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

 

 

1st February, 2005

 

HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY, 2005 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

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

 

Quorum:                                      Eight (8) members.

 

NOTE: AT THE EXTRAORDINARY MEETING HELD ON 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2004, THE COUNCIL RESOLVED THAT THE HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE BE CONSTITUTED AS A COMMITTEE WHOSE MEMBERSHIP CONSISTS OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND WITH FULL DELEGATION TO DETERMINE MATTERS ON THE AGENDA.

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUILDING & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 7TH DECEMBER, 2004.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minute

 

5.1                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 2/2005 - CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL POSITION ON PROPOSED OFF RAMPS FROM SOUTHERN CROSS DRIVE TO GARDENERS ROAD.

2

 

 

 

6           Development Applications

 

6.1                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 25 BYRNE CRESCENT, MAROUBRA.

6

 

6.2                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 80 BEACH STREET, COOGEE.

25

 

6.3                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 36 LUCAS AVENUE, MALABAR.

43

 

6.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 330 ANZAC PARADE, KENSINGTON.

59

 

6.5                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 265-271 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK.

104

 

6.6                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 62 FRENCHMANS ROAD, RANDWICK.

209

 

 

7           Miscellaneous

 

7.1                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 1/2005 - REPORT TO AMEND THE RANDWICK LEP 1998 AND PREPARE A DCP FOR MATRAVILLE TOWN CENTRE.

274

 

 

8           General Business

 

9           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

……..……………………

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 2/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Consideration of Council Position on Proposed Off Ramps From Southern Cross Drive to Gardeners Road

 

 

DATE:

18 January, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08216

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council resolved on the 23rd November 2004 that it would;

 

“…support the concept of the Gardeners Road access ramps with Southern Cross Drive, and encourage the early implementation of this initiative by the New South Wales State Government subject to the following conditions ….”

 

These conditions referred to above included:

 

·        a new Local Area Traffic Management Scheme;

·        appropriate noise mitigation measures prior to the completion of the ramps;

·        the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee on provisions for pedestrian movements and local traffic arrangements on Gardeners Road;

·        a traffic assessment of the Kingsford Roundabout, appropriate measures to improve the traffic flows through Gardeners Road/the roundabout/Anzac Parade corridor;

·        appropriate community consultation, consultation with the City of Sydney both about the proposed development on the “Dolina” site and on the possible re-opening of Dalmeny Avenue;

·        consideration of the provision of on and off ramps on the northern side of Gardeners Road; and

·        other conditions.

 

The Member for Heffron, Ms Kristina Keneally, was also to be both consulted about the Dalmeny Avenue re-opening and was to be advised that;

 

“…that while Randwick City Council acknowledges, in principle, the wider benefits of the proposed ramps in improving overall transport efficiency, by contributing greatly to the movement of people and goods across South Sydney region, Council cannot unconditionally support any proposals that would be detrimental to the local residential amenity in its local government area, and would, therefore seek her support in achieving appropriate Community Consultation, acceptance and installation of the proposed mitigation works by the R.T.A. prior to the implementation of the ramps by the RTA…”

 

Finally, Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer was to write to the R.T.A. as to the benefits of the above northern on and off ramp arrangements to the City of Randwick.

 

Late last year I met with Councillor Bradley Hughes and representatives of the Safe Tunstall Action Group to discuss the RTA proposal. I subsequently wrote to the Minister for Roads, Mr Carl Scully bringing to his attention concerns that I personally had with the proposal. These included:

 

·        the lack of an EIS;

·        the capacity of the Kingsford Roundabout to cope with the extra traffic;

·        clarification on the consideration that the RTA had given to the option of no-left turns on Gardeners Road at the intersections of Tunstall, Cottenham, Eastern, Maitland and Aboud; and

·        the possible benefits of re-opening Dalmeny Avenue.

 

I concluded the letter by honestly stating that,

 

“I must advise you that I will find it difficult to maintain my support for the proposed off ramps in the absence of clarification on these issues.”

 

In January I met with residents of Eastern Avenue who put similar concerns to me as to those put by the Tunstall Avenue residents the previous month.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Not-with-standing the conditions attached to Council’s resolution of the

23rd November, I believe that Council’s support for the early implementation of

the Gardeners Road access ramps with Southern Cross Drive needs to be tempered.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the RTA be notified that Council suspends its earlier support for the concept of the Gardeners Road access ramps with Southern Cross Drive until:

 

a)           There is greater clarification on the RTA’s response to the conditions attached to Council’s resolution of the 23rd November 2004, namely that:

 

1.       the RTA be responsible for the funding and prior implementation of traffic calming measures in the West Kingsford Precinct with a new Local Area Traffic Management Scheme, to discourage cross traffic movements taking shortcuts through these local residential streets;

2.       the RTA implement appropriate noise mitigation measures, as identified in the environmental assessment, prior to the completion of the ramps, subject to Council being satisfied with these measures;

 

3.       the provisions for pedestrian movements and local traffic arrangements on Gardeners Road shall be to the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee;

 

4.       prior to the completion of the access ramps and six months after completion of the access ramps, the RTA shall undertake a full comprehensive traffic assessment of the operation of the Kingsford Roundabout to assess the impact of the ramps, and implement appropriate measures in consultation with Randwick City Council, to improve the traffic flows through Gardeners Road/the roundabout/Anzac Parade corridor;

 

5.       the RTA, in conjunction with Council, Council officers and interested Councillors shall undertake appropriate community consultation, which shall include but not be limited to monthly public meetings with key stakeholders and community groups, letter box drops, newspaper advertisements, etc, to allow residents of West Kingsford and Kensington every opportunity to be informed of the details of the Ramps project and associated mitigation measures, and ensure that their concerns are addressed adequately prior to the commencement of construction of these facilities; such consultation shall be conducted and concluded to Council’s satisfaction prior to the nomination of the successful contractor for the construction of these facilities;

 

6.       the RTA be urged to formalise the design for the provision of a grade separated interchange at the intersection of Epsom Road and Southern Cross Drive and prioritise it as the next to go ahead as part of the 10 year $80 million Roads Boost for South Sydney program;

 

7.       the RTA be requested to provide an update of its investigations and traffic modelling of the various measures proposed by Randwick City Council for inclusion in the $80 million program;

 

8.       the R.T.A. be urged to consider the provision of on and off ramps on the northern side of Gardeners Road to cater to the needs of Sydney City bound motorists and, further, to cater to the needs of motorists residing in the City of Randwick; and

 

b)      A full and comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement is conducted into the likely impacts on the environment and the amenity of residents from the impacts of the proposal and the traffic flows generated by it.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

11 January, 2005

FILE NO:

DA996/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Extension of existing balconies to the rear (eastern side) of dwelling, including new balustrading to entry stairs and rebuilding existing balcony on north elevation

PROPERTY:

 25 Byrne Crescent, Maroubra

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Jocelyn Castile

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The application seeks development consent to increase the size of the existing balconies to the rear of the existing dwelling (east side), reconstructing the existing balcony to the northern elevation, and providing new balustrade to the existing entry stairs.

 

The main issues for consideration are the increased loss of privacy to No. 23 Byrne Crescent and loss of views from No. 27 Byrne Crescent.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is to increase the size of the two existing balconies to the rear of the existing dwelling (east elevation) from 2.9m x 2.6m to 5.7m x 2.6m including new glass balustrades. The north eastern balcony is to have a privacy screen measuring 1.8m in height running the entire northern length of the proposed balcony. The proposal also includes the rebuilding of the existing northern (side) balcony including new steel posts and new frosted glass balustrade. A new balustrade is also proposed to the existing front entry stairs, which is located on the northern side of the dwelling beneath the balcony to be rebuilt.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

 

The subject site is situated on the east side of Byrne Crescent between Broome Street and Ford Road in Maroubra and is occupied by an existing part two and part three storey dwelling house (a workshop is located in the subfloor area). The subject site is irregular in shape with a frontage and rear boundary width of 15.24m and side boundary lengths of 32.71m and having a site area of 498.5m2. Neighbouring the property to the south is a two storey dwelling and to the north is a single storey dwelling with garage beneath. To the rear is Malabar Headland, consisting predominantly of native vegetation including coastal shrubs. The site itself falls away from the road and there is a difference in level of approximately 1.5m between the front and rear boundaries.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

BA788/1967

New Dwelling

Approved

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

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

 

5.1     Objections

 

Mr & Mrs Hynes – 27 Byrne Crescent, Maroubra

·        The proposal will result in the existing balcony (which is just under 5m in height) being located to within 1m from the side boundary creating additional bulk.

·        The south eastern balcony will directly overlook family room, dining room and backyard.

·        There would be a significant impact in the form of a reduction of views which extend towards the northern headland of Maroubra Beach and Marine Parade.

 

Mr & Mrs Hynes have also addressed the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies with regard to setbacks. They have discussed in detail how the proposal fails to achieve the requirements outlined in the DCP and the resultant adverse impacts to their property in respect of view loss, increased overlooking, loss of privacy and amenity.

 

Attached to the submission is a series of photographs showing potential impacts from the proposal when viewed from the objector’s residence.

 

Comment

See Section 8.1 “Policy Controls” and “Environmental Assessment” Section below.

 

Mrs E Hudspeth – 23 Byrne Crescent, Maroubra

·        In the event that the staircase on the northern elevation is replaced, a privacy screen is requested to increase privacy to Mrs Hudspeth’s second bedroom.

·        Objects to the small balcony on the northern elevation being extended closer to the boundary as the setback will be decreased to 625mm increasing amenity and privacy impacts (extracts from the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies relating to setbacks were provided). Mrs Hudspeth also states that her second bedroom relies on reflected and outside ambient light. Decreasing the side setback will diminish the available reflected light source. It has also been stated that the proposal does not meet the variation requirements (in terms of side setbacks).

·        The change from solid timber balustrades to glass is not acceptable. This increases the opportunity for viewing into Mrs Hudspeth’s second bedroom.

·        It is noted that the applicant has proposed frosted glazing to this balustrade although glass is easy to break and be replaced by future residents. Timber is preferred as glass would reflect the bedroom light into Mrs Hudspeth’s second bedroom. Extracts from the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies relating to privacy have been discussed at this point, arguing that the proposal does not comply with the DCP.

·        Objects to the stainless steel posts proposed to the northern balcony.

·        Objects to the extension of the north eastern balcony as it will be setback 1350mm from the northern boundary and is elevated at least 2.1m. This balcony will directly overlook Mrs Hudpeth’s rear yard. An alternative would be to extend the subject balcony in a southerly direction, centralising the balcony to the building.

·        Solid timber balustrades would be preferred due to greater privacy. Extracts from the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies relating to privacy has again been discussed stating that the proposal does not comply with this section of the DCP.

·        The proposed extension to the north eastern balcony will be extending over the existing swimming pool in the rear yard. The distance from the balcony to the pool is 2.4m. The proposed balustrade does not meet the requirements of this standard (AS1926.1).

 

Comment

See Section 8.1 “Policy Controls” and “Environmental Assessment” Section below.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

Referrals were not required in this case.

 

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

This heading has been considered, but is not relevant given that the area of the subject site is less than 4000m2.

 

8.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

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

-        Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

The proposal will enhance the design of the existing building.

 

8.1     Policy Controls

          a.       Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy

 

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

 

Building Setbacks

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S2

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

The proposed balcony is 2.2m from the rear boundary at its closest point. Does not comply. See assessment below.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed north eastern balcony is setback 1.35m from the northern side boundary. The proposed balcony on the northern elevation is setback 0.7m from the northern side boundary. Does not comply. See assessment below.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

The proposed south eastern balcony is setback 1m from the southern side boundary. Does not comply. See assessment below.

 

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. With respect to front boundary setbacks, the proposal generally conforms to the adjoining development or dominant streetscape.

The proposal does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP in terms of side and rear setbacks. The northern side balcony is to be rebuilt but remain the same size as the existing balcony. Amended plans have been received which show the original encroachment reduced to that which currently exists. As such, it would be unreasonable to refuse this proposed balcony as it is merely replacing the existing balcony.

With regard to the north eastern balcony extension, the proposal is 250mm short of complying with the preferred solutions of the DCP. Given that the applicant has provided a 1.8m high privacy screen along the entire northern edge of this balcony, any potential loss of privacy has been alleviated. The proposal will not impact No. 23 by way of reduced access to natural light, daylight or fresh air, thus complying with the performance requirements of the DCP. The north eastern balcony extension is therefore considered acceptable in its current form in respect to setbacks.

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The ground floor and first floor rear balconies will overlook the rear yard areas of the adjoining properties. Does not comply – see assessment below.

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 separation, screening devices and landscaping be used to assist in minimising privacy impacts.

As mentioned previously, the small balcony on the northern elevation will be replaced/rebuilt including the provision of a new frosted glass balustrade. As a result, privacy will not be affected as this balcony will be unchanged. The north eastern balcony has the potential for direct overlooking into the rear yard of No. 23 Byrne Crescent. A privacy screen measuring 1.8m in height is proposed to the entire northern side of this balcony to prevent any potential loss of privacy.

With regard to the balcony on the south east side, the potential for overlooking into the rear yard of No. 27 is also high. However, after speaking to the owner of No. 27, view loss appears to be a more important issue and a privacy screen will result in a loss of view to the north east. See also Section 9.1 – Environmental Assessment. It should also be noted that Condition 3 has been included with the recommendation limiting the extension of this balcony to be in line with the external southern wall of the existing building (additional setback of 450mm).

Foreshore Development

 

Performance Requirements

Assessment

P1

No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.

Not applicable

P2

Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

Given that the proposal is minor in nature and will not involve substantial changes to materials and design, the proposal satisfies this criterion.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

Condition 3 has been included with the recommendation limiting the size of the south eastern balcony. This aims to reduce view loss experienced by the owners of No. 27 Byrne Crescent.  See also Section 9.1 – Environmental Assessment.

 

9.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The main issues of concern relate to view loss and loss of privacy. Compliance with an Australian Standard relating to separation from swimming pools and appropriate balustrade heights was also raised by one objector.

 

9.1     View Loss

 

Following a site meeting on 13 December 2004 of No. 27 and No. 23 Byrne Crescent, it was evident that No. 27 Byrne Crescent would experience some view loss with the extension of the south eastern balcony. This view to Marine Parade and the northern headland of Maroubra Beach is obtained across the side property boundary and between the roof support post and the wall of the neighbouring dwelling (subject dwelling) and above the existing timber balustrade. Quoting the Standards of Performance – Recent Case Law, compiled by Council’s solicitors, “the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views over front and rear boundaries”. Further, “the expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic”. The degree of view loss is considered minor as only a small proportion of views are potentially affected when compared to the expansive uninterrupted views currently enjoyed. It should also be noted that the clear glass balustrades proposed should not interfere with the views currently enjoyed.  In addition, condition 3 forming part of this recommendation requires that the proposed extension of the existing south eastern balcony does not extend beyond the southern external wall of the existing dwelling.

 

9.2     Loss of Privacy

 

Both the owners of No. 27 & 23 have expressed concerns relating to the loss of privacy. It should be noted that the dwelling at No. 27 Byrne Crescent is separated by a distance of approximately 7m from the proposed south eastern balcony. In addition, the parcels of land along this section of Byrne Crescent are angled in such a way that each dwelling house is stepped progressively along this section of street. This has resulted in the property at No. 27 Byrne Crescent being setback approximately 3m further west than the subject property. This setback, combined with the 7m separation between structures demonstrates that overlooking into the living areas of No. 27 from the balcony at No. 25 would be difficult. Overlooking into the rear yard however, may occur. A privacy screen has not been proposed nor will it be conditioned as this will completely remove the views currently enjoyed as discussed in the previous section “view loss” above.

 

The owners of No. 23 Byrne Crescent expressed concerns relating to the proposed balcony on the northern elevation of the subject dwelling as the second bedroom looks out into this area. As mentioned previously, amended plans have been received which show the balcony being rebuilt to the same size as existing. Frosted glass will replace the existing timber balustrade to offer privacy to the bedroom of No. 23 Byrne Crescent.

 

The proposed extension to the north eastern balcony has offered the greatest concern, as overlooking into the rear yard of No. 23 Byrne Crescent will result. As such, amended plans were received detailing a privacy screen measuring 1.8m in height along the entire northern edge of the subject balcony.

 

9.3     Compliance with Australian Standard

 

The north eastern balcony overhangs the existing above ground pool in the rear yard. As the distance between the top of the pool and the balcony is less than 2.4m, balustrades along this balcony must comply with the relevant Australian Standard. Condition 4 has been included to address this issue.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

That part of the proposal which seeks consent to demolish/rebuild the balcony on the northern elevation is acceptable in its current form as it will not lessen the amount of privacy currently experienced by the property at No. 23 Byrne Crescent.

 

A condition will be included as part of this recommendation restricting the extent of addition to the existing south eastern balcony. This will significantly reduce privacy concerns raised by the owners of No. 27 Byrne Crescent. The glass balustrades will also help in the maintenance of views currently enjoyed by the owners of No. 27 Byrne Crescent. The north eastern balcony extension proposes a privacy screen along the northern side. This will alleviate any potential loss of privacy to the owners of No. 23 Byrne Crescent.

 

Given that the applicant has taken privacy concerns on board by providing frosted glass to the northern balcony and a privacy screen to the north eastern balcony, the proposal is not considered to have an adverse impact to the adjoining property to the north (No. 23). Further, the inclusion of Condition 3 as part of this recommendation has acknowledged the potential loss of privacy to No. 27 Byrne Crescent by limiting the extent of the proposed addition. This condition, together with the proposed glass balustrades, will also ensure any potential view loss is kept to a minimum.

 

Given the above, the application subject to suitable conditions is recommended for approval.

 

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 996/2004 for the Extension of existing balconies to the rear (eastern side) of dwelling, including new balustrading to entry stairs and rebuilding existing balcony on north elevation at 25 Byrne Crescent, Maroubra subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans numbered C – 01 A & C – 02 A, dated Sept. ‘04 and received by Council on 18 January 2005, 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 balconies are to be compatible with the existing dwelling house and the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and when viewed from the foreshore.

 

The following conditions are site specific:

3.       The extension of the south eastern balcony is not to extend beyond the alignment of the southern external wall of the existing dwelling ie. a maximum extension of 2.35m to the south. This is to ensure the retention of views currently enjoyed by the owners of No. 27 Byrne Crescent and also to reduce the potential loss of privacy to the owners of No. 27 Byrne Crescent.

 

4.       The balustrades along the north eastern balcony are to be a minimum height of 1.2m and are to be designed, constructed and installed in accordance with AS 1926-1986.

 

5.       The section of glass balustrade beneath the privacy screen on the north eastern balcony must be frosted to ensure additional privacy to 23 Byrne Crescent.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

                  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

          Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

14.     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”.

 

15.     A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

16.     All 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.

 

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

 

18.     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

         

19.     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.

 

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

 

21.     Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

22.     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

 

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

 

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configurations

Photographs of the site

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ANDREW BEATTIE

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 



 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

12 January, 2005

FILE NO:

D/273/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification - To resite Building 'B' 1450mm to the east (Dwellings 3 and 4), make minor alterations to the proposed dwellings, basement car park, landscaping, reduction in the degree of excavation and glazing and balcony changes to the north and east elevations.

PROPERTY:

 80 Beach Street Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Beach and Partnership

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as the original application was determined by Council.  Approval was granted on 10 August 2004 at Council’s Health Building and Planning Committee for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a part 2 / part 3 level multi unit housing development in the form of two buildings containing a total of 4 x 3 bedroom dwellings with basement car parking for 9 vehicles.

 

The applicant proposes, under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, to amend the design of the approved buildings, including moving the building at the rear of the site 1.45 metres further east away from the rear boundary.  In addition to this, the applicant proposes to modify condition 66 of the Development Consent which requires one of the car parking spaces in the basement car park to be dedicated for use as a turning bay.  Other minor changes are also proposed.

 

The proposed amendments are considered minor and recommended for approval.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

Details of the proposed modifications involve:

 

Basement Area

 

·        Reduce length of basement car parking.

·        Change the layout of the garbage storage area, rainwater tank and stormwater detention tank.

·        Reconfiguration of the fire exit stairs in the basement car park.

·        Reconfigure parking spaces and reinstate the end bay as a designated car parking space.

 

Ground Level

 

·        Internal changes to the layout of dwellings 1 and 2.

·        New rear stairs to dwellings 1 and 2.

·        Front sliding doors altered to dwellings1 and 2.

·        Increase the rear setback by 1.45m.

·        Internal changes to dwellings 3 and 4.

·        Removal of side windows to dwellings 3 and 4.

·        Sliding doors installed to the northern elevation of dwellings 3 and 4.

·        New Landscaping elements.

 

First Floor Level

 

·        Internal changes to dwellings 1, 2, 3 and 4.

·        New skylights to dwellings 1 and 2.

 

Second Floor Level

 

·        Internal changes to dwellings 3 and 4.

In addition to the above changes the applicant has proposed to modify condition 66 which reads:

 

66.     ‘One car space in addition to the visitor parking space shall be allocated as a dedicated turning bay and shall be sign posted and line marked as such and allocated as common property on the strata plans prior to the release of the strata subdivision certificate.’

 

Instead, the applicant proposes to install a light sensor over the visitor’s car space which will be linked to a display unit at the driveway entrance to advise whether the visitor space is currently occupied.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is a corner lot with three street frontages, being located on the western side of Beach Street, the northern side of Alison Road and at its rear, Beach Lane.  The property is identified as Lot 1303 in DP 752011 and is fairly regular in shape, with a frontage to Beach Street and Beach Lane of 14.02m, and a width of 47.28m to Alison Road having a total site area of 663m2.

 

Existing on the site is a single storey painted brick and tile dwelling house and free standing garage at the rear (Figure 1).  As well, there are two large Moreton Bay Fig Trees and seven (7) Cocos Palms approximately between 6m-8m in height along the southern side of the driveway.

 

The majority of the site is fairly flat, being located at the base of a former quarry and has a western edge to Beach Lane.  The property is bordered by a cliff face at the rear, off Beach Lane.

 

 

Figure 1 – subject site from Beach Street

 

Located on the adjoining site to the north (78 Beach Street) is a two storey painted brick and tile residential flat building (its relationship with the subject site can be seen in Figure 2).

 

Figure 2 – 78 Beach Street adjoining the subject site to the north

 

Adjoining the site to the south is Alison Road, which has a wide verge on its northern side immediately adjacent to the subject site.  The verge has a fairly steep progressive rise from the site boundary, commensurate to the steep slope in the Alison Road pavement to the west (refer Figure 3).  Opposite the site, on the south-west corner of Beach Street and Alison Road (82 Beach Street), is a two storey dwelling house (refer Figure 4).

 

 

 

Figure 3 – Council verge on the northern side of Alison Road adjoining the subject site

 

 

Figure 4 – 82 Beach Street on the south-west corner of Beach Street and

Alison Road

 

To the rear of the site, on the western side of Beach Lane at the top of the cliff is a heritage listed property (370 Alison Road), which is a substantial Edwardian era mansion, known as “Ocean View”, dating back to the late 1930’s (refer Figure 5).

 

 

Figure 5 – Subject site with 370 Alison Road (Heritage Item) in the background.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The currently approved proposal was the subject of a pre-lodgement application (PL 0005/2004).  A meeting was held on 24 February, 2004, with Council Officers and written advice issued in regard to the re-development concepts for the site.

 

The pre-lodgement application was also referred to the Design Review Panel on 1 March, 2004, where several recommendations were given including moving the rear building further east away from the cliff face.

 

On 20 April 2004 the Development Application was lodged for demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a multi unit housing development in the form of two separate buildings containing 4x3 bedroom dwellings with basement parking for nine cars and strata subdivision.

 

Consent was granted 10 August 2004 subject to 115 Conditions and 3 Advisory Conditions.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposed Section 96 modifications have been notified in accordance with Councils Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. As a result of this notification and advertising, no submissions were received.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1     Heritage Issues

 

‘The subject site is occupied by a four storey rendered masonry residential flat building, of fairly recent construction.  The site is adjacent to the Coogee Beach Palace, listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998, although the original building on the site has largely been rebuilt.  The original Coogee Palace was opened in 1887.  Due to the fall of the site, the subject building is somewhat elevated above the level of the Coogee Palace.

 

The application proposes alterations and additions to the apartment which occupies the whole of the top floor of the building.  Internal changes are proposed, as well as a number of skylights to the roof and an increase in height of the existing privacy wall to the northern edge of the terrace on the eastern elevation.

 

In relation to the proposed skylights, it is noted that although several of the skylights have a pyramidal form ed that due to the height of the roof of the building above street level and above the level of the Coogee Palace, the skylights will not be visible from the street or the adjacent heritage item.  There are no heritage objections to the proposed internal changes.

 

In relation to the changes to the privacy wall, it is noted that the privacy wall is at the northern edge of the terrace and does not adjoin the Coogee Palace.  The application proposes to increase the height of the privacy wall by only 300mm, and will not further obscure the roofline of the adjacent building to the north, or be prominent in the streetscape.  There are no heritage objections to the proposed privacy wall.’

 

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area of 663m2 is less than that required for the submission of a master plan (4000m2).  The proposal is exempt from this requirement.

 

8.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

8.1     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65)

 

Clause 115 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 states the following with regard to applications for modification of development consents:

 

(1A)   In addition, an application for the modification of a development consent under section 96 (2) or 96AA (1) of the Act, if it relates to residential flat development for which the development application was required to be accompanied by a design verification from a qualified designer under clause 50 (1A), must be accompanied by a design verification from a qualified designer, being a statement in which the qualified designer verifies that:

          (a)     he or she designed, or directed the design, of the modification of the residential flat development, and

          (b)     the residential flat development, as modified, achieves the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, and

          (c)     the modifications do not diminish or detract from the design quality, or compromise the design intent, of the development for which the development consent was granted.

(1B)   The consent authority may refer the proposed modification to the relevant design review panel.

The proposed amendments have been accompanied by a Design Verification Statement from Phillip Thalis of Hill Thalis Architecture and Urban Projects Pty Ltd, stating that the proposed amendments have been designed in Accordance with the requirements of SEPP 65.

 

It is not considered that the proposal is required to be further referred to the Design Review Panel as the proposed amendments are minor and the proposed re alignment of the rear building are consistent with previous recommendations of the panel for the building to be moved further east away from the cliff face to the rear of the site.

 

8.2     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

8.2.1  Clause 31 – Landscaped Area

 

Development, otherwise than for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2B is required under Clause 31 (2), to provide a minimum of 50% of the total site area as landscaped area.  Further Clause 31 (3) requires landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas not to exceed 50% of the landscaped area requirements specified by Clause 31 (2) above.  The purpose of the development standard is stated:

 

“To establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban runoff and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes”.

 

The proposed amendments will result in a landscaped area of approximately 52.24%, of which the equivalent of 25% of the site area is landscaping above the excavated basement car park level, in the form of terraces, pathways and landscaped garden beds. The proposal satisfies the LEP requirements. The cliff face has been excluded from the calculation of landscaped area.  Although the cliff is a natural feature of the site, it is considered that it presents no utility as a recreational area and minimal utility as a ‘garden area’. Nevertheless, the proposal complies with the minimum landscaped area requirements for the site even excluding such a sizeable proportion (5.4% approximately) occupied by the cliff face. 

 

Other landscaping changes which form part of this application involve extending and increasing the approved planter boxes along the northern side of the site.  These being beneficial improvements, creating more greenery.

 

8.2.2  Clause 32 - Floor Space Ratios

 

Under Clause 32(2), a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.65:1 is applicable for the site.  The approved development has a FSR of approximately 0.77:1 which exceeds the control by approximately 84m2.

 

The proposed amendments do not result in an increase of the gross floor area of the approved building with a floor space ratio of 0.77:1 being retained as originally approved.

 

8.2.3  Clause 33 – Building Heights

 

Clause 33 (1) of the RLEP 1998 requires that the maximum building height for a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2B to be no more than 9.5min in height measured vertically from any point on ground level, while the maximum external wall height, under Clause 33 (3) is 7m measured vertically from any point on ground level.

 

The approved development has a maximum overall height of 10.3m and a maximum external wall height of 9.1m for the building at the rear of the site.   The proposed amendments will not result in an increase in the height of the building with a maximum RL of 53.24m to the ridge height of the rear building, being retained as approved.  The proposed changes do not affect the approved building height and general envelope.

 

8.2.4  Clause 46 – Development in the vicinity of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and potential archaeological sites

 

The subject site is located in the vicinity of a heritage item listed in RLEP 1998, being a two storey Edwardian mansion at 370 Alison Road, to the west (rear) of the site, located at the top of the cliff adjoining Beach Lane.

 

Clause 46 of the RLEP 1998, requires Council to take into consideration the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item.  As such, Council’s Heritage Planner has commented on the proposal (refer to Section 6.1 of this report), and has raised no objection to the proposed modifications. 

 

While the scale of the proposed development is greater than the existing building on site and will reduce views to the heritage item to some extent from Beach Street, a greater degree of separation is provided to the residential flat building on the adjoining site to the north, thus opening up views to the heritage item.  As well, the oblique view looking north-west from further south along Beach Street, will not be greatly affected.

