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

 

18th March, 2005

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 22ND MARCH, 2005 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2005.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 1ST MARCH, 2005.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

7           General Manager's Reports

 

7.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 12/2005 - QUEEN'S BATON RELAY AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES FOR THE MELBOURNE 2006 COMMONWEALTH GAMES.

2

 

7.2                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 13/2005 - MAROUBRA SWIMMING CLUB MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.

4

 

 

8           Director, City Services' Reports

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 23/2005 - ASTHMA WEED PROJECT OFFICER.

6

 

8.2                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 24/2005 - UNLAWFUL ERECTION AND REMOVAL OF POSTERS.

9

 

8.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 25/2005 - PROPOSED EXTENSION OF MAROUBRA BEACH AREA - ALCOHOL FREE ZONE.

20

 


 

8.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 26/2005 -   BLOOMFIELD STREET, SOUTH COOGEE - REMOVAL OF LIGHT POLE AND PROVISION OF STEPS.

22

 

8.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 27/2005 - TENDER REPORT - T035/05 - RETAINING WALL RECTIFICATION AND FOOTPATH REINSTATEMENT ARCADIA STREET, COOGEE.

25

 

8.6                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 28/2005 - PROPOSED ENERGY AUSTRALIA SUBSTATION EDGECLIFFE AVENUE, SOUTH COOGEE.

30

 

8.7                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 29/2005 - STRATEGIC PLAN FOR PARKING METER OPERATION.

33

 

 

9           Director, Governance & Financial Services' Reports

 

9.1                        

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 14/2005 - CATERING SERVICES - TENDER NO. T026/04.

42

 

9.2                        

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 15/2005 - ESTABLISHMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS COMMITTEE.

48

 

 

10         Director, City Planning Reports

 

10.1                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 12/2005 - 7-37 COOGEE BAY ROAD (6R AEOLIA STREET) RANDWICK.

51

 

10.2                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 13/2005 - 10-18 BAY STREET, COOGEE.

55

 

10.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 14/2005 - 330 ANZAC PARADE, KENSINGTON.

119

 

10.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 15/2005 - 214 CLOVELLY ROAD, RANDWICK.

181

 

10.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 16/2005 6 CRANA AVENUE, COOGEE.

191

 

10.6                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 17/2005 - 9 DACRE STREET, MALABAR.

217

 

10.7                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 18/2005 - NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER LISTING MALABAR HEADLAND ON THE STATE HERITAGE REGISTER.

271

 

10.8                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 19/2005 - YOUTH WEEK 2005.

283

 

 

11         Petitions

 

12         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

12.1    

By Councillor White – Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse.

287

12.2

By Councillors White & Daley – Prince Henry Hospital Development.

287

12.3

By Councillor Belleli – Coral Sea Park Access.

287

12.4

By Councillor Andrews – Installation of Ramps at all Footpath Intersections. 

287

12.5

By Councillor Andrews – Rainbow & Botany Streets Intersection.

287

12.6

By Councillor Tracey – Installation of Bus Stop Seats at Bus Stops in Randwick City Area. 

287

12.7

By Councillor Tracey – Shade Tree Planting in Schools. 

287

12.8

By Councillor Sullivan – Installation of Traffic Signals outside Coogee Public School

287

12.9

By Councillor Sullivan – Amending Randwick LEP To Prohibit Backpacker Establishments.

288

12.10

By Councillor Sullivan – Security Patrols in Coogee Basin

288

12.11

By Councillor Sullivan – Refurbishments of Older Residential Flat Buildings.

288

12.12

By Councillor Daley – Malabar Headland.

288

12.13

By Councillor Belleli – Access Issues in the LGA. 

288

12.14

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Council Parks, Playgrounds and Properties.

288

12.15

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Des Renford Aquatic Centre.

288

12.16

By Councillor Notley-Smith – New Livery on Council Vehicles & New Uniforms for Outdoor Staff.

289

12.17

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Corporate Uniform for Employees at Civic Receptions.

289

12.18

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Street Improvements in Havelock Avenue, Coogee.

289

 

 

13         Urgent Business

 

14         Confidential Report

 

14.1                        

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 16/2005 - PRIVACY COMPLAINT - ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TRIBUNAL NO. 033361.

290

 

 

15         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

17         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

…………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 12/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Queen's Baton Relay Agreement for Services for the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games

 

 

DATE:

15 March, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08174

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Randwick City Council has been approached by the Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games Corporation (M2006) to participate in the Queen’s Baton Relay associated with the Games.

 

The Queen’s Baton Relay takes place in the lead up to the Commonwealth Games.  The Relay is aimed to showcase Australia’s history, natural heritage and cultural diversity.  In order for Randwick Local Government Area to be part of the Queen’s Baton Relay Council is required to enter into an agreement with M2006 Corporation.

 

This report recommends that the General Manager be authorised to sign the agreement with Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games Corporation on behalf of Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

The agreement details the responsibilities of M2006 and Randwick Council.  The main responsibilities of M2006 include:

 

·    Route selection and mapping support

·    Providing convoy vehicles and shuttle buses for runners

·    Selection of runners

·    Event planning

 

Randwick Council’s main responsibilities will include:

 

·    Safe passage of the Relay

·    Issue of permits and approvals including road closures (if necessary)

·    Waste management service along the route

·    Allocation of personnel to resource the above

 

Within the next few months Council officers will liaise with M2006 about the details of the Relay.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The cost associated with the Relay would be negligible and will be able to be accommodated within Council’s operational budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Queen’s Baton Relay provides a great opportunity for Randwick City residents to view the passage of the baton and share the spirit of the M2006 Commonwealth Games.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.   That the General Manager be authorised to sign the agreement with Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games Corporation on behalf of the Council.

 

2.   That Council Officers liaise with Melbourne 2006 Commonwealth Games Corporation about the details of the Relay.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

……………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 13/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Maroubra Swimming Club Memorandum of Understanding

 

 

DATE:

15 March, 2005

FILE NO:

98/S/2994 xr F2004/06336

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Works Committee held on 8th February 2005 in relation to the memorandum of Understanding with the Maroubra Swimming Club, Council resolved that, a legal opinion on the application of the MOU be obtained and that this opinion be included in a report to Council as soon as possible. (Mayoral Minute 7/2005, Resolution W5)

 

ISSUES:

 

A request for a legal opinion was initially made in January 2005 to Council’s solicitors who forwarded the brief to Mr. Jeff Kildea.  Council asked that the legal opinion be available by 18 February 2005 in anticipation of a possible mayoral minute being provided to the Ordinary Council meeting on the 22 February 2005.

 

Council requested that the legal opinion include but not be restricted to the following issues:

·    Is the MOU legally enforceable

·    Whether any trade practices issues arise

·    Whether the MOU is consistent with the Local Government Act

·    Whether the MOU is consistent with the Plan of Management

·    Whether Council had the power to enter into a MOU

 

As a Mayoral Minute 7/2005 was tabled for the Works Committee Meeting on Tuesday 8 February 2005, Council asked if Mr Kildea could provide an interim briefing on whether the MOU is a legally enforceable agreement, which arrived by fax on 8 February 2005.  However it was only an interim briefing and a significant number of qualifications were attached to the conclusions of the advice.

 

The General Manager requested that the qualifications needed to be answered as it was felt that legal action may be forthcoming as a result of the advice regardless of how the advice was read. The interim advice was held and a complete advice requested.

 

Accordingly a complete briefing was provided by Mr Kildea on 17 February 2005.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

It is estimated that the cost of obtaining the legal opinion will be $4000.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Randwick Council sought legal opinion on the Memorandum of Understanding which was executed on 18 December 2003 between Council and the Maroubra Swimming Club.

 

The opinions, the interim dated 8 February 2005 and the final dated 17 February 2005 are now provided for Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the legal opinions be tabled for Council’s consideration

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

under separate cover -

 

1. Memorandum of Advice - 8 February 2005

2. Memorandum of Advice - 17 February 2005  

 

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director, City Services' Report 23/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

ASTHMA WEED PROJECT OFFICER

 

 

DATE:

15 March, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00114

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Project Officer for the Sydney Central Regional Weeds Committee, of which Randwick is a member Council, recently advised the Committee that they had been successful in their grant application to the Natural Heritage Trust,(NHT), for the funding of an Asthma Weed Project Officer.  This officer will implement the Sydney Central and Sydney North regional weed plans for Asthma Weed (Parietaria judaica) through both educational and incentives initiatives and on-ground works. Asthma Weed is a major health risk in Sydney especially in the older residential areas.  Council’s Noxious Weeds Officer has identified high levels of infestation in the northern, older parts of the Randwick City. As its name suggests, it may be responsible for Asthma attacks and breathing problems in some people.

 

The Sydney Central Regional Weeds Committee is seeking a Council to host this 2 day a week position for the first year, 1 day a week for the 2nd and possibly 3rd year. Ideally it will be a Council where Asthma Weed is a high priority in their LGA, therefore they will have a significant interest in and gain much benefit from the project.

 

ISSUES:

 

The aim of the position is to raise community awareness of Asthma Weed and prepare educational material and incentive kits for use by Councils where the weed is identified. The Officer’s tasks, in the first year, will include preparing a weed profile sheet, a control brochure, WEEDeck card, media articles, road signage, Asthma Weed incentive kits for representative Councils and presenting training workshops for field staff and participating in weed displays at community field days and festivals.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The NHT Fund will fund the first year of the officer’s employment with possible funds being available for a second and third year.

 

 

 

 

Budget

Expenditure

Grant funds

$37,000

 

Wages (14 hrs week @$23 p.h.)

 

$16,750

Employment On-costs

 

$5023

Educational materials

 

$15,218

 

 

 

Totals

$37,000

$37,000

 

If Randwick council were to host this project officer the following items will form our in-kind contribution to the position;

 

·     Day to day supervision of the Asthma Weed Project Officer - The Project Officer will be directed by a Steering Committee, including the Weeds Committee representatives, and also work in close contact with the Project Officers for Sydney Central, South West Sydney and Sydney North Regional Weeds Committees. Council’s Natural Resources Coordinator and Noxious Weeds Officer will oversee the Asthma Weed Project Officer and be responsible for daily supervision.

 

·     Management of the grant funds and expenditure - Progress reports are required quarterly under the contract, and would be prepared by the Officer, with input and assistance from the Natural Resources Coordinator and Noxious Weeds Officer, as well as the Weed Committee Project Officers.

 

·     Office accommodation - The position is proposed to be located at the Council’s Community Nursery in Barker St, Kingsford.  The Nursery is located centrally to the member councils of the Sydney Central, South West Sydney and Northern Sydney regions.  The office at the Nursery has two spare desks, access to telephones, fax and printer.  It provides a suitable space for small meetings and the verandah can accommodate larger numbers of people if necessary.  Visitation by the staff of other Sydney councils provides good advertising of the Community Nursery’s services and may generate sales.

 

·     Occasional use of a Council car - The Nursery utility could be made available for use with little impact on the needs of RCC staff.

 

·     Communications - land line phone, mobile (or reimbursements for calls, if possible), email and use of printers/fax machine. These facilities already exist at the Nursery.

 

·     On-ground Asthma Weed control and inspection programs.

 

The host Council will be required to enter into a formal contract with the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority.  This contract involves issues of insurance, payments and reporting on grant funds, keeping to schedules and specifications of the project, the role of the CMA in the project etc.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The benefits to Council in hosting the position include the opportunity to:

 

·    increase the in-house weed knowledge and expertise with very little outlay;

 

·    increase the profile of a serious weed problem with significant and documented health effects;

 

·    improve networking relationships for weeds between Randwick and other local and state government authorities;

 

·    develop sales opportunities and promote the Community Nursery; and

 

·    to obtain maximum benefit from a Sydney-wide project in which Council is a participant.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council formally offer to accommodate the part time, temporary position of Asthma Weed Project Officer, at the nursery, for the duration of the grant and in accordance with the requirements of the position as described above, and sign the contract with the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority acting on behalf of the Sydney Weeds Committees.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BETTINA DIGBY

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

NATURAL RESOURCES CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 24/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

UNLAWFUL ERECTION AND REMOVAL OF POSTERS.

 

 

DATE:

16 March, 2005

FILE NO:

98/S/0045

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Meeting on 22 February 2005, it was resolved “that a report be brought back to Council addressing the following matters:

 

1.   emphasising Randwick City Council's total opposition to the unauthorised and unlawful erection of posters, notices and advertising material on public and private property, including telegraph poles, traffic light poles, shop facades and trailers ("the Problem");

 

2.   the content of a policy statement to be issued by Council and adopted into Council's policy register (following compliance with Policy No.1.01.01), which conveys how Council will approach the Problem, having regard to:

 

a.   the options reasonably and lawfully available to Council, or the programmes or initiatives that could be lawfully implemented by Council, including:

 

i. the issuing of orders under s121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW); and

 

ii. the issuing of instantaneous penalty notices and/or the commencement of local court prosecutions (depending on the nature and extent of the unauthorised or unlawful erection of the poster, notice and advertising material, as the case may be);

 

b.   the fact that the problem is both a planning concern as much as it is a waste management concern.  As a result, Council should consider the feasibility of alternative and concurrent policies, options, programmes and initiatives, such as:

 

i.    directing Council workers to remove unauthorised and unlawful posters, notices and advertising material whilst at the same time pursuing enforcement options, depending on the nature and extent of the breach; and

ii.   ensuring that the scope of works of any future tender for the provision of graffiti removal includes removal of unauthorised posters, notices and advertising material;

 

c.   the approaches taken by other Councils to the problem, and whether any one or more of those approaches could be adopted or re-worked into Randwick City Council's ultimate approach to the problem;

 

d.   legal advice obtained by Council; and

 

e.   the availability of resources and funds.

 

3.   the need to:

 

a.   advertise Council's adopted policy in respect of the problem through the local media;

 

a    advise all relevant venue operators/proprietors outlining Council's adopted policy (including, but not limited to, identified repeat offenders and local businesses);

 

4.   the need for ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of Council's adopted policy and ways in which it could be improved from time to time.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The Problem

 

Item 1 of the resolution clarifies the extent of the problem with advertising material in that it is unauthorised by the owner of the asset and unlawful in that advertising material is regulated under planning statute.   The owner of the asset is usually the owner of the power poles being Energy Australia, the owner of the traffic light poles being the RTA or the owner of private property such as unoccupied commercial frontages and construction hoardings.

 

The problem extends further.  In the case of power poles, Energy Australia has expressed concern that billposters enable white ant activity, which damages the poles.  There is competition in the billpostering business, where operators slash posters, rendering them useless, but more seriously a littering problem.  If slashing does not occur between rival operators, it occurs due to the actions of disgruntled residents.

 

Policy Option Debate

 

The problem is further exacerbated by the inability of planning statute to deal with the problem.   Under planning statute, the owner of the asset bears the liability for the advertising.  Where the asset is on Council-owned land, or the poster is affixed to Council-owned property, the situation would see the Council prosecuting itself, which is an absurdity.  

 

The Information Sheet on Billposters was last updated in May 2003.  The Information Sheet states that the DCP for Exempt & Complying Development permits billposters on authorised panels in bus stop shelters, but not telegraph poles.  The Sheet further advises that billposters in other public areas will require a DA, including the written consent of the owner and any DA for billposters on telegraph poles is unlikely to be granted consent.   Clearly, if owners do not give consent, then the notion of a DA is unlikely and consent refusal is no longer an option.

 

In June 2002, Council wrote to Lisa Corbyn, then Director General of the EPA in relation to using environmental legislation to control billposters.  The response advised that the legislation controlling unwanted advertising material (junk mail) was not intended to cover billposters and that this was a planning matter, referring the letter to the Minister for Planning. 

 

Council subsequently wrote to the Minister for the Environment in October 2002, recommending drafting instructions for amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (the POEO Act).  The proposed amendments aimed at building a chain of responsibility for the commissioning of billposters on the basis that billposters are both a litter issue and a waste avoidance issue.  There was no State Government response to this initiative.

 

The Minister for Planning responded in February 2003, advising that billposters were regulated under Council’s local planning controls.  The Minister further advised that matters of illegal billposting and its subsequent waste management issues “are more appropriately dealt with under other legislation.”   The entire policy framework is incoherent nonsense and breaches of the current provisions are unenforceable.  

 

The options to use existing statute as proposed in sub-paragraph 2a of Resolution 46 above should not be pursued.    As proposed in sub-paragraph 2b of Resolution 46, Council workers are currently removing posters with noticeable results.  Council will not be proceeding with the tender for combined graffiti and poster removal, as the graffiti removal work will be undertaken by Council workers.    The feasibility of alternative and concurrent policies has been considered and the new policy direction is shown below.

 

Towards a coherent policy

 

The policy elements of a coherent approach and effective method to control billposters include:

 

·    Enforcement under occupational health and safety legislation

·    Enforcement under road safety and traffic management legislation

·    Concurrent removal of posters

·    Promotion of policy to the community

 

A draft policy is shown at Attachment 1.

 

Enforcement under occupational health and safety legislation

 

Billposter company employees carry out their work in close proximity to the road and therefore require a Traffic Management Plan.  Council would not approve such a plan.  Without a Traffic Management Plan, the billposter company could not have an approved Work Method Statement, which in turn would prescribe high visibility safety vests.   These employees work without adequate safety protocols on Council-owned land, without the approval of the asset owner.  

 

In the event of an accident, it is likely that Council would be named as the authority for the approval or non-approval of billpostering activity. Council needs to reduce its risk exposure by submitting to WorkCover that the practice of billpostering be enforced in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2000.  

 

The OHS legislation has intrinsic chain of responsibility provisions, to pursue the safe workplace conditions from the worker up to Company Director.   Council does not have delegated authority to enforce this legislation.   The foreseeable outcome of this approach is the inability of a poster company to secure the necessary approvals to remain in business.

 

Enforcement under road safety and traffic management legislation

 

Billposters are a distraction to drivers.  The foreseeable effects of driver distraction are rear-end collisions.   With the cooperation of the motor vehicle insurance industry and road safety authorities, there is a strong case to ban billposters altogether.

 

To complement this approach, a one metre long highly reflective strip device© with an appropriate warning message printed every 450 millimetres, as per the typical application shown at Attachment 2, would enable every power pole to become a road safety feature.   The warning message as shown below would be subject to policy approval by the RTA.  In addition, there should be increased penalties for offences against the Act with respect to road safety devices and that these penalties incur the same default provisions for non-payment as parking fines.


 

PRESCRIBED TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE

DO NOT INTERFERE WITH, ALTER OR REMOVE,THIS DEVICE.

INTERFERENCE

WITH, ALTERATION OR REMOVAL OF THIS TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE IS AN OFFENCE

UNDER SECTION 52 OF

THE ROAD  TRANSPORT (SAFETY AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT) ACT 1999

 

 

Any attempt to poster over or remove this device would be a breach of the Road Transport (Safety and Management) Act 1999 or relevant road safety legislation.  This device would enforce the message of road safety, consistent with the approach taken though WorkCover’s enforcement of the OHS legislative framework.  Energy Australia has been consulted on this approach and has given strong support to the concept.

 

Concurrent removal of posters

 

This is currently being undertaken by Council workers, in addition to the work required to collect slashed posters that have fallen to the ground and become litter.   This work is carried out by Council’s outdoor staff in accordance with current safety plans.   

 

Removal of posters by Council workers should continue until other enforcement measures are in place.   Any subsequent offences would require evidence to be taken prior to poster removal, for prosecution by WorkCover or other relevant authority.

 

Promotion of policy to the community

 

The community has in the past, been supportive of measures to eliminate billposters.  The policy needs to be made clear to the community, in order to deter disgruntled residents from slashing billposters, so as to preserve the integrity of evidence.

 

The use of the Call Centre to report instances of billpostering would enable members of the community to assist in the elimination process by reporting any occurrences.  The engagement of the media would also assist in promoting the policy and the enforcement issues to the community, particularly if a new initiative such as the reflective strip concept is trialed in the Randwick local government area.   

 

Other Council approaches and legal advice

 

Approaches taken by other Councils are summarised at Attachment 3.    The policy suggested above is a more innovative and focused approach to dealing with the elimination of billposters.   The traffic safety element of the policy is subject to the agreement of stakeholders and a trial of the reflective strip concept.  Other local governments would be keen to monitor a trial of a total solution to eliminate the scourge of billposters.

 

On 19 November 2003, Council sought advice from Bowen and Gerathy on Council’s interpretation of the relevant legislation that could be used to enforce the removal of billposters.   Bowen and Gerathy provided an interim response on 14 January 2004 and a final Memorandum of Advice on 20 December 2004.   The advice concluded:

 

·    Instruments made pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the EP&A Act) do not provide for specific remedies against advertisers or distributors of posters, subsequently Council has no power vested in it by the operation of any of these instruments to enable it to order the removal of the posters.

 

·    Council may take proceedings in the Land and Environment Court and class 4 proceedings would be commenced against the person affixing the poster, or against the distributor or its agent.  However, the prospect of sufficiently identifying the offender is unlikely, in view of the potentially costly and time consuming legal proceedings.

 

·    The POEO Act would not apply to enable the control or removal of billposters as the activity does not result in pollution and the posters are not definable as a waste.

 

·    The Local Government Act 1993 (the LGAct) provides that a Council may issue an order where certain factual circumstances exist.   The issue is that it would be necessary to establish that a billposter was likely to cause “annoyance” or that in the category of public nuisance, “unsightliness” alone does not constitute a “nuisance”.   The LGAct would not assist in the control or removal of billposters.

 

·    Under Section 121B of the EP&A Act, a s 121B (Order 5) may be issued to the person who caused the advertisement to be displayed or the owner or occupier of the premises on which the advertisement is displayed.   It may be arguable that advertisers and distributors “cause” the display of billposters and for Council to establish this fact.   While it is open for Council to take action against advertisers and distributors, the degree of proof required to sustain a challenge to such action is unlikely to be available to the Council.  

 

In summary, the appropriate action available to Council (both in respect to advertisers and distributors as well as the people who place the billposter) is an order under s 121B (Order 5) of the EP&A Act.

 

Available Resources and Funds

 

Council has outdoor staff resources currently committed to the removal and collection of fallen billposters, as part of the daily function of litter collection.   Council Enforcement Officers are funded in relation to breaches of road legislation and the EP&A Act.  WorkCover would be required to take action within their existing resources, as part of an integrated enforcement regime.   Enforcement Officers would be required to keep photographic evidence for their own prosecutions and to assist WorkCover in its prosecutions, where required.

 

Subject to RTA approval of the reflective safety strip concept, resources would be required to ensure the appropriate penalties are built into the regulatory framework and to investigate the commercial production of the strip with sponsors and suppliers.   Energy Australia and the motor vehicle insurance industry are potential sponsors.  A royalty dividend or sale of concept may be negotiable with the manufacturer if Council retains the copyright of the concept.

 

Council should also benefit in reducing its own risk exposure and insurance premium.

 

Implementation and Promotion of the Policy

 

To implement the policy as proposed, Council needs to undertake a joint activity with stakeholders to ensure the integrity and coherence of the enforcement solution.  These stakeholders include the RTA, WorkCover, Energy Australia, the motor vehicle insurance industry, product manufacturers and Council Enforcement Officers, Policy Officers and Outdoor Staff.

 

In the past, there has been some tacit sympathy for what is deemed to be a “fledgling” music industry, which uses low cost billposter advertising to promote bands’ “gigs”.  The promoters of these events, whose names appear on the posters, now include major hotels, clubs, music record companies, liquor producers and record launch companies.   The policy question is “do fledgling writers promote their books in this manner?”   Clearly, the music industry is using inappropriate and often ineffective advertising methods to avoid costs that are fairly borne by other promoters of events.  

 

The promotion strategy for a stringent policy based on safety issues, needs to be focused on fairness and on gaining stakeholder and community support to eliminate posters for once and for all.    The integrated policy should be tested and evaluated after one year, with review by a working group of stakeholders.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Previous attempts to formulate a policy on illegal advertising using planning instruments have not met with success.   An integrated policy with two safety elements provides a far more compelling framework, which would capture public support and stakeholder endorsement.   Authorised election advertising under the provisions of electoral legislation is not affected.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

As outlined under Available Resources and Funds as above.   An indicative amount of $5,000 may be required to seek initial production of a prototype of the reflective safety strip concept.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1.   Note that further work is required to integrate the proposed solution and seek the agreement of key stakeholders;

 

2.   Note the draft policy with a strong focus on safety as part of the solution;

 

3.   Note the summarised legal advice and that Council may issue an order under s 121B (Order 5) of the EP&A Act;

 

4.   Write to the Minister responsible for WorkCover to seek the enforcement of the OHS legislation with respect to poster companies that operate without approvals on public land; and

 

5.   Note that Council workers currently remove posters whenever discovered on poles and other locations.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Draft Policy - Elimination of unauthorised advertising.

2. Reflective Safety Strip Device.

3. Summary of Approaches by other Councils.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

RUSSELL WADE

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT 1

 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART 4 – CITY SERVICES

 

Review Date:                                                                Policy No:                   

 

POLICY TITLE:          ELIMINATION OF UNAUTHORISED ADVERTISING

 

File No.                        F2004/06815

 

OBJECTIVE

 

To eliminate the occurrence of unauthorised advertising including notices and billposters that are placed on public and private property.

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

That Council:

 

1.         ensures that the appropriate workplace safety authority enforces the provisions of the occupational health and safety legislative framework with respect to billposter operators, distributors and advertisers;

 

2.         develop and implement a complementary traffic safety system that promotes driver safety, eliminates driver distractions due to billposters and prevents billposters from being affixed to poles;

 

3.         remove billposters and other forms of unauthorised advertising from public and private facilities;

 

4.         promote the safety objectives of the enforcement regime and final elimination of unauthorised advertising to the community and stakeholders; and

 

5.         evaluate and review the policy with stakeholders after a period of twelve months.

 

 

Minute No:                   /                                   Meeting Date:                                      

 

 

 


                                                                                                ATTACHMENT 2

 

REFLECTIVE SAFETY STRIP DEVICE CONCEPT

 

 

 

Typical application of Prescribed Traffic Control Device along Alison Road.


ATTACHMENT 3

 

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS BY OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Parramatta City Council

 

Use their Local Orders Policy and DCP to prosecute for the offence of “Carrying out an Activity Without Approval”.

 

Write to the venue operators and billposting company advising that approval is required for each advertising.   No such approval is granted and the offence is then enforced.

Botany City Council

 

Removes posters as complaints are received by the Mayor’s office or when an abundance has been applied to poles in an area.

City of Sydney

 

Treat as a summonsable offence and the person applying the poster needs to be witnessed at the time of the offence.   Consider on the spot fines and prevention notices not appropriate.

 

Has a special task force to remove posters on a daily basis, using casual staff.

Marrickville, Leichardt and Waverley Councils

 

Remove posters on a daily basis during street cleaning.

Ashfield Council

 

Remove all posters using day labour on a monthly basis.

 

Issued on-the-spot littering fine of $200 in one instance.

Rockdale Council

 

Prohibits posters on poles or other structures in public places under the Local Environment Plan 2000.

Canterbury City Council

 

Views placement of signs on power poles as an offence under the POEO Act 1997, using the Powers to require information or records” of actual billposting agents.


 

Director, City Services' Report 25/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED EXTENSION OF MAROUBRA BEACH AREA - ALCOHOL FREE ZONE

 

 

DATE:

9 March, 2005

FILE NO:

98/S/1285

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 23 November, 2004 resolved that -

 

(a)        Council support the request by the Maroubra Beach Precinct Committee to extend the Maroubra Beach Alcohol Free Zone into Fenton Avenue from McKeon Street to Mons Avenue;

(b)        Council support the extension of the Alcohol Free Zone at Maroubra Beach to include Mons Avenue between Marine Parade and Fenton Avenue;

(c)        the proposal be advertised and appropriate parties be consulted in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act; and

(d)        the Mayor or the General Manager write to the Local Area Police Commander requesting that the area be regularly patrolled and to enforce the Alcohol Free Zone at Maroubra Beach and, further, that the General Manager also ensure that the Council’s Rangers frequently patrol the location to ensure compliance with the Zone’s requirements.

 

ISSUES:

 

In accordance with the requirements of Section 644 of the Local Government Act, 1993, the public consultation process for properly establishing an Alcohol Free Zone  (AFZ) has been undertaken, with no objections being received by closing date Friday 11 February, 2005.

 

Letters of support were received from -

 

o Maroubra Seals Sports and Community Club Ltd.

o NSW Police Eastern Beaches Local Area Command, enclosing a memo from B Gray Licensing Sergeant Eastern Beaches, and Detective Inspector J Cassar and others.

 

The Anti-Discrimination Board wrote on 19 January 2005, advising that ‘inter alia’ “providing Council has followed the guidelines in all aspects, the Board has no objection to the establishment of an Alcohol Free Zone in Fenton Avenue, Maroubra, or the extension of the Maroubra Beach Alcohol Free Zone to include Mons Avenue.”

 

Prior to establishment, the Act requires that the proposal be re-advertised in the local paper and all parties originally notified be advised that the Zone is now to be created, however, it will not begin operation until 7 days after this notification and until the Zone is adequately signposted.

 

The placement of signs will be undertaken in consultation with the Police, as that authority is responsible for enforcement, and generally located at the perimeter of the Zone and at specific trouble spots.

 

In reference to part d of the above resolution, the Local Area Police Commander has been 

requested to regularly patrol and to enforce the Alcohol Free Zone at Maroubra Beach

and further, Council’s rangers requested to ensure that the area is frequently patrolled to

ensure compliance with the Zone’s requirements.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

All steps required by the Local Government Act in order to properly establish the Maroubra Beach Alcohol Free Zone into Fenton Avenue from McKeon Street to Mons Avenue have been followed, and with no objections received to the proposal, and with the support of Council and the Police, it is proposed that the Zone now be created.

