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

 

 

20 May 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, 24TH MAY 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, 26TH APRIL, 2005.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

6.1                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 59/2005 - WAIVING OF FEES - STATE JUNIOR TITLES.

2

 

 

7           General Manager's Reports

 

7.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 20/2005 - DECEMBER 2005 QUARTER REVIEW - 2004-07 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

4

 

7.2                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 21/2005 - WAIVING OF FEES - PUPPY LOVE DAY - GRANT RESERVE, COOGEE.

6

 

7.3                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 22/2005 - AUTHORITY TO INCREASE HIRING FEES - SNAPE PARK TENNIS CENTRE.

8

 

7.4                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 23/2005 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

10

7.5

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 26/2005 – 2004/05 BUDGET – REVIEW AS AT 31ST MARCH, 2005.

14

 

 

 

 

8           Director City Services' Reports

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 43/2005 - RECEIVAL OF GREEN WASTE FROM MARRICKVILLE COUNCIL AT RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL'S RECYCLING CENTRE.

16

 

8.2                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 44/2005 – RE-ALLOCATION OF BUDGET FUNDING.

19

 

8.3                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 45/2005 -   ACQUISITION OF BANNERS.

27

 

8.4                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 46/2005 -   IDENTIFYING AN UNNAMED PARK, RESERVE OR ROAD AFTER THE FORMER LA PEROUSE PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPAL, MR PAUL TRAVINI.

29

 

8.5                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 47/2005 - 2005-2006 REGIONAL ROADS BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT.

32

 

 

9           Director Governance & Financial Services' Reports

 

9.1                        

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 23/2005 - DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO GENERAL MANAGER REVIEW OF REFUSAL OF ACCESS UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT.

34

 

9.2                        

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 24/2005 - CLOVELLY PICNIC SHELTERS - WRITE-OFF OF MATERIALS.

39

 

 

10         Director City Planning Reports

 

10.1                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 27/2005 - UNIT 1, 45 RITCHARD AVENUE, COOGEE.

41

 

10.2                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 28/2005 - 50 DOLPHIN STREET, COOGEE.

53

10.3                        

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 29/2005 – 2005 BUSINESS AWARDS

99

 

 

11         Petitions

 

12         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

12.1                       

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Bastic, Daley, Procopiadis, Sullivan, Tracey and White – Ordinary Council Meeting, Tuesday, 26th April, 2005– Item 6.3 – Mayoral Minute 46/2005 - Clarification of Lenthal Street’s status as a local road and establishing Council’s authority in local street traffic issues.

102

12.2

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Daley, Sullivan and White – Ordinary Council Meeting, Tuesday, 26th April, 2005– Item 10.3 – Director, City Planning Report 22/2005 -  25 Byrne Crescent, Maroubra. 

 

 

 

103

12.3

By Councillor Belleli – Improvements at Duffy’s Corner & Lexington Place, Maroubra. 

108

12.4

By Councillor Belleli – South Maroubra Village Green. 

108

12.5

By Councillor Bastic – Graffiti Removal at Totem Hall, South Coogee.

108

12.6

By Councillor Belleli – Des Renford Aquatic Centre Carpark. 

108

 

12.7

By Councillor Belleli – Footpath Creation in Randwick City

108

12.8

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Installation of Cross Street Banner Poles in all Commercial Centres in Randwick City.

109

12.9

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Proposed Undergrounding of Electricity/Telecommunications cables.

109

12.10

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Improving the Forecourt of Randwick Town Hall.

109

12.11

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Streetscape Improvements to Avoca Street & Alison Road.

109

12.12

By Councillor Belleli – Repair to Cricket Nets at Coral Sea Park.

109

12.13

By Councillor Belleli – Proposed Desalination Plant on Malabar Headland.

109

12.14

By Councillor Nash – Proposed Programme for Kerb and Guttering.

110

12.15

By Councillor Nash – Proposed Masterplan for the Dolina site in Epsom Road, Rosebery.

110

12.16

By Councillor Andrews – Asbestos Policy for Randwick City.

110

12.17

By Councillor Hughes – Impact of Southern Cross Drive / Gardeners Road access ramps on future plans for Light Rail and the viability of the Commercial Centres on Anzac Parade.

111

12.18

By Councillor Andrews – Traffic Issues in Snape Street, Maroubra.

112

 

13         Urgent Business

 

14         Confidential Reports

 

14.1                        

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 24/2005 -   PROPOSED DEED OF AGREEMENT - DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE SITE, BUNDOCK STREET, RANDWICK.

113

 

14.2                        

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 25/2005 -     IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNCILS ONLINE SOLUTION.

117

14.3                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 48/2005 - TENDER T037/05 SUPPLY OF COMPACTOR TRUCKS.

120

 

14.4                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 49/2005 - COMMERCIAL WASTE CONTRACT FOR REMOVAL OF WASTE AND RECYCLABLES FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES FACILITIES.

124

 

14.5                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 50/2005 - PUTRESCIBLE WASTE DISPOSAL TENDER REPORT.

128

 

14.6                        

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 25/2005 - PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL SERVICES TENDER NO. T022/05.

154

 

 

15         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

17         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

…………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 59/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - STATE JUNIOR TITLES

 

 

DATE:

17 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08302

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A request has been received from Surfing New South Wales seeking Council’s assistance in waiving the associated fees relating to the NSW State Open Titles to be held at Maroubra Beach on 17th to 19th June, 2005.

 

ISSUES:

 

This event will include the top 10% of surfers from each region who have gone through an elimination stage to reach the State Open Titles. Mr Mark Windon, CEO, Surfing New South Wales seeks the waiving of fees for the event on Maroubra Beach which amounts to  -

 

Application fee                         $  85.00

Beach Hire Fee (3 days)                       $770.00

           

TOTAL:                                               $855.00

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $855.00, which will be charged to the Contingency Fund 2004/05. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that as the event is of a non profit nature, Council could assist with the costs for the associated fees, subject to appropriate and prominent acknowledgement of Council’s contribution being promoted prior to and during the event.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

 

1.       That Council vote $855.00 to cover the fees associated with the NSW State Junior Titles Surfing event to be held at Maroubra Beach on the 17th to 19th June, 2005, and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2004/05.

 

2.       The event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 20/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

DECEMBER 2005 QUARTER REVIEW - 2004-07 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

DATE:

17 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00378 83

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors on the implementation of the 2004/07 Management Plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

This is the March 2005 Quarterly Review of the 2004/07 Management Plan.

 

Under the Local Government Act 1993, there is the requirement that a Report must be provided after the end of each quarter, detailing the extent to which performance indicators and targets set by Council’s Management Plan have been achieved during the quarter.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Each Department has reviewed those targets not being achieved, and comments on those matters are included in the Report. Currently there are six Principal Activities being reported on.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the Report on the March 2005 Quarterly Review – 2004/07 Management Plan be received and noted.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. DEC 2005 QUARTER REVIEW - 2004-07 MANAGEMENT PLAN - under separate cover

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 21/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - PUPPY LOVE DAY - GRANT RESERVE, COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

13 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07843

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An application has been received from Ms Kempton, Parents and Friends Committee of Coogee Public School to waive the fees associated with a “Puppy Love Day” held at Grant Reserve on Sunday, 15th May, 2005.

 

ISSUES:

 

Puppy Love Day” is a day organised by the Parents and Friends Committee of Coogee Public School to raise awareness of the amazing benefits in developing a relationship with a pet.  The organiser of this events states that “many children in our area grow up with no family pet and in organising this day it will give the children the opportunity to share a family pet for the day”.

 

The fees associated with this event are as follows:

 

Administration Fee                                                                                $130.00    

Food Stall Registration                                                                          $  85.00

                                                                                                           

                                                    TOTAL:                                          $215.00

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $215.00 and currently there are sufficient funds in the Contingency Fund 2004/05 to cover this contribution. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Given that this is a community event it would be consistent with similar community events for Council to support the waiving of fees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council vote $215.00 to cover the fees associated with the ‘Puppy Love Day”  held at Grant Reserve, Coogee on 15th May, 2005 and funds be charged to the Contingency Fund 2004/05.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 22/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

AUTHORITY TO INCREASE HIRING FEES - SNAPE PARK TENNIS CENTRE

 

 

DATE:

18 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06336

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The current licensees of Snape Park Tennis Centre, Rosa Game Pty Ltd are seeking Council’s approval to increase their court hire fees for Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays in line with their approved charges for after 4.00 pm Monday to Sunday, in line with standard business practices of neighbouring tennis centres.

 

ISSUES:

 

It is necessary for Council’s authority to be granted to increase the hire fees, as the lease agreement notes under Clause 15 “The Lessee is entitled to charge a fee of $15.00 per hour per court from all casual hirers using the Courts before 4 p.m., and a fee of $17.00 per hour per court from all casual hirers using the Courts after 4 p.m., which will not be altered without the approval in writing of the Lessor.”

 

The lessee has requested permission to increase their fees as detailed hereunder:

 

Saturday to Sunday                                          $17.00 per hour per court

Public Holidays                                     $17.00 per hour per court

 

The increase in fees is comparable with other Tennis Centres in the local area namely, Da Silva Tennis Academy, Kingsford, Parklands Tennis Centre, Moore Park and Heffron Park Tennis Centre, Matraville and Latham Park Tennis Centre.

 

It is a standard business practice for tennis centres to charge a slightly higher charge for Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays.  This represents a difference of $2.00 per hour over the charges for Monday to Friday before 4.00pm.

 

The charge was omitted from the original tender application and the licensee has requested the fees be brought in line with other centres.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact to Council for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The proposed new fees reflect comparable prices for similar hours at other centres located within Randwick Local Government area and will enable the operators to be competitively priced in the tennis centre business.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority be granted to Rosa Game Pty Ltd to increase their court hire fees to the following:

 

Saturday to Sunday                                          $17.00 per hour per court

Public Holidays                                     $17.00 per hour per court

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 23/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

6 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06862, F2004/06336

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

1.         Mr Sam Julian Attard and Ms. Maria Anne Attard in relation to a Withdrawal of Caveat form to remove a caveat number L355262 from the title of property at 29 White Avenue, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 719/236610).  This caveat placed a restriction on the re-sale of the said property within a period of three (3) years and expired in 1969.  The caveat is now redundant.  The removal of the caveat will enable the transfer of the property.

2.         Mr Frank Karlovecz & Mrs Agnes Karlovecz in relation to a Withdrawal of Caveat form to remove a caveat number L345070 from the title of property at 32 White Avenue, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 1706/531884).  This caveat placed a restriction on the re-sale of the said property within a period of three (3) years and expired in 1969.  The caveat is now redundant.  The removal of the caveat will enable the transfer of the property.

3.         Mr Frans Josef Eigenstetter in relation to a Withdrawal of Caveat form to  remove a caveat number K287265 from the title of the property at 21 Tyrwhitt Street, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 90/226181).  This caveat placed a restriction on the re-sale of the said property within a period of three (3) years and expired in 1969.  The caveat is now redundant.  The removal of the caveat will enable the transfer of the property.

4.         Mrs Joan Mary Day in relation to a Withdrawal of Caveat form to remove a caveat number L182673 from the title of the property at 465 Beauchamp Road, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 423/235632).  This caveat placed a restriction on the re-sale of the said property within a period of three (3) years and expired in 1969.  The caveat is now redundant.  The removal of the caveat will enable the transfer of the property.

5.         Mr Kenneth Asprey & Mrs Sophia Asprey in relation to a Withdrawal of Caveat form to remove a caveat number L121108 from the title of the property at 17 Hargraves Place, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 202/10406).  This caveat placed a restriction on the re-sale of the said property within a period of three (3) years and expired in 1969.  The caveat is now redundant.  The removal of the caveat will enable the transfer of the property.

