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

 

24 June 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, 28TH JUNE 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, 24TH MAY, 2005.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 14TH JUNE, 2005.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

6.1                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 80/2005 - SOUTHERN END OF COOGEE BEACH - REQUEST FOR AMENITY FACILITIES.

2

 

6.2                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 81/2005 - WOMEN IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

4

 

6.3                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 82/2005 - SUPPORT FOR FOOTBALL FANS AGAINST SEXUAL ASSAULT (FFASA) SUBMISSION TO AFL AND NRL.

8

 

 

7           General Manager's Reports

 

7.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 28/2005 - DRAFT 2005-08 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

12

 

7.2                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 29/2005 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

17

 

 

 

 

8           Director City Services' Reports

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 60/2005 - PRINCE HENRY SITE PARK NAMING PROPOSAL.

20

 

8.2                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 61/2005 -   IDENTIFYING AN UNNAMED PARK, RESERVE OR ROAD AFTER THE FORMER LA PEROUSE PUBLIC SCHOOL PRINCIPAL, MR PAUL TRAVINI.

27

 

8.3                        

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 62/2005 - HAVELOCK AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS. HIGH CROSS PRECINCT CIVIC IMPROVEMENTS. MALABAR JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS.

31

 

 

9           Director City Planning Reports

 

9.1                      

ACTING DIRECTOR CITY PLANNING REPORT 36/2005 –

29 PARK AVENUE, RANDWICK

36

 

9.2                      

ACTING DIRECTOR CITY PLANNING REPORT 37/2005 –

70-72 PEROUSE ROAD, RANDWICK.

59

 

9.3                      

ACTING DIRECTOR CITY PLANNING REPORT 38/2005 -   1430 ANZAC PARADE, LITTLE BAY.

84

.

9.4                      

ACTING DIRECTOR CITY PLANNING REPORT 39/2005 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

156

 

9.5                      

ACTING DIRECTOR CITY PLANNING REPORT 40/2005 - HEFFRON PARK PLAN OF MANAGEMENT PROGRESS REPORT.

158

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                        

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Daley, Procopiadis, Sullivan, Tracey & White – Ordinary Council Meeting, 24th May, 2005 – Item 6.13 - Mayor’s Minute 71/2005 - Developer Donations.

171

11.2

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Daley, Procopiadis, Tracey & White – Extraordinary Council Meeting, 14th June, 2005 – Item 4.2 - Mayoral Minute 73/2005 - Council Response to Proposed Local Government Election Legislation Amendments. 

172

11.3

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Daley, Procopiadis, Tracey & White – Extraordinary Council Meeting, 14th June, 2005 – Item 4.5 - Mayoral Minute 76/2005 – Council Position On Sale Of Crown Land Adjacent To Kensington Park.

173

11.4

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Daley, Procopiadis, Tracey & White – Extraordinary Council Meeting, 14th June, 2005 – Item 4.6 - Mayoral Minute 77/2005 - Council Response To Recent Bundock Street Works.

173

11.5

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Daley, Procopiadis, Tracey & White – Extraordinary Council Meeting, 14th June, 2005 – Item 4.8 - Mayoral Minute 79/2005 – Support For National Union Of Students Campaign On Student Unionism.

174

11.6

By Councillor Belleli – Street Names Prince Henry Site Development.

174

11.7

By Councillor Belleli – Rage Cage Facility

174

11.8

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Improvement to Garbage Bins at Coogee Beach.

174

11.9

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Improvements to Lighting in Dunningham and Grant Reserves.

175

11.10

By Councillor Hughes – Need to Confirm Council’s Commitment to a West Kingsford/Kensington LATM.

175

11.11

By Councillor Hughes – PCYC Friday Night Swimming.

175

 

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Reports

 

13.1                        

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 30/2005 -   STATUS OF ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE.

176

 

13.2                        

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 63/2005 - FRENCHMANS BAY RESERVE TOILET BLOCK - REFURBISHMENT OF TOILETS.

182

 

13.3                        

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 64/2005 - TREE PRUNING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS TENDER (T042/05).

205

 

13.4                        

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 65/2005 - TENDER T041/95 SUPPLY OF FOOTPATH SWEEPER.

207

 

13.5                        

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES’ REPORT 29/2005 - LEGAL SERVICES TENDER NO. T034/05.

210

 

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 80/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

SOUTHERN END OF COOGEE BEACH - REQUEST FOR AMENITY FACILITIES.

 

 

DATE:

21 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06057

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 9 June, 2005, I met with a number of local residents at the intersection of Kurrawa Avenue and Carr Street, Coogee Beach, in response to their request for provision of a second Coogee Beach toilet amenity block, to be located at the southern end of the beach.

 

ISSUES:

 

There has been some antisocial behaviour occurring in Goldstein Reserve and it is believed that toilet facilities in the southern end of this reserve may improve this situation.

 

There is provision in the Plan of Management for a second toilet block at Coogee Beach however, it is proposed that the amenity block be located at the northern end of the Beach and would therefore not help the issue with the lack of toilets at the southern end.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

A toilet block would cost in the vicinity of $400,000. This amount may vary depending on the design and the extent of facilities provided.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered appropriate for an amenity block to be considered at the southern end of  Goldstein Reserve, Coogee Beach, which would enhance the beach area and provide a facility for residents and visitors to Coogee.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Plan of Management be re-exhibited incorporating a toilet block at the southern end of Goldstein Reserve adjacent to the existing bus shelter.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 81/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

WOMEN IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

 

 

DATE:

6 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00271

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received correspondence from the Local Government Association of NSW, seeking support for the important initiative of increasing the participation of women in Local Government.

 

Women are significantly under-represented in elected member and senior management positions in Australian Local Government.  Currently we are failing to fully utilise the skills and attributes offered by the 51% of the population who are women.  New South Wales is now the second lowest state in terms of elected representation by women and only 3.9% of General Managers in New South Wales Local Government are women.

 

ISSUES:

 

A National Framework for Women in Local Government (NFWLG) was developed in late 2001, following a national consultation, in recognition that more needs to be done to increase women’s participation in Local Government decision-making.

 

The NSW Coordination Group of the National Framework has recently released an Information Kit for Councils.  This kit includes practical resources to assist councils to develop local NFWLG Action Plans to increase women’s participation in local government, including strategies for increasing the numbers of women in senior management roles as well as in the role of elected representatives.

 

The issues raised and the strategies to address them are proposed to assist women to reach their full potential as decision-makers.  In particular, your attention is drawn to the 10 principles outlined in the document.  These principles cover induction, code of conduct, information dissemination, meeting practice, carer support, participatory planning, training, mentoring and networking.  A copy of the Principles is attached.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is imperative that the Local Government community act together to bring about the substantial changes that are necessary for women to fully capitalise on their strengths and resources.  The Local Government Association of NSW seeks Council’s support in implementing these principles.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council;

 

1.         Take on board the advice obtained from the Local Government Association of NSW, relating to increasing the participation of women in Local Government;

 

2.         Organise a training workshop in the Randwick City Council Town Hall for women considering contesting the next local Council elections in any of the nearby Council areas;

 

3.         Invite ex Randwick City Councillors Judy Greenwood, Freda Backes and Margaret Martin to organise and/or lead workshop activities at the above event; and

 

4.         Inform the President of the Local Government and Shires Association of  Council’s intent to advance the principles of the Ten Point Plan for Women in Local Government.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

The Ten Point Plan for Women in Local Government

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 82/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Support for Football Fans Against Sexual Assault (FFASA) Submission to AFL and NRL

 

 

DATE:

22 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07719

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Ms Kath Haines, the co-founder of Football Fans Against Sexual Assault (FFASA) is inviting Councils to table motions in support of the group’s recommendations made in their “Towards Champions: A Better Culture, A Better Game – FFASA” submission to the AFL and NRL.

 

FFASA (www.ffasa.org) states that they submitted Towards Champions in February this year on behalf of over 1000 fans and community Australia-wide. The NSW Parliament, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils have since passed unanimous motions in support of FFASA recommendations.

 

FFASA has asked that we e-mail the resolution to this mayoral minute to their web site to post in its Motions of Support section. They have also sent an information sheet which outlines how to host a local Weekend of Champions: Purple Armband Campaign, should we opt to support this part of the motion.

 

KEY FFASA PRINCIPLES:

FFASA's recommendations are based on the following key principles:

1.   Sexual assault is a criminal offence that has long term impacts upon victims/survivors, many of whom face real obstacles in pursuing their complaint through the criminal justice system;

2.   Fans have high aspirations for their football codes and want clubs and players held accountable for their actions;

3.   Although sexual violence in the football codes reflects a larger problem in the Australian community, there appears to be a high rate of multiple offenders involved in football allegations in contrast with the broader society where the majority of sexual assaults involve only one offender;

4.   Research indicates that closely-knit male fraternities bounded by strict codes of secrecy, such as football teams, may have a higher propensity for disrespectful sexual attitudes and behaviours towards women;

5.   Gender violence by male athletes is not limited to Australia and has also been reported in other sports besides football and in other male cultures, such as the military;

6.   Gender violence prevention must be framed as a men's issue, not just because most perpetrators are men, but because men can actively challenge the way other men behave towards women;

7.   Gender violence prevention must be approached as a cultural issue and therefore include all sections of the football community;

8.   A socially responsible approach to gender violence is research-based and  informed by leading experts in the field working within a framework that maintains their independence;

9.   The long-term benefits of a socially responsible approach to gender violence come at a cost;

10. In terms of its cultural influence, football is uniquely placed to role model a socially responsible approach to gender violence prevention and the promotion of respectful attitudes and behaviours towards women.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is appropriate that Randwick City Council emulate the initiatives of the NSW Parliament, Leichhardt and Marrickville Councils in resolving to support FFASA recommendations.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

In recognition of the need to support ongoing cultural change in sport Randwick City Council:

 

1.   Acknowledges that gender violence in sport is not only limited to football, and is an issue that can affect families in our own local area, and accordingly:

 

a.   Commends the National Rugby League (NRL) for commissioning the University of Sydney's "Playing by the Rules Project" and committing to the project's recommendations, and

 

b.   Commends the Australian Football League (AFL) for releasing "Discussion Document Re Development of AFL Response to the Issue of Violence Against Women" and committing to a multi-pronged approach to gender violence prevention within the Code.

 

2.   Supports Football Fans Against Sexual Assault (FFASA) in:

 

a.   Submitting a proposal for change "Towards Champions: A Better Culture, A Better Game", to the AFL and NRL on behalf of over 1,000 football fans and citizens Australia-wide, and

b.   Calling on the AFL and NRL to become national and international leaders in the area of gender violence prevention in sport.

 

3.   Calls on the AFL and NRL to consider and implement FFASA recommendations, in particular recommendations to:

 

a.   Foster increased Australian-based research and expertise in the area of gender violence prevention in sport,

b.   Include fans and the broader football community in culture change strategies by hosting a "Weekend of Champions" during the 2005 season, whereby players and the football community don purple armbands,

c.   Invite leading gender violence prevention activist and ex-All Star American footballer, Jackson Katz, to Australia to increase public awareness of international responses to gender violence in sport and to assist in framing gender violence prevention as a men' issue,

d.   Work with the Federal and State governments in developing annual awards aimed at recognising integrity, innovation and leadership in sport, and

e.   Increase the participation of women in the game.

 

4.   Calls on:

 

a.   The AFL and NRL corporate sponsors to sponsor the "Weekend of Champions" by providing purple armbands that can be worn by the football public;

 

b.   Senator the Hon Rod Kemp, Federal Minister for the Arts and Sport, to:

 

i.          work with the AFL, NRL and other sports bodies to develop annual awards aimed at recognising integrity, innovation and leadership in sport, and

ii.          assist in developing a national sports-wide "Weekend of Champions: Purple Armband Campaign".

 

5.   Offers to promote such initiatives via:

 

a.   by issuing a media statement in support of this motion;

b.   writing letters to the AFL and NRL in support of this motion; 

c.   notifying FFASA of Randwick City Council’s motion to post on the FFASA web-site; and

 

d.   hosting a local Weekend of Champions: Purple Armband Campaign during the last weekend of August this year (or another preferred date), whereby Council invites local sporting clubs and teams to don purple armbands in on-field stances against sexual assault in sport and the broader community.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 28/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

DRAFT 2005-08 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

DATE:

20 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00378

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 26 April 2005, it was resolved that the Draft Management Plan be placed on public exhibition from 27 April to 27 May 2005. An advertisement was placed in the Mayoral column of the Southern Courier on 26 April providing details of the public exhibition and inviting the public to make submissions. The closing date was then extended to 3 June 2005 and this was advertised in the Mayoral column on 17 May.

 

Copies of the notice inviting submissions and the Draft Management Plan were also placed at the three libraries, the Customer Service Centre and on Council’s web site.

 

ISSUES:

 

Submissions

Four submissions were received, of which three were from members of the public and one from the Mayor.

 

Submissions 1 and 2: (Attachment 5).

Two submissions were received from representatives of BIKEast which is an Eastern Suburbs bicycle group affiliated with Bicycle NSW. The first was from Adrian Boss and this included a copy of a detailed submission that BIKEast had previously sent to Council in February 2005. While BIKEast commended Council for the bicycle related projects in the draft Management Plan which were costed at $37,000 they sought an additional allocation of at least $50,000 for ongoing implementation of Council’s Bike Plan.

 

The second submission from Jim Hope on behalf of BIKEast related to the allocation of $2000 for bike racks at The Spot and questioned whether this was the sum allocated to this project.

 

Summary

In Council’s Draft Management Plan 2005/08 there is an allocation of $180,000 in 2005/06 for the Randwick Bike Plan. This is for an off road cycleway in Wansey Road Randwick. This $180,000 consists of $90,000 RTA grant funding (subject to approval) and $90,000 funding from Council.

 

This total funding allocation of $ 217,000 demonstrates Council’s continuing commitment to the Randwick Bike Plan.

 

Recommended Response:

There will be no changes in the funding currently allocated to the Randwick Bike Plan

 

Submission 3: (Attachment 5).

This submission was received from Yianni Zinosos in relation to the category of the Business Rate that is applied to all businesses. Mr Zinosos feels that the Business Rate is biased towards big business and relies too much on the value of the property. He suggested that there could be different business rates for retail, commercial and other business usage and that other factors such as passing trade, office space rate and home office usage should be taken into account in the valuation method. These additional factors would all impact on the valuation of a property.

 

However, Mr Zinosos’ property is a mixture of residential and business and as such is eligible for a mixed development factor as determined by the Valuer General. In effect his property is subject to 36% business rate and 64% residential rate.

 

There is no provision in the Local Government Act 1993 that would enable Council to fix different business ordinary rates across the area that Mr Zinosos is suggesting.

 

Recommended Response:

 

That there is no change in the methodology for setting Business Rates across Randwick City.

 

Submission 4: (Attachment 5).

A submission was received from the Mayor, Cr Murray Matson. Cr Matson proposed that:

·    The amount allocated to Unallocated Capital Works be restored to the original amount in the Draft Budget and be available for road resheeting

·    The Parks works budget is reduced by $300,000 and allocated to kerb and guttering in Maroubra.

·    $300,000 be allocated to kerb and guttering in Galvin and Ferguson Streets, Maroubra

 

Summary

In the draft Management Plan submitted to Council on 26 April 2005 the Roads program included $1,505,000 for identified works and a further $995,000 for works that had not yet been identified.

 

Following a resolution by Council at the meeting on 26 April 2005, monies from the $995,000 unidentified works were allocated to Galvin and Ferguson Streets Maroubra for kerb and guttering leaving a balance of $195,000 for other roads programs. This allocation included $450,000 for Galvin Street and $350,000 for Ferguson Street. These allocations were made in the budget and Capital Works Program before the documents were put on public exhibition.