 

8.3     Development Control Plan  Multi Unit Housing

 

8.3.1  Building Setbacks

 

The applicant has increased the rear boundary setbacks from 4.5metres to 6metres.  This setback satisfies the minimum 4.5m and the minimum average of 6m set by the preferred solutions of the Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan.  There are no changes to the side and front setbacks. This is considered to be an improvement to the buildings layout and siting and provides greater separation to the rear.

 

8.3.2  Privacy

 

There are minor changes to the north facing doors to the ground floor of dwellings 3 and 4.  These changes will not result in any additional privacy impact upon the neighbouring property to the north 78 Beach Street.

 

Conditions 4 and 5 of the development consent require changes to the approved development to minimise privacy impacts.  These conditions (stated below) are being maintained.

 

          ‘4.     The north facing balconies on Level 1 of the western dwellings (Houses 3 and 4) shall be reduced in depth to a maximum projection of 450mm from the wall of the building and the north facing roof over shall be reduced in extent to have the same projection from the building.  Details of compliance with this condition shall be shown on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

          Reason : To minimise overlooking and allow for a larger tree canopy.

 

          5.       Louvred privacy screens to a height of 1.5m shall be located on the northern elevation of the Level 2 terraces of the western dwellings (Houses 3 and 4) and shall be shown as such on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate

 

          Reason : To minimise overlooking’

 

The Section 96 plans submitted do not indicate these changes. The applicant has confirmed however that there is no intension to remove these conditions under this Section 96.  Subject to these conditions remaining it is not considered that the proposed amendments will result in any additional adverse privacy impacts upon the neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed changes aim to improve the amenity and layout of the proposed development.     

 

8.4     Development Control Plan Parking

 

In addition to the above changes the applicant has proposed to modify condition 66 which reads:

 

66.     ‘One car space in addition to the visitor parking space shall be allocated as a dedicated turning bay and shall be sign posted and line marked as such and allocated as common property on the strata plans prior to the release of the strata subdivision certificate.’

 

In the absence of this condition the applicant proposes to install a light sensor over the visitor’s car space which will be included on a display unit at the driveway entrance indicating that the visitor space is occupied.

 

The intention of condition 66 is to allow for a turning area for vehicles to enter and leave the car park in a forward direction should the visitor space be occupied. 

 

The applicant has provided a letter form Mr Oleg I Sannikov from TEF Consulting (Traffic Engineers) supporting the deletion of condition 66 for the following reasons:

 

‘The development proposal comprises four units with a basement parking area containing 8 spaces for residents and one visitor space.

 

The proposed design for the car parking area has been checked for compliance with Australian Standard 2890.1-2004.  It has been found, that in terms of dimensions the proposed parking spaces and parking aisle fully comply with and exceed the requirements of the Australian Standard.

Manoeuvring of vehicles into and out of the proposed parking spaces has been checked by using AutoTrack software (Savoy Computing), a specialised tool for vehicle sweep paths analysis.  This check revealed that vehicles could manoeuvre without difficulty.

 

Given the above considerations, there is no need to provide a turning bay for resident vehicles.  Resident would be able to move their vehicles in and out of the car parking area in a forward direction without the aid of a turning bay.  The same applies to visitors vehicle enters the car parking area.  It is my understanding that a turning bay would only be required for a visitor’s vehicle in the event when the vehicle space is occupied.  In such circumstances the visitor’s vehicle would have to reverse out of the car parking area onto the street, which would be unsatisfactory.  I am of the strong opinion, however that such a situation would be better addressed by advising the driver that the space is occupied prior to his entering the car parking area.  This space can be achieved by the installation of a simple infra red or indicative loop sensor at the visitor space in combination with a “VISITOR SPACE OCCUPED” display at the entry to the car parking area.  I therefore recommend that Condition 66 be removed and an amended Condition be inserted as follows:

 

66.     A vehicle presence sensor is to be installed at the visitor parking space with a display unit at the entry to the car parking area shall be provided to advise and alert drivers of the availability of the visitor space.

 

I note that the amended drawings show the visitor space located in the middle, rather than at the beginning of the first parking module as it was on the original DA drawings.  I do not have objections to this amendment.  I am of the opinion that the proposed position of the visitor space further from the entry ramp would make it easier for visitors to find.’

 

The proposed amendment does not satisfy the requirement for end spaces in an enclosed car park as specified in section 3.1 of the Parking Development Control Plan as a 1 metre wide manoeuvring bay has not been provided.  Notwithstanding this, the approved parking layout does not provide a manoeuvring bay either.

 

The applicant has provided a 3.5metre wide end space to the car park and a check of the car parking layout has revealed that vehicles can manoeuvre into and out of the end car parking space and exit the building in a forward manner without difficulty.  The two end spaces will also be allocated to one dwelling.

 

Providing an indicator outside of the property and removing the turning bay would be a better solution than removing a car space as it will reduce the demand for on street parking.  The new location of the visitor space near the centre of the car park will also make it more noticeable when entering the building and more accessible to common areas of the building.  All resident vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward direction.  The problem arises when the visitor space is occupied and any additional vehicles will not be able to exit the site in a forward direction, since the turning bay has been removed.  The sensor system addresses and rectifies the problem by alerting any additional vehicles that the visitor space is occupied.

 

Given the above, it is therefore considered that there is no need to remove one parking space for a turning bay, and condition 66 should be amended to read as follows:

 

66.     A vehicle presence sensor is to be installed at the visitor parking space with a display unit at the entry to the car parking area shall be provided to advise and alert drivers of the availability of the visitor space.  Details of compliance are to be provided on the construction certificate plans.

 

9.       SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1     Substantially the same

The proposed modifications are considered to be minor and constitute changes in accordance with the requirements of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.  The proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that is substantially the same as originally approved.  They will not result in any appreciable additional impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape of Beach Street and therefore the proposed modifications to the original development proposal are considered to be satisfactory.

10.     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 and is considered to satisfy all the relevant provisions of the Act.

 

11.     FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.     CONCLUSION

 

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

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. D/273/2004 for Section 96 Modification - To resite Building 'B' 1450mm to the east (Dwellings 3 and 4), make minor alterations to the proposed dwellings, basement car park, landscaping, reduction in the degree of excavation and glazing and balcony changes to the north and east elevations at 80 Beach Street Coogee in the following manner:

 

·           Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 100, 101, 102, 200, 300, 301, 401, all Revision E, dated 15/4/2004 and received by Council on 20/4/2004, Draft Strata Plans, Sheets 1-4, prepared by David John Tremain of Harrison Friedmann and Associates P/L, dated 20/5/2004 and received by Council on 23/7/2004, as amended by the Section 96 plans S96 101, S96 102, S96 103 and S96 104, all revision A, dated November 2004  and received by Council on 10 November 2004, and Section 96 plans S96 105, all revision A, dated January 2004   and received by Council on 18 January 2004, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, 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:

 

§  Amend condition No. 66 to read:

 

66.     A vehicle presence sensor is to be installed at the visitor parking space, with a display unit at the entry to the car parking area shall be provided to advise and alert drivers of the availability of the visitor space.  Details of compliance are to be provided on the construction certificate plans.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SHAUN HEHIR

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

19 January, 2005

FILE NO:

D0053/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(1) application to delete condition No.60 relating to the preservation of the Norfolk Island pine tree

PROPERTY:

 36 Lucas Avenue, Malabar

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Charles Victoria Vella

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This application has been called up to a Committee meeting by Councillors Andrews, Sullivan and Daley.

 

The proposed Section 96 application seeks to delete condition No.60 that requires the retention and protection of the Norfolk Island Pine tree at the front of the site.  The applicant has requested that the tree be removed because it is located in the same position as the proposed stormwater detention tank.  The condition was imposed on the consent as Council’s Landscape Technician considers the tree to be a good specimen in good condition and should be retained. 

 

The proposed development does not require on-site stormwater detention, as advised by the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services. If the applicant does choose to include a stormwater detention system this can be designed and sited in an alternative location without affecting the tree. Therefore, it is considered that the applicant’s reason for removal of the tree is not warranted. 

 

The applicant has lodged this Section 96(1) application in the category that is noted as “Council’s Error” in its assessment of the original application.  This is incorrect as the condition (No.60) was not imposed as an error, as claimed by the applicant.  There was no valid reason provided for the removal of this tree and that its location at the front of the site (not being affected by any main building structures) would allow its protection and enhance the amenity value it provides for both the site and streetscape.

 

It is for these reasons the application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal seeks to delete condition 60 relating to retention and preservation of a Norfolk Island Pine tree in the front yard of the subject site.

 

The existing Norfolk Island Pine tree is located on a part of the site that the applicant states is to accommodate a stormwater detention tank.  The location of the tank was roughly noted on the drainage plans accompanying the application however specific details of the size and dimensions of the system were not included and the plans did not note that the system would directly affect the mature pine tree at the front of the site. Secondly, advice provided by Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Services stated that a detention system was not required for the proposed two storey attached dual occupancy development on this site. Therefore the applicant technically does not need to incorporate a detention tank, hence saving both money and retaining the tree. A simple method of tanking and waterproofing the basement garage is enough in respect to addressing drainage on this site.

 

It is also claimed by the applicant (as previously discussed) that the condition was imposed in error by the Council.

 

 

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Lucas Avenue between Bilga Crescent and Austral Street, Malabar.

 

The site has a 17 metre frontage to Lucas Avenue, a maximum depth of 40.6 metres and a total site area of 657.5 sqm.  It is improved with a detached dwelling house and inground swimming pool in the rear yard.  The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of detached dwelling houses.  The adjoining site to the north is occupied by a detached dwelling house and the adjoining site to the south is occupied by public reserve.

 

Figure 1: The subject site and its immediate surroundings.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

Prior to the subject development application there was no history on the site.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

In accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for Notification and Advertising the proposed amendment did not require notification or advertising.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services and the following comments have been provided:-

 

At the original development application stage, the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services advised as follows in respect of drainage on site:

 

Onsite detention of stormwater is not required for this application.

 

Landscape Technician

 

The comments received at DA stage were as follows:

 

One Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) of approximately 8 metres in height and 4 metres in width in the southeast corner of the front yard, close to the front boundary. This tree is a good specimen, and enhances the Lucas Avenue streetscape. The plans show this tree as being removed, however, given the positive impact this tree has on the property and the street, and the fact that there is sufficient room to accommodate this tree, there does not appear to be any legitimate reason for removal. As such, the applicant will be required to retain and protect this tree as part of the proposal.

 

Condition 60 was imposed to ensure the retention in good health of the Norfolk Island Pine tree.

 

The comments received in respect of the Section 96 application are as follows:

 

“I refer to a Section 96 Application submitted for the above property requesting deletion of condition 60 which relates to the retention of a significant tree at the site, and advise as follows.

 

The tree in question is an Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) of approximately 8 metres in height and 4 metres in width, located in the front yard, close to the front property boundary, in the southeast corner of the site.

 

This tree is in good health, exhibiting good form and vigour and is considered to be a reasonably significant example of this species in this area. It is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and is deemed worthy of retention as an existing site element due to the positive contribution it provides to both this site and the Lucas Avenue streetscape.

 

The plans submitted show this tree as being removed in order to accommodate the proposed detention tank and associated drainage lines and surface pits; however, given the significance of this tree, and the fact that there is ample room to accommodate the proposed drainage works in an alternative location while still retaining the tree, the applicant was advised to submit amended plans showing the retention of the tree as well and the necessary redesign of the proposed drainage system and entry path.

 

Although the applicant has sought permission to remove the tree as part of their application, Council is under no obligation to comply with such a request as there appears to be no legitimate reason to support removal.

 

As such, it is strongly recommended that this Section 96 Application seeking consent for removal of condition 60 and the tree be refused, and the applicant submit amended plans showing Council’s requirements as previously advised.”

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. There are no Clauses of the LEP 1998 that apply to the proposal.

 

8.       SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

Under the provisions of Section 96(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify a development consent granted by it to correct a minor error, misdescription or miscalculation.

 

The condition was not imposed as an “error, misdescription or miscalculation” by Council. It was a valid and reasonable condition which was imposed to retain a healthy tree. The condition does not affect the function, layout or design of the proposed attached dual occupancy. The built form, accessways, driveways and the like will be unaffected by the condition. Accordingly, this application cannot be considered as a Section 96(1) Modification.

 

The development satisfies that part of the test of Section 96(1A) that the proposed modification be substantially the same as the development originally approved, however, it is not considered to be of minimal environmental impact and therefore must fall within Section 96(2), which requires notification (which was not undertaken).  In addition, additional fees would be applicable.

 

9.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The applicant in lodging the S 96(1) modification has made an assumption that Council has made an error in imposing Condition 60.  As noted above the condition 60 has specifically been imposed to ensure the retention of the tree.

 

The condition is fair and reasonable and has been imposed to retain a mature and attractive tree that currently adds value to the site and streetscape. The retention of the tree will also add interest and enhance the visual quality of the development.

 

Also as stated earlier, there are no conditions imposed which may require an on-site stormwater detention on the site.  Therefore, it is considered that the applicant’s reason to have the tree removed is without basis.

 

Given the visually prominent position of the tree which provides visual amenity not only to the subject site and the streetscape but also to the adjoining area of public open space to the south of the site.  The removal of the tree is not supported.

 

10.     FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.     CONCLUSION

 

In conclusion the imposition of condition 60 is considered to be reasonable, fair and valid.  The imposition of the condition was not an error on Council’s behalf and was intentionally imposed to retain a healthy and attractive tree.  The location of the tree does not adversely affect the siting of the development and the proposed built form.

 

The proposed detention system was not documented in great detail (the actual size, dimensions and scale of the system is not provided in much detail) within the application and considering that a stormwater detention tank is not required for this development provides even more reason to retain the tree.

 

If the applicant decides to install a detention system and associated tank there are a variety of alternative locations within the site that it could be located without adversely affecting the tree.

 

It is for these reasons that the application is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. 0053/04 on property 36 Lucas Avenue, Malabar, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The application is not considered to be an amendment under Section 96(1) since the condition was not imposed as an error, misdescription or miscalculation. It was a valid, fair and reasonable condition.

 

2.       No on-site stormwater detention is required on the subject site and as such the tree can be retained.

 

3.       The Norfolk Island Pine tree is a good specimen and is worthy of retention on the site since it adds amenity value to the site, streetscape and immediate surrounds. It’s a mature and visually important tree that is also considered to add value to the development when completed.

 

4.       The Norfolk Island Pine tree also provides visual amenity to the adjoining area of public open space to the south of the site.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

TOM HUTCHISON

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

22 January, 2005

FILE NO:

D859/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions for the refurbishment of the Heffron Building at the University of New South Wales

PROPERTY:

 330 Anzac Parade

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 The University of New South Wales

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application proposes refurbishment works, including alterations and additions, to the existing Heffron Building at the University of New South Wales and is referred to Committee as the proposed works are valued at $31.5 million.

 

The refurbishment includes both exterior and interior works.  The plans have been prepared by two different architectural firms respectively, working in conjunction.  The proposal includes the widening of the existing floor plate at each level of the building by approximately 1600mm and the internal reconfiguration of the building to provide for the needs of the new building tenant, the Faculty of Commerce and Economics.  The external works involve the re-cladding of the building facades and a new covered ground level walkway on the southern side of the building.

 

Development Application No. 858/04 was submitted for the demolition of the degraded Heffron Theatres (attached to the Heffron Building) which was approved, under delegated authority, on 14 December 2004.

 

The Heffron Building was originally completed in 1962 and designed as a purpose-built laboratory building for the School of Chemistry (SOC) and related sciences.  The current state of the building does not meet today’s building standards, occupational health and safety requirements or academic and student needs.  In particular, the existing building has significant safety and maintenance issues, especially with regard to the condition and performance characteristics of the degraded concrete façade and structure.

 

To resolve the building’s statutory non-compliance and poor functional fit and to ensure the building’s viability over the longer term, it is proposed by way of this application to convert the Heffron Building to a ‘dry’ building, providing contemporary office, meeting and teaching space primarily for the use of the Faculty of Commerce and Economics by way of revised floor plans, whilst relocating the ‘wet’ laboratory functions of the SOC to a new purpose-built facility within the proposed Analytical Centre (the subject of a separate development application under assessment).  Other dry functions are to be relocated to the Dalton Building on the campus.

 

The Kensington Campus of the University of New South Wales is subject to the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998, requiring a master plan for the site.  The revisions to the current master plan have not been finalised, however the University has previously submitted an Urban Design Framework for the North Mall Development Zone within the University, which includes the refurbishment of the subject building.  This sets design parameters for any development and redevelopment within its boundaries.

 

The proposed alterations and additions for the refurbishment of the Heffron Building are constrained by the existing building structure, with only minor modifications to the structure proposed.  Overall, there is no substantial change to the building’s massing or scale and no significant adverse impacts are generated by the proposed changes.  As such, no mitigation measures are proposed by way of conditions of consent.

 

Generally, the proposal is considered to provide beneficial effects by way of improved levels of staff accommodation, teaching and meeting spaces, improved building appearance which includes ESD principles in the façade design and the provision of an identifiable entry, address and access point for the Faculty of Commerce and Economics.

 

The proposal is a Crown Application which requires the concurrence of the University to the conditions of consent.  This has been received from the University and the agreed conditions are contained within the Recommendation of this report.  Accordingly, the recommendation is for approval.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the major refurbishment of the existing Heffron Building located within the lower part of the Kensington Campus of the University of New South Wales.  The main components of the refurbishment works proposed in this development application include the following:-

 

·        widening of the building by approximately 1600mm;

·        internal reconfiguration for office space, lecture theatres, meeting rooms, work and study areas and ancillary facilities, as well as a ground floor extension to the bookshop located within the Quadrangle Building adjacent to the north with a ramp connection between the two buildings,

·        re-cladding of all facades;

·        replacement of all services;

·        provision of a new roofing system;

·        provision of internal connections to the adjacent Quadrangle Building;    and

·        construction of a new glazed covered link on the south side of the building at ground level to extend University Walk.

 

The plans for the proposal have been prepared by two separate firms of architects. Francis-Jones Morehen Thorp Pty Ltd (FMJT) architects have undertaken the design for works on the external envelope and façade and Lahz Nimmo architects have prepared the design for the base of the building and fitout design, specifically for the future occupiers, being the Faculty of Commerce and Economics.

 

Other separate development applications are to be submitted for:-

 

·        demolition of the existing Dangerous Goods Store on the northern side of the existing Heffron Building, and

·        landscaping works surrounding the building.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

 

Figure 1: subject site

 

The subject site is the Kensington Campus of the University of New South Wales, which extends from east to west, a distance of 1.063 km.  The main portion of the site is 35.6ha in area and is bounded by Anzac Parade, High Street, Botany Street and Barker Street and is known as the ‘main campus’.  There is also a western campus located on the western side of Anzac Parade which accommodates NIDA and a small number of other facilities including Unisearch House.

 

The main campus is divided into the upper, middle and lower campus zones which broadly correspond to the eastern (fronting Botany Street), central and western sections (fronting Anzac Parade) of the university.

 

The land slopes from east to west and results in a change in level of approximately 30 metres between the upper and lower sections of the campus.  The subject site is located within the lower campus approximately 300m from Anzac Parade, north of the Dalton Building and Science Theatre and adjacent to the Quadrangle Building.  This area of the campus has been identified as the “North Mall Development Zone” for which the University has had prepared an “Urban Design Framework” planning document as the first stage in the revision of the master plan for the University’s Kensington Campus.

 

The Heffron Building is cited by the applicant as an excellent example of 1960’s style architecture of significant value within the building stock of the University of New South Wales (UNSW), however, the building is in poor condition due to a lack of adequate long term maintenance.  The building has formerly housed a much larger School of Chemical Science, however, this school has reduced in size and no longer needs such a large building.  It is proposed to be relocated with the larger Faculty of Commerce and Economics proposed to occupy the refurbished Heffron Building.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

A master plan was approved for the UNSW campus site on 13 August, 2002 subject to some revision to incorporate a range of issues required by Council. To date, the University has not submitted a revised master plan for Council’s approval. Notwithstanding this, a number of development applications have been approved in the University since the adoption of the master plan.

 

The University is currently conducting a Strategic Review of the master plan, which will lead to a revised master plan.  This has been targeted for completion in mid-2005.  In addition, on 6 August 2004, the applicant submitted to Council documentation comprising an Urban Design Framework (UDF) for the North Mall Development Zone (NMDZ). In a covering letter, the applicant advises that the UDF:

 

“sets the design parameters for any development within its boundaries…is to be a model for other urban design plans to be prepared for key areas of the campus…fits within the context of the Approved master plan 2002, and is in progressive fulfilment of the requirements set by the Council in that approval.”

 

In line with this, the applicant advises that the UDF will provide a strategic framework for assessing the subject development application in its immediate context and surrounding built environment in-lieu-of the required revised master plan.  The following proposals have either already been lodged or are to be lodged as development applications within the NMDZ (including the subject development application) and, as such, be subject to assessment under the UDF:-

 

·        Refurbishment of the Heffron Building;

·        Fit-out modifications of and repairs to the Dalton Building;

·        Construction of a new Analytical Centre Building;

·        Construction of a new Dangerous Goods Store predominantly for the School of Chemistry;

·        Public domain works such as replacement carparking and services, landscaping, access and circulation.

 

4.1     APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A pre-lodgement meeting was held on 9 September 2004 with Council officers, representatives from the University of NSW, planning consultants and architects to discuss a re-development concept for the above site. The proposal involved demolition of the existing theatre/ laboratory and dangerous goods store buildings on the northern side of the site, demolition of the existing mid level connection to the Dalton Building to the south of the site, internal and external refurbishment, minor additions at each level to widen the building slightly and make internal connections between the Heffron Building and the existing Quadrangle building. The works proposed involve removing existing laboratory facilities to provide administration and teaching spaces including new raked theatres for the use of the Faculty of Commerce and Economics.

 

At the meeting, no major issues were identified with the development concept as submitted as the proposed works largely involved upgrading an existing facility which is located well within the campus boundaries.  As well, it was advised that a development application could be accepted without the requirement for a master plan containing building envelopes, as the proposal involves refurbishment within the existing building envelope, rather than construction of an entirely new building. 

 

The option of splitting the proposal into an application for demolition of existing structures and an application to construct the new works was considered to be prudent to assist in scheduling works over the 2004/2005 summer break.  As such, Development Application No. 858/94 was submitted for the demolition of the Heffron Theatres, being a wing addition attached to the northern side of the Heffron Building and approved, under delegated authority, on 14 December 2004, prior to the consideration of the proposed refurbishment works.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for Public Notification and Advertising.  No submissions were received.

 

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     Assets and Infrastructure Services

 

Landscaping Comments

 

There are several large and established trees which are covered by council’s tree preservation order around the perimeter of the existing building, all of which should remain largely unaffected, as the work proposed is restricted largely to the façade of the existing building. As such, refundable deposits are not deemed necessary in this instance, however, protection measures will still be necessary in order to ensure their retention as is shown on the plans.

 

There is one platanus x hybrida (plane tree) of approximately 12 metres in height on the southern side of the existing building, opposite the science theatres, which appears in reasonable condition. This tree is sited a reasonable distance away from the proposed works, however, protection measures will still be necessary.

 

Beyond the northwest corner of the existing building, there are a group of trees comprising two (2) corymbia maculata (spotted gums) of between 20 and 30 metres in height, which are deemed highly significant; two (2) sparse examples of eucalyptus microcorys (tallowoods) of about 20 metres in height and another corymbia maculata (spotted gum) of around 25 metres in height. All these trees soften the appearance and bulk of the numerous large buildings in this area and are deemed worthy of retention as existing site elements. Protection measures will be necessary to ensure this.

 

Near the northeast corner of the existing building, there are two (2) ficus microcarpa var. ‘hillii’ (hills weeping figs) of approximately 12 metres in height each, which appear in reasonable condition. These trees will be able to be retained as is shown on the plans, and as such, protection measures will be necessary.

 

Drainage Comments

 

The amended ‘Proposed stormwater discharge standards’ submitted by the University (and currently being reviewed by Council) show the Heffron Building being located in Area A where it is specified that:

 

‘No Overland flows from this portion of the campus will be discharged into the RCC area for rainfall events up to and including the 1 in 100 year ARI storm event’

 

Based on the above requirement, all stormwater runoff from the development site for all storms up to and including the 1 in 100 year storm event shall be collected and discharged to the Village Green on-site detention area.

 

The AIS Department has received a letter from UNSW dated 3 November 2004, which details (in concept form) how stormwater runoff from the proposed North Mall Development zone may be directed to the Village Green detention area without significantly increasing the ponding depth or discharge rate. It is noted that this may necessitate construction of percolation chambers/infiltration pits in the Village Green detention basin to offset the effect of directing the additional flows into the area.

 

The drainage system used/constructed to convey flows from the Heffron building to the Village Green detention area shall be in general accordance with the details supplied in the letter from the UNSW dated 3 November 2004.

 

It is understood that the majority of the drainage infrastructure required to divert the flows will be constructed in conjunction with the proposed law building (refer to DA 667/2004). However, given that this DA is being assessed and approved separate to the Law Building DA, the conditions detailed in this report ensure that the drainage infrastructure will be constructed prior to occupation of the refurbished Heffron Building should the Heffron building be completed before the Law Building.

 

Traffic/Parking Comments

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer has indicated previously that no more UNSW development applications should be approved prior to the overall traffic and parking strategy being developed in conjunction with the masterplan for the University. However, given that the current application is for refurbishment of an existing building only, and no increase in student or staff numbers are proposed, the Traffic Engineer considers that it would be difficult to refuse the subject application on the basis of the parking strategy being incomplete.

 

The applicant should be advised that whilst the AIS Department will not object to the subject development application being approved (on the basis of the transport study being incomplete), the development of an overall transport strategy for the UNSW is of very high importance and should be completed as a matter of high priority.

 

The DPCD should ensure that the proposed bicycle storage facilities are adequate.

 

All construction traffic must be accommodated on-site.

 

Waste Comments

 

Council’s Waste Compliance Officer has reviewed the submitted waste management plans and provides the following comments:

 

Additional information regarding how the management of non-recyclable wastes should be incorporated into the existing UNSW waste storage.  This information shall include details of waste storage areas and how wastes will be transported to these areas.

 

A condition regarding this matter has been included in this report.

 

6.2     Environmental Health and Building

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class          -        9b  Assembly building

                   -        5    Offices

                   -        6    Shop

 

Key Issues

 

Potential Contaminated Lands

 

The issue of potentially contaminated land has been considered by the Environmental Health Unit.  It is considered that the site is suitable for its intended use, and no further investigation into potential contaminated lands is required.

 

Noise:       

There is potential for the generation of noise from the proposed development due to the installation of plant and equipment. Conditions should be imposed on the consent to address potential noise emissions from the development.

 

Site Management:

 

No construction site management details have been provided with the DA 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 and perimeter safety fencing. Standard conditions can be included in the consent to address construction site management issues.

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA): 

 

Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate.

 

Access for people with a disability: 

 

Access for people with a disability is required to be provided to the shop and sanitary facilities for people with a disability and are also required to be provided to the development, in accordance with the provisions of the BCA.

 

Standard conditions should be included to address these requirements, although compliance may require changes to the design of the building to accommodate a lift and/or ramp system and sanitary facilities, complying with the BCA and AS1428.

 

Acoustics

 

In support of this application a report titled University of NSW North Mall Development Zone, Heffron Building Refurbishment Development Application Acoustic Report reference FJM1024.0005.Rep.040916.doc dated September 2004 has been submitted.

 

This report identifies the following acoustic issues associated with this proposal:

 

Impact of noise produced by the development on the surrounding university buildings.

 

·        The impact of existing ambient noise on the project.

·        Internal sound insulation and speech privacy.

·        Internal room acoustics

·        Quiet building services noise levels inside the building.

 

The report identifies the most sensitive receiver as the residential colleges to the north east of the Heffron Building. Assessment of the existing background levels have been undertaken and the report states that it is considered reasonable that the existing background noise level at the residential colleges should not be increased.  To achieve this, the steady external noise criteria of the LA90 would be 37 decibel. This is the recommended criterion for this project.

 

The report concludes that noise attenuation for all air-conditioning plant and exhaust fans is required to achieve the recommended noise criteria and protect the amenity of the residential colleges. The report states that noise attenuation, including attenuators and internally lined ductwork have been included in the design to ensure the appropriate internal noise criteria will be met from noise generated by the air condition systems proposed for the building.

 

This report has been assessed by the Environmental Health Unit which accepts the conclusions made in the report.

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The University of NSW complex site is approximately 38.99 hectares in area. In accordance with Clause 40 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, a master plan has been prepared and adopted for the UNSW campus on 13 August, 2002, subject to appropriate revisions to the master plan.

 

As discussed in Section 4 above, the University has submitted an Urban Design Framework (UDF) for the North Mall Development Zone (NMDZ) for assessing the subject development application in its immediate context and surrounding built environment in-lieu-of the required revised master plan.

 

Specifically, the NMDZ is located towards the centre of the main campus. It is bounded to the south by the University Mall, to east by the eastern wing of the Electrical Engineering building, to the north by College Road and Union Road and to the west by the Round House and Block House buildings.