 

In an effort to standardise the process of review, the expiry date of this zone will be aligned with the other zones throughout the City, that is 15th October 2005.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Maroubra Beach Alcohol Free Zone into Fenton Avenue from McKeon Street to Mons Avenue be established and signposted with an expiration date of 15 October, 2005.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

PARKS AND RESERVES CO-ORDINATOR


 

Director, City Services' Report 26/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

BLOOMFIELD STREET, SOUTH COOGEE - REMOVAL OF LIGHT POLE AND PROVISION OF STEPS

 

 

DATE:

15 March, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08164

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In a letter dated 11 February 2005 (D00049131), Mr M Herman has written on behalf of the owners of 2, 4, 6 and 8 Bloomfield Street advising that these owners have received a quotation from EnergyAustralia to underground the electrical cables from outside No.2 Bloomfield Street to the pole outside No.8 Bloomfield Street.  The letter also requests that the light pole outside No.8 Bloomfield Street (which has a street light attached) be removed and that a different type of lighting be placed at this location (unmade roadway).

 

The letter also requests that the Bloomfield Reserve be improved and the access from Ahearn Avenue to Bloomfield Street be slightly involved to improve vehicular access.  A copy of the letter is attached – Attachment “1”.

 

ISSUES:

 

The request to remove the light pole is a valid one based on the views at this location and current lack of usefulness for the light at this location.  However since this area is still classified as public road, it is considered that Council should persist with a type of bollard lighting system which could be extended as required at some future date.  All costs associated with the alterations to the lighting, including the removal of the light and pole as well as the provision of bollard lighting should be borne by the owners of 2, 4, 6 and 8 Bloomfield Street, South Coogee.  Photos indicating the views and the pole which the applicant wants removed are attached - Attachment “2”.

 

In line with the requested improvement to the area, it was noted that there is an informal and potentially dangerous access track from upper Bloomfield Street to the driveway serving No.4 Bloomfield Street.  This driveway is at a grade of 25% and any pedestrians currently have to negotiate this unacceptable gradient should they wish to walk from upper Bloomfield Street through to Ahearn Avenue.  This situation could be improved by the provision of steps to link the upper section of Bloomfield Street to Ahearn Avenue.  The attached plan - Attachment “3” shows a concept plan for these steps and budget quotations indicate that the construction of these steps will cost approximately $80,000.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

All electrical, undergrounding and bollard works would be carried out at no cost to Council.  However, should Council proceed with the construction of these steps, an allocation for the amount of $80,000 should be provided in the 2005/06 Capital Works Budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The undergrounding of electrical cables by developers and the private sector should be encouraged.  The light and pole which the applicant has suggested be removed could be replaced by a bollard lighting system along this section of Bloomfield Street to give adequate light at this location.  At an onsite meeting with the Director, City Services, the applicant gave a verbal undertaking that all of the electrical works including the undergrounding of the cables, the replacement of the poles, the removal of the light and pole and its replacement with a bollard lighting system would be carried out at no cost to Council.

 

Council could then consider the construction of steps to provide pedestrian access from upper Bloomfield Street through to Ahearn Avenue at its own cost.  The attached plan provided for steps at this situation at an approximate cost of $80,000 and this could be considered for inclusion in the 2005/06 Capital Works Program as part of the imminent Budget deliberations.  The widening of the Bloomfield Street pavement as it approaches Ahearn Ave could be carried out at the same time that driveways are constructed for the new development and this work should be undertaken at the developer’s cost.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)    Council agree to the undergrounding of the electrical cables, the removal of the light and pole outside No.8 Bloomfield Street and the replacement of this lighting with a bollard system of lighting, with all of these works being carried out at no cost to Council; and

 

(b)    Council consider the provision of $80,000 for the steps from upper Bloomfield Street to Ahearn Ave and the minor widening of Bloomfield Street at Ahearn Ave as part of its consideration of the 2005/06 Capital Works Budget.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Copy of letter 11 February 2005 (D00049131) from Mr M Herman, 6 Bloomfield Street, South Coogee.

2.   Photos indicating view and the location of pole applicants wants removed.

3.  Concept plan for proposed steps linking Bloomfield Street to Ahearn Avenue.

 

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER  

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

 

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 27/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

Tender Report - T035/05 - Retaining Wall Rectification and Footpath Reinstatement Arcadia Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

16 March, 2005

FILE NO:

PROJ/10069/2004

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A section of retaining wall in Arcadia Street, adjacent to the recently constructed unit building on the corner of Arcadia Street and Beach Street, collapsed in 2003. As part of the conditions of Development Consent for the adjacent development the developer was required to construct footpath along the Arcadia Street frontage. The developer was not able to construct the footpath until Council had repaired the retaining wall. The retaining wall is not constructed to current engineering standards and because of this, it is difficult to hold the developer responsible for the partial collapse of this wall.

 

In order to resolve the matter the developer provided a “without prejudice” monetary contribution for the repairs to the retaining wall and the provision of the required footpath in the amount of $57,000. Council must now construct the footpath at the same time as the  repairs to the retaining wall and the strengthening of the entire wall are carried out.

 

Council has an amount of $ 110,744 available in the current budget to carry out retaining wall repairs. When added to the $57,000 provided by the developer, there is currently $167,744 available to carry out the required construction works.

 

Tenders for the repair and strengthening of the wall including the necessary footpath construction were called in February this year. This report assesses the tenders received, reviews the financial implications and recommends a contractor to carry out the construction works.

 

 

Tender Received

Tenders closed 10am Tuesday 8Th March 2005. Council received two tenders prior to tender closing time being:

Tenderer                                                                                 Tender Amount( Ex GST)

Antoun Civil Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd                                    $178,979.00

Sporting Services (Const) Pty Ltd trading as Pan Civil.  $272,574.00

 

Two late tenders were submitted after the time of tenders closing being: Elite Stonemasons Pty Ltd and Hoi Constructions Pty Ltd. Council is unable to consider late tenders as stipulated by Section 18 of the Local Government (Tendering) Regulations, 1999.

 

Tender Evaluation and Tender Results

Tenders were evaluated in accordance with Council’s Tender Procedure and the Evaluation Plan. The evaluation criteria together with the tender assessment and results are tabulated below.

 

Arcadia St Retaining Wall

SCHEDULE No.

Weighted Criteria

Pan Civil

Antoun Civil

SCORE

Weighted score

SCORE

Weighted Score

TIME PERIOD  TO COMPLETE THE WORK

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation of the Tenders Program for the Work

5

2%

3

1.20%

3

1.20%

Date of Practical completion offered

2

2%

3

1.20%

4

1.60%

FINANCIAL CAPACITY TO CARRY OUT THE WORK

4

10%

3

6.00%

3

6.00%

EXPERIENCE AND ABILITY TO COMPLETE WORK

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does the Tenderer employ sufficient human resources to undertake the works

7 and 9

5%

3

3.00%

3

3.00%

Experience in similar projects & comprehension of scope of works

8

34%

4

27.20%

4

27.20%

COMPLIANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance with the Schedules

All Schedules

2%

3

1.20%

3

1.20%

Required Insurances

11

5%

4

4.00%

2

2.00%

Compliance with Local Government procurement policy

 

 

 

 

 

 

a)       Occupational Health and Safety

13

5%

4

4.00%

3

3.00%

b)       Quality Assurance

12

5%

3

3.00%

3

3.00%

c)       Environmental

14

5%

3

3.00%

3

3.00%

STAGE 3

 

 

 

 

 

0.00%

Referee Checks

 

25%

4

20.00%

3

15.00%

Total

 

100%

37

74%

34

66%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF TOTAL SCORE

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPANY

SCORE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Antoun

66.20%

 

 

 

 

 

Pan Civil

73.80%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL COST

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPANY

COST

 

 

 

 

 

Antoun

$178,979.00

 

 

 

 

 

Pan Civil

$272,574.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COST INDEX

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPANY

COST

INDEX

 

 

 

 

Antoun

$178,979

1.00

 

 

 

 

Pan Civil

$272,574.00

1.52

 

 

 

 

VALUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPANY

VALUE

 

 

 

 

 

Antoun

270,361

 

 

 

 

 

Pan Civil

369,341

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VALUE FOR MONEY

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMPANY

VALUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Antoun

66.20%

 

 

 

 

 

Pan Civil

48.46%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Tenders

The tender offered by Antoun Civil Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd clearly offers the best value for money whilst also being the lowest conforming tender in the amount of $178,979.00. Investigations into the past performance and capability of Antoun Civil Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd demonstrate that Antoun Civil Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd  should have no difficulty in delivering a successful project to Council.

 

Antoun Civil Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd  have undertaken similar and more difficult retaining wall works for Leichhardt Council and Marrickville Council. Referees for Antoun Civil Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd  confirm good their performance in the ability of the contractor to successfully undertake construction works.

 

Antoun Civil Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd  demonstrate that they show due diligence in their management of Occupational Health and Safety, Environmental Management and Quality Management of the works they undertake.

 

Pan Civil have also demonstrated that they are an equally competent contractor and they scored better in their tender assessment as they have undertaken previous contract works for Council which they completed very successfully. Pan Civil are a smaller construction contractor than Antoun Civil Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd. However this project is a relative small project and Pan Civil could capably deliver this project.  

 

 

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The project out turn costs are as follows:

Tender Amount                                    $178,979

Council Contingency + 15%                 $26,847

Consultant Contract Supervision           $20,000

Total                                                   $225,826

 

Council is able to fund the retaining wall repair and footpath construction in the following manner:

Developer Contribution                                                             $  57,000

04/05 Retaining Wall Rehabilitation Capital works allocation      $110,744

Shortfall in funding                                                                                $  58,082

Total                                                                                                   $225,826

 

Council is not able to fully fund this project within current budget allocation. Additional funding in the amount of $58,082 is proposed to be transferred from the Council reserves at this stage. If savings occur at the end of the financial year, these savings will be returned back into the reserves.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The section of this retaining wall collapsed quite some time ago and the process of its repair has been quite protracted due to negotiations between Council and the developer and the design process to come up with a design which could be implemented without causing problems for the adjoining structures. While the cost is in excess of the current allocation of funds, it should be noted that this project will reinforce this entire section of wall from the access to the development to Beach St, and not just the section that collapsed.

 

For the reasons stated in the body of the report, it is considered that Antoun Civil Engineering (Australia) Pty Ltd. Provide Council with the best value for money in respect to this project, are quite capable in satisfactorily completing the project and should therefore be awarded the contract to carry out the subject works.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

1)   Provides its approval to allow the General Manager , in consultation with the Mayor, to enter into a contract with Antoun Civil Engineering (Australia) Pty Ltd to undertake the retaining wall rectification and footpath reinstatement at Arcadia Street, Coogee.

2)   Provides its approval to affix Council’s Official Seal upon the contract documents.

3)   Provides its approval to transfer $58,082 from the Reserves to assist in funding the tendered works.

4)   Advises the unsuccessful tenderers of the result of the tender. 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN EARLS

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

ASSETS COORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 28/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

Proposed Energy Australia Substation Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

 

 

DATE:

10 March, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06426

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A request was received by Council from Energy Australia regarding a proposal to install a kiosk substation on the south east side of Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee.  In accordance with section 45 of the Electricity Supply Act 1995, Randwick City Council has a 40 day period to make a submission on this proposal.

 

Council officers have requested an extension of this period so that the matter can be considered by Council.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The current electricity supply network in the residential area surrounding Edgecliffe Avenue has limited supply capacity.  This is due to increasing electricity demand resulting from residential developments in Edgecliffe Avenue, Seaside Parade and Liguria Street. 

 

Energy Australia has identified that the only solution to overcome the current electricity supply problems is to install an electricity substation in a location that would provide improved capacity to the immediate area. 

 

Energy Australia has identified the most suitable location for the substation installation to be Edgecliffe Avenue, adjacent to No.10 Seaside Parade.  The required area for the proposed substation, including any clearance distances around the substation is approximately 5300mm (long) x 330mm (wide) x 1600 mm (high). 

 

To achieve minimum impact on neighbouring residents, Council requested that Energy Australia undertake appropriate consultation with the adjacent residents of the proposed substation location regarding this proposal.

 

As a result, Energy Australia provided information to affected residents informing of the new substation to be installed on Edgecliffe Avenue.  Council notes that the information provided on this leaflet contained incorrect information, as the leaflet stated that “Randwick City Council has been notified of the proposed project and has approved the location and establishment of the new kiosk substation”. (EA Leaflet - See Attachment 1). 

 

It is further noted that subsequent conversations with an EA Officer admitted that this information was presented to the residents incorrectly.  Council has also been advised by Energy Australia that only one enquiry was received by Energy Australia.

 

To ensure that the residents of Edgecliffe Avenue and Seaside Parade are appropriately informed and consulted Council will survey the residents for their submissions with a letter box drop. Council will be advised of the results of the survey prior to the Council Meeting. All submissions received by Council will also be copied and sent to Energy Australia for their action. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council is concerned with any potential impacts on neighbouring residents. However it is considered that the location on Edgecliffe Avenue will contribute the least amount of visual impact on the neighbouring residents. Council will survey the affected residents for their submissions and seek to ensure that the residents’ submissions are fully considered by Energy Australia prior to Energy Australia finalising the location for the substation with the concurrence with Council.

 

The installation of an electricity supply substation at this location will meet the requirements resulting from increasing development in and around this area and to overcome issues due to the limited capacity of the existing electricity supply network. 

 

In summary, to meet the electrical supply needs of those residents living in and around Edgecliffe Avenue, the installation of an electricity supply substation is required.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)   Council provide its concurrence for the installation of an Energy Australia electricity substation on the south west end of Edgecliffe Avenue; and

b)   Energy Australia be advised of Council’s resolution.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

·    EA Leaflet sent to residents February 2005

·    Location of the proposed substation

·    Fascimile to Energy Australia requesting extension of time to consider matter.

·    ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

ANNIE SHUM

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

ANCILLARY ASSETS ENGINEER


 

Director, City Services' Report 29/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR PARKING METER OPERATION OPERATION

 

 

DATE:

15 March, 2005

FILE NO:

98/S/2714

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 23 June 2004, resolved that “under no circumstances are any parking meters to be installed anywhere within Randwick City Council boundaries until a resolution has been approval by Council”.

 

Council at its meeting held on 27 July 2004, adopted the City of Randwick On-Street Parking Policy (Attachment A). The Policy aims to provide more and better managed parking for the differing needs of all users in different parts of the City.

 

In recent years the provision, control and regulation of on-street parking have emerged as important elements within Council’s Planning and Development objectives.  The On- Street Parking Policy makes recommendations to guide the future implementation of kerbside parking schemes. The preparation of a Strategic Plan for Parking Management is a primary action strategy recommended in the Policy.

 

ISSUES:

 

OBJECTIVES OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR PARKING MANAGEMENT

 

The Strategic Plan sets out key activities, priorities and resource allocation to ensure that the City’s On-Street Parking Management is implemented and maintained in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

 

The Plan incorporates two major activities:

 

1.                          Staged implementation of area-wide Resident Parking Schemes; and

 

2.                          Extension of pay parking to other parts of the City.

       

 

Council at its meeting held on 9 November 2004 approved the timetable (Attachment B) for the staged implementation of Resident Parking Schemes in various parts of the City, commencing in March 2005 and completed in late 2006.

 

METERED PARKING

 

If period parking is to operate successfully, adequate enforcement must be undertaken.  Persistent violators parking for lengthy periods, exceeding the permitted time period in restricted parking zones, will reduce the usefulness of any parking scheme. Where competition for parking is intense and satisfactory levels of enforcement are difficult to maintain, the installation of parking meters has proven successful.

 

Existing enforcement resources are not adequate to provide satisfactory levels of enforcements in such a way to meet the needs and expectations of the various retail and business establishments in the City.  The enforcement resources have been addressed within the new organisational structure adopted by Council on 22 February 2005.

 

Council has recently carried out comprehensive parking usage surveys at The Spot, Coogee, Clovelly and Maroubra Precincts, as well as in selected areas of Kensington, Kingsford and Randwick. An overall assessment of these surveys has indicated that 90% of illegally parked vehicles (overstaying the time limit and parking in prohibited areas) do not receive infringements. It is estimated that more than 50% of vehicles parked in Loading Zones are either ineligible vehicles (ie. sedans) or eligible vehicles (vans, trucks, etc) that have stayed for longer than the permitted time limit of 30 minutes and yet 85% of these vehicles escape infringements.

 

Properly designed Meter Parking Schemes provide the following benefits:

 

·    Increased turn over of parking spaces, catering for the needs of patrons and visitors to the adjoining business premises;

 

·    Increased turn over of parking would reduce traffic volumes by reducing circulating traffic in search of parking spaces;

 

·    An accurate time check on parking duration that simplifies enforcement;

 

·    The use of price control measures to manage the  parking demand;

 

·    Improved customer service providing a sense of security for the parked vehicle;

 

Initially, there may be general perception within the community that Councils introduce parking meters as a vital source of income, and therefore the obvious reluctance for accepting pay parking schemes.  Such perceptions are usually made on the assumption that imposition of a parking fee would be a financial disincentive for customers who would divert to other shopping centres where parking is free.

 

However, experiences have proven that carefully selected pricing mechanism will ensure maximum use and turnover of kerbside parking spaces. When the community experiences the resultant turnover and increased parking opportunities, the pay parking scheme soon becomes an accepted reality. 

 

Council in February 2001 introduced a Trial Pay Parking Scheme by installing multi-bay parking meters in Council’s car parks in Coogee Oval and the eastern end of Dolphin Street.

 

This Trial Pay Parking Scheme has been very effective and successful. Provision of controlled parking with an affordable tariff has promoted an assurance of convenient and reliable parking amenity, and hence supports the beach and recreational attractions, and   various retail and restaurant facilities in the Coogee Beach Precinct. During the previous three year period, Council has not received any complaint concerning this pay parking scheme which has been well patronised.

 

Council at its Works Committee meeting on 8 February 2005 considered a report covering the operation of the Trial Pay Parking Scheme (Attachment C).

 

PARKING METER OPERATIONS IN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS

 

Currently parking meters are in operation in areas governed by the following Councils and Statutory Authorities in the Sydney Metropolitan Area.

 

City of Sydney, North Sydney, Willoughby, Lane Cove, Mosman, Manly, Warringah, Pittwater, Waverley, Woollahra, Royal Botanic Gardens, Parramatta Stadium and Sydney Olympic Park.

 

A closer examination of the above parking schemes reveal that pay parking is largely present in beach side and coastal areas where it is used as a traffic and parking control solution with the principle of “user pays” system. It is apparent that a majority of patrons to these facilities are from outside areas and do not pay local council rates, and therefore are charged parking fees generating funds to help in the upkeep of local infrastructure facilities.  

 

The City of Sydney began installing parking meters in 1956 to eliminate indiscriminate parking of motor vehicles and generate greater turn over of kerbside parking in the City Centre. As time passed, in the City of Sydney and many inner metropolitan Council areas, more and more retailers and business establishments came to accept and support the installation of parking meters outside their establishments to encourage visitors to their businesses.

 

Today, parking meters have been widely recognised as an effective control to enhance the use of available parking spaces by increasing parking turnover, catering for the needs of patrons and visitors to the many adjoining businesses, facilities and attractions.

 

Within the City of Randwick, the demand for parking is intense in the vicinity of the University of New South Wales and Prince of Wales Hospital. This situation greatly minimises or virtually eliminates the opportunity for the residents of these areas to park in the immediate vicinity or close proximity to their residences. Introduction of parking meters, with concessions granted to local residents providing free unlimited parking, would be an effective parking control solution.

 

Similarly, the experience of the Coogee Trial Pay Parking Scheme indicates that extension of the Scheme to other nearby locations would be beneficial in achieving increased turnover of parking. The beach areas of Clovelly and Maroubra also warrant such controls to achieve better managed parking for visitors to these areas.

 

COUNCIL’S RESPONSIBILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS       

 

Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999, Clause 97 empowers Council to establish and operate pay parking schemes in accordance with the Roads and Traffic Authority guidelines.     

 

The RTA’s Guidelines (manual) requires Councils to carry out the following mandatory procedures prior to the installation of parking meters on any roads within their area:

 

·    To ensure that pay parking is not seen to be introduced in an area solely for the purpose of revenue rising, Council should undertake a parking study to establish the justification for the proposal.

 

(It is reported that Council has recently carried out comprehensive surveys in the             proposed areas with a view to assessing the parking demand, the intensity of parking competition and the levels of illegal parking, and this information is readily available).

 

·    The parking study must be submitted to the Local Traffic Committee for its consideration and advice;

 

·    Council must notify the RTA of its intention to implement the pay parking scheme and indicate the type of machine to be used; and

 

·    Parking signs related to pay parking schemes are prescribed traffic control devices and therefore require the normal approval process (concurrence of the Traffic Committee) prior to installation.

 

The selection of locations and the type of pay parking scheme (eg: multi-bay parking meters, ticket machines, etc) for implementation are at the discretion of Council and outside the scope of the RTA’s manual. However, there is a requirement that any pay parking proposal must be supportive of Council’s parking policy and local traffic management plans, regional transport objectives and strategies.

 

Council is empowered to fix the parking fees by undertaking a study of the parking supply and demand characteristics of the area.

 

 

 

LOCATIONS FOR THE EXTENSION OF PARKING METERS WITHIN THE CITY OF RANDWICK

 

The Parking Usage Surveys have indicated that the parking demand is intense at the following locations. The extension of the parking meter operation in the City of Randwick could be undertaken in the following order of priority.

 

The Hospital Precinct

 

All streets excluding laneways in the area bounded by Botany Street, Barker Street, Perouse Road, Avoca Street and Alison Road.

 

It is considered that a parking tariff of $3.30 per hour (GST included) would be appropriate and the time period restrictions should apply from 8.30am to 6.00pm Mon – Sat. However, a reduced tariff of $2.20 per hour is suggested for parking meters along Perouse and Belmore Roads, as an incentive for the shoppers and visitors to the retail and business establishments in this area.

 

Vehicles with the area’s resident parking sticker will be exempted from the time limit and the parking tariff except in the section of Perouse Road, north of St. Paul Street, and Belmore Road. 

 

The University Precinct

 

All streets excluding laneways in the area bounded by Rainbow Street, Avoca Street, Barker Street, Botany Street, Alison Road, Wansey Road, High Street, Anzac Parade, Doncaster Avenue, Roma Avenue, Cottenham Avenue, Edward Avenue, Doncaster Avenue, Borrodale Road, Houston Road and Gardeners Road. It should be noted that the University of New South Wales has already requested Council to consider the installation of parking meters in High Street in the vicinity of the University Gym for the purpose of generating a greater turnover of parking for the benefit of patrons to the gym and associated facilities.

 

It is considered that a parking tariff of $3.30 per hour (GST included) would be appropriate and the time period restrictions should apply during 8.30am – 6.00pm Mon – Fri. However, a reduced tariff of $2.20 per hour is suggested for parking meters along Anzac Parade, as an incentive for shoppers and visitors to the retail and business establishments along this strip.

 

Vehicles with the area’s resident parking sticker will be exempted from the time limit and the parking tariff in the area except along Anzac Parade.   

 

Coogee Beach Precinct

 

All streets excluding laneways in the area bounded by Baden Street, Beach Street, Bream Street, Hill Street, Dolphin Street, Brook Street, Carr Street, Beach Street and Neptune Street.

 

It is considered that a parking tariff of $3.30 per hour (GST included) would be appropriate and the time period restrictions should apply during 8am – 10pm Seven Days during the summer months (October to April). However a reduced tariff of $2.20 would apply during the months of May to September. With the introduction of parking meters in these streets, the tariff for the existing parking meters adjacent to Coogee Oval and the eastern end of Dolphin Street would be increased to $3.30 per hour (currently $2.20) during the summer months and $2.20 for the remaining part of the year.

 

Vehicles with the area’s resident parking sticker will be exempted from the time limit and the parking tariff in all the parking meters in the area except along Coogee Bay Road.

 

In addition, vehicles with the City of Randwick Beach Parking Permits will be exempted from the time limit and the parking tariff in all the parking meters located on the streets adjoining the beach and environs, viz. Arden Street, Beach Street and Neptune Street.

 

Clovelly Beach Precinct

 

All streets excluding laneways in the area bounded by Ocean Street, Boundary Street, Keith Street, Clovelly Road, Victory Street, Cliffbrook Parade, Tower Street and Melrose Parade and including the Clovelly Beach car park.

 

It is considered that a parking tariff of $3.30 per hour (GST included) would be appropriate and the time period restrictions should apply during 8.30am – 6pm Seven Days during the summer months (October to April). However a reduced tariff of $2.20 would apply during the months of May to September.

 

Vehicles with the area’s resident parking sticker will be exempted from the time limit and the parking tariff.   

 

In addition, vehicles with the City of Randwick Beach Parking Permits will be exempted from the time limit and the parking tariff in all the parking meters located on the streets adjoining the beach and environs, and these streets are: Ocean Street, Eastbourne Avenue,

Surfside Avenue, Donnellan Crescent and Victory Street including the beach car park.  

 

Maroubra Beach Precinct

 

The car park in Arthur Byrne Reserve, the Maroubra Beach car park adjacent to the Maroubra Surf and Life Saving Club, and all streets excluding laneways in the area bounded by Marine Parade (up to Torrington Road), Bond Street, Duncan Street, Maxwell Avenue, Mons Avenue and Fitzgerald Avenue.

 

It is considered that a parking tariff of $3.30 per hour (GST included) would be appropriate and the time period restrictions should apply during 8am – 6pm Seven Days during the summer months (October to April). However a reduced tariff of $2.20 would apply during the months of May to September.

 

Vehicles with the area’s resident parking sticker will be exempted from the time limit and the parking tariff.   

 

In addition, vehicles with the City of Randwick Beach Parking Permits will be exempted from the time limit and the parking tariff in all the parking meters located adjoining the beach and environs, viz. Marine Parade and the car park areas adjoining the Maroubra Surf and Life Saving Club and Arthur Byrne Reserve.

 

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

 

The Mayor and Council officers undertook a comprehensive process of 9 consultation meetings in June 2004, with the following key stakeholder groups. 

 

The minutes of these meetings are attached in Attachment D.

 

Notwithstanding this process the above proposals should further be fine tuned following consultation with the RTA, Police, Sydney Buses, the City’s Chambers of Commerce, Business Associations, University of New South Wales, Prince of Wales Hospital, and Precinct Committees in the respective areas.

 

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY AND PROGRAMME

 

It is imperative to carefully plan and carry out a staged implementation for the extension of the parking meter operation to the various precincts outlined in this Strategic Plan. Due to the proposed exemptions granted to the local residents, it is stressed that the proposed parking meter installations should be undertaken in conjunction with or after the implementation of the area-wide Resident Parking Scheme in the respective area.

 

In addition, if the meter parking scheme is to operate successfully, adequate enforcement must be undertaken. A recent review by the General Manager of the enforcement needs to adequately resource the enforcement function has identified the requirement to employ ten additional rangers, for which funds have been allocated in the relevant budget.

 

ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY

 

In considering this Strategic Plan for Parking Management, Council should also formalise an Enforcement Policy. The Policy should set out priorities in resource allocation to minimise illegal parking in the City of Randwick with a view to ensuring:

 

·    Asset Protection (enforcements to protect footpaths, park lands, etc);

·    Pedestrian Safety including safety of school children (pedestrian areas and school children set down and pick up areas);

·    Maintenance of access to properties (driveways, street-corners, etc);

·    Access to public transport and service vehicles (Bus Zones, Loading Zones);

·    Adequate resident parking;

·    Maximum turnover of parking to ensure commercial viability of businesses;

·    Maximum use of recreational facilities; and

·    Appropriate revenue from enforcement.

 

BUSINESS PLAN FOR PARKING METER OPERATION

 

It is also desirable to develop an ‘In-House’ Business Plan to focus revenue generation and improve existing controls surrounding the operation of parking meters. The Business Plan should be designed to facilitate the assessment of equipment and technologies, equipment maintenance strategy, bench marks and service level agreements, payment systems, cash collection efficiency, audit control, budget, staged implementation and management structure.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The cost of implementation of the Strategic Plan for Parking Meter Operation as outlined in this report is estimated at two million dollars. This does not include the cost of implementation of area-wide Resident Parking Schemes as proposed.

 

Fully implemented, the City’s parking meters will generate net revenue of approximately $3.5 million per annum based on current revenue streams for the Coogee Scheme. The Trial Scheme in Coogee has indicated that the capital outlay on parking meter installations could be recouped in a period of approximately 9 months.

 

Enforcement of these parking meters would generate an additional estimated $2.0 million per annum based on anticipated increased levels of enforcement approved as part of the new organisational changes.

 

No funds are available under the current budget for installation of additional parking meters.

 

Council will need to fund the estimated $2 million from reserves and then back fund this money as the revenue from parking meters becomes available.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the Strategic Plan for Parking Meter Operation, as outlined in this report, demonstrates the justification, benefits and feasibility of extending the parking meter operation to other parts of the City, and should therefore be supported by Council.