 

In his submission the Mayor, Cr Murray Matson proposed that the $800,000 for Galvin and Ferguson Streets be restored to the original budget for road resheeting. Further the Mayor suggests that the kerb and guttering in Galvin and Ferguson Streets be funded by the transfer of funds ($300,000) from the Parks budget and that any further funds required for these two programs be found in savings or considered  for completion in the 2006/07 budget.

 

If the $800,000 was to be restored to the road resheeting budget this would result in a total road resheeting budget of $2,500,000. Attachment 7 outlines the proposed locations for the allocation of the full amount of $995,000 for road resheeting which includes the $800,000.

 

If $300,000 was to be moved from the Parks program and allocated to kerb and guttering in Galvin St Maroubra, as proposed in the Mayor’s submission, the playground refurbishment for Emily McCarthy Park has been identified as an appropriate program for removal from the Capital Works program. As this amount would not be sufficient to undertake kerb and guttering in Galvin Street Council could stage this project over two financial years and fund the difference from the 2005/06 budget.

 

An amount of $350,000 could be allocated for kerb and guttering of Ferguson St Maroubra in the Capital Works budget for 2006/07.

 

Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges – Attachment  2.

 

Council Officers have identified several proposed changes to Fees and Charges. These include:

 

1.   Work Zones. Page 1. In order to get a building contractor to advise Council when a work zone space is not required, it is proposed to charge a refundable deposit for each work zone. The proposed charge is $5,000.00 (GST exempt).

 

2.   Traffic Control Plan. Page 2. It is intended to charge an application fee to lodge a traffic control plan for road works. The proposed fee is $330.00, incl GST.

 

3.   Metered Parking.  Page 24. It is intended to increase the metered parking charge at Coogee. The proposed charge is $3.30 per hour (incl GST) during summer – October to April, and $2.20 per hour (incl GST) during winter – May to September

 

Recommended Response.

 

The Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges to be amended to allow for the changes described above.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial cost for these matters however the approval of the proposed new fees will impact on Council’s revenue.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The submissions received on the Management Plan have been considered and the appropriate recommendations have been made.

 

The Minister for Local Government has already advised that the permissible increase in General Income is 3.5%. The Draft Budget and Draft Management Plan is based on a total  rate increase of 3.5%

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges be amended to allow for a Refundable Deposit for Work Zones of $5,500.00.

 

2.         That the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges be amended to allow for an Application Fee for lodgement of a Traffic Control Plan for Roadworks of $330.00.

 

3.         That the Draft Schedule of Fees and Charges be amended to allow for Metered Parking at Coogee of $3.30 per hour during summer (October to April) and $2.20 per hour during winter (May to September).

 

4.         That the Draft Schedule of Fees & Charges (as amended) and the Draft Confidential Fees & Charges be adopted for 2005/06.

 

5.         That the Draft 2005/06 Budget be adopted as the Budget for 2005/06, and that funds are voted accordingly.

 

6.         That the interest rate on overdue rates be calculated at 9.0% per annum, and charges daily, in accordance with the determination under s566(3) of the Local Government Act 1993, by the Minister for Local Government, and the Draft Management Plan be amended.

 

7.         That the Draft Management Plan 2005/08 as amended, be adopted as the Management Plan for 2005/08 under s406 (1) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

8.         That the Ordinary Residential Rate be made and levied by Council for 2005/06, under s494 and s498 (1)(a) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of 0.21773 cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the City of Randwick being Residential land.

 

9.         That the Ordinary Business Rate be made and levied by Council for 2005/06, under s494 and s498 (1)(a) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1993, as a rate of  0.8516 cents in the dollar on the land value of all rateable land within the City of Randwick being Business land.

 

10.       That the minimum ordinary Residential rate be made and levied in 2005/06 under s548 (1) (a), (2), (4) & (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, as $510.90.

 

11.       That the minimum ordinary Business rate be made and levied in 2005/06 under s548 (1)(a), (2), (4) & (5) of the Local Government Act 1993, as $823.30

 

12.       That the Domestic Waste Management Charge be levied under s496 of the Local Government Act 1993, as $281.60

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER -

1. Draft Management Plan 2005-08

2. Draft Fees and Charges 2005-06

3. Draft Confidential Fees and Charges 2005-06

4. Draft Budget Summary 2005-06

5. Submissions 1-4

6. DLG Circular 06/16 – Maximum Interest rate on Overdue Rates 2005-06

7. Roads resurfacing – additional named locations

 

 

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

RAY BROWNLEE

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 29/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

22 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06324 xr F2004/07593

 

 

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.         New South Wales Land & Housing Corporation in relation to an Application to Record New Registered Proprietor Form over Lot 147 in Deposited Plan 879902 to transfer the Certificate of Title pursuant to the Dedication as Public Reserve and vested in Council as per Government Gazette dated 8 December 2000 on Folio 13079.

2.         New South Wales Land & Housing Corporation in relation to an Application to Record New Registered Proprietor Form over Lot 148 in Deposited Plan 879902 to transfer the Certificate of Title pursuant to the Dedication as Public Reserve and vested in Council as per Government Gazette dated 8 December 2000 on Folio 13079.

3.         Mr Anthony Sahade (T/As Crystal Car Wash) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 415-517 Anzac Parade, Kingsford.

4.         The Benevolent Society in relation to a licence for Suite 4, Office 2, Level 3 of the Bowen Library at 669-673 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction.

5.         Antonia Walsh (T/As Cozzi Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 233 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

6.         Gay Marie Carnegie (T/As Zellinis) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 34-38 Belmore Road, Randwick.

7.         Deruli Pty Ltd - Gay Carnegie in relation to a residential lease over Unit 1/32 Belmore Road, Randwick

8.         Michael Reznikov in relation to a residential lease over Unit 4/20 Silver Street, Randwick.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Council will receive in signing of these agreements the following income –

 

1.               There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

2.               There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

3.               An outdoor dining licence with Mr Sahade (T/As Crystal Car Wash) will generate an annual income of $2,843.86 + GST per annum

4.               A licence agreement with The Benevolent Society will generate an annual income of $2,160.00+ GST per annum.

5.               An outdoor dining licence with Antonia Walsh (T/As Cozzi Café) will generate an annual income of $1,760.72 + GST per annum.

6.               An outdoor dining licence with Gay Carnegie (T/As Zellinis) will generate an annual income of $10,571.96 + GST per annum.

7.               A residential lease agreement with Deruli Pty Ltd - Gay Carnegie will generate an annual income of $12,219.96 per annum.

8.               A residential lease agreement with Michael Reznikov will generate an annual income of $10,560.00 per annum.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

1.         New South Wales Land & Housing Corporation in relation to an Application to Record New Registered Proprietor Form over Lot 147 in Deposited Plan 879902 to transfer the Certificate of Title pursuant to the Dedication as Public Reserve and vested in Council as per Government Gazette dated 8 December 2000 on Folio 13079.

2.         New South Wales Land & Housing Corporation in relation to an Application to Record New Registered Proprietor Form over Lot 148 in Deposited Plan 879902 to transfer the Certificate of Title pursuant to the Dedication as Public Reserve and vested in Council as per Government Gazette dated 8 December 2000 on Folio 13079.

3.         Mr Anthony Sahade (T/As Crystal Car Wash) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 415-517 Anzac Parade, Kingsford.

4.         The Benevolent Society in relation to a licence for Suite 4, Office 2, Level 3 of the Bowen Library at 669-673 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction.

5.         Antonia Walsh (T/As Cozzi Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 233 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

6.         Gay Marie Carnegie (T/As Zellinis) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 34-38 Belmore Road, Randwick.

7.         Deruli Pty Ltd - Gay Carnegie in relation to a residential lease over Unit 1/32 Belmore Road, Randwick

8.         Michael Reznikov in relation to a residential lease over Unit 4/20 Silver Street, Randwick.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 60/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

PRINCE HENRY SITE PARK NAMING PROPOSAL.

 

 

DATE:

3 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07140

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At Council’s meeting in December 2004 a proposal for the consideration of road and park names was considered for the Prince Henry Hospital site at Little Bay.  At this meeting, it was resolved that:

 

a)      Council propose to adopt the current private road names for all existing and realigned roads;

b)      Council propose to adopt “Newton Street” in place of “New Road 2” as this name reflects its original name;

c)       Council propose to adopt “Gubbuteh Road” in place of “New Road 1”;

d)      Council propose to adopt “Murra Murra Place” in place of “New Road 5”;

e)       Council propose to adopt “Macartney Oval” in place of “Public Park 1”;

f)       Council propose to adopt “Six Track Park” in place of “Public Park 2”;

g)      Council propose to adopt “Bob-a-Day Park” in place of “Public Park 3”;

h)      The proposals made in points a) to g) be advertised in the local newspaper;

i)       Council notify Australia Post, the Registrar General and the Surveyor General regarding the proposed street and park names. 

 

At Council’s meeting in February 2005, Council approved  “the adoption of Brodie Avenue, Coast Hospital Road, Gubbuteh Road, Ewing Avenue, Harvey Street, Jenner Street, Lister Avenue, Mayo Street, Murra Murra Place, Newton Street, Pavilion Drive and Pine Avenue for the Prince Henry site, at Little Bay.”

 

However, the names of the public parks were neither approved nor rejected.

 

The Geographical Names Board, at its meeting in March 2005, considered the approval of the three proposed park names resolved at Council’s meeting in December 2004 namely “Macartney Oval”, “Six Track Park” and “Bob-a-Day Park”

 

Consequently, a letter from the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales dated 5 May 2005 (attached), request that Council reconsider the park name proposals with the view to amending one or more of the park names to commemorate the role nurses played at the former Prince Henry Hospital.

 

Note: The Geographical Names Board has not put forward names for Council to reconsider.  It is only requesting that Council reconsider new names.

 

ISSUES:

 

A letter from Landcom dated 14 February 2005 (attached), responded to the submissions received by Randwick City Council as a result of the public exhibition of the proposed Prince Henry and Little Bay road and park names.  In this letter, Landcom states:

“However, given the objections raised by the TNA (Trained Nurses Association) Landcom, supports two of the proposed parks to be dedicated to Council be named to reflect the significant nursing and medical history of the site..  It suggested the Six Track Park and Bob a Day Park be renamed in accordance with the TNA preferences”

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The process of naming Public Parks undoubtedly provides an opportunity to commemorate and associate the local history and culture of a site.  The heritage significance of the Prince Henry Hospital site should be well reflected through the naming of the Parks within the site.  The Prince Henry site has an abundant heritage encompassing its medical significance, the past and present Aboriginal association and its relationship to the local community.  Hence it is ideal that the recommended names be derived from these sources.

 

It is arguable that a more relevant history of the hospital site would be better perpetuated by the use of prominent former staff names of note.

 

As Landcom supports the naming of two of the proposed parks to be dedicated to Council to reflect the significant nursing and medical history of the site, it is recommended that Council reconsider the park name proposals with the view to amending one or more of the park names to commemorate the role nurses played at the former Prince Henry Hospital.

 

If it is resolved to reconsider the names of the Parks, the Geographical Names Board will be notified.

 

Following notification of Council’s willingness to reconsider these parks names, the Geographical Names Board will forward new names for Council to reconsider.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)         Council reconsider the park name proposals with the view to amending one or more of the park names to commemorate the role nurses played at the former Prince Henry Hospital;

 

b)         Council proceed with the suggestion from Landcom that Six Track Park and Bob a Day Park be renamed in accordance with the TNA preferences; and

 

c)         the Geographical Names Board be notified of Council’s willingness to reconsider the park name proposals with the view to amending one or more of the park names to commemorate the role nurses played at the former Prince Henry Hospital.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Letter from Geographical Names Board of NSW

Letter from Landcom.   

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK LEONG

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

ASSET ENGINEER DRAINAGE

 

 

 

 


 


 
 


 

Director, City Services' Report 61/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

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

 

 

DATE:

3 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00266

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

Council at its meeting held on 24th May, 2005,  resolved -

 

“that this matter be deferred to the next Ordinary Council Meeting as there are several local community groups in the La Perouse area meeting this week to discuss this matter.”

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider the Director City Services’ Report No. 46/2005

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Director's Report No. 46/2005

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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:

F2005/00266

 

 

 

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 62/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

HAVELOCK AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS. HIGH CROSS PRECINCT CIVIC IMPROVEMENTS. MALABAR JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS  

 

 

DATE:

21 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00411

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES     

 

Council at its meeting held on 22nd March, 2005 considered a Motion Pursuant to Notice submitted by Councillor Notley-Smith on street improvements in Havelock Avenue, Coogee and it was resolved that -

 

“a report be brought back to Council on the implementation of a street improvement program in Havelock Avenue, Coogee.”

 

and at the Council Meeting held on 26th April, 2005 Council considered a Motion Pursuant to Notice submitted by Councillor Belleli on improvement programs at Malabar Junction and it was resolved that -

 

“a report be prepared and brought back to an Ordinary Council meeting regarding a streetscape and civic improvement program at Malabar business centre, including the opposite side of the street in Matraville.”

 

and also at the Council Meeting held on 26th April, 2005 Council considered a Motion Pursuant to Notice submitted by Councillor Notley-Smith on High Cross Precinct Civic Improvements and it was resolved that  -

 

“a report be prepared for Council on the Council undertaking a civic improvement program in the High Cross Precinct.  Such a program would include using construction and landscaping materials to compliment and enhance the precinct’s significant historical amenity.”

 

The issues relating to these three areas are similar and it is considered appropriate that one composite report be prepared that deals with the issues.

 

ISSUES:

The three areas have been inspected and exhibit similar characteristics.  Each has an inconsistent approach to streetscape development that has occurred in a piecemeal fashion over a period of many years.  It is fair to say that no comprehensive approach to the development of these small commercial precincts has occurred and this is not inconsistent with similar like areas across Sydney.

 

The approach that can be taken may be varied and could consist of minor street furniture embellishments consisting of a coordinated suite of street furniture and decorative elements comprised of seats, bins, planter boxes, banner poles and the like through to a full public domain review including changes to traffic movements, street closures/footpath widening etc.  The scale of the adopted approach will obviously have a financial impact commensurate with the resulting scope of works that is finally selected.

 

An Urban Elements Design Manual is currently being prepared and is expected to be completed by early 2006.  The above document will provide a positive direction for Council in the implementation of such works throughout the City and has as aims and objectives the following:

 

-       Selection of urban elements for the City

-       Guidelines for the placement  and layout of the elements

-       To assist in the design and maintenance of RCC’s public open spaces, commercial centres, parks and beach promenades.

-       To identify, standardise and keep consistency with selected paving, furniture, and other elements within the City.

-       To assist in the development of master plans, development applications and landscape projects, as well as for minor improvement works. All new public landscape project works shall comply with these guidelines.

-       To provide technical information and details for furniture, paving and other elements.

-       To use as a basis for future Development Control Plans and a basis for the RCC Landscape Code

 

In summary the aim of this process is to produce a legible functional manual that can be utilised by various sections of Council to implement a consistent approach to the design and installation of preferred urban elements.

 

Additionally, Council has also recently resolved to form a committee to review improvements in the Coogee Village commercial precinct, an area that is not too far removed from the Havelock Avenue commercial precinct.  There would be some logic in adopting urban design/street furniture recommendations (where appropriate) emanating from that review.

 

It would be desirable to await the finalisation of the Urban Elements Design Manual before making any decisions in relation to public domain improvements at these areas.