6.         Ms Angela Giuffre in relation to a Withdrawal of Caveat form to remove a caveat number K409237 from the title of the property at 56 Broome Street, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 44/226181).  This caveat placed a restriction on the re-sale of the said property within a period of three (3) years and expired in 1969.  The caveat is now redundant.  The removal of the caveat will enable the transfer of the property.

7.         Rosa Game Pty Ltd in relation to a commercial lease for part of Snape Park more particularly known as the Snape Park Tennis Centre.

8.         Permanent Legal Services in relation to a Transmission Application for the preparation of transfer of 6 Barrett Place, Randwick (Folio Identifier: 3480/6) to Randwick City Council as beneficiary of the will of the deceased registered proprietor, Mrs Harrie Sylvia Marett.

9.         Gosan Pty Limited in relation to a commercial lease for Lot 2 DP 623630 being 128 Belmore Road, Randwick.

10.       Coogee Bay Kiosk Pty Ltd in relation to a commercial lease for part of Goldstein Reserve (Part Lot 7087 in DP 93755) more particularly known as the Café/Kiosk.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

1.   There is no direct financial impact for execution of a Withdrawal of Caveat form with Mr Sam Julian Attard and Ms. Maria Anne Attard.

2.   There is no direct financial impact for execution of a Withdrawal of Caveat form with Mr Frank Karlovecz & Mrs Agnes Karlovecz.

3.   There is no direct financial impact for execution of a Withdrawal of Caveat form with Mr Frans Josef Eigenstetter.

4.   There is no direct financial impact for execution of a Withdrawal of Caveat form with Mrs Joan Mary Day.

5.   There is no direct financial impact for execution of a Withdrawal of Caveat form with Mr Kenneth Asprey & Mrs Sophia Asprey.

6.   There is no direct financial impact for execution of a Withdrawal of Caveat form with Ms Angela Giuffre.

7.   The lease agreement with Rosa Game Pty Ltd will generate an average annual rental of twenty seven thousand and seventy seven dollars ($27,077.00) + GST over twenty (20) years.

8.   The Transmission Application with Permanent Legal Services will have a financial impact with the transfer of 6 Barrett Place, Randwick, in the form of payment of all costs associated with repairs, maintenance and rates associated with the property.

9.   The lease agreement with Gosan Pty Ltd will generate an annual rental of $57,272.72 per annum + GST increased annually by CPI for a period of five (5) years.

10. The lease agreement with Coogee Bay Kiosk Pty Ltd will generate an annual rental of $150,000 per annum + GST increased annually by CPI and/or Market review.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

1.       Mr Sam Julian Attard and Ms. Maria Anne Attard in relation to a Withdrawal of Caveat form to remove a caveat number L355262 from the title of property at 29 White Avenue, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 719/236610).

2.       Mr Frank Karlovecz & Mrs Agnes Karlovecz in relation to a Withdrawal of Caveat form to remove a caveat number L345070 from the title of property at 32 White Avenue, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 1706/531884).

3.       Mr Frans Josef Eigenstetter in relation to a Withdrawal of Caveat form to remove a caveat number K287265 from the title of the property at 21 Tyrwhitt Street, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 90/226181).

4.       Mrs Joan Mary Day in relation to a Withdrawal of Caveat form to remove  a caveat number L182673 from the title of the property at 465 Beauchamp Road, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 423/235632).

5.       Mr Kenneth Asprey & Mrs Sophia Asprey in relation to a Withdrawal of Caveat form to remove a caveat number L121108 from the title of the property at 17 Hargraves Place, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 202/10406).

6.       Ms Angela Giuffre in relation to a Withdrawal of Caveat form to remove a caveat number K409237 from the title of the property at 56 Broome Street, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 44/226181).

7.       Rosa Game Pty Ltd in relation to a commercial lease for part of Snape Park more particularly known as the Snape Park Tennis Centre.

8.       Permanent Legal Services in relation to a Transmission Application for the preparation of transfer of 6 Barrett Place, Randwick (Folio Identifier: 3480/6) to Randwick City Council as beneficiary of the will of the deceased registered proprietor, Mrs Harrie Sylvia Marett.

9.       Gosan Pty Limited in relation to a commercial lease for Lot 2 DP 623630 being 128 Belmore Road, Randwick.

10.     Coogee Bay Kiosk Pty Ltd in relation to a commercial lease for part of Goldstein Reserve (Part Lot 7087 in DP 93755) more particularly known as the Café/Kiosk.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 


GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 26/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

2004/05 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT 31 MARCH 2005

 

 

DATE:

20 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06516 xr 98/S/5310 (2)

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report is in relation to a review of the Council’s 2004/2005 current budget.

 

ISSUES:

 

a)         LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) REGULATION 1999

 

Part 2 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999 requires that at the close of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2004/2005 year, based on current trends.  The statement must be prepared on an accrual basis and must also show the original estimates as adopted in the Management Plan.

 

The regulation also requires that the budget review statement must include, or be accompanied by:

 

I.          A report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the Statement indicates that the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure; and

 

II.         If that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

 

b)         MARCH  2005 QUARTER BUDGET REVIEW STATEMENT

 

A review has been carried out of the Council’s budget as at 31 March 2005 in accordance with the regulations. During that review a number of variations in revenues and expenditures have been identified.  The more significant of these are set out below:-

 

·                Governance & Financial Services

 

·                City Services

 

·                City Planning

 

As the financial year is now almost complete, every effort to manage expenses during the remaining part of the year is being made.  Projects in the Capital Construction Programme, which are funded from other sources including grants and reserves, will be maintained within budget.

 

Work on the current Oracle financial system as part of Council’s Online is continuing to provide some difficulties in the detailed understanding of variations that have occurred during the financial year.  Finance staff are working closely with broader management to ensure that these implementation and teething issues are being addressed.

 

On a total budget basis it is reasonably expected that a satisfactory budget result will be achieved. In this regard Council will recall that a balanced budget was anticipated.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Council’s Financial Services Manager, as the responsible accounting officer, advises that  the Council’s overall financial position is considered sound.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report in relation to the March 2005 budget review be received and noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 43/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

RECEIVAL OF GREEN WASTE FROM MARRICKVILLE COUNCIL AT RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL'S RECYCLING CENTRE.

 

 

DATE:

16 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08122

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The construction of Randwick City Council’s new Recycling Facility at Bumborah Point Road is expected to be completed soon. This facility will be processing green waste collected from Woollahra Council, Waverley Council and Randwick City Council. The facility has further capacity to accept and process green waste from more customers.

 

Marrickville Council collects about 1750 tonnes of green waste per year through their kerbside collection. Recently Marrickville Council called for quotations for receival and processing of their green waste for six months starting from 4 July 2005

 

ISSUES:

 

Randwick City Council submitted a quotation for receival and processing of Marrickville Council’s green waste collected through their kerbside services.

 

In a letter dated 4 May 2004, Marrickville Council informed that Randwick City Council’s offer had been successful.

 

Receiving Marrickville Council’s green waste at the Recycling Facility will increase the income of the facility by about $50,000.00 for the first half of the next financial year. Depending on satisfactory service delivery Marrickville Council may go for a longer term agreement.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Acceptance of Randwick City Council’s quotation for receival and processing of Marrickville Council’s green waste will give opportunity to increase the income of the Recycling Facility by about $50,000.00 during the first half of the next financial year.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1.       Note that Randwick City Council’s quotation for receival and processing of Marrickville Council’s green waste at Bumborah Point Road Recycling Centre has been successful; and

2.       Authorises the General Manager to accept Marrickville Council’s green waste at the recycling facility.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Quotation acceptance letter from Marrickville Council.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

TALEBUL ISLAM

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COORDINATOR - WASTE POLICY, PROJECTS AND SERVICES

 


 

 

ATTACHMENT 1.

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 44/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

RE-ALLOCATION OF BUDGET FUNDING

 

 

DATE:

17 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06616

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 19 October, 2004,  considered the attached Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services’ Report 76/2004, and resolved that -

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

As the Acting Director’s Report No. 76/2004 informed Council, a number of submitted projects were unsuccessful in receiving RTA funding.  Council’s budgeted allocations to these projects totalled $269,500. It was resolved that these funds be put into the Council’s Financial Reserve pending the General Manager’s organisational review and a further report being placed before Council. The funds discussed above were to match grants to allow the construction of traffic facilities in the area. A number of traffic facilities that have been approved by the traffic committee for construction have not been constructed at this time. There are also some minor road capital works that have become evident during this financial year could be undertaken at this time.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

$269,500.00 transfer from the Financial Reserve.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered appropriate that $269,500.00 be transferred to the Local Road Amenity and Road Safety related projects from the Council’s Financial Reserve, to fund various traffic and road related works.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council reallocate the $269,500.00 which was allocated to Council’s Financial Reserve pending the General Manager’s organisational review, to the Local Road Amenity and Road Safety Related Projects.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Report No. 76/2004

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER, TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 76/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

2004-2005 LOCAL AMENITY PROJECT FUNDING

 

 

DATE:

1 October, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/06616

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

Project Description

 Council

 Grant

Randwick Bicycle Plan

$50,000

$50,000

Roundabout, Walsh Ave/Donovan Avenue Intersection, Maroubra

$35,000

$35,000

Roundabout, Darley Road/Govett Street, Intersection, Randwick

$35,000

$35,000

Roundabout, Clovelly Road/Fern Street, Intersection, Clovelly

$40,000

$40,000

Roundabout, Carrington Road/Bream Street Intersection, Coogee

$32,500

$32,500

Roundabout, Boyce Road/Royal Street Intersection, Maroubra.

$30,000

$30,000

Roundabout, Sturt Street/Paton Street Intersection, Kingsford

$40,000

$40,000

Roundabout, Dacre Street/Fishermans Road, Intersection, Malabar

$35,000

$35,000

Pedestrian Refuge intersection Cook St/Frances Street, Randwick

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge Clovelly Road, Beach Street and Keith Street

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Refuge Clovelly Road at Knox St, Clovelly

$7,000

$7,000

Pedestrian Refuge Clovelly Road Arden Street and Beach Street

$5,000

$5,000

Pedestrian Lights Coogee Bay Rd/ Byron St Intersection, Coogee

$80,000

$80,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

 

Nil

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

RTA Notification of funding dated 14 July 2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

RUSSELL WADE

MALCOLM HILL

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 





  

Director, City Services' Report 45/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

ACQUISITION OF BANNERS

 

 

DATE:

16 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06257

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 26 April, 2005, resolved -

 

“that a report be brought before Council on the acquisition of freestanding council banners (sail type) to be used in promoting Council’s involvement in community events. The design to be investigated by the Director City Services and should enable use on both hard and/either soft surfaces.”

 

Searches for a product matching this description were conducted, several products matching this description were found from a number of Australian companies.  Pictures of the types of products discovered are shown in the attachments. 

 

ISSUES:

 

There are a number of similar looking products with only slight construction differences.  They are commonly called Feather Banners, Sail Banners or Flying Banners. The banners are most generally mounted on a flexible pole ranging in height from 2.8 to 4 metres; they are capable of being used on both solid and soft surfaces.  They are most normally used for outdoor purposes, but can be used indoor, if the product is to be used indoors, it should be investigated if the brand purchased has a fire retardant rating thereby providing increased fire safety.

 

Council has recently purchased another type of promotional banner (photo attached).  Indicative pricing for sail type banners is as follows –

 

Flying Banner using Digital Printing on a 2.8 metre Pole $460 each.

Flying Banner using Digital Printing on a 4.0 metre Pole $650 each.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

There are a number of companies that can provide these flying banners.  Two companies have been listed in the attachments although there may be other suppliers. However, on the basis of Council’s previous purchase, further promotional banners may not be required. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director City Services’ Report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Banner Design Companies

    a. Expanda Sign

    b. Pennant House

2. Council's promotional banner –

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

BRENDAN GALWAY

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 46/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

IDENTIFYING AN UNNAMED PARK, RESERVE OR ROAD AFTER THE FORMER LA PEROUSE PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPAL, MR PAUL TRAVINI.