 

The Scheme provides exemptions for residents from the time limit and the parking tariff in their respective precincts and in addition, the owners of residential properties in City of Randwick (approximately 44,100) will be issued with one free Beach Parking Permit which will provide them with free access to parking metered spaces located in the immediate beach environs of Coogee, Clovelly and Maroubra. It is not intended to extend this concession to the owners of non residential properties.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:-

 

a)   The City of Randwick Strategic Plan for Parking Meter Operation be adopted as a concept and guide for the extension of parking meter operation to other parts of the City;

 

b)   Authority be delegated to the General Manager to commence consultation, regarding the proposals to extend the parking meter operation, with other transport agencies such as RTA and Police, as well as the City’s Chambers of Commerce, Business Associations, Surf Life Saving, including Nipper organisers, University of New South Wales, Prince of Wales Hospital and Precinct Committees in the relevant areas;

 

c)   The General Manager be authorised to further refine the community feedback received from the prior consultation meetings undertaken by the Mayor with key stakeholder groups in June 2004;

 

d)   Following Community Consultation, the General Manager be authorised to carry out a staged implementation of the City’s Parking Meter Schemes generally in the order of priority of precincts as outlined in the Strategic Plan; and

 

e)   The Mayor and General Manager be delegated authority to source the funding for the staged implementation of the parking meter schemes.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment A

Attachment B

Attachment C

Attachment D

Plans showing proposed parking meter locations   (ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

KEN KANAGARAJAN

DIRECTOR CITY SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 14/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

CATERING SERVICES - TENDER NO. T026/04

 

 

DATE:

14 March, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08360 xr 98/S/0300

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The catering services tender was initiated to better manage the engagement of caterers by Council Officers in an accountable, transparent manner and strictly in accordance with Council’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures.

 

The tender offers a three year contract period with Council’s option to extend the contract period for two further 12 month terms. The Tender has been broken into two parts, namely Council and Committee Meetings and Special Functions. The tender replaces the previous catering contract established in September 2003 which has now expired.

 

This tender process was performed in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1993, Tendering Regulation 1999 and Council’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures.

 

ISSUES:

 

COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Generally, there are two meetings (one Council Meeting and one group of Committee Meetings) held each month (on Tuesday evenings) for eleven months of the year (January generally excluded). On occasions, Extraordinary Council Meetings will be called in addition to these scheduled meetings.

 

An average of 20 persons are present for meals at the abovementioned meetings. The successful tenderer will be serving these meals at the conclusion of the meetings in the Lodge Room, which adjoins Council’s kitchen.

 

SPECIAL FUNCTIONS

Council will, on occasions, require catering for meetings and special functions. The catering for this type of activity may vary from sandwiches, hot finger-food, a two course buffet to a sit down meal. Special functions (including Civic Receptions) may be held in the Lodge Room, Randwick Town Hall or at external venues.

These functions are usually evening functions, however there may be some day functions. Special functions are often arbitrary, and may be required on weekends and public holidays. Attendances at these functions can range from 30 to 400 people.

 

TENDER ASSESSMENT:

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

 

A Tender Evaluation Plan was developed by the Assistant Public Officer and Manager, Contracts & Purchasing and approved by the Director, Governance & Financial Services prior to the tender close. The roles and responsibilities of the Evaluation Committee members are outlined in the Tender Evaluation Plan and summarised in the table below.

 

Members Name

Position Title

Council Department

Specific  Responsibilities

David Kelly

Assistant Public Officer

Governance & Financial Services

Create tender documents and evaluation plan, evaluate tender submissions and undertake stage 4 evaluation.

Kim Davis

Manager, Contracts & Purchasing

Governance & Financial Services

Review and edit tender documents and evaluation plan, evaluate tender submissions.

Peter Smith

Public Officer

Governance & Financial Services

Evaluate tender submissions.

Mark Hummerston

Director, Governance & Financial Services

Governance & Financial Services

Approve tender evaluation plan and undertake stage 4 evaluation.

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

General Manager’s Unit

Undertake stage 4 evaluation.

Sima Truuvert

Director, City Planning

City Planning

Undertake stage 4 evaluation.

Karen Armstrong

Manager Environmental Planning

City Planning

Undertake stage 4 evaluation.

 

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

 

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Mandatory Criteria:

·    Experience in fulfilling the requirements of similar contract(s).

·    Capacity to fulfil the requirements of this tender.

Desirable Criteria:

·    Quality of service to be provided.

·    Cost of service to be provided.

·    References from other clients.

·    Demonstrated ability to comply with the Food Act 2003 & Food Regulation 2004.

·    Demonstrated ability to comply with Occupational Health & Safety Regulations.

·    Financial capacity.

·    Compliance with the contract.

·    Capacity and resources.

·    Experience and expertise.

 

TENDERS RECEIVED

Three (3) tenders were received.

 

LATE TENDERS

No late tenders were received.

 

NON-CONFORMING TENDERS

No non-conforming tenders were received.

 

CONFORMING TENDERS

Three (3) conforming tenders were received and proceeded to a detailed evaluation.

 

TENDER EVALUATION:

Tenderers were evaluated against each evaluation criteria outlined in the Tender Evaluation Plan to determine a quality score. The highest quality score represents the best quality tender. The rates submitted by each tender were calculated to form a cost index, where the lowest cost index represents the best price. To determine which tenderers offered the best value for money, the quality score was divided by the cost index to determine the Value for Money score.

 

COUNCIL & COMMITTEE MEETINGS

From the evaluation of the tenderers by the Tender Evaluation Committee for the Council and Committee Meetings, two (2) tenderers were recommended to proceed to stage four of the evaluation, being Earth Catering and Hestelow & Bye. The shortlisted tenderers were asked to present a meal under normal circumstances in the Lodge Room for further evaluation.

 

Stage four assessment of the Council & Committee Meetings forms the final assessment score in the evaluation for this component. Hestelow James Catering scored the highest in this stage, offering the best quality meal and service.

 

SPECIAL FUNCTIONS

The Tender Evaluation Committee members were unanimous in their choice of caterer for special functions, as this caterer’s value for money scores were superior for sandwiches, hot finger-food, two course buffets and sit down meals. Earth Catering scored the best value for money for Special Functions, including sandwiches.

The Summary of Value for Money Scores for Council & Committee Meetings, Sandwiches and Special Functions are contained in Appendix A accompanying this report.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

Sufficient provision has been made in the adopted budget for the purpose of catering at Council and Committee Meetings and for Special Functions.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

After a detailed evaluation, including an analysis of pricing and a trial under standard catering conditions, the tender for Council and Committee Meetings is recommended to be awarded to Hestelow & Bye Pty Ltd, trading as Hestelow James Catering.

 

After a thorough evaluation of the tender documents, the catering tender for Special Functions is recommended to be awarded to Earth Enterprises Pty Ltd, trading as Earth Catering, based on their superior value for money scores for sandwiches, hot finger-food, two course buffets and sit down meals.

 

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENT

 

I have reviewed the tender evaluation process and I have some concerns regarding the recommendation for special functions..

 

The tender evaluation process for the Council and Committee meetings included a catering trial under conditions similar to the service they would be providing.  It can be seen in Appendix A that Earth Catering scored 70.20 and Hestelow & Bye scored 63.93 for value for money.  However, after including the evaluation of the catering trial which looked at quality and service the ratings changed to 92 for Hestelow & Bye and 72 for Earth Catering.

 

No evaluation trial was undertaken for the Special Functions and as such testing under actual conditions for the tenderers has not occurred.

 

While it is acknowledged that Earth Catering are the lower priced tenderer, demonstrated service and quality especially for special functions that are held by Council for different community groups or civic functions are important.  Poor service and quality can have an adverse reflection on Councils image.

 

It is proposed that Council select both Earth Catering and Hestelow & Bye for special functions and delegated authority be given to the General Manager to select the appropriate tenderer for the special functions.  Further, Earth Catering will be used at a small special function to ascertain their service and quality.

 

It must be stressed that based on the tender evaluation plan developed, Council staff could only consider those elements in the established criteria.  It is not appropriate for staff to consider other functions when evaluating and recommending tenders, as such I have prepared the General Manager’s comments to assist Council with this matter.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         The tenderer, Hestelow & Bye Pty Ltd, trading as Hestelow James Catering, be awarded a contract for a 3 year term with 2 options for Council to extend for a further term of 12 months each, for the supply of Catering Services for Council and Committee Meetings, and that Council enter into the contract under Clause 19 of the Local Government Tendering Regulation 1999;

 

2.         The tenderer, Earth Enterprises Pty Ltd, trading as Earth Catering, be awarded a contract for a 3 year term with 2 options for Council to extend for a further term of 12 months each, for the supply of Catering Services for Special Functions, and that Council enter into the contract under Clause 19 of the Local Government Tendering Regulation 1999;

 

3.         That authority be granted for the General Manager and the Mayor, to sign and affix Council’s Common Seal to enter into contracts on behalf of Council with the recommended tenderers for Catering Services; and

 

4.         The unsuccessful tenderer be notified of the Tender result.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Appendix A - Summary of Value for Money Scores

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

 

 

 


 

APPENDIX A

 

SUMMARY OF VALUE FOR MONEY SCORES

 

Summary of Value for Money Scores for Council & Committee Meetings

 

Tenderer’s Name

Quality Score

Cost Index

Value for Money Score

Earth Catering

70

1.00

70.20

Essence Fine Foods

56

1.15

48.79

Hestelow & Bye

78

1.21

63.93

 

 

Stage Four Evaluation Scores for Council and Committee Meetings

 

Tenderer’s Name

Final Score

Earth Catering

72/100

Hestelow & Bye

92/100

 

 

Summary of Value for Money Scores for Sandwiches

 

Tenderer’s Name

Quality Score

Cost Index

Value for Money Score

Earth Catering

70

1.00

70.20

Essence Fine Foods

56

1.25

44.92

 

 

Summary of Value for Money Scores for Special Functions

 

Tenderer’s Name

Quality Score

Cost Index

Value for Money Score

Earth Catering

70

1.13

62.31

Essence Fine Foods

56

1.00

56.20

Hestelow & Bye

78

1.37

56.58

 

 


Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 15/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

ESTABLISHMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE AND WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIMS COMMITTEE

 

 

DATE:

14 March, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00076

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Councillors will be aware that one of the outcomes from the Workshop “Working Together for a Better Randwick” was the need for a heightened focus on occupational health and safety, and a reduction in our Workers’ Compensation premiums through improved claims management.

 

In accordance with the requirements of the Occupational Health & Safety Act, 2000, Council has a responsibility to ensure there are appropriate consultation processes in place dealing with occupational health and safety within the organisation.

 

ISSUES:

 

Generally there are two methods by which an organisation can meet the requirements of the Occupational Health & Safety Act, 2000.  The Act provides:

 

“17      Establishment of OHS committees, election of OHS representatives or other agreed arrangements

(1) OHS committees
      An OHS committee is to be established for the purposes of consultation under this Division if the employer employs 20 or more persons in the employer’s undertaking and a majority of those employees request the establishment of the committee or if WorkCover so directs. More than one committee is to be established if a majority of those employees request their establishment and the employer agrees or if WorkCover so directs.

(2) OHS representatives
      An OHS representative is to be elected for the purposes of consultation under this Division if at least one of the persons employed by the employer requests the election of the representative or if WorkCover so directs. The employees may elect more than one OHS representative if the employer agrees or if WorkCover so directs.

(3) Other agreed arrangements
      Other agreed arrangements for consultation with employees are to be made in accordance with any requirements of the regulations. A Federal or State industrial organisation of employees may represent, for the purposes of consultation under the agreed arrangements, any of those employees who request the organisation to represent them.

(4) General
      The employer may make arrangements for the establishment of an OHS committee or the election of an OHS representative whether or not it has been requested by any of the employees of the employer.”

 

Some years ago Randwick had an Occupational Health & Safety Committee [clause 17 (1) above] operating as the required consultation mechanism.  However, that was changed in 2002 with the election of a number of OH&S Representatives [clause 17 (2) above].  The OH&S Representatives had the following functions:

 

·    To keep under review the control measures implemented to ensure the health, safety and welfare of persons in the place of work;

·    To investigate any matter that may be a risk to health and safety in the place of work;

·    Be responsible for health and safety in their work area by ensuring that any issues that have been brought to their attention or any observations made by the Health & Safety Representative have been dealt with appropriately;

·    Work in consultation with the safety advisor;

·    Participate in safety audits of their area with the safety advisor;

·    Attend a quarterly network meeting;

·    To assist in the development of arrangements for recording workplace hazards and accidents to promote improved workplace health and safety;

·    To make recommendations on the training of OH&S Representatives; and

·    To make recommendations on the training of employees in relation to Occupational Health & Safety.

 

It should be noted that the role of an OH&S Representative is voluntary and is carried out in addition to an employee’s normal day-to-day tasks.  There is no additional remuneration for carrying out the role of an OH&S Representative.

 

While having OH&S Representatives provides a means of identifying and dealing with occupational health and safety issues arising within the workplace, the nature of the role of a Representative can mean that issues are not always considered on an organization-wide basis.  Issues may have the potential to arise in various parts of the organization, and therefore a co-ordinated management approach is more likely to be effective in ensuring that a safe workplace is provided for all employees.

 

Given Council’s desire to have an increased focus on Occupational Health and Safety, and on Worker’s Compensation claims, it is considered that it would be more appropriate to re-establish an OH&S Committee at Randwick.  Further, the establishment of a small committee to specifically review, analyze and manage claims would also assist in achieving reductions in our premiums for Worker’s Compensation.   

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.  The administrative overheads associated with holding meetings of the two proposed Committees can be met from within existing budget allocations.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

To meet the objectives of a safe workplace for all employees, together with managing worker’s compensation claims, it is proposed to establish two staff committees.  The first will be an Occupational Health and Safety Committee, as required under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.  Further, a small committee will also be established to review, analyse and manage worker’s compensation claims, with the objective of achieving reductions in premiums.

 

These will be staff committees, and will report on a regular basis to the General Manager.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council notes and endorses the proposal to establish an Occupational Health and Safety Committee and a Worker’s Compensation Claims Review Committee.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 12/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

7-37 COOGEE BAY ROAD (6R Aeolia Street) RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

10 March, 2005

FILE NO:

LS-0002/2005

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING       

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the subdivision plan and accompanying Section 88b Instrument that relates to 7-37 Coogee Bay Road (6R Aeolia Street), Randwick.

 

ISSUES:

 

The application is for the issue of a Subdivision Certificate for a proposed land subdivision resulting from a road closure (Council land).  The relevant development consent is DA 785/04, issued on 23 November 2004, to road closure of part of Aeolia Street creating an independent lot.

 

Land and Property Information Services has provided the following information in respect of a transfer or surrender of Council land:

 

A dealing by a Local Council, i.e. a City, Municipal or Shire Council, including a transfer pursuant to s713 Local Government Act 1993, and a transfer or surrender of Council land, must be executed under seal and the affixing must be attested by:

 

i.        The mayor and the general manager;

ii.       The general manager and at least one other councillor other than the mayor;

iii.      The mayor and at least one other councillor; or

iv.      At least two councillors other than the mayor.

 

Consequently, consent is sought to the affixing of Council’s seal to the documentation so that it may be accepted by and registered at Land and Property Information Services.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority be granted for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the subdivision plan and accompanying Section 88b Instrument that relates to 7-37 Coogee Bay Road (6R Aeolia Street), Randwick.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Plan of subdivision

Section 88b Instrument . 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

 



 

Director, City Planning Report 13/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

10-18 BAY STREET, COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

15 March, 2005

FILE NO:

DA 874/2004

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No 874/2004 for the demolition of the existing dwellings on the site, and construction of a new multi-unit housing development comprising 15 units (13 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom units) over 4 storeys, basement carparking for 23 vehicles and associated landscaping including a swimming pool.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 7 March 2005.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

7 March, 2005

FILE NO:

D/0874/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of the existing dwellings on the site,  and construction of a new multi-unit housing development comprising 15 units (13 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom units) over 4 storeys, basement carparking for 23 vehicles and associated landscaping including a swimming pool

PROPERTY:

 10-18 Bay Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Blue Water Pacific Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as it is valued at $3.6m.

 

The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing buildings on the site, excavate and construct a single level of basement carparking (23 spaces) and a new multi-unit housing development on the site at 10-18 Bay Street, Coogee. The development will comprise 15 units (13 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom units) over 4 storeys. A communal swimming pool and landscaped area are included in the proposed improvements.

 

The applicant has lodged appeal proceedings with the Land and Environment Court on the grounds of deemed refusal (Proceedings No. 11515 of 2004). A hearing date has been set for 7 April 2005.

 

The applicant has not adequately addressed Council’s concerns with regard to the built form and scale of the proposal and has not satisfied concerns raised by the Design Review Panel with regard to compliance with SEPP 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings and the accompanying Residential Flat Design Code. The development does not comply with the statutory height and FSR standards under RLEP 1998 and due to the bulk and scale impacts of this non-compliance is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site.

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site, and construct a 3-4 storey multi-unit housing development containing 15 dwellings (13 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom units). A basement level is also proposed providing 23 car parking spaces (including 4 visitor spaces, 2 carwash bays and one accessible space), 15 storage spaces and garbage room.

 

Above ground floor level, the development will take the form of two buildings. The ground floor level will connect the two ‘buildings’ and the roof of the ground floor provides a landscaped podium area between the two ‘buildings’ at first floor level.

 

Vehicular and pedestrian access is proposed from Bay Street. A new driveway is proposed to the western end of the site frontage. A swimming pool and associated landscaping are also included in the proposed works.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located to the western end of Bay Street on the northern side of the street and is comprised of four separate allotments known as 10-18 Bay Street, Coogee. The legal title of the properties (west to east) is as follows:

 

 

10-12 Bay Street

Lot B in DP 346161

14 Bay Street

Lot 1 in DP 203087

16 Bay Street

Lot 2 in DP 203087

18 Bay Street

Lot 17 of Section A in DP 548

 

The combined site area is 1,686 m2 and the boundaries of the site are irregular. The westernmost properties (10-16 Bay Street) share a regular rear boundary of approximately 54.78 metres. The rear boundary of 18 Bay Street projects 7 metres further north than the rear boundary of the other allotments and extends eastwards for 12.1 metres to complete the rear boundary of the site. The overall length of the rear boundary is approximately 66.88 metres.

 

The eastern side boundary of the site (formed by the eastern boundary of the existing lot known as 18 Bay Street) is straight and measures 42.67 metres.

 

The western side boundary of the site (formed by the western boundary of the existing lot known as 10 Bay Street) is straight but angled northwest from front to rear and measures 49.515 metres.

 

The southern (front) boundary of the site (to Bay Street) is irregular due to the curved western end of Bay Street. The front boundaries of 10-12 and 14-16 Bay Street are angled and measure 9.78 and 10.06 metres respectively. The allotment at 18 Bay Street has a regular frontage that aligns to properties further east on Bay Street and measures 12.015 metres. The overall length of the site frontage is approximately 31.8 metres.

 

The site is a southwest facing slope and has a fall east to west of approximately 5.4 metres.

 

Currently the site is occupied by five (5) dwellings. 10-12 and 14-16 Bay Street are each occupied by a single storey brick and tile pair of semi detached dwellings. 18 Bay Street is occupied by a freestanding single storey brick and tile cottage. All allotments are also occupied by ancillary shed structures to the rear of the sites. 16 Bay Street is the only dwelling with off street parking and has an existing driveway crossover to Bay Street.

 

Existing on the site are two large trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order as listed below:-

·    one (1) Cinnamomum camphor species (Camphor Laurel) approximately 8-10 metres in height to the rear of the site;

·    one (1) Citharexylum spinosum (Fiddlewood) approximately 8-10 metres in height.

 

Bay Street is a dead end street, which slopes moderately downwards from east to west. The site is located at the western end of the street, opposite Cox Street, which provides the only access to Bay Street from Clifford Street.

 

The immediate locality is predominantly comprised of smaller scale residential uses - one and two storey dwelling houses and semi detached dwellings. To the north of the site are medium scale residential flat buildings dating from the 1960’s and 1970’s and ranging in height from 3 -4 storeys.

 

Immediately adjacent to the site, to the west, at 6-8 Bay Street is a three storey block of walk- up flats comprising 9 dwellings.

 

Adjacent to the site to the east, 20-20A Bay Street is a 1-2 storey pair of semi detached dwelling houses. 20 Bay Street, immediately adjacent the subject site, is two storeys in height. Further to the east is a three storey residential flat building comprising 9 units (24-26 Bay Street) one of only two residential flat buildings in Bay Street.

 

Immediately adjacent to the site to the north, addressing Dudley Street are 58-68 Dudley Street, 4 multi unit housing developments of up to 4 storeys (3 storeys over garaging) in height. 66 Dudley Street is occupied by a detached dual occupancy development with a single storey dwelling house to the rear of the property located approximately 5 metres from the rear boundary of the subject site.

 

Across Bay Street to the south is 14 Clifford Street, a three storey (two storeys above garaging) townhouse development comprising 3 dwellings, 16, 16A and 16B Clifford Street, 1-2 storey freestanding and semi detached dwelling houses and 7 Bay Street, a two storey freestanding dwelling house.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A pre-lodgement meeting was held on 25 May 2004 for a proposal to redevelop the site for 16 units. The main outcome of the discussions was a concern that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of the site due to substantial non-compliances with FSR, overall height and external wall height. The form of the building was considered to be inconsistent with the predominant character of the street. The applicant lodged development application 443/2004 for redevelopment of the site for 16 units in a similar form on 9 June 2004. Due to concerns raised by Council officers, the Design Review Panel and surrounding residents, the applicant proposed amendments and received legal advice that these amendments should form a new application rather than amendments to DA 443/2004. Subsequent to this advice DA 443/2004 was withdrawn and the current DA, reducing the number of units to 15 and within a less bulky form was lodged on 20 October 2004.

 

The applicant lodged an appeal with the Land and Environment Court on 8 December 2004 on the grounds of deemed refusal of the application. The matter has been set down for hearing on 7 April 2005.

 

In response to concerns raised by Council and the Design Review Panel, the applicant lodged amended plans on 7 February 2005. The changes made to the plans were negligible in terms of reducing the scale and built form of the building, marginally reducing the building height and adding elements such as elevated external bridge and stair access from the street to the communal open space to the southwest of the site.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

1.     D. Avenell, 7/6-8 Bay Street Coogee

 

·      Bay Street is a narrow cul de sac and increased number of residents (approximately 40) from the development will have significant traffic and parking impacts.

·      Loss of older style heritage houses will be detrimental to character of the street and development will give the street an “over-developed feel”.

·      3-4 storey buildings already overlook Bay Street, the current houses on 10-18 Bay Street form a barrier and a feeling of space and privacy between the 3-4 storey buildings on Dudley Street and residences on Bay Street.

·      The proposed development would particularly impact residences in 6-8 Bay Street as the four storey development will potentially block any remaining sunlight.

·      Noise generated from swimming pool is of concern

 

2.     P. Summers, PO Box 35 Coogee

 

·      Increased congestion and overcrowding as a result of overdevelopment and inappropriate development.

·      Object to the size and scale of the development given the narrow confines of Bay Street.

·      The development will impact on the quality of life in surrounding streets and will increase congestion.

 

3.     D. Avenell, 7/6-8 Bay Street Coogee (second submission)

 

·      Didn’t receive a letter regarding the development.

 

Comment: Mr Avenell is not listed in Council’s records as being the owner of the property at 7/6-8 Bay Street. The owner was informed by letter of the notification period and site notices displayed as per the requirements of Council’s DCP.

 

·      Outlook impacts, particularly from east facing balcony that is only 2 metres from the common boundary with 10-18 Bay Street.

·      Large terraces attached to the development will resulting noise impacts.

·      Swimming pool will result in noise impacts, pool should be deleted from the plans

·      Scale of the proposed development is out of character with lowset and varied roof pitches in Bay Street. The nature of Bay Street, being a cul-de-sac means the scale of development is inappropriate and more suited to a more ‘open’ streetscape.

·      Developer is trying to maximise views by increasing the scale of the building. Given that the topography of Bay Street slopes away from the ocean views may not be achievable with a reasonable scale of development.

·      Overshadowing, from the scale of development and from window treatments (such as blinds) employed to minimise privacy impacts.

·      Overlooking from terraces impacts on bedroom, living room and balcony of Unit 7.

·      Traffic impacts due to narrow street and restricted access.

·      Concern over safety of cars exiting the driveways due to poor sightlines from existing driveway at 6-8 Bay Street.

·      Pedestrian safety.

·      Concern over access for construction and construction traffic and impacts of construction on surrounding properties.

·      Will set a poor precedent for future development.

 

4.     The Deeb Family, 20 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Overlooking

·      Overshadowing

·      Windows of new development should not be aligned to existing windows at 20 Bay Street.

·      Traffic impacts and disrupted access to Bay Street will cause residents stress

·      Proposed development exceeds height restrictions

·      Allowable height of 12 metres is also too high for the street.

·      Townhouses constructed in 1997 has already caused severe parking problems as noted in previous letters to Council. Development will exacerbate this problem.

·      Noise during construction and potential for structural damage to adjoining house and land

·      Construction vehicles will block access to street – concern for emergency vehicles accessing street during construction works.

·      Drainage and sewer problems were encountered when townhouses were built.

·      Garbage and recycling trucks already have problems with accessing the street, blocking the street and delaying residents.

 

5.     K. Pearson-Smith, Pearson-Smith & Associates Pty Ltd Architects

 

·      Traffic impacts of development will exacerbate existing problems with access for domestic vehicles, large service vehicles and emergency vehicles.

·      Request conditions of consent be included in any conditions of approval to stop the use of any part of the access roads during the construction phase including that all storage of materials, plant and waste occur within the site boundaries. All deliveries take place within the site boundaries, all work take place within the site boundaries and that no service vehicles such as cranes etc. are allowed to stand or operate anywhere in the street.

 

6.     N. Phillips, 9/24 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Traffic impacts of additional 25 vehicles in the street given narrowness of cul-de-sac and existing traffic issues.

·      Vehicles already use concrete apron to driveway at 24 Bay Street to do U-turns at top of Bay Street, resulting in damage to the driveway.

·      Garbage trucks find access difficult and damage to telephone installations occurs regularly due to trucks ‘cutting the corner’.

·      Delivery trucks cannot access the street and emergency vehicles have had to stop in Clifford Street and stretcher patients from Bay Street.

 

7.     X & A Payrard, 3/14 Clifford Street, Coogee

 

·      Development is still too large and will result in traffic impacts.

·      Building is still too high. Shadow diagrams underestimate the real impact.

·      No need for building to be 4 storeys high but to try and capture ocean views on a slope angle opposite the ocean.

·      Development will bring over 300 vehicle movements per day which is unsustainable.

 

8.     J. Marsh and S. Page, 22 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Traffic and parking are already at saturation point. Council officers have only checked parking during the middle of the day when most residents are at work.

·      Safety issues due to the bend in the street and number of traffic movements.

·      Trucks and larger vehicles cannot enter the street and ambulances cannot manoeuvre the bend if car parking spaces are full.

·      Bay Street will not be able to cope with construction traffic.

 

9.     G. Sims, 8 Clifford Street, Coogee

 

·      Traffic and safety implications of large development on narrow streets

·      Insufficient parking

 

10.   L & T Potok, 9 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Reduction of dwellings by one from previous proposal will only have a minimal effect on extra traffic entering Bay Street and issues of on-street parking, poor access, lack of a turning bay and safety.

·      Telecommunications pit on corner of the footpath of Bay Street has been broken open by a truck trying to manoeuvre into the street and being forced onto the footpath.

·      Overdevelopment

·      Out of character with existing streetscape.

·      Development should be rejected in its entirety

·      Wall height will dominate the street and result in a building that is totally out of character with the surrounding street.

 

11.   L. Richards, 6/6 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Due to timing of withdrawral notification of 443/04 and notification of this application, residents are confused about status of application and have failed to respond to notification.

·      All amenity to 6/6 Bay Street is provided from the northeast (in the direction of the subject site), giving a leafy outlook over the roof of 10 Bay Street. All sunlight, daylight and ventilation also comes from this direction.

·      Building will be only 4.8m from my bedroom window and will have a built form 2.5 floors higher than my unit only 3.5m from the boundary.

·      Bay Street has a fine grain, narrow frontages and small lot subdivision. The height, form and massing of the building on the bend of the street is not contextually suited to the prevailing or future character of the street.

·      Predominant building type is sing detached/ semi detached dwellings with pitched rooves. The height, flat roof and external appearance of the development does not respect the predominant building type, the subdivision pattern or spatial separation on Bay Street.

·      Development is inconsistent with SEPP 65

·      Site analysis does not adequately address the characteristics of the site and surrounding properties and no regard for potential overlooking impacts of development or specific orientation of main habitable rooms of adjoining properties

·      Due to the topography, the 3 storey form of 6-8 Bay Street is compatible in the street. The applicant should demonstrate compatibility by lodging photomontages looking from the east.

·      The building exceeds the ridge line of 6 Bay Street by several metres and has a flat roof and incongruous projecting lift overrun.

·      Scale and height of the building are overbearing

·      Site circumstances are such that a reduction in the permissible maximum height and FSR is warranted

·      Floor to ceiling heights are inadequate for recessed lighting and if not addressed now will result in increased building height or reduced amenity for the proposed units.

·      Provision of a lift and stair access on the main street elevation is detrimental to the appearance of the building from the street. This together with the need to provide high level windows to protect privacy of neighbours results in a bland and unacceptable façade. Further the built form to the south of the site terminates the vista of Bay Street as you enter from the south and therefore it is more important that the form, massing, scale, siting and external appearance are commensurate with the character of the street and present a high quality building. Driveway and retaining wall are unsympathetic in the streetscene

·      Overshadowing – shadow diagrams do not show balconies and windows to 6-8 Bay Street. Claims of compliance with solar access provisions are false and overshadowing to bedroom window of 6/6 Bay Street will occur until 11am midwinter, by 11.15am the sun has moved off the façade, resulting in only 15 minutes of solar access if the development were constructed. Shadow will also occur at other times of year. For 6 months of the year solar access will be reduced to 0-1 hours per day.