 

Aerial views of the three areas follow.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

 

No funding has been provided in the 2005-2006 budget for any capital improvements/works at the above locations.  Given the size and possible scopes of work for the three different areas, an indicative range of potential costs is as follows:

 

Havelock Avenue Precinct:                               $200,000

 

High Cross Precinct (excluding the park):          $400,000

 

Malabar Junction Precinct:                                $450,000

 

Without a full determination of the extent of the scope of works, the estimated costs for the works cannot be a precise science.  It should also be noted that the above broad estimates make no provision for design costs with the Malabar Junction Precinct being the one area that may require the engagement of consultancy services in order to provide design options.  Such a service may cost in the vicinity of $20,000.

 

CONCLUSION:


Council has progressively and actively implemented townscape improvements at many of its major commercial centres in the LGA. Given budgetary constraints, funds have not been made available to extend the improvements to some of the smaller centres.  The lack of an overarching document for the LGA such as the proposed Urban Elements Design Manual has also resulted in a more piecemeal approach in the past to some of these activities.  Given that the Urban Elements Design Manual is currently under preparation, it would be appropriate for any pending decisions involving significant expenditure of Council funds towards public domain improvements to be delayed at this time.


RECOMMENDATION:

 

That funding be considered in the 2006-2007 draft budget for public domain improvements at Havelock Avenue, High Cross and the Malabar Junction precincts.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION  

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director, City Planning Report  36/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

29 Park Avenue, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

23 June, 2005

FILE NO:

DA/1096/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No. 1096/2004 for alterations and first floor additions to existing dwelling house.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

Development Application Report dated 20 June 2005.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

 

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

20 June, 2005

FILE NO:

1096/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and first floor additions to existing dwelling house

PROPERTY:

 29 Park Avenue, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Insight Development Consultants Pty Ltd

OWNER:

 Raa (Nsw) Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The application details alterations and additions to the dwelling to provide for a new upper level to the existing dwelling house.

 

The main issues are the impact of the proposal on the adjoining premises with respect to loss of sunlight and overshadowing resulting from the proposed new upper level to the dwelling.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The application details the erection of a first floor addition to the dwelling comprising three bedrooms and two bathrooms providing for 95m² of floor area to the dwelling. To the existing ground floor it is proposed to remove and infill with masonry two windows to the kitchen and family room within the southern elevation of the dwelling and replace with a single highlight style window.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Park Avenue and has overall dimensions of 9.215m x 42m and a site area of 401m². The site falls from the rear towards the street frontage with the dwelling being elevated above footpath level. The surrounding development includes a mixture of large mansion style dwellings, single and two storey free standing and semi detached dwellings, attached terrace style dwellings and multi unit housing development.

 

4.       APPLICATION AND  SITE HISTORY

 

The site has been the subject of two other separate development consents, DA 586/04 which detailed a new double garage to the front of the premises and DA 128/05 which detailed the demolition of an existing garage to the rear of the premises and installation of a swimming pool.

 

This application has been the subject of attempts to organise mediation between the applicant and objectors, however this did not eventuate due to a suitable date not being available to either party.

 

This application is also the subject of Class 1 proceedings in the Land & Environment Court on the basis of deemed refusal with the matter listed for call over on Friday the 8th July 2005.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

5.1     Objections

 

L Kirschner of 33 Park Avenue, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The magnitude of the extension is such in that it is likely to have a considerable impact upon the appearance of and dominate the street.

A two storey dwelling is not inconsistent with the nature of development in this locality and the proposed upper level has been amended since originally lodged to reduce in height by 600mm the upper level to match the height of the adjoining premises at 27 Park Avenue. The proposal, as amended, will not result in the dwelling being prominent in the street.

There will be an impact upon the existing levels of sunlight to the rear courtyard.

The loss of sunlight to premises directly to the south is to a certain extent unavoidable due to the orientation of the site, however as sunlight to the rear yard area of the adjoining premises is maintained at its current level during the hours of 9.00 to 12 00 noon, the extent of additional overshadowing is not considered unreasonable.

The extension will result in a structure far higher than others in the street.

A condition is included to require that the overall height of the proposed upper level of the dwelling match the height of the adjoining dwelling at 27 Park Avenue.

There is not ample street parking as claimed in the statement.

The DCP for Dwelling and Attached Dual Occupancies requires that dwellings which have more than 3 bedrooms have two on site parking spaces. The previously approved double garage to the front of the dwelling complies with this requirement of the DCP.

 

R Gandevia of 31 Park Avenue, Randwick 1st Submission

 

Issue

Comment

This application has been lodged separately from the previous application for a new garage which has been approved and this has been done in order to dilute the effects of both applications.

These two applications have been lodged by different applicants using different architects. The proposal has been assessed having regard to the cumulative impact of the approved development on the site.

The proposal will result in overshadowing to the north facing windows and rear yard.

The loss of sunlight to the adjoining premises directly to the south is to a certain extent unavoidable due to the orientation of the site, however as sunlight to the rear yard area of the adjoining premises is maintained at its current level during the hours of 9.00 to 12 00 noon, the extent of additional overshadowing is not considered unreasonable.

The proposal is out of scale with the street and will be visually dominant in the streetscape.

 

A two storey dwelling is not inconsistent with the nature of development in this locality and the proposed upper level has been amended since originally lodged to reduce in height by 600mm the upper level to match the height of the adjoining premises at 27 Park Avenue.

The proposal having regards to heritage considerations will be unsympathetic.

The premises in not within a Heritage Conservation area, is not a heritage item or in the vicinity of a heritage item.

There will be a loss of privacy.

There are two new windows within the southern elevation which serve a bathroom and stairwell and being to the front portion of the dwelling will look directly upon the roof of the adjoining premises rather than into private outdoor living areas. The windows in the eastern elevation are sufficiently off set to mitigate overlooking potential.

There is already parking problems in the street and the earlier application for the garage will remove another two spaces from the street.

The application for the new garage, DA 586/04, which has been approved, was considered on its merits and the garage complied with the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies. It also provides for the required number of off site car parking spaces as required in that DCP for a dwelling of three bedrooms and more.

The enhanced amenity of residents cannot be allowed to proceed at such great cost to other property owners.

It is considered that the proposal on balance is reasonable with respect to the impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises.

 

 

 

 

R Gandevia of 31 Park Avenue, Randwick 2nd Submission

 

Issue

Comment

The loss of sunlight is unfair and unreasonable.

The loss of sunlight to the adjoining premises directly to the south is to a certain extent unavoidable due to the orientation of the site, however as sunlight to the rear yard area of the adjoining premises is maintained at its current level during the hours of 9.00 to 12 00 noon additional overshadowing is not considered unreasonable.

The proposal grossly exceeds the building space ratio and is wholly disproportionate to normal suburban living.

The proposed floor space ratio of the dwelling including the new upper level will be 0.64:1 which does not comply with the preferred solution maximum, of 0.6:1, however the degree of excess floor area represents 16m² and it is considered that the development as amended is compatible with the bulk and scale of the adjoining two storey dwelling at 27 Park Avenue thereby satisfying the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

The development if approved will result in a three storey structure.

The dwelling is of two storey in nature only having a ground level and upper level. The garage to the front of the premises is a detached structure and whilst there may be three levels of building as viewed in the street the proposal does not result in a three storey structure.

The approved garage is not mentioned in this application.

Each development application is considered on its own merits and it is not considered that the previously approved detached double garage to the front of the dwelling has any great relevance to the consideration of this proposed new upper level to the dwelling in that there is no conflict between the two applications and each building works can be independently carried out.

Objections as previously detailed are reiterated.

Noted.

The proposal will completely dominate the outlook from the outdoor entertaining area.

The primary outlook from the outdoor living area within the rear yard towards the north will remain unaltered in that the proposed addition is sited to the front of the dwelling and the ground floor portion of the dwelling which adjoins the rear courtyard of the objectors premises remains unaltered.

Once the approved garage is constructed the site will be developed from front to rear.

It is not considered that the level of development on this site is unreasonable in that the approved garage to the front of the dwelling includes a landscaped terrace above and when considered with the complementary garage at the adjoining premises will improve the overall appearance of these dwellings in the streetscape. Moreover, the removal of the disused garage/store at the rear of the premises to allow for the installation of an in ground swimming pool will improve the amenity of the occupants and not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises.

 

J Jackson, Architect, on behalf of R Gandevia of 31 Park Avenue, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The approval of the garage to the front of the dwelling is inconsistent with the preferred solutions of the DCP for garages and will result in less landscaping than required in the DCP and approval should not have been granted on the basis that rear access is available to the site.

The previous development application for the garage has been considered independently and also in conjunction with a development application for an identical garage to the adjoining premises at 27 Park Avenue. It was at that time considered that the pair of garages which include extensive landscaped roof terraces would improve the streetscape in that at present there are poor quality very high masonry walls sited hard up to the street frontage and will improve the overall appearance of the pair of dwellings as viewed within the local streetscape . The rear access was via a right of way which is narrow and impractical for access. There is also a fence across the entry of the right of way at the rear of 23 Park Avenue. A subsequent development application has also been approved which details the demolition of the garage/store in the rear yard and an in ground swimming pool with landscaped surrounds being installed in that location which will improve the outdoor amenity for the occupants. 

The proposed design is unacceptable in terms of the predominant established streetscape context and the proposed design will dominate the neighbouring buildings, and therefore fails to comply with either the objectives of Clause 11 of the LEP or the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

The immediate locality including this street contains a wide variety of building forms including large mansion style dwellings, multi unit housing developments, free standing dwellings and small attached terrace style cottages. It is therefore considered that this streetscape contains sufficient variety to accommodate the proposed new upper level to the dwelling and subject to a condition to reduce the overall height of the dwelling to match the adjoining dwelling at 27 Park Avenue. It should also be noted that this locality is zoned 2B and the  area may undergo some redevelopment for multi unit housing development.

The proposed swimming pool in the rear yard will have a detrimental impact upon Mr Gandevia’s premises in that the existing garage which is to be demolished contains asbestos, the pool plant will increase noise, there may be a loss of privacy due to the use of the swimming pool deck and the installation of the swimming pool reduces required soft landscaping.

The proposed swimming pool has been the subject of a separate and specific development application and development consent has been granted to that application subject to conditions including that the demolition of the garage be conducted under Workcover requirements for asbestos removal and disposal, the pool plant and pump being contained within a noise attenuation enclosure and the extent of coping/deck surrounding the swimming pool be reduced in width to reduce the potential for overlooking. With regards to loss of soft landscaping, the swimming pool is to be installed in the area which contains the disused garage and paving, and no soft landscaping will be lost as a result of the installation of this swimming pool.

Other design alternatives should be investigated including maximising the existing roof space, lowering the floor to ceiling height in the existing ground level, retaining the separate verandah below the main roof, providing dormer windows within the roof and limit the addition to the depth of the envelope of the original dwelling.

On balance it is not considered that the proposed design is an unreasonable response to provide for the required additional floor area for the occupants. It would be impractical to use only the existing roofspace in that the height of the existing roof is insufficient to provide for a reasonable floor area without the use of very large dormers, the lowering of the existing floor to ceiling height at ground level is unreasonable in that it would entail the removal of the existing roof and splicing the existing masonry walls and timber members and then replacing the ceiling at a lower level.  Further, the overall extent of the addition does not extend past the envelope of the existing dwelling.

 

G Ransom, Architect, on behalf of R Gandevia of 31 Park Avenue, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Attached prepared shadow diagrams indicate that the proposed development will have a significant detrimental effect upon 31 Park Avenue in terms of loss of solar access.

The loss of sunlight to the adjoining premises directly to the south is to a certain extent unavoidable due to the orientation of the site, however as sunlight to the rear yard area of the adjoining premises is maintained in its current level during the hours of 9.00 to 12 00 noon additional overshadowing is not considered unreasonable.

 

Mr & Mrs Galvin of 37 Gilderthorpe Avenue, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

No major objections subject to any deliveries or storage not being undertaken on their side of the street.

There is ample room on the subject premises for the storage and delivery of building materials.

 

5.2     Support

 

Insight Development Consultants Pty Ltd, Applicants, in response to the issue of objection raised in section 5.1

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal represents much needed bedroom accommodation for the occupants and does not increase the building footprint or site coverage and it is reasonable for this application to be considered on its own merits.

Noted.

Due to the addition being sited to the front of the dwelling, the overshadowing impacts to the adjoining premises will be limited to the period after 12.00 noon with the rear yard and living areas being unaffected until after that time.

Noted.

The streetscape displays a mixture of development styles and scale and this development will not be inconsistent with the varied street character.

Noted.

There will not be a loss of privacy to the adjoining premises in that the only windows within the upper level are to a bathroom and stairwell.

Noted. Also those windows do not have a significant potential to overlook private living areas of the adjoining premises rather they will look directly onto the roof of the adjoining dwelling.

The previously approved double garage is not grounds for the criticism of this proposal.

Agreed. The previous separate application for the double garage does not in this instance have any significant relevance to an assessment of this application.

 

6        ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSEMENT

 

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

 

6.1     RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

6.1.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

6.1.2 Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

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

 

Floor Area

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.648:1 (16m² over). See assessment below.  

 

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale; are compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

There are no major objections to the degree of non compliance with the preferred solution maximum floor space ratio in that the overall bulk and scale of the development as amended will not be inconsistent with the existing character of the locality which includes other buildings of similar bulk and scale and the proposal also has minimal amenity impacts on adjoining properties, thereby satisfying the objectives and performance requirements of this section of the DCP.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

Does not comply, with the wall including the parapet. Condition included to reduce the overall height of the dwelling to match the adjoining dwelling. Wall height will then be 8.2m, see assessment below.

S4

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

Does not comply with the length of wall where sited closer than 1.5m is 12.63, see assessment below.

 

The Objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality; to ensure impacts in terms of privacy, natural light and views are minimised; and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

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

 

There are no major objections to the overall height of the dwelling not complying with the maximum preferred solutions of the DCP in that it is considered that the overall height of the dwelling as amended will not be excessive in height and scale in relation to other dwellings and multi unit housing development in Park Avenue.  It is noted that height encroachment is largely due to the parapet along the western section of the building and reduces significantly towards the eastern end.

 

The proposal will replicate the articulated parapet façade and verandah treatment of the terrace building to the north, providing for harmony and continuity in the streetscape.  The proposal therefore satisfies objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. 

 

Building Setbacks

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back 1180mm from the southern side boundary and up to the northern side boundary, does not comply see assessment below.

 

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

 

There are no objections to the addition being sited up to the northern side boundary in that this wall abuts the party wall between the two dwellings and will not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of that premises.  The setback to the southern side boundary arises because of the upper level maintaining the existing side boundary setback of the ground floor level.  To require an offset in that wall of 320mm is unnecessary and unreasonable, as the increased setback from the southern boundary would not significantly improve the amenity of the adjoining property to the south.  Overall, it is considered that the proposal meets the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in relation to boundary setbacks.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies; and separation, screening devices and landscaping be used to assist in minimising privacy impacts.

It is not considered that there will be any significant loss of privacy to the adjoining premises in that the upper windows to the southern elevation upper serve only a bathroom and stairwell and will look upon the roof of the adjoining premises and the windows within the eastern elevation are sufficiently off set from the side boundary to maintain privacy to the outdoor living areas of the adjoining premises.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

No.  See assessment below.

S9

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

The proposal will not reduce solar access to private open space to less than 3 hours. Complies.

 

The overall Objectives of the DCP seek to ensure that development promotes and has regard to the concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development. In this respect the objectives promote energy efficiency in design and construction; encourage the use of appropriate resources and passive solar design; and protect solar access enjoyed by the adjoining premises.