 

 

DATE:

16 May, 2005

FILE NO:

98/S/0080-01

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Civic Affairs Committee Meeting held on 8th February, 2005, the Committee resolved in part that Council:

 

 

(c)        consider a report at the next Council meeting identifying unnamed parks, reserves and roads in South Ward, with a view to naming a park, reserve or road after Mr Travini.

 

ISSUES:

 

There are numerous unnamed reserves in the South Ward area and one such reserve is located adjacent to the La Perouse Public School to the east and is identified in the following aerial photograph:-

 

 

The reserve is Reserve No 44355 being Lot 7052 in DP 752015, Parish of Botany and measures 6323 square meters.  Some tree planting was undertaken at this reserve in the late 1980’s and subsequently the reserve now supports some mature Casuarinas and other trees.

 

One of the functions of the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales is to assign names to places and any proposal to name a public reserve should be in accordance with the Geographical Names Board guidelines and procedures.  The Board recommends that

In all naming proposals, councils are encouraged to undertake consultation with the community prior to submitting a proposal to the Board. This is no different to existing participative procedures adopted by councils on a wide range of issues, aimed at achieving an equitable solution brokered by the council for the benefit of the community.

Accordingly, this proposal would need to be advertised and submissions sought from the community.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The financial impact to Council would be the cost to advertise the proposal in the local press and the cost to supply and install a sign.  These costs are estimated to be in the order of $4,000.00.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Given the proximity of this reserve to the school, it is considered that it would be an appropriate reserve for the purpose of naming a reserve after a person that has made such a significant contribution to the local community, particularly in his position as Principal of the La Perouse Public School.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

a)       Advertise in the local press the proposal to name Reserve No 44355 being Lot 7052 in DP 752015, Parish of Botany, Paul Travini Reserve;

 

b)      Consult with the community in other appropriate ways its intention to name Reserve No 44355, Paul Travini Reserve; and

 

c)       Pending the outcome of the consultative process, a further report be submitted to Council, or in the absence of any objections to the proposal, a submission be made directly to the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales to name Reserve No 44355, Paul Travini Reserve.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Director, City Services' Report 47/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

2005-2006 REGIONAL ROADS BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT

 

 

DATE:

16 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06616

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Advice has been received from the Roads and Traffic Authority that the annual funding for the maintenance of regional roads to Council under agreement for the Block Grant of Assistance to Council for 2005-2006 is $403,000.00.

 

ISSUES:

 

This Agreement is similar in content to that of previous years with the $207,000.00 being the sum total of two components being Roads and Ex 3x3. The  “Ex 3x3 Council Determined” component has been provided as a component of the Block Grant, following cessation of the 3x3 Council determined program. This “Ex 3 x3” component is available for road works as determined by Council on Regional Roads.

 

The Roads and Traffic Authority has also offered $196,000.00 for the Traffic Facilities component. The works under traffic facilities would include the maintenance and installation of traffic signs and line marking on Regional and Local Roads.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

If Council wishes to participate in the Block Grant’s arrangements for 2005-2006, accepting the conditions of the grant and notifying the RTA accordingly is necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

  That

 

1.       Council accept the Block Grants totalling $403,000.00 for the 2005-2006 program; and

 

2.       The Agreement of Block Grant of Assistance to Council for Regional Roads be executed and forwarded to the Roads and Traffic Authority.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

2005-2006 REGIONAL ROADS BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT (Under Separate Cover)

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 23/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO GENERAL MANAGER REVIEW OF REFUSAL OF ACCESS UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT

 

 

DATE:

22 March, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00121 xr 98/S/1238

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Legal advice was sought by Council on 24th January, 2005 as to whether the reference to the “council” in Section 12A of the Local Government Act refers to the elected body, meeting as the Council at a Council Meeting, or whether it refers to the General Manager acting on behalf of the Council and possibly under a delegation from the Council.

 

The reason for this request was that the Section 12 review process would be far more efficient if it could be delegated to the General Manager to perform administratively, rather than each review having to be considered at a full Council Meeting.

 

ISSUES:

 

As you would be aware, Section 12 of the Local Government Act provides that many of Council’s documents are to be made available for access by the public and there are a limited number of exemptions applicable for refusing access to those documents.

 

In respect to declining access to the public to documents by use of one of the exemptions nominated in Section 12 of the Act, Section 12A provides:

 

“[s12ARestriction of access to information

12A    (1) [Reasons to be provided] If the general manager or any other member of the staff of a council decides that access to a document or other information held by the council should not be given to the public or a councillor, the person concerned must provide the council with written reasons for the restriction.

 

            (2) [Reasons to be made public] The reasons must be publicly available.

(3) [Review of restriction] The council must review any such restriction no later than 3 months after it is imposed.

 

(4) [Further View] The council must, at the request of any person made after the expiry period of 3 months after that review ( or of a period of 3 months after the most recent of any subsequent reviews), carry out a further review of the restriction.

 

(5) [Removal of restriction] The council must remove the restriction if, at any time:

(a) it finds that there are no grounds for the restriction, or

(b) access to the relevant document or other information is obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 1989.

 

(6) [Review unnecessary] A review is not required under this section if the restriction concerned has been removed.”

 

Legal advice has been received from Council’s solicitors addressing this issue (see attached). This legal advice states that “Council may by resolution delegate those functions to the General Manager” to undertake all reviews of the refusal of Section 12 applications.

 

The only exception to this rule would be if the General Manager made the original decision to refuse access under Section 12. In these cases it would be Council who would have to review the decision after three months. However this situation is very unlikely to ever occur.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Section 12 review process would be far more efficient if it were to be delegated to the General Manager to perform administratively, rather than each review having to be considered at a full Council Meeting.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      That Council amend the Delegation of Authority Policy No. 2.01.04 in the following manner:

 

RS 030 – SECTION 12 REVIEWS OF REFUSAL FOR ACCESS

 

“To review any restriction of access to information sought under Section 12 of the Local Government Act no later than 3 months after it is imposed; and

 

To carry out a further review of the restriction at the request of any person, made after the expiry period of 3 months after the initial review ( or of a period of 3 months after the most recent of any subsequent reviews).”

 

B. Council approve this delegation to the General Manager; and

 

C. The policy register be updated accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Legal advice-Deacons Solicitors

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

 

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 


 



 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 24/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Clovelly Picnic Shelters - Write-Off of Materials

 

 

DATE:

9 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08153

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Assets and Infrastructure section purchased two picnic shelters in approximately 1988 to be installed at north Clovelly Beach. Council decided, after resident dissent, that the shelters were unsuitable for the site. The Works Engineer instructed that the shelters be transferred to the Store’s Account and bought on charge as Store items, allowing both the funds to be credited to the Clovelly Project and for the alternate picnic shelters to be purchased. It was intended to erect the picnic shelters at Byrne Reserve, Maroubra once funds became available.

 

The picnic shelters were made up of two large galvanised metal structures approximately 15 meters in length each, which were stored in the Storey Street Top Yard, 65 seat supports and 12 table supports. In addition, approximately 600 metres of Merbau Timber was stored in the Main Stores Yard at Storey Street Depot.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Merbau Timber has been used by Council for various jobs and written off. The seat and table supports have been written off and are stored at the Depot Store. The two large structures that were stored at the Storey Street Top Yard were cut up by contractors Doma Holdings Pty Ltd in 2003 and disposed of during a clean up of the Top Yard, which was authorised by the Acting Manager Infrastructure.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The stores ledger is to be adjusted to write off the two picnic shelters valued at $23,799.00 each, with a total value of $47,598.00.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The two Picnic Shelters were disposed of by the Acting Manager Infrastructure during a clean up due to the fact that they had been in the Top Yard for such a long period he considered them to be of no further value to Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the stores ledger be adjusted in accordance with delegation of authority No. RA 022 granted to the General Manager by Council, the total variation to the stores ledger amounting to a net loss of $47,598.00.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

 

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 27/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Unit 1, 45 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

6 May, 2005

FILE NO:

DA0273/2002/GE

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No. 273/2002/GE for a Section 96(2) modification to increase the approved front fence height to a maximum of 2.2m.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.   Development Application Report dated 3 May 2005 .

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

3 May, 2005

FILE NO:

D0273/2002/GE 

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 (2) - Modification to increase the approved front fence height to a maximum of 2.2m.

PROPERTY:

 Unit 1/45 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr W J Freier

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This Section 96 (2) application is referred to Committee as the original application was determined by Council on 23 July 2002.

 

The original application sought approval for the alterations and additions to the existing multi-unit development including alterations to the front fence by raising the height to 1.8m. Condition 7 required the height of the fence to be reduced to 1.2m.

 

The current Section 96 application seeks consent to increase the height of the front fence including the fence on both sides of the front courtyard to a maximum height of 2.2m.

 

The primary issue for consideration is whether the proposed modification to the front fence will be out of keeping with the existing established fence form in the immediate streetscape.

 

The recommendation is that Condition 7 be modified to permit a maximum fence height of 1500mm above existing ground level at any point.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The application seeks consent to raise the height of the front fence to a maximum of 1.8m and erection of a new fence on both sides of the front courtyard to a maximum of 2.2m above existing ground level.  

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Ritchard Ave in Coogee and is currently occupied by an existing part two part three storey multi-unit housing building (see Photo 1). The subject building is of inter-war period design and is relatively intact. There are three existing carports/garages to the rear of the site that are allocated to each unit. Unit 1 is located on the ground floor facing north at the front of the subject building with access to the front courtyard. There is an existing front fence of approximately 900mm in height.

 

The surrounding streetscape contains a mixture of multi-unit housing developments and residential dwellings. To the south of the site is a townhouse development, to the east a multi-unit development and to the north and west are residential dwellings. 

 

The existing fencing form on the southern side of Ritchard Avenue in the immediate vicinity is of low masonry walls of up to 1m in height. On the northern side of Ritchard Avenue, the fencing form varies as the topography is more elevated than the southern side and the majority of dwellings have garage structures or high walls built up to the front boundary.

 

 

Photo 1: The subject site

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The original development application seeking to make alterations and additions to the existing multi-unit housing development was approved on 23 July 2002 subject to 22 conditions. Condition 7 stated:

 

The proposed front fence shall have a maximum height of 1200mm measured from any point of the fence to natural ground level.

 

A Section 96 application ‘A’ to increase the length of the first floor balcony to Unit 4 and include new French doors to the side of the existing bay window was approved on 25 March 2003.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposed modification has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposal and Council Plans. As a result of this notification, no submissions have been received. 

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application was not referred to the relevant technical officers as the original comments received are still applicable.

 

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site has a total site area less than 4,000sqm and as such does not require a masterplan.

 

8.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The existing multi-unit housing development is an existing non-conforming use in the 2A zone and the proposed modification is permissible with Council's consent under the existing use rights provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

(b)     Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 Amendment No. 39 and Draft Development Control Plan for Randwick City Heritage (Draft LEP 39 and DCP)

 

The site is located within the draft Bishopscourt Heritage Conservation Area under Draft LEP 39.  The area contains a contour-related subdivision featuring a fine group of Interwar buildings, on the site of the former residence of the Bishop of Sydney. The final form of the Draft LEP 39 and DCP is neither imminent nor certain, as they have only just commenced the exhibition process.

 

In terms of general planning principles, the weight given to a draft instrument may vary according to the circumstances.  However, a draft cannot have any more force or effect than a statutory instrument which has come into effect.  Notwithstanding, the draft LEP is a matter for consideration and can be used as a guide in the context of a merit assessment.

 

In relation to the front fencing, the draft DCP states that one of the key values in the Bishopscourt heritage conservation area is the extensive use of sandstone blocks for retaining walls and fences.  As noted above, the existing front fence is a low face brick wall and therefore does not contribute significantly to the heritage value of the conservation area. The draft DCP also includes the performance criteria and controls for fences and states that front fences should not obscure building façade, high solid front fences are not appropriate and new fence heights and form should be appropriate to the heritage conservation area.