·      Loss of sunlight and daylight is contrary to energy usage policies of Government.

·      Any daylight still available will be overwhelmed by privacy concerns and the proximity of the development to the common boundary.

·      Outlook to the sky will be obliterated from bedroom and living room by development

·      Visual privacy impacts, particularly as side elevation is primary elevation of 6-8 Bay Street

·      6-8 Bay Street is strata subdivided and unlikely to be redeveloped therefore the controls of SEPP 65, Council’s DCP and LEP will be forever prejudiced if development proceeds

·      Pool will cause noise disturbance as will garbage transfer to the street

·      Light and noise disturbance from the driveway location will reduce ability for natural ventilation due to noise

·      Due to water shortages an outdoor pool is unacceptable. Landscaping should require minimal water

·      Side pathway to western boundary is inappropriate and will cause amenity impacts , particularly when moving garbage bins

·      Insufficient room on kerbside for bins

·      Issues raised above are demonstrative of poor site planning, inappropriate setbacks and unacceptable location and design of vehicular entrance.

·      Impact on vehicular and pedestrian safety

·      SEPP 1 objection is unfounded

·      Likely impacts of the development and suitability of the site for redevelopment.

·      Concern regarding the structural integrity of 6 Bay Street as a result of excavation in close proximity to boundary

·      Concern regarding capacity of the sewer system

·      Concern regarding the potential need for a substation and design of such a structure

·      Plans don’t show plant rooms and this should be clarified prior to determination

·      Noise and ventilation impacts of construction

·      Please also refer to the joint submission made by Ms Richards on behalf of residents with regard to impacts of the development.

 

12.   James Colman, 2 Delta Road, Lane Cove (on behalf of C.E Backhouse, 24-26 Bay Street Coogee)

 

·      The existing situation in Bay Street with regard to traffic and parking is that congestion and illegal parking are commonplace. The development will exacerbate this existing situation.

·      Parking and traffic assessment does not reference accessibility needs of emergency vehicles, delivery trucks or utility (garbage) vehicles

·      Traffic and parking report fails to refer to topography and driver sight lines which add to the difficulty for traffic entering and exiting Bay Street

·      Traffic and parking report does not discuss pedestrian movements and is inadequate in this regard.

·      The traffic and parking report places undue emphasis on generic RTA guidelines which do not reflect the unusual circumstances of this application.

·      Proposal is an overdevelopment and should be rejected in its present form

 

13.   S. Wilson and J. Peters, 32 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Proposed building is too high and does not respect planning guidelines

·      Building envelope is far too large and will spoil the character of the street

·      Building is far too close to surrounding dwellings and does not respect accepted spatial relationships between dwellings resulting in amenity impacts.

·      Large increase in residents will have a negative impact on the amenity of the street

·      Insufficient parking

·      Traffic analysis is flawed and street is regularly blocked by cars and trucks cannot access the street.

·      Development will overshadow the street

·      The amount of floor space does not respect the planning guidelines

·      Existing units should not be used as a precedent as they were built many years ago.

·      DA should be refused and consideration be given to rezoning Bay Street so that no further proposals of this nature are contemplated – urban consolidation is more understandable in other areas such as on Brook Street.

 

14.   B & D Mather, 6 Clifford Street, Coogee

 

·      Traffic impacts of development as Bay Street is a small street.

 

15.   N. Ryan, 173 Oberon Street, Coogee

 

·      Stormwater drain alongside 173 Oberon Street overflows when it rains resulting in a build up of water in the street and enters property. Build up of water has been caused by development in Clifford Street and Bay Street over the years.

·      Development will increase stormwater runoff and endanger the property at 173 Oberon Street and other surrounding properties.

 

16.   G. Parfitt, 1 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      New DA does not address any of the issues previously raised in relation to the last development application.

·      Social and community impacts – changed demographic in the street

·      On-site parking provided is inadequate and will place additional pressure on on –street parking in Bay Street.

·      Access issues, particularly trucks and emergency vehicles

·      Building disruption and site access – protection for residents

·      Building height at 4 storeys is not in keeping with the size and nature of the surrounding buildings in the street and will have an adverse impact on surrounding properties in terms of loss of light and privacy.

·      Development should not be allowed to proceed in its current form.

 

17.   S.Sitku, 20A Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Access issues due to narrowness of Bay Street

·      Traffic and parking impacts

·      Road and traffic infrastructure is not suited to the development

·      Excess traffic

·      Privacy impacts in particular Unit 15 overlooking back gardens of 20 and 20A Bay Street

·      Garbage issues

·      Height issues – proposal should comply with the maximum height of 12 metres.

·      Overshadowing - in particular overshadowing of 20 and 20A Bay Street at 3pm midwinter

·      Non-compliance with average setbacks, particularly on the eastern side

·      Streetscape – out of character with existing development

 

18.   C.Carter, 3/24 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Development is too big for the street

·      Height of the building is well above existing buildings

·      Street cannot handle existing traffic, let alone additional traffic from this building

·      Garbage is often left uncollected due to the lack of access and damage to the footpath has occurred from trucks trying to access the street.

·      Development such as this will affect the community atmosphere of this neighbourhood and should not be approved.

 

19.   P. Bruce, 66 Dudley Street, Coogee

 

·      Overlooking and privacy impacts to cottage at the rear of 66 Dudley Street.

 

Due to errors in the description of the development provided by the applicant and subsequently printed on the notification letters, letters correcting the description were resent on 1 December 2004. Residents who had responded to the previous notification period were advised not to resubmit letters of objection as their initial responses (as above) would be considered as if they were in response to the amended notification letters. The following additional submissions were received in response to this notification period:

 

20.   E. Chambers, 9/6 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Overlooking

·      Overshadowing due to 4 storey height

·      Streetscape concerns due to excessive 4 storey scale given predominant 1-3 storey scale of residential development in the street

·      Access, traffic and parking impacts on Bay Street as a result of development

 

A petition forwarded by L. Richards of 6/6 Bay Street was also received bearing 46 signatures. The petition objected to the development on the following grounds:

 

·      Inadequate and insufficient information has been submitted including insufficient information with regard to SEPP 65. Statement of Environmental Effects requires revision to address loss of amenity to surrounding properties.

·      More comprehensive traffic study required

·      Site analysis has no regard for the adjoining properties

·      Social impacts of the development on the existing community of Bay Street are contrary to the EP & A Act, the objectives of LEP98 and government policy in relation to providing an appropriate diversity of housing choice.

·      Traffic generation, pedestrian and vehicular safety

·      Proposal represents overdevelopment of the site

·      Impact of driveway and large retaining walls on the vista from the entrance to Bay Street. Driveway reduces the area available for a grassed verge and ability to provide an appropriate setting for buildings in the street.

·      Distrubance and light pollution to residents at 6-8 Bay Street

·      Council refused development at eastern end of Clifford Street for reasons including traffic and parking and despite subsequent approval by the Land and Environment Court, Council should exercise the same wisdom in this instance.

·      Cumulative impact of unacceptable development is causing severe detriment to public safety and private amenity.

·      Inappropriate scale, bulk, height, massing, siting and external appearance

·      SEPP 1 objection is not well founded with respect to height non-compliance

·      Flat roof form is a consequence of attaining additional units and not a response to good urban design

·      A more reasonable FSR would be 0.65:1 as applied to smaller lots in the 2(c) zone.

·      Overshadowing

·      Loss of outlook and district views

·      Loss of visual and acoustic privacy

 

A second petition also forwarded by L. Richards of 6/6 Bay Street was received bearing 47 signatures (some of which are repeated from the previous petition and made separate submissions). This petition objected to the development on the following grounds:

 

·      Unacceptable height

·      Inappropriate massing, bulk, scale and external appearance

·      Excessive traffic generation using narrow road network

·      Detrimental impact on residential amenity

·      Inappropriate amalgamation of small lots to the detriment of character of the locality

·      Due to street and site circumstance, the excavation and construction will impact unreasonably on the quiet amenity of the residential street.

 

The amendments received on 7 February 2005 were renotified to surrounding property owners on 15 February 2005. As a result of the notification objectors raised some concerns regarding the adequacy of documentation provided. To allow submission of additional details and consideration of these details by surrounding residents the notification period was extended, closing on 4 March 2005. In response to this notification the following submissions were received:

 

1.        D. Avenell, 7/6-8 Bay Street Coogee

 

·      Concerned as no notification letter received.

 

Comment: Mr Avenell is not listed in Council’s records as being the owner of the property at 7/6-8 Bay Street. The owner was informed by letter of the notification period as per the requirements of Council’s DCP.

 

·      This amendment does not address the concerns of residents previously raised and is an overzealous development that will ruin the character, privacy and spacing of what is today a relatively quiet street of Coogee.

·      Bay Street is a very narrow cul de sac. Traffic and parking impacts

·      The loss of the old style heritage houses would be detrimental to the character of the street.

·      The scale and bulk of the proposed building is not suited to the narrow street and will cause overshadowing and loss of solar access for many residents.

·      Approval of the proposal would set a precedent for similar proposals in the Randwick precinct. Request that this proposal be refused.

·      Scale and height of proposed development will affect outlook from my unit and terraces and swimming pool will create noise impacts

·      Scale of the proposed development would be out of character with the lowset and varied roof pitches in Bay Street Such a development maybe reasonable on some of the more open streets of Coogee that naturally face the ocean but not in a small quiet cul de sac with limited access, that naturally slopes south and west, away from the ocean.

·      Overshadowing – proximity of the building to the boundary will hamper use of balconies and access to natural light from the north.

·      Loss of acoustic and visual privacy

·      Traffic and vehicular access impacts

 

2.        N. Phillips, 9/24 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Traffic impacts of additional 25 vehicles in the street given narrowness of cul-de-sac and existing traffic issues.

·      Vehicles already use concrete apron to driveway at 24 Bay Street to do U-turns at top of Bay Street, resulting in damage to the driveway.

·      Garbage trucks find access difficult and damage to telephone installations occurs regularly due to trucks ‘cutting the corner’.

·      Delivery trucks cannot access the street and emergency vehicles have had to stop in Clifford Street and stretcher patients from Bay Street.

·      Minor amendments do not address previous objections

·      Construction vehicles will cause chaos in the street if this development is approved.

·      Speaking on behalf of proprietors of 24-26 Bay Street in submitting this objection

 

3.        The Deeb Family, 20 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Overshadowing

·      Concern regarding excavation and structural damage as foundation material is sand

·      Windows and terraces of new development will overlook 20 Bay Street.

·      Parking shortfall already exists in the street

·      Street is too small for this increased amount of traffic flow during peak hour times

 

A second submission from the Deeb family was sent to Council’s Heritage Planner requesting that the dwelling at 18 Bay Street be considered for heritage listing for the following reasons:

 

·      The building at 18 Bay Street was first registered in 1907

·      It is indicative of federation style (Queen Anne Style)

·      We would like to see it preserved as it is the oldest house in Bay Street and contributes to the character of the street.

·      This building should be restored to it original glory and not demolished

 

4.        G. Parfitt, 1 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      New DA does not address any of the issues previously raised in relation to the last development application.

·      Social and community impacts – changed demographic in the street

·      On-site parking provided is inadequate and will place additional pressure on on –street parking in Bay Street.

·      Access issues, particularly trucks and emergency vehicles

·      Building disruption and site access – protection for residents

·      Building height at 4 storeys is not in keeping with the size and nature of the surrounding buildings in the street and will have an adverse impact on surrounding properties in terms of loss of light and privacy.

·      Development should not be allowed to proceed in its current form.

 

5.        C.Carter, 3/24 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Amendments do not address previous objections to the proposal

·      Size of the building in inappropriate for the street and will change the character of the cul-de-sac

·      Building is replacing a number of small plots into an oversized building that is inappropriate in design, appearance, bulk.

·      Construction will cause traffic congestion, damage to other properties and will have an impact on pedestrian and vehicular traffic

 

6.        E. Chambers, 9/6 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Overlooking

·      Overshadowing due to 4 storey height

·      Streetscape concerns due to excessive 4 storey scale given predominant 1-3 storey scale of residential development in the street

·      Access, traffic and parking impacts on Bay Street as a result of development

 

7.        N. Ryan, 173 Oberon Street, Coogee

 

·      Stormwater drain alongside 173 Oberon Street overflows when it rains resulting in a build up of water in the street and enters property. Build up of water has been caused by development in Clifford Street and Bay Street over the years.

·      Development will increase stormwater runoff and endanger the property at 173 Oberon Street and other surrounding properties.

·      Added traffic in Clifford Street as a result of overflow parking from Bay Street residents who cannot park on Bay Street. Garbage trucks cannot service the street. Cox Street is impassable.

 

8.        P. Halls & M Curran, 10 Clifford Street, Coogee

 

·      Overdevelopment of site

·      Inappropriate bulk, scale, siting, design and external appearance

·      Creation of excessive pedestrian and vehicular traffic

·      Detrimental impact on residential amenity

·      Inappropriate amalgamation of small lots to detriment of local character

·      Traffic congestion and danger to pedestrians and vehicles during construction

·      Object to impact of construction on structural integrity of the dwelling

 

9.        S.Sitku, 20A Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Access issues due to narrowness of Bay Street and Cox Street which is no wider than a laneway

·      4  storey height is out of character with surrounding single storey dwelling houses and two 3 storey flat buildings

·      Overshadowing of the street

·      Overlooking of 20 Bay Street

·      Excavation and construction damage due to sand foundation

·      Fire vehicle access during construction

·      Units are proposed too close to the street, building should start where existing dwelling at 18 Bay Street is now

·      Height should be reduced and front setback increased

·      More car spaces should be provided and less units

·      Queries regarding the status of the DA as it was supposedly withdrawn and no advertising of amended plans has been placed on site.

 

10.      Mr & Mrs Green, 28 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Modifications to the design do not satisfactorily address objections with regard to bulk, visual impact, amenity and the effect on traffic flows in Bay Street

·      Development is out of proportion to available infrastructure, particularly the road network

·      Council would be liable if there were a traffic incident in the street

·      Believe a council truck has reversed into their property causing damage and a reversing garbage truck previously almost hit a worker at their property.

·      Bay Street cannot take any further development.

 

11.      J. Marsh and S. Page, 22 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Traffic and parking are already at saturation point. Council officers have only checked parking during the middle of the day when most residents are at work.

·      Safety issues due to the bend in the street and number of traffic movements.

·      Trucks and larger vehicles cannot enter the street and ambulances cannot manoeuvre the bend if car parking spaces are full.

·      No turning bay at the end of the street, residents have to turn around on private property

·      Development does not respect height and FSR levels and will overshadow Bay Street and some existing properties.

·      Development will increase density in the street by  40% and will be too large for the street community creating havoc and ill will among residents

·      Bay Street will not be able to cope with construction traffic.

·      Concern over continued development of Coogee and loss of village atmosphere.

 

12.      C & B Stafford, 22a Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Revised proposal does not address previous concerns of residents

·      Proposed plans are an overdevelopment of the site and create unbearable and excessive pedestrian and vehicular traffic and will therefore have a serious detrimental impact on the quality of life of all residents.

 

13.      L & T Potok, 9 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Previous objection stands which raised the following concerns:

·      Reduction of dwellings by one from previous proposal will only have a minimal effect on extra traffic entering Bay Street and issues of on-street parking, poor access, lack of a turning bay and safety.

·      Telecommunications pit on corner of the footpath of Bay Street has been broken open by a truck trying to manoeuvre into the street and being forced onto the footpath.

·      Overdevelopment

·      Out of character with existing streetscape.

·      Development should be rejected in its entirety

·      Wall height will dominate the street and result in a building that is totally out of character with the surrounding street.

 

14.      C.E Backhouse, 5 Thomas Street, Coogee

 

·      Previous objections contained within a submission by James Colman remain despite the amendments made to the plans

 

15.      E. Chambers, 9/6 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      Overlooking

·      Overshadowing due to 4 storey height

·      Streetscape concerns due to excessive 4 storey scale given predominant 1-3 storey scale of residential development in the street

·      Access, traffic and parking impacts on Bay Street as a result of development

 

16.      L. Richards, 6/6 Bay Street, Coogee

 

·      This submission is in addition to previous objections to the original development application  and assessment should have regard to both this objection and previous objections

·      The amendments introduce worse impacts on amenity of my unit

·      Visual and acoustic privacy impacts due to the introduction of a pedestrian thoroughfare – bridge and stair access for use of all residents approximately 4m away from windows and doors and only 1.5m from the common boundary will make my balcony unusable.

·      Security risk to Unit 1 within the development due to the proximity of the stair to the windows of that unit

·      The location of the stair demonstrates the lack of appropriate site analysis and planning of the flat building contrary to SEPP 65 and Council policy.

·      Side pathway along south-western boundary is also inappropriate and this boundary should be treated as a rear boundary as the main outlook from 6-8 Bay Street is across this boundary

·      Extension of the car park boundary further towards my unit will result in increased noise and light pollution directly below my main bedroom and living room

·      Use of roller door will increase noise

·      Revised design has resulted in the loss of deep planting and particularly landscaping along south-western boundary of the site impacting on the outlook from 6-8 Bay Street

·      Not convinced that the revised proposal meets Council standards in relation to landscaping requirements

·      Increased overshadowing – removes all solar access

·      Revised façade presents an inferior façade to the street and adjoining properties. Western building appears monolithic and the lack of fenestration gives the appearance of a utilities building. Height, scale and massing are inappropriate in the streetscape and are domineering in the fine grain structure of Bay Street.

·      The revised proposal has exacerbated problems with the original design

·      SEPP 1 objection is unfounded

·      Development is detrimental to the neighbourhood and Council should consider all previous submissions and this objection and refuse the development despite pending Land and Environment Court action.

 

A petition forwarded by L. Richards of 6/6 Bay Street was received bearing 117 signatures (some signatories have signed the petition twice and also responded by making separate submissions). This petition objected to the development on the following grounds:

 

·      Overdevelopment of artificially created site (by amalgamation of small lots) to the detriment of local character, amenity and general ambience and resultant excessive strain on public infrastructure

·      Inappropriate massing, bulk, scale and external appearance

·      Excessive vehicular and pedestrian traffic generation on this narrow road network and consequential impact on demand for on street parking and increased traffic congestion to detriment of public safety and problems servicing the site

·      Detrimental impact on residential amenity

·      Due to street and site circumstance, the excavation and construction will impact unreasonably on the quiet amenity of the residential street.

 

In relation to the heritage status of 18 Bay Street, Council’s Heritage Planner has provided the following comment:

 

The Randwick Heritage Study carried out for Council by Perumal Murphy in 1989, described the property as a “very good Edw. style house.  Symmetrical.  Unusual design features include recessed central porch (now enclosed) and parapet above.  Outstanding features include shingled gables (pitches seem to vary very slightly), large pressed metal window hoods below, in shingle pattern (now deteriorating), and casement windows, with coloured glass panes and decorative timberwork around.  Spoiled by enclosure and concrete roof tiles.  Otherwise good.”  The property was given a B classification.  The categories established by Perumal; Murphy are as follows:

 

A-          condition A

B-          could be restored

C-          could be restored at much cost

R-          ruined

 

Generally only buildings given an A classification were listed as heritage items.

 

The issues raised by residents with regard to the bulk and scale and amenity impacts of the development have been discussed in Section 9 of this report and are considered to be valid. The concerns regarding traffic and parking in Bay Street have been discussed under Section 9.11 of this report. Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Department has reviewed the submitted traffic report and is satisfied that its finding that the proposal will not result in traffic impacts is correct. The development generally complies with Council’s DCP – Parking. In these circumstances, objections based on traffic and parking impacts cannot be sustained.

 

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       Manager, Environmental Health and Building Services

 

Council’s Manager, Environmental Health and Building Services provided the following comments in relation to the application:

 

Building Comments

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing structures at 10 – 18 Bay Street, and construction of a new 4 storey Multi Unit Housing development with basement carpark and swimming pool at the rear.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class           -           2          (Residential Units)

Class           -           7a        (Carpark)

Class           -           10b      (Swimming pool)

 

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. 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:

Although access and facilities for people with disabilities is not required under the Building Code of Australia, wherever practicable the entrance to a multi unit housing development should aim to facilitate some degree of accessibility to the building.

 

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, the following conditions should be included in the development consent.

 

As the recommendation is for refusal, conditions proposed by the Manager, Environmental Health and Building Services have been not been included in the Recommendation section of this report.

 

6.2       Director, Assets and Infrastructure Services

 

The Director, Assets and Infrastructure Services has provided the following comment with regard to the application:

 

An application has been received for construction of a four-storey residential flat building at the above site containing 16 units with basement carparking for 25 vehicles.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There are several trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order that may be affected by the proposed works:

 

1.     One Cinnamomum camphor (Camphor Laurel) located towards the rear of the site. This tree is in the order of approximately 8-10 metres in height and is in good condition. This tree is to be retained and protected as part of this application.

 

2.     One Citharexylum spinosum (Fiddlewood) located within the site. This tree is in the order of approximately 8-10 metres in height and is in average condition. Permission is granted for the removal of this tree subject to one replacement (not palm) within the site.

 

Permission is not required for the removal of trees not covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

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.

 

Traffic Comments

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 16 residential units will be in the range of 64 to 80 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 8 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Bay Street as a result of this development.

 

All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines.

 

The driveway opening at the Bay Street frontage must be minimum 5.50 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 5 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

Waste Comments

 

The garbage room areas shall be able to contain a total of 16 x 240 litre bins (8 garbage bins & 8 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

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.

 

It is noted that proposed bin storage area is located in the basement carpark. As Council requires the bins to be presented to the kerb for collection; it will necessitate the bins being transported to the kerb via the driveway to the basement carpark. This driveway has a section with a gradient of 1:5, which is considered too steep for the movement of loaded waste bins.

 

It is recommended that the applicant be requested to demonstrate how it is proposed to transfer full bins to the kerb and gutter for collection prior to the issuing of development approval. Alternatively, a deferred commencement conditions regarding this matter may be included in the approval.

 

Civil Works Comments

 

No portion of the development shall encroach into Council land. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall be amended to show all components of the pedestrian access stairs from the basement being located wholly within the site.

 

The proposed pavers for the main pedestrian access to the site shall not extend beyond the boundary of the site. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

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".

 

Groundwater Comments

 

The submitted Geotechnical Engineers report by Jeffery and Katauskas Pty Ltd (dated 13th October 2004) indicates that ground water was not encountered to depths in excess of 11 metres. Consequently, there are no conditions relating to tanking the basement carpark included in this memo.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

As the recommendation is for refusal, conditions suggested by the AIS have not been included in the Reccommendation.

 

6.3       Design Review Panel

 

As SEPP 65 applies to the proposal the plans originally lodged with the application were referred to the Design Review Panel for comment at its December 2004 meeting. The following comments were provided by the Panel in response to this referral:

 

PANEL COMMENTS

 

1.     Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The previous proposal was for a single monolithic building form occupying the middle of the site. The change of massing into two distinct and separate elements is supported by the Panel, as it is more suited to the confined context in Bay Street.

 

2.     The Scale of the Proposal

 

The Panel considers that the rooftop elements are poorly integrated with the overall building form and some consideration has to be given to developing the architecture of the top floor in a manner that is better related to the overall building.

 

Given the scale and closeness of adjoining buildings, the 10m wall height should be observed

 

The use of colour has assisted in achieving a reduction in the apparent scale.

 

3.     The  Built Form of the Proposal

 

Some improvement to the built form should be achieved by raising the eastern building (ie reducing the amount of excavation for the carparks) and providing a better relationship to ground plane for unit 4.

 

Unit 3 could be designed on split levels.  This should also enable the roof to unit 3 to be articulated and admit daylight well into the interior,

 

4.     The Proposed Density

 

Some reduction in density may have to be considered to improve amenity and sun access to units 5, 9 and 13. Nonetheless, the Panel supports the proposal achieving the permissible floor space of 0.9:1 for the site. A lower FSR would be an inefficient use of urban land.

 

5.     Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

The high proportion of cross ventilated apartments is commended.

 

Improvements could be made to roof design to increase light and ventilation particularly for internal bathrooms.

 

The Panel encourages the provision of both water and retention and grey reuse.

 

The top floor apartments should have more covered out door space.

 

Northern sun access to unit 5, 9 and 13 should be improved. Daylight and ventilation to all levels of lift lobbies should be achieved.

 

6.     The Proposed Landscape

 

7.     The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The required 2.7m ceiling heights will be not achieved unless the floor to floor dimensions is increased

 

Access and daylight to the western lobby and apartment entry has to be improved. Entry and corridors to units 1 + 10 would benefit from light accessed through the stair ie, fire rated glass.

 

The pedestrian way through the carpark from the lift to the pool should be detailed to a suitable level of finish with regard pavement, ceiling and lighting quality.

 

8.     The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

9.     Social issues

 

10.   The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The elevations need improvements in scale and proportion, window placement, and the integration of the top floor within the architectural expression.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The scheme has improved considerably from the single building arrangement however the detailed design generally need further development in relation to aesthetics, scale, proportion and detail.

 

The Panel would like to see the application again, when the above matters have been addressed.

 

The applicant provided additional amendments to address the Panel’s concerns on 7 February 2005. Due to the pending Court action and the recommendation for refusal of the application the Panel has not been approached for further comments. In relation to the Panel’s comment on Density, the FSR of the proposal has been calculated at 0.91:1, this exceeds Council’s statutory standard and therefore the Panel’s comment that a reduction in density would improve amenity of the development is supported. Likewise, the proposal still exceeds the external wall height standard and reservations held by the Panel with regard to aesthetics, scale, proportion and detailing, particularly with regard to the top floor level have not been addressed by the amended plans. The applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the required floor to ceiling heights. Compliance may require further increases to the building height (approximately 400mm increase) which would not be supported given the existing non-compliance with the height standard. Excessive height and the resulting impacts on the surrounding area are considered a primary reason for refusal of the application.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the site has an area of less than 4,000m2 there are no master planning provisions applicable to the site.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with the following statutory controls:-

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

-           State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1)

-           Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards)

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

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

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended (EP&A Act)

-           Building Code of Australia (BCA)

-           Multi Unit Housing DCP

-           Section 94 Contributions Plan

-           Rainwater Tanks Policy

-           DCP - Parking

 

Deficiencies in the Plans

 

The applicant has left information off the plans which would allow an accurate and detailed assessment. The elevations and sections of the development do not show levels for the external wall height of the development, this has been scaled from levels which are provided. The elevational shadow diagrams provided with the application do not show the fenestration of the existing buildings sufficient to allow an assessment of exactly which windows are in shadow at different times of day. The diagrams do not show at which time the sun moves off the elevation entirely and the effect of existing development to the north and the topography and therefore when the adjoining building at 6-8 Bay Street is in shadow under existing conditions. The applicant was requested to provide this information on the shadow diagrams but has failed to do so.

 

An assessment has been made of the impacts of development have been made based on the information provided to date and interpolation of the information from site visits and applying rule of thumb principles to quantify the impacts. As the recommendation is for refusal this approach is considered to be appropriate.

 

(a)    EP&A Act

 

An assessment of the proposal in accordance with section 79C of the Act has been provided in Section 9 of this report.

 

(b)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31(2) - Landscape Area

31(3) Landscape Area over Basement

50% of site area

(843m2)

Must not exceed 50% of landscape area requirement

(421.5m2)

54%

(912m2)

 

 

32%

(265 m2)

 

Yes

 

 

 

Yes

32 - FSR

0.9:1

(1,517.4m2)

0.91:1

(1,541.9m2)

No

33(2) – Overall Building Height

33(4) – External Wall Height

12m

 

10m

12.97m

 

12.61m

No*

 

No*

* Indicates objection lodged under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1

 

The proposal generally meets the objectives for the 2(c) zone. However, the development is inconsistent with objective 1(c) of the zone which is:

 

(c)To enable residential development in a variety of medium density housing form where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding areas.

 

As discussed throughout this report, the height of the development and the 4 storey scale proposed is excessive and is considered to compromise the visual character of Bay Street and the amenity of adjoining development in terms of visual bulk, scale and overshadowing. These impacts have not been mitigated by the proposal which has adopted a site layout that minimises the area available for landscaping to soften the appearance of the development from the street and adjoining properties to the west.

 

Aim (g) of the RLEP98 under clause 2 of this document is to promote, protect and enhance the environmental qualities of the City. The proposal in its current form reduces the environmental quality for adjoining properties and of the streetscape and therefore is inconsistent with the aims of RLEP98.

 

A detailed assessment of the proposal against the clauses of the LEP dealing with height, landscaping and FSR is provided in sections 9.1, 9.6 and 9.2 of this report (below).

 

(c)    SEPP 1 – Development Standards

 

An objection under SEPP 1 has been lodged with regard to the non-compliance with the Height standard as set by RLEP 98. The objection submitted with respect to this non-compliance have been considered under Section 9.1 of this report.

 

No SEPP 1 objection has been provided in relation to non-compliance with the FSR standard.

 

(d)    Draft SEPP (Application of Development Standards)

 

This Draft SEPP seeks to replace the provisions of SEPP 1 and has been publicly exhibited (concluding on 18 June 2004). The new SEPP will introduce additional objectives (such as requiring non-compliances to result in better environmental planning outcomes than a complying development) when assessing whether flexibility of a planning standard is acceptable or not.