 

Given the east-west orientation of the site, shadowing will be concentrated on the adjoining properties to the south.  The overshadowing to the north facing windows of No. 31 Park Avenue is largely due to this orientation, and a compliant building in terms of wall height would not significantly reduce this impact.  On balance, it is considered that the proposal, as amended, will minimise the extent of the potential impact.

 

The shadow diagrams included with the application indicate that during the period from 9.00am to 12.00 noon during the winter solstice the rear outdoor living areas of No. 31 Park Avenue Randwick will remain unaffected by the proposal.

 

7.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal, as amended, will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses.  The proposal will achieve a positive streetscape fit in terms of its height, form and materials and will not adversely impact on the amenity of the locality.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

8.         RECOMMENDATION

 

 

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.1069/04 for permission to carryout alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 29 Park Avenue Randwick subject to the following conditions:

 

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:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 2904, dated 29/7/04 and received by Council on the 22nd December 2004 and the amended western and southern elevations dated 2nd May 2005 received by Council on the 8th June 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:

 

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 (ie. 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.       The overall height of the upper level addition shall be reduced by 600mm to match the height of the adjoining dwelling at 27 Park Avenue Randwick and shall be in accordance with the amended western and southern elevation plans provided to Council on the 8th May 2005. Plans accompanying the Construction Certificate are to be amended accordingly.

 

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

 

4        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.

 

5        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.

 

6        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.

7        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.

 

8        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.

 

9        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”.

 

10      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.

 

11      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 and must also be provided to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

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.

 

13      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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

15      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.

 

16      Any building/demolition works involving asbestos products are to be carried out in accordance with WorkCover New South Wales requirements, guidelines and codes of practice.

 

17      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.

 

18      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.

 

19      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.

 

20      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.

 

21      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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

23      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.

 

24      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.

 

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

 

25      A local approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Services section prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

·        Install or erect any site fencing, hoardings or site structures

·        Operate a crane or hoist goods or materials over a footpath or road

·        Placement of a waste skip (grater than 3m in length) or any container or other article.

 

26      Any part of Council’s nature strip which is damaged as a result of the work must be back-filled, top-soiled and re-turfed with kikuyu turf prior to occupation or finalisation of the development, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1     Building or excavations works must not be commenced until a construction certificate has been obtained from Council's Building Certification Services or an Accredited Certifier and either Council's Building Certification Services or an Accredited Certifier has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority for this development.

 

A2     The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and the construction certificate must not be inconsistent with the development consent.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A3     The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

PERRY HEAD

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Acting Director, City Planning Report  37/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

70-72 Perouse Road, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

23 June, 2005

FILE NO:

DA/1101/2003

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development application Report No. 1101/2003 for Section 96(2) Modification to approved development by reconfiguring the unit layout and reducing the number of units from thirteen (13) to twelve (12)  (Heritage Conservation Area).

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

Development Application Report dated 9 June 2005.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

 

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

9 June, 2005

FILE NO:

D1101/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 (2) Modification to approved development by reconfiguring the unit layout and reducing the number of units from thirteen (13) to twelve (12).

PROPERTY:

 70-72 Perouse Road, Randwick

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Perouse Road Developments Pty Ltd

OWNER

 Perouse Road Developments Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application, under Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, is referred to Council as the original development application (DA 1101/2003) was determined by Council at its meeting of 14 December, 2004, by way of a deferred commencement consent.  The consent became active on 31 March, 2005 and demolition of structures on the site has since taken place.

 

The application seeks to amalgamate the two approved studios into one (1) x one (1) bedroom unit, thereby reducing the total number of units within the development from thirteen to twelve, with the reconfigured apartment known as Unit 2.  As well, minor adjustments are proposed to the footprint of the two approved buildings, such that the front building is to be extended by 0.3m towards the rear building and the rear building extended by 0.4m towards the rear boundary.  These changes facilitate, in the front building a corresponding extension in size of the approved studies to Units 1 and 4 and allow studies to be incorporated into the ground and first floor level units (Units 8, 9, 10 and 11).  Other modifications include a minor increase in height (0.06m) of the front building proposed to facilitate the smooth transition of cars into the basement carpark; minor modifications to the layout of the top floor unit (Unit 12) in the rear building; increased articulation to the northern wall of the rear building; and  decrease in length of wall to the southern elevation of the stairwell to the rear building, as well as an extension to the metal awning over the stair to provide additional weather protection.

 

The Section 96 (2) application was referred to Design Review Panel meetings on 2 May 2005 and 6 June, 2005.  Initially, the Panel did not support the modifications proposed and recommended additional modifications considered beneficial to the design and amenity of the units.  The applicant took the Panel’s advice on board and made a number of further modifications to the design, such as incorporating ventilating skylights into the top floor units of the front building to improve light and ventilation within these units and replacing louvre screens between balconies with solid walls to provide greater acoustic privacy.

 

The provision of studies as proposed within the rear building does not create any additional on-site car parking demands and the changes proposed to the height and building footprint are relatively minor and will not affect the appearance of the development nor substantially increase any amenity impacts to surrounding properties and the streetscape of The Spot Conservation Area.

 

The objections received relate to the approval of the original development and its associated impacts previously considered in the original assessment and not to the specific modifications as proposed in the Section 96 (2) application and therefore they cannot be sustained.

 

The modifications proposed are considered, especially as a result of the Design Review Panel’s recommendations, beneficial to the design and amenity of future occupants of the development, without having any significant impact to surrounding properties or the streetscape of the conservation area.  Accordingly, the recommendation is for approval subject to amendments to the conditions of consent.

 

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The application is made pursuant to Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended (EPA Act) to modify Condition No. 1 of the consent to Development Application No. 1101/2003 relating to the approved plans.  Amended plans have been submitted proposing the following:-

 

·        reducing the number of units from thirteen (13) to twelve (12) through the amalgamation of two (2) studio apartments (Units 2 and 3) into one (1) x one (1) bedroom apartment, with the reconfigured apartment to be known as Unit 2;

·        reconfiguring units at ground and first floor levels, within the rear building (now known as Units 8, 9, 10 and 11), to include a study.

·        increasing the width of the studies by 300mm within Unit 1 and Unit 3 (previously known as Unit 4) within the building fronting Perouse Road.

·        reconfiguring Unit 12 (previously known as Unit 13) by relocating the laundry and extending the extent of the northern wall to the kitchen;

·        reducing the rear (western) setback by 400mm and providing a longer step in the northern wall in order to minimise the length of unarticulated wall to the northern boundary;

·        increasing the overall height of the building at the front of the site by 0.06m, in order to achieve a smoother transition for vehicles using the driveway;

·        decreasing the length of the stair on the southern elevation by 0.1m and extending the metal awning over the top of the stair to provide additional weather protection.

 

As well, the following amendments have been made in response to the SEPP 65 Panel’s comments:-

 

·        the doors to both bedrooms within Unit No. 12 have been moved slightly in order to improve efficiency;

·        the layout of Unit No. 2 has been amended so that the living room fronts onto Perouse Road;

·        the studies to Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been provided with sliding glass panels which open to 50% of the width of the rooms to allow additional solar access and ventilation;

·        the louvre screens which previously provided separation between balconies have been replaced with solid walls to provide greater acoustic privacy;

·        weather protection has been provided to the glass doors of the east facing study to Unit No. 4;

·        Section A-A has been amended to show the proposed storage rooms within the basement;

·        ventilating skylights have been provided to the living rooms to Unit Nos. 6 and 7; and

·        the door to Bedroom No. 2 in Unit No. 7 has been moved closer to the stair to make a more efficient use of the space.

 

Note: A sliding door has been provided to Unit No. 12’s bedroom No. 1 in place of a window.  This was the result of a previous proposed amendment for an additional roof terrace, which has since been deleted from the proposal.  As such, no approval should be given for a sliding door in this position.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

 

 

Figure 1: Locality map

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Perouse Road, between St Pauls Street to the north and Barker Street to the south and is identified as Lots 1 and 2 in DP 218640 and is irregular in shape, having a total site area of 861.9m2 (refer Figure 1).  The site is located within “The Spot” Heritage Conservation Area.  The site falls from the Perouse Road at the front to the rear (western) boundary by between approximately 2m to 2.57m

 

The site is currently vacant following demolition of the two (2) single storey semi-detached dwelling houses and ancillary structures previously located on the site (refer Figure 3).  It is understood that underpinning works to the building on the adjoining land to the north (66-68 Perouse Road) are currently being undertaken.  .

 

Located on the adjoining site to the north (Nos. 66-68 Perouse Road) is a is a two (2) storey brick commercial building built to the front (street) boundary containing a dry cleaners and a Thai restaurant on the ground floor level and dwellings above.  This building generally presents a solid wall, approximately 30.6m in length, along the common boundary with the subject site, apart from a window opening high-up approximately two thirds of the way along its length in from the front boundary. 

 

Located on the adjoining the site to the south on Perouse Road is a two (2) storey Federation style residential building (No. 74 Perouse Road), with driveway access along its northern side to a garage being the common boundary with the subject site. Located to the rear of the garage and built to the boundary is a single storey metal shed.

 

The site is adjoined to the rear (west) by a four storey brick and tile residential flat building, which fronts onto Dine Street (No. 9 Dine Street).  On the opposite side of Perouse Road, are two (2) storey commercial buildings (No. 65 Perouse Road), with shops at their ground floor level and dwellings above, with part one/part two storey residential semi-detached dwelling houses (Nos. 73 and 75 Perouse Road) located on the adjoining property to the south.

 

4.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 14 December, 2004, granted a deferred commencement consent to Development Application No. 1101/2003 for the demolition of the existing semi-detached dwellings and the construction of a mixed use commercial and multi-unit housing development containing a shop and thirteen (13) apartments and basement parking for nineteen vehicles.

 

The consent was subject to three (3) deferred commencement conditions, which related to the submission of a sample board of materials, colours and finishes; a detailed landscape drawings and specifications; and amended architectural plans for the redesign of the carpark level (Lower Ground Floor Plan), driveway and shop (Ground Floor Plan).

 

In order to satisfactorily achieve the required driveway width with suitable gradients as required by Deferred Commencement Condition No. 2, it was necessary, by way of consent to a Section 96 (1A) application, to reduce the setback of the driveway from the southern boundary from 1.5m to 0.5m, with a shared pedestrian and vehicle zone on the southern side of the driveway.  As well, the Section 96(1A) approval created a new storage room providing secure storage for twelve (12) apartments within the basement in order to satisfy another one of the requirements of Deferred Commencement Condition No. 2.  As a consequence of the approval of the Section 96 (1A) and the submission of other material in satisfaction of the deferred commencement conditions, the consent was activated from 31 March, 2005.

 

The subject Section 96 (2) application was submitted on 23 March, 2005 and was referred to the Design Review Panel convened under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) for comment at its meeting of 2 May, 2005.  Following the Panel’s comments further revisions were undertaken in accordance with the Panel’s recommendations and subsequently the revised proposal was re-submitted to the Panel at its meeting of 6 June, 2005 (refer Section 9.3.1 of the report).

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was originally notified and advertised in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans, until 11 May 2005.  As a result, three (3) submissions were received from the following:

 

5.1     Objections

 

·        Dr P K J Van Vliet of 84 Perouse Road, The Spot, Randwick

·        Mrs C Koutsoukis (owner of 2/68 Perouse Road, Randwick) of 45 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

·        A and Q Fleming of 75 Perouse Road, Randwick

 

Concerns raised include the following:-

 

·        Council was most generous in approving the original development application, notwithstanding its location within a Heritage Conservation Area.  No further concessions, as proposed, should be granted as they will contravene Council’s own building code.

 

·        There was considerable public opposition to the proposal in its original form and the approval of any further amendments to assist the developer would only be rubbing salt into the wounds of the concerned residents.

 

·        No public notice was attached to the property.

 

·        The front of the new shop will be out of character with the shop at No. 2/68 Perouse Road and will take away from the village atmosphere.  The size should not be bigger than the existing shop and be in line with the street.

 

·        Concerns raised by the owner of 2/68 Perouse Road with regard to parking, loss of natural lighting, noise and privacy.

 

Planning Comment

 

Issues raised in the above objections are discussed in the Environmental Assessment section (Section 9.2 of this report).

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1     Assets and Infrastructure Services

 

Council’s Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services has provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:-

 

A Section 96 application has been received to modify Development Approval 1101/03, which was for demolition of the existing semi-detached dwellings and the construction of two multi unit housing buildings (1 x three level and 1 x 4 level) containing 13 apartments and 1 retail tenancy, plus basement carpark for 19 vehicles.

 

The proposed modifications relate to:

 

1.       Reducing the number of apartments from 13 to 12;

2.       Reconfiguring the units at ground and first floor levels;

3.       Increasing the width of the studies in the ground floor units;

4.       Relocating the laundry within Unit 12;

5.       Reducing the rear setback by 400mm; and

6.       Increasing the overall height of the building at the front of the site by 60mm.

 

 

The comments contained in this report are based on the following plans and details:

 

·        Site plan and lower ground floor plan DA01 Revision H by Turner & Associates dated 21/03/2005

·        Ground and first floor plan DA02 Revision M by Turner & Associates dated 21/03/2005

·        Letter from SPD Town Planners dated 23 March 2005

 

Proposed Amendment 1

 

With the exception of waste storage requirements, this amendment does not affect any of the previous AIS Department comments and conditions issued in conjunction with the original development application.

 

It is noted that reducing the number of units in the development from 13 to 12 would reduce the residential waste storage requirement from 14 x 240 litre bins (7 garbage and 7 recycling) to a total of only 12 x 240 litre bins (6 garbage and 6 recycling). The submitted plans show the residential waste storage area being sized for at least 12 x 240 litre bins as required.

 

Condition 112 of the Notice of Determination currently reads:

 

112)  The garbage room area for the residential component of the site shall be sized to contain a total of 14 x 240 litre bins (7 garbage bins & 7 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

Should the section 96 application be approved, this condition should be amended to read:

 

112)  The garbage room area for the residential component of the site shall be sized to contain a total of 12 x 240 litre bins (6 garbage bins & 6 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

Proposed Amendments 2 - 6

 

These amendments do not affect any of the previous AIS Department comments and conditions issued in conjunction with the original development application.

 

Should the S96 application be approved, condition 112 of the Notice of Determination shall be amended to read:

 

112)  The garbage room area for the residential component of the site shall be sized to contain a total of 12 x 240 litre bins (6 garbage bins & 6 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

Planning Comment

 

Amended wording for Condition No. 112 has been included within the Recommendation of the report).

 

 

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area (861.9m2) is less than required for the submission of a master plan (4000 m2).

 

8.       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

·        Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No.65

·        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

·        Development Control Plan No. 22: The Spot and surrounds Coogee Precinct

·        Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking

·        Building Code of Australia.

 

9.       SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

Under the provisions of Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria have been complied with:-

 

9.1     Substantially the same development

 

Council must be satisfied, in the first instance, that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent was originally granted was modified.

 

In respect to the above requirement, it is considered that the development, the subject of the Section 96 (2) application, is fundamentally and materially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted.  The proposed modifications do not substantially alter the two approved building’s envelope as defined by their height, and footprint, the landscaped area of the development or its floor space ratio.  In fact, the variation to the controls applicable to the 2B zoned area of the site are minor and do not require the submission of any objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (refer to Section 9.3.2 of the report).  Overall, the appearance and character of the development will remain essentially the same as the development as originally approved.

 

9.2     Consideration of submissions

 

The Section 96 (2) application was notified in accordance with the provisions of Council’s Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans.  The proposal was initially notified to surrounding property owners from 7 April, 2005 until 21 April, 2005.  As a result of the submissions received, which observed that there was no site notice, the proposal was then advertised in the paper and a site notice displayed on the property for an extended period between 26 April, 2005 and 11 May, 2005.