 

The use of the UDF is considered acceptable pending the University’s review of the master plan which is due to be completed in mid-1995.  Furthermore, the UDF has provided a design analysis for the proposal in its immediate context and surrounding built environment and development principles including key features to be carried forward into the whole campus, for instance, unified landscape design elements, legible, safe and universally accessible pedestrian linkages, ecologically sustainable development principles, high quality building design and rationalised service infrastructure.

 

8.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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 and the following relevant environmental planning instruments and policies:-

 

·        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended

·        Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation, 2000

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55

·        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·        Randwick Development Control Plan –Parking

·        Building Code of Australia

 

8.1     Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

 

The proposal is development which falls under Section 116 (Crown development) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

A consent authority, in respect of a development application made by or on behalf of the Crown or a prescribed person, must not:

 

(a)     refuse its consent to the application, except with the written approval of the Minister, or

(b)     impose a condition of its consent, except with the written approval of the Minister or applicant.

 

As the proposed consent for this application will impose a number of conditions to ensure that the development complies with all controls and relevant standards, these conditions have been referred to the University for concurrence on 24 January, 2005.  The University has responded to the draft conditions of consent and given its concurrence.

 

8.2     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (SEPP 55) requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated when determining development applications.

 

Council's Environmental Health Officers have reviewed the documentation provided with the application and are satisfied that there is little likelihood of contamination from previous uses on the site.

 

Council has therefore fulfilled its obligations under SEPP 55.

 

8.3     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Special Uses 5 under Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998 (LEP) which allows the University to operate and develop the campus as an “educational establishment” together with associated ancillary development.  As such, the proposed refurbishment of the Heffron Building is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP apply to the proposal:-

 

8.3.1  Zone Objectives

 

Clause 17 of the LEP lists the objectives of Zone No. 5 (Special Uses Zone) as the following:-

 

a)      to accommodate development by public authorities on publicly owned land, and

b)      to accommodate development for educational, religious, public transport or similar purposes on both publicly and privately owned land, and

c)       to allow appropriate community uses, and

d)      to enable associated and ancillary development, and

e)       to identify and protect land intended to be acquired for special uses ,and

f)       to allow for the redevelopment of land no longer required for a special use.

 

The proposal for the Heffron Building refurbishment is consistent with the above listed zone objectives.

 

8.3.2  Development in Special Uses Zones

 

Under Clause 37A, Development in Special Uses Zones, Council must be satisfied that the proposal is compatible with the character of the locality and will not adversely affect the amenity of nearby and adjoining development.

 

Given the site’s central location within the main campus of the University of New South Wales and the fact that the overall building form and massing will remain substantially the same, as a result of the proposed works, it is considered that the proposed development will not significantly alter the existing impacts associated with the building. 

 

Development Application No. 858/2004 has already approved the demolition of the Heffron Theatres on the northern side of the building and the current development application only seeks to extend the northern edge of each floor plate by approximately 700mm and the southern edge by approximately 900mm.  This massing adjustment is considered minor and will create improvements in the floor plate efficiency for the changed building function as proposed by providing work stations alongside windows on the northern and southern building sides.

 

8.3.3  Master Plans

 

Clause 40A requires a master plan to be prepared for sites more than 4000m2 in area.  Please refer to Section 7 of this report for a discussion of this matter.  The proposal is in line with the objectives and intentions of the Urban Design Framework (UDF).

 

8.3.4  Development Control Plan - Parking

 

Council’s Development Control Plan (DCP) – Parking requires carparking for tertiary education facilities to be provided at 0.7 spaces per 1 staff member plus 1 space per 10 full time students. 

 

The applicant has not provided specific figures for the number of staff and full time students.  The applicant has advised that there will be no intensification in use on the campus and as such the proposal will not give rise to an increase in staff or student numbers.  Rather, existing staff currently located at the Heffron Building will be relocated to other buildings on site and future staff occupiers of the building will be transferred from other campus buildings into the Heffron Building.  Accordingly, there will be no increase in parking demand or the requirement for further on-site parking spaces.

 

In terms of student numbers over the longer term, these are expected to increase consistent with the growth forecasts in the master plan.  In the absence of accurate figures for the expected future student numbers for the University, a condition is contained within the Recommendation of this report requiring a parking and transport strategy to be prepared and submitted to Council in accordance with that included within the consent  (DA No. 667/2004) for the new Law Faculty Building.  The strategy will require the adoption of an integrated approach for managing the traffic and parking impacts within and around the UNSW campus, including the car parking demand generated by the refurbished Heffron building and the associated traffic impacts.

 

With respect to servicing requirements of the building, vans, courier sized vehicles and rigid trucks are catered for in the existing loading areas located on the northern side of the building and these areas are not proposed to change.

 

The Transport Report, prepared by Coslton Budd Hunt and Kates Pty Ltd, submitted in conjunction with the development application, advises that an additional 36 bicycle spaces are proposed on the northern side of the building.  These spaces have not been indicated on the submitted plans.  This issue is addressed by an appropriate condition of consent contained within the Recommendation of this report.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The Heffron Building was originally designed in 1959 as a purpose-built laboratory building for the School of Chemistry (SOC) and related sciences.  The building was completed in 1962 and since then has had a number of upgrades, with internal alterations being carried out in 1966, upgrades to the circulation cores and corridors in 1992 and refurbishment of the ground floor teaching labs in 1996.

 

The current state of the building does not meet today’s building standards, occupational health and safety requirements or academic and student needs.  In particular the existing building has significant safety and maintenance issues, especially with regard to the condition and performance characteristics of the degraded concrete façade and structure.  To resolve the building’s statutory non-compliance and poor functional fit and to ensure the building’s viability over the longer term, it is proposed by way of this application to convert the Heffron Building to a ‘dry’ building, providing contemporary office, meeting and teaching space primarily for the use of the Faculty of Commerce and Economics by way of revised floor plans, whilst relocating the ‘wet’ laboratory functions of the SOC to a new purpose-built facility within the proposed Analytical Centre (the subject of a separate development application) and the dry functions to the Dalton Building on the campus.

 

The need for the major refurbishment of the Heffron Building, amongst a number of other buildings on campus, was identified in the master plan changes received by Council in June 2002.  The UDF for the NMDZ as previously discussed in this report, further refines the design parameters for any development within its boundaries, which includes the refurbishment of the Heffron, Dalton and Applied Science Buildings.

 

Overall, the building form and massing of the Heffron Building does not significantly change, apart from the demolition of the Heffron Theatres as previously approved under delegated authority.  The design is constrained by the existing building structure with only minor extensions to the northern and southern edges of each floor plate to improve floor layout planning. 

 

Existing building plant and equipment that occupies most of Level 6 will be removed and the space converted mainly to offices and work areas.   All of the existing roof plant is to be removed, with a new ‘floating’ roof proposed which will improve the roofscape appearance of the building, especially when viewed from the north (for example, Randwick Racecourse).  The impact of the changed massing on shadows cast is considered to be minor, especially as the roof will have the existing plant elements removed.

 

An entirely new façade is proposed to the building, articulated by way of sun shading elements and designed for a 40-year life span.  A range of environmentally sustainable development (ESD) principles have also been incorporated into the façade design, including external sun shading devices, deep reveals or setbacks to shade glazing and operable windows to facilitate natural ventilation or mixed mode operation.  The northern façade involves external fixed ellipsoid horizontal aluminium louvres, while the southern façade is articulated via projecting blades to limit low angle winter sun and provide visual relief.  Both systems have a bottom-hung, inward opening awning window (at sill height) and fixed upper glazing panel in recognition of the proposed office function.  Fixed weather-proof louvres above the ceiling allow for outside air intake (for natural ventilation and the air conditioning system) and minimises requirements for plant.

 

The existing façade consisting of four modules within each structural grid is revised in the proposed design to divide the structural grid into three equal modules more suitable for contemporary office function.  As well, the sill height is to be reduced from 1300mm to 770mm to suit the revised function.

 

The southern façade is further broken up by double-height lobbies between Levels 4 and 5 and curved ‘drum-like’ Lecture Theatres on Levels 1 and 2, which serve to articulate and reduce the scale of this façade.  Minimal alterations are proposed to the eastern and western facades of the building, other than re-cladding or re-glazing.

 

New linkages (from Ground Level to Level 5) are proposed to the Quadrangle building, immediately adjacent to the east, which is also occupied by the FCE.  These will provide alternative all-weather access and improved access for people with disabilities by reducing travel distances.

 

As detailed above, it is considered the existing Heffron building will have an improved appearance and functionality to meet the requirements of the University, without giving rise to any significant detrimental impacts within or without the site.

 

9.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

The Kensington Campus of the University of New South Wales is subject to the provisions of Randwick LEP requiring a master plan for the site.  The revisions to the current master plan have not been finalised, however the University has previously submitted an UDF for the NMDZ, which includes the refurbishment of the subject building.

 

The proposal is constrained by the existing building structure, with only minor modifications proposed.  Overall, there is no substantial change to the building’s massing or scale and no significant adverse impacts are generated by the proposed changes.  As such, no mitigation measures are proposed by way of conditions of consent.

 

Generally, the proposal is considered to provide beneficial effects by way of improved levels of staff accommodation, teaching and meeting spaces, improved building appearance which includes ESD principles in the façade design and an identifiable entry, address and access point for the FCE.

 

As the proposal is a Crown Application, this requires the concurrence of the University to the conditions of consent.  This has been received from the University and the agreed conditions are contained within the Recommendation of this report.

 

11.     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 859/2004 for the refurbishment, alterations and additions to the existing Heffron Building, University of New South Wales at 330 Anzac Parade, Kensington, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered E12-A-002-01-DA, E12-A-107-01-DA, E12-A-720-01-DA, all Revision B, dated September, 2004, prepared by FJMT and received by Council on 14 October, 2004; E12-A-201-51-DA, E12-A-201-52-DA, E12-A-202-51-DA, Revision B, dated October, 2004 prepared by FJMT and received by Council on 14 October, 2004; E12-A-099-01-DA, Revision B, dated July 2004; E12-A-100-01-DA, Revision F, dated July 2004; E12-A-101-01-DA, Revision E, dated July 2004; E12-A-102-01-DA, Revision E, dated July 2004; E12-A-103-01-DA, Revision E, dated July 2004; E12-A-104-01-DA, Revision E, dated July 2004; E12-A-105-01-DA, Revision F, dated July 2004; E12-A-106-01-DA, Revision F, dated July 2004; E12-A-250-01-DA, Revision C, dated July 2004; E12-A-250-02-DA, Revision D, dated July 2004; all prepared by Lahz Nimmo and received by Council on 14 October, 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 external colours, materials and finishes of the proposed refurbishment shall be in accordance with the sample board and elevations prepared by Francis–Jones Morehen Thorp Pty Ltd, dated 7 October 2004, submitted to and received by Council on 14 October, 2004.

 

3.       Demolition of the dangerous goods store on the northern side of the Heffron Building and landscaping for the northern and southern sides of the building as indicated on the site plan (E12-A-002-01-DA, Revision B by FJMT dated 7 October 2004) shall be the subject of separate development applications prior to the completion of works.

 

4.       Secure bicycle parking for a minimum number of 36 bicycles shall be included within the landscape plan submitted for approval as a separate development application prior to the completion of works.

 

5.       Metal roof sheeting is to be painted or colour bonded to minimise reflection and to be sympathetic and compatible with the building and surrounding environment.

 

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

 

7.       Power supply and telecommunications cabling to the development shall be underground.

 

8.       The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent. 

 

9.       The finished ground levels external to the building are to be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised (other than for the provision of paving or the like on the ground) without the written consent of Council.

 

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

 

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

 

11.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

13.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          In this regard, the operation of the premises and plant and equipment shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background (LA90), 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

16.     The acoustic report titled University of NSW North Mall Development Zone, Heffron Building Refurbishment Development Application Acoustic Report reference FJM1024.0005.Rep.040916.doc dated September 2004 forms part of this approval.

 

17.     The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance or damage to other premises.

 

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

 

18.     The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance and there are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

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

 

19.     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.

 

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

 

21.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

          Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

         

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

 

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

 

          An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the development if the development is inconsistent with the development consent and conditions of consent.

 

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

 

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

 

27.     The existing levels of fire safety within the premises are to be upgraded to achieve an adequate level of fire safety in accordance with the provisions of clause 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and a report prepared by a suitably qualified person or accredited certifier is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

          The fire safety report must detail the measures considered appropriate to satisfy the relevant performance requirements of the Building Code of Australia, to protect persons using the building, and to facilitate their egress from the building in the event of fire and to restrict the spread of fire.

 

          The fire safety upgrading works are to be included in the construction certificate and be implemented prior to occupation of the new building or part.

 

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

 

28.     Documentary evidence prepared by a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, certifying the suitability and stability of the site for the proposed building and certifying the suitably and adequacy of the proposed design and construction of the building for the site.

 

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

 

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

 

30.     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.

 

31.     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”.

 

32.     A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

          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.

 

33.     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.

 

34.     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.

         

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

         

a)       On completion of the erection of the building showing the area of the land, the position of the building and boundary setbacks

 

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

 

37.     Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

38.     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.

 

39.     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.

 

40.     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.

 

41.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

43.     Access and facilities for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

          A parking and transport strategy, as required by the variation to the adopted master plan for the UNSW campus, shall be prepared and submitted to Council by 7 December 2005.

 

44.     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.

 

45.     The applicant shall note that any 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.

 

46.     All construction traffic shall be accommodated on-site.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          The Notice must be issued to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of work on the site for that component of the work requiring Sydney Water Approval.

 

          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:

 

48.     All stormwater runoff from the refurbished Heffron building and surrounds (for all storms up to and including the 1 in 100 year storm event), shall be collected and conveyed through a suitably sized piped system to the village green detention basin.

 

          It is noted that the drainage system used/constructed to convey flows from the Heffron building to the village green detention area shall be in general accordance with the details supplied in the letter from the University of New South Wales dated 3 November 2004.

 

49.     Percolation via chambers/infiltration pits shall be provided in the village green detention basin (if required) to offset the effect of directing the additional flows into the detention area and to ensure that the depth of ponding and rate of outflow from the detention area are not increased. This work shall be completed prior to occupation of the refurbished Heffron building.

 

50.     All new/refurbished floor areas shall be a minimum of 300 mm above any adjoining overland flow or stormwater ponding depths (or suitably protected from stormwater up to this same level).

 

51.     Prior to commencement of work on the site, engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be prepared and forwarded to Council. The drainage design shall be in general accordance with the concept details contained in the letter from the University of New South Wales dated 3 November 2004 (and accompanying documentation). The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)       A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan 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 and the connection into the village green detention system.

 

d)      The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit.

 

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.

 

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.

 

52.     All stormwater currently draining to and/or through the subject development site (including piped flows) 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.

 

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

 

54.     The stormwater detention area must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level. It is noted that if this signage is already provided, additional signage will not be required.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

57.     All stormwater runoff from the site shall be taken through a sediment/silt arrester pit (or gross pollutant traps such as CDS units or equivalent) prior discharging by gravity to the village green detention/infiltration area. The gross pollutant trap/s shall be sized to treat all runoff from all storms up to the 1 in 3 month storm at a minimum.

 

          Should a sediment/silt arrester pit be provided to satisfy the above requirement, it shall be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:-

 

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

 

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

 

·        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 located over the outlet pipe/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

 

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

 

·        A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system provided for the access grate (e.g. spring loaded j-bolts or similar).

 

·        A sign adjacent to the pit stating:

 

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

 

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

 

58.     Suitable bunding is to be provided around the perimeter of the subject development area, where required, to direct all stormwater to the village green detention area via the new piped system.

 

59.     Any absorption trenches/infiltration pits must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

60.     Prior to occupation of the refurbished Heffron building, the applicant shall submit to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer. The works-as-executed drainage plan shall include details of :

 

a)       Percolation/infiltration pit details

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

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

 

61.     Prior to occupation of the refurbished Heffron building, the applicant shall submit to 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 following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for waste management:

 

62.     Prior to commencement of work on the site the applicant is to submit to Council details regarding how the management of non-recyclable wastes will be incorporated into the existing UNSW waste storage program. This information shall include details of waste storage areas and how wastes will be transported to these areas.

 

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

 

63.     Permission is granted for the selective pruning of branches from the trees listed in the following condition in order to accommodate the proposed works and/or the establishment of scaffolding, machinery or similar. All pruning must be undertaken by a qualified Arborist, with suitable qualifications in Arboriculture and to Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

64.     In order to ensure the retention in good health of the following trees:

 

·        The Platanus x hybrida (Plane Tree) on the southern side of the existing building;

·        The two (2) Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gums), two (2) Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowoods) and one other Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum) beyond the northwest corner of the existing building; and

·        The two (2) Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Figs) near the northeast corner of the existing building;

the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

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

 

b.       The trees are to be physically protected by the installation of protective fencing around the trees using 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing. This fencing shall be located to a minimum radius of 3 metres from the outside edge of the tree trunk.

 

          This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed.

 

c.       Within this zone there is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble.

 

          Any works required within this zone shall be under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist.

 

d.       The erection of signage on the fence with the following words clearly displayed: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE", "DO NOT ENTER".

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

a)       Part D3     -         Access for people with disabilities

b)      Part E1      -         Fire fighting equipment

c)       Part E4      -         Emergency lighting, exit signs & warning                          systems

d)      Part F4      -         Light and ventilation

e)       Part F5      -         Sound Transmission and Insulation

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

25 January, 2005

FILE NO:

D/0820/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of existing buildings and construction of a part-3 and part-4 storey mixed use development comprising 53 dwelling units, car showroom on the ground floor level and basement carparking for 143 vehicles.

PROPERTY:

 265-271 Avoca Street, Randwick

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 P.D. Mayoh Pty. Limited

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Committee as it is valued at $18 million.

 

The proposal is for the demolition of existing buildings (currently used for a motor dealership and car sales and service facility) and construction of a part-3 and part-4 storey mixed use development comprising 53 dwelling units, car showroom on the ground level and basement carparking for 143 vehicles on the site at 265-271 Avoca Street, Randwick. 

 

The site enjoys the benefit of existing use rights under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act as it is operating commercially (with development consent) prior to the coming into force of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. Accordingly, the proposal is made pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations to allow the existing use to change to another non-conforming use and the continuation of part of the non-conforming use in the form of the proposed car showroom. As such, the provisions (objectives, controls or standards) of the Randwick LEP 1998 which would otherwise prohibit/restrict the proposed uses do not apply. Notwithstanding this, 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. This assessment indicates that the proposal 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.

 

The proposal does not comply with the statutory controls for FSR and building and external wall heights, and notwithstanding the benefits of existing use rights, the applicant has submitted SEPP No. 1 objections with respect to the non-compliances.  As a guide to establishing the validity of the SEPP No. 1 objection, an assessment of the SEPP 1 objections indicates that strict compliances with the controls would be unreasonable and unnecessary, and that the objections are considered to be well founded.

 

A Master Plan was lodged for the subject site in December 2003 which was assessed and recommended for adoption by the Council’s Development Assessments Section subject to a number of amendments to the Master Plan including specifically, a reduction in the overall height of the Master Plan proposal to three storeys, inclusion of strategically placed breaks in the building to break its bulk and scale, inclusion of a range of energy efficiency measures and preliminary site investigation for contamination. However, Council at its meeting on 24 February 2004 resolved to refuse the Master Plan. As such, the applicant has now lodged the subject development application pursuant to Clause 40A sub-clause 8(b) of the Randwick LEP 1998 which states that if a master plan for a site has been rejected by Council then sub-clause (1) (that is, the requirement for a master Plan to be adopted for the site) does not apply but when a consent authority assesses a development application for the site, it must have regard to the range of matters set out in subclause (5) of Clause 40A.  An assessment of the subject development application indicates that the current proposal has addressed these range of matters and incorporated almost all of the amendments proposed by Council’s officers in the initial recommendation for adoption of the Master Plan.  

 

The proposed building will have a contemporary design that, visually, will be complementary to the existing medium density residential character of the locality, and will enhance the character of the surrounding streetscape. It will have an external facade treatment that will enhance the visual quality of the proposal and contribute to the visual amenity of surrounding residential development and the public domain in the area.

 

The proposal was referred to the Design Review Panel pursuant to SEPP No. 65. The Panel finds that the proposal meets the design criteria and objectives of SEPP No. 65 noting especially that the proposal is well designed and relates well to the site and the local context.

 

The proposal would be suitable for the site and would have acceptable impacts on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties subject to appropriate conditions.

 

The recommendation is for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site and erect a part-3 and part-4 storey mixed use development comprising 53 dwelling units, car showroom on the ground level and two basement levels of carparking for 143 vehicles. Specifically, the proposal will comprise four perimeter buildings as follows:

 

·        Block A, an east-facing building with primary frontage to Dine Street containing 6 x 1 bedroom and 12 x 2 bedroom dwellings. 

 

·        Block B, a south-facing building with frontage to Barker Street containing 12 x 2 bedroom dwellings.

 

·        Block C, a west-facing building fronting Avoca Street containing 4 x1 bedroom and 7 x 2 bedroom dwellings. It is also proposed to use the ground floor level of Block C for a car showroom.

 

·        Block D, a north-facing building extending along the northern side boundary containing 6 x 1 bedroom and 6 x 2 bedroom dwellings. 

 

Overall, the proposal will have 16 x 1 bedroom and 37 x 2 bedroom dwellings, yielding a total of 53 dwellings.

 

The proposal will provide landscaping in the form of a deep soil central courtyard and perimeter landscaped area.

 

The proposal will also provide 143 car parking spaces distributed over two basement levels with access off Barker Street.

 

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Avoca Street and the northern side of Barker Street (that is at the north-eastern corner of the intersection of these two roads). The site has frontages of 48m to Avoca Street, 87.79m to Barker Street and 53.89m to Dine Street and has an area of 4046 sqm. A cross fall of 5m diagonally from the north-east to the south west corner exists over the site.

 

The land is currently occupied by a car sales, showroom and service centre contained within an existing part one and part two storey brick and glass building.

 

The surrounding area comprises predominantly residential and institutional uses. To the north of the site is a two storey townhouse development of recent construction, with frontage to Avoca Street and an older residential flat building with frontage to Dine Street; to the south on the opposite side of Barker Street are a number of single dwellings, as well as several residential flat buildings; to the east on the opposite side of Dine Street are residential flat buildings of three storeys and three storeys over carparking and some single dwellings; and to the west of the site on the opposite side of Avoca Street is the Prince of Wales Hospital.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

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

 

DA No.

Proposal

Determination

7682/1961

Temporary new motor vehicle showroom

Approved – 5 September 1961

46/1970

Extension to rear of existing workshops to enlarge its area.

Approved – 21 April 1970

1111/1970

Convert existing shop to display showroom.

Approved – 21 April 1970

211/1978

Alterations and additions to existing service station building and convert to display, service and sell motor vehicles.

Approved - 5 February 1979

153/1983

Alterations and additions to existing service station.

Approved – 9 August 1983

96/1987

Erect 2 advertising signs on premises used for non-conforming use (car sale yard) in Residential Zone.

Approved – 30 June 1987

147/1996

Use Nissan car dealership car park during evening periods for parking for Ritz Cinema.

Approved – 22 August 1996

362/1996

Extension to an existing motor showroom.

Approved – 11 October 1996

811/2003

Installation of new carwash for preparation of vehicles for display sale.

Approved – 14 October 2003

 

The subject site has the benefit of existing use rights primarily by virtue of consent DA 211/1978. The applicant has also provided appropriate evidence that the site enjoyed the benefit of existing use rights since that time. This is consistent with the approvals granted in subsequent years relating to advertising signs and extension of the motor showroom. Accordingly, existing use rights have been established and provide a basis for assessment of this application despite the commercial/retail component of the proposed development being prohibited in the 2(b) zone.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised (for a period of 30 days) in accordance with the Integrated Development provisions of the EP&A Act 1979. The following submission was received:

 

5.1     Objections

 

C Gearie, 21/255 Avoca Street, Randwick

 

·        Lack of environmental study to address site contamination

 

·        Dust from disturbed contaminated soil.

 

P Chilcott, 8/11 Dudley Street, Randwick

 

·        Overdevelopment of the site

 

·        Building height inappropriate for Dine Street

 

·        Access walkways to upper level units akin to public housing projects

 

·        Need to improve east-bound traffic flow by recessing northern footpath on Barker Street into the subject site.

 

K Hashimoto, 3/12 Dine Street, Randwick

 

·        Exposure to contaminants in the soil

 

·        Loss of privacy

 

·        Loss of view

 

·        Overbearing bulk and scale

 

A Tosti, PO Box A640, Sydney South

 

·        The proposed FSR is excessive.

 

·        The mix of unit is inadequate and should include larger units.

 

·        Proposal will exacerbate existing traffic congestion in the area particularly in morning peak.

 

·        Height of the Dine Street building should be reduced to integrate better with existing buildings within the street.

 

The Spot Precinct, PO Box 72, St Pauls

 

·        Proposed FSR significantly exceeds Council’s FSR standards

 

·        Excessive building height facing Dine Street

 

·        No submission made by the applicant to provide suitable evidence of existing use rights.

 

·        Inadequate mix and layout of dwelling

 

·        Proposal would add to the existing peak hour congestion.

 

T & A Daly, 22/255 Avoca Street, Randwick 

 

·        Proposal significantly exceeds standards for FSR, building height, maximum external wall height and rear setback

 

·        Loss of privacy due to removal of a northern wall to the existing development and its replacement with living areas and balconies to the proposed development.

 

·        Loss of views to Botany and surrounding district currently enjoyed from both level 1 and 2 of the objector’s property.

 

·        Loss of security due to removal of a northern wall to the existing development.

 

·        The proposed sub-station on the northern boundary will create health hazards and noise pollution and contravenes setback requirements.

 

·        Inadequate traffic study.

 

·        Additional traffic will exacerbate existing traffic congestion at peak periods.

 

·        Flawed site contamination report.

 

·        Removal of contaminants will affect neighbouring properties.

 

·        Lack of investigation into underground storage tanks.

 

·        Construction management Plan fails to address the safety concerns during demolition and excavation and in particular the demolition of the northern wall of the existing development.

 

·        Loss of amenity during construction in particular privacy loss, noise and excavation.

 

M Weis, Body Corporate (Cambridge Mews), 255 Dine Street, Randwick 

 

·        Statement of Environmental Effects does not address loss of privacy issue

 

·        Loss of privacy and lack of trees and louvers for screening along the northern boundary of the subject site.

 

·        Loss of existing high brick boundary wall on the northern boundary.

 

·        Loss of existing trees.

 

·        Exact nature of noise from the mechanical plant and noise emissions from fans has not been established.

 

·        Risk to safety/health from remediation of contaminants.

 

·        No details on 5 underground storage tanks that remain on-site.

 

·        Exact location of the proposed roof level exhaust outlet from the carpark is unclear.

 

·        Residential garbage storage is too close to residences.

 

·        Lack of security during and after construction.

 

5.2     Support

 

K Kratochvil, 19 Dine Street, Randwick

 

·        Proposal is an improvement over the original (Master Plan) proposal however need to ensure safe handling of site contamination, prevent damage from vibration, and ensure survival of proposed plantings.

 

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 Comments

 

The Regulatory Building and Development Control Services advise as follows:

 

BCA Building Classification

Class  -         6          -     Car showroom

Class  -         2          -     Residential

Class          -    7         -     Carparking

 

Key Issues

 

Noise:                         

There is potential for the generation of noise from the proposed development due to the installation of plant and equipment, such as any mechanical exhaust system serving the basement car park and from other plant and equipment. Conditions should imposed on the consent to address potential noise emissions from the development. See comments from EHU.

 

Site Management:                                          

Some construction site management details have been provided with the DA to address issues such as sediment and erosion control, public safety and perimeter safety fencing. Standard conditions can be included in the consent to address construction site management issues and require additional information.

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):    

Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate.

 

Access for people with a disability:   

The proposal does not appear to satisfy the DDA objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability.

 

Access for people with a disability is required to be provided to the ground floor car showroom in accordance with the provisions of the BCA and to meet the objectives of the DDA. It is considered that an access ramp should be provided to the main front entry to the car showroom to provide equitable access for all persons.

 

A standard condition could be included to address this requirement, although compliance will require changes to the design of the building to accommodate a ramp system complying with the BCA and AS1428.

 

Conclusion:

No objections are raised in relation to the proposed development, subject to the following conditions being included in any development consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

Should the approval be granted to the application, conditions should be included in the development consent.”

 

6.2     Environmental Health Comments

 

The Environmental Health Services advises as follows:

“Key Issues

 

Land Contamination

In support of this development application, a Detailed Site Investigation was submitted. This document was prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) and is titled Detailed Site Investigation Randwick Motors Avoca Street Randwick NSW, report reference 2116269 PR_7614.

 

This report found that in approximately 1970 service station facilities were placed on the site. The report states that the service station activities are thought to have ceased between 1978 and 1986 and that five underground storage tanks (UST) remain at the site.

 

The report states that the main sources of potential contamination at the site are likely to be associated with any fill material present across the site, the service station and associated USTs, the demolition of buildings within the eastern portion of the site and potential treatment of the site buildings and garden areas with OCPs or arsenic based pesticides. The report goes on to state that contaminants of concern include TPH, BTEX, PAHs, OCPs, PCBs, heavy metals and asbestos.