 

Legal advice was provided by Deacons Solicitors on 27 October 2004 with respect to the weight that should be given the Draft SEPP. Deacons have advised that contact made with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources indicates that the Draft SEPP will be subject to re-exhibition. It is noted in Deacons advice that the Land and Environment Court adheres to the principle of “imminence and certainty” with respect to the weight given to a draft instrument. Deacons conclude that the draft SEPP 1 should not be given any significant weight, but should be considered as part of Council’s general Section 79C consideration.

 

The additional objectives proposed under Draft SEPP 1 include whether the proposal will result in a better environmental outcome than a complying development, design quality and whether the development meets the objectives of the standards. The proposed development is considered inappropriate and inconsistent with the draft SEPP for development standards in respect to the non-compliance with the floor space ratio and height standards. The scale of development is considered to be inconsistent with the desired future character within the 2(c) zone and the existing character of development in the immediate context of Bay Street. Future development consistent with the LEP standards would be of a lesser scale and a complying development would have a reduced impact on the streetscape and surrounding properties and improved amenity for future residents. It is considered that the development does not represent the same or a better environmental outcome than a complying development. The design quality of the development is lacking and could be improved through further refinement and reduction in the apparent height and scale of the proposal.

 

The development is unsatisfactory with regard to Draft SEPP 1. A thorough assessment of the proposal against the existing provisions of SEPP No. 1 and against Council’s statutory control and its objectives has been made in Section 9.1 of this report.

 

(e)    SEPP 55 - Remediation of Land

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and surrounding sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibility of contamination.

 

It is considered reasonable to assume that the site would not be contaminated, or in need of remediation pursuant to SEPP 55 and that the site is suitable for continued residential use.

 

(f)    SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings

 

The development is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. An assessment of the proposal in accordance with the ten design quality principles has been undertaken by Council’s Design Review Panel. Comments made by the Panel are reproduced in section 6.3 and indicate that the proposal has some shortcomings with regard to SEPP 65. Since the Panel has made comment, the applicant has provided amended plans which seek to address the Panel’s concerns. These plans do not address the Panel’s primary concerns in relation to aesthetics, proportions, scale, height, visual bulk and scale and the performance of the building with regard to amenity. The development is considered to be unsatisfactory with regard to the provisions of SEPP 65.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

The following Council policy controls apply to the proposed development:

 

§ Multi Unit Housing DCP, 2000

§ DCP – Parking 1998

§ Section 94 Contributions Plan, 1999

§ Rainwater Tanks Policy, 2003

 

(a)    Multi Unit Housing Development Control Plan

 

The DCP for Multi-Unit Housing 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.

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1  Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

Complies

P2  Development sites have appropriate areas/dimensions to allow for satisfactory siting of buildings.

S2  Sites are of regular shape with frontages of at least 20m.

Does not comply. Irregular shaped site, however frontage exceeds 20 metres and complies with preferred solution. The siting of the building along the frontage needs to better relate to the adjacent properties, particularly the western building.

Height

P1  Heights of walls, their location and orientation do not cause substantial adverse impacts on streetscape or adjoining properties.

 

Does not comply. The height of walls, particularly the southern elevation to Bay Street result in excessive bulk and scale which is inconsistent with the predominant character of development in the area.

P2  Variations in massing and height create visual interest, distribute the bulk of the building and minimise amenity impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

Does not comply. The aesthetics, scale, proportion and detail of the building are unsatisfactory and as a result the building has an overbearing and bulky appearance.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

Does not comply. The western portion of the building is set further back from adjoining development and does not provide continuity of the streetscape.

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

§ Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

 

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres. Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

Does not Comply

Eastern Side

G  6.05m    Yes

1   4.89m    No

2   4.89m    No

3   5.05m    Yes

Western Side

Complies 12.51m due to irregular western boundary providing setback ranging from  9.1-16.5 metres from boundary

Does not Comply

Elevated external stair to western side is closer than 3.5m (2.2m minimum)

 

Complies

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

§ solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

 

 

 

 

No part closer than 6 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

 

Does not comply

G  8.12m    Yes

1   6.8m      No

2   6.8m      No

3   10.61m  Yes

Complies

Complies

P4  General

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

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

Complies

Density

P1  Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms and minimises impact on nearby buildings, open spaces and the streetscape.

 

Does not comply. Building bulk is considered to be excessive and 4 storey scale is inappropriate in the context of surrounding development.

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have: 

§ Consistent with streetscape;

§ Entrances highlighted; and

§ Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

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

 

Solid front fence to east building 1.2m – Complies

Open fence to west building up to 2.4m – Does not comply but could be conditioned.

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

Complies

P2  Areas around multi-unit buildings are communal open space and not divided up for allocation to individual units.

 

Complies

P3  Private Open Space

Provides privacy for its users, is readily accessible, and provides opportunities for outdoor recreation / living.

 

Complies

P4  Is located in front of the building only where setback and fence design sympathetic.

 

Does not comply

Private open space to Unit 5 will be compromised by being on the street without sufficient provision for privacy.

P6  Flats and apartments

Each dwelling has direct access to an area of private open space.

S6  Minimum of 8 m2 and minimum dimension of 2 metres.

Complies

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

Complies

External stairs will overlook 6-8 Bay Street refer to discussion under section 9.7

P2  Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Complies

P3  Acoustic Privacy

Building layout and design minimises noise transmission. of noise. Quiet areas separate noise-generating activities.

 

Complies generally, however large roof terraces may result in acoustic privacy impacts to surrounding properties and dwellings within the development.

View Sharing

P1  Design and location of buildings considers surroundings for assessing impact on views.

 

N/A– view opportunities from surrounding sites are limited due to topography and existing development. Refer to discussion of view and outlook impacts under section 9.8.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

Design, orientation, siting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

 

Does not comply. It is considered that the design and siting of the building has not been located to minimise overshadowing to 6-8 Bay Street despite this portion of the building being generally compliant with the wall height standard.

P1.1  Solar access to existing solar collectors maintained between 9am and 3pm.

 

Complies – no existing solar collectors in vicinity of site.

P1.2  Living areas of neighbours’ dwellings receive 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface throughout the year. If less currently available, the amount is not reduced.

 

Appears to Comply – Additional shadowing to 6-8 Bay Street until 11.30am midwinter, sun moves off northern elevation approximately 2.30pm. Details of existing shadow as a result of existing development and topography have not been provided to allow exact analysis and these factors may reduce availability of solar access to less than 3 hours.

P1.3  Neighbour’s principal private outdoor open space receives 3 hours of sunlight over at least 50% of its area throughout the year. If less currently available, the amount is not reduced.

 

Complies. Private open space of adjoining properties not affected.

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

§ Living areas are orientated to the north.

§ Larger windows are located on the north.

S4  75% of dwellings achieve 3.5star Nat HERS rating or equivalent.

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars. The NatHERS rating for each dwelling (on a typical unit basis) is provided with the application.

Complies. All dwellings achieve 3.5(+) stars.

Safety and Security

P1  Design allows surveillance.

 

Complies

P2  Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Complies

P3  High walls and structures avoided.

 

Complies

P4  Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

Complies

Parking

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 x 1.2 = 16

 

 

2 x 1.5 = 3

15 / 4 = 4

 

 

 

 

Complies (16 provided)

 

Complies (3 provided)

Complies (4 provided)

P2  Parking spaces for people with a disability provided as required (refer to dwelling number requirements in P1 and P2 Barrier Free Access.

 

Complies (1 space provided)

P3  Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

Does not comply (7 spaces required)

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1  Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

Does not comply Options for shorter/ less disruptive driveways have not been demonstrated.

P2  Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

Complies

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

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

Complies

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

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

Complies, driveway is setback 1 metre from the western side boundary, however hardstand paving has been provided in lieu of planting.

P5  Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

Details not provided, could be conditioned

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

S6  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6 or 1 in 5 for ramps over 20m.

Complies gradient is 1:5, ramp is grater than 20m in length

Storage

P1  Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

S1  10m2 of storage space is provided for each dwelling. Minimum clearance height of 2.1m. At least 50% of storage space is within dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area. Storage facilities may be in basement areas, or attached to garages .

Complies. Some storage in areas in basement are unusable due to column locations (Store 3) or are very small.

Barrier-Free Access

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

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

Does not Comply. Lobby of western building cannot be accessed from the street due to stairs forming part of the path of travel. Door widths appear narrow prohibiting access to the foyers

P2  Dwelling requirements:

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3 so on…

The requirements of AS1428.1 and AS 4299 are to be considered.

 

 

1 dwelling

 

Complies. Unit 9 is noted as adaptable, although door swings and bathroom areas appear inadequate with no opportunity to enlarge.

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

 

Complies

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

 

Complies

Utilities/Site Facilities

P1  Mailboxes provided in accordance with Australia Post.

 

Complies

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1  Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

S1  Each kitchen has a waste cupboard for separation of recycling materials, with adequate storage for one day’s waste.

Details not provided

P2  Waste storage to be provided in a centralised position that has easy access for moving bins to the street for collection.

 

Does not comply. Driveway gradient is too steep for safe collection and alternative route has not been demonstrated.

P3  The location and design of waste facilities does not visually detract from the development or the streetscape.

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

Complies

 

(b)    DCP - Parking

 

 

Standard

 

Requirement

 

Provided

 

Compliance

 

 

 

Car Parking

a)   number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b) layout

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bicycle Storage

 

 

1.2 spaces required for each two bedroom dwelling (13 x 1.2 = 16 spaces)

 

1.5 spaces required for each three bedroom dwelling (2 x 1.5 = 3 spaces)

 

1space/4 dwgs or part thereof for visitors (4 spaces required)

 

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED = 23

 

As per DCP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

(7 bike spaces)

 

16 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

3 spaces

 

 

 

 

4 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

23 spaces

 

Adequate turning areas provided, however spaces 19 and 20 do not comply with minimum width requirements

 

Not provided

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

 

 

8.2  Council Policies

 

(a)    Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes an additional ten (10) dwellings on the site. As a result of this assessment a monetary contribution of $28,989.80 may be levied. As the recommendation is for refusal no conditions have been imposed.

 

(b)    Rainwater Tanks Policy

 

The plans do not indicate a rainwater tank in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tanks Policy. The installation of a rainwater tank is usually conditioned as part of any recommendation for approval. As the recommendation is for refusal, conditions have not been imposed.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1     Height

 

The development has a maximum overall height of 12.97 metres and external wall height of 12.61 metres and does not comply with the respective statutory standards under RLEP98 of 12 and 10 metres.

 

The area of non-compliance occurs at the top floor level (fourth storey). The non-compliance ranges due to the sloped topography and the cross fall on the site. The non-compliance increases towards the northwestern corner of the site due to these conditions. The non-compliance has been measured from site levels provided by the applicant and RLs on the plans where available (not all RLs have been plotted on the drawings and these have been calculated by scaling of the plans from levels provided). As a result the applicant has provided slightly higher (44mm in the case of wall heights and 404mm in the case of overall height) maximum heights than have been calculated. These have been accepted due to the lack of details on the plans, however in order to clarify the extent of non-compliance, measurements have been made (see below) which differ slightly from the applicants stated maximums.

 

Along the northern edge of the development, the top floor of the building exceeds the wall height standard by 1.43 metres at the eastern end of the site, increasing to 2.1 metres at the western end of the site. Along the southern edge of the development the proposal exceeds the wall height standard by 860mm at the eastern end of the site and 280mm at the southwestern corner of the development. The lift to the eastern building on the site breaches the wall height standard by 1.83 metres and the lift to the western building on the site exceeds the standard by 2.56 metres.

 

The areas which breach the overall height standard located in the western portion of the development. The lift to the western building exceeds the overall standard by 566mm and the northwestern corner of the top floor level exceeds the overall standard by 316mm.

 

The applicant has stated that the proposal exceeds the wall height standard by 2. 61m and the overall height standard by 970mm

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clauses 33(1) (Overall Height) and 33(4) (External Wall Height) of Randwick LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

·    The proposed non-compliances with the building height are limited to the roof of the western building pod and lift overruns. The maximum non-compliance is located to the northwest corner of the roof.

·    The non-compliances to the external wall height standards occur along the roof form of the western building pod; the south western walls of the western building pod, at the lift overrun located further east; and, to the western side of the eastern building pod. The maximum non-compliance is the roof structure over the upper level, which is 12.97 metres.

·    The proposed non-compliances are primarily due to the sites sloping topography and the unevenness of the existing ground level. Not only does the site slope from east to west, but it also has some fall towards the northwestern corner.

·    Despite the non-compliances, consistency will be achieved with the intent of the height controls. The non-compliances will not result in any adverse amenity impacts.

·    The proposed development will appropriately correspond to the fall of the land and height of the buildings on adjoining land. It will maintain an appropriate building height transition from the buildings to the east, that are located on higher levels of land, to building to the west that are located at lower levels of land and which are multi-level in height.

·    The development incorporates adequate modulation to ensure that the bulk and scale of the building is less than otherwise would be presented to the street and matches that of surrounding buildings. The level of articulation will enhance the visual interest of the building.

·    The proposal has been designed in consideration to the size and character of more recently constructed dwellings within the locality that reflect the desired future character. As such, the building will have a dominant visual appearance, and given that the proposal complies with the allowable floor space ratio for the site, it provides a reasonable development outcome. Accordingly, the height compliances will be of little consequence to the visual impact of the building and its streetscape integration.

·    The proposed non-compliances will not adversely impact on any significant view lines currently enjoyed from adjoining properties. Views from the proposed development will be created fro the enjoyment of its future residents. Accordingly, Council’s view- sharing initiatives will be satisfied, despite non-compliances to the height controls.

·    The non-compliances will not incur any major loss of privacy or overlooking impact. The privacy impact has been discussed in Section 5 of the SEE report. It is noted that non-compliances to the external wall height at the southwestern corner of the building are minor (only 310mm) and have minimal impact on the neighbouring property. The minor variation of wall height is offset by the better design outcome that reduces the scale of the building along the southwestern boundary.

·    The proposed design performs well given the physical relationship between the two properties. No 6 Bay Street is located south of the site and is lower down the slope. The ability to achieve such high levels of solar access is a result of the placement and design of the building.

·    Accordingly, strict compliance with the height standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in this circumstance. It can also be argued that strict compliance with the height controls would have a greater impact on the amenity of adjoining development.

 

The objective of Council’s overall and wall height standards are to set upper limits for the height 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 areas. The intent of these standards is to achieve a built form which creates a clear delineation between the bulk of the building and the roof form above. The controls aim to encourage roof forms above development which meets the external wall height control to reduce the overall bulk and scale of development and ensure that the height controls determine the appropriate number of storeys for development.

 

Development in Bay Street is generally of a small to medium residential scale with most buildings being 1-3 storeys in height. Properties in the immediate locality are 1-2 storeys in height with older style residential flat buildings being 3 storeys in height. Larger buildings to the rear of the site, and to the southeast of the site which predate the current planning controls attain a height of three storeys above parking. These buildings do not form part of the visual character of Bay Street and do not match the predominant scale of buildings within Bay Street. The objectives of the 2C zone seek to provide opportunities for medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas. All buildings in Bay Street exhibit a built form which includes a roof form above a 1-3 storey wall height. These buildings are consistent with the character envisaged by the relationship between the wall height and overall height standards. Many of the existing buildings in the street have a traditional pitched roof form. This is not necessarily considered appropriate for large scale residential buildings, and contemporary roof forms can equally provide the articulation and finish to the top of a building that the standards seek. The design creates a four storey volume with little delineation between the roof form and the walls below. This is particularly evident in the photomontage submitted with the application. This scale of development at 4 storeys is inappropriate given the topography and desired future streetscape character in Bay Street.

 

Recently constructed buildings in the area include the 2 storey townhouses at 14 Clifford Street which are elevated above garages resulting in a 3 storey scale to the street. 20-22 Clifford Street has a 3.5 storey scale (three storeys above basement parking). The development at 20-22 Clifford Street represents the desired future character of the area as it complied with Council’s statutory controls for height and provided development within a three storey form. The townhouses at 14 Clifford Street are of a small to medium scale and address three street frontages reducing the impact of the development on surrounding sites. The scale of the proposed development, being 4 storeys is considered to be excessive in an area where the statutory height controls seek a wall height of 10 metres which equates to 3 storeys (approximately 3 metres floor to floor height).

 

The Design Review Panel has indicated that the floor to ceiling heights of the development do not demonstrate compliance with residential amenity standards under the Residential Flat Design Code (finished floor to finished ceiling level of 2.7 metres). The Panel also considers that floor to floor heights may need to be increased to provide adequate amenity. The Panel has also indicated that there may be scope to improve the amenity of Units 3 and 4 by raising the building up and designing unit 3 as a split-level apartment to improve the relationship of these dwellings to the ground plane. The amended plans show an increased level of approximately 500mm to the dwellings, however Units 2 and 4 are still 1.48-1.6 metres below existing ground level. In addition, although these units are north facing the windows to living areas of Units 4 and 2 are overhung by the balconies of floors above, increasing the effective depth of the units to approximately 10m and 9 metres respectively (the RFDC recommends 8 metres). Any increase in the floor to floor heights or floor levels will require further increases to the height of the development (by approximately 400mm). While this increase alone is not substantial, the development has minimised floor to ceiling heights in an attempt to increase the number of floors (and therefore the number of dwellings) that can be achieved on the site. A reduced number of floors would result in compliance with the height standards and the amenity standards of SEPP 65. With regard to wall height, the Design Review Panel has also indicated that:

 

Given the scale and closeness of adjoining buildings, the 10m wall height should be observed.

 

The visual bulk and scale impacts of a non-compliant development are considered significant. The proximity of the development to 6-8 Bay Street and its height will reduce the amenity of dwellings within this building.

 

It is considered that the non-compliances are a result of overdevelopment of the site. This is evidenced by the failure to comply with both the wall height, overall height and FSR standards. Adequate steps have not been taken to minimise the impact of the top floor on the streetscape and surrounding properties. As a result of trying to achieve an additional level, the building has an awkward presentation to the street. The top floor is squat giving the appearance of a non-habitable service area. This appearance is inconsistent with the use of these areas for habitable purposes and the intent of the standards to provide clear delineation between roof and walls. The proposal breaches the building envelope envisaged by the controls of a 10m wall height with roof form above by including an additional storey instead of a roof form.

 

The non-compliance with the wall height and overall height standards of the LEP are considered unacceptable in terms of the resulting impacts on the visual amenity of the streetscape and amenity impacts on adjoining properties. The cumulative impact of non-compliance with the height and FSR standards, and preferred solutions for setbacks are increased overlooking and overshadowing impacts, reducing amenity to neighbouring properties. The SEPP 1 objection is not well founded as it does not demonstrate why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

9.2     Density

 

The FSR of the proposal is quoted by the applicant as being compliant (0.87:1). The gross floor area of the development has been checked by scaling of the plans submitted with the application. The FSR of the proposal as checked by the assessment officer is 0.91:1 (1,541.867m2) which does not comply with the statutory standard under clause 32(1) of the RLEP 98 for a development on the site, being 0.9:1 (1,517m2). The applicant was advised of this discrepancy in writing on 18 January 2005 and asked to support their claim of compliance with calculation plans or submit an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards in relation to non-compliance of the scheme. In response the applicant provided calculation plans on 4 March 2005. These plans indicate that the basement storage spaces and stairs of the development have not been included in the FSR. This is incorrect according to Council’s definition within the LEP. As such, Council’s calculation has been relied upon in the assessment of the application.

 

The objective of the floor space ratio (FSR) standard is to establish a reasonable upper limit for development in residential zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help to reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.

 

The floor space ratio standard provides a relationship between the site area and the amount of floor area that can be distributed on the site. The aim of this control in part is to create a reasonable and consistent building bulk for a locality. Due to the irregular shape of the site, the area of land on which the bulk of the building can be distributed is significantly reduced. Although the FSR breach is relatively minor in terms of the additional floor area (approximately 30m2), the irregular shape of the site reduces the area which can be built upon and consequently increases the bulk of the proposal over the remaining portion of the site. In this case an effective FSR may be calculated as 1.22:1 because the area of the site that is regular in shape and provides distribution for the building bulk is approximately 1,260m2. The irregular portions of the site are too constrained in width and shape to allow for a building that complies with Council’s setback controls and provides usable floor areas.

 

The FSR of the proposal exceeds Council’s statutory control under RLEP98. The development is excessive in terms of bulk and scale and represents overdevelopment of a site which is located in a narrow street amongst development which is of a lesser scale. The proposal’s non-compliance with the both the height and FSR standards is an indication that there is an additional floor level contained within the building. This additional floor level creates a four storey scale which is inconsistent with the 2-3 storey scale of the majority of buildings in the area and the desired future character of the 2(c) zone. The bulk of the building has not been adequately modulated to provide relief and the proposal requires greater detail and articulation to provide variety and visual relief in the elevations. With regard to the aesthetics of the building the Design Review Panel made the following comment:

 

The elevations need improvements in scale and proportion, window placement, and the integration of the top floor within the architectural expression…

 

The scheme has improved considerably from the single building arrangement however the detailed design generally need further development in relation to aesthetics, scale, proportion and detail.

 

The Design Review Panel made the following comment with regard to Density:

 

Some reduction in density may have to be considered to improve amenity and sun access to units 5, 9 and 13. Nonetheless, the Panel supports the proposal achieving the permissible floor space of 0.9:1 for the site. A lower FSR would be an inefficient use of urban land.

 

As the development does not comply with the statutory floor space ratio of 0.9:1, a reduction in density to improve amenity and solar access to the proposed dwellings is required. It is considered a reasonable development may be achieved within the statutory controls which apply to the site. The applicant has not demonstrated that compliance with the statutory standard for density is unnecessary and unreasonable in this instance and has not submitted an objection under SEPP 1 in support of this non-compliance. Under these circumstances, Council cannot legally approve the development.

 

9.3     Desired Future Character

 

The site is considered to be in a Type 7 – Mixed Building Type Area under Part 2 of the Randwick Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The immediate locality and visual catchment of the site is comprised of small to medium residential scale with most buildings being 1-3 storeys in height. Larger 4 storey buildings to the north of the site predate Council’s current planning controls and are mostly obscured from the Bay Street streetscape. These buildings make no significant contribution to the predominant character of Bay Street. Development in Brook Street and Dudley Street nearby the site has been cited by the applicant as a precedent for the building form presented in the application. However, these streets have a more varied character where larger residential flat buildings are a predominant building form and the street width provides relief for larger buildings. In addition, these streets are separated by topography from the subject site and do not form part of the visual character of Bay Street.

 

The development has a four storey scale that is excessive given the irregular street frontage of the site, the topography and the scale of surrounding development which is less than 4 storeys. The site and adjoining sites are zoned Residential 2(c). Adjacent sites are likely to be redeveloped in the future, subject to site amalgamation. The sites at 20-22A Bay Street are regular in shape and if amalgamated have a frontage of over 20 metres and an area of over 1,000m2. This meets the requirements for redevelopment for multi-unit housing with an allowable FSR of 0.9:1. Given that there is a high potential for future development within the street in accordance with the 2(c) zoning, the subject proposal must be of a bulk and scale that will be consistent with future development in compliance with the standards under RLEP98.

 

The built form does not minimise the visual impact of the development and will detract from the existing character of Bay Street and the envisaged bulk and scale of future development given the statutory standards under RLEP98 and the subdivision pattern of the area. The proposal will set a poor precedent for future redevelopment of the area.

 

9.4     Building Setbacks

 

Council’s Multi Unit Housing DCP stipulates that front boundary setbacks are to be consistent with the dominant setback along the street and desired character of the streetscape. The eastern portion of the building is set back 6.6 to 8 metres. The adjoining building to the east of the site (20 Bay Street) is setback approximately 4.5 metres from the street. The setback of the eastern portion of the building is consistent with that of the adjoining property and the established setback line along the northern side of Bay Street. The western portion of the building is set back up to 10.5 metres from Bay Street. The adjoining building at 6-8 Bay Street is setback from the street approximately 6 metres. The increased front setback is provided to accommodate the driveway. A different driveway arrangement or split level design for the western portion of the building may result in a front setback that is more compatible with existing development in the street and maximises the rear setback of the development (which does not comply with Council’s preferred solution for average setbacks). A reduced setback to the street would also alleviate overshadowing of 6-8 Bay Street by casting more shadow over the roadway of Bay Street. The site is very prominent when entering Bay Street from Cox Street as it is directly opposite the intersection of these streets. The presentation to the street of the current design would be improved by bringing the western portion of the building further forward and reducing the gap in the streetscape of approximately 14 metres created by the current plans.

 

The building (including balconies) is setback a minimum of 6 metres from the rear boundary. This meets Council’s preferred solution for minimum rear setbacks. The ground floor of the development is setback an average of 8.12 metres from the northern (rear) boundary and complies with Council’s preferred solution. Likewise, the top floor of the building complies with Council’s preferred solution for average setbacks. Levels 1 and 2 of the building are setback an average of 6.8 metres from the boundary. This setback does not meet the preferred solution for setbacks in the 2(c) zone, being 8 metres average with no part of the building being located closer than 6 metres. As concessions are also being sought with regard to floor space and height, the non-compliance with the setback requirements indicates that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site. The reduced rear boundary setback increases the potential for overlooking of properties to the rear of the site (which address Dudley Street) and reduces the area available to provide substantial soft landscaping to the site. As noted above, an increased rear setback would push the western building forward, improving its relationship to the established streetscape and minimising overshadowing.

 

The applicant argues that a building could be built to the average setback of 5 metres along the length of the southwestern boundary and therefore that the development minimises its impact on the adjoining property. In fact, the triangular shape of the site between the rear and southwestern side boundary limits the available area for development. After setbacks to the rear and side boundaries are removed a triangular shaped area of approximately 20m2 and maximum width of 6 metres remains. The shape of this portion of the site and small area would make it very difficult to construct usable floor area in this location. The building has maximised its use of the buildable portion of the site and claims that the proposal represents a better outcome than complying development are unfounded.

 

The average setback to the eastern side boundary is 6.05 metres with a minimum setback of 4.3 metres. Level 3 is setback an average of 5.05 metres and a minimum of 4.3 metres. These setbacks meet Council’s preferred solution of a minimum average setback of 5 metres with a minimum setback of 3.5 metres. Levels 1 and 2 of the building are setback an average of 4.89 metres and a minimum of 4.3 metres and do not comply with Council’s preferred solution for average setbacks. As noted above, inability to meet Council’s preferred solutions for setbacks is indicative of overdevelopment of the site. The large areas of roof terrace and balconies on the upper floor levels which do not meet setback requirements raise significant privacy concerns in relation to 20 Bay Street. The plans do not indicate any treatments to these roof terraces (such as perimeter planter boxes) to minimise the potential for overlooking by increasing the effective setback of these structures and privacy impacts appear ill-considered by the applicant.

 

The development provides an average setback to the western boundary of approximately 12.5 metres. The minimum setback of 3.5 metres is generally observed, however an external stair providing access from street level to the swimming pool and open space to the west of the site breaches the preferred solution, being a minimum of 2.2 metres from the western side boundary. The stair is considered to provide opportunities for visual and acoustic privacy impacts and unnecessarily adds to the bulk of the building. In addition, despite compliance with the preferred solution, bedroom windows to units on the western side of the building do not achieve 10 metres of separation to the existing residential flat building at 6-8 Bay Street, Coogee (being the preferred solution under the Multi Unit Housing DCP.

 

The development generally meets the requirements for articulation to all elevations, providing modulation of all wall surfaces and to minimise flat areas of façade to less than ten (10) metres in length. Despite compliance with this numeric control, the proposal requires greater fineness in the detailing of building elements and greater design development in terms of the placement of windows and overall building form. The Design Review Panel made comment on the design and appearance of the building and noted that improvements were required.

 

The development is unsatisfactory with regard to the building setback requirements of Council’s Multi-Unit Housing DCP.

 

9.5     Fences

 

A masonry fence with a height of 1.2 metres is shown to the eastern end of the  development. This meets Council’s preferred solution under the Multi Unit Housing DCP. A 2 metre high metal fence which is 50% open above a masonry wall up to 400mm in height is provided to the western end of the development. This fence exceeds the preferred solution for height of front fencing by 600mm. This fence could be made to comply via conditions of consent. This metal fence and security gate as presented in the photomontage appear inconsistent with the masonry character of the development and existing fencing in Bay Street. A more masonry character to the fencing with a open treatment above (if required) would improve the appearance of the development from the street and maintain compliance with the DCP objectives for fencing. The masonry fence to the eastern end of the site has been softened by landscaping, however there are some high walls shown in the montage (and not in elevations and sections) which may not be appropriate in the streetscape.

 

Changes to the fencing including materials and height could be conditioned if consent were to be granted. The deficiency of the proposal with regard to fencing is not considered a primary reason for refusal, however it is further indication that the applicant has not adequately considered the existing streetscape character of Bay Street.

 

9.6     Landscaping and Private Open Space

 

The development provides 54% (912m2) of the site area as landscaping. This complies with the statutory requirement under clause 31(2) of the RLEP98 of 50% (843m2). 32% (265m2) of the landscaping occurs over basement areas, which meets the requirement under clause 31(3) of the LEP, limiting landscaping over basements to less than 50% of the required landscaping (less than 421.5m2). The applicant has cited higher figures for the landscaped area of the proposal, however calculation plans justifying their claims have not been provided. These are not considered critical as both calculations indicate compliance with the statutory standards.

 

All units have access to some private open space and the site is proposed to be landscaped with deep soil areas to the west and the northeastern corner of the site. The landscape plan lodged with the application indicates shrubs and trees ranging from 1.0 metre to 20 metres in height.