Apart from the concern raised about the lack of a site notice, which was subsequently addressed, two objections request Council, given the amount of public opposition to the original proposal, not to give approval to any further amendments.  The third objection, from an adjoining property owner at No. 68 Perouse Road, who did not raise objections with the originally approved development, raises concerns about the shop size, area character, parking, loss of natural light, noise and privacy.

 

With regard to the concerns raised by No. 68 Perouse Road, these issues were addressed in the report on the original proposal.  The amendments proposed in the Section 96 (2) application do not significantly alter any aspect of the development with regard to the issues raised by No. 68 Perouse Road.  The shop size in the amended proposal remains unchanged with respect to the shop as approved.  The appearance of the building to Perouse Road and hence its impact to the area character, remains substantially unaltered with respect the building as originally approved.  The increase in height of the building by 0.06m, to facilitate a smoother transition for vehicles using the driveway, will not be visually discernible from the street, nor will it result in any significant impact on light to No. 68 Perouse Road.  The proposed changes to the unit configuration do not result in any increased demand for off-street parking under Council’s Development Control Plan for Parking (refer Section 9.3.3 of the report), nor will they result in any additional impacts with regard to noise and privacy.

 

It is considered that the proposed amendments overall, increase the amenity that will be available to future inhabitants of the development, without causing any significant impacts to adjoining property owners or the surrounding conservation area.  As such, it is considered that there is no sustainable reason for Council to accede to the objectors’ request to refuse approval to the Section 96 (2) application.

 

9.3     Section 79C Assessment

 

Council, in determining a Section 96(2) modification, must take into consideration relevant matters referred to in Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended (EPA Act).

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the EPA Act, including the following relevant environmental planning instruments and policies:-

 

9.3.1  State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

The application was referred to the Design Review Panel convened under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65).  The design was considered by the Panel at its meeting on the 2 May, 2005, in relation to the design quality principles for residential flat buildings, as set out in Part 2 of SEPP 65.  The Panel’s comments were taken into consideration by the applicant and amended plans were lodged for the Panel’s further consideration at its meeting on 6 June, 2005.  Both sets of comments are provided below:-

 

 

 

 

Panel Comments (2 May, 2005)

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The Panel confirms its previous advice that the rear setback should not be reduced.  Therefore the encroachment requested in this Section 96 application is considered inappropriate.

 

The minor reduction of the courtyard space is considered acceptable however no further encroachment on the courtyard would be accepted.

 

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The massing and scale are considered appropriate however the proposed new terrace area off Bedroom 1 of Unit 12 needs to be reduced in size with perimeter planting to prevent overlooking from the terrace into units 1, 3 and 7, or neighbouring properties.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The Built form of this proposal is considered to be of good quality however there are some improvements that can be made to both the approved DA and to the Section 96 proposal as follows:

 

Weather protection to the glass doors of the east facing study in Unit 4

 

Internal planning of Unit 2 – the internal study space needs to be reconsidered and the option of the living room facing the street investigated (acoustics may be an issue)

 

Divisions between balconies should be acoustically treated (louvres not acceptable)

 

Internal planning of units 8, 9, 10 and 11 need to be reconsidered in relation to internal bathrooms, size of study and kitchen layouts The is likely to be a better planning solution that may allow for external light and ventilation to the bathroom spaces Further consideration should be given to:

 

·        Layout of entry stair to the rear building

·        Area required for acoustic separation from Lift shaft

·        Privacy to units and neighbours from proposed new terrace Unit 12

·        Fire separation requirements to units 5 and 6 windows

·        Ventilating skylights to internal bathroom unit 6

·        Ventilating skylights to capture northern winter sun for living rooms in units 6 and 7

·        Optimise space in Unit 7 Bedroom 2 by moving the door closer to the stair

 

There also seems to be an anomaly with the extent of the basement as shown on section A-A.

 

4.       The Proposed Density

 

The Panel will support the amalgamation of the two studio apartments into one larger apartment if the planning of the internal study area can be satisfactorily resolved.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Daylight and sun access would be improved with the addition of roof lights as described in Item 3.

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

 

The Panel has always expressed the opinion that more deep soil planting should be provided to the courtyard.

 

Has the large tree to the rear of the site been retained in the recent demolition and site works?

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

         

Acoustic separation between floors has to be confirmed as, to the Panel’s knowledge, this is difficult to achieve with 2800 mm floor to floor.

 

While the addition of studies to the rear units is supported in principle, this should not be done by making the bathrooms internal. The Panel considers that there is enough external wall area to provide all habitable and service rooms with daylight and fresh air.

 

The Panel would like the applicant to maximize the number of operable fire rated windows on the perimeter walls to increase cross ventilation options.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

Satisfactory

 

9.       Social issues

 

Satisfactory

 

10.  The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The Panel considers that the changes outlined in #3 above could be achieved in a way that further enriches the aesthetic qualities of the scheme.

 

Summary and Recommendations

 

The Panel considers that better planning options should be investigated for the Section 96 application to meet SEPP 65 standards.

The Panel would like to see this application again with the matters raised being satisfactorily addressed

 

 

 

Panel Comments (6 June 2005)

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The Panel would prefer that there were no encroachments on the rear setback.

The large tree that has been removed should be indicated as such on the plans.

 

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The massing and scale are considered appropriate and overlooking issues have been satisfactorily addressed.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The Built form of this proposal is considered to be of good quality and improvements have been made to both the approved DA and to the Section 96 to the Panel’s satisfaction.

 

4.       The Proposed Density

 

The Panel supports the amalgamation of the two studio apartments into one larger apartment.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Daylight and sun access has been satisfactorily improved with the addition of roof lights.

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

 

A replacement tree to the rear of the site is desirable.

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

         

The planning for unit 6 could be improved if the stair was moved to the north wall where the study is currently placed.

 

Acoustic separation between floors is difficult to achieve with 2800 mm floor to floor.

The Panel would like the applicant to maximize the number of operable fire rated windows on the perimeter walls to increase cross ventilation options.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

Satisfactory

 

9.       Social issues

 

Satisfactory

 

 

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

Satisfactory

 

Summary and Recommendations

 

The majority of the Panel’s concerns have been well addressed and the Panel considers that the application conforms with the requirements of SEPP 65

 

Planning Comment

 

It is considered that the improvements made to the design of the development as a result of the Panel’s recommendations, such as the introduction of masonry divisions between balconies for privacy, ventilating skylights and internal layout changes, compensate for the minor variation proposed to the rear setback.  It should be noted that the Panel’s comment regarding the relocation of the stair in Unit 6 has been addressed by way of a further amended drawing received by Council on 6 June, 2005, which relocates the stairs in both Units 6 and 7 to provide a better utilisation of living space.

 

10.1.1  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is a consolidation of two separate allotments, each with a different zoning.  No. 70 Perouse Road is zoned 3B Local Business and No. 72 is zoned 2B Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (LEP) and the proposed activity is permissible within both zones with Council’s consent.

 

No. 70 Perouse Road has the benefit of the existing use rights provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act) and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation), due to the fact that the previous ‘existing use’ was a ‘dwelling house’, which was a prohibited or non conforming use in the 3B Local Business Zone. 

 

Accordingly, as the proposal has the benefit of existing use rights in the 3B Zone, other provisions of the LEP, such as its aims, objectives and development standards regarding floor space ratios, building heights and landscaped areas are not applicable to that portion of the site occupied by No. 70 Perouse Road, while the clauses of the LEP 1998 pertaining to building heights, floor space ratios and landscaped area apply only to that portion of the site occupied by No. 72 Perouse Road as discussed below. 

 

Landscaped Area

 

The modifications proposed by this application in regard to a reduction in the rear boundary setback by 0.4m and reduction in the separation between the two buildings by 0.3m (only on the southern side of the site) result in a reduction in the overall landscaped area on the site by approximately 4.8m2, all of which is contained above the basement podium.  The deep soil landscape component remains unchanged. 

 

With respect to the 2B zoned portion of the site, the reduction in landscaped area is only 2.5m2 approximately or 0.6% of the site area.  The approved scheme contained an overall landscaping component of 51.2% of which the landscaping over the podium equated to 24.5% of the required landscaped area.  The modification still results in a complying landscaped area of 50.6% of the site area (overall) and 23.9% above the podium. 

 

It is considered that the reduction in the landscaped area, as a result of minor changes to the building footprint, will not result in any unreasonable impacts in the quality of the open space provided to the rear of the development, and will still maintain reasonable separation between the two buildings on the site, without any further internal or external amenity impacts. 

 

Floor Space

 

The development as approved had a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.63: 1 for that portion of the site zoned 2B and therefore complied with the 0.65:1 permitted by the LEP.  The proposed modifications introduce an additional 2.5m2 gross floor area and a FSR of 0.64:1, which maintains compliance with the development standard.  Given the minor nature of the increase in floor space, it is considered that the additional bulk will not be visually discernible in comparison to the approved development, with no substantial increased amenity impacts.

 

Height

 

The amended proposal includes a modification to the height of only the front building facing Perouse Road.  The variation to the height is 0.06m only and relates to the provision for a smoother transition for vehicles entering and exiting the basement.  This then changes the RL of all floors from Ground Floor Level up by 0.06m, which also then lifts the overall height of the building by 0.06m.

 

The maximum wall and ridge height of the approved development was 12.3m, which exceeded the maximum ridge and wall height controls for 2B Zoned portion of the site.  Notwithstanding, the part of the building which exceeded the 7m wall height and the 9.5m maximum building height controls extended approximately only 1.5m into the 2B portion of the site and was well setback from the southern boundary with No. 74 Coogee Bay Road by approximately 6m, thereby minimising its impact.  Objections pursuant to State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP 1) were accepted by Council in respect to the non compliances with the maximum wall and building height and under the EPA Act there is no requirement for further SEPP 1 objections for the Section 96 modification.

 

The increase in height of the front building by 0.06m is considered minor and will not be visually discernible from the street.  The development as modified, will therefore appear consistent with the height already approved and does not result in any additional amenity impacts of any significance.

 

Heritage Conservation Area

 

The changes discussed above with respect to the height, bulk and scale of the building will not significantly alter the visual appearance of the building or its impact within The Spot Conservation Area as previously assessed with regard to the approved development.  Accordingly the proposed modifications are considered satisfactory when considered in relation to Clause 43 of the LEP and the LEP Draft Amendment No. 39.

 

10.1.2         Development Control Plan –Multi-Unit Housing

 

Council’s Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing (DCP-Multi-Unit Housing) only applies to that portion of the site zoned 2B Residential (No. 72 Perouse Road).

 

The proposed amendments introduce no further changes with respect to the Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing other than already originally assessed apart from a decrease in the rear building setback from 8.2m to 7.8m i.e. a variation of 0.4m (approximately 5%).  The proposal still maintains compliance with the minimum rear setback of 6m set by the preferred solutions for buildings in the 2B Zone and the area provided at the rear of the site for deep soil landscaping remains unchanged.  It is therefore considered that the variation to the rear building setback proposed as a result of the reconfigured layout to facilitate the introduction of studies at the ground and first floor level of the rear building is minor and will not result in any substantial additional impacts with respect to privacy to or overshadowing of adjoining properties.

 

10.1.3  Development Control Plan -Parking

 

The changes proposed to the residential unit mix and number do not result in any additional carparking requirements under Council’s Development Control Plan – Parking (refer Figure 2 below).

 

Figure 2: – Parking Requirements

 

Parking Requirements (Approved DA)

Parking Requirements (Amended DA)

Provided

(Amended DA)

Compliance

Residential car spaces

 

1 space per 2 x studio units = 1 space

 

1 space per 8x 1 bedroom units = 8 spaces

 

1.2 spaces per 3 x 2 bedroom units = 3.6 spaces

 

TOTAL = 13 resident spaces

Residential car spaces

 

 

1 space per 9x 1 bedroom units = 9 spaces

 

1.2 spaces per 3 x 2 bedroom units = 3.6 spaces

 

 

TOTAL = 13 resident spaces

Residential car spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 residential spaces (2 vertically stacked)

Residential car spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

Visitor spaces

 

1 visitor space per 4 units = 3 visitor car space

Visitor spaces

 

1 visitor space per 4 units = 3 visitor car space

 

Visitor spaces

 

3 visitor space

 

 

Yes

1 resident bicycle space per 3 units = 4 resident bicycle spaces

 

1 visitor bicycle space per 10 units = 1 visitor bicycle space

TOTAL = 5 bicycle spaces

 

1 resident bicycle space per 3 units = 4 resident bicycle spaces

 

1 visitor bicycle space per 10 units = 1 visitor bicycle space

TOTAL = 5 bicycle spaces

 

5 x bicycle spaces at ground level. 

Yes

None required

None required

1

Yes

1 car wash bay per 12 units = 1 (visitor space may double as car wash bay)

1 car wash bay per 12 units = 1 (visitor space may double as car wash bay)

1

Yes

 

10.1.4         Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The amended proposal does not give rise to any change in the calculations for the commercial component of the development, while the amended calculations for the change in number and mix of units in the residential component of the proposed development are set out in Figure 3 below.  Please note a credit has been given for the dwellings that were existing on the site at the time of the original approval.  Condition No. 30 of the consent has been amended to reflect the revised levy figures and is contained within the Recommendation of this report.

 

Figure 3: Amended levies for additional residential dwellings

 

Units

Open space levy per unit ($)

Total open

Space

($)

Community facilities levy per unit ($)

Total community facilities

($)

9 x 1 bedroom units

1,195.25

10,757.25

528.50

4756.50

3 x 2 bedroom units

1,792.88

5,378.64

792.72

2,378.28

Total

 

16,135.89

 

7,134.78

Less existing

2 x 3 bedroom dwellings

 

2,732.00

  5,464.00

1,208.00

2,416.00

Net Total

 

10,671.89

 

4,718.78

 

11.     FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.     CONCLUSION

 

The modifications sought are considered to be beneficial to the design and amenity of the development, whilst not generating any significant additional impacts to surrounding properties or the streetscape of the conservation area.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, (as amended) to modify Development Consent No.1101/2003/B for permission to reconfigure the unit layout and reduce the number of units from thirteen (13) to twelve (12). on property at 70-72 Perouse Road, Randwick, in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans with Job Number 04032 and undated Drawing Nos. DA01, Revision F; DA02, Revision K; DA03, Revision H; DA04 and DA05, both Revision G; and DA06, Revision E, and all received by Council on 17/11/2004; the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the details approved with the deferred commencement conditions and as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered with Job No. 04032 and Drawing Nos. DA01, Revision K, DA02, Revision Q, DA04, Revision I, DA05, Revision I, DA06, Revision G, all dated 24 May, 2005 and DA03, Revision M, dated 9 June 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 the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the amended plans.

 

Amend Condition No. 30 to read:

 

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

 

a)       for the provision or improvement of open space                                  $10,671.89

b)      for the provision or improvement of community facilities                       $ 4,718.78

c)       for the provision of townscape improvements                                      $ 4,368.00

d)      Administration fee                                                                               $    425.00

 

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

 

Amend Condition No. 112 to read:

 

112.   The garbage room area for the residential component of the site shall be sized to contain a total of 12 x 240 litre bins (6 garbage bins & 6 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

Add an additional condition

 

145.   The door from Bedroom 1 to the adjacent roof area in Unit 12 shall be shown as a window on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Plans of proposal

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

DAVID PIRIE

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director, City Planning Report  38/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

1430 Anzac Parade, Little Bay

 

 

DATE:

17 May, 2005

FILE NO:

DA/43/2005

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No. 43/2005 for construction of a 2-4 storey Aged Care Facility comprising 124 bedspaces and basement carparking for 43 vehicles.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

Development Application Report dated 17 May 2005.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

 

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

17 May, 2005

FILE NO:

DA 43/2005

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construction of a 2-4 storey Aged Care Facility comprising 124 bed spaces and basement carparking for 43 vehicles

PROPERTY:

 1430 Anzac Parade - Prince Henry Hospital Site

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Multiplex

OWNER:

 Landcom

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $17,880,556.

