39.     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.

 

40.     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.

 

41.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

43.     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.

 

44.     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.

 

45.     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.

 

46.     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.

 

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

 

48.     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.

 

49.     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.

 

50.     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.

 

51.     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”.

 

52.     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.

 

53.     During demolition excavation and construction works, dust emissions must be minimised, so as not to result in a nuisance to nearby residents or result in a potential pollution incident.

 

          Adequate dust control measures must be provided to the site prior to the works commencing and the measures and practices must be maintained throughout the demolition, excavation and construction process, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

          Dust control measures and practices may include:-

·      Provision of geotextile fabric to all perimeter site fencing (attached on the prevailing wind side of the site fencing).

·      Covering of stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material with adequately secured tarpaulins or plastic sheeting.

·      Installation of a water sprinkling system or provision hoses or the like.

·      Regular watering-down of all loose materials and stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material.

·      Minimisation/relocation of stockpiles of materials, to minimise potential for disturbance by prevailing winds.

·      Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

55.     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.

 

          All soil and water management measures must be maintained at all times throughout demolition, excavation, building and site works and a copy of the soil and water management plan is to be kept on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

56.     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

 

57.     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.

 

58.     The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $5 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council prior to commencement of works.

 

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