 

8.1     Policy Controls


a.       Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing

 

The subject site is zoned residential 2A and as such the Development Control Plan for Multi-Unit Housing is not applicable and as the existing building is not a dwelling house, the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies is not applicable either. As a result, the application is subject to merit assessment. However, in the original assessment, the Multi unit housing DCP was used as a guide in the context of a merit assessment.

 

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. The table below assesses 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.)

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.

 

The height of the front fence as proposed would be out of character with the surrounding streetscape and it is therefore considered appropriate that the height be reduced to integrate with the local streetscape. See assessment below.

 

9.       SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1     Substantially the same

The proposed modification is not considered to significantly alter the development proposal and therefore the development is considered to be substantially the same as that approved.

 

9.2     Consideration of submissions

 

As noted above, there were no submissions received.

 

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   Fences

 

As noted above, the existing local fencing form on the southern side of Ritchard Avenue in the immediate and nearby streetscape is of low masonry walls of up to approximately 1000mm in height (see Photos 2 & 3). It is considered that the proposed modification to increase the height of the front fence to a maximum height of 1800mm and erection of fences on both sides of the front courtyard to a maximum of 2200mm will not be consistent with the established local fence form in the immediate area and will not satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP and will set a poor precedent in the local streetscape.

 

It is noted that the applicant’s Statement of Environmental Effects states the intention to increase the height of the fences is to provide security and privacy to the front of the property. Notwithstanding, it is not considered that privacy and security to the front of a property should prevail over the character of the streetscape and this was supported by Commissioner Brown in a recent Land and Environment Court case (i.e. Randwick City Council ats Hamilton, 159 Moverly Road, South Coogee).

 

For these reasons, it is considered appropriate that the height of the fence including the two side fences and gates be reduced to a maximum of 1500mm to maintain an appropriate transition in the streetscape and the fences be designed so that they are at least 50% open.

 

In addition, the two side fences in the front yard do not comply with the requirements of the Development Control Plan for Exempt and Complying Development, in that the fences are not located on the side boundaries of the property and even if they were, they still fails to satisfy the relevant requirements as the proposed height will not be sympathetic with the local streetscape.

 

Photo 2: View of the front fence, west of the subject site.

 

Photo 3: View of the front fence, east of the subject site.

 

 

11.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification to the original consent satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in that it will constitute substantially the same development and is acceptable provided the proposed overall height of the front fencing is reduced to a maximum of 1.5m above existing ground level in order to ensure a satisfactory streetscape outcome.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No.273/02 by raising the height of the front fence including two side fences & gates for property at 45 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee in the following manner:

 

§  Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 0108 DA00-05B, dated 5/2/02 and received by Council on 28/3/02, and modified by the Section 96 application ‘A’ plans numbered 0108 DA00D-DA05D, dated Dec 2002 and received by Council on the 3 Jan 2003, the application forms and on any supporting information received with the applications, and unless modified by the Section 96 application ‘B’ plans numbered 0508 DA02D, 0508 DA03D and 0508 DA05D, dated March 2005, 0508 DA04D, dated February 2005, and received by Council on 6 April 2005, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by any conditions and as may be shown in red on the plans.

 

§  Amend Condition No. 7 to read:

 

7.       The proposed front fence including the two side fences and gates shall have a maximum height of 1500mm, measured from any point of the fence to existing ground level and the fences & gates are to be at least 50% open when viewed from Ritchard Avenue.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 configuration plans. 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 28/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

50 Dolphin Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

4 May, 2005

FILE NO:

DA0193/2005

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is a Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. DA0193/2005 for alterations and additions to the existing multi unit housing development by adding a new upper level to Unit 3.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.       1.   Development Application Report dated 4 May 2005 .

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

LUKE JACKSON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

4 May, 2005

FILE NO:

05/00193

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to the existing multi unit housing development by adding a new upper level to Unit 3.

PROPERTY:

 50 Dolphin Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Vince Galati

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Council meeting for determination at the request of Councillors Hughes, Woodsmith and Matson.

 

The proposed application is for the extension of an existing first floor unit creating a new part third storey for a living/kitchen area and a deck.

 

The subject site is located in a 2B zone and contains a two storey brick multi-unit housing development with a garage at a lower level fronting Dolphin Street. The surrounding area exhibits a variety of residential uses ranging from single to three storey buildings.

 

The proposed development does not comply with the numerical floor space ratio (FSR), height and external wall height requirements of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (LEP) and State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 objections have been submitted arguing that the proposal is consistent with the general height, bulk and scale of adjacent and surrounding development given the awkward and relatively steep topography of the site. The proposal will not result in significant amenity impacts in terms of privacy, view loss, overshadowing and solar access.

 

Objections were received to the proposal in relation to privacy, noise, safety, view loss, overshadowing, aesthetics, visual bulk and scale and excessive height.

 

The assessment of the application reveals that whilst the development does not comply with the numerical height and floor space standards, the proposal is consistent with the scale and bulk of adjacent development, does not adversely impact on the streetscape and does not generate unreasonable impacts in terms of overshadowing, privacy or view loss. The proposal generally complies with the objectives and performance requirements provisions of the Multi-Unit Housing Development Control Plan.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to carry out alterations and additions to the existing multi unit housing development by adding a new upper level to Unit 3. The additional floor area is to be contained at the rear of the building and comprises a living/ kitchen area, a bathroom and a deck. The additional level has a pitched roof that reuses the existing tiles, and walls are proposed to be rendered and painted. Unit 3 is expanded from a two bedroom unit to a three bedroom unit. The proposed upper level is setback 7m from the front of the building and is set in 1m on the western side boundary.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Dolphin Street between Carrington Road and Melody Street in Coogee and is presently occupied by an existing part two part three storey multi unit housing development.  The site has a frontage width of 10.515m, a side boundary depth of 30.785/31.405m and has an overall site area of 353.91m².  The site slopes steeply from the rear of the property to the front and has a fall in land height of 8m. There is also a fall in height of approximately 500mm from west to east across the site.

 

Neighbouring the site to the west is a row of residential buildings including single storey dwellings and two storey units. These buildings are all setback at least 10m from their rear boundary and are screened from the site by trees. To the south of the site is the rear of two blocks that face Carrington Road and across Brighton Road is a four storey multi-unit housing development. To the east of the site is a two storey dwelling sited at the front of the block towards Dolphin Street. To the north of the site across Dolphin Street is a public park with many large trees. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of one to three storey residential dwellings and multi-unit housing.

 

  

 

      Subject site from Dolphin Street.                 Adjacent site to the west, note the trees.

 

      

 

Dolphin St streetscape looking east.               Dwellings on Carrington Rd which back on to the site.

      

 

Unit building on Brighton Rd to south of site. From Brighton Rd looking Nth towards       site.

 

  

 

Photos of site taken from the adjacent property to the west at 225 Carrington Rd.

 

  

 

View from 1st Floor, 225 Carrington Rd.           View of the site from property to west at

                                                                        223B Carrington Rd.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

PL-0080/2004 – A prelodgement meeting was held on 1 December 2004 relating to the extension of unit four to create an additional floor. The addition proposed was a complete new storey sited over the entire footprint and contained a large deck absorbing the front 40% of the envelope. The remainder at the rear was proposed to contain a lounge, dining, laundry, kitchen and bathroom. The design was contemporary with a variety of materials and shapes. At the pre-lodgement meeting, the applicant was advised that the proposal appeared top heavy and had a rear box shape that is not consistent with the character of the area which had pitched rooves. The deck area was also considered excessive and the applicant was advised that the proposed design was unlikely to be supported in the form submitted. Other design options were canvassed at the pre-lodgement meeting and it was considered that additional floor space could be supported if it were contained within the existing roof or a pitched roof structure, this being subject to floor space calculations and compliance with the Multi-Unit Housing DCP. The applicant was also advised that dormers could be included and the deck should be reduced. It was concluded that any modifications to an already large and dominating building would need to be subtle and designed in an appropriate manner to reduce visual bulk and scale.

 

The applicant altered the proposal by reducing the deck and containing it within a roof pitch, altering the side setbacks, simplifying the design to remove the bulky and featurist contemporary components and placing a pitched roof on the rear addition.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development and the application was advertised in the local press in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  As a result of this notification and advertising, the following submissions were received:

 

Stuart Murray and Louise Formosa

Unit 1/225 Carrington Road

Coogee  NSW  2034

           

and

 

Mercina Simos

Unit 2/225 Carrington Road

Coogee  NSW  2034

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Issue

Comment

Privacy – Additional storey will enable people to look into the backyard, windows and rooms of the ground and first floors. This will be from both inside and outside.

The proposed outdoor deck has screens that are 1.8m high and have frosted glass on one side. A condition will be imposed ensuring they are frosted on both sides. The development proposes an array of windows to each side with windows facing the adjacent properties being generally small. The windows facing the rear are screened from the adjacent rear properties by trees. The side boundary windows facing east are generally thin vertical windows, however these windows align with the roof of the adjacent property and do not cause privacy impacts. The windows facing west would enable overlooking into the adjacent yards and therefore should be obscure glazed.

 

Noise – with more people living in the block it will create more noise in our very quiet back area. Construction noise.

The proposed additional level is of masonry construction and the outdoor deck is well shielded from adjacent yards with brick and glass. A condition will be imposed requiring that construction noise does not create an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and complies with relevant noise legislation.

 

Safety – during construction with materials falling off the roof into our backyard.

A condition will imposed requiring that all development is contained within the site and that at no time shall any scaffolding, building works, waste material or the like be placed or left on the adjacent properties.

 

View loss - Outstanding district views from the upper level will be lost.

A site inspection revealed that there are no views of the district from this unit over the subject property.

 

Overshadowing

Shadow diagrams indicate minimal additional overshadowing and that the proposal complies with Council requirements. The adjacent properties, particularly those to the west, will receive at least three hours of sunlight throughout the day.

The proposal will appear aesthetically unattractive.

The proposed addition is setback from the streetscape and will not be visible from Dolphin Street or Carrington Road at ground level. From the adjacent properties to the west it will appear as a modern addition.

The new addition will close in the back yard and it will lose its open feel.

The two yards immediately to the west of the existing building envelope on the southern side back onto the subject building which forms a continuous two storey wall near the boundary, already closing the backyards in from that side. There are no other adjacent buildings which have this situation. These adjacent yards have an open space north/south corridor which receives light and ventilation. The proposed development does not affect this corridor (ie there is no enclosure of building to the south and north of the adjacent yards to the west). The additional bulk proposed is sited at the rear where the existing RL is 27.36. The proposed development has a maximum RL of 29.75 however this height occurs for a length of 4.8m only. Therefore the proposal will add bulk however the sense of enclosure will remain largely the same and the important north/south open space corridor is maintained.

 

 

David and Sandra Bassin

52 Dolphin Street

Coogee  NSW  2034

 

Issue

Comment

The additional level would be out of character with the block which exhibits two storey buildings.

The additional level is setback to the rear and whilst it is three storeys it won’t be visible from Dolphin Street.

Significant exceedance of 9.5m height limit. Roof pitch should be reduced to result in compliance.

The proposal exceeds 9.5m over a small area. Redesigning this to achieve strict compliance would result in an awkward roof shape and would not benefit the adjacent residents or result in significantly less visual bulk. Flattening the roof pitch or having a flat roof would result in a design that is inconsistent with the predominant pitched roof pattern in the street.

 

 

Leonard & Sandy Sadleir

223B Carrington Road

Coogee  NSW  2034

 

Issue

Comment

Infringe on privacy from upper level deck.

The deck is small and is entirely enclosed by roof, walls and frosted glass. The impact of this would be lesser than an open ground level rear yard.

Overshadowing issues

This has been assessed previously, see comments above.

New addition will enclose the adjacent rear yards.