 

PB have concluded that the site is impacted by contaminants within the near surface soils at three locations, which currently precludes development to the proposed future land use (residential units with minimal soil access). PB recommends that minor remedial works (excavation of the impacted soils and removal of the USTs) are likely to be required to enable development of the site for the proposed future land use (residential units with minimal soil access). 

 

Council is required to be satisfied that the site is, or can be made suitable for the proposed development. As such, a condition requiring that the applicant engage a NSW EPA approved Site Auditor to issue a Site Audit Statement and Summary Audit Report are to be included.

 

Acoustics

 

In support of this development application, an acoustic report has been submitted. This document was prepared by Richard Heggie Associates and is titled Proposed Residential Development 256 Avoca Street, Randwick DA Acoustic Assessment report reference 10-3685. It should be noted that discussions with Raymond Sim of Richard Heggie Associates confirms that a typing error has occurred throughout the report. The property subject to the acoustic assessment has incorrectly been referred to as 256 Avoca Street. A letter from Richard Heggie Associates was received by Council on 18 October 2004 clarifying this matter.

 

This report was undertaken to assess the noise impacts on the surrounding residential environs associated with the proposed residential development at 265 Avoca Street. In addition the report also addresses acoustic issues associated with the internal noise isolation between dwellings in the proposed residential development.

 

This report concludes that:

 

·        Measured external levels indicate that it is likely to be necessary to incorporate improved glazing into the proposed residential development in order to achieve internal noise goals.

 

·        Standard noise mitigation measures may be required to reduce noise emissions associated with mechanical plant servicing the proposed development. These measures may be required to reduce the impact of noise at nearby residences and other noise sensitive receivers.

 

These measures are required to ensure appropriate noise criteria are achieved. On 11 November 2004 the applicant advised Council that the recommendations made in the acoustic report have been incorporated into the development, specifically in terms of glazing requirements.

 

Site dewatering

 

It is noted that the finished basement level is below the existing groundwater level. As such the site will require dewatering to allow construction of the basement. As stated in the Report on Building Services Built Environment Services Report prepared by P.D Mayoh Pty Ltd report reference S04899-01R rev B.doc dated 15 September 2004 an application for dewatering is required to DIPNR. Issues to be addressed include the method of de-watering, estimated volume to be pumped, an assessment of the quality of the groundwater and predicted impacts on the surrounding groundwater users and groundwater dependant ecosystem.

 

Further information is to be supplied to satisfy Council that dewatering of the site is to be undertaken in an environmentally satisfactory manner. Discussions with Emma Dowling reveal that A&I recommend inclusion of a deferred commencement condition seeking further information in relation to site dewatering. The EHU recommends that a condition be included requiring that the applicant provide information that the dewatering will be undertaken in an environmentally satisfactory manner.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

6.3     Heritage Comments

 

The Heritage Planner advises as follows:

 

“The subject site is prominently located on the corner of Avoca Street, Barker Street and Dine Street, within The Spot Conservation Area.  The site is occupied by a car sales yard, and includes a one and two storey showroom building set back from the Barker Street frontage.  To the north of the site is a two storey townhouse development of fairly recent construction, with frontages to Avoca Street and Dine Street.  To the south of the site on the opposite side of Barker Street are a number of single dwellings, as well as several residential flat buildings.  To the east of the site on the opposite side of Dine Street are single dwellings, together with a number of residential flat buildings of three storeys and three storeys over carparking.  To the west of the site on the opposite side of Avoca Street is the Prince of Wales Hospital’s single storey Drug and Alcohol unit.

 

The application proposes a multi-unit housing development, as well as a motor showroom at ground level on the Avoca Street frontage.  The development generally comprises three levels over two levels of basement carparking, and is in the form of a number of perimeter buildings enclosing a central courtyard. 

 

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Robert Staas of Noel Bell Ridley Smith and Partners Architects.  The Statement notes that the existing site is detracting from the heritage character and that the areas immediately adjoining the site have low heritage values and do not provide a strong visual cue for future development.  The Statement notes that the proposal reinstates street walls to the boundaries of the site at a scale that is appropriate to surrounding residential context, and that the amelioration of the impact of such a large redevelopment is assisted by breaking the unit blocks into smaller sections and articulating them into bays that are compatible with the scale of the original development patterns.  The Statement concludes that the proposal will not adversely impact on the character or significance of the conservation area as it currently exists.

 

An earlier Master Plan proposal for the site was refused in February 2004.  The Master Plan proposal was for a development varying in height from three to five levels.  Concerns were raised in relation to the Master Plan proposal that its scale would be incompatible with the single storey, two storey and three storey development in the vicinity, and in particular the single storey cottages in Barker Street. 

 

The Statement of Significance for The Spot Conservation Area prepared by Perumal Murphy in 2000 notes that the area has significance for its origins as “Irishtown”, a poor working class area on the fringe of Randwick village, dominated by Irish Catholics.  The Statement of Significance for the Conservation Area notes the aesthetic significance of the groupings of buildings from the Victorian, Federation and Inter-War periods.  These are predominantly of single storey and two storey scale. 

 

In relation to the demolition of existing buildings on the site it is noted that the existing use and buildings appear to be of relatively recent construction, and do not contribute to the streetscape of the Conservation Area.  There are no heritage objections to the demolition of the existing buildings on the site.  The 1890s Waterboard maps indicate a building set back from the Barker Street/Carlton Street corner (as Dine Street was then known).  My previous memo suggested that an archaeological assessment of the site be carried out to identify the likelihood and significance of archaeological relics on the site and recommend appropriate action.  The Statement of Heritage Impact which has been submitted considers that it is unlikely that detailed excavation of the site would result in the recovery of any significant information on the area that is not already well documented elsewhere.  An advisory condition should be included in any consent in relation to archaeology.

 

In relation to the design of the proposal, it is noted that Development Control Plan No.22- The Spot and Surrounds includes specific objectives for the Commercial and Residential zones.  For the Residential Zone, the DCP includes the objective to conserve and enhance the existing residential streetscapes by ensuring that any new development respects the existing low scale character and compliments the architectural features of adjoining buildings where appropriate.  In relation to building heights, the DCP includes a development control that the consent authority shall not grant consent to the erection of the building within the residential 2(b1) zone which exceeds 9.5m in height or which is grater than 2 levels above natural ground level.

The Statement of Significance for The Spot Conservation Area notes the aesthetic significance of the groupings of buildings from the Victorian, Federation and Inter-War periods.  These buildings are predominantly of a single storey and two storey scale.  It is considered that the three storey scale of the proposal will generally be compatible with the single storey, two storey and three storey development in the vicinity of the site.  It is considered that the generous dimensions of the site allow for a somewhat greater scale of development than would be possible on a small infill site, without adverse amenity or streetscape impacts.  Similarly, there are no heritage objections to the proposed modern design of the proposal, or to the materials and finishes which are proposed.

 

The application proposes to widen the public footpaths to the Avoca Street, and to provide front fencing set back from the Barker Street and Dine Street frontages.  Concerns were raised in my original memo in relation to provision of fenced private courtyards in front of the buildings and in relation to maintenance of landscaped areas outside the proposed fences.  In relation to maintenance of the landscaped areas indicated between the fencing and the property boundary, consent conditions should be included allocating responsibility for the maintenance of these areas to the body corporate.  In relation to the proposed private courtyards, it is noted that the Development Control Plan for Multi-unit Housing does not encourage the provision of private open space between the front of the building and the street.  Consent conditions should be included in relation to the height of fencing in order to minimise impacts on the amenity and security of the street environment.

 

Appropriate conditions should be included in any consent:”

 

6.4     Assets and Infrastructure Comments

 

The Department of Assets and Infrastructure advises as follows:

 

“Landscape Comments

 

“On Council’s Avoca Street nature strip, just beyond the northern boundary of the site in front of 253-263 Avoca Street, there is one Eucalyptus species (Gum Tree) of approximately 4-5 metres in height. It appears in reasonable condition, is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and provides a positive contribution to the streetscape. The applicant will be required to ensure the retention of this tree as part of this proposal.

 

In the front yard of the adjoining property to the north, 253-263 Avoca Street, close to the common boundary, there are two (2) Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palms) of approximately 4-5 metres in height. They appear in reasonable condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. These palms are sited a reasonable distance from the proposed works, and as such, should remain unaffected by this application.

 

About halfway along the Avoca Street frontage of the site, on Council’s footpath area, there is one Eucalyptus species (Gum Tree) of approximately 4-5 metres in height. It appears in reasonable condition, is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and provides a positive contribution to the streetscape. The applicant will be required to ensure the retention of this tree as part of this proposal.

To the southwest, within the site, there is one Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) of approximately 8 metres in height which 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 shown, and as it is not deemed a significant specimen, approval is granted for its removal as is shown on the plans.

 

(NOTE: ALL TREES WHICH ARE TOO SMALL TO BE COVERED BY COUNCIL’S TPO HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO IN LANDSCAPE COMMENTS ONLY, AND HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS AS CONSENT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THEIR REMOVAL).

 

Along the Barker Street frontage of the site, there is from west to east:

 

a)      Three evenly spaced, recently planted Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda’s) in the turfed nature strip. The plans show the proposed construction of a new vehicle entry that will necessitate the removal of the most eastern of these trees, and as such, the applicant will be required to reimburse Council for the loss of this street tree.  Protection measures will be necessary in order to ensure the retention of the other two trees as part of this proposal.

 

b)      Within the site, against the southern boundary, there are two Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leafed Paperbarks) of approximately 8 metres in height. They appear in reasonable condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. These trees are considered inappropriate for retention as part of such a proposal given this species invasive and aggressive root system (as identified in Council’s Aggressive Rooted Street Tree Policy). As it will not be possible to retain these trees and proceed with construction of the proposed basement and dwellings as shown, approval is granted for their removal, subject to replacements being provided in this area of the site.

 

c)       Immediately to the east, there is one Eucalyptus nicholii (Willow Leafed Peppermint) and one Melaleuca armillaris (Bracelet Honey Myrtle). Both appear in poor condition, and are too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. As such, approval is not required for their removal.

 

d)      Further to the east, there are three (3) Eucalyptus nicholii (Willow Leafed Peppermints) varying in height between 4-6 metres. They appear in reasonable condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. As it will not be possible to retain these trees and proceed with construction of the proposed development as shown, approval is granted for their removal, subject to replacements being provided in this area of the site.

 

e)       In the southeast corner of the site, near the corner of Barker Street and Dine Street, there are 3 Melaleuca armillaris (Bracelet Honey Myrtles) all of approximately 4 metres in height. All three are too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and as such, approval is not required for their removal.

 

Along the Dine Street frontage of the site, there is from south to north:

f)       One Melaleuca armillaris (Bracelet Honey Myrtle), one Eucalyptus nicholii (Willow Leafed Peppermint) and one Melaleuca armillaris (Bracelet Honey Myrtle) all of approximately 4 metres in height, in the southeast corner of the site. These three trees are too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and as such, approval is not required for their removal.

 

g)      One recently planted Acmena smithii (Lilly Pilly) within the footpath area. Protection measures will be necessary in order to ensure the applicant retains this tree as part of this application.

 

h)      One Metrosideros excelsa (NZ Xmas Tree) of approximately 4 metres in height. This tree is too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and as such, approval is not required for its removal.

 

i)       One Eucalyptus nicholii (Willow Leafed Peppermint) of approximately 6 metres in height. It appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Approval is granted for the removal of this tree (as is shown on the plans) to accommodate the proposed development, subject to suitable landscape treatment being provided in this area of the site.

 

j)       One Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leafed Paperbark) of approximately 10 metres in height. It appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. This tree is considered inappropriate for retention given this species invasive and aggressive root system (as identified in Council’s Aggressive Rooted Street Tree Policy). As it will not be possible to retain this tree and proceed with construction of the proposed development as shown, approval is granted for its removal, subject to suitable landscape treatment being provided in this area of the site.

 

k)      One Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) of approximately 4 metres in height within the footpath area towards the northern boundary. It appears in average condition with a pronounced lean to the west and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Protection measures will be necessary in order to ensure the applicant retains this tree as part of this application.

 

The plans show the proposed courtyard walls along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site being slightly setback to provide low key planting along the Barker Street and Dine Street frontages of the site. This initiative is supported, subject to the submission of further details, as it will improve the appearance of the site as well as providing a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

The owner/proprietor/future body corporate of the subject development site shall regularly maintain the landscaped area located in front of the proposed courtyard walls/perimeter fencing.

 

About halfway along the northern boundary, almost hard against the common boundary between this site and 6-10 Dine Street, there is one Grevillea robusta (Silky Oak) of approximately 8 metres in height, which appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order. Although it provides partial screening between the two sites, this species is considered undesirable due to its weed like, self seeding properties and aggressive root system, and is not deemed worthy of retention. As such, approval is granted for its removal subject to the provision of suitable advanced replacements in this area of the site.

 

Immediately to the west, within a private courtyard in 6-10 Dine Street, about 1 metre from the common boundary, there is one Persea americanna (Avocado) of approximately 8 metres in height. It appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order. The canopy of this tree overhangs into the subject site, and provides effective and valuable screening and privacy. The plans show the basement carpark being constructed a distance of 1 metre from the common boundary, which will give a total setback from the tree to the proposed structure of approximately 2 metres. Although not an ideal distance, and damage to roots is likely, it should not have a detrimental effect on its health, and as such, it shall be retained. Appropriate protection measures have been included in this report.”

 

Drainage Comments

 

“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.

 

In particular it is noted that the submitted drainage concept plan shows a combined OSD and rainwater tank. This is not appropriate as only roof stormwater is suitable for collection and reuse, whereas all stormwater runoff (i.e. including runoff from pathways, gardens etc) shall be discharged into the OSD tank. Further, rainwater tanks are retention systems (rather than detention), consequently, the rainwater tanks are not considered to provide the required detention storage effect.”

 

Traffic Comments

 

“The proposed site access point is within 90 metres of a signalised intersection with a state road. Consequently, the application has been referred to the RTA for comment. The DPCD should ensure appropriate comments and conditions from the RTA are incorporated into any development approval issued.

 

The application has been referred to the Randwick Development Committee and the following comments were received from the meeting held on Friday 26 November 2004:

 

IT IS RECOMMENDED:

 

THAT should Council wish to support the submitted proposal, no objection be raised on traffic grounds, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       All parking spaces adjacent to the dead end aisles on Basement 1 (Spaces R26 to R34) and Basement 2 (Spaces R67 to R75) shall be allocated for residents parking only;

2.       The ramp grade of entry/exit ramp to and from the street level shall be to the satisfaction of Council;

 

3.       All vehicles shall enter and exit the site in a forward direction;

 

4.       The individual parking spaces and traffic directional arrows shall be marked in permanent materials on the floor of each parking level;

 

5.       Signs indicating 8 kilometres per hour speed limit shall be provided on the car parking levels and the entry and exit lanes;

 

6.       A “STOP” sign shall be provided at the exit point of the exit driveway;

 

7.       All costs of traffic management measures associated with the development shall be borne by the developer.

 

Subsequent to receiving the above comments from the Development Committee, the AIS Department has received amended plans (dated 23 December 2004) which address some of the items detailed above. Consequently, only conditions 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 have been included in this report.

 

Access arrangements

 

The proposed site access point is from Barker Street. The submitted traffic report indicates that during the morning peak, Barker Street carries some 650 vehicles/hr (including 510 west bound vehicles/hr). Based on these flows it would appear that there may be some delays experienced by vehicles wishing to turn right into Barker Street from the development site.

 

The AIS Department has considered restricting the development site to left out only and requiring the applicant to construct a new roundabout at the intersection Avoca Street and Dine Street. The new roundabout would facilitate vehicles leaving the site (who wish to travel west bound along Barker Street) being able to make a u-turn without having to proceed all the way to the existing roundabout at the intersection of Barker Street and Perouse Road.

 

However, given that the right turn movement from the development site should not disrupt flows on Barker Street (as any delays will be experienced by vehicles waiting to exit the site) it is considered that a full-time left turn restriction may not be necessary.

 

Further, a new roundabout (at the Barker Street/Dine Street intersection) may adversely impact access arrangements to adjoining residences and would result in several on-street parking spaces being lost. Consequently, it is suggested that consideration should only be given to constructing the roundabout if the benefits are substantial.

 

To improve safety at the site egress point (and minimize delays during the morning peak), consideration may be given to restricting site egress during the morning peak to left turn only. Outside of the morning peak (when traffic flows on Barker Street are lower) vehicles would still be permitted to turn right.

The peak traffic generation from the proposed development is estimated to be some 35 vehicles per hour, given that only a portion of these are likely to be west bound vehicles exiting the site in the morning peak, it is considered that the new roundabout may not be necessary, with the small number of exiting vehicles being directed to the existing Perouse Road roundabout to turn around.

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer supports this proposal and the following conditions have been included in this report to address the matter:

 

Vehicles exiting the site between 7:00am and 10:00am (weekdays) shall turn left into Barker Street. Right turn movements are not permitted during these times.

 

The applicant shall install signage at the carpark exit stating ‘No right turn 7:00am – 10am Monday-Friday’ prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate..

 

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 Barker Street frontage must be minimum 6.00 metres wide.

 

Commercial parking provisions

Council’s DCP – Parking does not provide a specific parking requirement for motor showrooms, however the applicant has chosen to apply the rate of 1 space per 40m2 GFA (business premises). Given the redeveloped site showroom is to be approximately 680m2, this would require the provision of 17 car spaces.

 

It is noted that the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments recommends a rate of 0.75 car spaces for customers/visitors per 100m2 of site area for a motor showroom; hence 5 car spaces would be required.

 

Given the applicant is proposing the provision of 23 commercial spaces within the Basement 1 level, it appears that the proposed commercial parking provisions are adequate.

                                      

Residential parking provisions

Based on Council’s DCP – Parking, the following parking demands have been estimated for the residential component of the development site.

 

·        16 x 1 bedroom units at a rate of 1 space/unit = 16 spaces

 

·        37 x 2 bedroom units at a rate of 1.2 spaces/unit = 44.4 spaces

 

·        53 units at a rate of 1 visitor space/4 units = 13.25

 

Thus a total of 74 spaces should be provided for the residential component of the development.

 

The submitted plans show a total of 146 spaces (109 residential, 14 visitor and 23 commercial spaces). These parking provisions are well in excess of the DCP requirements.

 

Service and delivery / loading bay facilities

In accordance with Council’s DCP – Parking, for a development of this size, one loading bay shall be provided. It is noted that it shall be sized to allow at least a small rigid vehicle to manoeuvre into and out of the site in a forward direction. The amended plans show the provision of an open 8.50m x 3.50m loading bay adjacent to the vehicular access in Barker Street, without height clearance limitations, as well as three service parking spaces and manoeuvring area; thus the AIS department does not object to the proposed service vehicles facilities.

 

Splay Corner Comments

 

The applicant shall, at no cost to Council, dedicate a 3m x 3m splay corner at the southeast corner of the development site, at the intersection of Barker St & Dine Street.

 

Awning Comments

 

The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath levels along the Avoca Street and/or Barker Street site frontages to the underside of the proposed awning (or any attached signage) shall be 2.60 metres. It is noted that all new awnings shall be set back a minimum of 0.60 metres from the kerb alignment.

 

Groundwater comments

 

As noted previously, the proposed development involves construction below existing groundwater levels; consequently, the application requires referral to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) as integrated development. The DPCD should ensure that the application has been referred, and that appropriate comments from DIPNR are incorporated into any development approval.

 

To ensure that the proposed basement construction will not result in significant damage to surrounding infrastructure, it is recommended that the DPCD Department include the following deferred commencement condition:

 

A report detailing the proposed method of excavation and dewatering shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to this consent becoming operational. The report shall be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical, Hydrological and Structural Engineers and must include but not limited to:

 

·           The proposed method of shoring/piling and dewatering

·           The zone of influence of any possible settlement

·           The location of any proposed re-injection points in relation to the property boundaries (where re-injection equipment is to be located on land other than the subject premises, the written consent of the owner must also be provided to Council)

·           Monitoring of fluctuations of the water table during dewatering/construction to be undertaken by consulting engineers to ensure that the conditions of consent are satisfied.

·           The location of all proposed monitoring equipment in relation to the property boundaries (where monitoring equipment is to be located on land other than the subject premises, the written consent of the owner must also be provided to Council)

·           The location of all pumping equipment in relation to the property boundaries

·           The proposed method of noise attenuation for all pumping equipment i.e.; so as not to be more than 5dB (A) greater than the A – weighted L90 background sound pressure level between the hours of 7am to 10pm within any residential dwelling and not to be audible at all between the hours of 10pm and 7am within any residential dwelling

·           A statement from suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical and Hydrological Engineers, with the concurrence of a Structural Engineer, that there should be no detrimental settlement to adjoining or nearby buildings/infrastructure using the chosen method of excavation/dewatering.

·           Details of the groundwater quality and the suitability for discharge to the Council’s stormwater system. Consideration shall be given to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant Australian Standards.

 

The DPCD may wish to amend this deferred commencement condition to reflect any requirements of DIPNR and/or environmental health prior to incorporating it into the final approval.

 

Further, it is recommended that if the above deferred commencement condition is included, the DPCD should also include the following as a general condition of approval:

 

1)      Excavation, shoring and dewatering of the site shall be undertaken in accordance with the details submitted to Council in accordance with deferred commencement condition 1. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

The applicant shall obtain a Water License (for temporary dewatering) from the Department of Land and Water Conservation prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

A dilapidation survey of the surrounding properties and infrastructure shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified person prior to the commencement of work.

 

Waste Comments

 

The additional waste management details (contained in the letter form P.D. Mayoh Architects dated 23 December 2004) and amended plans were referred to Council’s waste compliance officer and the following comments were received:

 

"The waste management arrangements as described in the letter from P.D. Mayoh Architects dated 23 December 2004 and the accompanying drawings (A050, A051, A052 - Issue C) satisfy Council's waste management requirements. Sufficient space has been included within the development for the storage of the required number of bins. A waste compaction system and chute has also been included to reduce the number of bins presented for collection. There is sufficient space at the kerb in Barker Street for presentation of the bins for collection.

 

A separate waste storage area has been allocated for the commercial component of the development.

 

If the application is approved a Condition of Consent should be applied requiring the applicant to ensure the waste storage areas are fitted with a tap and hose and drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water Corporation."

 

The residential garbage room has been sized to contain the compactor plus an additional 14 bins. It is noted that the garbage compactor area is to be separated from the common garbage bin area via a locked door, to ensure it is not accessible to the general residents. Furthermore, the compactor system shall be managed by a caretaker.

 

A minimum of 2 x 240 litre garbage bins shall be located outside of the compactor area to facilitate disposal of non-recyclable residential garbage which cannot fit into the compactor.

 

The residential recycling room has been sized to contain 27 recycling bins whilst providing satisfactory access to all bins.

 

The commercial garbage area shall be separated from the residential bin storage areas.

 

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

 

Flood Study Comments

 

The AIS Department has previously received reports of flooding at the intersection of Barker and Avoca Streets; hence the applicant was advised at the master-plan stage to undertake and submit a flood study to determine the 1 in 100 year flood level in the vicinity of the subject development site.

 

Consequently, the applicant has submitted a flood study by Costin Roe Consulting (refer to facsimile dated 29/11/2004) that determines the 1 in 100 year ARI flow depth at the intersection of Avoca and Barker Streets to be 207mm. Based on the submitted survey plan, the applicant’s consultant has estimated the top water level of flows through the intersection to be at RL 48.08.

 

The floor levels of all habitable, commercial and storage areas are required to be at least 300mm above this determined 1 in 100 year flood level, that is, at a minimum RL of 48.38m (AHD); and the driveway to the basement carpark is required to provide a high point at least 150mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level.

 

The submitted amended ground floor plan appears to demonstrate compliance with the above requirements.

 

6.5     External Agencies Comments

 

6.5.1    Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources

 

The proposal is integrated development as the proposed basement will be constructed below the water table level and therefore requires dewatering approval from the DIPNR. In a letter to Council dated 6 December 2004, DIPNR have advised as follows:

 

“The additional information indicates that the site is underlain by high permeability sandy soils and indurated “coffee rock” or weathered sandstone at a depth a metre or so below a depth of 4metres below ground level. The water table is approximately 2.5m to 3.5m below the existing ground level. A watertight structure below ground level is proposed by installation of secant piles or jet grout piles that would be extended to  bedrock.

Clearly the amount of dewatering will depend upon the proposed design of the subsurface basement as well as the presence of an impermeable bedrock layer. It is noted in the Parson Brinckerhoff letter that specific dewatering requirements should be confirmed once the proposed development site becomes accessible. Accordingly, the Department strongly endorses further investigation of site conditions as outlined in the Parsons Brinckerhoff letter viz ‘This will involve existing or new monitoring wells, slug testing, water sampling, modelling and reporting”. Moreover, the Department suggests that this requirement be incorporated in Council’s conditions of consent.

 

Specific Department dewatering information requirements to assess an application under the provisions of the Part V of the Water Act,1912 are set out in the attachment to this letter.

 

Subject to the provision of the abovementioned information, General Terms of Approval (GTA’s) are given (see attached).”

 

Accordingly, a condition will be applied requiring the applicant to comply with the General Terms of Approval issued by DIPNR.

 

6.5.2  Roads Traffic Authority

 

Pursuant to SEPP 11 the proposal was referred to the RTA for comments. The RTA has responded in a letter dated 20 January 2005 raising no objections to the proposal subject to appropriate conditions. These conditions will be applied should approval be granted for the application.

 

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

A Master Plan was lodged for the subject site in December 2003 which was assessed and recommended for adoption by the Council’s Development Assessments Section subject to a number of amendments to the Master Plan including specifically, a reduction in the overall height of the Master Plan proposal to three storeys, inclusion of strategically placed breaks in the building to break its bulk and scale, inclusion of a range of energy efficiency measures and preliminary site investigation for contamination. However, Council at its meeting on 24 February 2003 resolved to refuse the Master Plan. Notwithstanding this, the applicant has now lodged the subject development application pursuant to Clause 40A sub-clause 8(b) which states that if a master plan for a site has been rejected by Council then sub-clause (1) (that is, the requirement for a master Plan to be adopted for the site) does not apply but when a consent authority assesses a development application for the site, it must have regard to the range of matters set out in subclause (5) of Clause 40A. The applicant advises that the range of matters in sub-clause (5) has been addressed in the development application and this is confirmed in the assessment in Section 10.1.14 below. Furthermore, an assessment of the subject development application indicates that the current proposal has incorporated a majority of the amendments proposed by Council’s officers in the initial recommendation for adoption of the Master Plan.

 

8.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

8.1       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2(b) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP) and the proposed activity (mixed-use development) is generally prohibited within the zone. Despite this prohibition, the site has been used continuously as a car showroom, sales yard and workshop by virtue of lawful consents, which predate the current planning controls (that now prohibit such uses within the 2(b) zone). The property therefore enjoys the benefits of “existing-use rights”.

 

Section 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act affords protection to uses operating under a lawful consent to continue even if a subsequent planning instrument prohibits that use. Under clause 41(1d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation the protection extends to changing from one non-conforming use to another:

 

(1)     An existing use may, subject to this Division:

(d)     be changed to another use, including a use that would otherwise be prohibited under the Act

 

Section 108(3) of the Act also provides that any provisions in an instrument that would derogate from the “incorporated provisions” have no force or effect. This effectively means that provisions (objectives, controls or standards) of an environmental planning instrument that would restrict the change of an existing use to another do not apply. However, the provisions of relevant planning instruments including such aims, objectives and development standards can be considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal. This assessment is made in Section 8.2 below.

 

The following table indicates the proposal’s compliance with the numerical controls of the Randwick LEP 1998:

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31(1) - Landscaped Area

50% of site area (or 2,023sq.m)

61% or 2,480sqm

Yes

31(3) – Landscaped Area over Basement

Must not exceed 50% of landscaped areas

50% or 1,264.6sqm

Yes

32 – FSR

0.9:1 or 3,642.12sqm

 

 

1.4:1 or 5791.54sqm

 

 

No (SEPP 1 Objection lodged)

 

33(1) – Building Height

 

33(3) – External Wall Height

9.5m max. overall

 

 

7m max. wall height

 

 

Max. 12.2m (Block A)

 

 

Max. 9m -12.2m

 

 

No (SEPP 1 Objection lodged)

 

No (SEPP 1 Objection lodged)

 

 

Other Clauses

 

Effect

Applies

Comment

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item or within conservation area.

Yes, located within a heritage conservation area.

Heritage Impact Statement submitted with DA.

 

The non-compliances with statutory standards listed in the table above cannot derogate (detract from) the protection afforded by existing use rights under s108(3) of the Act. Notwithstanding this, objections under SEPP No. 1 in support of variance from the FSR and building height standards have been submitted with the development application, which are assessed in sections 10.1.1 below. In addition, a Heritage Impact Statement has been submitted with the development application in accordance with Clause 43 of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

8.2       Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

State Environmental Planning Policies that are relevant to the proposal are:

 

·        State Environmental Planning Policy 11 – Traffic Generating Developments (SEPP 11)

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 32 – Urban Consolidation (SEPP 32)

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

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

·        Draft State Environmental Planning Policy 66 – Integration of Land Use and Transport (Draft SEPP 66)

 

The application of these policies to the proposal is addressed in Section 10 below.