 

The subject application is for the erection of a new aged care facility. The development is comprised of three attached buildings, a four storey wing to Anzac Parade connected to a smaller two storey wing at the rear of the site by a three storey link. The building will be used as an aged care facility. The site is vacant land located within the Prince Henry Master Plan site to the south of the western edge of the site. The main pedestrian access is provided from Anzac Parade with vehicular and secondary pedestrian access provided from Brodie Avenue to the east of the site.

 

The proposal the subject of the development application is an integrated development under the provisions of section 91 of the EP&A Act requiring the approval of the Heritage Council of NSW as the subject site is located within the Prince Henry conservation area which has been gazetted in the State Heritage Register.

 

The proposed aged care facility has been identified in the Master Plan for the Prince Henry site, which was adopted on 27 May 2003, and is consistent with the requirements of the Master Plan with the exception of likely traffic generation as a result of increased bedspaces. The departure from the traffic requirement has been assessed in terms of this development individually and in terms of the cumulative impact across the site and has been found to be acceptable.

 

The application is consistent with the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, the approved master plan for the Prince Henry site and the Prince Henry Development Control Plan. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for the erection of a new 2-4 storey building for use as an aged care facility. The facility will provide 124 bed spaces (comprising 60 low care and 64 high care beds), requiring 40 staff members at any one time. Being a residential facility, the hours of operation will be from 24 hours, 7 days a week. Twenty (20) staff will be employed on the site at any one time. The proposed building will contain the following uses:

 

Basement

 

·        39 carparking spaces

·        1 accessible carparking space

·        Plant room

·        Vehicular access to the basement carpark via a carparking ramp with gradient of 1:5 plus transition zones of 1:10, two stairways and a lift.

 

Ground Floor Level

 

-        Eastern (Brodie Avenue Wing)

 

·        7 consulting rooms

·        Hair salon

·        Administration and reception areas

·        Storage

·        Garbage room

·        Kitchen

·        Staff room and change rooms

·        Office

·        Two interview rooms

·        Foyer and waiting area

·        Loading dock

·        Pedestrian access via the main entry foyer on the eastern side of the building

 

-        Link Building

 

·        Activities area

·        Office

·        Dining area

 

-        Western (Anzac Parade) Wing

 

·        20 bed rooms

·        Meeting room/ private dining room

·        Storage

·        Laundry

·        Plant rooms

·        Library and resident computer room

·        Staff room

·        Servery

·        Office

·        Foyer

·        Reception

·        Lounge

·        Pedestrian access from Anzac Parade

·        Associated amenities

 

First Floor Level

 

-        Eastern (Brodie Avenue Wing)

 

·        15 bedrooms with ensuites

·        Dining room

·        Servery

·        Storage areas

·        Amenities

 

-        Link Building

 

·        4 bedrooms with ensuites

·        Cinema/ Meeting room

·        Amenities

·        Dining room

·        Store

 

-        Western (Anzac Parade) Wing

 

·        21 bedrooms with ensuites

·        Air conditioning plant rooms

·        Sitting area

·        Lounge

·        Servery

·        Amenities

·        Storage areas

 

Second Floor Level

 

-        Link Building

 

·        8 bedrooms

·        Amenities

·        Dining room

·        Lounge

 

-        Western (Anzac Parade) Wing

 

·        27 bedrooms with ensuites

·        1 bedroom without ensuite

·        Lounge

·        Servery

·        Amenities

·        Staff room

 

Third Floor Level

 

-        Western (Anzac Parade) Wing

 

·        27 bedrooms with ensuites

·        1 bedroom without ensuite

·        Lounge

·        Servery

·        Amenities

·        Staff room

Vehicular access into the site will be provided from Brodie Avenue

 

External to the building are two courtyards, a northern ‘secure’ courtyard to the north of the link building and a more open courtyard to the south of the link building. The perimeter of the site will be landscaped including avenue type planting to the Anzac Parade boundary. A large sandstone outcrop exists to the eastern boundary of the site and this will be retained by the proposal.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The former Prince Henry Hospital site is located on the eastern side of Anzac Parade approximately 14km south of the Sydney GPO. The site, now referred to as the Prince Henry site, is bounded to the north by the University of New South Wales, to the north and east by the Coast Golf Course, to the east by Little Bay and to the south by the Coast and St Michaels Golf Courses and to the west by Anzac Parade.

 

The site that is the subject of the proposed development, forms part of a development precinct identified in the adopted Master Plan for the Prince Henry site. The subject site is known as Lot 58, however its correct description is Lot 48 in DP1064600. The site is also referred to as Lot 20 in Council’s Prince Henry Site DCP (the DCP). The subject site comprises vacant land in the form of an irregular-shaped parcel with a curved western boundary (to Anzac Parade) of approximately 115m, irregular northern and southern boundaries of approximately 100m and 125m respectively, and a straight eastern boundary (to Brodie Avenue) of 109.56m. The site has an area of 11,150m2.

 

To the west of the site, across Anzac Parade are 1-2 storey dwelling houses. To the north, east and south of the site is other land forming part of the overall development area known as the Prince Henry Hospital site. To the north of the site is Lot 13, a 5,874m2 lot designated for mixed use development. To the east of the site are lots 46,52 and 54, occupied by the historic Flowers Wards. To the south of the site are Lots 49 and 51, designated for 2-5 storey development including retention of the existing Jarrah House women’s health facility.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

The site forms part of the wider area known as the ‘Prince Henry Hospital site’ that was previously used as the Prince Henry (Coast) Hospital.

 

The site as a whole has been subject to a lengthy strategic planning process. On 27 May 2003 Council adopted a revised master plan for the former Prince Henry Hospital site effective for five years from that date. The Master Plan creates a new residential and community precinct with a variety of land uses including retail, commercial, open space, recreation and community facilities.

 

Amendment 28 to Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 was gazetted on 26 November 2004 and had the effect of rezoning the site to a mix of 2D Residential (Comprehensive Development), 6 Special Uses and 7 Environmental Protection. The amendment also contains height, FSR and landscape area requirements for development within the 2D area of the site.

The Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan (the DCP) was approved by Council on 27 July 2004 and became effective after the gazettal of Amendment 28 to RLEP98 on 8 December 2004.

 

A number of applications for development on the Prince Henry Hospital site have been approved by Council, including applications for subdivision, infrastructure works, adaptive re-use of the Flowers Wards, a drug rehabilitation facility in Jarrah House and an Aboriginal Medical Research building. Applications relevant to this application are:

 

DA Number

Subject

Relevance

Approved

1188/2002

Demolition and Stage 2 Remediation

Remediation to occur on site prior to development commencing

28/02/2003

763/2004

DA4 Infrastructure and Streetscape Stage 2 -South

Streetscape, roads and footpaths to be provided to site.

26/04/2005

1013/2004

DA5 Open Space

Landscaping of open space within the public domain of the developable area

Under Consideration

 

Council presently has a number of undetermined development applications submitted to it for consideration including applications for a number of dwelling houses as well as the larger buildings envisaged under the master plan.

 

Heritage maps provided with the application indicate the site was used as the Medical Superintendent’s Residence (including a tennis court). This building was demolished in approximately 1934. After this time a Chief Executive Officer’s residence was constructed south of the first dwelling. A Childcare Centre comprised of a small brick building and a relocatable building was constructed in approximately 1974. These buildings have both since been demolished (with the exception of the CEO’s residence entry gates which are heritage listed) in accordance with the master plan and preliminary applications for the site. Although contamination would seem unlikely from these previous uses, the site has been considered in separate contamination studies of the whole Prince Henry Hospital Site. The applicant has indicated the site will be remediated in accordance with the findings of these studies prior to the commencement of the proposed residential use.

 

A prelodgement meeting was held on 10 June 2004 (PL 31/2004) to discuss development concepts for multi-unit housing for senior on Lots 9 and 18 and a residential care facility on Lot 58 of the Prince Henry Hospital site. The main issue raised in relation to the application were the bulk and scale of the western (Anzac Parade) elevation of the building. The prelodgement comments also highlighted the heritage significance of Lot 58 including the existing New Zealand Christmas Tree and sandstone rock outcrop on the site and its proximity to the Flowers Wards.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with Council’s DCP for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received in response to this notification and advertising.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1     Manager, Environmental Health and Building

 

The Manager, Environmental Health and Building provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

 

Environmental Health Comments

 

The proposal

 

The proposal is for the construction of an aged care facility on Lot 58 at the Prince Henry Development Site.  The lot number has been changed through the masterplan/subdivision plan.  Although this site is referred to as Lot 58, it is identified as lot20 in Councils DDCP and Lot 48 in the subdivision Plan.

 

The proposed development will be developed by Multiplex and operated by St Lukes.

 

The aged care facility will consist primarily of, 124 beds, basement parking and specifically in relation to environmental health matters, a hair salon, kitchen facility, warm water system, grey water reuse for irrigation, commercial laundry and various forms of plant and equipment.

 

Background

 

Extensive works have been undertaken in relation to investigation of and remediation of the subject land with regards to contamination. The remediation of the site is progressing and has not been completed to date. The conditions and requirements of DA 1188/02/A will apply to this subject land prior to any works commencing.  

 

Key Issues

 

Land Contamination:

 

With the submission of the information accompanying this DA, no information was submitted in relation to SEPP 55, land contamination and remediation.  Reference is made to DA1188/02 ‘A’.

 

Two site auditors have been appointed for the Prince Henry site and both Site Auditors have reviewed the remediation strategies – for the developable portion of the site. (Copies of the reviews by the site auditors, Councils review and copies of the new RAPs’ are located on the files for DA 1188/02 part 5 and 6).

 

Prior to any infrastructure works commencing, a clearance instruction is required to be issued by the site auditor, as stipulated in the conditions of DA 1188/02/A. No other works/building works shall commence without a site audit statement being issued for the subject land. All remediation works are to be undertaken in accordance with the approved remediation strategy and overseen by the appointed site auditor, as detailed in DA1188/02 ‘A’.   Any approval is to be conditioned accordingly.

 

Kitchen/ Hair Salon/ Warm Water System:

The proposed Kitchen/ Hair Salon/ Warm Water System need to be registered with the local authority as per the requirements of the Local Government Act. Any approval is to be conditioned accordingly.

 

Grey Water Reuse:

 

The Proposal incorporates grey water reuse for irrigation. This will require approval under the provisions of section 68 of the Local Government Act. Any approval is to be conditioned accordingly advising of this requirement.

 

Acoustic Amenity:

 

An acoustic report has been submitted with the application. The report comments (somewhat) on Aircraft noise, traffic noise, AS 2107 and the need for further assessment and report. 

 

The proposal is not located in an ANEF zone and as such no further assessment is required in relation to Aircraft Noise.

 

Any approval is to be conditioned accordingly requiring acoustic assessment and validation reports (incorporating proposed plant and equipment, internal amenity and road traffic noise impact).

 

Commercial Laundry:

 

A commercial laundry is proposed within the aged care facility. Appropriate conditions are to be imposed to ensure no environmental pollution and loss of amenity occurs.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

Building Comments

 

Building Services comments

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the construction of a new 4 storey aged care residential development with basement car parking.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class -        9c      (Aged care building)

Class -        7a     (Carpark)

 

Background

 

The site is part of the old Prince Henry hospital site.

 

Key Issues

 

Noise:

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

 

Site Management:

Standard conditions are proposed to be included in the consent to address construction site management issues, such as the location of stock piled material or the storage and disposal of excavated materials, sediment and erosion control, public safety and perimeter safety fencing.

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Access for people with a disability:

Access and facilities for people with disabilities is required under the provisions of the BCA and the plans appear to meet the requirements. A condition is attached to confirm this requirement.

 

Conclusion:

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

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

Conditions proposed by the Manager, Environmental Health and Building have been included in the recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 26- 90).

 

6.2     Director, City Services

 

The Director, City Services has provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

 

An application has been received for the construction of an aged care residential flat building at the above site containing 124 beds, with basement carparking for 40 vehicles.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There is a row of five (5) Ficus microcarpa ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Figs) towards the western boundary, amongst the heritage gate posts, which vary in height from about 5-9 metres and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. Individually, they appear in average condition due to being planted too close together which has resulted in overcrowding; however, they are an existing site element, and do form an avenue effect which also provide valuable shading. All five are shown as being retained on the plans provided and therefore need to be protected; however, selective pruning of the lower growing branches as well as the removal of already damaged limbs may be necessary in order to avoid further damage to the trees that could be caused by trucks, machinery or similar, during construction. Tree protection measures and bonds (for the above mentioned trees) were required in conjunction with DA 830/2003 (Jarrah House development). These same measures/bonds are required with this development.

 

To the southeast, there is one Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) of approximately 5 metres in height. This palm is too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and as such, approval is not required for its removal. Conditions relating to this palm have not been included in this report.

 

Along the eastern boundary, in the northwest corner of the site, there is one Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) of approximately 5 metres in height and 4 metres in width. Although not indicated on the plans, it appears in good condition with a sturdy, multi-trunk habit and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. This tree is growing within the raised sandstone outcrop with all construction works sited a reasonable distance away. As such, a bond is not deemed necessary; however, protection measures will still need to be applied to ensure its retention.

 

To the south, just above the raised sandstone outcrop, there is one Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) of approximately 6 metres in height. It appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. The plans show this palm as being relocated elsewhere within the site; however, given this species susceptibility to Fusarium sp (a water borne disease which has resulted in the death of a large number of this species in the City of Randwick, and one which is commonly spread during the transplanting process) Council would not object to its removal.

 

There are a group of three (3) Erythrina x sykesii (Coral Trees) towards the northern boundary, all of approximately 5 metres in height, which appear in average condition. These trees are too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and as such, conditions have not been included in this report.

 

Drainage Comments

 

All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged to the new storage pond (located adjacent to Fairway 7 within the Coast golf course), via the street drainage system in Brodie Avenue. The stormwater shall be discharged directly to the underground drainage system in Brodie Avenue via a kerb inlet pit. It is noted that all kerb inlet pits shall be constructed in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD6.

 

A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the street drainage system.

 

The DPCD is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the AIS Department has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required submit detailed drainage plans to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Groundwater Comments

 

As there is a significant sandstone outcrop located in the middle of the development site, the AIS Department is of the opinion that seepage water may be encountered within the depths of the basement excavation. Should significant continual seepage flows be encountered within the depth of the basement excavation the basement carpark shall be suitably tanked and waterproofed.

 

Traffic Comments

 

It is noted that this application has been assessed in accordance with the new Service Level Agreement between the Development Assessment section, and the Asset & Infrastructure Services Department. The DPCD should ensure the proposed parking provisions are adequate.

 

The DPCD is advised that the AIS Department has provided only general conditions for construction of the driveway, as vehicular access is to be from Brodie Avenue, a private road.

 

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

 

Traffic Generation

The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects notes that the traffic generation for the development site is greater than that approved in the Masterplan; as an additional 24 beds have been proposed above the 100 bed facility initially approved. This will result in an additional traffic generation of 12 DVTs (daily vehicle trips) over and above the traffic generation of the approved Masterplan.