This matter has been assessed previously, see comments above.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

Building Services comments

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for additions to the existing 2 storey building located upon the site, which is proposed to create an additional storey towards the rear of the building to provide an additional storey to unit 3 only.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class           -        2      (Residential units)

 

Description of the Building

 

In summary, the building incorporates:

 

§  Rise in storeys of three

§  Masonry walls, tiled roof and timber floors on ground floor only

§  One exit, of masonry construction

§  Four SOU’s, two on each level

Key Issues

 

An inspection of the subject premises on the 3 May 2005 revealed that the existing provisions for fire safety and sound transmission within the building are inadequate.

 

The balustrades to the internal stairs do not satisfy the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Key Issues

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

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

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-        Building Code of Australia.

-        Development Control Plan– Multi Unit Housing

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 - FSR

0.65:1

0.92:1

Does not comply, proposal exceeds control by 0.27:1. See assessment below.

33 (1)- Building Height

9.5m maximum.

 

10.7m

Does not comply, proposal exceeds control by up to 1.2m. See assessment below.

33 (3)- Building Height

7m maximum external wall height.

9.5m

Does not comply, proposal exceeds control by up to 2.5m. See assessment below.

31(1) - Landscaped area

Minimum 50% of the total site area is landscaped.

178 sq.m or 50.2%

Complies. The proposed development results in no alteration to the existing landscaped area.

 

8.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1     State Environmental Planning Policy 1

 

A SEPP 1 objection was submitted with respect to the non-compliance with the Floor Space Ratio standard. The following reasons were provided to justify the non-compliance:

 

LEP Control clause 32 Indicates that the maximum floor space ratio for the development in this zone 2B is 0.65: 1.  The existing building as it stands is over the maximum floor ratio.

 

The site is occupied by a residential unit building that is, three levels high at the northern side and two levels at the southern side .The foot print of this building is 140 square metres. This equates to 39.5 percent of the site area. The drive way covers 9 per cent of the site area (31.85 square metres) while the private open space with land scaping occupies 51.5  per cent of the site (182.26 square metres).

 

Site area is                  353.91 sq.m.

 

Level  1 garage                         36.00 sq.m. existing

Level 2 unit 1 & 2                   128.10 sq.m. existing 

Level 3 unit 1 & Part 3           128.10 sq.m. existing

 

Level 4 part unit 3                    70.68 sqm. Proposed addition  without  proposed deck

 

Therefore the floor ratio is the sum of all floor areas, divided by site area

 

36+ 128.10+ 128.10 + 70.68 = 362.88sq.m.

 

362. 88 sq.m / 353.91sq.m = 1.02 : 1

 

The building in its current form is already over the stipulated maximum floor ratio (existing floor ratio is already 0.83:1). It is unreasonable for the maximum floor area to strictly apply to this site.

 

Considering its floor ratio, the existing structure does not impose a dominant presence onto the surrounding neighbours but rather it blends with the surrounding buildings creating the current character of the zone.

 

The proposed addition of 70.68 square metres integrates with the existing structure and does not change the character of the building.

 

The architectural design of the proposed project is sympathetic with the predominant style of the zone. The form and bulk of the building fuses together with the existing dwelling creating harmony with the streetscape and surrounding buildings that does not detract from the character of the zone.

 

The design takes into consideration the amount of open space around the building paying attention to distances between 50 Dolphin Street and existing adjoining buildings, creating good open space around the building that provides the neighbours and tenants of the building the enjoyment of blue sky. The proposed additions and alteration is to be mostly built in what is now the roof space.

 

The proposed project is not designed to create a new unit thus increasing the density of the existing building,, but to provide a better living environment for the existing occupancy. The proposed addition has its own private space reducing the impact on the communal open space.

 

The increase in floor space will not have a significant affect on the neighbours and streetscape. The performance of the project provides an improved built environment that increases the value of the property whilst not being in conflict with its surroundings.

 

Clause 32 - Floor Space Ratios of LEP 1998 states that a maximum floor space ratio for land zoned 2B is 0.65:1. The purpose of this is to establish reasonable upper limits for development through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This helps to reduce the potential for adverse impacts on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.

 

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.92:1 (calculated by planning officer – applicant included garage and made calculation from outer rather than inner walls) and, therefore, does not comply with the maximum permissible FSR of 0.65:1. The exceedance in FSR is 0.27:1 or 95 sqm. The existing building has an FSR of 0.734:1 and exceeds the maximum permissible FSR by 0.084:1 or 29.6sq.m. The additional floor area proposed above the existing building is 0.186:1 or 66 sq.m.

 

The additional floor area is provided to facilitate greater amenity to existing unit 3 which, like all the other units on the building, is relatively small. The amenity of the unit will be greatly improved by providing a large open living area which will receive good solar penetration throughout the day and a high degree of ventilation. The unit has its own private deck which is screened from neighbours and partly contained within a roof space. The upper level is set to the rear of the site where the land height greatly increases. This setback and the design of the roof to the front ensures that the addition will not be visible in the streetscape from Dolphin Street. The adjacent and surrounding dwellings and units vary in height, scale and bulk. The FSR of surrounding buildings varies from 0.48:1 (adjacent to the site to the east on Dolphin Street) to 1.2:1 (at the rear of the site across Brighton Road). The dwellings and units to the west range in FSR from 0.55:1 to 0.933:1 (225 Carrington Rd is 0.933:1 and 227 Carrington Rd is 0.82:1). The proposed scale is therefore consistent with the mix in the area and is not unreasonably excessive. The land height rises by approximately 8m from the front to the rear of the site. The dwellings and multi unit housing developments on all of the adjacent sites are two storeys in height with pitched roofs.  Because of the increase in land height from front to rear, the dwellings at the rear on the western side are considerably higher than the roof pitch of the existing building. The proposed development will be slightly higher than the roof ridge of the two adjacent dwellings to the west at 225 and 227 Carrington Rd (ie 0.06m – 0.55m) and the proposed floor is basically on the same level as the second floor in these buildings.

 

The separation distance to adjacent residents is at least 10m (except for the dwelling to the east which is 3.5m) and the upper level is well screened and utilises treatments to the glazing to prevent overlooking. The proposal increases the visual bulk of the building as viewed from the rear yards of the adjacent properties, however this is not out of character with the area and the shadow diagrams submitted show only slight additional shadowing which does not greatly affect the adjacent neighbours.

 

Whilst the proposal results in a numerical exceedance of the FSR control, it is considered that the scale is consistent with the mixed scale of the area, the impacts generated by the proposal are minimal and there is a much greater increase in amenity and usability for unit 3.

 

The floor space exceedance is therefore considered acceptable and the SEPP 1 objection is supported.

 

A SEPP 1 objection was submitted with respect to the non-compliance in height. The following reasons were provided to justify the non-compliance:

 

Height

 

LEP control clause 33 (1) states that the maximum height for development in Zone No. 2b is 9.5 metres. 

 

The northern section of the addition has a height of 10.5 metres above the natural ground line.

(1.0 metres max above the recommended height line)  

 

Regardless of the building in a minor part, being higher than the 9.5 metre of the recommended envelope,  Its architectural style reflects the surrounding buildings. The roof design, is hipped at both ends not different from the roofs of the surrounding buildings. Therefore the roof is not competing with the surrounding buildings, but blends in with the surrounding urban scape.

 

The orientation of the proposed additions (north, south) provides a shadow that will not deprive the neighbours of reasonable direct sun light to their adjoining properties as sun shadow diagrams clearly indicates this.

 

The new addition is occupying as much of the existing roof space there fore its impact is of the new  addition is minimal.

 

Further to this, the placement of the addition ( at the rear of the building ) is visually  obstructed by the existing roof at the front of the building reducing  the visual  impact  from Dolphin street. Overall the impact of No. 50 Dolphin street will not be any greater than the dwellings of its immediate neighbours.

 

The adjoining neighbours will not experience any loss of views  by this extra height.

Even though the addition does go over slightly the 9.5 metre line the net affect of its encroachment will not be noticed thus making  it  an appropriate development.

 

Considering the site and the surrounding buildings the LEP controls clause 33 should not strictly apply to this project. The proposed project is still in keeping with the principles of the development controls as the proposal will not be out of character with the current architectural style of Zone 2B and that the additions are not of a dominant nature but compliment the surrounding buildings. They do not detract from the current amenities enjoyed by neighbours.

 

External Wall Height

 

LEP Controls clause 33 (3) The maximum height for any external wall of a building in Zone No.2B is 7 metres.

 

The land slope presents the problem of the wall height of the addition to vary from 7 metres above natural ground line to 9 metres.

 

The impact of the external wall to the adjoining neighbours is reduced  by braking down the mass of the walls with placement of windows and by providing  a roof  apron where the existing building joins on to the proposed addition.

 

The impact of the height of the building is broken down by use of different materials and the proposed addition will have its walls rendered to match the existing ground floor plinth. The existing building has exposed dark brown brick work for its cladding. This allows for the mass of the wall to be broken down into smaller elements. The proposed east wall is setback from the existing façade providing a split in the wall. All of these factors contribute to reducing the impact of the walls.

 

The proposed walls are going to built in what now is the roof space, the orientation (north, south) of the walls cause minimal impact on overshadowing the adjoining properties. The  shadows caused by the  proposed  will not deprive the neighbours of reasonable direct sunlight.  The existing landscape provides a visual buffer covering  most of the proposed north and east elevation of the  external wall.

 

Therefore regardless of the height of the walls the proposed additions will not be imposing  in scale but will blend with the adjoining buildings.

 

Clause 33 – Building Heights – of the LEP specifies that (1) the maximum height for a building within zone 2B is 9.5m measured vertically from any point on ground level, and (3) that the maximum height for any external wall of a building within Zone 2B is 7 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level. The purpose of this is to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential areas that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of the land in those zones given other development restrictions and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas.

 

The proposed development has external wall heights varying between 7m and 9.5m and an overall height of up to 10.7.m. The proposal therefore results in an external wall height non-compliance of up to 2.5m and an overall height exceedance of up to 1.2m. The exceedance in the height control occurs over a depth of 11.3m with the greatest exceedance occurring on the northern side of the proposed extension or in the middle of the building. Towards the rear or southern side of the site the external wall height of the proposal would comply at 7m on natural ground level. The additional height and bulk is located at the rear of the site and is generally consistent with surrounding buildings due to the very hilly nature of the topography in the area. The proposed development will be slightly higher than the roof ridge of the two adjacent dwellings to the west and southwest at 225 and 227 Carrington Rd (ie 0.55m – 0.06m respectively) and the proposed new floor is on a similar level as the second floor in these buildings. The proposed development is slightly higher than the adjacent building to the east with the roof ridges having a 1.67m height difference. The proposed development marries the heights between the buildings to the east and the west which it currently does not as it sits lower than the dwelling to the east (ie at the rear). Because of this, the proposed height will not appear excessive or dominant nor particularly visible from Dolphin Street or Carrington Road. The large trees at the rear of the site will obscure the view of the proposed level from Brighton Road.

 

The height exceedance in the mid section of the building would not be visible from the properties to the west which are heavily planted with screen trees along the boundary that would obscure the additional level. Redesigning the proposal to provide strict compliance would be difficult given the steep topography of the site. There is little impact to the adjacent property to the east as a result of the height exceedance which primarily occurs adjacent to most of the rear of the buildings envelope.

 

There is concern from residents at Nos 225 and 223B Carrington Road that the additional height would accentuate the sense of enclosure.  A complying development with an external wall height of 7m and an overall height of 9m would have a similar effect. A complying development could also be built further to the rear of the site over two levels. The proposed development only slightly exceeds the height requirements at the rear. Reducing the height of the proposal to achieve compliance would require reducing the internal floor to ceiling heights which is not considered reasonable.