 

The proposal is generally well landscaped providing communal and private open space areas for residents of the development and complies with the statutory standards for landscaping, however it is considered that the landscaping could be better utilised to meet the objectives of Council’s statutory controls, being to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban runoff and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes.

 

Minimal soft landscaping is provided to the front of the development, in particular along the western boundary and around the entry to the site. A larger area of substantial plantings could be provided to the front of the development to soften the visual impact of the development as has been provided to the eastern wing of the building. The driveway is setback 900mm from the western side boundary. This setback is proposed to be paved. A soft landscaped treatment to this edge would provide better separation to the adjoining property to the west of the site. Cumulatively, the driveway, western setback and paved entry to the development contributes a hard edge to approximately 45% of the site frontage. A more sensitive landscape design could improve the appearance of this prominent site from the street and achieve the objective of softening the visual impact of development from the street.

 

External stair access is provided from the front entry of the development to the rear communal open space. A secondary path to the communal open space of the development is provided along the western boundary from the street. While these structures have been included to address Council’s concerns regarding the access to the communal open space (which was previously only provided through the basement carpark), the form of these structures results in increased bulk and scale impacts and minimises the area available for substantial planting to act as a buffer between the subject site and adjoining property to the west (6-8 Bay Street).

 

It is considered that planter boxes could be further used to achieve greater separation between the upper floor terraces of the proposal and adjoining properties. Planting to these areas could also be used to break up the terrace areas and provide greater amenity to residents of the development. At the top floor the terraces are very large with minimal cover. The Design Review Panel indicated that these terraces should be designed so that they provide some shade and protection for occupants. A roof has been continued over a portion of the large terraces to Units 14 and 15, however improvements could still be made to these areas to improve amenity in accordance with the Panel’s advice.

 

The proposal requires further design development to comply with Council’s objectives for landscaping, in particular the objective that landscaping soften the visual impact of development.

 

9.7     Privacy

 

Windows to living areas are located to the front and rear of the site wherever possible and generally are not considered to result in significant privacy impacts to surrounding properties. Terraces and balconies are sited to the rear of the site (north) providing separation of over 9 metres to the adjoining property to the west (6-8 Bay Street).

 

At upper levels, concern is raised with the size of terraces and their elevation, which will result in reduced amenity for the adjoining dwelling house at 20 Bay Street. These terraces are located approximately 5.5 metres from the common boundary with 20 Bay Street and are elevated 4-7 metres above rear yard of the adjoining property. To alleviate these impacts, the terraces should be reduced in size and setbacks increased to minimise privacy impacts.

 

The external stairs between the entry forecourt and the communal open space and pool to the western elevation are raised approximately 3 metres above the ground level of the adjoining building to the west (6-8 Bay Street) and encroach upon the minimum setback requirement of 3.5 metres, being setback a minimum of 2.2 metres from the common boundary (5 metres from the elevation of 6-8 Bay Street). The stair is located directly opposite balconies and living areas of the adjacent residential flat building at 6-8 Bay Street. A tree is proposed adjacent to the stair, however details of the species and height of this tree have not been provided. Due to the elevation of this stair and lack of physical separation, the reliance on landscaping to protect the privacy of adjoining properties is not considered to be adequate.

 

An elevated bridge provides access between the building entry and external stairs discussed above. The bridge access is setback only 7-8 metres from the elevation of 6-8 Bay Street and there is no landscaping or other treatments proposed in this area to provide additional separation between the buildings. The elevations indicate a frame structure adjacent to the bridge, however details are not given and any additional structures (such as privacy screens) will further add to the bulk and scale of the proposal. The scale of the proposal and lack of landscape treatment to elevated vantage points such as the bridge access results in an overbearing appearance and provide the potential for visual privacy impacts to the adjoining property at 6-8 Bay Street.

 

The bedroom windows to Bedroom 2 of Units 1 and 6 may be compromised by living room windows and balconies within the existing building at 6-8 Bay Street. This is due to the proximity of these windows to the elevation of 6-8 Bay Street. In order to ensure privacy and amenity for future occupants, these windows should be appropriately treated.

 

The development provides a large number of balconies to the rear of the site. On upper levels, these balconies do not meet Council’s preferred solutions for average setbacks. This is not considered to result in significant privacy impacts due to the separation afforded by the existing setback of buildings to the north of the site and the provision of substantial landscaping along the boundary.

 

The proposal in its current form has not minimised privacy impacts.

 

9.8     View Sharing

 

The topography of Bay Street slopes east to west, away from expansive ocean view opportunities that are available further to the east. Properties to the east of the subject site enjoy ocean views from the upper floor rooms located towards the rear of these sites. These properties also enjoy some district outlook to the west and southwest, however these ‘views’ are not significant in terms of their quality and are not as highly valued as the ocean views to the northeast. The proposal is located to the west of these properties and may therefore disrupt district outlook but will not affect the availability of ocean views.

 

The property at 6-8 Bay Street is located to the west of the subject site and is down slope of the subject site. The location of the building and its relationship to existing development does not allow for significant view opportunities from this site, however the single storey scale of existing development on the site does provide for openness in the outlook from upper level units within this building.

 

The development is considered satisfactory with regard to view sharing. However, concern is raised regarding the potential for visual bulk and scale impacts on the adjoining dwellings within 6-8 Bay Street. The height of the proposal to the western end of the site is exacerbated as a result of the sloped topography and the impacts of the increased scale of development have not been adequately addressed through the articulation and massing of the building. In addition, the location of the driveway and lack of substantial landscaping to the eastern boundary is considered to increase the bulk and scale impacts to 6-8 Bay Street.

 

9.9     Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

The orientation of the site results in shadows cast moving significantly throughout the day. The proposal will result in additional shadow being cast on the northeastern elevation to the adjoining building at 6-8 Bay Street during midwinter mornings and the western elevation of the adjoining dwelling at 20 Bay Street during midwinter afternoons. The rear yards of adjoining properties will not be affected by additional shadow as a result of the proposal.

 

At 9am the development will overshadow living room windows and balconies at first floor level to the eastern end of the building (3 windows and 2 balconies). The ground floor level of the eastern end of this building is already shadowed during midwinter mornings. The proposal will not result in additional shadows to the eastern end of the ground floor, but will increase the height of shadows cast towards the centre of the building at ground floor level (to a balcony). At 9am, the eastern corner balcony and all windows at the eastern end of the building at second (top) floor level will lose all access to sunlight. The balcony to the centre of the second floor level will remain largely unaffected by shadows at 9am. The proposal will affect these windows to a similar degree at 10am. At 11am two windows on the ground and first floor to the eastern end of 6-8 Bay Street will remain in shadow.

 

By midday midwinter the shadows have moved to the south, falling across the Bay Street roadway. A small area of additional shadow will be cast on the eastern end of the ground floor level of 6-8 Bay Street, overshadowing a ground floor window.

 

By 3pm the shadows have moved to the western elevation of the adjoining dwelling (20 Bay Street) affecting the majority of the first floor western elevation of this property, but not the first floor balcony to the rear of the site. No additional shadows will be cast on 6-8 Bay Street at 3pm midwinter.

 

The proposal will overshadow a portion of all levels of 6-8 Bay Street from 9am to approximately 11.30am. The quality of solar access to the building at 6-8 Bay Street during midwinter afternoons is not clear from the applicants shadow diagrams. From applying a shadow template to the submitted diagrams the building at 6-8 Bay Street appears to overshadow itself from 2.30pm on midwinter afternoons. If this is the case, then the building at 6-8 Bay Street would achieve three hours of solar access. The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant are incomplete in that shadows cast from existing development to the north have not been included and shadow diagrams indicating the existing situation during midwinter afternoons have not been provided to demonstrate that factors such as topography do not reduce solar access to 6-8 Bay Street below the required 3 hours per day. Residents within 6-8 Bay Street have indicated concern that solar access is already restricted to their dwellings. While the submitted diagrams indicate compliance with the preferred solution they are not considered accurate enough to make this conclusion.

 

The Land and Environment Court has recently formulated Planning Principles with regard to a number of issues. A principle has been adopted regarding the assessment of solar access. The principle notes the difficulty of protecting solar access where higher densities are permissible, that the amount of solar access lost should be assessed as well as what is retained. The principle also states that the quality of the sunlight should be assessed and that shadows as a result of changes in level and ancillary structures should be included in the assessment. The assessment should also take into account the development potential of adjoining sites where areas are under redevelopment.

 

Relevantly, the principle provides the following:

 

§ Overshadowing arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical guidelines. The poor quality of a proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact on neighbours.

 

The layout of the development has been raised as an issue with the applicant on several occasions. It has been suggested that moving the driveway to the eastern end of the site may address issues related to streetscape and amenity of 6-8 Bay Street. If the driveway were relocated it would provide potential for the western portion of the development to move towards the street improving the streetscape presentation of the development and improving solar access to 6-8 Bay Street. The applicant has maintained that this is an unrealistic option due to site levels, however no evidence of an attempt to address this issue or test this suggestion has been provided (such as concept plans). The applicant has not demonstrated that the design represents the best option in terms of solar access to adjoining properties.

 

The applicant has submitted a NatHERS report for the proposal, which indicates that all dwellings achieve a rating of 3.5 stars or more. This rating meets the minimum (3.5 stars) applied to residential development by Council. Rainwater tanks have not been indicated on the plans, this does not meet Council’s Rainwater Tanks Policy, however compliance with this policy is usually conditioned on approvals. Standard conditions can also be applied to ensure the proposal minimises water and energy use.

 

It is considered that any development on this site would cause increased overshadowing due to the topography and the orientation of the sites. Despite the likelihood of additional shadowing, reductions to height and changes to setbacks to increase compliance would improve solar access for the development at 6-8 Bay Street.

 

9.10   Safety and Security

 

The proposal provides for pedestrian access from Bay Street with a security gate at the street. Additional entries are provided from Bay Street to Unit 5 (ground floor of the eastern ‘wing’ of the building) and to a pedestrian pathway along the western boundary of the site. Details of securing these entries have not been provided, however these details could be required by condition of consent on any approval. A security gate is provided at the bottom of the entry ramp to the garage.

 

Large windows and terraces are proposed to Bay Street that will allow surveillance of the street. Surveillance could be increased by moving the lift well and stairs off the western end of the street elevation of the building and providing more openings and natural light to the lobby areas of the proposal which are enclosed and do not encourage overlooking of the street.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to safety and surveillance.

 

9.11   Traffic and Parking

 

The development meets Council’s requirements with regard to provision resident and visitor car parking. The proposal is deficient with regard to bicycle parking (7 spaces) and the width of spaces 19 and 20, which are less than the DCP requirement.

 

Surrounding residents have indicated concerns that the traffic and parking implications of the proposal are significant given that Bay Street is narrow and that there are currently traffic and parking pressures in the street. Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Department has reviewed the traffic report submitted by the applicant and is satisfied by its finding that the development will generate 3-5 additional vehicle trips per hour during weekday peak periods and that these movements can be accommodated in the existing road network. In particular, the report assesses whether Cox Street can accommodate the additional traffic load as a result of the development and considers that Cox Street will continue to operate at a satisfactory level of service.

 

Vehicles entering and exiting the proposed carpark will do so in a forward direction and the proposal is therefore unlikely to contribute to the problems cited by some residents with regard to traffic turning at the eastern end of Bay Street. The development complies with Council’s DCP – Parking with regard to the number of car spaces required (although 2 spaces are substandard in terms of their dimensions).

 

The development is considered satisfactory with regard to parking provision. If consent were to be granted conditions should be applied to require a redesign of the basement to accommodate a widening of spaces 19 and 20 and to provide accommodation for 7 bicycles. Conditions requiring additional soft landscaping to minimise the visual impact of the driveway on the streetscape and adjoining properties should also be incorporated in any consent.

 

10.     FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed redevelopment of the site for multi-unit housing is permissible within the 2(c) zone, however the design as proposed in this application is unsuitable. The proposed building form is inappropriate on the site given the character of the area, the objectives and zoning of the site contained within RLEP98.

 

The application has been assessed with regard to the design quality principles within the SEPP 65, the objectives and standards in RLEP98 and the performance requirements and preferred solutions contained within the Multi-Unit Housing DCP. As a result of this assessment the development has been found to be is inconsistent with the character and scale of existing development in the immediate locality and fails to perform adequately with regard to the protection of residential amenity, streetscape, landscaping, bulk and scale and visual impact. A more sensitive design is required on this site which has an irregular shape, is sloping and is constrained by the proximity of existing development.

 

The applicant has been given several opportunities to amend the design, including a prelodgement meeting and a previous development application which was withdrawn. The applicant has been given ample opportunity to address the concerns of Council and the Design Review Panel. Despite several attempts to improve the design to a satisfactory level, the proposal is still unsatisfactory with regard to its height, design and visual bulk and scale impacts and as such is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 874/2005 for Demolition of the existing dwellings on the site,  and construction of a new multi-unit housing development comprising 15 units (13 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom units) over 4 storeys, basement carparking for 23 vehicles and associated landscaping including a swimming pool at 10-18 Bay Street, Coogee for the following reasons:-

 

1.         The proposed development is not consistent with the Aims and the Objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 ("the LEP"), in particular clauses 2(g) and 12 (1)(c).

 

2.         The visual bulk of the proposed development will be dominant in the streetscape and to adjacent properties and would constitute an overdevelopment of the site, given its exceedance of the floor space ratio and height standards.

 

3.         The State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) objection in relation to the proposed development’s departure of 970mm from clause 33(2) Overall Height and the 2.61m departure from clause (4) Wall Height of the LEP is not well-founded.

 

4.         No objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) has been lodged in relation to the proposed development’s departure (0.91:1) from clause 32(1) Floor Space Ratio (0.9:1) of the LEP. The non-compliance with the FSR standard results in an adverse impact on the streetscape and adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk and scale.

 

5.         The impacts of the proposed development on solar access and visual privacy to adjoining properties are unreasonable given that the development fails to meet statutory standards for height and floor space ratio and the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions for setbacks to all boundaries.

 

6.         The development is unsatisfactory with regard to the design quality principles of SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, in particular the principles of scale, built form, energy efficiency, density, amenity and aesthetics.

 

7.         The proposal does not meet the objectives of the Landscape Area standards contained within clause 31 of RLEP98, in that the layout of the development does not allow for substantial planting to the southern (front) setback and western (side) setback of the proposal to soften the appearance of the development from the street and adjacent properties.

 

 

8.         The basement carpark layout does not comply with Council’s DCP - Parking in relation to the width of carparking spaces and bicycle parking.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Reductions

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 14/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

330 Anzac Parade, Kensington

 

 

DATE:

9 March, 2005

FILE NO:

D/1005/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No. 1005/2004 for construction of a new four storey purpose built facility for scientific research and teaching, including new accommodation for the School of Chemistry at the University of NSW, Kensington Campus.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 19 January 2005.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Development Application Report.

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

9 March, 2005

FILE NO:

D/1005/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construction of a new four storey purpose built facility for scientific research and teaching including new accommodation for the School of Chemistry at the University of NSW, Kensington Campus.

PROPERTY:

 330 Anzac Parade, Kensington.

WARD:

West Ward

APPLICANT:

University of NSW.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $35m.

 

The applicant is seeking approval to construct a new 4 storey (plus mezzanine level and basement level) science research building to be known as “The Analytical Centre”. The new building will accommodate the School of Chemistry (3 levels) and significant items of new and existing scientific instrumentation from the School of Chemistry, Faculty of Engineering and School of Materials Science (2 levels including the basement).

 

The building will provide a through connection between The University Mall (the main pedestrian thoroughfare) and the existing Applied Sciences Building. A mid-air link will also be provided between the new building and the Dalton Building to the east of the site. The site is covered by the approved Master Plan for the University of NSW, Kensington Campus.

 

On 13 August 2002, a Master Plan was adopted for the UNSW campus site subject to revision of the Master Plan to address a range of issues including specifically the following:

 

·        An urban design study covering building envelopes, ESD, public domain and movement issues.

 

·        A parking and transport analysis addressing the future parking and traffic demand generated by the university.

 

·        A drainage and stormwater strategy incorporating Council’s engineering requirements.

 

On 28 October 2003, Council in considering a development application for additions and alterations to New College resolved that revisions to the approved Master Plan should be submitted to Council before any development application is lodged with Council. To address this issue, the University has submitted an Urban Design Framework for the North Mall Development Zone for assessing the subject development application in its immediate context and surrounding built environment in-lieu-of the required revised Master Plan. The Urban Design Framework is consistent with the adopted Master Plan and, as such, the use of the Urban Design Framework in assessing the subject application is considered acceptable.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for construction of a new six level (4 storeys plus mezzanine above ground) to house teaching and research laboratory functions for the School of Chemistry. Two levels of the building will be dedicated to providing laboratory accommodation for specialist instrumentation and analysis to be shared between the Schools of Chemistry and Materials Science and the Faculty of Engineering.

 

The new building occupies the area to the south and east of the existing Applied Sciences Building and provides a physical connection between the two buildings at ground level and mezzanine level (from the southern side) and on levels 1-3 (from the eastern side) of the new building. The proposal also provides a physical connection to the adjacent Dalton Building at Level 1 and Level 2. The Dalton Building will house the administrative functions for the School of Chemistry.

 

The new building work includes improvements to external areas and the overall urban design of this part of the lower campus. The building will create a new entry to the Applied Sciences Building from the University Mall. A second entry will be provided further to the east on the southern elevation for the Analytical Centre.  Ramped internal circulation between these two entries is proposed to provide easy, covered access between the two buildings. A colonnade provides shelter externally between the entries along most of the southern elevation which is aligned to the University Mall, strengthening the existing relationship of the site to this significant campus element.

 

Two entries to the Analytical Centre and a new paved forecourt are proposed on the northern side of the building. The upper levels of this wing overhang the ground floor providing protection to the building entries. The area between the Dalton Building and the Analytical Centre will be paved, providing external pedestrian access north-south across the site.

 

The development proposes retention of large established trees on the site wherever possible. The removal of trees from the site was approved under the preliminary site works DA (979/2004).

 

The building has a gross floor area of 8,537m2. Each floor will provide accommodation as follows:

 

Basement

 

§  Areas to house the Electron Microscope Unit (EMU) and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance facility (NMR), which must be located well away from one another to fulfill technical requirements.

§  Housing for other compatible specialist instruments

§  Offices and ancillary areas

§  Connection to the lower ground floor level of the Applied Sciences Building via stairs and a hydraulic hoist.

 

Ground Floor

 

§  Due to the topography of the site and existing levels within the Applied Sciences Building, the southern portion of the new building is to be constructed at a lower level than the eastern portion of the building. An entrance to each level is provided from the University Mall. Two entries are provided from the northern side of the site to the upper, eastern portion of the building.

§  Meeting spaces

§  Laboratory areas including heavy instrumentation

§  Reception and office areas and amenities

Mezzanine Level

 

§  A mezzanine level is provided over the ground floor laboratory spaces in the southern portion of the building. The mezzanine is accessed via stairs from the ground floor labs and from the ground floor level of the Applied Sciences Building via a bridge.

§  The mezzanine provides office accommodation to staff associated with the specialist instrumentation laboratories below and open plan workstations for post-graduate students and visiting academics.

 

Levels 1-3

 

§  Large open plan laboratory space

§  Secondary office and ancillary rooms to support the primary laboratory function of these levels.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located within the UNSW Kensington Campus which is bounded by High Street to the north, Botany and Willis Streets to the east, Barker Street and Oval Lane to the south and Anzac Parade to the west. There is a western campus located on the western side of Anzac Parade which accommodates NIDA and a small number of other facilities including the Unisearch House.

 

The main campus is divided into upper, middle and lower campus zones which broadly correspond to the eastern, central and western sections of the University.

 

The site of the proposed development is located within the lower campus approximately 200m from Anzac Parade. Internally, the development site fronts the University Mall which is a significant linear accessway and vista acting as the primary pedestrian route of the campus. The University Mall separates the site from the Village Green, the University’s sports oval further to the south.

 

The development site is located immediately to the south of the Applied Science building which is a dominant eleven storey building within the lower campus. To the east of the site, is the 4 storey Dalton building. To the west of the subject site is the DA approved site of the new Law Building (DA 667/2004, approved on 7 December 2004).

 

The development site is an L-shape, wrapping around the southern and eastern sides of the existing Applied Sciences Building. The southern portion of the site has dimensions of approximately 30m wide (north-south) by 90m long (east-west). The eastern portion of the site has dimensions of approximately 35m wide (east-west) by 40m long (north-south) metres. The site has a total area of approximately 2,000m2. The site is currently being excavated, subject to a separate development approval for preliminary site works (DA 979/2004).

 

Access to the site is from a signalised intersection near the western end of High Street at Gate 2. This intersection also provides access to the land to the north.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A pre-lodgement meeting was held with Council and the applicant on 19 October 2004. No major issues were raised with the development concept at that meeting, however the issue of parking was highlighted as requiring detailed investigation at DA stage. Comment was also made with regard to the effect of the structural layout on the planning of the building and the visibility of mechanical ventilation stacks on the roof. Both of these items were noted by the applicant as being subject of further design development.

 

At the prelodgement meeting the possibility of splitting the proposed works into two separate applications was raised to allow preliminary site works to proceed in the 2004/2005 Summer break, minimising the interruption to University operations. This was considered appropriate and a Development Application (DA 979/2004) was submitted and subsequently approved on 23 December 2004.

 

The current application was lodged with Council on 23 November 2004. Details regarding parking were absent from the documentation and these were requested on 7 December 2004. The applicant responded on 21 January 2005. Further information in relation to the southern elevation of the building and the use of the mezzanine level were received on 4 February 2005.

 

b.      HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

The southern portion of the site was previously comprised of vacant open space and the eastern portion of the site was previously occupied by an open air hardstand carpark accommodating 16 spaces. The car parking is to be relocated to a proposed temporary carpark in the western campus which is the subject of Development Application No 668/2004, which is currently under assessment.

 

There is no further history relevant to the subject site for this application.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised and referred to Precinct Committee in accordance with the DCP for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. As a result of this notification 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     Director, Assets & Infrastructure Services

 

Council’s Director, Assets & Infrastructure has provided the following comment in relation to the application:

 

An application has been received for the construction of a new Science Research Building (Analytical Centre) to be attached to the existing applied science building at the UNSW Kensington Campus.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There is a staggered, inter-planted row of trees which are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order along the southern side of the existing building, against the sandstone wall, comprising:

 

a)      One Populus deltoides (Poplar) of approximately 20 metres in height immediately north of the mall walkway (identified as N50A). It appears in good condition and is deemed to be a specimen of reasonable to high significance. This tree shall be retained as is shown on the plans, and as such, protection measures will be necessary.

 

b)      One Ficus microcarpa var ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Fig) of approximately 10 metres in height, immediately to the north (identified as N50). It is not deemed to be a significant specimen, and as such, approval is granted for its removal as is shown on the plans.

 

c)       Immediately east, there is one Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Fig) of approximately 6 metres in height (identified as N51). It is not deemed to be a significant specimen, and as such, approval is granted for its removal as is shown on the plans.

 

d)      To the southeast, there is one recently planted Populus deltoides (Poplar) of approximately 6 metres in height. This tree is an immature specimen and as it is sited a reasonable distance from the proposed works, it should remain unaffected.

 

e)       Further to the east, in the paved courtyard, there are two (2) large and significant Populus deltoides (Poplars) both of approximately 20 metres in height. Approval is granted for removal of the most northern tree (M2) of the two, with the most southern tree (M1) to be retained as is shown on the plans.

 

f)       To the north, in the planted carpark median, there are two (2) Ficus elastica (Rubber trees) of 6 metres in height (identified as M3 and M4). This species is not covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order due to its invasive and aggressive properties, and as such, should be removed with more appropriate replacements provided in their place.

 

g)      Against the eastern side of the existing building, there are two (2) Allocasurina glauca (She Oaks) of approximately 10 metres in height. They are not deemed significant specimens, and as such, approval is granted for their removal as is shown on the plans.

 

h)      Near the northeast corner of the existing building, there is one Eucalyptus species (Gum tree) of approximately 12 metres in height. This tree appears to be in average condition with a lean to the north/northwest. The plans show this tree as being retained, and as such, protection measures will be necessary.

 

Drainage Comments

 

The amended ‘Proposed stormwater discharge standards’ submitted by the university show the new Analytical Centre 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 Analytical Centre 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 Analytical Centre Building, should the construction of the Analytical Centre be completed before the law building.

 

Any overland flows (for storms up to the 1 in 100 year event) currently flowing down Union Road/Science Road, shall be intersected up stream of the proposed Analytical Centre and diverted to the village green detention area.

 

Groundwater Comments

 

Based on the information contained in the submitted geotechnical report by Douglas Partners dated August 2004, it appear that excavations for the proposed NMV pits may only be some 1.25 metres above the level of the watertable. The NMV pits shall be suitably tanked and waterproofed unless it can be demonstrated (by a suitably qualified geotechnical/hydro-geological consultant) that seasonal/long term fluctuations of the watertable will not result in the watertable rising above the base of the pits.

 

 

 

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, and approved by Council. Consequently, the AIS Department does not support the subject development application being approved prior to the traffic and parking strategy being developed.

 

The proposed Analytical Centre represents a new floor area of some 8280 m2. Due to the scale of the development, the AIS Department has previously raised concerns that UNSW parking demands may increase as a result of the development.

 

In response to the above concerns, the applicant has submitted supplementary information (dated 21 January 2005) that states: “The new analytical centre will not contribute to intensification of use on the campus, but rather provide a much needed, shared and centralised, state-of-the-art research facility for the Faculties of Science and Engineering, replacing the current inadequate facilities scattered in various buildings. Consequently, in regards to parking generation and the concerns raised by the AIS, it can be stated that the facility will lead to no increase in student or staff numbers and therefore no increase in parking generation rates and overall demands.”

 

The AIS Department notes that attachment 1 (of the additional information submitted to Council) shows the proposed student/staff relocations. Whilst the new analytical centre is taking students from the existing red centre and Heffron Building, it is noted that ultimately there are some buildings (such as the Rupert Myers, Quad building and Newton Building) that are losing students and staff without gaining any. The AIS Department raises the question of what these partially emptied buildings are to be used for in the future. It would appear that unless significant floor area is being lost elsewhere on campus, a new building offering some 8280 m2 of additional floor area, should increase student/staff capacity to some extent.

 

The AIS Department recommends that prior to any further development at UNSW (including the proposed analytical centre); an integrated approach for managing the parking issues should be developed. This strategy should consider options for discouraging parking on surrounding streets and encouraging public transport usage. Further exploration of a student parking scheme (as referenced in the draft masterplan submission) should be undertaken.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the following comments are provided on the understanding that the DPCD will support the proposed Analytical Centre prior to the overall transport/parking strategy being developed for UNSW.

 

Replacing parking spaces lost by the development

It is noted that the subject development will result in the loss of a small number of existing surface parking spaces (approximately 16). It is understood that these ‘lost’ parking spaces will be relocated to a temporary carpark on the western campus (DA 668/2004). Works on the subject development site must not commence until the temporary carpark is completed, unless it can demonstrated to the satisfaction of Council that the ‘lost parking spaces’ can be suitably relocated elsewhere on campus whilst the temporary carpark is being constructed.

 

Loading Facilities

It is understood from the SEE and additional supporting information (received 21 January 2005) that the loading dock associated with the applied science building (DA 732/2004) will be utilised by vehicles servicing the combined applied science building and analytical centre.

 

Further, as the current loading dock for the applied science building occupies part of the Analytical Centre site, the new loading dock will need to be completed and available for use prior to removal of the existing loading dock and commencement of work on the analytical centre.

 

The AIS Department does not object to the loading dock being used as a shared facility.

 

Bicycle Parking Comments

The proposal for the Analytical Centre does not include any incentives for use of alternative transport modes, such as bicycle parking/storage areas, as detailed in the draft Masterplan for the university. It is noted however that the SEE indicates that additional bicycle parking will be proposed as part of a separate Landscape DA. The DPCD should determine whether this is satisfactory.

 

Waste Comments

 

The application was referred to Council’s waste compliance officer and the following comments were received:

 

The following comments regarding waste management arrangements for the proposed development are based on the information provided in Appendix N of the Statement of Environmental Effects, prepared by McLachlan Lister and dated November 2004, and associated drawings.

 

The applicant has demonstrated a commitment to waste reduction through the provision of a waste management system, including separate recycling and organics collection. The waste management arrangements are integrated with the overall waste management system of the University, with appropriate access for all building occupants and waste collectors. In addition, the Waste Management Plan indicates that recycling facilities will be provided on each floor of both the Applied Science and G11 (Analytical Centre) buildings. Based on the existing waste generation rates, sufficient allowance has been made for waste generated by the proposed development.

 

The new waste storage area located at the rear of the proposed loading dock (to be constructed in conjunction with DA 732/2004) shall be completed and available for use prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the analytical centre.

 

 

 

 

Civil Works Comments

 

The following comments were provided at the prelodgement meeting for the subject application:

 

“As part of the revised masterplan for the site, the applicant will be required to submit a program for upgrading pedestrian and bicycle access to the site. Whilst it is difficult to attach specific requirements for civil works to each of the DA’s relating to internal works within the UNSW, major developments (such as the proposed analytical centre) should include some civil works to improve pedestrian and/or bicycle access arrangements.”

 

The applicant was requested to provide a suggestion regarding what civil works they considered to be appropriate for linking with this development, however, the applicant responded by indicating that the issue of civil works will be addressed as part of the revised masterplan for the site.