 

9.         POLICY CONTROLS

 

The following Council policy controls may be used as a guide in assessing the proposed development.

 

·        DCP – Multi-unit housing

·        DCP – Parking

·        DCP No. 22 – The Spot and Surrounds

 

The following policies also apply to the site:

 

·        Section 94 Contributions Plan

·        Contaminated Land Policy 1999

·        Rainwater Tank Policy 2003

 

The application of the above DCPs and policies to the proposed development is addressed in Section 10.2 below.

 

10.       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.

 

10.1   Statutory Controls

 

10.1.1         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

10.1.1.1      Clause 12 - Zone No.2C  (Residential C Zone)

 

The site is zoned Residential 2(b) under the Randwick LEP 1998. As the subject property enjoys the benefits of “existing-use rights”, the provisions of the Randwick LEP 1998 that would derogate from the “incorporated provisions” have no force or effect. Notwithstanding this, the relevant aims, objectives and development standards of the Randwick LEP 1998 are considered as a guide in the context of a merit assessment of the proposal. In this regard, the relevant objectives of the 2(b) zone are as follows:

 

(a)     to allow a variety of housing types within residential areas

(c)     to enable residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development in the area, and

 

The proposed development will result in a predominantly three-storey perimeter building that will be compatible to the existing residential buildings to the north and east of the subject site which are predominantly three storey walk-up units. The proposal will also add to the variety of housing in the locality in the form of a medium density residential component that will not compromise the amenity of the existing residential area.

 

The removal of the car yard and workshop uses on the site including an open-air hardstand parking area in favour of a building of quality design and landscaped areas will be beneficial to the appearance of the site and character of the area. The architectural design of the proposal (incorporating the use of rendered and painted surfaces with appropriate colours and textures and features such as louvres, frames, decking and balconies) and the response of the built form to each of the street frontages will bring greater variety and architectural interest to the site and result in improvements to the character of the area, which is currently occupied by workshop and showroom buildings with an industrial character.

 

10.1.1.2      Floor Space Ratio

 

Under Clause 32 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, the subject site has a maximum floor space ratio control of 0.65:1. The new development has an overall floor space ratio of 1.4:1. Notwithstanding the existence of existing use rights, 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 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary. As a guide to establishing the validity of the SEPP No. 1 objection, the following assessment has been made:

 

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 facilitate development of land in a location that has been identified by Council as suitable to be used for residential purposes (notwithstanding that the proposal will include a lesser portion of commercial use, ie. car showroom, in the proposed development). Furthermore, the proposed development will be located in close proximity to surrounding institutional uses, transport services along Avoca Street and Barker Street, and local shops and services located in the Spot, enhance the visual character of the locality by the removal of existing buildings associated with existing caryard and sales use, and encourage an orderly and economic use of land for both residential and commercial uses in the locality. Specifically in relation to FSR, the proposal will support the aims and provisions of Randwick LEP 1998 which recognise the benefits of allowing residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development in the area.

 

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 on the subject site in that it would not achieve a reasonable level of redevelopment for the subject land given that the non-compliant proposal can readily achieve the associated objectives of the standard and visually has a low-scale and “restrained” character in relation to existing development in the streetscape and locality. In particular, immediately to the north and east of the subject site are a number of existing three to four storey residential flat buildings fronting Dine Street which are already dominant built forms in the locality and are compatible in height and scale to the individual buildings comprising the proposed development. The bulk and scale of the proposed development would be not be incongruous in this setting and would represent an appropriate transition between these neighbouring residential flat buildings and the lower density dwelling house developments to the south thus providing for harmony and continuity in the streetscape.  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 10.6 below).

 

In view of the above it is considered that a development compliant 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 development meets the State Government's urban consolidation objectives by providing a high quality living environment within close proximity to all facilities and services. The proposal also provides for an increase in housing choice in the locality which again meets the Governments objectives;

 

·       The removal of the greater part of the non-conforming use as a motor dealership / car service enterprise which presently occupies the whole of the subject site. This will be replaced by a substantially conforming development containing residential flats with the remainder of the development being a ground floor motor showroom in the three-storey building proposed for Avoca Street;

 

·       The proposal provides for an increase in housing choice in this locality which again meets the Government's objectives;              

 

·       The greater part of the subject development is consistent with the zoning objectives of the LEP;

 

·       The scale of this proposed development, which is a function of the total floor space relative to the site area, is justifiable as a modern edge development which would be in keeping with the scale of adjoining and nearby buildings in this locality. It is likely to be of a lesser scale to likely future development on the Government owned land opposite in Avoca Street;

 

·       The traffic consultant for the applicant in assessing this development proposal for this site is satisfied that the amount of traffic likely to be generated by the floor space and uses of the new buildings will be less than that generated by the existing development on the site; and

 

·       No State or regional planning issues are likely to result from the subject development should Council accede to the variation in total floor space utilizing the provisions of SEPP No.1.

 

It is considered that SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

10.1.1.3      Building/External Wall Height

 

Clause 33 of the Randwick LEP 1998 sets a maximum 9.5 metre overall height and 7 metre wall height limitation on buildings (other than a dwelling house) in the Residential 2B zone affecting the site, as measured from existing ground level. The proposal would have a maximum overall height of approximately 12.2 metres to the top of the roof of the proposed building, which does not comply with the 9.5 metre overall height requirement. The proposed building will also have a maximum external wall height ranging between 9m and 12.2m, resulting in non-compliance with maximum wall height requirement pursuant to clause 33(4) of Randwick LEP 1998.

 

Notwithstanding the existence of existing use rights, 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. As a guide to establishing the validity of the SEPP No. 1 objection, the following assessment has been made:

 

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 the development of land in a location that has been identified by Council as suitable for residential purposes (notwithstanding that the proposal will include a lesser portion of commercial use, ie. car showroom, in the proposed development). The proposal will in effect remove existing buildings associated with the existing caryard and sales use, and replace it with maximum three storey residential development that will be compatible in height, bulk and scale to existing surrounding residential flat buildings and in doing so enhance the overall visual character of the locality.  Furthermore, the proposal will support the aims and provisions of Randwick LEP 1998 by recognising the benefits of allowing residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development in the area.

 

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 on the subject site in that it would result in a low scaled, and noticeably restrained development, relative to the large size of the site that would in turn be out of character with the existing predominantly three storey residential flat development in the area and thus also limit the redevelopment potential of the site.

 

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 overall development to predominantly three-storeys in line with Council’s recommendation for the earlier Master Plan prepared for the site which, as discussed above, is consistent with the heights of existing residential flat buildings on adjoining and neighbouring sites.

 

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 in that :

 

·       The proposed buildings all have flat roofs, the measured wall heights effectively equate to the measured building heights. Some sections of two of the proposed buildings comply with the maximum building height as set out in the LEP.

 

·       The proposed building heights have been chosen :

 

(i)      based on good urban design principles and to be in scale with a number of buildings adjoining and nearby in the locality;

 

(ii)     to create an 'edge block'' development for the site was deemed an appropriate scale and form for development in this case;

 

(iii)    to enable the removal of the greater part of the car sales and service business from the site;    and

 

(iv)    to not be in conflict with any local, State or regional planning objectives for the area.

 

It is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

10.1.1.4      Clause 40A – Master Plans

 

Clause 40A sub-clause 8(b) states that if a master plan for a site has been rejected by Council then sub-clause (1) (that is, the requirement for a master Plan to be adopted for the site) does not apply but when a consent authority assesses a development application for the site, it must have regard to the range of matters set out in subclause (5) of Clause 40A.  An assessment of the proposal in relation to these matters indicates the following:

 

a)      Design principles drawn from an analysis of the site and its context

 

As indicated in Section 10.4.1 below, the Design Review Panel in reviewing the proposal under SEPP 65 stated as follows: “The Panel considered that the applicant provided an excellent site analysis and very clear drawn description of the proposal”. Accordingly, the proposal has adequately provided for a site and contextual analysis. 

 

b)      Phasing of development

 

The applicant has not indicated any phasing for the proposed development and the documentation accompanying the DA indicates redevelopment of the subject site in one whole phase which is considered acceptable and appropriate given the size of the site.

 

c)       distribution of land uses, including public open space and environmental protection areas

 

Two types of land uses are proposed – a commercial use for a car showroom appropriately located on the ground floor on the Avoca Street frontage and residential uses on the rest of the subject site. The car showroom component will represent a minimal 11 per cent of the total floor area whilst the residential component forms the remaining 88 per cent. The distribution of proposed land uses is considered acceptable given that the majority of the site will be used for residential purposes, albeit at a higher density, in line with the zoning.

 

d)      subdivision pattern

 

The proposal will not result in any departure from the existing sub-division pattern surrounding the subject site. 

 

e)      building envelopes and builtform controls

 

The proposal will have a predominant maximum height of 3 storeys which will be consistent and compatible with the heights of existing development in the locality, in particular, the existing residential flat buildings on Dine Street

 

f)       heritage conservation

 

The subject site is located within the Spot Heritage Conservation Area and a Heritage Impact Statement has been prepared by Noel Bell Ridley Smith and Partners Architects to address the impact of the proposal on the Heritage Conservation Area.  Council’s Heritage Planner has assessed the Statement and found that the proposed development will not have a detrimental impact on the heritage significance of the Conservation Area subject to appropriate conditions (see Section 10.1.1.5 below)

 

g)      Infrastructure provision

 

The proposal will be required to undergo a public utility impact assessment of 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. In addition, the applicant will be required to meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required with the applicant to make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

h)      Remediation of the site

 

A detailed site investigation report prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff titled Detailed Site Investigation Randwick Motors Avoca Street Randwick NSW has been submitted with the application. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has assessed the report and recommended that, based on the findings of the report, appropriate conditions be applied to the proposal to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use should approval be granted for the proposal.

 

i)       Pedestrian, cycle and road access and circulation network

 

The subject site will not be a gated community as pedestrian access through strategically placed breaks in the proposed building Blocks A, B, C and D will provide for permeability throughout the site.

 

j)       Carparking provision

 

The proposal complies with the carparking requirements of the DCP – Parking provision (see Section 10.2.2 below) 

 

k)      Provision of public facilities

 

Whilst there will be no physical provision of public facilities on-site, appropriate Section 94 contributions will be charged for open space and community facilities should approval be granted.

 

l)       Impacts and improvements to public domain

 

The proposal generally will have a positive visual impact on the public domain and streetscape in the locality, particularly, in relation to Avoca Street and its surrounding institutional precinct as well as Barker and Dine Streets and its surrounding residential environment.

 

m)     provision of open space, its function and landscaping

 

The proposal will comply with the landscape requirements of the Randwick LEP 1998 with the areas functioning as private open space for future residents. Appropriate Section 94 contributions will be charged for open space

 

n)      identification and conservation of native flora and fauna including threaten species, populations and ecological communities

 

The site is almost fully covered by building and concrete paving and does not contain any native flora or fauna.

 

o)      the principles of ecological sustainable development

 

The proposal adequately incorporates ESD principles as discussed in Section 10.9 below.

 

p)      identification, extent and management of buffer areas

 

Buffer areas are not required to be provided in the proposal given its location being bounded by roads on three sides, and compatible mixed residential/commercial (car showroom) use  and generous setback from all site boundaries.  

 

q)      identification, extent and management of habitat corridor

 

The site is almost fully covered by building and concrete paving and does not contain any native flora or fauna nor are there any habitat corridors within and surrounding the site. 

 

r)       identification, extent and constraints of acid sulphate soils

 

The subject site is not located in an area affected by acid sulphate soils as defined in Council’s Acid Sulphates Soil Manual. 

 

s)       opportunities to apply integrated natural water cycle design

 

The proposal will be required to comply with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy in terms of the provision of rainwater tank of sufficient size to provide water for irrigation of all landscaped areas within the development.

 

t)       opportunities to apply integrated renewable energy design 

 

The proposal will be required by condition to provide for water heating with a minimum 3.5 star SEDA Greenhouse Score  through the use of gas boosted solar hot water heating system.

 

Clause 40- Excavation and filling of land

 

Clause 40 of the RLEP contains provisions for undertaking of excavation and filling of land. The proposal will involve excavation for basement carparking. The application has been referred to DIPNR as integrated development in relation to the impact on the existing water table. The proposed works will alter the topography of the site to a minor extent by way of a levelling of the ground level to accommodate the proposed development but is unlikely to interrupt the drainage patterns of the site or result in soil instability and will not adversely impact upon the scenic quality of the site and locality. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.

 

Clause 42B         Contaminated Land

 

Clause 42B primarily requires Council to be satisfied that any contaminated land will be made suitable for its intended use prior to granting development consent. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has assessed a detailed site investigation report prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff and recommended in Section 6.2 above that, based on the findings of the report, appropriate conditions be applied to the proposal to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use should approval be granted.

 

Clause 43-      Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation and relics

 

Given its location within a Heritage Conservation Area, a Heritage Impact Statement has been prepared with the development application in accordance with Clause 43 of the Randwick LEP 1998, which has been assessed by Council’s Heritage Planner who has found that the proposal will not have any adverse amenity or streetscape impacts. As such, no heritage objections are raised to the proposed modern design of the proposal nor to the materials and finishes which are proposed.

 

10.1.2 ------ State Environmental Planning Policy No. 11

 

Clause 7 (4) of SEPP 11 requires that a development application to carry out development specified in Schedule 2 of the SEPP, being development on or of land that has direct vehicular or pedestrian access to an arterial road or a road connecting with an arterial road, if access is within 90m of the alignment of the arterial road, be referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW. 

 

A copy of the development application was referred to the RTA and comments have been received in reply.

 

10.1.3------ State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55

 

SEPP 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. Clause 7 of the Policy states that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless:

 

(a)     it has considered whether the land is contaminated, and

(b)     if land is contaminated, it is satisfied that the land is suitable in its contaminated state (or will be suitable after remediation) for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

(c)     if the land requires remediation to be made suitable for the purpose for which the development is proposed to be carried out, it is satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has assessed a detailed site investigation report prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff and recommended in Section 6.2 above that, based on the findings of the report, appropriate conditions be applied to the proposal to ensure that the site is suitable for its intended use should approval be granted.

 

10.1.3         State Environmental Planning Policy No. 32 – Urban Consolidation

 

SEPP 32 aims to promote the development of land by enabling urban land which is no longer required for the purpose for which it currently is zoned or used, to be redeveloped for multi-unit housing and related development, and to implement a policy of urban consolidation where a diverse range of housing types is to be developed in urban localities close to existing transport, employment and community facilities. Clause 7 of SEPP 32 requires Council to implement the aims and objectives of the policy when preparing LEPs.

 

The proposal essentially seeks to redevelop the existing car dealership and caryard site to a mix development with a predominantly multi-unit housing component. The proposal is considered to be consistent with SEPP 32 in primarily introducing new multi-unit dwellings in an area close to existing transport and institutional and community facilities thus increasing the availability of housing in this locality.

 

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

 

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. While the provisions of the SEPP cannot detract from the provisions of existing use rights, it is considered that any redevelopment of the site should achieve consistency with the design quality principles embodied in SEPP 65. Accordingly, in line with SEPP 65, the application was considered by the Design Review Panel. The Panel’s comments are included in section 10.4 below. Generally, the Panel advises that the proposal is based on a sound site and contextual analysis, and possesses a good architectural design that fits in well with the existing built environment, promotes energy efficiency and maintains the amenity of existing residential properties.

 

As such, the proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to SEPP 65 and the principles of good design.

 

10.1.5         Draft State Environmental Planning Policy 66 – Integration of Land Use and Transport (SEPP 66)

 

SEPP 66 aims to integrate land use and transport to ensure that urban structures, building forms, land use locations, development designs, sub-division and street layouts achieve the following planning objectives:

 

·        improved access to housing, jobs and services by walking, cycling and public transport

·        increasing the choice of available transport and reducing dependence on cars

·        reducing travel demand and distances especially by cars

·        supporting the efficient and viable operation of public transport

 

The proposal will result predominantly in residential development that in terms of its location, density, and design, maximise the catchment of existing public bus links. The proposal will be well served by existing bus services especially on Avoca Street and Barker Street providing ready access to the CBD, and regional and local centres. In addition, the subject site and the other areas of the development precinct will be linked by a comprehensive and efficient network of pedestrian and cycle access ways in line with the provisions of SEPP 66.

 

10.2   Policy Controls

 

10.2.1         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 2B 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 = 9.5m

 

Max External Wall Height = 7m

Max 12.2m.

 

 

Max 9m - 12.2m

No

 

 

No

Density

(LEP Control)

0.65:1 for Residential 2B

 

Max 1.4:1

No

 

The non-compliances with FSR and height have been addressed in Sections 10.1 above.

 

10.2.2         Development Control Plan - Parking

 

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

Car Parking

Number

Residential

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bicycle Storage

 

 

 

 

Accessible Parking

 

 

 

 

 

Car Wash Bays

 

 

Layout

 

 

1.0 spaces required for each one bedroom dwelling (16 x 1.0 = 16.0 spaces)

 

1.2 spaces required for each two bedroom dwelling (37 x 1.2 = 44.4 spaces)

 

1 space/4 dwgs or part thereof for visitors (

13.25 spaces required)

 

1 space per 40m2 GFA (679.8 sqm/40 = 16.9 spaces)

 

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 90 SPACES

 

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

(22.9 bike spaces)

 

1 space per adaptable dwelling in accordance with MUH DCP (3 dwellings)

 

1 per 12 dwellings (4.4 bays)

 

As per DCP.

 

 

 

16 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

44

 

 

 

 

 

13 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

17 spaces

 

 

 

 

143

 

 

26 spaces provided at B1 & B2.

 

 

 

11 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

4 bays

 

 

Adequate turning areas provided.

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

All carspace dimensions and aisles widths will comply with the DCP – Parking.

 

10.2.3         DCP No. 22 – The Spot and Surrounds

 

DCP No. 22 – The Spot and Surrounds contain controls (primarily for building envelope planes, height restrictions, heritage streetscapes, contributory façades, advertising signs, and awnings) that aim to protect and enhance the historical values of the commercial centre and the surrounding residential precinct. Whilst the subject site lies within the area to which DCP No. 22 – The Spot and Surrounds applies, there are no controls directly applicable to the site apart from those addressing heritage streetscapes because all the DCP controls apply primarily to the commercial zone in The Spot and to dwelling houses in the residential zones immediately surrounding the commercial zone.  Accordingly, the only relevant assessment of the DA in relation to the DCP relates to heritage objectives which Council’s Heritage Planner has addressed in Section 6.3 above.

 

10.3   Council Policies

 

10.3.1         Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes 53 dwellings on the site. Appropriate conditions have been applied requiring the payment of monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities and administration charges totalling $123,672.20 for the residential component of the development.

 

No contribution in relation to townscape can be levied as the site falls outside of the Randwick Junction Town Centre. No contribution is required with regard to carparking as the development meets Council’s requirements and is outside of the Randwick Junction Town Centre.

 

10.3.2         Contaminated Land Policy, 1999

 

Council’s Contaminated Land Policy applies to the site and has been addressed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer in Section 6.2 above. In line with this Policy, a detailed site investigation for the subject site has been assessed and appropriate conditions recommended to ensure that the subject land will be suitable for its intended use should approval be granted.

 

10.3.3         Rainwater Tank Policy, 2003

 

Council adopted a Rainwater Tank Policy on the 14th October 2003. The Policy encourages water conservation and reduce demand for potable (drinking) water. A condition will be applied requiring the applicant to provide appropriate measures in accordance with the Policy should approval be granted.

 

10.4   Urban Design

 

In assessing the earlier Master Plan submission for the site, Council officers raised concerns regarding the excessive height, bulk and scale of the earlier Master Plan proposal, and recommended the following amendments to the proposal:

 

·        All building Blocks A, B C and D be limited to a maximum 3 storeys in height from existing ground level with the exception of the corner block (at the intersection of Avoca Street and Barker Street) which can be a maximum 4 storeys above existing ground level.

 

·        Install strategically placed breaks in the proposed building Blocks A, B, C and D to break down the bulk, scale and predominantly masonry wall of the proposed development.

 

All buildings within the amended proposal will be maximum 3 storeys in height with the exception of Block A fronting Dine Street which will be four storeys because of the topography of the land which falls from east to west such that the ground floor of Building A will be partly sunk into the slope of the land at Dine Street and, in fact will not be visible from street level giving the impression of a three storey building from Dine Street. The breaks in the proposed development will assist significantly in breaking the visual bulk and scale of the proposed development and comprise the following:

 

·        two major separations between on the one hand, Block A and Block B, and on the other hand, Block A and Block D.

 

·        a series of smaller breaks marked by indentations in the building blocks linked to stairwells which, in terms of their external presentation, will be glazed to lighten and accentuate the break.

 

As a result of the amendment of the current DA proposal in line with the Master Plan recommendations, the proposal now visually fits in well with existing developments in the street, in particular the existing three storey residential flat buildings along Dine Street. The proposal will also enhance the streetscape through the introduction of a building with a modern design, and a strong urban edge to all street frontages. 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 capped by a flat roof that further accentuates its restrained bulk and scale.

 

In addition, the proposed building will have an external treatment that will augment its reduced scale and respond to the building’s use and contextual character. The applicant has provided a photomontage of the proposed development which indicates the application of appropriate colours to the different sections of the external wall and appropriately selected materials for features such as louvres, frames, balustrades and decking and confirms the positive contribution the proposal will make to the streetscape character. 

 

The proposal will have a common central courtyard comprising a deep soil area which will contain enhanced landscaping, selected paving, seating areas and timber decking.

 

Objections have been raised by residents in the area that the building height of the proposal is excessive in relation to existing residential properties in Dine Street. The proposal will have a predominantly maximum 3 storey height (with the exception of Block A fronting Dine Street, which, whilst four storeys in height, visually reads as three storeys at Street level) which will be compatible with the 3 to 4 storey height of existing residential flat buildings predominant in Dine Street. Specifically, in terms of relative levels, No 209 Dine Street which is an existing 4-storey pitched-roof residential flat building and No. 12 Dine Street which is an existing 3 storey pitched-roof residential flat building have maximum heights of RL63.120 and RL 61.470 respectively which are higher than the maximum height of the proposed development along Dine Street at  RL 61.24.

 

Another objection has raised concerns regarding the visual presentation of the proposed access walkway to upper level units which is seen as akin to public housing projects. This objection is unreasonable in that it makes a value-judgement based on assumptions and stereotyping of public housing. Notwithstanding this, the walkway is considered appropriate both in terms of function (as a means of access between blocks) and form (as a design element for breaking-up any potential monotonous walled-effect along the Barker Street).

 

Access for people with a disability has been provided to and within dwellings in accordance with the requirement of the DCP – Multi Unit Housing being 3 dwellings (identified as Dwellings DG01, A101 and A102).

 

10.4.1         Design Review Panel Comments

 

Under the provisions of SEPP 65, the Design Review Panel reviewed the proposal on 3 November 2003 and raised a number of issues in relation to the proposal. The Panel has provided comments as listed below followed by Council’s comments where appropriate:

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The proposed development fits well into its context and is consistent with the emerging character of this part of Randwick.  It is much more in scale than the scheme seen at master plan stage.

 

Panel considered that the applicant provided an excellent site analysis and very clear drawn description of the proposal. 

 

Council’s comments: The Panel is generally satisfied with the proposal’s relationship to its context and notes in particular the improvements from the earlier Master Plan proposal.

 

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The proposed buildings are in scale with its surroundings and the proposed buildings will relate well to the varied scale of neighbouring buildings. 

 

Multiple clearly defined entrances to the central courtyard contribute significantly to the creation of an appropriate street scale.  It will be important to the visual success of the scheme that the clear separation and identity of each of the building blocks is not lost in the further development of the design.

 

Council’s comments: The Panel’s comments are supported.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

More advantage could be taken of the roof to provide daylight and ventilation to the middle of the plan of some of the top floor units.

 

Rooftop needs greater articulation, currently is overly flat more volume to roof forms

 

The proposed setback at the Avoca / Barker Street corner is supported.

 

Some anomalies between the drawings such as missing walkways on upper plans, were noted.

 

Council’s comments: The flat roof form of the proposed development is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·        A pitched roof form would be out of character with the existing residential flat developments in Dine Street which predominantly have low-pitched to flat roof designs.

 

·        Additional volume in the roof-forms would significantly increase the height of the proposal which, as proposed, is already in breach of the statutory height control.

 

·        Additional volume to the roof-form will increase the visual bulk and scale of the proposal in relation to existing development in the adjoining streets.

 

4.       The Proposed Density

 

A high FSR is proposed but the Panel noted that, existing use rights apply.  As the site is large and has been intelligently planned, appropriate deep soil planting is provided, heights are modest and the development is surrounded on three sides by wide roads, the Panel considers that in this highly accessible location, the proposed density is entirely appropriate.

 

Council’s comments:  The  Panel’s comments are supported.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

The proposal at this stage provides a good framework for satisfying this principle.

 

The proposed use of solar panels is commended and their provision should be a condition of consent.

 

More shading to western façade should be considered.

 

Windows above kitchens along the access walkways should be introduced to maximize natural day lighting and cross ventilation opportunities.

 

Council’s comments:  A deferred commencement condition will be applied requiring details of the following:

 

·--- the installation of gas boosted solar hot water heating system as recommended in the applicant’s Energy and Services Report prepared by Medland Mitropoulos.

 

·--- the  installation of more shading devices to the western façade of Block C

 

·--- the installation of windows above kitchens along the access walkways to maximize natural day lighting and cross ventilation opportunities

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

 

Panel commended the disposition of open space on the site and the extent of deep soil planting proposed.

 

Council’s comments: The Panel’s comments are supported.

 

 

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

It was noted that individual apartments were well planned and more generous in their dimensions than in many of the recent applications seen by the Panel.

 

The location of the car sales room on the Avoca Street frontage is very suitable.  The idea of maintaining a visual link through this from the courtyard to Avoca Street is excellent.

 

A number of opportunities to marginally improve the amenity of some of the units were discussed with the applicant.  These included:

 

More advantage could be taken of the roof to provide daylight and ventilation to the middle of the plan for all top floor units.

 

It might be possible to provide more natural light and ventilation to bathrooms and kitchens in Maissonette units 101-106 and to service rooms elsewhere through side walls.

 

Council’s Comments:  Given the overall merits of the design of the proposal, and its good standard of internal amenity, the Panel’s assessment regarding the possibility of improving selected dwelling units is not considered critical and necessary. In particular the proposal achieves a high level of solar access and cross-ventilation for the dwelling units proposed.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

Public and private areas are well defined and both are well overlooked.

 

Council’s Comment:  Apart from the various conditions applied to protect the privacy of the adjoining northern property, the proposal overall has achieved a good balance between the preservation of residential privacy and provision of public surveillance/security.

 

9.       Social issues

         

On site provisions for residents and for servicing the development are generous and well located

 

Council’s Comments :  In line with the Panel’s views, Section 10.13 discusses the social impacts of the proposal further.

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The architecture is intelligent and restrained and if carried through in the detailing will produce a very satisfactory outcome.

 

Council’s Comments :   The Panel’s comments are supported.

 

Summary and Recommendation

 

The Panel considered that this was an excellent proposal and commends it to Council for approval.

10.5   Site Suitability

 

The subject site is zoned for residential use under the Randwick LEP 1998. The proposal will predominantly comprise an unobtrusive 3 storey multi-unit residential development spread out over a reasonably wide site such that it will fit in well with the scale of existing development in the locality. The subject site has good exposure to Avoca Street which will be suitable for the proposed car showroom component. The subject site is located in an established urban area surrounded by major bus routes along Avoca Street and Barker Road, existing institutional, commercial and retail services within walking distance, infrastructure and community facilities in the locality. As such, the site is suitable for the proposed development.

 

10.6   Impact on adjoining development

 

10.6.1         Overshadowing

 

The shadow diagrams for the winter solstice show that in the winter morning, the proposal will mainly overshadow Avoca Street and Barker Street with some overshadowing of the front yards of the existing dwelling houses fronting Barker Street. By winter noon, these front yards will be free of overshadowing from the proposal with overshadowing falling mainly on Barker Street. By 3.00 pm in winter overshadowing will occur predominantly on Barker Street and Dine Street with some overshadowing of the front yards of the existing residential flat buildings on the opposite eastern side of Dine Street. Overall, the proposal will have minimal overshadowing impact on adjoining and surrounding residential properties given the corner location of the subject site bounded on three sides by streets, namely, Avoca, Barker and Dine Streets.

 

10.6.2         Overlooking

 

Concern has been raised by residents in the adjoining properties to the north in relation to loss of privacy, particularly from balcony areas on high upper floor levels of the proposal. The residents in the complex of town houses at No. 255 Avoca Street have referred to the existing high level of privacy they enjoy as a result of the northern wall of the existing car repair workshop being built to the common boundary between the two sites. Whilst the significant degree of privacy afforded by this wall is recognised, it is considered unreasonable to expect this level of privacy to be maintained by requiring the wall to be retained given that the wall is required to be demolished as part of the redevelopment of the subject site. The proposal will give rise to some degree of overlooking of the courtyard/living areas of south-facing dwelling units in No. 255 Avoca Street from the proposed balconies on the north elevation of Block C and Block D of the proposed development. However, it is considered that this loss of privacy will be mitigated by the following factors:

 

·        The north elevation of the proposed Block C and D will be setback by 3m from the common northern boundary resulting in a separation distance of approximately 7.5m and 8.5m between the proposed development and the objectors’ property.