 

The height does not generate unreasonable amenity impacts by way of privacy or overshadowing to adjacent properties (as described in later sections) and the design with the pitched roof is characteristic of the area. The altered wall materials will soften the appearance of the proposed extension at the rear. The proposal will appear larger than the current form from the two rear yards of the adjacent properties to the west, however one of these is very well screened with an array of large/mature trees. Both yards will still receive good levels of light and ventilation which is facilitated by an open space corridor of yards to the properties fronting Carrington Rd that runs north/south. The height and bulk are consistent with at least two adjacent dwellings at 225 and 227 Carrington Road.

 

Therefore, whilst the additional level exceeds the height controls, it is located at the rear of the site and is not inconsistent with the height of other buildings nearby. It is surrounded by hilly topography which ensures the design will not become the dominant element in the landscape as buildings further to the south are sited on higher ground and are much higher than the proposal. The minor additional height does not result in unreasonable overshadowing or privacy impacts and no objections are raised with respect to the height.  The SEPP1 objection is therefore considered well founded.

 

8.2     Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

 

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.

The site has a frontage of 10.5m, but the proposal conforms to the proportions of the site.

Height

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

 

Does not comply with height requirements but is consistent with intent of objectives and purpose of height limits.

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.

 

The proposal responds well to this requirement by shifting the bulk to the rear which minimises impacts to the streetscape and neighbours through appropriate design.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

The proposed development maintains the existing front setback. The alterations proposed are to the centre and rear of the building.

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 2B

Minimum average setback 4 metres.

No part closer than 2.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

The existing building is two storeys containing walls that are not setback on the upper levels. This is a common feature of the design of unit developments built in the 1950s and 1960s such as the subject building. The existing side setbacks over all levels and on both sides is 1.5m. The proposed upper level is setback 1.5m from the western boundary and 2.3m from the eastern boundary.  Notwithstanding, the proposal meets the performance requirements of DCP.  See Section 8.3 & 8.4.

 

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 2B

Minimum average setback 6 metres.

No part closer than 4.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

 

The rear boundary setback of 9.5m is maintained and complies with the preferred solution.

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. The proposed eaves protrude 500mm from the walls.

Density

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

 

The proposed bulk is consistent with other two and three storey buildings in the area which contain pitched roofs. By setting back the upper level at the rear, there is minimal impact to the streetscape and adjacent properties.

 

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.

 

No alterations are proposed to the fencing.

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.

A large rear outdoor area roughly 7m x 10m equalling 70 sqm is to be retained. The proposal results in no alterations to the ground level and landscaped areas.

 

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

 

Complies.

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.

The proposal introduces a 6.5m x 2.8m wide deck for unit 4. 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.

The proposed development has a separation of 10m or more from all adjacent properties and their windows except for the adjacent property to the east on Dolphin Street. There are three windows to the eastern side and frosted glazing to the upper level deck of the subject development. This eliminates opportunities to overlook but enables light penetration. Complies.

 

P2  Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

The proposed deck is placed in the middle of the building within the roof pitch and has frosted glazing. These design elements prevent privacy loss to neighbours. All side windows are small and contain frosted glazing.

 

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

The upper level deck is not large and is contained by the roof, the building and the glazing to the sides. The proposed deck will have a lesser impact than an open balcony or rear yard would to adjacent neighbours and is therefore supported.

 

P4  Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

A condition will be imposed ensuring that noise during construction complies with relevant legislation.

 

View Sharing

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

 

The adjacent units to the east that overlook the property do not have views to the ocean or the surrounding district. There are no views to be lost as a result of the proposal.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

The proposed addition is located to the rear to minimise impacts to the streetscape. The proposal at the same time has a minimal impact on overshadowing.

 

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.

 

Shadow diagrams show that the adjacent dwellings to the south west will receive minor overshadowing at 9.00am however by 10.00am and onwards there is no overshadowing to the dwellings. The proposal overshadows the adjacent dwelling to the east currently after 2.00pm. The proposed development does not result in additional overshadowing to living room windows.

 

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.

P5  Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

S5  Adequate area of roof between 45 degrees east and 45 degrees west or north, and a slope between 15 and 55 degrees to the horizontal for installation of solar collectors.

 

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.

 

 

The existing building contains 4 x 2br units. This generates a requirement for 4.8 spaces. The existing building contains two internal spaces and a driveway strip. The proposed development increases the parking requirement to 5.1 spaces. The additional bedroom therefore does not generate the requirement for an additional space.

 

8.3     Shadowing Impact

 

A complying development in terms of height would not result in significantly less shadow impacts at the winter solstice to adjacent properties than that proposed.  For the adjacent properties to the east at 223A & 223B Carrington Road, the proposed development would have the same impact as a complying development in terms of shadowing. The additional shadowing impact to 225 Carrington Road to the west is over a very small area at the southwestern side of the yard (yard area approx 80sq.m) during the morning only (ie additional shadowing of approx 8sq.m of yard at 9.00am, 5sqm of yard at 10.00am and 2sqm of yard at11.00am and no additional impact at other times). Between 10.00am and 1.00pm the yard to 225 Carrington Road will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over a large section of yard space.  The rear yards to 227 and 229 Carrington Road will receive additional shadowing impacts above a complying scheme in the morning only. The additional shadowing impact at 9.00am compared to a complying scheme would absorb most of the yards and the eastern face of the ground floors. By 10.00am however, the additional impact is approx 6 sq.m of yard space above a complying scheme and nearly half of the yards receive full sunlight. By 11.00am the difference is nearly the same as a complying scheme (minor increase of approx 3sq.m). By midday there is no difference. The rear yards of these dwellings will receive good levels of sunlight over the larger portion of their yard space between 10.00am and 1.00pm.The property to the east at 52 Dolphin Street has a very large rear yard with an area of approx 250sq.m and it contains mature trees. The proposed development results in additional shadows to this property above a complying scheme in the afternoon only. The additional impact at 1.00pm is for a small area of the yard and the side passage to a depth of approx 1m. By 2.00pm the additional impact is approximately 8 sqm of yard. By 3pm the impact is greater and more significant to the south eastern side of the yard. However as this yard has a large area, the impact is not significant. Overall the impact to this property in terms of shadowing is very minor given its large size.

 

The proposal complies in terms of shadowing to adjacent properties and within itself by providing at least three hours of sunlight to part of the yards during the winter solstice between 9.00am and 3.00pm.

 

8.4     Privacy Impact

 

In terms of privacy, the proposal will have no additional impact as the proposed windows and deck either overlook roof space or have obscure/frosted glazing that prevents overlooking.

 

The proposed development therefore results in additional floor area creating a part third storey to accommodate a new living/kitchen area to unit 3. This space would greatly improve the amenity to that dwelling which is benefited by a northern orientation. The living room/deck has been positioned to take full advantage of this, allowing a high degree of solar access and ventilation to the area. The alteration does not result in privacy impacts as the glazing to the deck and the small windows of the living/kitchen area are to be frosted/obscure glazed. Whilst the additional area results in a non-compliance numerically with the height and floor space requirements, it is positioned to the rear of the building and will not be a dominant element in the Carrington Rd or Dolphin Street streetscapes and will not adversely compromise the amenity of adjacent residents.

 

8.5     State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

Application of Policy-

 

This Policy applies to development being:

 

(a)     The erection of a new residential flat building, and

 

(b)     The substantial redevelopment or the substantial refurbishment of an existing residential flat building, and

 

(c)     The conversion of an existing building to a residential flat building.

 

(d)     If particular development comprises development to which subclause (1) applies and other development, this Policy applies to the part of the development that is development to which subclause (1) applies and does not apply to the other part.

 

The guide stipulates that the SEPP is to be applied in accordance with the following paragraph:

 

 

The existing building is a part three storey building containing four dwelling units. The proposed development results in a part third storey at the rear (the proposal is partly three storeys at the front due to the garage).  An assessment of the proposal in accordance with the ten design quality principles is included below.

 

Principle 1: General approach

 

The proposed development provides an appropriate streetscape presentation to Dolphin Street and Carrington Road and will not be visible from either street. It will result in a quality environment for the future residents and for passers-by. A contemporary design is achieved to the rear of the proposed building through the incorporation of materials and colours. The proposal incorporates ESD principles of northern orientation, outlook and cross ventilation of the apartment through an appropriate unit layout which provides north facing balcony/terraces and adjoining open plan living areas thereby maximising northern solar access. The development is consistent with SEPP 65 in terms of its general approach to the site and uses contained within the building.

 

Principle 1: Context

 

The proposed development provides a balance in building bulk and scale between the adjoining western two storey units and the neighbouring two storey residence to the east. The subject site is located on a steep slope rising in height from north to south by 8m. The proposed building marries the visual height line between the two storey dwelling to the east  (which has a high roof pitch) and the two storey units to the west. The proposed building is to comprise residential accommodation only, which is considered appropriate given the site’s surrounding residential context. The building bulk is in a rectangular form with a three storey appearance to the street which remains unaltered and is consistent with the other units in the street and surrounds. The main deck area of the development is orientated to the north and will be screened by the roof pitch, thereby preventing the potential for overlooking and loss of visual and aural privacy to neighbouring development.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 1 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 2: Scale

 

The proposed building is three storeys. The proposed FSR is significantly higher than that prescribed by Council (ie 0.27:1 above maximum FSR). The proposed scale of the development is consistent with the mixed scale of development in the area which exhibits one to three storey residential development in a variety of forms. The scale of the development is not excessive with respect to the site area and the building is set back from its boundaries. The proposal appears as the same development from Dolphin Street. The proposal respects the two storey scale of development to the west and east as the additional bulk is contained at the rear and is similar in visual scale due to the rise in land height at the rear. Whilst it is a larger numerical scale than the immediately adjacent buildings, it does not overpower or dominate the scale of the buildings.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 2 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 3: Built Form

 

The proposed built form has been designed principally to maximize solar access through orientation to the north. The deck is sited to the north side of the proposed building and the unit runs nearly the width of the building with an open plan design to maximize cross ventilation and solar penetration. The proposed combination of rendered panel work, retention of roof tiles, timber framed windows and thin vertical windows serve to create visual interest in the built form at the rear and separate the old from the new whilst preserving the streetscape.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 3 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 4: Density

 

The expected number of residents and mix of unit sizes is appropriate for the site area and its location close to local shopping amenities and public transport. The proposal offers additional housing choice, and does not increase demand for on site parking thereby minimising its impact on the availability of on street parking in Dolphin Street, which notwithstanding contains plenty of parking adjacent to the park. The proposal does not comply with the allowable maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 under the Randwick LEP 1998 however it is consistent with the objectives of the density control, the general scale of development in the area and the submitted SEPP 1 objection justifies the non-compliance.  Whilst there is a significant exceedance in FSR the building will appear consistent with the scale of adjacent development and the marginal increased residential content of the development is considered to be acceptable.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 4 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 5: Resource, energy and water efficiency

 

The proposed development has been designed with these principles in mind. The primary living area of the unit will have direct access to a north facing deck. The deck to the proposed unit will have direct access to northern sunlight. Window openings and the depth of the deck is suitably proportioned to allow good daylight penetration into the primary living space of the unit. The configuration and open plan design of the proposed unit ensures that good levels of natural cross-ventilation for the unit will be achieved.

The proposed development is consistent with principle 5 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 6: Landscape

 

The site is located within a residential context where the proposed building is to be constructed with a significant set back to the street edge and a roof design that conceals the upper level. The existing landscaping to the site is proposed to be retained. This consists primarily of large trees at the rear of the site. Existing plantings of trees are also prominent along both boundaries, particularly the western boundary. These trees are predominantly located in the adjacent properties and this existing thick vegetation acts as a visual and aural buffer providing privacy and an aesthetically pleasant and natural environment.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 6 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 7: Amenity

 

The development provides indoor and outdoor spaces that will be comfortable and practical to use. Dimensions and layout will appropriately control sunlight to the living area and provide natural ventilation to the unit.  The outdoor open space area in the form of a deck adjoins the main living area of the unit. Pedestrian access to the site is available off Dolphin Street. Internally, the living room proposed has of significant proportion, with the living area being of a convenient, practical open plan design opening onto a north facing deck which forms one unified space if the doors are entirely opened.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 7 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 8: Safety and Security

 

The proposed development retains the existing high level of surveillance and safety available to the site whilst not compromising the privacy of adjacent neighbours.