 

The AIS Department notes that civil works within the vicinity of a site are generally triggered by development. Consequently, should this application be approved prior to the revised masterplan for the university being prepared it would appear appropriate for the applicant to make some contribution to civil infrastructure works within the vicinity of the site.  As detailed in the traffic/parking comments above, the AIS Departments considers that the revised masterplan for the UNSW should be completed prior to major development (such as construction of the analytical centre) being approved. It would then be possible for a schedule of civil works upgrades (identified in the masterplan) to be conditioned as part of each major development application.

 

However, should the analytical centre be approved before the revised masterplan (and schedule of civil works) is prepared, it is considered that the applicant should, at a minimum, be required to make a contribution for upgrading/maintaining the footpaths in the vicinity of the site. It is noted that this contribution would not be made in lieu of the overall schedule for civil works identified in the masterplan, rather, the contribution would be put towards upgrading Council’s footpaths/infrastructure in the interim period between the new analytical centre being constructed and the civil works schedule (as determined in the future revised masterplan) being implemented.

 

The following condition has been included in this report:

 

The applicant is to undertake, using Council approved contractors, the upgrading of street tree planting along Anzac Parade for that portion of the UNSW frontage outside Warrane and New Colleges (approximately 130m). The scope of work is to be as follows;

 

·        Remove the existing 2 off Brushbox and 6 off Populus Italica Nigre and replace with 12 off Platanus Hybrida (75 litre size) at approximate 10metre centres.

 

·        Provide RCC approved tree surrounds to the replaced trees

 

·        Infill remaining nature strip to create a full width concrete footpath for the extent of the re-planted zone.

 

All costs associated with the above works shall be borne by the applicant.

 

Should the application be approved, the following conditions shall apply:

 

The conditions imposed by the AIS have been included in the recommendation (see Conditions 36-64). Discussion of the parking impacts of the proposal is included under Section 10.4.

 

6.2     Manager, Environmental Health and Building

 

Council’s Manager, Environmental Health and Building has provided the following comment in relation to the application:

 

Environmental Health Comments

 

The Proposal

 

Construction of a new research building.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

9b assembly building

 

Background

 

Proposed construction of analytical Centre two levels of shared specialist instrumentation, three levels to accommodate school of Chemistry.

 

Key Issues

 

Contamination has been dealt and preliminary contamination report by Douglas and Partners dated August 2004 has been received confirming that the site is suitable for the intended use.

 

The information relating to contamination has led to the consultant advising of the minimal likelihood of groundwater contamination.

 

Hazardous Use of Premises

 

Hazardous uses within the development have been considered and relevant conditions are included in this report requiring compliance with relevant legislative requirements.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

Building Comments

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for extension to the front and side of the existing multi-storey building.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

§  Class 5   -           Office

§  Class 8   -           Laboratory

§  Class 9b -           Assembly Building – School

 

Background

 

The existing building on site is a multi – storey building used for the School of Applied Science. A report has been received in relation to contamination issues on 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.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

Conditions recommended by the Manager, Environmental Health and Building have been agreed to by the applicant included in the recommendation (see Conditions 0-35).

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Clause 40A of the Randwick LEP 1998 (RLEP98) requires adoption of a master plan prior to approving development applications for sites with an area in excess of 4,000m2. The University of NSW complex site is approximately 38.99 hectares in area. In accordance with Clause 40A of the RLEP98, a Master Plan has been prepared and adopted for the UNSW campus on 13 August 2002 subject to appropriate revisions to the Master Plan.

The University has submitted an Urban Design Framework for the North Mall Development Zone (UDF) for assessing development applications for an area within the lower campus. The UDF provides for assessment of proposals against the immediate context and surrounding built environment in-lieu-of the required revised Master Plan. In a covering letter accompanying the UDF, 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.”

 

Specifically, the North Mall Development Zone (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-2005. Furthermore, the UDF has provided a design analysis for the proposal in its immediate context and surrounding built environment, and included building envelopes, building depths and façade lengths for the developable area within the North Mall Development Zone consistent with the adopted Master Plan.

 

The Master Planning requirements of Clause 40A of the RLEP98 have been satisfied.

 

8.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)     Randwick LEP 1998

 

The site is zoned 5 Special Uses under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed use of the site for an educational establishment is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal (and are addressed in detail in Section 10.2.4 below):

 

§  Clause 37A           Development in Special Uses Zone

§  Clause 40A           Master plans

 

(b)     SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP 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 fulfilled its obligations under SEPP 55.

 

(c)     SEPP 16 – Tertiary Institutions

 

SEPP 16 allows tertiary institutions of any class to be constructed on land zoned for a particular class of tertiary institution. The subject site is zoned 5 Special Uses. Educational uses regardless of their “class” are allowed in the zone with consent. Therefore no further consideration of the SEPP is required.

 

9.       POLICY CONTROLS

 

(a)     University of NSW Kensington Campus Master Plan, 2002

 

Relevant sections of the Master Plan are considered under Section 10.2.2 of this report.

 

(b)     DCP - Parking

 

The DCP – Parking requires that tertiary institutions provide parking at the rate of 0.7 spaces per staff member, plus 1 space per 10 full-time students. A Campus wide Parking Strategy is currently under development by the University in consultation with Council. This site specific strategy will make a detailed assessment of the particular parking needs of the Kensington Campus, rather than relying on the general provisions of the DCP – Parking. Parking has been discussed in detail under Section 10.4.

 

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 – S79C(1)(a)

 

10.2.3    Crown development applications (Section 116).

 

The proposal is development under Section 116 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (Crown development).

 

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 applicant for concurrence of the University. The University has responded to the draft conditions of consent and given its concurrence.

 

10.2.4    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Clause 37A   Development in Special Uses Zone

 

The proposal meets the objectives of the Special Uses zone, which include accommodating development by public authorities on publicly owned land and accommodating development for educational purposes. The proposal will improve the University’s facilities without significant adverse impact on uses in adjacent zonings.

 

Clause 37A of the Randwick LEP requires Council to be satisfied that development in the Special Uses zone is “compatible with the character of the locality and will not adversely affect the amenity of nearby and adjoining development”, prior to granting any development consent.

 

The development will provide improved and additional university facilities on the site without significant impact on nearby residential uses (residential colleges to the southwest of the site), nearby recreational uses to the south and northwest. The bulk and scale of the proposal is consistent with development in the vicinity and the proposed façade treatment will improve the presentation of the adjacent Applied Sciences Building and provide a better relationship between the site and the University Mall.

 

Clause 40A   Master plans

 

The UNSW Kensington Campus Master Plan was adopted on 13 August 2002 subject to a revision of the Master Plan to include, amongst other things, planning details, an urban design strategy and parking and transport study. The applicant is currently preparing a revised Master Plan and this process has involved regular meetings between Council officers and representatives of the University. It is anticipated that the revised Master Plan will be completed later this year (see also Section 7 above).

 

The development is considered satisfactory with regard to relevant clauses of the RLEP98.

 

10.2       Policy Controls – 79C(1)(a)

 

10.2.1    Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The proposal is subject to the DCP – Car Parking requirement for tertiary education facilities which is 0.7 car space per 1 staff member plus 1 car space per 10 full time students. The applicant has advised the Analytical Centre will be occupied by 40 staff. These staff are to be relocated from existing on campus facilities and it is argued that there is no additional parking demand as a result of the relocation. Under Council’s DCP, 28 spaces would be required to accommodate the 40 staff. There will be no on-site parking provided as part of the development.

 

The applicant has not provided specific figures for the number of full-time students.

The applicant did not provide figures on staff and student numbers for the proposed Law Building either (DA 667/2004). The University has argued that the specific parking details for individual buildings are not required as parking for the Kensington Campus should be considered with a holistic approach. As part of the conditions of consent for the Law Building DA, a condition was applied requiring a parking and transport strategy to be prepared and submitted to Council within one year of the date of determination of DA 667/2004. The strategy will adopt an integrated approach for managing the traffic and parking impacts within and around the UNSW campus including the car parking demand and traffic impact of the Analytical Centre. The condition provides Council with some comfort that parking will be addressed taking a whole of site approach and also allows the University to look at a Campus-wide strategy for parking in accordance with the objectives of the approved Master Plan.

 

10.2.2    UNSW Master Plan

 

The Kensington Campus Master Plan was adopted by Council in August 2002, subject to revisions relating to provision of building envelope controls. These revisions have not yet been received, however an assessment of the proposal against the objectives in the Plan can still be made and has been included below.

 

Built Form

 

The built form objectives include that:

 

§  The predominant north-south, east-west orientation of buildings is maintained

 

The development proposes a north-south wing and an east-west wing, maintaining the predominant building alignment on the Campus.

 

§  All new buildings make efficient use of their sites and maximise usable external space.

 

The redevelopment of the site will remove a lawn area on the southern side of the Applied Sciences Building which is overshadowed. The loss of this external space is compensated by the provision of a new hardstand forecourt on the northern side of the site. The forecourt which has a better orientation for solar access and will provide a defined open space to the north of the site that will improve the structure of the University Walk precinct. The building footprint has been manipulated to maximise the retention of mature trees on the site and maintain a lawn area approximately 12.5 metres wide to the edge of the University Mall. Landscaping treatment such as paving will reinforce building entries.

 

§  Building setbacks, design, height and scale along the central spine of the campus are sensitive to adjacent buildings and minimise overshadowing.

 

There will be minimal additional overshadowing to the University Mall as a result of the proposal due to its location on the southern side of the existing 11 storey Applied Sciences Building. The shadows cast by the new building will largely fall within the existing shadows cast by Applied Sciences and the new building will not result in significant additional shadowing to the University Mall or surrounding buildings.

§  Colours and materials follow a consistent palette that complements existing buildings

 

Glazing and wall cladding are proposed in colours which will complement the existing 1960’s Applied Sciences Building and surrounding buildings such as the Dalton and Heffron Buildings that date from a similar period. An increased use of glass will provide a lighter façade than the existing Applied Sciences Building and increase opportunities for interaction with the University Mall The use of glazing and expression of skylights to basement levels on the ground plane will provide a vibrant presentation at night time.

 

§  Building façades are articulated to the human scale in form and detail

 

The proposal incorporates detailing at upper levels such as timber screens and framed glazing to reduce the scale of the façade and provide human scale.

 

The southern elevation of the ground floor level, which faces the University Mall is proposed to be constructed of a system that incorporates large rocks in resin between glazed panels to produce a screen effect. The photomontage submitted with the application shows the rocks at very close spacing providing a monolithic effect with little relationship between outside and inside. This treatment was considered contrary to the master plan requirements requiring human scale and transparency between internal and external areas. Further details were sought from the architects as the façade treatment is unusual. The architects have advised that the treatment of the elevation is still in design development and have provided the following relevant clarifications with regard to the façade:

 

The initial concept of this “rock façade” was to create a façade which limits visual transparency (due to the mass of instrumentation visible from the Mall yet allow natural light into the lab environment. The voids between the stones will enable sunlight to filter through to the interiors as well as enable views out to the Mall. At night, the interior light will create an intriguing dappled effect across the Mall.

 

The rock façade reflects the previous sandstock wall (demolished due to incorporation of the new Law Building), which defined the northern edge of The Mall whilst establishing a solid base for the transparent façade above.

 

Recent landscape designs (progressing to DA) envisage pedestrians will move along the main (centre) path of the Mall and then enter the Analytical Centre at the foyer rather than moving along the southern façade. The Mall photomontage submitted in the SOEE (drawing no. G11-A-500-01-DA) is incorrect as it shows a path along the building edge with pedestrians. When viewed from the Mall, the scale and extent of this façade is appropriate when considered within the greater scale and context of the University Mall.

 

To produce this “rock” effect, the design utilises a standard aluminium-framed glazing system with approximately 600 x 1000mm or 600 x 1800mm size resin panels. These panels use flat stones set within layers of marine resin to produce the rock effect. We are currently examining two options with specialised resin manufacturers; one using a double-glazed aluminium system with resin panels and glazing, the other utilising only the resin panels set within a standard single-glazed aluminium system.

Further prototypes are currently being manufactured to assess the system.

 

Photographs below indicate our design intent for this façade system.

 

Above: Prototype of the proposed “rock façade”, showing transparency

Above: Dappled light interior proposed as a result of “rock façade”

 

The architect’s arguments regarding the façade are generally accepted. In addition to the comments above, the architects have advised that due to the instruments used in the ground floor labs and the low ratio of scientists to these instruments (approximately 2 per lab) there will be little interest created within these spaces. The rock wall has been employed to provide visual interest and screen the utilitarian laboratory spaces. The architectural intent is to provide a heavy base to the building with lighter top, this references the existing Applied Sciences Building. The architects have indicated that a lighter treatment to the base of the building would be inconsistent with the architectural intent of the proposal.

 

The design of the southern façade is considered to be of high design quality and takes a reasonable approach to the master plan requirements give the intended use of the building and the design concept for the site. It is considered appropriate however, to condition the development to ensure the facade panels achieve sufficient transparency (see Condition 2).

 

To the northern side of the ground floor, glazing is provided to maximise interaction between the building and the public domain. Skylights have been introduced into the northern courtyard to increase the relationship between inside and outside.

 

Subject to conditions and further design development, the proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to master plan requirements for building articulation.

 

§  North facing rooms are used for communal activities

 

The development includes meeting rooms and social/ common areas on the northern side of the building. This meets the objective of placing communal activities in north facing rooms.

 

§  Where possible, interaction takes place between the inside and outside of buildings and pleasant outlooks are provided

 

As discussed above, the ground floor and upper floors generally comply with this requirement. The southern elevation to the ground floor does not appear to provide adequate opportunity for interaction between internal and external spaces. This has been addressed by ensuring the transparency of the elevation as per Condition 2.

 

§  Where they are overlooked, rooftops are designed or redesigned to provide a pleasant view

 

The flat roof form has been designed to match that of the surrounding buildings which all have flat rooves and to accommodate the functional requirements of ventilation required for this scientific centre. The roof will not be easily overlooked by the adjacent Applied Sciences Building due to the narrow angle of view. The top two floors of the Heffron Building will have some outlook over this new building, however due to the separation between the two buildings the primary outlook will be to the sky and to the northern forecourt of the Analytical Centre.

 

§  Buildings are designed in accordance with relevant Australian Standards for Accessibility

 

The upgrade to the building will provide accessible entry to the Applied Sciences Building and the Analytical Centre from the University Mall. The levels and circulation patterns within the building will also assist in resolving access issues in the adjoining Dalton Building. Lift access has been provided to all levels of the building.

 

The proposed building is consistent with the built form objectives contained within the master plan.

 

 

 

Locational Criteria

 

§  Walking distances to major campus activities are minimised;

 

The location of the Analytical Centre adjacent to buildings which already house science functions will minimise the walking distances between associated Schools and Faculties.

 

§  Activities with similar functional characteristics are capable of developing a public address;

 

The new building provides a public address to the increased Science Precinct in the lower campus from the University Mall and the northern approach to the site. The grouping of this building with others occupied by the science faculties will improve the critical mass of these functions and assist the precinct to form a clear identity within the campus.

 

§  Where possible, activities are located in a way that allows them to expand in or adjacent their current location

 

There will be little room for further expansion at ground level once the Analytical Centre is constructed. The building has minimised the additional floor space required by its location adjacent to the Dalton Building and integration with this building (which will house part of the School of Chemistry).

 

§  Parking areas and student housing are located on the campus perimeter

 

A surface parking area previously existed on part of the site. This area will be relocated to a temporary carpark on the western campus and in future to new parking facilities on the campus perimeter.

 

The proposed building is consistent with the locational criteria objectives contained within the master plan.

 

Energy Efficiency

 

The Master Plan listed the following objectives and requirements for energy efficiency:

 

§  The quantity of materials used in construction is kept to a minimum

 

The proposal has been designed to accommodate additional teaching and research accommodation while minimising the need for demolition and reconstruction by using a vacant site. The proposal links the Dalton and Applied Sciences Buildings which allows existing floor areas to be used in conjunction with the new areas minimising the quantity of floor space to be constructed (and therefore the quantity of material used ).

 

§  Low embodied energy materials are used in construction whenever practicable

§  Recycled materials, products and other modular components are used wherever practicable

§  Durable, long-life materials and components are used wherever practicable

The materials proposed are durable and are generally prefabricated into modular components for easy replacement if required. The University has indicated that low embodied energy materials sill be used wherever possible.

 

§  Buildings are thermally efficient as possible and air conditioning is minimised.

 

Passive ventilation has been used wherever possible to minimise air conditioning and the thermal mass of the building in conjunction with shading and weather protection has been designed to maximise thermal efficiency.

 

§  Travel demand management practices encourage the use of sustainable travel modes such as public transport, cycling and walking.

 

The building has been located close to the University Mall and a new entry created to the existing Applied Sciences Building to encourage use of this main thoroughfare (previously the main entry was from the northern side of the Applied Sciences Building). A condition of consent has also been applied requiring the provision of safe bicycle storage in the vicinity of the site to encourage sustainable transport on campus (see Condition 1).

Building Works and Changes to Floor Space

 

§  Obsolete or inadequate buildings are replaced with new buildings or comprehensively refurbished floor space

 

The proposal will provide a new facility with purpose-built specialist space for equipment and new facilities for the School of Chemistry, adjacent to their existing accommodation in the Dalton Building which will minimised the size of the new building.

 

§  The quality and quantity of floor space is matched to campus activity needs; and

 

The proposal will improve the quality and increase the quantity of floor space dedicated to scientific research and teaching, in accordance with the existing and future needs of the Campus as determined by the University.

 

§  The University maintains its exceptionally high standard of construction and design.

 

It is considered that the design of the building will result in a high quality built form and that the standard of construction will be high as has occurred in other University projects.

 

To achieve these outcomes, actions with five and ten year timeframes were indicated. Specifically a five year action was proposed as follows:

 

On the lower campus, construct a new building adjacent to the Applied Science Building to provide quality space for chemical science activities.

 

The proposed building fulfils the proposed outcomes and actions for Building Works as set by the adopted master plan.

 

Regional and Local Access

 

The Master Plan aims to increase use of sustainable modes of transport such as cycling and walking and to reduce reliance on private motor transport.

 

In particular outcomes are stated as:

 

§  The overall modal split for students and staff in favour of public transport, cycling and walking is increased to 80%:20% to further reduce car use and the demand for parking

 

The proposal is not expected to significantly increase demand for parking for the University in general as the new building will largely accommodate relocations from other parts of the campus. Bicycle parking has not been indicated on the submitted plans. It is considered that secure bike storage facilities to for students should be provided to encourage use of bicycles on campus. This has been imposed as a condition of consent (see Condition 1). The co-location of this facility adjacent to existing science facilities close to the main pedestrian access through the Campus and approximately 200m from Anzac Parade should reduce the requirement for parking in accordance with the Master Plan.

 

Parking is also subject to a Campus-wide strategy currently under development in consultation with Council as part of Master Plan revisions. This is considered appropriate, given the size of the University Campus and the specialised parking requirements of such a site. The outcome of the strategy will be to determine the number of spaces that need to be accommodated for the site as a whole and where these will be located in centralised facilities.

Access and Circulation on Campus

 

§  In conjunction with works under Building Works and Changes in Floor Space, as part of the redevelopment of the lower and western campuses improve pedestrian and vehicle links to the rest of the campus.

 

There are no new vehicle links proposed as a result of the redevelopment of the subject site. The proposal will improve pedestrian links by linking the Dalton and Applied Sciences Buildings and providing a new entry from the University Mall to the Applied Sciences Building and the new Analytical Centre.

Open Spaces and Landscaping

 

§  Redevelopment of the lower and western campuses and the removal of surface parking areas and obsolete buildings,… will make possible additional open spaces with formal and informal landscaping and additional indoor active recreation spaces.

 

The proposal, which is located in the lower campus requires removal of the surface parking on the site and will formalise the open space to the north of the site to provide an entry forecourt to the new building. To the south the building will remove  an area of soft landscaping, but will improve the relationship of the site and existing surrounding buildings to the primary landscape element in the campus, the University Mall. The footprint of the building has been designed to retain two large trees, one which is located close to the southern entry of the Analytical Centre and maintains the landscaped edge to the University Mall.

 

The proposal is consistent with the adopted Master Plan.

 

10.2.3    Urban Design Framework for the North Mall Development Zone (UDF)

 

The University submitted a Kensington Campus Master Plan in 2002 and the RCC has required further revisions to it. As a consequence, the University is currently carrying out a review of the Kensington Campus Master Plan. The Urban Design Framework for the North Mall Development Zone was approved by the University and lodged with the RCC prior to the lodgement of this DA. This framework was accepted by RCC officers as part of the progressive fulfilment of RCC’s provisions for adopting the Master Plan. The framework represents stage 1 of the Master Plan review and takes into account the future development of the lower campus.

 

The UDF contains provisions for pedestrian and vehicular access and spatial aspects of the Campus that are generally in accordance with the approved Master Plan. The proposal fulfils the objectives and principles contained within this part of the document.

 

The UDF also contains building footprint and envelope drawings which show a five storey building envelope along the southern side of the Applied Sciences Building extending across the Law Building site to the west and extending between the Dalton Building and Applied Sciences to the east. The development fits within this envelope and does not fill the entire envelope in height (being 4 storeys along the southern edge) nor width – with sections of the building envelope not being constructed to the western and south-eastern ends of the site. This meets the development principle that the buildings occupy a maximum of 75% of the building envelopes shown in the UDF. The development is consistent with the built form controls of the UDF.

 

The Development Principles under section 3.1 of the UDF include:

 

(g)     Ensure the ground levels of all new and refurbished buildings have at least 75% visible uses to allow for entrances to and/ or surveillance of the surrounding public domain.

 

(h)     Include clear glazing in the ground levels of buildings which correspond as near to possible to external levels.

 

The ground floor level to the northern side is open to the public domain with a high quantity of clear glazing and meeting room uses that activate the interior of the building and provide opportunities for surveillance. The northern elevation meets the objectives and requirements of the UDF.

 

As discussed above under section 10.2.2, the southern elevation does not achieve the requirement of 75% visible uses as specified in the UDF. To achieve a good urban design outcome and satisfy the objectives of surveillance and activity to the public domain this is considered to be particularly important as this elevation faces the main thoroughfare through the University. The architect has provided further convincing arguments based on the program of the building and the design intent:

 

 

1.       100% transparent glazing is proposed for around both entries to the Analytical Centre from the Mall. Therefore, there will be excellent visibility in and out of the foyers where the activity levels are high.

 

2.       Approximately 47% of the perimeter of the ground level is 100% transparent glazing. In response to the brief, program and special technical restrictions, about 43% is proposed as ~25-30% transparent. The remaining perimeter is solid (10%). Therefore, this equates to 60% of the ground floor perimeter being 100% transparent.

 

3.       Our brief, program and special technical restrictions necessitated the location of these instrumentation labs on the ground floor along the Mall. These labs house large instruments that can be messy and not at all desirable to view from the Mall; thus we have attempted to balance transparency and screening to mitigate any adverse impact. This, in turn, directly informed the design of the southern facade on ground level.

 

4.       The level of transparency and natural light proposed for these heavy instrumentation labs is unparalleled. Typically these facilities are either in basements or on floors with a high level strip window. With an expected transparency of ~25-30%, we expect the amount of natural light will exceed typical labs of this nature.

 

5.       Whilst the estimated 25-30% transparency seems low, in our experience (eg. perforated metal panels or louvres) this amount of "open area" is surprisingly transparent when viewed from inside.

 

6.       The occupancy of these instrumentation labs on ground floor is very low (typically 2-4 persons) and transitory. Therefore, we have increased the transparency on the upper floors to 100% (floor-to-ceiling glazing) where occupancy is high and less transitory with the aim of enabling surveillance of the Mall.

 

7.       The rock facade treatment is intended to be homogenous to establish a base to the building which assists in "grounding" the Analytical Centre and Applied Science. Any variation by increasing transparency in certain areas will erode this design intent. Therefore, we would rather establish an overall level of transparency across this entire facade.

 

Given these arguments it is considered appropriate to reduce the requirement for visibility to 25% (see Condition 2) along the southern elevation to satisfy the objectives of the UDF.

 

The UDF also provides landscaping and parking details that are still under development. The location of the building within the building zone indicated in Figures 7-9 of the UDF will ensure future landscaping and carparking plans are not compromised by the proposal. The UDF indicates a bicycle parking area to the north of the existing Applied Sciences Building and this is to be included in the scope of works for this Development Application (see Condition 1).

 

The proposal is consistent with the Urban Design Framework for the North Mall Development Zone.

 

10.3   Impacts on the locality

 

Density

 

The development will increase the gross floor area on the site by 8,537m2.

 

The additional floor space proposed will not significantly increase the bulk and scale of this part of the lower campus due to the existing 11 storey building to the north of the site. The new 5 storey building in this location will form a transition between the Applied Sciences Building (11 storeys) and the adjacent open spaces of the University Mall and further south the Village Green. The development will not result in significant overshadowing impacts to adjacent buildings or areas of open space. The accommodation should not result in a significantly increased demand for services as the new building will accommodate relocated staff and uses from other areas on site. The development on the site will complement and support existing University uses and in particular science uses in the lower campus.

 

Notwithstanding that there is no FSR standard on the site, the proposal meets the objectives of density controls which is to establish reasonable upper limits on development in order to reduce the potential for adverse impacts on surrounding development. The proposal is satisfactory with regard to density.

 

Privacy

 

To the north, east and west of the site there are no residential buildings in close proximity to the site.

 

Overshadowing

 

The additional height of the proposal will not result in significant additional overshadowing to surrounding parts of the University due to the location of the new building up to 5 storeys in height on the southern side of the existing Applied Sciences Building which is 11 storeys in height. During midwinter mornings and at midday a minor amount of additional shadow will be cast on the University Mall and the lawn areas to the south of the site. By midwinter afternoons the shadow has moved significantly and there will not be any additional shadowing of the Mall or surrounding open space due to existing development on the surrounding sites.

 

The additional overshadowing is not considered to be significant give that there will only be minor additional impact to the University Mall and that the building will provide a new public open space on the northern side of the building that will receive afternoon winter sunlight. The major open space in the vicinity of the site, the Village Green sports oval, is to the south of the site but will not be affected by additional shadow as a result of the development.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to solar access.

 

Social Impacts

 

The development is proposed to house specialist technical equipment related to the educational and research functions of the University. The development will also provide new, quality accommodation for students and staff of the School of Chemistry. The proposal is therefore considered to have a positive social benefit for the University. The research and teaching conducted at the facility may result in new developments that provide a benefit the wider community.

 

The location of science facilities together promotes sharing of ideas between faculties and increases the ability to share expensive specialist equipment. The co-location of like Faculties and Schools is part of the University’s Master Plan objectives and is considered to have a positive social outcome.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to social impacts.

 

Safety and security

 

The development will be secured as per the management requirements of UNSW. Main access to the building will be from the north and south. Increased lighting to these entranceways and their location adjacent to main pedestrian thoroughfares will make them more inviting and improve safety in the area.

 

The increased glazing to the façade of the building allows surveillance of the footpath of the University Mall and the Campus from building.

 

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to safety and security.

 

10.4   Traffic and Parking

 

Under the DCP – Parking the development requires 28 staff spaces to be provided for the building. The applicant has not provided details of student numbers but has indicated that the number of students and staff on campus will not increase as a result of the development as the Analytical Centre will accommodate staff and students from other buildings on campus. Council has previously accepted this argument in relation to the new Law Building to the south of the site, subject to submission of a detailed parking strategy taking into account parking requirements across the whole of the Campus. The approved master plan encourages parking provision on the perimeter of the Campus and focuses on a centralised parking model rather than providing building-specific parking areas throughout the Campus. This approach has benefits for the internal planning of the Campus and encourages pedestrian networks throughout the site.

 

The DCP – Parking provides general requirements for parking across the City of Randwick. It is anticipated that the new Campus Parking Strategy currently under preparation will refine the DCP requirements in order to provide adequate parking facilities for the whole of the Kensington Campus. The Campus Parking Strategy is required to be submitted to Council by 7 December 2005 in accordance with conditions of consent for DA 667/2004.

 

The DCP – Parking contains a requirement for bicycle parking facilities for educational establishments of one bicycle space per 10 car spaces (more than 3 spaces for this development). In order to encourage greater use of bicycles and to ensure adequate, secure bicycle storage for students and staff, a condition has been applied requiring a minimum of 10 secure bicycle spaces be provided at ground level to the front of the Applied Sciences Building (as per the UDF) and are to be signposted from the University Mall entrance as per Condition 1.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to DCP – Parking.

 

10.5   The suitability of the site for the development

 

The site was indicated for redevelopment in the adopted UNSW Master Plan and more specifically in the Urban Design Framework for the North Mall Development Zone. The redevelopment of the site for improved research and teaching facilities is consistent with the Special Uses zone and has excellent access to public transport and the facilities and infrastructure available on the main campus. The proposal has limited the impact of additional accommodation on surrounding sites by its orientation, footprint and building height.

 

The site is suitable for the proposed development.

 

10.6   Likely impact of the development - S79C(1)(b)

 

10.6.1    Natural Environmental Impacts

 

The development site lies within the existing built-up area of the UNSW. As such, there are no threatened species, populations or ecological communities or habitats that would be affected by the proposed development in the vicinity of the development site.

 

10.7   The public interest

 

The provision of additional educational floor space in the proposed location will not adversely affect existing uses in the area. The location of the site internal to the campus means the proposal will not result in significant impacts on surrounding properties. The development of the site for new scientific research and teaching spaces including accommodation of specialist technical equipment will improve the University’s facilities for students and staff in accordance with current development controls. The development is considered to be in the public interest.