 

·        The provision of metal shutters and metal Venetian louvres on the balconies along the north elevation. A deferred commencement condition will be applied requiring full details of the shutters and louvres to be installed on the balconies on the north elevation including the installation of appropriate fixed louvres to screen overlooking into the adjoining northern property at No. 255 Avoca Street.

 

·        The provision of mature species landscaping along part of the northern boundary. A deferred commencement condition will be applied requiring a detailed landscape plan to be submitted showing mature plantings to be provided along the full length of the northern boundary including details of species and height of plantings.

 

·        The application of a deferred commencement consent requiring details of a 2m high masonry fence to be provided along the northern boundary of the subject site to provide privacy and security for residents in No. 255 Avoca Street.

 

Another objection concerning loss of privacy was received from a resident in the adjoining residential flat building to the north at No. 12 Dine Street. The loss of privacy to the living areas of this adjoining building is considered minimal for the following reasons:

 

·        there are no balconies proposed on the north elevation of Block A

·        the windows facing the adjoining northern building will be linked to bedrooms and not living areas

·        the separation distance of approximately 7.5m is considered adequate to mitigate any overlooking concerns between the proposed building and the building at No. 12 Dine Street 

 

10.6.3         Loss of views

 

The owners of dwelling units in the adjoining northern residential properties at No. 255 Avoca Street and No. 12 Dine Street have raised concerns in regards to loss of district views as a result of the proposed development. An inspection of the site reveals that there are some district views currently available to a select number of dwellings in the above-mentioned two adjoining properties that potentially will be lost. However, whilst unavoidable, the loss is not considered significant and will be minimised by the low-scaled nature of the proposed development and its location well within the subject site.

 

10.8   Landscaping and Open Space

 

Landscape concept plans have been submitted by the applicant. The plans show primarily a central deep soil landscaped area and deep soil landscaped perimeter along Barker Street and Dine Street. The proposed landscape treatment will integrate well with the proposed architecture by the use of appropriate planting and landscaped elements including select paving, timber decking and water features, and by providing appropriate planting effect in the breaks between the proposed building blocks as a means of off-setting the continuity of builtform in the streetscape.

 

Overall, the landscaping design is considered acceptable and will provide a good quality landscape treatment to complement the architectural design of the proposed development.

 

10.9   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 applicant’s energy consultant has prepared an energy and services report for the proposal which will lists the following energy efficiency measure to be included in the proposed building: 

 

·        Double glazing and full insulation to meet NatHERS 4.5 star requirement

·        Passive and natural ventilation of apartments

·        Mechanical ventilation of carpark activated using a carbon monoxide sensing system

·        Toilet exhaust systems would utilize pressure switches and variable speed drives to control rooftop fans

·        High efficacy fluorescent lamps

·        High efficiency light fittings

·        Timer and occupancy sensor controlled lighting where applicable

·        Variable speed drives on pumps and motors

·        Green roof insulation properties

 

A condition will be applied requiring details of the above measures to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

The development application has been accompanied by a NatHERS assessment which indicates that based on appropriate modelling, the proposed development will have an average star rating of 4.73 stars with 86.7% of the proposed apartments achieving or exceeding the required rating. The applicant’s energy consultant advises that it is generally accepted that if the average star rating of a proposed development exceeds the required 4.5 star rating and 80 per cent of dwelling units achieve the required rating then development is deemed to comply. This advice is considered acceptable and the proposal is considered to satisfy the NatHERS energy efficiency guidelines.

 

Accordingly, the proposal is considered appropriate in terms of ESD principles and is consistent with the requirements of the adopted Master Plan and Local Government Amendment (Ecologically Sustainable Development) Act 1997.

 

The proposal achieves full cross-ventilation for all dwelling units through the following means:

 

·        providing for dwelling units with single-loading direct front to back floor plans in each block

·        providing for dwelling units with a two-level (stacked) arrangement

·        utilizing the breaks between buildings for air circulation/ventilation purposes in corner dwelling units.

 

Accordingly, the proposal is considered well-designed for achieving cross-ventilation.

 

10.10          Construction Management

 

Concerns by residents have been raised in relation to the potential loss of amenity during construction. A condition will be applied requiring the submission of a construction site management plan to maintain adequate levels of public health and safety. A further condition will be applied requiring adequate dust control measures during demolition, excavation and construction and a range of measures to ensure this.

 

10.11          Site Remediation

 

A preliminary site contamination assessment report was prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff titled Detailed Site Investigation Randwick Motors Avoca Street Randwick NSW and submitted as part of the development application. All details have been considered by Council’s Environmental Health Services and appropriate conditions will be applied to ensure that the land is suitable for its intended use.

 

10.12           Traffic and access

 

Concern has been raised by local residents that increased traffic from the proposed development will exacerbate the existing traffic situation along Barker Street in the peak periods. The applicant has provided a traffic report undertaken by Mason Wilson Twinney Traffic and Transport Consultants. The report states that the proposed development would have a combined estimated peak hour generation of 35 vehicles per hour representing a net increase of some 17 vehicles per hour over the existing traffic generation of the existing car sales/showroom/service use. The report indicates that this is a low level of traffic generation that would not have a significant effect upon the operations of the surrounding road network. Council’s Traffic Engineer has not raised concerns in relation to the effect of the traffic generation from the proposed development on the performance of the existing road system noting that “…right turn movement (exiting) from the development site should not disrupt flows on Barker Street…” and that any delays that will be experienced will be (internally within the development) “…by vehicles waiting to exit the site.” Accordingly conditions restricting right-turn movements into Barker Street from the proposed development during peak periods will be applied.

 

Access into the development will be via a two-way single entry/exit driveway from Barker Street.  This entry/exit point is linked to a two-way 6m accessway leading to Basement Level 1 car park for predominantly commercial and residential visitor users, and a further Basement Level 2 carpark for residents, in a spiral aisle access and park arrangement. The commercial and residential visitor car spaces will be adequately separated from residential carspaces by a security door without disrupting access. A condition will be applied requiring appropriate access/intercom arrangements for residential visitors after hours. 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.

 

10.13           Social Impact

 

It is considered that the proposal will increase the availability of housing and promote the objectives of the zone as well as the urban consolidation principles contained in SEPP 32. The effect of the proposal would be to bring more people to the site resulting in a new community likely to include young families, “empty nester” household, and share households. The added population will generate additional needs for businesses, employees and patrons, 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, especially given that the range of services available in the institutional precinct (comprising medical, educational and community facilities) immediately to the west, and commercial precinct immediately to the north in Randwick Town Centre.

 

10.14   Resident Submissions

 

The majority of issues raised by residents have been adequately addressed in the assessment above. Additional concerns raised by residents are addressed as follows:

 

·        Lack of environmental study to address site contamination

 

The applicant has submitted a detailed site investigation report prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff titled Detailed Site Investigation Randwick Motors Avoca Street Randwick NSW which has been assessed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer and found to be adequate subject to conditions to ensure that the subject site will be suitable for its intended use.

 

·        Exposure to dust from removal and disturbance to contaminated soil.

 

All site remediation work will be required to be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, Environmental Planning Instruments applying to the site, guidelines made by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly EPA) and the NSW Department of Infrastructure Planning & Natural Resources (formerly Planning NSW), Randwick City Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Specifically, the Environmental Consultant and Auditor, in their assessment of appropriate soil investigation levels, must take into account all environmental concerns and the protection of ground and surface water. Furthermore the Site Remediation Management Plan will be required to include measures to address the following matters:

 

·        general site management, site security, barriers, traffic management and signage

·        hazard identification and control

·        worker health & safety, work zones and decontamination procedures

·        cross contamination

·        site drainage and dewatering

·        air and water quality monitoring

·        disposable of hazardous wastes

·        contingency plans and incident reporting

 

·        Inadequate mix and layout of dwelling

 

There is no statutory or policy requirement governing residential mix for the subject site. In any case, the proposed mix and layout of dwelling units is considered acceptable given the high proportion of dwelling units enjoying solar access (80%) and cross ventilation (100%) and overall good quality design and architecture of the proposal. 

 

·        No submission made by the applicant to provide suitable evidence of existing use rights.

 

A submission has been made by the applicant establishing existing use rights for the existing car sales/showroom/yard use and indicating that the use has not ceased at any time from the original approval to the present.

 

·        Loss of security due to removal of a northern wall to the existing development.

 

The loss of security currently enjoyed by the residents of the adjoining town-house development to the north as a result of the proposed demolition of the northern wall of the existing car sales/repair building is unavoidable. The redevelopment of the site relies upon the complete removal of all buildings and structures on the site. It would be unreasonable to require the applicant to retain these northern walls given the impact this would have on the design and feasibility of the overall project. The loss in security will, however, be addressed by the requirement for a solid masonry fence along the northern boundary of the subject site.

 

·        The proposed sub-station on the northern boundary will create health hazards and noise pollution and contravenes setback requirements.

 

A deferred commencement condition will be applied requiring the applicant to provide appropriate technical advice from suitable authorities, including Energy Australia, as to the suitability of the location of the proposed sub-station in relation to the residential property in terms of, but not limited to, the impact of electromagnetic emissions and noise on human health, and should provide appropriate mitigation measures including the relocation of the sub-station if necessary. Whilst there are no setback requirements applicable to the subject site on account of existing use rights, the setback of the proposed sub-station from the northern boundary is considered acceptable given the minor nature of its structure.

 

·        Inadequate traffic study.

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer and the Randwick Local Development Committee have not raised any concerns regarding the adequacy or validity of the Traffic Report prepared by Mason Wilson Twinney Traffic and Transport Consultants and, in fact, have relied upon the report to apply traffic-related conditions upon the proposed development. In addition the RTA has assessed the Traffic Report and has raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions should approval be granted.

 

·        Flawed site contamination report.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has assessed the detailed site investigation report prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff titled Detailed Site Investigation Randwick Motors Avoca Street Randwick NSW and has raised no concerns relating to the adequacy or validity of the report, and in fact, has applied appropriate conditions based on the report to ensure the proposal satisfies all statutory and policy controls relating to site contamination.

 

·        Lack of investigation into underground storage tanks.

 

The existence of underground storage tanks and the nature of these tanks can only be confirmed properly through an excavation of the subject site. The approval of the development application would allow for appropriate excavation works to occur. Should the presence of underground storage tanks be encountered in the excavation process, the site auditor appointed for the subject site will have the statutory task and responsibility to undertake appropriate action to remediate the site safely and appropriately. A condition has been applied requiring that should any underground tanks be discovered they are to be removed in accordance with relevant NSW DEC/EPA Guidelines; Australian Institute of Petroleum’s (AIP) Code of Practice for the Design, Installation and Operation of Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (CP4-1998); and WorkCover NSW requirements.

 

·        Loss of existing trees in adjoining properties.

 

Council’s Landscape Services has identified trees in the adjoining property to the north at No. 253 Avoca Street and appropriate conditions to ensure the preservation of the trees will be applied.

 

·        Exact nature of noise from the mechanical plant and noise emissions from fans has not been established.

 

Appropriate conditions will be applied requiring standard noise mitigation measures to be applied to reduce noise emissions associated with mechanical plant servicing the proposed development. These measures will be required to reduce the potential impact of noise at nearby residences and other noise sensitive receivers.

 

·        Exact location of the proposed roof level exhaust outlet from the carpark is unclear.

 

A deferred commencement condition of consent requiring details of the proposed roof level exhaust outlet from the carpark will be applied should approval be granted.

 

·        Residential garbage storage is too close to residences.

 

The location and function of residential garbage area has been assessed found appropriate by Council’s Waste Management Officer and appropriate waste management conditions have been applied. The residential garbage area will be in the basement level 1 and is not considered to give rise to any health or amenity concerns.

 

11     CONCLUSION

 

The proposed removal of the existing non-conforming car yard on the site in favour of a predominantly residential development is permissible on this site under existing use rights provisions of the EP&A Act. It is considered that the proposed development is appropriate on the site given the existing mixed character of the locality and the proposal’s compatibility with the scale of existing residential development in the area. The development proposes a building envelope, height, façade treatment and urban outcomes that, whilst not complying with the maximum FSR and building height controls of, generally meet the criteria and fulfil the objectives contained within, the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and Council’s Development Control Plans.

 

The SEPP 1 objections lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the floor space ratio and height, when assessed as a guide, 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 has been assessed against the design quality principles contained within SEPP 65 and is considered to be satisfactory.

 

The proposal is consistent with Council’s planning officer’s assessment and recommendations made in respect of the earlier Master Plan lodged by the applicant notwithstanding the refusal of that Master Plan by Council. 

 

The redevelopment of the site under existing-use rights provisions (outside of Council’s statutory and policy controls) is considered acceptable following a merits based assessment of the proposal and the proposed building form is considered to be appropriate on the site given the character of the area, the objectives and zoning of the site contained within the Randwick LEP1998.

 

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

 

12      RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/0820/2004 for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of a part-3 and part-4 storey mixed use development comprising 53 dwelling units, car showroom on the ground level and basement carparking for 143 vehicles at 265-271 Avoca Street, 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.       Amended plans/elevations showing details of mature evergreen landscaping along the northern boundary of the subject site to screen overlooking from the balconies on the north elevation into the adjoining northern property at 255 Avoca Street. The documentation shall include a planting plan of plants to be drawn at their mature size and a planting schedule listing the plants by botanic & common names, plant numbers, plant spacings, the estimated size of the plant at maturity (height & spread).

 

2.       Amended plans/elevations showing details of a 2m high masonry fence measured in height from the ground level of the adjoining northern property to be provided along the northern boundary of the subject site to ensure the privacy and security of residents in the adjoining northern property at No. 255 Avoca Street.

 

3.       Amended plans/elevations showing details of the shutters and louvres to be installed on the balconies on the north elevation including the installation of appropriate fixed louvres to screen overlooking into the adjoining northern property at No. 255 Avoca Street.

 

 

4.       Amended plans/elevations showing details of additional shading devices to the western façade of Block C and windows above kitchens along the access walkways to maximize natural day lighting and cross ventilation opportunities as required by the Design Review Panel.

 

5.       Amended plans/elevations showing details of gas boosted solar hot water heating system as recommended in the applicant’s Energy and Services Report prepared by Medland Mitropoulos.

 

6.       A report detailing the proposed method of excavation and dewatering shall be submitted to Council for approval. The report shall be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical, Hydrological and Structural Engineers and must include but not limited to:

 

·           The proposed method of shoring/piling and dewatering

·           The zone of influence of any possible settlement

·           The location of any proposed re-injection points in relation to the property boundaries (where re-injection equipment is to be located on land other than the subject premises, the written consent of the owner must also be provided to Council)

·           Monitoring of fluctuations of the water table during dewatering/construction to be undertaken by consulting engineers to ensure that the conditions of consent are satisfied.

·           The location of all proposed monitoring equipment in relation to the property boundaries (where monitoring equipment is to be located on land other than the subject premises, the written consent of the owner must also be provided to Council)

·           The location of all pumping equipment in relation to the property boundaries

·           The proposed method of noise attenuation for all pumping equipment i.e.; so as not to be more than 5dB (A) greater than the A – weighted L90 background sound pressure level between the hours of 7am to 10pm within any residential dwelling and not to be audible at all between the hours of 10pm and 7am within any residential dwelling

·           A statement from suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical and Hydrological Engineers, with the concurrence of a Structural Engineer, that there should be no detrimental settlement to adjoining or nearby buildings/infrastructure using the chosen method of excavation/dewatering.

·           Details of the groundwater quality and the suitability for discharge to the Council’s stormwater system. Consideration shall be given to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant Australian Standards.

 

Additionally, information satisfying Council that dewatering of the site is to occur in an environmentally satisfactory manner is to be provided prior to works commencing.

 

7.       Details of all proposed roof level exhaust outlet from the carpark including, but not limited to, location and sizes.

 

8.       Appropriate technical advice from suitable authorities, including Energy Australia, as to the suitability of the location of the proposed sub-station in relation to the residential property in the adjoining northern site at 255 Avoca Street in terms of, but not limited to, the impact of electromagnetic emissions and noise on human health, and providing appropriate mitigation measures including the relocation of the sub-station if necessary.

 

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 A003 Issue A dated 29 September 2004, A053 to A057 Issue B 29 dated September 2004, and A071 to A073 Issue B dated 29 September 2004, stamped received by Council on 1 October 2004, and A050, A051, and A052 Issue C and A060 Issue A dated 23 December 2004 and stamped received by Council 23 December 2004, and 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:

 

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 external colours, materials and finishes of the proposed development and the landscaping plans shall be in accordance with the sample board details and elevations prepared by Mayoh Architects, submitted to and received by Council on 1 October 2004.

 

3.       In the unlikely event that historical archaeological remains or deposits are exposed during the works, all work shall cease while an evaluation of their potential extent and significance is undertaken and the NSW Heritage Office notified under the requirements of the Heritage Act.

 

4.       Details of the design and height, materials and structure of the fencing adjacent to the Barker Street and Dine Street frontage of the property are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  Fencing is not to exceed a height of 1.5m.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

6.       The energy efficiency measures listed in pages 5 and 6, and the electrical, fire, hydraulic and mechanical service features described in Section 3 Services Design Statement in page 7, of the report titled “Built Environment Services Report” prepared by Medland Mitropoulos and P.D. Mayoh Pty. Ltd. dated 15 September 2004 shall be provided in the development. Details of these measures as required by this condition shall be included in the construction certificate application.

 

7.       The applicant shall comply with the General Terms of Approval issued by the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources reference ERM 2004/005545 under cover of letter dated 6 December 2004. Specific dewatering requirements shall be confirmed through further investigation of site conditions, including but not limited to, new monitoring wells, slug testing, water sampling, modelling and reporting, following demolition of the subject site as recommended by Parson Brinckerhoff in a letter dated 26 November 2004 to Costin Roe Consulting (a copy of which was provided to the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR)) and as required by DIPNR in the letter to Council dated 6 December 2004  (Reference No. ERM 2004/005545).

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate provisions are made for site remediation:

 

8.       Prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development the land must be remediated to meet the Health Based Investigation Level NEHF D Criteria and the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)       A Remediation Action Plan (RAP) is required to be prepared and be submitted to Council prior to commencing remediation works.  The RAP is also required to be reviewed by an independent NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) [formerly EPA] Accredited Site Auditor, and

 

b)      The RAP is to be prepared in accordance with the relevant Guidelines made or approved by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation [formerly EPA], including the Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites.

 

This RAP is to include procedures for the following:

 

·        Excavation of Hydrocarbon-contaminated soil,

·        Site management planning,

·        Validation sampling and analysis,

·        Prevention of cross contamination and migration or release of contaminants,

·        Ground water remediation, dewatering, drainage, monitoring and validation,

·        Unexpected finds, and

 

c)       A written statement is to be provided to the Council by the Site Auditor, which confirms that the Remediation Action Plan satisfies the relevant legislative guidelines and requirements and that the land is able to be remediated to the required level and be suitable for the intended development and use, and

 

d)      The applicant is to engage a NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly EPA) Accredited Site Auditor, accredited under sections 49 and 50 of the of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. The Site Auditor is to assess the suitability of the site for its intended development and use.  The Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report are to be submitted to Council and must verify that the site is suitable for the intended development and use: National Environmental Health Forum’s Health Based Investigation Level NEHF D Criteria.

 

          Any additional conditions that are specified in the Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report by the EPA accredited site auditor, form part of this consent and Council must be consulted with prior to the development and imposition of any conditions, and

 

e)       Remediation works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, environmental planning instruments applying to the site, guidelines made by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly EPA) and Department of Infrastructure Planning & Natural Resources (formerly Planning NSW), Randwick City Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, and

 

f)       The site remediation must be completed to the satisfaction of the Accredited Site Auditor and the written concurrence of Council must be obtained prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.

 

9.       Site remediation must be carried out in accordance with the following general requirements (as applicable):

 

a.       The Environmental Consultant and Auditor, in their assessment of appropriate soil investigation levels, must take into account all environmental concerns (for example, the potential effects on wildlife) and the protection of ground and surface water.

 

b.       The remediation of the site including ground water must fully comply with all relevant Commonwealth and State Legislation, Regulations and Standards.

 

c.       Any variations to the proposed remediation works or remediation action plan shall be approved by the Site Auditor and a written statement is to be provided to the Council by the Site Auditor prior to the commencement of such works, which confirms the Site Auditors approval of the amended remediation action plan / works, and

 

d.       Should any underground tanks be discovered they shall be removed in accordance with relevant NSW DEC/EPA Guidelines; Australian Institute of Petroleum’s (AIP) Code of Practice for the Design, Installation and Operation of Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (CP4-1998); and WorkCover NSW requirements. In the event of conflict between AIP Code of Practice and WorkCover requirements the latter shall prevail.

 

e.       Any odours from excavated materials shall be mitigated by the use of an odour suppressant, such as Biosolve, and shall not give rise to an offensive odour as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Stockpiles shall also be covered and dampened down to reduce odour and dust impacts.

 

          On-site land farming of contaminated soil is not permitted, except with the written approval of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

f.        Any fill importation to the site is to be monitored and classified by the Site Auditor appointed for remediation of the site or a person with his qualifications. Only ‘Virgin Excavated Natural Material’ (VENM) is to be imported to the site, as defined within the NSW EPA ‘Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and management of Liquid and Non-Liquid Wastes. 1999’.

 

g.       A Site Remediation Management Plan must be prepared prior to the commencement of remediation works by a suitably qualified environmental consultant and be implemented throughout remediation works. A copy is to be forwarded to Council. The Site Remediation Management Plan shall include measures to address the following matters:

·       general site management, site security, barriers, traffic management and signage

·       hazard identification and control

·       worker health & safety, work zones and decontamination procedures

·       cross contamination

·       site drainage and dewatering

·       air and water quality monitoring

·       disposable of hazardous wastes

·       contingency plans and incident reporting

 

h.       All trucks and service vehicles leaving the site shall go through a suitably constructed on site truck wash down area, to ensure no tracking of material occurs from the site onto roads adjoining the site. Details are to be submitted to Council in the Site Management Plan.

 

i.        Prior to the commencement and throughout the duration of the remediation and construction works adequate sediment and stormwater control measures shall be in place and maintained on site at all times.  Sediment laden stormwater shall be controlled using measures outlined in the manual Managing Urban Stormwater Soils and Construction produced by the NSW Department of Housing.

 

j.        Remediation work shall be conducted within the following hours:

          Monday – Friday   7am – 5pm

          Saturday    8am – 5pm

          No work permitted on Sundays or Public Holidays

 

k.       A sign displaying the contact details of the remediation contractor (and the site manager if different to remediation contractor) shall be displayed on the site adjacent to the site access.  This sign shall be displayed throughout the duration of the remediation works.

 

l.        Any new information which comes to light during remediation, demolition or construction works which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination shall be notified to the Council and the Principal Certifying Authority immediately.

 

10.     Hazardous or intractable wastes arising from the demolition, excavation and remediation process being removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Environment Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

·        New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2000;

·        The Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001;

·        The Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001;

·        Protection Of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) and

·        Environment Protection Authority's Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid and Non Liquid Wastes (1999).

 

11.     The works shall not give rise to environmental pollution or public nuisance or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act (2000) & Regulations (2001).

 

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

 

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

 

          In this regard, the operation of the premises and plant and equipment shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background (LA90), 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

13.     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.

 

14.     The Acoustic Report titled Proposed Residential Development 256 Avoca Street, Randwick DA Acoustic Assessment report reference 10-3685 forms part of this approval

 

15.     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:

 

16.     The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance and there are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

17.     Development consent is required to be obtained in relation to the specific ‘use’ of commercial tenancies/occupancies and ‘shop fit outs’, in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate provisions are made for Section 94 Contributions:

 

18.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision or improvement of public open space in lieu of on site provision for an amount of $85,460.56 This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the issuing of the construction certificate. Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

19.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for the provision of community facilities in lieu of on site provision for an amount of $37,786.64 This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.  Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

20.     In accordance with Council's Section 94 Contributions Plan adopted on September 1999 a monetary contribution is to be paid to Council for administration charges for an amount of $425.00.  This amount shall be paid by cash or bank cheque prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.  Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

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

 

21.     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.

 

22.     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.

 

23.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

              

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

          Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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 (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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 provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

30.     A coloured works-as-executed fire services plan is to be submitted to the Council prior to occupation of the development, detailing the location of the essential fire safety measures installed within the building premises.

 

31.     The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia 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.

 

          Additional requirements regarding the design and installation of the smoke detection and alarm system may be specified in the construction certificate for the development.

 

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

 

32.     Documentary evidence prepared by a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, certifying the suitability and stability of the site for the proposed building and certifying the suitably and adequacy of the proposed design and construction of the building for the site.

 

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 potential vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby land/premises.

 

          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 demonstrates that damage should not occur to any adjoining premises and public place as a result of the works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

36.     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.

 

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

 

38.     A report must be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority or an accredited certifier, prior to issuing the Construction Certificate, detailing the proposed method of excavation and dewatering process.  This report is to be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical, Hydrological and Structural Engineers and is to include but not limited to:

 

·        The proposed method of shoring/piling and dewatering.

·        The zone of influence of any possible settlement.

·        The location of any proposed re-injection points in relation to the property boundaries (where re-injection equipment is to be located on land other than the subject premises, the written consent of the owner must also be provided to Council).

·        Monitoring of fluctuations of the water table during dewatering/construction to be undertaken by consulting engineers to ensure that the conditions of consent and requirements of the Department of Environment & Conservation (Formerly DLWC) are satisfied.

·        The location of all proposed monitoring equipment in relation to the property boundaries (where monitoring equipment is to be located on land other than the subject premises, the written consent of the owner must also be provided to Council).

·        Details of any consultation and arrangements made with owners of any potentially affected nearby premises (ie in relation to access, monitoring and rectification of possible damage to other premises).

·        The location of all pumping equipment in relation to the property boundaries.

·        The proposed method of noise attenuation for all pumping equipment, so as not to be more than 5dB (A) greater than the A – weighted L90 background sound pressure level between the hours of 7am to 10pm within any residential premises and not to be audible at all between the hours of 10pm and 7am within any residential dwelling.

·        A report is to be provided from a suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical and Hydrological Engineers, with the concurrence of the Structural Engineer, which confirms the proposed methods of dewatering and excavation are appropriate and in accordance with ‘best practice’ principles and should not result in any unacceptable levels of settlement of the adjoining or nearby buildings. Any practices or recommendations made by the consulting Engineer/s must be implemented accordingly.

 

The dewatering process must be monitored by the consulting Engineer/s to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority and documentary evidence of compliance with the relevant conditions of consent and dewatering requirements must be provided to the principal certifying authority and the Council.

 

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:

 

39.     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.

 

40.     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”.

 

41.     A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

42.     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.

 

43.     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.

 

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

 

46.     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.

         

47.     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.

 

48.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

51.     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.

 

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

 

53.     Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

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

 

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

·        location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·        location of building materials for construction;

·        provisions for public safety;

·        dust control measures;

·        site access location and construction

·        details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·        protective measures for tree preservation;

·        provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·        location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·        details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·        construction noise and vibration management.

 

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

 

55.     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.

 

56.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

60.     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.

 

61.     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.

 

62.     Any part of Council’s nature strip which is damaged as a result of the work must be back-filled, top-soiled and re-turfed with kikuyu turf prior to occupation or finalisation of the development, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

          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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·       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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·        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.

 

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

 

a)       car parking and vehicular access

b)      landscaping

c)       stormwater drainage

d)      external finishes and materials

 

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

 

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

 

70.     To provide reasonable access for persons with disabilities, an access ramp having a maximum gradient of 1 in 14 is to be provided at the entrance to the car showroom portion of the building to the satisfaction of the certifying authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

a)       $10 000.00     -     Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

          The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash, cheque or bank guarantee (no expiry date) with the Council and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council that no damage has occurred to the Council assets such as roadway, kerb, guttering, drainage pits footway, or verge and upon the completion of the civil works as conditioned in this development consent by Council. The applicant is to advise Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for the Roads and Traffic Authority requirements:

 

72.     All redundant driveways along the Avoca Street and Barker Street frontage of the development are to be removed with kerb and gutter reinstated to relevant RTA standards.

 

73.     To promote the efficient operation of the Classified Road network, construction vehicles associated with the development shall not park or stand on Avoca Street during the construction of the development.

 

74.     Subject to Council’s Local Traffic Committee’s approval, full time “No Stopping” signage should be installed for a short distance either side of the proposed Barker Street driveway to allow motorists to enter / exit the site safely.

 

75.     Off-street parking associated with the proposed development (including driveways, ramp grades, aisle widths, parking bay dimensions, turning paths, and sight distance requirements) should be designed in accordance with AS 2890.1 – 2004 and AS 2890.2 – 2002 for loading areas.

 

76.     Storm water run-off from the subject site onto Avoca Street, as a result of the proposed development is not to exceed the existing level of run-off from the site.