 

The proposal is consistent with principle 8 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 9: Social dimensions

 

The proposed expanded unit would complement the existing housing stock in the area and would  not significantly affect existing amenity for surrounding residents.

The development provides a mix of units that will meet the existing and future needs of the community. The mix of units provides choice for singles, couples and small families and is not prejudiced with respect to age groups.

 

The proposed development is consistent with principle 9 of SEPP 65.

 

Principle 10: Aesthetics

 

The overall form and detailing of the building are appropriate and suitable for the site and complement the existing roof pitch and roof materials of the building. The proposed treatment and architectural composition of the proposal achieves a suitable design which is sympathetic to adjacent designs. The external finishes and colour scheme proposed for the development are satisfactory.

 

Conclusion:

 

The proposal has been reviewed with regard to the design principles and is considered satisfactory with regard to the provisions of SEPP 65.

 

9.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not comply with the numerical height and floor space standards however the proposal is consistent with the scale and bulk of adjacent development. The proposal is setback from the streetscape so it is not visible from the footpath on Dolphin Street and Carrington Road and would not be the dominant element in the streetscape or detract from it. The proposal does not generate unreasonable overshadowing impacts and does not generate additional privacy concerns nor does it affect views. The proposal complies with the objectives and performance requirements of the Multi-Unit Housing Development Control Plan and will not have significant impacts to adjacent properties.

 

The proposal is therefore considered consistent with the character of development in the area and is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

B.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 05/00193 for expansion to existing Unit 3 to create a new living room, kitchen, laundry and toilet with deck as a part third floor at 50 Dolphin Street, Coogee subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.    The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with drawings numbered 04035 D01 and titled Section AA, South Elevation, West Elevation, East Elevation, North Elevation, Site Plans, Existing Floor Plan Unit 4, Location Plan, New Floor Unit 4,  all dated 10 October 2004, all designed by North is up Design, and received by Council on 17 March 2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3.       Glazing to the eastern and western side screens on the deck is to be frosted to prevent overlooking to adjacent properties.

 

4.       The east, west and south facing windows to the proposed additional level are to contain frosted or obscure glazing to prevent overlooking to adjacent properties.

 

5.       The design and colour of the roof tiles to the proposed building/s are required to match, as closely as possible, the material and colour of the existing roof.

 

6.       There must be no encroachment of any part of the structure/s onto the adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place.

 

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

 

8.       Internal or external clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

          Should external clothes drying facilities be provided, the facilities must be adequately screened by vegetation and details are to be incorporated into the landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

9.       The provisions of Councils tree preservation order are strictly to be observed and it is a requirement that the applicant or their representative obtain any necessary consent required under the tree preservation order.

 

          Should compliance require amendment to the plan an amended development application is required to be submitted for consideration and approval prior to work commencing.

 

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

 

11.     Where access is required to adjoining premises for construction purposes, the consent of the owner/s of the subject adjoining premises must be provided to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to carrying out any construction works from or upon 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 and to provide for reasonable levels of fire safety:

 

12.     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.

 

13.     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.

 

14.     Prior to the commencement of any building works (including necessary upgrading works specified in the conditions of this consent), 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

16.     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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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 (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

          An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the development if the development is inconsistent with the development consent.  The requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

19.     Prior to the issuing of an interim or final occupation certificate, a statement is required to be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority, which confirms that the development is not inconsistent with the development consent and the relevant conditions of development consent have been satisfied.

 

          Details of critical stage inspections carried out by the principal certifying authority together with any other certification relied upon must also be provided to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

20.     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.

 

21.     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.

 

22.     The existing levels of fire safety and amenity within the building are to be upgraded in accordance with the following requirements and the fire safety certificate provisions of Part 9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 must be complied with, prior to issuing an occupation certificate:

 

a)       The electricity meter box and switchboard located in the required exit or in any corridor, hallway lobby or like leading to a required exit are to be enclosed in non-combustible construction or fire protective covering, with doorways or openings suitably sealed against smoke spreading from the enclosure, in accordance with Clause D2.7 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

b)      The balustrades along the side of the stairways are to be upgraded.

 

          The balustrade height shall be not less than 1000mm above the floor of any access path, balcony, landing or the like and 865mm above the nosing of the stair treads or floor of a ramp and the balustrade is to be constructed in accordance with Clause D2.16 of the Building Code of Australia. Openings within balustrades shall not exceed 125mm, so as to not permit a 125mm sphere to pass through it and for stairs, the space is tested above the nosings, in accordance with Clause D2.16 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

c)       The main entry/exit doors are to be altered so as to swing in the direction of egress or alternatively the main entry/exit doors are to be provided with an automatic hold open device, to assist persons seeking egress in the event of an emergency.

 

d)      Doors in a required exit, forming part of a required exit or in the path of travel to a required exit is required to be readily openable without a key from the side that faces a person seeking egress, by a single hand downward action or pushing action on a single device which is located between 900mm and 1200mm from the floor in accordance with Clause D2.21 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

e)       The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units.

 

          A smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia is required to be installed in accordance with the following requirements:

 

1.      smoke alarms are required to comply with AS 3786 - Smoke Alarms, and be powered from the mains electric power source, and provided with a battery back-up.

 

2.      in kitchens and other areas where the use of the area is likely to result in smoke alarms causing spurious signals, heat alarms may be installed in lieu of smoke alarms.

 

3.      smoke alarms must be installed within each sole-occupancy unit, located on or near the ceiling in:

i)        any storey containing bedrooms, located between each part of the sole-occupancy unit containing bedrooms and the remainder of the sole-occupancy unit; and where bedrooms are served by a hallway, located in that hallway; and

ii)       any storey not containing any bedrooms, located in egress paths; and

 

4.      in a building not protected with a sprinkler system, smoke alarms are to be provided in public corridors and other internal public spaces, located in accordance with the requirements for smoke detectors in AS 1670.1 and the smoke alarms located within the public corridor/stairway must be interconnected to activate a building occupant warning system in accordance with Clause 6 of Specification E2.2.a.

 

         [Clause 6 requires that the system to comply with Clause 8.7 of AS 1670.1 to sound throughout all occupied areas, except that the sound pressure level need not be measured within a sole-occupancy unit if a level of not less than 85dB(A) is provided at the door providing access to the sole-occupancy unit and the inbuilt sounders of the smoke alarms may be used wholly or partially to meet the requirements].

 

          Additional requirements regarding the design and installation of the smoke detection and alarm system may be specified in the construction certificate for the development.

 

 

f)       Provide emergency lighting to the stairways and corridors, in accordance with the provisions of Clauses E4.2 and E4.4 of the Building Code of Australia and AS/NZS 2293.1 (1998).

 

g)       Provide exit signs to the Building, to satisfy the provisions of Clause E4.7 of the Building Code of Australia. Exit signs must be visible at all times to indicate the way to a position of egress from the building, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

h)       Provide a portable fire extinguisher next to the electrical meter cupboard, to satisfy the provisions of Clause E1.6 of the Building Code of Australia of Australia and AS 2444 (1995).

 

i)        Provide a self-closing, -/60/30 fire door to the front entry doorway of each sole-occupancy unit, in accordance with Clause C3.11 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

j)       Prior to commencing the abovementioned fire safety works, a Construction Certificate must be obtained from Council’s Building Certification Services or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

23.     Upon completion of the fire safety upgrading works and prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, a final fire safety certificate is to be submitted to Council and a copy of the fire safety certificate and fire safety schedule are to be displayed in a prominent position within the building (ie entrance area), in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

25.     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.

 

26.     All building and development works are to be contained wholly within the site, including scaffolding, building materials, sediment control and waste material and at no time shall any such works, materials or the like be placed, left or dropped onto the adjacent properties without the permission of the owners of such properties.

 

27.     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.

 

28.     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.

 

29.     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.

 

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.

 

31.     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.

 

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.     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. 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.

 

If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or the building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

 

If necessary, an awning is to be erected sufficiently to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises.

 

Temporary fences or hoardings 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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

a)       Part B1     -           Structural provisions

b)      Part E1      -           Fire fighting equipment

c)       Part E2      -           Smoke Hazard Management

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

 

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 advised to ensure that the development is not inconsistent with Council's consent and if necessary consult with Council’s Building Certification Services or your accredited certifier prior to submitting your construction certificate application to enable these matters to be addressed accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 configurations

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

LUKE JACKSON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 



 

Director, City Planning Report 29/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

2005 BUSINESS AWARDS

 

 

DATE:

17 May, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07737

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In 2003, the Randwick City Council Business Awards Committee recommended that the Awards Program be managed by an external company due to the comprehensive nature of the program and the significant impact on Council resources.  It was also agreed at this time that the Awards Program be held on a biennial basis.

 

Precedent Productions, an Awards and Special Event Management Company, in conjunction with Council and the Southern Courier, successfully managed the 2003 Business Awards.  Precedent is currently managing Business Awards for a substantial number of Metropolitan and Regional Councils.

 

It is proposed that Council endorse the staging of the 2005 Business Awards and appoint Precedent Productions to project manage this year’s Awards Program.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Business Awards Committee has recently been convened to commence discussions with regard to the 2005 Program.  The Committee comprises:

 

Ø  Clr Robert Belleli [Chair]

Ø  Clr Ted Seng

Ø  Clr Dominic Sullivan

Ø  Clr Alan White

Ø  The Presidents of  the Coogee, Kensington, Kingsford, Maroubra, Matraville and Randwick Chambers of Commerce

 

The Committee, at its recent meetings, resolved to recommend to Council that Mr John Deegan, President of The Spot Business Association, and Mr Peter Schick of Kingsford Chamber of Commerce, be formally invited to be members of the Committee.

 

The Committee resolved to recommend to Council to stage the 2005 Business Awards.

 

Precedent Productions previously managed Council’s 2003 Business Awards Program.  Precedent will be responsible for securing sponsorship, judging, promotion and the running of the 2005 Business Awards Program.  The Committee will provide guidance and direction to Precedent.

 

The Committee proposed that it work in partnership with Precedent Productions and the Southern Courier to stage the Business Awards 2005 Program. 

 

Ongoing meetings will be held with all parties to ensure the successful culmination of the Business Awards 2005 Program.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Precedent Productions will project manage the event.  Council will not pay a fee for service to Precedent Productions, and Precedent Productions will cover its costs by sale of tickets to the Business Awards 2005 Presentation Dinner.

 

Council’s direct cost for this event includes staff salaries and advertising costs, as well as the Launch of the Awards Program.  These costs are already allocated within the current year’s Budget.  Some advertising costs are covered by Precedent Productions and also by sponsorship from the Southern Courier.

 

It is also proposed that Council allocate $15,000.00 towards this event in support of businesses and to ensure that ticket prices are kept to a reasonable cost.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Randwick City Council Business Awards is a significant program which shows Council’s commitments to Businesses within the Local Government Association.  It provides an opportunity to forge stronger relationships between the business community, Council and the general public.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1.       Endorse the membership of Mr John Deegan of The Spot Business Association and Mr Peter Schick of Kingsford Chamber of Commerce to the Business Awards Committee;

 

2.       Endorse the staging of the 2005 Business Awards;

 

3.       Appoint Precedent Productions to project manage the Business Awards 2005 Program; and

 

4.       Allocate $15,000.00 towards the Business Awards 2005 event from the 2005/06 budget.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 


 

MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

12.1       Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Bastic, Daley, Procopiadis, Sullivan, Tracey and White – Ordinary Council Meeting, Tuesday, 26th April, 2005– Item 6.3 – Mayoral Minute 46/2005 - Clarification of Lenthal Street’s status as a local road and establishing Council’s authority in local street traffic issues.