 

11.     FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development is appropriate on the site given the desired future character of the area and the objectives contained within the RLEP98, the UNSW Master Plan for the Kensington Campus and Urban Design Framework for the North Mall Development Zone. The development proposes a building envelope, height and façade treatment that generally meets the criteria and fulfils these objectives.

 

The subject site is part of developable land within the UNSW campus which is identified in the UDF for the North Mall Development Zone. The proposal is not inconsistent with the terms of the adopted Master Plan for the UNSW campus. The location of the site within the University grounds makes it suitable for the intended use. The proposal is a permissible use in the Special Uses 5 zone. In addition, the subject site is located in an established urban area surrounded by existing road and services infrastructure, community facilities and open space in the locality.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties external to the campus or existing development on adjacent sites within the campus. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

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 1005/2004 for Construction of a new four storey purpose built facility for scientific research and teaching including new accommodation for the School of Chemistry at the University of NSW, Kensington Campus at 330 Anzac Parade, Kensington subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans prefixed G11-A- and numbered 001-01-DA_A, 003-01-DA_A, 010-01-DA_--, 099-01-DA_A, 100-01-DA_A, 101-01-DA_A, 102-01-DA_A, 103-01-DA_A, 104-01-DA_A, 201-01-DA_A, 202-01-DA_A, 203-01-DA_A, 204-01-DA_A, 250-03-DA_A and 250-04-DA_A all dated 8 November 2004 and the plans prefixed G11-A and numbered 250-01-DA_A, 250-02-DA_A, dated 27 September 2004 and received by Council on 23 November 2004, and the plan numbered G11-A-100-02DARev.—dated 4 February 2005 and stamped received by Council on 7 February 2005, and the supplementary details sent under cover letter dated 3rd November 2004 in relation to stormwater for the Law Building, 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:

 

2.       The southern façade at ground floor level, proposed to be constructed of glazing, resin and rocks is to maximise transparency and be designed so as to be at least 25% transparent.

 

This condition is imposed to clarify the plans and to achieve the principles of the approved master plan and the requirements of the Urban Design Framework as submitted by the University. Details are to be included with the Construction Certificate application.

 

3.       A minimum of ten (10) bicycle parking spaces are to be provided in a secure and convenient location, near the northern entry to the building as per the Urban Design Framework for the North Mall Development Zone, for the use of building occupants and visitors. Clear signage is to be provided indicating the location of the spaces from the University Mall entrance to the building.

 

The bicycle parking is to be provided in accordance with the guidelines in Council’s DCP – Parking. Details of the bicycle parking are to be included in the Construction Certificate application.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection and occupational health and safety.

 

4.       All site works shall comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of WorkCover NSW.

 

5.       The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids must be in accordance with Australian Standards AS1940-1993 The Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids and relevant requirements and guidelines published by the Department of Environment and Conservation and WorkCover NSW.

 

6.       Sufficient supplies of appropriate absorbent materials and/or other appropriate spill clean up equipment shall be kept on site to recover any liquid spillage.  Liquid spills must be cleaned up using dry methods only and shall not give rise to an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW).

 

7.       An Emergency Response Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.  The Plan shall include the following:

 

·        list of chemicals and maximum quantities to be stored at the site;

·        identification of potentially hazardous situations;

·        procedure for incident reporting;

·        details of spill stations and signage;

·        containment and clean-up facilities and procedures; and

·        the roles of all staff in the Plan and details of staff training.

 

8.       All wastes arising from demolition, excavation and use of the premises shall be removed, hazardous or intractable wastes arising from the demolition process being removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Department of Environment and Conservation, 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

·        Department Of Environment and Conservation’s Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid and Non Liquid Wastes (1999).

 

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:

 

9.       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).

 

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: Nuisance or hazard

 

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

 

11.     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.

 

12.     All proposed mechanical ventilation systems shall comply with the Building Code of Australia and design and operational requirements of the WorkCover Authority and Department of Environment and Conservation.

 

13.     A statement / Certificate by a suitably qualified person, shall be submitted to Council before any operation or process is commenced, certifying the emissions comply with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

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

 

14.     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.

 

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

 

16.     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.

 

17.     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.

 

18.     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.

 

19.     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:

 

20.     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:

 

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

 

22.     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.

 

23.     The building works are to be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by the Principal Certifying Authority), to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction and Council’s development consent.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority shall specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

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

 

Upon inspection of each stage of construction, the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person approved by the Principal Certifying Authority) is also required to ensure that the relevant site management, public safety and sediment and erosion requirements specified in Council’s consent are being satisfied.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

25.     A 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.

 

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

 

a)       Prior to construction of the footings or first completed floor slab (prior to the pouring of concrete), showing the area of the land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building is being constructed at the approved levels.

 

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

 

27.     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.

 

28.     A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that ‘unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited’ and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours.

 

In the case of residential building work, the sign is also required to detail the licence number of the building contractor or the permit number of the owner-builder, in accordance with the Home Building Act 1989 and Regulations.

 

29.     Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, at the rate of one toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

30.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

Fences or hoardings are to be structurally adequate and be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

Details of the proposed temporary fences located upon the site are to be submitted to the principal certifying authority and the public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

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

 

33.     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

 

34.     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.

 

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

 

35.     Access and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities being provided to the building in accordance with Parts D3 and F2 of the Building Code of Australia and relevant Australian Standards.  Details of compliance is required to be provided in the relevant plans/specifications for the construction certification.

 

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

 

36.     The temporary carpark proposed in DA 668/2004 must be constructed and available for use prior to commencement of work on the proposed analytical building, unless it can demonstrate to the satisfaction of Council that 16 additional parking spaces are available on campus whilst the temporary carpark is constructed.

 

37.     The temporary carpark shall remain available for use by UNSW students and staff until such a time as an alternative parking station is constructed and/or the integrated transport study is completed and the temporary carpark is no longer required.

 

38.     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.

 

39.     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.

 

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

 

41.     Provision shall be made for safe transfer of goods between the loading dock in the Applied Science building and the adjoining Analytical Centre.

 

42.     The loading dock approved in conjunction with the applied science building (DA 732/2004) shall be constructed and available for use prior to commencement of work on the Analytical Centre.

 

43.     The applicant is to undertake, using Council approved contractors, the upgrading of street tree planting along Anzac Parade for that portion of the UNSW frontage outside Warrane and New Colleges (approximately 130m). The scope of work is to be as follows:

·        Remove the existing 2 off Brushbox and 6 off Populus Italica Nigre and replace with 12 off Platanus Hybrida (75 litre size) at approximate 10metre centres.

·        Provide RCC approved tree surrounds to the replaced trees

·        Infill remaining nature strip to create a full width concrete footpath for the extent of the re-planted zone.

 

          All costs associated with the above works shall be borne by the applicant.

 

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

 

44.     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 works 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:

 

45.     All stormwater runoff from the new Analytical Centre 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 applied science 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.

 

46.     Percolation via chambers/infiltration pits shall be provided in the village green detention basin (if required) to ensure that the depth of ponding and rate of outflow from the detention area are not increased as a result of the additional flows directed into the area. This work shall be completed prior to occupation of the proposed Analytical Centre.

 

47.     All new 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).

 

48.     Any overland flows (for storms up to the 1 in 100 year event) currently flowing down Union Road/Science Road, shall be intersected up stream of the proposed Analytical Centre and diverted to the village green detention area.

 

49.     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.

 

50.     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.

 

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

 

52.     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.

 

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

 

54.     Pump out systems 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.

 

55.     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 to discharging by gravity to the village green detention/infiltration area. The gross pollutant trap/s shall be sized to treat 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.

 

56.     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.

 

57.     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.

 

58.     Prior to occupation of the Analytical Centre 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).

59.     Prior to occupation of the refurbished applied science 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.

 

60.     The proposed NMR pits shall be suitably tanked and waterproofed unless it can be demonstrated (by a suitably qualified geotechnical/hydro-geological consultant) that seasonal/long term fluctuations of the watertable will not result in the watertable rising above the base of the pits.

 

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.

 

Note:-

Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the NMR pits (to ensure that the pits will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for waste management:

 

61.     The new waste storage area located at the rear of the proposed loading dock (to be constructed in conjunction with DA 732/2004) shall be completed and available for use prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the analytical centre.

 

62.     All bin storage areas (excluding areas where bins will temporarily be stored for no more than 24 hours prior to collection) shall be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

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

 

63.     Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees. (Note: Approval has already been granted for removal of these trees under DA 979/04). Replacements are not deemed necessary given the presence of numerous other significant trees that are to be retained on this site as part of the works.

 

a.       One Ficus microcarpa var ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Fig, N50) on the southern side of the existing sandstone wall

 

b.       One Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Fig, N51) on the southern side of the existing sandstone wall

 

c.       The northern most Populus deltoides (Poplar, M2) in the paved courtyard to the east of the existing building

 

d.       Two (2) Allocasurina glauca (She Oaks) against the eastern side of the existing building

 

64.     In order to ensure the retention of the recently planted Populus deltoides (Poplar) to the north, the Populus deltoides (Popular, M1) in the paved courtyard area, and the Eucalyptus species (Gum Tree) near the northeast corner of the existing building in good health, 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 trunks (except on the southern side of the eucalyptus species where the fence may be installed next to the wall of the existing building).

 

          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.       Any excavations required for footings, structures, retaining walls, pipes, detention tanks, stormwater infiltration systems, paving etc within 3 metres of the tree trunks 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".

 

 

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 C2       -        Compartmentation and separation

c)       Part D1       -        Provisions for escape

d)      Part D3       -        Access for people with disabilities

e)       Part E1       -        Fire fighting equipment

f)       Part E2       -        Smoke Hazard Management

g)       Part E4       -        Emergency lighting, exit signs and warning systems

h)       Part F2       -        Sanitary and other facilities

i)        Part F4       -        Light and ventilation

 

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

 

A2.    The applicant is 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

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 15/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

214 Clovelly Road, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

10 March, 2005

FILE NO:

D1102/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No. D1102/2004 for the addition of a new stainless steel wire trellis on top of the existing eastern and western side boundary walls.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 24 February 2005.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

24 February, 2005

FILE NO:

D1102/2004   

 

PROPOSAL:

 Addition of a new stainless steel wire trellis on top of the existing eastern and western side boundary walls.

PROPERTY:

 214 Clovelly Road, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr S Michael

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The application seeks consent to erect a new stainless steel wire trellis on top of the existing eastern and western side boundary walls. The estimated cost of development is $2,000.

 

The issues for consideration are whether or not the two proposed wire trellis structures are necessary given the existing height of the walls and level of privacy currently enjoyed at ground level, the required maintenance of climbing plants, visual appearance of the trellis and inconsistency with the open design courtyard between adjoining properties at Nos. 210-212 and 214 Clovelly Road.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to erect a stainless steel wire trellis on top of the existing eastern and western side boundary walls. The trellis will have a height ranging from 660mm to 1150mm. Each trellis is intended to be used as a framework for:

 

§  climbing plants to provide additional privacy,

§  softening the look of the masonry wall, and

§  covering up of untidy brickwork on the western side boundary and a corrugated iron shed adjacent to the eastern side boundary.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Clovelly Road, west of the intersection with Mount Street at Randwick. The site is currently occupied by a part three and part four storey commercial/residential building with two retail shops on the ground floor. The site has a frontage to Clovelly Road and a secondary frontage to Division Lane. The locality is characterised by a variety of uses with retail and residential premises along Clovelly Road. Adjoining the subject site to the east is a two-storey commercial/retail building with residence above. To the south on the opposite side of Division Lane is a residential flat building located within a Heritage Conservation Area. Immediately to the west is a mixed commercial/residential development. Further to the west are two and three storey residential flat buildings. To the north on the opposite side of Clovelly Road is a row of two storey commercial/retail buildings.

 

4.       RELEVANT HISTORY

 

DA-1172/1999, Approval was granted on 24 March 2000 to construct part 3/part 4 residential/commercial development containing 2 shops and 10 residential units.

 

 

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1     Objections

 

K & G Tolley of 216 Clovelly Road, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The existing fence is already 1.8m high and the proposal will increase the height to 2.5m which is considered to be inappropriate.

It is acknowledged that the height of the existing brick wall on the eastern side boundary is sufficient to maintain the privacy of the residents and the additional height to the wall is considered to be unnecessary as it will not provide any additional privacy.

The additional height will cast additional shadows to the rear yard of their property.

The eastern trellis will cast the majority of additional shadows on the roof of an existing shed structure at the rear of 216 Clovelly Road and is not considered to be an issue.

The potential maintenance problem associated with the proposed vine plants.

It is agreed that the growing of vines or climbing plants could be difficult to maintain and if not maintained, could adversely affect the aesthetic quality of the rear yard.

 

K & V Papadopoulos of 210 Clovelly Road, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed trellis will cause overshadowing to their property.

The western trellis will be approximately 600mm above the existing brick wall on the eastern side boundary of 210 Clovelly Road and the additional shadow is unlikely to result in any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents.

The existing brick wall with the addition of the trellis will exceed the appropriate height allowed for the fence.

This issue has been addressed above.

Planting of fast growing vines will be hard to maintain.

This issue has been addressed above.

 

 

Virkos Buildings & Consultancy Pty Ltd of 212 Clovelly Road, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Strongly object to the idea of growing vines or climbers as these plants will eventually become an overgrown mess unable to be maintained by the owner of 214 Clovelly Road.

This issue has been addressed above.

The addition of a trellis on top of the existing fence will not provide any additional privacy to the residents of the buildings.

This issue has been addressed above.

 

5.2     Support

 

The applicant has responded to the above issues and the following comments were provided:

 

§  The trellis is only a lightweight structure that will assist climbing plants and cannot be compared to a solid fence.

§  The trellis will only improve the privacy for all parties and will have absolutely no impact on neighbour’s garden area.

§  The owners of the subject property will be responsible for the maintenance of the plants in the garden and the plants will not be left to run wild to invade neighbouring properties.

§  The trellis would only exceed the existing wall on 212 Clovelly Road by 600mm, the degree of additional shadowing will be minimal and insignificant.

§  The suggestion that the courtyard of 212 Clovelly Road was designed and landscaped to complement both buildings is pure rhetoric. The courtyard of 212 Clovelly Road is punctuated by its balconies and building line, making it 40% smaller than that of 214 Clovelly Road. Furthermore, a row of tall evergreen trees along the common boundary makes the impact of an additional trellis insignificant.

 

6.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Local Business 3B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

7.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

7.1     Amenity Impact

 

Each trellis will increase the height of the existing eastern and western boundary walls to a maximum of 2.8m. As noted above, each trellis will be used as a framework for climbing plants to provide additional privacy for all parties and to cover up some neglected brickwork and a unsightly corrugated iron shed on the adjoining properties. A site inspection revealed that the trellis would not provide any additional privacy at the courtyard level nor will it improve the privacy on the first floor levels or above. It is also evident that the courtyard has a well maintained garden area with some plants already higher than the existing boundary walls and these plants, when mature, will be sufficient to cover the untidy brickwork and the corrugated iron shed on the adjoining properties. It is also considered that the trellis will heighten the sense of enclosure in the courtyard and will detract from the open nature of the internal courtyard design for the existing development at 210-214 Clovelly Road. Furthermore, the climbing plants, if not properly maintained, are likely to cause maintenance problem for the neighbouring properties and could adversely affect the aesthetic quality of neighbouring properties. For these reasons, it is not considered that this application should be supported as it will not improve the amenity of the occupants of the subject and adjoining buildings.  

 

8.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

9.       CONCLUSION

 

The application is recommended for refusal, as the two trellis structures are unnecessary, will be intrusive and if not maintained will detract from the visual appearance of the adjoining premises and will not improve the amenity of the occupants of the subject and adjoining buildings.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 1102/2004 for Addition of a new stainless steel wire trellis on top of the existing eastern and western side boundary walls at 214 Clovelly Road, Randwick for the following reasons:-

 

1.       The trellis structures will be intrusive, excessive in height, will not improve the privacy of the subject and adjoining properties at ground level and will detract from the open nature of the internal courtyard design for the existing buildings at 210-214 Clovelly Road.

 

2.       The trellis structures with climbing plants will be difficult for the adjoining owners to maintain and are unnecessary.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans   

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 16/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

6 Crana Avenue, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

9 March, 2005

FILE NO:

1111/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No. 1111/2004 for alterations and additions to dwelling.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 1 March 2005.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

1 March, 2005

FILE NO:

1111/04

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to dwelling

PROPERTY:

 6 Crana Avenue Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 L Liskowski

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Matson, Woodsmith and Hughes.

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling which is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection area. The estimated cost of development is $150 000.

 

The primary issues for consideration are the likely impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the impact upon the streetscape and foreshore.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to carry out alterations and additions to essentially modernise the appearance of the dwelling as follows:

 

a)       The renovation of  the existing lower ground level to include the installation of a new garage door, provide a new garbage and recycling storage area, renew the existing entry including the conversion of an area of the entry to a wardrobe/store and renovate the existing bedroom and bathroom.

 

b)      At ground level renovate the existing deck above the garage including new tiles, balustrade and privacy screen to the northern end of the deck, renovate the laundry, provide new sliding doors to the front living room opening onto the deck above the garage, demolish a portion of the rear of the dwelling and enlarge the kitchen and TV room with bi fold doors opening onto the existing rear patio.

 

c)       At first floor level enclose the existing balcony at the front of the dwelling with glass louvres and glass roof, enlarge the window to bedroom 3 in the southern elevation of the dwelling and provide for a new bedroom to the rear of the dwelling.

 

The building works will provide for an additional 13m² of floor area to the existing dwelling house.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Crana Avenue between Pearce and Wisdom Street and is presently occupied by an existing three storey dwelling house. The site has a frontage of 10.06m, a side boundary depth of 35.645m and an overall site area of 369m², the site falls from the rear towards the street frontage with a difference in levels of up to 5m.

 

At present the site is occupied by a part two and part three storey dwelling with an inground swimming pool within the rear yard area. The existing dwelling comprises a double garage bedroom and ensuite bathroom at lower ground level, living, dining room, laundry and kitchen at ground level and three bedrooms and two bathrooms at first floor level. 

Neighbouring the property is a mixture of two and three storey dwellings and the locality as a whole is within the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

4.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

R & J Felling of 53 Denning Street Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

There may be a nuisance caused by reflection from the roof material.

A condition of consent is included to require that the roof be colourbond or similar to minimise any reflection to nearby properties.

 

 

E Turner of 51 Denning Street Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

There may be a nuisance caused by reflection from the roof material.

A condition of consent is included to require that the roof be colourbond or similar to minimise any reflection to nearby properties.

 

 

M E McMahon & Associates on behalf of Mr & Mrs Reid, owners of 8 Crana Avenue

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal exceeds the floor space ratio of the DCP.

As discussed in Section 5 of this report, the additional floor space will result in a floor space ratio to the dwelling which does not comply with the preferred solution of the DCP. However the proposal does satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that the overall bulk and scale of the dwelling will not be incompatible with the nature of surrounding development, the floor space ratio of the existing dwelling already exceeds the preferred solution of the DCP and the additional floor area to the dwelling is only 13m².

 

Energy efficiency has not been addressed.

Given the very modest extent of the works to the dwelling the application is not subject to the BASIX requirements.

 

There will be a negative impact upon the property to the south.

Having regard to the overall scope of the development which includes the demolition of a section within the southern elevation of the dwelling adjoining the objectors premises, and that the new addition to the upper level is towards the northern side of the subject premises, not the objectors premises, it is not considered on balance that there will be a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises which would justify the modification or refusal of the application.

 

The standard contained in the Development Control Plan relating to maximum floor space ratio requires careful consideration even though this standard is not a statutory control.

The floor space ratio requirement within the Development Control Plan for Dwelling House and Attached Dual Occupancies is not a development standard and does not require a SEPP 1 Objection.   Notwithstanding, the proposal has been considered having regard to both the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

The application should be refused due to the impact upon the adjoining premises.

As has been discussed, it is not considered that the extent of building works will result in such a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises to warrant the refusal of the application.

 

 

 

 

5.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the premises is within the foreshore scenic protection area, the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

 

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

 

-        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

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

-        Building Code of Australia.

 

 

 

 

 

6.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

6.1     Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

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

 

6.1.1  Floor Area

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.8:1. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

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

 

The existing floor space ratio of the dwelling is already 0.78:1 and the additional floor area to the dwelling is only 13m².

 

The applicant in the addendum to the Statement of Environmental Effects has stated that whilst the proposal does not meet the preferred solution the proposal does satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that the proposed additions will result in the house being of the same bulk and scale to the adjacent dwellings and those in the neighbouring vicinity, and the site coverage is also similar to surrounding dwellings.

 

It is considered that the applicants argument has merit as the building is surrounded by predominantly two and three storey dwellings of similar bulk and scale, all of which would also exceed the preferred solution FSR in the current DCP. The proposal will satisfy the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

6.1.2  Height, Form & Materials

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 5.6 metres. Complies.

 

 

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S2

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

The proposed dwelling is 13 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

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

The proposed development is set back 0.9 metres from the side boundaries. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back 0.9 metres from the side boundaries. Does not comply, see assessment.

 

There are no objections to the upper level being sited only 900mm from the northern side boundary in that this setback maintains the existing upper level setback of the dwelling, is consistent with nearby and adjoining dwellings and will not result in any significant impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises.

 

6.1.3  Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies; and separation, screening devices and landscaping be used to assist in minimising privacy impacts.

 

It is not considered that there will be any significant adverse impact upon the existing levels of privacy to the adjoining premises in that the existing deck to the front of the dwelling is not being enlarged and the new upper level addition to the rear of the dwelling sited 900mm from the northern and 4500mm from the southern side boundaries will in the main only overlook the rear yard of the dwelling rather than into adjoining premises.

 

6.2     Randwick LEP – Clause 29 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

Clause 29 of the LEP requires that Council can only grant consent after consideration has been given to the aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore.

 

The proposed privacy screen to the front terrace and solid balustrade will increase the bulk and scale of garage detracting from the streetscape, and the visual quality of the foreshore area.

 

A condition is recommended to delete the 1800mm high privacy screen to the northern edge of the garage roof deck and the solid balustrade to the perimeter of the garage deck be replaced with a glass balustrade to reduce the bulk of the front of the building, and improve the appearance of the building in the local streetscape.

 

Overall, the proposed works will improve the appearance of the dwelling, and there are no objections to the proposed development, subject to the recommended amendments with respect to its impact upon the aesthetics of the foreshore area.

 

7.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed alterations and additions, subject to conditions, will not result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises or upon the visual qualities of the foreshore scenic protection area. The proposed alterations and additions to the dwelling also satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 1111/04 for permission to carryout alterations and additions to the dwelling at 6 Crana Avenue Coogee subject to the following conditions: -

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 0445, sheets DA-01 to DA-11, inclusive, dated December 2004 and received by Council on the 23rd December 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

3.       The colour and texture of the brickwork is required to match, as closely as possible, the existing external walls of the building.

 

4.       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.

 

5.       The privacy screen to the northern elevation of the garage roof deck shall be deleted and the solid balustrade to the perimeter of the garage deck shall be replaced with a clear glass balustrade to reduce the bulk of the front of the building and improve the appearance of the building within the local streetscape. Plans accompanying the Construction Certificate application are to be amended accordingly.

 

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

 

6        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.

 

7        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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

11      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.

 

12      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.

 

13      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.

14      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.

 

15      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.

 

16      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”.

 

17      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.

 

18      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.

 

19      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.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

25      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.

 

26      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.

 

27      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.

         

28      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.

 

29      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.

 

30      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.

 

31      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

 

32      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.

 

33      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.

 

34      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 geo-textile 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.

 

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 17/2005

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

9 Dacre Street, Malabar

 

 

DATE:

9 March, 2005

FILE NO:

00138/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development application Report for a Section 96 Modification to delete deferred commencement condition 2, relating to the height of the garage and front building of the approved dual occupancy.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Section 96 application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 28 January 2005

2.  Development Application Report dated 16 August 2004.  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

LUKE JACKSON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR TOWN PLANNER

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

28 January, 2005

FILE NO:

04/00138

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 modification to delete deferred commencement condition 2 relating to the height of the garage and front dwelling of the approved dual occupancy

PROPERTY:

 9 Dacre Street, Malabar

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Cameron Habler

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The proposed modification seeks to delete deferred commencement consent condition no. 2 relating to lowering the height of the garage and dwelling fronting Dacre Street by 1m. The condition was originally imposed to reduce the visual bulk of the garage from the street and lower the height of the building overall to enable compliance with the external wall height standard.

 

The site is located in a residential 2A zone and contains a two storey dwelling with a rear garage to Dacre Lane. The site slopes steeply from the rear to the front of the site with a fall in land height of approximately 10m. The area is characterised by one to three storey residential dwellings, with many having garages with vehicular access off Dacre Street.

 

The proposed modification would result in a non-compliance with the external wall height requirement of 7m by 0.6m and would result in a garage facing Dacre Street with a height of 3.5m. The modified plans reduce the floor to floor height of the garage by 700mm by raising the ground level of the garage by 700mm.

 

Objections were received to the proposal and included excessive height, bulk and scale, view loss, privacy issues and streetscape issues.

 

The assessment reveals that the minor exceedance in height does not result in significant additional bulk or view loss and the proposal is not out of scale in terms of its height with respect to the buildings on adjacent and surrounding properties. There are no additional impacts in terms of privacy as a result of the increased height. The reduction in height of the garage by 700mm and the use of a glass balustrade above the garage softens the visual bulk of the garage so that it is blends in with the streetscape.

 

The recommendation is for approval to delete the deferred commencement condition.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to modify the development consent issued to the applicant on 17 September 2004 by deleting deferred commencement condition No.2 which states the following:

 

“The floor to floor height of the garage to the front dwelling is to be reduced in height by 1metre and floor levels of upper floors lowered accordingly so that the maximum RL of the front dwelling is RL27.83.”

 

In order to address the intent of the above condition, the Applicant proposes to reduce the prominence of the garage by reducing the floor to floor height of the garage to 3.5m.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site consists of a single, regular shaped allotment with front and rear (northern and southern) boundaries of 12.07 metres, eastern and western side boundaries of 47.385 metres. The site has an area of 571.9m2 and is located on the southern side of Dacre Street in Malabar. The site has a second frontage to the rear of the property to Dacre Lane. The site slopes significantly from the rear to the front boundary, resulting in a change in level between these two boundaries of approximately 10 metres.

 

Existing on the site is a 1-2 storey dwelling with detached rumpus room and garage with access from Dacre Lane. An inground swimming pool exists to the rear of the site.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by large 1-3 storey detached dwelling houses with garages fronting Dacre Street. To the rear of the site is a recently constructed 2 storey (above garages) multi unit housing development and Malabar Public School. Across Dacre Street to the north of the site is Cromwell Park, a public reserve. There are no heritage items in the vicinity of the subject site. The site is located in a foreshore scenic protection area (FSPA).

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

At the Health, Building & Planning Committee meeting held 7 September 2004,  Council approved the development application for the demolition of the existing residence and associated structures and construction of a new two storey attached dual occupancy, swimming pool and attached double garage to each dwelling subject to 3 deferred commencement conditions and 85 conditions of consent.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1     Objections

 

1)      Steven Layman, Steven Layman Consulting, Town Planner & Architect, Suite 14, 46 – 48 Urunga Pde, Miranda NSW 2228

 

·        Height – The 7m wall height is a control that determines the character of development and represents a reasonable expectation for residents regarding height. Height is important in terms of its impacts with respect to streetscape. Overall height is less important because it relates to the roof peak. If it increased in height by 1m, the proposal exceeds the 7m maximum external wall height in two places adjacent to 7 Dacre Street at the street frontage. The exceedance in height limit is inappropriate due to its proximity to the rear private open space of 7 Dacre Street. The “street front house” should remain lowered to comply with the wall height limit, because the lowest level is elevated above Dacre Street. The level approved provides more level vehicular access to the proposal and a better relationship of the proposal to the street. It is unnecessary to vary the wall height standard for these reasons and for reasons of view loss, privacy loss and bulk, scale and character.

·        View Loss – Increase in height would result in ocean views being lost from the living room window, the rear private open space and the swimming pool area. These views are an important part of the amenity of 7 Dacre Street and the residents have a reasonable expectation that unreasonable view loss would not be caused by a non-complying development.

·        Overlooking/Loss of Privacy – The increase in height exacerbates privacy loss to 7 Dacre Street. Maintaining the approved level minimises overlooking from proposed windows and terraces.

·        Bulk/scale/characterIncreasing the height of the proposal leads to a taller and bulkier form that is more out of character with the locality.

 

2)      Mrs Leontine Seiffert, 5 Dacre Street, Malabar NSW 2036.

 

·        The height of the proposal has adverse impacts in terms of view loss and bulk and scale from my property.

·        Randwick LEP requires external wall height must not exceed 7m.

·        The statutory control is a significant control that determines the character of the development.

·        Wall height is more important than overall height in terms of impacts on view sharing with neighbours.

·        FSR is above the legal limit for size of land and the bulk/scale is out of character with other buildings in the area. Recent court decisions emphasize view sharing – deleting the condition would completely wipe out my views.

·        Council has originally determined the application, why should there be any relaxation of the height limit?

 

3)      Mr Victor and Mrs Lidia Dubrovic, 13 Dacre Street, Malabar NSW 2036.

 

·        Have expressed concerns about the height, bulk, scale and loss of privacy from the outset.

·        Extern