 

It is noted that whilst the increase in this development application alone may not have a significant impact on the surrounding road network; a number of the development applications recently received for the Prince Henry site involve increasing the number of dwellings/beds above that approved in the Masterplan. Hence the cumulative effect may mean that the traffic impacts from the actual development of the Prince Henry site will vary from the impacts assessed in the masterplan.

 

The AIS Department previously recommended that the applicant be requested to provide a summary of all increases in dwellings/units/beds proposed throughout the site (when compared to the masterplan) together with an assessment of the cumulative traffic impacts.

 

The applicant has since submitted a Supplementary Traffic and Parking Report by GSA Planning dated May 2005. The consultant's report details that the DA's so far submitted to council have resulted in an increase in the dwelling yield of approximately 22%. This figure has then been adopted to estimate the proportional increase for the remaining 27 lots; (that is, assuming a 22% increase in the dwelling yield over the whole Prince Henry site).

 

An INTANAL analysis was been carried out for each of the three intersections with Anzac Parade (Jennifer Street, Pine Avenue and Little Bay Road), using the predicted 22% increase in dwelling yield. This analysis showed that a Level of Service 'A' would be maintained at the Jennifer Street intersection (for both the AM and PM peak); a Level of Service 'B' would result at the Pine Avenue intersection (for both AM and PM peak) and a Level of Service 'B' would result at the Little Bay Road intersection (for the PM peak only).

 

The applicant's consultant has stated that the estimated 22% increase in the dwelling yield from what was adopted as the Prince Henry masterplan will not significantly affect the capacity operation or level of service of surrounding streets and is appropriate from a traffic point of view.

 

Waste Comments

 

The following comments are provided by Council’s Waste Compliance Officer regarding the Waste Management Assessment prepared by GSA Planning as part of the Development Application.

 

It is assumed the proposed development will be rated as a business and, therefore, utilise a trade waste service rather than Council's residential waste service.

 

The waste generation calculation provided in the Waste Management Assessment is considered to be a reasonable estimation of the amount of waste to be produced by the proposed development (39 x 240 litre mobile garbage bins and 17 x 240 litre recycling bins). It is proposed to install a garbage compactor to reduce the number of garbage bins required. Based on a compaction ration of 2:1 this would reduce the number of garbage bins required to 20. Allowance has been made for storage of 20 x 240 litre mobile garbage bins and 17 x 240L recycling bins in a common garbage room, also accommodating the garbage compactor.

 

It is assumed the garbage compactor will be fed manually as no reference is made to a chute system. The applicant should provide further information as to the operation of the compactor.

 

It is intended garbage and recycling bins will be collected from the loading dock area.

 

Should the application be approved it is recommended the following Conditions of Consent be applied:

 

1.       Prior to the accredited certifier issuing an occupation certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to provide Council's Manager of Waste a waste management plan that includes details as to how the garbage compactor will operate.

 

2.       The garbage storage area is to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste to the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

Conditions proposed by City Services have been included in the recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 91-127).

 

6.3     Heritage Planner

 

Council’s consultant Heritage Planner has provided the following comments in relation to the application:

 

The subject site is located within the Prince Henry Heritage Conservation Area with the site and various buildings identified on the State Heritage Register. The site has been subject to a Conservation Management Plan (CMP), Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) and a Heritage Impact Statement for the Masterplan all prepared by Godden Mackay Logan.  The former hospital site is to be converted for mixed residential use.

 

The site features various cultural, natural and Indigenous heritage values including the buildings used by the Coast and Prince Henry Hospitals.

 

Several previous development applications for the demolition of existing buildings on the site, together with site remediation, temporary structures and infrastructure works have been approved.

 

The specific site of the proposal is Lot 58 (also Lot 20 in the DCP) located within Precinct 3 as identified within the DCP.  The subject site is located towards the south west corner of the Prince Henry site and along Anzac Parade.  The site is bounded by Anzac Parade to the west, lots 19 and 23-2 to the north, Brodie Avenue to the east with the significant Flowers Wards on the opposite side of the street and Lots 21 and 22-30 to the south.  There are some significant built forms and landscape elements on and in the vicinity of the subject site.  As noted, opposite the subject site to the east are the Flowers Wards while to the north east is the ‘Henrys Trading Post’ building that are all identified as significant buildings within the CMP.  On the eastern boundary of the subject site is a sandstone rock shelf which is to be modified under a recent approval for road widening.  Towards the centre of the southern boundary are portions of the former gates to the CEOs Residence which occupied the site during an earlier phase.  Additionally there is a significant tree, a New Zealand Christmas Tree, opposite the site to east and in front of one Flowers Wards.  The subject site, except for the remnant gates with some surrounding trees and the sandstone outcrop is vacant and has been recently subject to remediation works including the demolition of the most recent residence to occupy the site.

 

This proposal is for the construction of a new aged care facility on Lot 58 of the Prince Henry Hospital Site.  The proposed building is divided into two portions, one towards Anzac Parade to the west and one towards Brodie Avenue to the east which are linked by a three storey central section resulting in an ‘H’ like footprint.  As recommended in the DCP the western section is four storeys and the eastern section is two storeys to address the scale of the Flowers Wards to the east.  The building is setback from the sandstone outcrop to the east and the western elevation is slightly curved to follow the alignment of Anzac Parade.  The driveway access is from the south eastern corner of the site and in accordance with that recommended by the DCP.  The western elevation generally features horizontal rows of openings with vertical external aluminium louvres framed by horizontal and vertical masonry reveals.  The main mass is broken up by other sections featuring horizontal timber louvres.  The eastern elevation features similar fenestration and detailing to the first floor level on a glazed podium level articulated by steel columns and masonry blades.  The landscape plan proposes the retention of the former gates and the surrounding trees as well as the sandstone rock outcrop with new plantings through the site.  The site will also feature secure open space areas for use by some future residents that will require high level care and supervision.

 

A Heritage Impact Assessment, prepared by GSA Planning Pty Ltd, was submitted with the application.  The Assessment argues that the proposal will have no impact to the heritage values of the site, the nearby significant buildings or the significance or the place as it accords with the built form recommended in the Draft DCP.

 

As the proposal adheres to the height, bulk, form, scale, mass and siting of the Draft DCP it generally raises no concern in regard to heritage conservation.  The site is considered to be reasonably divorced from the closest heritage buildings with the proposal appropriately scaled and articulated to relate sympathetically to the Flowers Ward opposite.  Due to the fall of the land The Flowers Wards are at a significantly lower level than the proposed building but as the building is set well back off the street at that higher level it will not be prominent in views along Brodie Avenue that feature the Flowers Wards.  The proposal is also considered to be sufficiently setback and scaled in relation to the ‘Henry’s Trading Post Building’ to the north east.  As the proposal is within the siting, mass and scale parameters set by the DCP it is considered appropriate in regard to those issues and heritage conservation.

 

The only other issues concerning the details and form of the proposal and its relationship to the nearby significant buildings are detailing and materials.  It is considered that the contemporary form and style is reasonable in this location and clearly delineates the proposal as a new element on the site.  No change to the style or detailing of the proposal will cause it to have any lesser impact on the nearby significant buildings.  The detailing and articulation of the elevations is appropriate with the use of louvres, projecting and recessed elements, various materials and finishes and masonry blades and awnings.  The materials and finishes are also appropriate and are not intrusive to the significant buildings in the area.

 

Significant remanet gates, associated trees and the sandstone outcrops are to be retained and incorporated into the proposed landscape and open space.  The proposed driveway access does not impact upon the sandstone outcrop

 

Recommendations

The following conditions should be included with any consent:

 

Conditions proposed by the Heritage Planner have generally been included in the Heritage Office conditions. Additional conditions have been included in the Recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 21-22).

 

6.4     Design Review Panel

 

Although the proposed aged care facility does not constitute a ‘residential flat building’ under the definition contained in SEPP 65, as the Panel had provided input into the design at preliminary stages, the development application was referred for advice. The application was considered by Council’s Design Review Panel at its 7 March 2005 meeting. The following comments were made by the Panel with regard to the proposal:

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The design is consistent with the master plan.  The relationship of the buildings to Anzac Parade and to the historic buildings to the east of the site have been clarified and improved. 

 

The relationship of this building to the proposed retail and residential building on the site to its north and the proposed footpath between them is however unresolved.  A conference between the adjoining owners and the sites’ development managers should be convened to clarify whether the path is needed, how the south face of the proposed retail development will be treated and to arrive at a common landscape approach.

Council assessment officers have been working to coordinate development on various sites and ensure that development on adjacent lots achieves a positive overall outcome. The applicant has advised that the proposal complies with the DCP and that due to the different developers working on the site and lack of a formal development application for the adjoining site it is difficult to arrive at a common landscape approach. Further discussion of the landscape treatment of the site is provided in section 10.5.

 

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The Panel has consistently expressed the view that the master plan is too restrictive on this valuable site.  However within this constraint the Panel considers that the scale and the height of the development are satisfactory.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The proposed massing, site planning and the provision of a courtyard area are supported.

4.       The Proposed Density

 

As noted above, the Panel is of the view that the proposed development, with an FSR that is even less than permitted, under uses the site.  Potential locations for future expansion should be noted on the DA drawings and the proposed landscaping should reflect these as it appears to.

 

The applicant has advised that the proposal is the result of compliance with the allowable FSR, the allowable building envelope under the Landcom Design Guidelines and the allowable traffic movements and height controls. In addition, the allocation of Aged Care places is a Federal Government Regulation and the operator of the site has only been granted the number of beds proposed in this application.  The applicant has provided a design envelope to achieve a density of up to 0.82:1 in the future, however this would require breaches of northern and southern side setbacks as set by the DCP. The applicant’s points are noted and it is considered unnecessary to consider future expansion given the current controls over the land.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

The proposal at this stage provides a satisfactory framework for satisfying this principle and the issue is being taken seriously.

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

 

The relocation of the secure dementia portion of the garden to the south side of the link building could be considered, as this would make the more favorable aspect on the north side available to a larger number of residents.

 

It is considered that elements of the landscape design could be used to strengthen an axial visual relationship between this development and the historic ward complex across the road, with which the buildings have a good geometric relationship.

The applicant has advised that up to 80% of residents will suffer from a level of dementia and the restricted courtyard to the north will be of benefit to the majority of the total resident population.

 

The applicant also notes that the planting proposed between the two sandstone outcrops and positioning of the building entry will emphasise the geometric connection between the site and the existing heritage buildings on Brodie Avenue.

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

While recognizing the special requirements of the brief, the Panel considered that the planning of the link at ground level would benefit from further refinement to improve its clarity.

 

The applicant has advised that the use of the link building will vary between therapy, meetings, special events and as such will require some staff supervision areas, which may be workstations or simple glazed privacy desk area. The concept is to maintain a completely open feel to the areas so that resident supervision within the building and courtyards beyond can be maintained by staff from a central position. Toilet facilities for residents are essential within the activities space as 90% of residents within the area will suffer incontinence. The provision of WCs at either end of the ground floor area is necessary and some privacy of entry is required to satisfy Federal Government Aged Care standards.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

No comment

 

9.       Social issues

 

The proposal is clearly consistent with overall purpose of the Prince Henry redevelopment.

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The clarity of architectural expression has been considerably improved by the development of the design since it was last viewed.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel recognises the excellent design qualities of the proposal and the improvements that have taken place since the application was last reviewed.

 

The Panel believes that subject to the above amendments being made, in discussion with the assessing planner, this proposal should progress to its subsequent stages.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to SEPP 65.

 

6.5     NSW Heritage Office

 

The application is Integrated Development and requires referral to the NSW Heritage Act in accordance with section 91 of the EP&A Act. The subject site is located within the Prince Henry conservation area which has been gazetted in the State Heritage Register. The Heritage Office has provided general terms of approval, which have been included in the Recommendation section of this report (see Conditions X).

 

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Clause 40A of Randwick LEP requires the preparation and adoption of a master plan for the redevelopment of sites having an area in excess of 4,000 square metres. A master plan is to be adopted and in force prior to the grant of development consent. Any subsequent development application must be consistent with the provisions of the adopted master plan.

 

On 27 May 2003, Council adopted an amended master plan for the former Prince Henry Hospital site, which the subject site is part of.  The master plan was developed to facilitate the redevelopment of the hospital site for a mixture of residential, commercial and community based landuses while preserving the physical, cultural and built elements of conservation significance.

A thorough assessment of the development against the adopted master plan has been included in Section 8.1 of this report.

 

8.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

§  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

§  State Environmental Planning Policy – Seniors Living

§  State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Contaminated Land

§  State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection

§  State Environmental Planning Policy – State Significant Development

§  Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 14 – Eastern Beaches

§  Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

§  Building Code of Australia.

§  Development Control Plan – Prince Henry Site

§  DCP – Parking

§  Section 94 Contributions Plan

§  Rainwater Tanks Policy

 

8.1     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2D (Residential D – Comprehensive Development Zone) under RLEP98 and the proposed activity (residential care facility) is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the 2D zone which are generally to provide for residential development consistent with a master plan adopted under Clause 40A. The development is consistent with the Master Plan and the objectives of the 2D zone.

 

The following relevant clauses apply to the proposal:

 

Clause 30A         Development of Certain Land in Zone No 2D

 

Clause 30A of the Randwick LEP 1998 states that the controls applicable to land Zone 2D are identified in the supporting built form control maps applicable to the specific site (in this case the Prince Henry Site) which are as follows:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

30A(2)FSR

0.9:1

(10,035m2)

0.648:1

(7,232m2)

Yes

Number of Storeys

4 storeys maximum, eastern part of site limited to 2 storeys

4 storeys - Western building

2 storeys – Eastern Building

Yes

 

Yes

30A(4)Max. Wall Height

Max. Building Height

14m

 

15m

13.25m

 

14.95m

Yes

 

Yes

30A(3) Landscaped Area

40% site area (4,460m2)

70.6%

(7,871.9m2)

Yes

 

These controls are reflected in the DCP and discussion has been included in Section 10 of this report.

 

Clause 30B         Traffic and transport measures for Zone No 2D

 

Clause 30B requires Council to consider relevant transport and traffic measures when considering applications on land zoned 2D. Council has requested additional information to ensure that the proposal does not result in traffic impacts significantly beyond what was envisaged during previous planning phases for the Prince Henry Hospital site. As discussed in Section 10.14, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposal will be adequately serviced in terms of traffic and transport and no further measures are required.

 

Clause 40            Excavation and Filling of Land

 

The proposal requires excavation to the rear of the site of up to approximately 3 metres in depth. Clause 40 of the RLEP contains provisions for undertaking of excavation and filling of land.  The proposal will require some earthworks to be undertaken to construct the buildings and basement car parking areas. This work will not result in any significant impact on the topography of the site, is unlikely to interrupt the drainage patterns of the site or result in soil instability and will not adversely impact upon the scenic quality of the site and locality. The proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.

 

Clause 40A         Master plans

 

The Master Plan for the subject site was adopted in December 2001 subject to a number of matters being addressed in a revised Master Plan and subsequent development applications for the subject site. A revised Master Plan consistent with the required amendments was adopted by Council on 27 May 2003. The Master Plan acknowledged the provision of a residential aged care facility on the subject site and indicated the following provisions for the site:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

Number of Beds

100 total

124

No

    High Care

40

64

No

    Low Care

60

60

Yes

Basement Parking

10

40

Yes

At Ground Parking

 

 

 

    Ambulance

1

1 ambulance bay

Bus parking and loading dock

Yes

    Disabled

4

3 disabled + 1 basement

No

Footprint

3,379m2

2,479 m2

Yes

Height

 

 

 

    West

RL 55.0

RL55.4

No

    East

RL 49.0

RL48.6

Yes

The Master Plan clearly notes that:

 

Minor variation can be anticipated in the mix, number and area of dwellings and associated car parking.