 

That the resolution passed at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 26th April, 2005, reading as follows:-

 

that Council:

 

a)       informs the NSW Roads Classification Review Panel that it wishes to withdraw its submission of 30th August 2004 concerning Lenthal Street and that Council deems Lenthal Street to be a “local road”;

 

b)      writes to the RTA reiterating its recent resolution to suspend support for the proposed Southern Cross Drive Access ramps until either an EIS or REF is concluded and advise that we have now also withdrawn our re-classification submission concerning Lenthal Street;

 

c)       writes as a matter of urgency to the State Government noting reports that the capacity of the Eastern Distributor and the M5 East may be expanded and urging;

 

i.      that Council requests acknowledgement of, and responses to our call for a Regional Traffic and Transport Planning Process;

 

ii.     that both the approved expansion of Sydney Airport and any proposed motorway expansion are considered under the EIS or REF intended for the Southern Cross Drive Access Ramps proposal; and

 

iii.    that either the implementation of light rail to the Airport or the expansion of existing heavy rail services be adopted rather than major road expansions;

 

d)      writes to Heffron MP Kristina Keneally asking her to:

 

i.   clarify her personal support for, or opposition to, the reported expansion of the capacity of the Eastern Distributor and the M5 East;

 

ii.  recognise that her current project of attempting to draft a LATM is dangerously pre-empting the REF process for the Access Ramps and is effectively high jacking Councils delegated authority for deciding traffic matters in local streets, and to desist from doing so;

 

e)                  writes to the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition and Greens Upper House MLC Lee Rhiannon asking for the behaviour of Heffron MP Kristina Keneally to be raised in State Parliament with a request that she desist from both pre-empting the ramp approval process and attempting to supplant Council’s authority over local streets;

 

f)                    supports the implementation of the half road closure of Lenthall Street at Epson Road, in a direction to be determined by public submissions, with entry only for buses and emergency vehicles, with a report to be brought back to Council; and

 

g)                  deems Lenthall Street to be a local residential street and deems it not to be a collector road under Council’s road hierarchy nomenclature and this be referred to the Randwick City Council Traffic Committee for their concurrence.

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

Upon the abovementioned Rescission Motion being carried, it is intended to move the following motion:-

 

That the matter be approved with the deletion of paragraphs (d) and (e), which are in breach of parliamentary privilege.

 

12.2   Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Daley, Sullivan and White – Ordinary Council Meeting, Tuesday, 26th April, 2005– Item 10.3 – Director, City Planning Report 22/2005 -  25 Byrne Crescent, Maroubra. 

 

That the resolution passed at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 26th April, 2005, reading as follows:-

 

that:

 

A.      Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 996/2004 for the Extension of existing balconies to the rear (eastern side) of dwelling, including new balustrading to entry stairs and rebuilding existing balcony on north elevation at 25 Byrne Crescent, Maroubra subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans numbered C – 01 A & C – 02 A, dated Sept. ‘04 and received by Council on 18 January 2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the balconies are to be compatible with the existing dwelling house and the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and when viewed from the foreshore.

 

The following conditions are site specific:

 

3.       The extension of the north east balcony is not to extend beyond the alignment of the northern external wall of the existing dwelling.

 

4.       The balustrade to the northern edge of the northern balcony at the second floor level shall be constructed of a solid non-translucent material in order to prevent light spillage to the adjoining property.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

              

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

         

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

Upon the abovementioned Rescission Motion being carried, it is intended to move the following motion:-

 

That the motion as moved and carried with an amendment to condition number three (3) to read as follows:-

 

3.       the extension of the south eastern balcony (second level) is to be set back 1550mm from the alignment of the existing external wall of the existing dwelling, being three (3) metres from the side boundary (i.e. maximum extension of the existing balcony of 800mm). This is to ensure the retention of views currently enjoyed by the owners of adjoining properties and also to reduce the potential loss of privacy to those owners;

 

12.3       By Councillor Belleli – Improvements at Duffy’s Corner & Lexington Place, Maroubra. 

 

That:

 

a)              Council replace the old fence in the council car park at Duffy’s Corner with a stronger, more robust fence of the same length as the existing fence;

b)              Council re-mark parking lines in Council’s car park opposite Duffy’s Corner; and

c)              Council re-mark parking lines at Lexington Place Car Park.

 

12.4          By Councillor Belleli – South Maroubra Village Green. 

 

That a report be brought back to the Works Committee regarding options of lighting in South Maroubra Village Green West (Cnr Malabar Rd & Tyrwhitt St) and South Maroubra Village Green East and Playground East (East side of Car Park).  The report should include consultation with the local community/businesses.

 

12.5          By Councillor Bastic – Graffiti Removal at Totem Hall, South Coogee.

 

That Council undertake graffiti removal at Totem Hall South Coogee and report on other minor works to clean up the site in conjunction with the local Scouts Brigade.

 

12.6          By Councillor Belleli – Des Renford Aquatic Centre Carpark. 

 

That a report be brought back to Council on the need and costs of improved lighting in the DRAC carpark.

 

12.7          By Councillor Belleli – Footpath Creation in Randwick City

 

That Council agree in principle that when the objective of providing at least one footpath to every street in the City of Randwick is completed, that Council commences the initiative of providing a footpath on both sides of the street for all streets in the City of Randwick.  Streets should be surveyed to ensure residents are in favour of any proposed footpaths.

 

12.8          By Councillor Notley-Smith – Installation of Cross Street Banner Poles in all Commercial Centres in Randwick City.

 

That a report be brought back to the Works Committee on the cost of installation of cross street banner poles in all commercial centres in Randwick City.

 

12.9          By Councillor Notley-Smith – Proposed Undergrounding of Electricity/Telecommunications cables.

 

That all future major civic reconstruction/restoration works in precincts/commercial centres include consideration of the undergrounding of electricity/telecommunications cables.

 

12.10      By Councillor Notley-Smith – Improving the Forecourt of Randwick Town Hall.

 

That a report be prepared and submitted to Council for its consideration, on options and costs for improving the forecourt of Randwick Town Hall. The report should address issues such as parking, plantings, lighting, signage etc., recognising the historical significance of the Town Hall.

 

12.11      By Councillor Notley-Smith – Streetscape Improvements to Avoca Street & Alison Road.  

 

That a report be prepared on options and costs of streetscape improvements to Avoca Street from Belmore Road to Cowper Street and Alison Road from The Avenue to approximately Lingard Avenue. The report should address the significant heritage items in this locality and recommend improvements to plantings, paving, street lighting, monuments and powercabling etc. which will enhance the historical amenity of this precinct. The report shall come back to Council for its consideration.

 

12.12      By Councillor Belleli – Repair to Cricket Nets at Coral Sea Park.

 

That Council immediately investigates the replacement of the cricket nets at Coral Sea Park.

 

12.13      By Councillor Belleli – Proposed Desalination Plant on Malabar Headland.

 

That this Council immediately writes to the Premier, Bob Carr, the Minister for the Environment, Bob Debus and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, Craig Knowles, stating its strong opposition to any proposal for a desalination plant on the Malabar Headland.

 

12.14      By Councillor Nash – Proposed Programme for Kerb and Guttering.

 

That a report be brought before Council:

 

(a)                identifying all streets in the City of Randwick requiring kerb and guttering or requiring substantial repairs to existing kerb and guttering;

 

(b)               detailing costings for the provision of kerb and guttering in all such streets; and

 

(c)                which sets out a programme for the provision of kerb and guttering in all such streets.

 

12.15      By Councillor Nash – Proposed Masterplan for the Dolina site in Epsom Road, Rosebery.

 

That:

 

(a)                Council note the resolution of the Central Sydney Planning Committee to refuse consent to the Masterplan application proposed for the Dolina site, in Epsom Road, Rosebery; and

 

(b)               Council write to the Central Sydney Planning Committee/City of Sydney Council:

 

i.                     expressing the gratitude of Randwick City residents for their decision to refuse consent to the Masterplan application;

ii.                   requesting that should any future revised Masterplan application or development application be submitted for the Dolina site, that Randwick City Council be notified immediately of such application so that we can make an assessment of the impacts on Randwick residents.

 

(c)        Council prepare and forward written submissions to the Central Sydney Planning Committee/City of Sydney Council in respect of any future revised Masterplan application or development application, following consultation with Councillors and the Randwick community.

 

12.16      By Councillor Andrews – Asbestos Policy for Randwick City.)

 

That this Council develop an asbestos policy that would require home owners to submit a certification with their development application that their property is asbestos-free. The policy should aim at protecting the health and safety of workers involved in asbestos removal as well as the residents in adjoining properties, by ensuring detection of asbestos prior to commencement of any development works and compliance with WorkCover requirements.

 

The aim of the policy should also ensure asbestos is removed correctly to prevent contamination of land and ultimately costly remediation works and further ensure the correct handling of asbestos laden material during and after demolition or renovation. Compliance should be achieved through strict conditions of consent and enforcement where necessary.

 

This policy to include but not limited to cover the conditions of consent required for the demolition or renovation of buildings containing asbestos materials or dwellings built prior to 1987.

 

12.17     By Councillor Hughes – Impact of Southern Cross Drive / Gardener's Road access ramps on future plans for Light Rail and the viability of the Commercial Centres on Anzac Parade.

 

That Council:

 

1.       Notes with concern, the potential impact on Anzac Parade of traffic volumes that would be generated if the Southern Cross Drive / Gardener's Road access ramps are constructed;

 

2.       Notes that Council's citywide transport study identifies light rail services running along Anzac Parade as one of the highly desirable preferred options for future public transport in the City of Randwick.  The outcomes of the transport study are being incorporated in the 20-year strategic plan currently under preparation;

 

3.       Notes with concern that the Southern Cross Drive / Gardener's Road access ramps represent a direct threat to the future development of a light rail transport solution on Anzac Parade;

 

4.       Writes to the RTA:

 

          (a)      Expressing this concern and the following specific concerns and requesting that they be given substantial consideration in their evaluation of the proposed Southern Cross Drive / Gardener's Road access ramps project;

 

          (b)     Requesting a response regarding:

 

i.                 the potential for detrimental impact on future implementation of Light Rail on Anzac Parade, being the primary light rail path for the City of Randwick of the additional traffic that would be generated from the Southern Cross Drive / Gardener's Road access ramps; and

 

ii.               the commercial viability of our town centres located on Anzac Parade, and the negative impact on shopping and restaurant precincts located on Anzac Parade.

 

          (c)      Requesting an assurance that Anzac Parade would not be subject to extended Clearway hours in future to cope with the expected increase in traffic volumes, due to the detrimental impact this would have on the local commercial centres of Kensington and Kingsford;

 

          (d)      Requesting that these concerns also be addressed in any further investigations by the RTA of future traffic and transport planning for Randwick City; and

 

5.         Sends copies of this correspondence to the relevant Ministers, including the Premier Mr Bob Carr, the Minister for Transport Mr John Watkins, Minister for Roads, Minister for Economic Reform, Minister for Ports Mr Michael Costa, the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning & Natural Resources Mr Craig Knowles, and the Mayors, General Managers and Councillors of Botany, City of Sydney and Waverly Councils.

 

12.18     By Councillor Andrews – Traffic Issues in Snape Street, Maroubra.

 

That Randwick City Council:

 

(a)                approach the State Transit Authority to stop non service buses using Snape Street as a rat run. Further, Council re-instate “NO ENTRY STA BUSES” signs at the entry of either end of Snape Street  as a matter of urgency; and

 

(b)               take all measures necessary to reduce and slow down the traffic using Snape Street as the road is not wide enough to take the number of vehicles using it. The measures that Council has recently installed have not reduced the traffic nor have slowed down the traffic. The residents believe it is a matter of time until a serious accident occurs. A number of residents have been involved in small accidents (the damage low) and therefore not reported to the police.