 

77.     The proposed development should be designed such that road traffic noise from Avoca Street is mitigated by durable materials, in accordance with EPA criteria for new land use developments (The Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise, May 1999).  The RTA's Environmental Noise Management Manual provides practical advice in selecting noise mitigation treatments..

 

          Where the EPA external noise criteria would not practically or reasonably be met, the RTA recommends that Council applies the following internal noise objectives for all habitable rooms under ventilated conditions complying with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia:

 

          All habitable rooms other than sleeping rooms:

 

·        45 dB(A) Leq(15hr) and 40 dB(A) Leq(9hr)  and

·        Sleeping rooms: 35 dB(A) Leq(9hr)

 

78.     Any cost of noise attenuation shall be at no cost to the RTA.

 

79.     All works / regulatory signposting associated with the subject development shall be at no cost to the RTA.

 

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

 

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

 

          Construct a full width concrete commercial vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the proposed vehicular entrance to the site in Barker Street.

 

81.     Remove all redundant concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks along the site frontages and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

82.     Reconstruct the kerb and gutter along the full site frontages except opposite the vehicular entrance and exit point. It is noted that the kerb and gutter along the Avoca Street site frontage shall be constructed in accordance with appropriate RTA guidelines/specifications.

 

83.     Carry out a full depth minimum 1.00 metre wide, road construction in front of the new kerb and gutter along the full site frontage. Additional road re-construction works will be required around the existing converter drain at the intersection of Barker Street and Dine Street.

 

84.     Construct a concrete footpath along the Dine Street frontage to the requirements of Council’s Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services Department. Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

85.     Construct/reconstruct a full width footpath along the Avoca Street and Barker Street site frontages, in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for the Spot Commercial Centre.

 

          NOTE: The landscape design may include pavements, seat and bin installations, trees, tree guards and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0786.

 

86.     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.

 

87.     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.

 

88.     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.

 

89.     The driveway opening at the Barker Street frontage must be minimum 6.00 metres wide.

 

90.     The applicant shall dedicate a 3m x 3m splay corner at the southeast corner of the development site (intersection of Barker St & Dine Street). The applicant shall meet all cost associated with the dedication.

 

          Note: No portion of the development shall encroach into the splay corner.

 

91.     The carpark layout shall be in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

 

92.     The loading areas shall be clearly marked and sign posted.

 

93.     The individual parking spaces and traffic directional arrows shall be marked in permanent materials on the floor of each parking level.

 

94.     Signs indicating 8 kilometres per hour speed limit shall be provided on the car parking levels and the entry and exit lanes.

 

95.     A “STOP” sign shall be provided at the exit point of the exit driveway.

 

96.     All vehicles shall enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

 

97.     All costs of traffic management measures associated with the development shall be borne by the developer.

 

98.     Motor vehicles (associated with the proposed motor show room) shall not be test driven within the basement area.

 

99.     The car hoist on Basement Level 1 shall be appropriately secured to ensure that the hoist is only accessible to trained commercial staff.

 

100.   The residential car spaces shall be separated from the commercial and visitor spaces by the provision of a security roller shutter or similar.

 

101.   Vehicles exiting the site between 7:00am and 10:00am (weekdays) shall turn left into Barker Street. Right turn movements are not permitted during these times.

 

102.   The applicant shall install signage at the carpark exit stating ‘No right turn 7:00am – 10am Monday-Friday’ prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

103.   The awning in Avoca Street and Barker Street over Council’s footpath shall be set back a minimum of 0.60 metres from the kerb alignment.

 

104.   The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath levels along the Avoca Street and/or Barker Street site frontages to the underside of the proposed awning (or any attached signage) shall be 2.60 metres.

 

105.   A work zone is to be provided in Barker Street for the duration of the construction works. The ‘work zone’ shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee and shall have a minimum length of 12 metres. The prescribed fee for the work zone must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site.

 

          It is noted that the requirement for a workzone may be waived if it can be demonstrated (to the satisfaction of Council’s traffic engineer) that all construction related activities (including all loading and unloading operations) may be undertaken wholly within the site.

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

 

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

 

·        Avoca Street frontage:   Match the levels at the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

·        Barker Street frontage: Match the levels at the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

·        Dine Street frontage: Match the levels at the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

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

 

          The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

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

 

108.   The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $6260 calculated at $33.00 (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:

 

109.   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.

 

110.   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.

 

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

 

112.   The 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.

 

113.   The applicant shall meet the full cost of the overhead power lines and telecommunication cables located along all site frontage to be relocated underground. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be relocated. All cables most be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

115.   The floor level of all habitable and storage areas (excluding those areas in the basement carpark) shall be at a minimum RL of 48.38 (AHD) or suitably waterproofed up to this same level. The plans submitted in conjunction with the development application demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

116.   The proposed internal driveway (and any other openings into the basement carpark from Barker Street) must be designed with a high point to a minimum RL of 48.23 (AHD). The plans submitted in conjunction with the development application demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

117.   There shall be no windows, vents or other openings into the basement carpark (excluding the driveway opening) that are located below RL 48.38.

 

External Drainage Conditions

 

118.   All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to the underground drainage system in Avoca Street and/or Barker Street, via new and/or existing kerb inlet pits. It is noted that all kerb inlet pits shall be constructed in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD6.

 

119.   With the exception of the site discharge pipe, all new pipelines constructed within council’s road reserve shall be minimum 375 mm diameter, spigot and socket rubber ringed jointed, steel reinforced concrete pipeline (RRRCP). Prior to backfilling, all pipelines in council’s road reserve shall be inspected and approved by the Hydraulic Engineer certifying the works and Council.

 

120.   A reflux valve shall be provided (within the site) over the pipeline discharging from the site to ensure that stormwater from Council drainage system does not surcharge back into the site stormwater system.

 

121.   Site discharge pipelines shall cross the verge at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the kerb line.

 

122.   A work-as-executed plan prepared and signed by the hydraulic engineer or a registered surveyor, must be submitted to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, detailing the as constructed details for all works within Council’s road reserve (including detailed levels).

 

123.   All drainage details (for the external drainage works) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified hydraulic consultant who shall, at the completion of the works, certify that the drainage works have been constructed in accordance with the approved drainage plans and relevant standards. The plans and specifications for all works on Council property shall be submitted to and approval by the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

 

124.   Excavation, shoring and dewatering of the site shall be undertaken in accordance with the details submitted to Council in accordance with deferred commencement condition 6. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Internal Drainage Conditions

 

125.   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. 

 

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 (i.e. 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.

 

126.   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.

 

127.   On-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions.  All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

129.   Prior to occupation of the development, a "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

a.       The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services Department.

b.       If new linen plans are being prepared for the site, the plans shall indicate the location and dimensions of the detention/infiltration areas. 

 

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

 

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

 

132.   The maximum depth of ponding in above ground detention areas shall be as follows:

 

133.   300mm in landscaped areas (where child proof fencing is not provided around the outside of the detention area and sides slopes are steeper than 1 in 10)

134.   600mm in landscaped areas where the side slopes of the detention area have a maximum grade of 1 in 10.

 

135.   1200mm in landscaped areas where a childproof fence is provided around the outside of the detention area

 

Notes:

§  It is noted that above ground storage will not be permitted in basement carparks or in any area which may be used for storage of goods.

§  Mulch/bark must not be used in onsite detention areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

          The sediment/silt arrester pit shall be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:-

 

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

 

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

 

·        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 located over the outlet pipe/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

 

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

 

·        A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system provided for the access grate (e.g. spring loaded j-bolts or similar).

 

·        A sign adjacent to the pit stating:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

141.   Any absorption trenches/infiltration pits must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

142.   Four covered car washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

b.       Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

c.       Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

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

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

f.        Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

144.   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.

 

145.   As the above site may encounter groundwater within the depth of the basement excavation, the basement carpark is to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

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

 

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

 

146.   A dilapidation survey of the surrounding properties and infrastructure shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified person prior to the commencement of work.

 

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

 

147.   The residential garbage room shall be sized to contain the compactor plus an additional 14 bins. It is noted that the garbage compactor area is to be separated from the common garbage bin area via a locked door, to ensure it is not accessible to the general residents. Furthermore, the compactor system shall be managed by a caretaker.

 

148.   A minimum of 2 x 240 litre garbage bins shall be located outside of the compactor area to facilitate disposal of non-recyclable residential garbage which cannot fit into the compactor.

 

149.   The residential recycling room shall be sized to contain a total of 27 recycling bins whilst providing satisfactory access to all bins.

 

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

 

151.   The commercial garbage area shall be separated from the residential bin storage areas.

 

152.   The garbage storage areas shall be clearly sign-posted.

 

153.   The waste management arrangements for the site shall be undertaken in general accordance with the details contained in the letter from P.D. Mayoh Pty Ltd dated 23 December 2004.

 

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

 

154.   A detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. If Council is not the certifying authority for the site, the applicant will still be required to forward a copy of the approved plans to Council for record purposes. 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.

 

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

 

d.       Additional notation showing soil and mulch details, irrigation details, lighting 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 the provision of landscape treatment between the proposed courtyard walls and property boundaries along the southern and eastern frontages of the site (Barker Street and Dine Street) using a species that will not encroach beyond the property boundary onto Council’s footpath area. The applicant will be required to detail the species selection proposed for these frontages to ensure compliance with this condition.

 

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

 

i.        In order to reduce the amount of stormwater generated by the site, as well as to recharge groundwater supplies, porous paving shall be used in all paved areas not over slab (excluding the access driveway and loading bay). Details are to be provided with the construction certificate application.

 

155.   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.

 

156.   The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved documentation required in Deferred Commencement Condition No. 1 of this consent prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate and shall be maintained in accordance with those plans.

 

157.   The owner/proprietor/future owners corporation of the subject development site shall regularly maintain the landscaped area located in front of the proposed courtyard walls/perimeter fencing.

 

158.   The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the Avoca Street and Barker Street frontages of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for the Spot Commercial Centre. The landscape design may include pavements, seat and bin installations, trees, tree guards and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0786.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $4,000 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the construction of the approved landscape works along the Avoca Street and Barker Street site frontages.

 

159.   To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic irrigation system shall be installed throughout all 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.

 

160.   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.

 

161.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

164.   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.

 

Tree Management

 

165.   The applicant shall submit a total payment of $3,305.50 to Council,

 

a.       Being the cost to reimburse Council for the loss of the most eastern Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) on the Barker Street frontage to accommodate the proposed vehicle entry/exit ($145.00 + GST)

 

b.       Being the cost for Council to supply and install 4 x 75 litre street trees along the Avoca Street frontage, 6 x 75 litre street trees along the Barker Street frontage and 3 x 75 litre street trees along the Dine Street frontage at the completion of all works ($2860.00 + GST)

 

          The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income Code R39 at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

166.   Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 6 x 100 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) suitably located within the deep soil zones throughout the site. The species selected shall be those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a)       One Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm) about halfway along the western boundary.

 

b)      Two Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leafed Paperbarks) against the southern boundary.

 

c)       Three (3) Eucalyptus nicholii (Willow Leafed Peppermints) along the southern boundary.

 

d)      One Eucalyptus nicholii (Willow Leafed Peppermint) along the eastern boundary.

 

e)       One Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leafed Paperbark) along the eastern boundary

 

f)       One Grevillea robusta (Silky Oak) about halfway along the northern boundary"

 

167.   Permission is granted for the selective pruning of overhanging branches from the Persea americanna (Avocado) tree located in the private courtyard to the north, in 6-10 Dine Street. This approval does not imply any right of entry onto a neighbouring property nor does it allow pruning beyond a common boundary. However, where such measures are desirable in the best interests of correct pruning procedures, it shall be necessary for the applicant to negotiate with the tree owner. All pruning must be undertaken by a qualified Arborist, with suitable qualifications in Arboriculture and to Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.'

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

168.   In order to ensure the retention of the two (2) Eucalyptus species (Gum trees) along the Avoca Street frontage, the two Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda’s) along the Barker Street frontage as well as the Acmena smithii (Lilly Pilly) and Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) along the Dine Street frontage in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

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

 

b.       The trees are to be physically protected by the installation of protective fencing around the trees using 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing. This fencing shall be located to a minimum radius of 1 metre from the outside edge of the tree trunk.

 

                   This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed.

 

c.       Within this zone there is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of in the area and no stockpiling of soil or rubble.

 

                   Any works required within this zone (only as approved on the construction certificate) shall be under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, Council’s officer.

 

d.       The erection of signage on the fence with the following words clearly displayed: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE", "DO NOT ENTER".

 

169.   A refundable deposit in the form of cash, cheque or bank guarantee (with no expiry date) for the amount of $15,000.00 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 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.

 

170.   In order to ensure the retention of the Persea americanna (Avocado) tree located in the adjoining property to the north, within the private courtyard in 6-10 Dine Street in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

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

 

b.       The tree is to be physically protected by the installation of protective fencing around the eastern, southern and western sides of the trunk using 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing. This fencing shall be located to a minimum radius of 1.5 metres from the outside edge of the tree trunk.

 

          This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed.

 

c.       Within this zone there is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of in the area and no stockpiling of soil or rubble.

 

          Any works required within this zone (only as approved on the construction certificate) shall be under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist.

 

d.       Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls, basement carparks etc within 2 metres of the tree trunk shall be undertaken by hand and under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist with all roots being cleanly cut.

 

e.       The erection of signage on the fence with the following words clearly displayed: "TREE PROTECTION ZONE", "DO NOT ENTER".

 

f.        A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $1,440.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the preservation of the tree in accordance with the requirements described in this condition.

 

          The contribution shall be paid into Tree Preservation Deposit Code R40 at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

          The refundable deposit is placed to ensure that the tree protection measures as described in this condition are undertaken throughout the demolition and construction period. The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months from the time of issue of a final occupation certificate by the certifying authority providing the tree protection measures (including amendments to the plans) have been undertaken throughout the demolition and construction period and the tree/s have been retained in good health.

 

          Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to the {tree or trees} at any time during the demolition and construction period or prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate will result in the Council claiming all of the lodged security.

 

Advisory Matters

 

1.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

a)       Part B1     -           Structural provisions

b)      Part C1     -           Fire resistance and stability

c)       Part D3     -           Access for people with disabilities

d)      Part E1      -           Fire fighting equipment

e)       Part E2      -           Smoke Hazard Management

f)       Part E4      -           Emergency lighting, exit signs & warning systems

g)       Part F1      -           Damp and weatherproofing

h)       Part F2      -           Sanitary and other facilities

i)        Part F4      -           Light and ventilation, in particular,the carpark

j)       Part F5      -           Sound Transmission and Insulation

 

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

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.    A4 Attachments

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILI

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

9 November, 2004

FILE NO:

D0657/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 New part 3 part 4 storey mixed use development including 3 retail shops, 17 dwellings and basement car parking for 23 vehicles

PROPERTY:

 62 Frenchmans Road Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Brenchley Architects

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as it is valued at $3.838 million.

         

The proposed development was the subject of a pre-lodgement meeting which resulted in a referral of the plans to the Design Review Panel. Based on this referral amendments were required which were formulated into plans lodged as a Development Application. The application was referred to the panel on two further occasions, resulting in further amendments.  The final set of plans, which are the subject of this assessment, are considered to satisfy the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65.

 

The application has resulted in objection in relation to FSR and Height, concerns for traffic and parking impacts, and the development being inconsistent in character with the adjoining heritage items. These objections are discussed in greater detail within the report but are not considered sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

 

The development is considered to be consistent with the character of the locality, the objectives of FSR have been satisfied and the development will have minimal amenity impact to neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for erection of a new part three part four storey mixed use development. The development provides for basement car parking for 24 vehicles including two disabled spaces, ground floor retail space for 3 occupancies and associated loading dock and one residential unit. The first, second and third floors contain residential units, with roof top terraces proposed above.

 

The development provides for three commercial units and 17 residential units. The residential units are a combination of one and two bedrooms, 11x2 bedroom and 6x1 bedroom. The total area of commercial floor space is 323sqm, shop 1- 122sqm, shop 2- 89.2sqm and shop 3 -112sqm.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located on the corner of Frenchmans Road and Kemmis Street with a north eastern orientation. The site is irregularly shaped with a frontage to Frenchmans Road of 34.585m and to Kemmis Street of 60.62m. The southern rear boundary adjoining the Mitre 10 development is 30.285m and a western boundary of 25.28m. The site has a total area of 1192sqm.

 

The site is currently occupied by a partially demolished single storey building associated with the previous use as a service station. The site has been vacant for greater than 12 months however remediation works including removal of petrol tanks and contaminated soil has been undertaken.

 

The site is adjacent to residential properties in Kemmis Street and a commercial shopping precinct along Frenchmans Road.

 

The subject site looking south-west along Frenchmans Road

 

The southern boundary of the site adjacent to Mitre 10               subject site looking south

 

Southern boundary with Mitre 10                     Existing building to be demolished per previous DA

 

This section of Frenchmans Road is primarily bounded by two storey shop-top housing developments and recently constructed mixed use developments comprising of three and four storeys.

 

To Kemmis Street the buildings are generally one and two storey residential dwellings many of which are heritage items of high architectural merit.  It is noted that these dwellings are elevated off street level by some 1 to 2 metres. The eastern side of Kemmis Street is more residential in character, with extensive street plantings and a softer streetscape character than the commercial strip of Frenchmans Road and western side of Kemmis Street incorporating the Mitre 10 site.

 

Kemmis Street looking south from Frenchmans Road   Looking south along eastern side of Kemmis Street

 

Heritage listed properties along the eastern side of Kemmis Street

 

Western side of Kemmis Street, the alignment to Mitre 10 visible.

 

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

The subject site has operated since 1954 as a service station until some 4 to 5 years ago.  In December of 2003 consent was issued for demolition of the existing building and site remediation works as part of DA 561/03. DA 562/03 consent was also issued for a change of use from the service station to a car wash/café in December 2003.

 

A subsequent development application for demolition works and associated remediation was submitted to Council as DA 369/04 and consent was granted on the 13 August 2004.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

P Beirne

27 Kemmis Street

 

A & C Lennox

17 Kemmis Street

 

S Slim

19 Kemmis Street

 

L Stanway

15 Kemmis Street

 

A Davey

23 Kemmis Street

 

R Macarthur Onslow

25 Kemmis Street

 

D Crane

Level 1, 93 Norton Street

Leichhardt

 

·        The height exceeds the guidelines set for Kemmis Street

 

Comment

 

There are no guidelines set specifically for Kemmis Street where each side of the street has a different zoning, the eastern side being Residential 2B and the western side 3B Local Business. The height limit for the 3B zoning inclusive of 62 Frenchmans Road is 12m, the proposal does seek to exceed this height limit via way of a SEPP 1 objection, the merits of this variation and a discussion on the objection is provided in greater detail under the Environmental Assessment section of this report.

·        4 storey building will impact on the aesthetic of Kemmis Street and the heritage properties

 

Comment

 

A full assessment of the aesthetics of the proposal has been undertaken as part of the referral to the Design Review Panel, a discussion on the impact of the heritage significance of the listed properties in Kemmis Street as a result of this proposal is provided under Heritage Planner comments.

 

·        The development will negatively impact on our privacy

 

Comment

 

Privacy has been discussed in greater detail under the Environmental Assessment section of this report. It is noted that the final 15 metres of the development along Kemmis Street are adjacent to Nos 17 to 21 Kemmis Street. There is a separation of some 20 metres between these balconies off bedrooms and the neighbouring properties of Kemmis Street, as such direct sightlines are unlikely and will not adversely compromise existing levels of privacy.

 

·        Do not want to establish a precedent for the Mitre 10 site’s redevelopment for apartments of a similar scale

 

Comment

 

Each development application is assessed on its individual merits and within the parameters of the relevant development standards. Where there is a variation to a development control compliance with the objectives of the control must be satisfied. Varying a development standard for one site does not inherently allow for a variation for an adjoining site.

 

·        The bulk of the proposal is unacceptable for the area

 

Comment

 

A detailed assessment on the bulk and scale of the development in regards to the surrounding locality is provided under the Environmental Assessment section of this report however, the development is considered to be acceptable in terms of bulk and scale having regard to the site being a gateway location requiring a strong architectural statement for the entry into the Council locality.

 

·        The development is out of character with the heritage listed properties to Kemmis Street

 

Comment

 

The proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for comment and these are included as part of this report. The development is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the heritage significance of these properties.

·        The proposed 23 parking spaces are insufficient and there are existing parking problems

 

Comment

 

There is a deficiency of some 7.28 spaces. These spaces are generated by retail commercial floor space and it is considered that typically people visiting this retail space would live within walking distance of the shopping precinct or arrive by the well serviced public transport along Frenchmans Road. As such it is considered that the amount of parking provided is sufficient for the intended use of the site. Further discussion on parking demand is provided under the Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·        Overshadowing to the front of the properties in Kemmis Street

 

Comment

 

A complete discussion on overshadowing is provided under the Environmental Assessment section of this report. However it is noted that shadow diagrams submitted show the shadow falls over Kemmis Street and extends to the front setback of properties 17 through to 23 Kemmis Street in the afternoon of the winter solstice. This is not a significant degree of overshadowing.

 

·        The internal design of the car park does not comply with Council’s DCP Parking

 

Comment

 

Council’s Director of Assets and Infrastructure has reviewed the proposal and does not raise any specific concerns with the internal planning of the basement car park in regards to gradients and vehicle manoeuvring.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1     Engineering comments

 

The comments contained in this report are based on the amended ground floor and basement floor plans (by Brenchley Architects):

 

§ Ground floor plan (incorrectly titled site and basement plan) - Drawings 02, Rev E, dated Nov 2004; and

 

§ The site and basement floor plan – Drawing 01, Rev C dated Nov 2004.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There is a row of Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) all of approximately 4-5 metres in height on Council’s Kemmis Street footpath, comprising a group of five (5) towards the Frenchmans Road end of the site, and three (3) towards the southern boundary.

 

They all appear in reasonable condition, are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and provide a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

Council does not object to the removal of these eight (8) trees as is shown on the plans; however, the applicant will be required to cover Council’s costs associated with removal, loss of amenity and the provision of advanced replacements.

 

This site falls within Council’s Frenchmans Road Commercial Centre, and as such, the applicant will be required to provide a design (to Council’s specifications and requirements) for both street frontages.

 

The landscape plan requires several minor amendments prior to the issue of a construction certificate, details of which have been included in this report.

 

Waste Management Comments

 

Residential waste

The residential garbage room area shall be sized to contain a total of 18 x 240 litre bins (9 garbage bins & 9 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. The submitted basement plan demonstrates compliance with this requirement.

 

Retail waste

The submitted plans do not show the provision of any waste facilities for the three retail tenancies. It is noted that a separate garbage area is required to be provided for the retail components of the development. The waste requirements for the retail tenancies shall be 1 garbage bin and 1 recycling bin per tenancy.

 

Consequently, the retail garbage area/s shall be designed so as to be able to contain a total of 6 x 240 litre bins (with satisfactory access to each of the bins by the retail tenancies). A condition has been included in the AIS report noting that details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate. The AIS Department considers there is adequate space available within the vicinity of the ground floor loading bay area for the provision of such bin storage area/s. The DPCD should determine whether they require amended plans showing the retail waste area prior to the issuing of development approval.

 

Flooding Comments

 

The DPCD is advised that the subject development site is located adjacent to a localised low point and may be subject to stormwater inundation during major storm events.

 

The applicant has submitted a flood assessment report that determines the maximum flood level in the vicinity of the development site, through calculation of the depth of weir flow down Roscrea Avenue.

 

The maximum water level for the 1 in 100 year flood event was found to be RL 69.165 m (AHD). To minimise the possibility of localised floodwater entering the proposed buildings, the floor level for all new habitable, retail and storage areas located adjacent to the ponding area in Frenchmans Road shall be raised to a minimum RL of 69.465 m (AHD) (i.e. a minimum of 300 mm above the calculated 1 in 100 year flood level) or suitably waterproofed up to this same level.

 

The amended plans dated 29 November 2004 appear to demonstrate compliance with the above requirement.

 

Traffic Comments

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 17 residential units will be in the range of 68 to 85 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 8.5 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Kemmis Street as a result of this development.

 

All new walls adjacent to both vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level or splayed 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres so that a driver of a stopped vehicle 2 metres behind the street boundary line can observe pedestrians up to 2 metres from the crossings.

 

It is noted that the submitted plans do not show a 1.5 metre setback from the southern property boundary as previously requested by the AIS Department. Whilst the setback is still preferable, the AIS Department does not object to the driveway being located as shown on the amended ground floor plan 02, as the proposed driveway width of 5.6 metres allows the basement carpark exit lane to be at least 2.5 metres from the southern property boundary - facilitating pedestrian site lines in excess of the required 2 metres.

 

A minimum 3 metre x 3 metre splay on the corner of Frenchmans Road and Kemmis Street is to be dedicated to Council for road (footpath) widening purposes. It is noted that there are to be no encroachments on this dedicated land.

 

Ramp Grades

The submitted plans show the proposed ramp gradient for the first five metres inside the property at 1 in 5, that is 20%. Council’s DCP – Parking states that the maximum grade adjacent to the property boundary must be less than 1 in 20 or 5% for the first 5 metres from the property boundary. In addition, the maximum change in grade for any five metre length of ramp is 1 in 8 or 12.5%. The proposed ramp grade is too steep and may result in scraping at the property boundary.

 

It is noted that the submitted plans show the provision of a high point on the driveway within the site. Investigations carried out by the applicant’s hydraulic consultant have indicated that flows through Kemmis Street will be insignificant and thus there is no need for a high point along the driveway into the basement carpark.

 

It is recommended that the plans be amended to show deletion of the proposed high point and the use of appropriate ramp gradients in accordance with Council’s DCP Parking; or at a minimum the grades specified in AS2890.1:2004.

 

The AIS Department recommends that amended plans demonstrating satisfactory ramp grades be submitted by the applicant prior to the issuing of development approval. However, as there appears to be sufficient scope for alterations to the ramp grades to allow compliance with the standards, the AIS Department does not object to a condition being included in the report stating that plans submitted for the construction certificate shall be amended to show the ramp grades complying with AS 2890.1 (2004). The conditions contained in this memo require amended plans to be submitted prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Loading facilities

The AIS Department again raises concerns with the location of the ground floor loading bay, given that it would appear vehicles will be reversing back onto the street; and in particular noting the proximity of the state road. It is recommended that the applicant be requested to submit turning manoeuvre diagrams showing the largest size service vehicle accessing the site being able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction, prior to the issuing of development approval.

 

Council’s DCP – Parking notes that all service and delivery vehicles are to enter and leave the site in a forward direction; hence a condition has been included in this report that appropriate signage will be installed at the loading bay to direct drivers accordingly.

 

Drainage Comments

 

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.

 

Awning Comments

 

The minimum clear distance from the existing footpath in Frenchmans Road to the underside of the proposed awning (or any attached signage) shall be 2.60 metres.

 

It is noted that all new awnings shall be set back a minimum of 0.6 metres from the face of kerb. In addition, all awnings shall be of uniform width across the site frontage in Frenchmans Road. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall be amended to demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

 

Outdoor footpath seating Comments

 

The submitted plans show the provision of an outdoor seating area (in conjunction with Shop 3), encroaching onto Council’s footpath. It is noted that there must be no encroachment of any part of the development onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place.

 

Should the applicant wish to use Council’s footpath adjacent to the property alignment for outdoor footpath seating, then the applicant should submit a separate Development Application, for consideration of this proposal. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall be amended to show all dining areas being located wholly within the site.

 

Splay Corner Comments

 

The submitted plans show the provision of a 3 metre x 3 metre splay on the corner of Frenchmans Road and Kemmis Street, for dedication to Council. However, it is again noted that there are to be no encroachments (such as the proposed landscaping) onto this dedicated land. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall be amended to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

6.2     Heritage comments

 

The subject site is prominently located on the corner of Frenchmans Road and Kemmis Street.  The site was formerly occupied by a service station which was recently replaced by a car wash facility with associated café.  There are a number of heritage items in the vicinity of the site including nos.1-13 Kemmis Street, a Victorian terrace row, nos.15 and 17, a Victorian semi-detached pair, and nos.23, 256 and 27, a group of Victorian villas.

 

The application proposes a mixed commercial/residential development comprising ground level retail fronting Frenchmans Road and residential development at the upper levels, and fronting Kemmis Street.  The development is to comprise a basement carpark with three and partly four levels above ground.

Clause 46 of Randwick LEP 1998 requires, for development in the vicinity of heritage item, that Council consider the likely effect of the proposal on heritage significance.

 

It is noted that the site is within the view corridor towards the Kemmis Street terrace from the Frenchmans Road, Clovelly Road, St Marks Road corner, and the development will block views from this direction.  It is considered however, that the development will considerably improve the setting of the heritage buildings by separating them from the traffic and commercial activity of Frenchmans Road, forming a more contained residential heritage precinct.  The proposed design of the new building is of simple modern design and will not compete with or detract from the heritage qualities of the adjacent Victorian buildings.  The proposed balcony elements to the Kemmis Street elevation provide modulation and depth to the façade which relates to traditional verandahs and balconies.  The element at the corner of Frenchmans Road and Kemmis Street has been redesigned to reduce its dominance, providing a balance between articulation and over-complexity.  Given the adjacent hardware outlet, there are no objections to the proposed high solid walls to the courtyards facing Kemmis Street.  The proposed colours and finishes appear to be generally satisfactory.

 

6.3     Environmental Health comments

 

Environmental Health comments

 

Key Issues

 

Site Contamination

 

The previous use of this site has been identified as a service station, and as such there is the need to consider the potential for contamination. In 2002 remediation work was undertaken, however the impacted fill located under the structures on site could not be accessed to finalise remediation.

 

A document titled Decommissioning and Validation Assessment former Caltex service station corner Kemmis Street and Frenchmans Road Randwick ( project ref: SJ111.R01 prepared November 2003) was submitted in support of this development application. Assessment of this document has revealed that:

 

·        The site has been remediated and validated for on going commercial usage with the exception of the fill remaining under the main building on site.

 

·        A small area of impacted fill above land use criteria remains under the main building on site. Should demolition of the building be required, removal of this material should be undertaken as part of any future redevelopment of the site.

 

This document did not comment on the suitability of the site for redevelopment as residential use.

 

On 8 November 2004 further information was received by Council from Urban Environmental Consultants stating that demolition, remediation, sampling and validation still need to occur on site. In August 2004 Council gave approval under D/369/2004 for demolition of the existing building and remediation of contaminated soil left on site. This application was made by the same applicant and discussions with the applicant have revealed that consent D/369/2004 would be taken up and works would be conducted prior to the development of the site.

 

On 11 November additional information was received from Urban Environmental Consultants, stating that the site would be remediated to NEHFD, meaning that it would be suitable for residential developments with minimal access to soils. This additional information also outlined the planned remediation and clearly stated that the site can and will be made suitable for the intended use.

 

The Environmental Health Unit is satisfied that the site can be and will be made suitable for the proposed mixed use commercial/residential. A condition requiring that a validation report be submitted to Council prior to above ground works commencing is to be included.

 

Greywater Reuse System

 

It is stated in this development application that it is intended to develop a system for treating and reusing greywater from showers, wash hand basins and washing machines. The reuse of greywater on a site presents public health and environmental issues because this water is often contaminated with human faeces, dirt and other materials.

 

It is important to note that the installation and operation of a greywater system is subject to a Local Approval in accordance with Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1999. A condition requiring the submission of an application for a Local Approval is to be included on the consent. Furthermore this application is to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

The Environmental Health Unit has been working with the applicant and NSW Health Department in an effort to ensure that the system installed and processes put in place manage greywater effectively and safely.

 

Further information has been sought in relation to the proposed greywater reuse system. As at the date of this memo not all information asked for has been submitted, and Council understands that the design of the greywater system for the site has not been finalised. The Environmental Health Unit has endeavoured to finalise the matter of the proposed greywater system prior to approval, however adequate information has not been provided.

 

The information outstanding is as follows:

 

·        Details of the system to be installed.

·        The maintenance schedule designed for the upkeep of the system.

·        Details of how the maintenance schedule will be documented and implemented.

·        Any NSW Health Department approvals or comments made in relation to the proposed system.

·        Confirmation of the activities from which the greywater will be collected.

·        The volume of grey water stored and re-used on site.

·        The method and time frame for storage of greywater.

·        The method of treatment of greywater.

·        The method of disinfection of greywater.

·        The performance standards which the greywater is to achieve.

·        The re-use activities for the greywater and the method of delivery.

·        Techniques employed to prevent cross connection and cross contamination between greywater and potable water supplies.

·        Any other information that may indicate to Council or satisfy the Council that the system will not cause or potentially create a public health or environmental issue, including contamination of the groundwater.

 

This additional information is required to be submitted to Council, and it is expected that these matters will be addressed in the Local Approval application submitted to Council and approved prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

Rainwater Tanks

 

It is stated in the development application that a conventional rainwater harvesting system will be used to collect water from the roof for irrigation purposes only. The applicant should be referred to Councils Rainwater Tank Policy and standard conditions for the installation and operation of rainwater tanks are to be included.

 

Geothermal Heating and Cooling System

 

It is stated in the development application that a geothermal heating and cooling system will be designed for inclusion within this development.

 

Further information was requested in relation to the proposed geothermal heating and cooling system. The applicant was asked to address the issues of potential noise and vibration nuisance associated with the system. This information has not been supplied to Council.

 

Should the application be approved, standard noise conditions are to be included, including the requirement for an acoustic report to be submitted to Council.

 

6.4     Building comments

 

BCA Building Classification

 

§ Class 2            -           Residential units

§ Class 7a          -           Car park

§ Class 5            -           Offices

§ Class 6            -           Shops

 

Background

 

The existing building on site is an unused service station bounded by two (2) storey commercial buildings. A search of Council’s records has revealed that there are concerns about contamination at the site.

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

 

Although some information in relation to construction site management has been provided with the application, the details are not sufficiently detailed to fully address issues such as, the location of stock piled material or the storage and disposal of excavated materials, sediment and erosion control, public safety, perimeter safety fencing and construction management.

 

Standard conditions have been included in the consent to address a range of construction site management issues.

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate.

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

7.1     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Commercial

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 - FSR

1.5:1

1.59:1

No SEPP 1 objection provided

33 - Building Height

12m

13.8m

No SEPP 1 objection provided

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes

Comments provided by Heritage Planner no issue raised

42B

Contaminated land

Yes

Site will be remediated to suit the intended use

 

7.2     POLICY CONTROLS

 

7.2.1  Development Control Plan No. 6 Frenchmans Road, Kemmis Street Shopping Centre

 

Height of the building shall not exceed 7m, 5m from the alignment with Kemmis or Frenchmans Road

This height control is replaced by LEP 1998. It is noted that the bulk of this height above 7m is recessed from the front street alignment.

Height of the building shall not exceed 9.5m

LEP 1998 replaces this control 12m is the permissible maximum height

Maximum FSR of 0.75:1

LEP 1998 replaces this control with an FSR of 1.5:1.

No vehicular access from Frenchmans Road

No vehicular access is provided to Frenchmans Road

Parapet height should match existing height

The parapet height is increase by 1500mm from adjoining buildings which is considered an acceptable increase for this ‘bookend’ development to the commercial precinct

Awning shall be maintained along Frenchmans Road

An awning is proposed along Frenchmans Road consistent with the existing awnings in the shopping strip

Cnr of Kemmis Street and Frenchmans Road acute angle should be eliminated

This guideline is in conflict with current urban design principles and as such emphasis of the corner is encouraged by the Design Review Panel.

Existing building line should be maintained to Frenchmans Road

The existing building line and setback to Frenchmans Road has been maintained with this development

The existing geometric shape of the parapet fenestration rhythm, texture and materials shall be re-interpreted

A strong interpretation of the fenestration and building detail of the existing shops within this precinct has been used with this development.

 

DCP No. 6 was adopted by Council in 1986 prior to the gazettal of the current Local Environmental Plan. It is considered that in the 18 years since adoption, the character of the locality to which the DCP applies has substantially changed and planning practices have developed beyond that which the DCP sought to achieve. As such, the aims and objectives of DCP No. 6 are no longer consistent with the opportunities and desired outcomes that are provided by RLEP 1998. Any inconsistencies with the DCP that are not repealed by LEP 1998 (where a statutory development standard overrides a DCP control), are not considered to be significant enough as to warrant refusal of the application.

 

7.2.2  Development Control Plan Parking

 

The DCP provides the following car parking provisions for multi-unit housing.

           

Requirements

Rate

Complies

1 Bedroom1 per 1 bed or bedsit over 40m2

6x1= 6 spaces

Yes

2 Bedroom 1.2 per dwelling

11 x 1.2 =13.2 spaces

Yes

Visitor    1 per 4 dwellings

4.25 spaces

No 2 spaces provided it is considered that the deficiency is not unreasonable given high level of public transport serving the locality.

Bicycle 1 per 3 dwellings and 1 visitor per 10 dwellings

5.6           and 1 visitor

Yes

Carwash bay 1 per 12 dwellings

1 car wash required

Yes will be conditioned to provide visitor space shared use with car wash

Restaurant 1 space for 40sqm GFA for first 80sqm then 1 space per 20sqm thereafter

112sqm /40 = 2.8spaces

No, no retail car spaces designated

Retail 1 space for every 40sqm

211sqm/40 = 5.27spaces

No, 1 retail space to be designated only

 

The proposal does not comply with parking requirements for the demand generated by this development. Section 94 contributions cannot be levied for the deficiency as Frenchmans Road commercial precinct is not included in Randwick commercial centre as defined in the Section 94 contributions plan.

 

Driveway gradients can comply with maximum ramp grade of 1 in 6 and less than 1 in 20 for the first 5m from the property boundary and the Australian Standard as conditioned.

 

Parking structures are clear of all obstructions, including columns, ducts, pipes etc.

 

The minimum dimensions for a car space are 5.5mx2.5m. The minimum width for a designated disabled parking space is 3.2m for the three disabled spaces provided.

 

Despite the deficiency in the number of spaces provided a variation in the amount of parking provided can be considered given the extensive public transport that is provided along Frenchmans Road that readily accommodates the subject site.

 

Of the 26 spaces provided within the basement and the additional loading bay and disabled parking space to the ground floor the following allocation is to be provided:

 

·      19 residential spaces

·      4 visitor spaces

·      1 retail tenancy space

·      2 loading dock

 

A total of 24 parking spaces are to be provided and will be allocated as such per condition of consent

 

7.3     State Environmental Planning Policies

 

7.3.1  State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55

 

The site has been identified as being contaminated and as such adequate land remediation measures are required to ensure there is no site contamination once the proposed development commences. As a separate development consent has been issued for demolition and remediation of the site which will be undertaken prior to works commencing on the mixed use development. The requirements of the SEPP will be satisfied once a validation report stating the site has been remediated to the standard necessary for the intended use has been submitted as required by deferred commencement condition of this consent.

 

7.3.2  State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

The application was referred to the Design Review Panel for comment and the following final comments were provided:

 

INTRODUCTION

 

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

 

PANEL COMMENTS

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The applicant provided a somewhat dismissive description of the context of this proposal.  Context is a required head of consideration under SEPP 65 and as such plans and any drawings of the building are required to be shown within the context of the proposed development.

 

In particular,

 

-       the geometry of the building in the curving Frenchmans Road alignment

-       the relationship to the offset intersection geometries

-       the location of varied adjoining building stock

 

all need to be described in order to be better understood.

 

Therefore, as stated in previous Panel comments, a context plan is required.

           

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The proposed building is of satisfactory scale.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

As discussed with the applicant, the Panel is of the view that the planning of the building could be simplified and that this would result in a more satisfactory external expression, particularly to Kemmis Street, and better amenity for residents.

 

The idea of a complex form on the corner of Frenchmans Road and Kemmis Street is supported in principle.  However it is our view that the present design would benefit from some simplification of the architectural expression and integration of the stairs into the form of the building.  Columns and changes of level on the ground floor at this corner need to be better understood and more accurately shown.  This undercroft area cannot be claimed as a deep soil planting area.

 

The Panel discussed strategies for making the main stair more open at all levels.  Alternate design options should be confirmed with a BCA Consultant especially in relation to fire stairs.  It would be desirable if the fire escape to Frenchmans Road could be changed and the central stairwell and the associated light well be enlarged and opened at least visually to the rear courtyard.

 

Columns to the café courtyard need to be indicated on the ground floor plan

 

The position of the AC plant on Kemmis street should be reviewed.

 

The bedroom balcony to units 3 and 7 compromise the privacy of the other units facing the internal courtyard.

 

4.       The Proposed Density

 

This would appear to be satisfactory.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Most units can achieve cross ventilation, although at present the fenestration shown does not maximize the opportunities to do so.

 

Glazed areas need to be protected from direct sun.

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

 

A revised landscape plan was not sighted and needs to be prepared.

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

          The opportunity to ventilate the bedrooms to the quieter environment of Kemmis Street should be taken however Unit 6 may be improved by facing the living areas to Kemmis Street rather than into the enclosed courtyard.

 

          The laundry to unit 11 is too small, a wall cabinet rather than a room should be considered.

 

          There are a number of places where windows should be provided to service rooms, particularly in association to changes to the central stair.

 

          The kitchens in some apartments need to be re-planned so that they don’t feel that they are located within circulation spaces.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

          The layout of the ramp and parking basement needs to be checked to ensure that it will function adequately.

 

9.       Social issues

         

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

It is the Panel’s view that the design needs further resolution and simplification.

 

Recommendation

 

This application has improved since previously viewed. 

 

The Panel believes that subject to the above amendments being made, in discussion with the assessing planner, this proposal should progress to its subsequent stages.  The panel would however like to discuss the amendments made with the assessing planner.

 

It is considered that the final set of amended plans resolve many of the final issues raised by the panel and will result in a development that satisfies the principles of SEPP 65.

 

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     Landscaped area

 

There is no specific requirement for landscaped areas or deep soil planting for a mixed use development in the 3B Local Business zone however, a merit assessment would encourage a deep soil planting zone within the site as well as private and communal open space. The proposal provides for one area of deep soil planting to the south western boundary at the rear of the site with the dimensions of 6000mmx6000mm. The landscape plan submitted with the proposal indicates that these areas will be provided with extensive low to medium scale plantings in these areas. The site as a whole proposes extensive landscaping with the use of “living” roof top areas and extensive planter beds, as such the site will have a high level of landscaping to visually soften the development and integrate it into the treed streetscape of Kemmis Street and the commercial shopping strip of Frenchmans Road.

 

Each individual unit is provided with a private open space area of 7sqm with typically two balconies provided to lower units and deck areas with an area up to 25sqm provided to upper level units. The extensive balcony, terraces and roof top deck areas provide for a good level of outdoor recreation for each unit.

 

8.2     Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposal seeks to vary the floor space ratio development standard (Clause 32 of RLEP 1998) contained in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The maximum permissible FSR for the site is 1.5:1 and the proposal will have a FSR of 1.59:1, a variation of some 107sqm. The application was accompanied by a SEPP 1 objection, which provides the following reasons it is unreasonable and unnecessary to comply with the standard:

 

·       The departure from the maximum floor space ratio standard will not give rise to any significant impacts to adjoining properties in terms of loss of sunlight, loss of privacy or loss of views.

·       The height, bulk and scale of the finished development results in a building that is consistent with the LEP objectives for redevelopment along Frenchmans Road and Kemmis Street and is consistent with the surrounding variety of buildings and their land uses.

·       The mixed use development will exceed Councils design criteria for ecologically sustainable development

·       The site will have improved drainage, which is supplemented by deep soil planting and garden areas. This is a vast improvement from the approximate 98% site coverage of impervious paved area that existed when the service station was in operation

·       The proposed development will positively contribute to the streetscape of both Frenchmans Road and Kemmis Street  as intended by DCP No. 6 and DCP for Multi Unit Housing together with State Government residential Flat design Code.

The proposed development provides for diversity in building form, height, bulk and scale to that of surrounding buildings. The important location of the site being a corner, requires cautious and sympathetic approach to a building that will be visually responsive to Council’s desired character but also acknowledges the heritage listed dwellings opposite the site in Kemmis Street. The proposed increase in floor space ratio is supported by exemplary design, higher than required energy efficiency and sustainability, zero impact on neighbouring buildings and the creation of a sense of place along the neglected eastern end of Frenchmans Road commercial island precinct.

 

The departure from the maximum floor space ratio in the circumstances of the case does not generate any adverse environmental impacts on the residential precinct opposite in Kemmis Street or the established commercial/retail sector of Randwick adjoining the subject site. Therefore it is requested that Council favourably consider the floor space ratio departure.

 

Clause 8 of SEPP No. 1 sets out the matters, which shall be considered in deciding whether concurrence should be granted, stating that:

 

“The matters that shall be taken into consideration in deciding whether concurrence should be granted are –

 

a.     Whether non-compliance with the development application raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning; and

 

b.     the public benefit of maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument.”

 

The variation on balance is relatively small and is unlikely to impact on any matters of significance in either state or regional planning. Allowing the variation will not affect the public benefit sought as part of the objectives for this development standard within Clause 32 Floor Space Ratio of RLEP 1998.

 

Justice Lloyd in Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46 in assessing a SEPP 1 objection asked the following questions:

 

First, is the planning control in question a development standard?

 

Yes, Clause 32 is contained within an LEP and is expressed as a development standard not a prohibition.

 

Second, what is the underlying object or purpose of the standard?

 

The purpose of the standard is to achieve reasonable upper limits of floor area for redevelopments without compromising the amenity of adjoining developments. The additional floor area of some 107sqm will not affect the amenity of the streetscape as the additional floor area is contained within a partial fourth level that is setback between 3.2m and 5.4m from street level (Frenchmans Road). To Kemmis Street the fourth level is recessed some 2m from the alignment of the lower levels and 5.5m from the street alignment. As such the additional bulk will not be readily visible from street level. The setback from adjoining properties is some 26m to the fourth storey which provides adequate separation to ensure there are no adverse impacts in regards to overshadowing, loss of privacy or reduced building separation.

 

Third, is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular does compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act?

 

Varying the development standard will not hinder the attainment of the objectives of the LEP, sections 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the SEPP and the EP&A Act.

 

Fourth, is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

It is considered that within the context of the streetscape and immediate locality and the minor extent of variation the objection can be supported. The development achieves the performance requirements of the objective and strict compliance with the standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

It should be noted that developments within the Frenchmans Road commercial precinct have a density and scale comparable if not greater than that proposed with this development. As such, the proposal is consistent with the overall scale and proposed future character of this commercial precinct. In regards to the residential properties opposite the site in Kemmis Street many of these dwellings are of a two storey scale which, given the raised ground level from street level and the subject site, the finished RL of the proposed development and dwellings within Kemmis Street will be comparable. As such it is considered that the proposed scale of the development is not out of character with the locality even considering the two differently zoned areas that this site adjoins.

 

Fifth, is the objection well founded? In relation to the fourth question, it seems to me that one must also look to see whether a development which complies with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, as noted by Cripps J in the Hooker Corporation case.

 

It is considered that to require the proposed development to comply with the maximum permissible floor area would be unreasonable and unnecessary given that the upper level (fourth storey) could be deleted and the basement level raised to provide ground level parking and the development would comply with floor space whilst resulting in an even greater impact on the streetscape and neighbouring properties in terms of adverse visual impact and excessive bulk.

 

Given the comparable scale of the development and adjoining properties and the lack of impact to the amenity of these properties and the streetscape, strict compliance with the development standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

Pursuant to Clause 7 of SEPP No. 1, it is considered that the objection is well founded and the granting of consent is consistent with the aims of the Policy. It is recommended that the SEPP 1 objection be supported.

 

8.3     Setbacks

 

The LEP does not stipulate any setbacks for this development. DCP No. 6 encourages a matching of the alignment of neighbouring properties to Frenchmans Road. The proposed alignment to both Frenchmans Road and Kemmis Street is consistent and matching with the dominant alignment of neighbouring buildings. The strong creation of an urban wall by use of a continued street alignment is encouraged within this proposal.

 

DCP No. 6 encourages a blunt treatment to the corner of Kemmis Street and Frenchmans Road rather than an emphasis of the corner. Current urban design principles encourage an emphasis of this corner and a dramatised treatment of this aspect of the proposal was a recommendation of the Design Review Panel, as such, the treatment of the corner is a strong aspect of the positive built form of the development.

 

8.4     Privacy

 

The distance between windows of the proposed development and that of neighbouring properties to Kemmis Street is some 26m, as such direct sightlines will be difficult to achieve. Despite the lack of potential sightlines the windows that overlook the neighbouring dwellings to Kemmis Street are all off bedrooms which are considered to be low usage habitable rooms, and because of the in-frequency of use have less of an opportunity for overlooking.

 

Balcony areas that are located on the alignment to Kemmis Street are also off bedrooms which have less frequency of use and therefore reduced opportunity for overlooking. Roof top terrace areas are not oriented to overlook Kemmis Street and where there is some aspect towards Kemmis Street properties, over-viewing will be of the roofs of neighbouring properties not into habitable rooms. 

 

There is no identified privacy impact from units and terrace areas oriented over Frenchmans Road as there are no affected residences to this street.

 

8.5     Solar access

 

Shadow diagrams submitted with the proposal indicate that at the winter solstice the shadow cast will fall at 9am over the commercial property Mitre 10 and partially over Clovelly Road. At 12 noon the shadow cast will fall over the rear portion of the subject site and onto Kemmis Street. At 3pm the shadow will fall over Kemmis Street and partially over the front building setbacks of the properties of Nos 15-21 Kemmis Street. These properties will not be unreasonably affected where the shadow falling over their properties will be from 3pm to late in the afternoon on the winter solstice with no other affectation throughout the day. As such, this small degree of overshadowing is not considered to be unreasonable.

 

8.6       Height

 

The proposal seeks to vary Clause 33 - Building Heights of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The permissible external wall height of the site is 12m, the proposed overall height is 13.8m which represents a variation of 1.8m from the permissible. A lift over-run brings the overall maximum height to 14.09m, however, as this height can be excluded from overall height at the discretion of Council if it does not have an amenity impact (pursuant to Clause 33 (6) of RLEP 1998), the assessment on height is based only on the 13.8m height breach. The application was accompanied by a SEPP 1 objection, which provides for the following reasons in support of the objection:

 

·       The proposed development will not seriously affect adjoining properties or properties opposite to the east in Kemmis Street that are heritage items in terms of loss of privacy or overshadowing

·       The building has been carefully designed to accommodate the irregularly shaped lot by having shops fronting Frenchmans Road and the residential component along Kemmis Street setback to provide separation from the street alignment which will soften the development and reduce opportunity of loss of privacy

·       The increase in building height towards the corner (the area of breach) is typical of contemporary urban design and offers appropriate transition to the existing retail/commercial building adjoining tot eh south along Frenchmans Road.

·       The submitted shadow diagrams clearly indicate that no overshadowing will occur over habitable floor space of the Kemmis Street dwellings and will only reach front yards of a number of properties, if filtered through the existing street trees.

·       The proposed building height is consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in the 3B zoning given other development restriction such as floor space ratio and landscaping and have regard for amenity of surrounding areas.

·       The development proposal is seen as introducing a modern theme to the commercial zone having compared with the previous service station activity and associated buildings

·       The redevelopment of the Mitre 10 building is a distinct possibility and may take many forms of building design and or subdivision therefore considering future development potentials the design and height of this corner appropriate by contributing to the strong definition of the intersection of Frenchmans Road and Kemmis Street

·       The amenity of the area will not be compromised due to road widths that act as a buffer from the majority of surrounding residential and retail development, with the exception of the adjoining Mitre 10 building, which a retail/storage with no habitable floor area

·       The exceedence in overall height provides for good urban design and addresses the corner location with appropriate massing and modulation

·       The increase in building height at the fourth floor level is setback from the three storey building height below with the exception of the corner.

·       The variation does not give rise to any matters of significance for state or regional environmental planning not does it conflict with any SEPPs or ministerial directives.

 

Clause 8 of SEPP No. 1 sets out the matters, which shall be considered in deciding whether concurrence should be granted, stating that:

 

“The matters that shall be taken into consideration in deciding whether concurrence should be granted are –

 

a.      Whether non-compliance with the development application raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning; and

 

b.      the public benefit of maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument.”

 

The variation is relatively minor and is unlikely to impact on any matters of significance in either state or regional planning. Allowing the variation will not affect the public benefit sought as part of the objectives for this development standard within Clause 33 Building Heights of RLEP 1998.

 

Justice Lloyd in Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46 in assessing a SEPP 1 objection asked the following questions:

 

First, is the planning control in question a development standard?

 

Yes, Clause 33 is contained within an LEP and is expressed as a development standard not a prohibition.

 

Second, what is the underlying object or purpose of the standard?

 

The purpose of the standard is to achieve reasonable upper limits of height for redevelopments without compromising the amenity of adjoining developments. The additional height above 12m can be attributed primarily to the partial fourth storey in particular the strong corner treatment at the corner of Kemmis Street and Frenchmans Road. The additional height will not affect solar access or result in visual bulk for neighbouring properties.

 

Third, is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular does compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act?

 

Varying the development standard will not hinder the attainment of the objectives of the LEP, sections 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the SEPP and the EP&A Act.

 

Fourth, is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

It is considered that within the context of the streetscape and immediate locality and the small extent of variation the objection can be supported. The development achieves the performance requirements of the objective and strict compliance with the standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

The establishment of a well articulated and sensitively designed multi unit development, if refused would discourage the proper development of Frenchmans Road and Kemmis Street and would not promote the social and economic welfare of the community as is the underlying objective of the development standard.

Further, the development of an appropriate building form and scale when compared with the existing Mitre 10 building will ensure a positive precedent for the adjoining site’s future redevelopment potential.

 

The proposal does not have an unreasonable impact in terms of visual bulk, privacy and overshadowing to neighbouring properties. The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the desired future character of the locality where a strong modern development will ensure an appropriate contemporary relationship with the adjoining heritage items whilst providing a strong built form to a visually prominent site which acts as the gateway to the Frenchmans Road commercial precinct as well as the northern boundary of Randwick City Council. 

 

Fifth, is the objection well founded? In relation to the fourth question, it seems to me that one must also look to see whether a development which complies with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, as noted by Cripps J in the Hooker Corporation case.

 

The variation of 1.8m from the permissible height is due to the provision of a strong architectural development with an emphasis on good urban design. 

 

To require compliance with the 12m height requirement for the site is unreasonable and unnecessary given that compliance could be achieved by the deletion of the fourth storey however, given this fourth storey is setback from the alignment and results in no amenity impacts to neighbouring properties this measure would achieve little other than numerical compliance. Further, deleting this upper level would impact on the strong built form of the development and how it relates to this important prominent gateway site.

 

Pursuant to Clause 7 of SEPP No. 1, it is considered that the objection is well founded and the granting of consent is consistent with the aims of the Policy. It is recommended that the SEPP 1 objection be supported.

 

9.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

Nil

 

10      CONCLUSION

 

The proposed mixed use development has been reviewed against all the assessment criteria contained within Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, Parking DCP and DCP No. 6. Where the proposal seeks to vary development standards the proposal satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the control and does not unreasonably affect the amenity of the residential streetscape, heritage listed properties or commercial precinct. The SEPP 1 objections submitted with the application are well founded.

 

The application is recommended for deferred commencement consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council assume the concurrence of the Director of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources to vary the provisions of Clause 32 and 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to floor space ratio and height for a New part 3 part 4 storey mixed use development including 3 retail shops, 17 dwellings and basement car parking for 23 vehicles under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 and,

 

B.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under the provisions of Section 80 (3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended), “Deferred Commencement” to Development Application No 657/2004 for New part 3 part 4 storey mixed use development including 3 retail shops, 17 dwellings and basement car parking for 23 vehicles at 62 Frenchmans Road Randwick subject to the following conditions:-

 

The consent shall not operate until the applicant satisfies Council as to the following matters within 12 months from the date of this consent. The following requirements are to be adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development:-

 

1.       Turning manoeuvre diagrams shall be submitted showing the largest size service vehicle accessing the site being able to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

2.       Each resident car parking space shall be allocated specifically to a dwelling.  Plans and details are to be provided.

3.       Amended plans demonstrating satisfactory ramp grades shall be submitted by the applicant. 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.

4.       Proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted

 

Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement requirement, approval be granted subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 040514 01 through to 04 and 06 and 09 dated 29 November 2004 and 05-08 and 10 dated 10 November 2004 the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the plans submitted to satisfy deferred commencement conditions and the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be consistent with the sample board submitted and approved by Council as part of deferred commencement conditions.

 

3.       Street numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

4.       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.

 

5.       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.

 

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

 

7.       The hot water system installed in the development must achieve a minimum greenhouse score of 3.5 as detailed in 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.

 

8.       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.

 

9.       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.

 

10.     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:

 

11.     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                                   $26893.18

b)      for the provision or improvement of community facilities                       $11890.92

c)      Administration fee                                                                                   $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.

 

12.     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.

 

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

 

14.     Power supply and telecommunications cabling to the development shall be underground.

 

15.     The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent.  The details and samples of the glass to be used are to be submitted with the colour and material schedule for the approval of Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development, prior to the commencement of works.

 

16.     Internal or external clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Should external clothes drying facilities be provided, the facilities must be adequately screened by vegetation and details are to be incorporated into the landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

17.     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.

 

18.     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.

 

19.     The relevant requirements of the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be complied with and a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water.  An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. For details, please refer to the “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

          Following the application, a “Notice of Requirements” will be provided, detailing water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

          A copy of Sydney Water’s ‘Notice of Requirements’ must be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to issuing a Construction Certificate.

 

          The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing an occupation certificate or release of the subdivision linen plan, as applicable.

 

20.     The installation of roller shutters or security grilles to the shopfront is not permitted, unless a specific development consent has been obtained from Council.

 

21.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

23.     A formal subdivision application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council and all conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

 

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

 

24.     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.

 

25.     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.

 

26.     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.

 

27.     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.

 

28.     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.

 

29.     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.

 

30.     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:

 

31.     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.

 

32.     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.

 

33.     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.

 

34.     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.

 

35.     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:

 

36.     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.

 

37.     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.

 

38.     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 buil