 

Proposed building footprints are indicative.

 

The proposal’s departures from the Master Plan are generally considered to be minor and are the result of detailed design whereas the Master Plan is based on indicative/conceptual building footprints such that the Master Plan states that variation can be anticipated in the mix, number and area of buildings and associated carparking in future development applications.

 

It is considered that despite the departures the objectives of the master plan in relation to height, bulk, scale and heritage are met by the proposal despite minor departures from the height control to the west (Anzac Parade side) of the site. The number of beds proposed has been increased by 24 high care beds from the Master Plan suggestion of 40 beds. This increase can be accommodated within the allowable footprint, FSR and number of storeys on the site and therefore is not considered an overdevelopment. The parking provided to the development has been increased by 30 spaces over that considered adequate in the Master Plan to ensure no additional parking impact results from the increase.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to the approved master plan for the site and clause 40A of RLEP98.

 

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

 

Clause 43 of RLEP98 relates to heritage items and heritage conservation areas.  The subject site lies within the Prince Henry Site which is located within a conservation area and which has been gazetted in the State Heritage Register. A Heritage Impact Statement has been prepared and lodged with the application which has been assessed by Council’s Heritage Planner. In addition, General Terms of Approval have been issued by the Heritage Council of NSW for the proposal as the application constitutes integrated development.

 

8.2     Relevant State Environmental Planning Policies

 

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

 

·        State Environmental Planning Policy – Seniors Living

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Contaminated Land

·        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection

 

a)         SEPP – Seniors Living

 

Clause 4(2)e of the SEPP states that the SEPP does not apply where a listing on the State Heritage Register kept under the Heritage Act 1977 applies. Further consideration of the SEPP is therefore not required.

 

b)         SEPP 55 –      Remediation of Contaminated Land

 

This provides a state wide practice for the remediation of contaminated land. Sections of the former Prince Henry Hospital site are currently being remediated in accordance with SEPP No. 55 and the Contaminated Land Management Act. The applicant has advised that the subject site will be fully remediated as part of site-wide works prior to the commencement of construction. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has provided appropriate conditions covering the remediation as part of already approved site works, should approval be granted for the proposed development.

 

c)       SEPP 71 –  Coastal Protection

 

This SEPP provides for appropriate and suitably located development within the coastal zone of NSW through legislation of the NSW Coastal Policy. Currently, the policy does not specifically apply to the Prince Henry Site.

 

d)      SEPP – State Significant Development

 

This SEPP consolidates previous provisions for State Significant Development and requires that the Minister is the consent authority for such development. The site is not listed in the Schedules attached to the SEPP as being of state significance. In addition, the SEPP does not apply to applications lodged prior to May 25, 2005. No further consideration of the SEPP is required.

 

8.3     Sydney Regional Environmental Plan 14 – Eastern Beaches

 

The SREP aims to recognise the significance of the eastern beaches coastline. It contains design guidelines to promote the protection of the coastal environment. The design guidelines have been incorporated into the Master Plan for the site.

 

9.       POLICY CONTROLS

 

9.1     Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan

 

The subject site is located within Precinct P3 of the DCP and compliance with the controls applicable in this Precinct is shown in the table below:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

Density

 

 

 

FSR

0.9:1 (10,035m2)

0.648: 1 (7,232m2)

Yes

Height

 

 

 

Number of Storeys

4 storeys maximum, eastern part of site limited to 2 storeys

4 storeys - Western building

2 storeys – Eastern Building

Yes

 

Yes

Max. Wall Height

14m

 

13.25m

 

 

Yes

Max. Building Height

15m

14.95m

Yes

Floor to Ceiling Height

2.7m

2.7m (appears to be 2.6m on the plans but has been confirmed by the applicant)

Yes1

Landscaping

 

 

 

Landscaped Area

40% site area (4,460m2)

70.6% (7,871.9m2)

Yes

Soft Landscaping

20% site area (2,230m2)

Over 50% (5,575m2)

Yes

Setbacks

 

 

 

Anzac Parade

4.3m

7m

Yes

Brodie Avenue

25m

32m

Yes

NE Boundary

6m

21m

Yes

Landscape Strip

3m to Anzac Parade

3m

Yes

Alignment to heritage buildings

Alignment to match heritage buildings as per Figure 12

Building has been set out in accordance with Figure 12

Yes

1 A condition has been imposed to ensure the floor to ceiling heights comply

 

The DCP also contains a range of performance criteria for five key elements of the DCP namely site context, sub-division and amalgamation, building and site design, sustainable design, and facilities and access. The relevant performance criteria relating to dwelling houses are assessed in Section 9.2 below where any inconsistencies between the proposal and these performance criteria are discussed accordingly.

 

9.2     Development Control Plan – Parking

 

The DCP – Car Parking requires 1 car space per 2 staff members be provided plus 1 space per 10 beds for visitors. An ambulance parking space is also to be provided.

 

The development requires the following provision:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

Staff Parking

1 space per 2 staff

(10 spaces)

24 spaces

Yes

Visitor Parking

1 space per 10 beds

(12 spaces)

15 spaces

Yes

Ambulance parking

1 space

1 space

Yes

Disabled

3% (1 space)

4 spaces

Yes

Bicycle

1 space per 10 car spaces (2 spaces)

0 spaces

No*

* Condition of consent can be applied

 

The development generally complies with the DCP – Parking. The proposal does not provide bicycle parking in accordance with the DCP and ESD objectives for the site as a whole. Condition 17 requires that bicycle parking be provided on the site.

 

9.3     Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan can only be applied to dwellings or hospitals with over 100 beds (as major development). As this application does not propose “dwellings”, rather individual bedrooms a contribution cannot be levied in these terms. Likewise the application is not defined as a “hospital”, even though it comprises more than 100 ‘beds’ and the applicant has not approached Council under the Major Development provisions of the Plan.

 

Notwithstanding that a contribution is not payable for this development, the open space and community facility needs of the residents is likely to be largely catered for within the development itself, given the communal areas and landscaped courtyards proposed. This provision lessens the requirement for public facilities and services. The proposal provides adequate carparking and will not result in any significant impact on existing infrastructure such as roads.

 

9.4     Rainwater Tanks Policy, 2003

 

Council’s Rainwater Tanks Policy requires installation of rainwater tanks for all residential development. The Master Plan also recommends collection of roof water for irrigation and the DCP requires compliance with the Rainwater Tanks Policy. In accordance with the DCP, the applicant has provided a Sustainability Report which indicates greywater reuse and water conservation measures but does not include rainwater collection. A condition requiring the installation of a rainwater tank with a capacity sufficient to provide for landscape irrigation, toilet flushing and laundry purposes has been included in the recommendation (see Condition 24).

 

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   Height

 

The proposal complies with the building envelope for the site as set by the Precinct Controls in the DCP. The development complies with the maximum number of storeys for the site, being 4 to Anzac Parade and 2 to Brodie Avenue under the DCP. The development also complies with the building height control of 15 metres, the maximum height of the building being 14.95 metres above existing ground level. The maximum wall height of the development also meets the control of 14 metres, being 13.25 metres at the highest point (northwestern corner).

 

The applicant has indicated that the floor to ceiling height of the development is 2.7 metres, this complies with the DCP requirement of 2.7 metres. To clarify the information provided on the plans, Condition 23 requires that the finished floor to finished ceiling level of the development is 2.7 metres.

 

The compliance of the proposal with the DCP controls for height have minimised the impact of the development in terms of overshadowing and bulk and scale. The compliance of the proposal also ensures that the development is consistent with surrounding developments as envisaged by the master planning and DCP preparation process.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to building height.

 

10.2   Density

 

The development has an FSR of 0.648:1 (7, 232m2) and is well within the LEP and DCP requirement of 0.9:1 (10,035m2) despite the increase in the number of beds envisaged in the master plan from 100 to 124. The proposal also achieves the landscaped area and height requirements, further indicating that the increase in bed numbers does not represent overdevelopment of the site.

 

The applicant has provided additional information regarding the traffic generation of the development that has indicated minimal increases, in terms of this site and cumulatively across the whole master plan site. The increased density in number of beds can be accommodated on the site without substantial impacts on the local area in terms of services and facilities.

 

The density on the site is consistent with the allowable FSR under RLEP98 and the DCP and the 24 beds provided in addition to the density envisaged under the master plan will not result in significant additional impacts on the locality.

 

10.3   Setbacks

 

The development complies with setback controls to all boundaries and generally provides setbacks which are more generous than those required under the DCP. The setbacks will ensure consistency with surrounding developments and ensure the outcome of development on the subject site and adjoining sites is consistent with the strategic planning undertaken in the master planning and DCP preparation stages. The large side setbacks will protect adjoining developments from impacts such as overshadowing, bulk and scale and visual privacy impacts. The large setback (32m) from Brodie Avenue will ensure that the setting of the Flowers wards is not disrupted by the development and that the sandstone rock outcrops are retained.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to setbacks.

 

10.4   Articulation

 

The development provides adequate articulation to all facades. Concerns raised by the Design Review Panel regarding the design of the building and built form at the preliminary stage have been resolved through the detailed design process. Glazed stairwells will provide additional interest to the Anzac Parade façade at night time. Building elements such as the sun shading and window reveals to the building have been highlighted through the materials and colours chosen and will result in a high degree of visual relief and architectural modelling to the building.

 

The articulation of the building has been located within the building envelope set by the DCP and will not extend beyond the articulation zone indicated for the site as required by the DCP.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to articulation.

 

10.5   Landscaped Area and Private Open Space

 

The development complies with the landscaped area requirements under RLEP98, providing 3,000m2 of landscaping in excess of Council’s requirements. The open space is located to provide amenity to residents, providing a north facing and south facing courtyard area to the development to cater to seasonal variation. The proposal provides the required 3 metre wide landscaped strip to Anzac Parade to soften the street frontage and provide a consistent treatment.

 

Courtyard areas are provided to ground level rooms resulting in additional amenity to these rooms. The provision of courtyards also increase the variety of accommodation provided within the development and caters to a greater diversity of residents.

 

The proposal will not affect significant heritage landscape features on the site such as the heritage gate posts and tree stand to the southern end of the site, the sandstone rock outcrops and the setting of the New Zealand Christmas Tree outside the Flowers Wards on Brodie Avenue opposite the site. The proposed landscape treatment utilises generally native coastal species including many species listed in Appendix A of the DCP. The dementia courtyard has more traditional European plantings. The applicant has advised that this plant choice is to provide a sensory garden for therapeutic reasons as the dementia courtyard. It is considered that this is acceptable given the majority of the site will be landscaped with low water demand native plants.

 

Council’s Landscape technician has provided comments in relation to the development. Conditions suggested by the landscape technician have been included in the recommendation section of this report (see Conditions 114-127).

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to landscaping.

 

10.6   Solar Access

 

The DCP requires that new dwellings must achieve 3 hours of solar access 9am to 3pm midwinter and that solar access to at least 50% of the communal and private open space of adjoining properties must be achieved for at least 3 hours 9am to 3pm midwinter. The DCP also requires that development maximise north facing rooves for installation of solar collectors.

 

The development does not comprise dwellings, however it is a residential building and therefore the DCP requirements should be adhered to as closely as possible to achieve good amenity to the bedrooms and communal spaces within the development.

 

The communal areas of the development have been concentrated in the glazed north-facing link building. These areas will achieve excellent solar access from 9am to approximately 1.30pm midwinter. Service areas such as the kitchen, laundry and plant rooms have been located on the south western and southeastern corners of the building at lower levels where solar access is limited. This allows maximum solar access to the bedrooms and habitable areas such as consulting rooms. The east-west layout of the building to achieve streetscape considerations has been offset by the glazed link to maximise northerly orientation and also ensures all bedrooms have maximum access to sunlight by minimising the length of the southern elevations and orienting all rooms east or west. 46% of beds have been oriented west and these rooms achieve full solar access for more than three hours midwinter. Northerly and northeastern rooms will also receive three hours or more of direct solar access midwinter and comprise 11% of beds. Therefore the majority (57%) of beds meet the requirements for residential solar access under the DCP.

 

The elevations have been treated to modulate solar access by the use of sunshading devices, articulation and overhangs to the western facade with greater areas of glazing on the northern, southern and eastern elevations.

 

North facing solar panels have been located on the roof of the development in accordance with the DCP.

 

The north facing dementia courtyard will receive solar access to a majority of its area up until approximately 1pm in midwinter. The southern courtyard will be overshadowed substantially at 9am and 3pm but will achieve good solar access at midday midwinter. The overshadowing is a result of the footprint of the building, the shape of which has been determined as a result of the master planning and DCP preparation processes. The development achieves a high level of compliance with the requirements of the DCP and therefore the overshadowing to the courtyard is considered reasonable and not the result of overdevelopment.

 

The overshadowing diagrams indicate the shadow from the building will largely fall within the subject site with some additional shadowing to the adjoining site to the south during midwinter mornings. The additional shadow will not significantly affect the redevelopment potential of this land, nor any remnant bushland in accordance with the DCP requirements.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to solar access.

 

10.7   Privacy

 

There privacy controls relate to residential development in general with emphasis on residential flat buildings. The development has been assessed against these requirements and meets the acoustic privacy criteria outlined in section 4.12 of the DCP (refer to comments under Section 6.1).

 

The courtyard form of the development provides separation of over 25 metres between the eastern and western wings of the building, which is well in excess of the 12 metres required in the DCP. Pergolas over ground level courtyards prevent overlooking of these spaces from bedrooms above. Where windows are closer than 12 metres (such as between the eastern wing and link building at level 1) recessed glazing and projecting window frames obscure sightlines between windows ensuring privacy.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to visual and acoustic privacy.

 

10.8   Roof Design

 

Flat rooves with parapets are proposed to the development. This form of roofing is appropriate to the scale of proposed buildings and the contemporary coastal character encouraged by the DCP. Lift installations will not protrude from the roof in accordance with the requirements of the DCP. Skylights are raised over circulation area to provide natural daylight to these areas and solar panels have been incorporated into the design to maximise energy efficiency.

 

The roof design is satisfactory with regard to the DCP.

 

10.9   Fences

 

The DCP requires that low fencing 700mm high be provides to the Anzac Parade frontage of the site, that fencing be integrated with the building through materials choice and compatible detailing and that landscaping should be incorporated where appropriate. Side boundary fences are to have a maximum height of 1.8 metres. Solid fencing to the street is to be a maximum height of 1.2 metres. Multi unit housing may use fencing with a maximum height of 1.5 metres to delineate public and private open space.

 

Palisade style open fencing to a height of 1.8 metres is proposed to the site boundaries, turning back on itself at the building line to preserve openness to the front setback to Anzac Parade and Brodie Avenue. The fencing will secure the site but still allow casual surveillance between the site and surrounds.

 

Masonry fencing 1.8 metres high has been shown to the courtyards of dwellings to the west of the site (Anzac Parade) and between the northern and southern boundaries of the site and the eastern elevation (to Brodie Avenue). This does not comply with the requirements of the DCP and on the Anzac Parade frontage the height of the fencing decreases surveillance and creates bulk on the frontage. In order to address this issue, Condition 17 requires that the 1.8 metre high fences to courtyards facing Anzac Parade have openings to make them at least 50% transparent.

 

Timber fencing has been indicated as providing a barrier between the private courtyard and public open space areas of the development.

 

No fencing has been shown to the Anzac Parade frontage. Low masonry fencing is required under the DCP to provide consistency between sites along Anzac Parade. Condition 19 requires that a low (700mm high) masonry fence be provided along the Anzac Parade frontage to provide consistency with adjoining sites to be developed in the future.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to fencing, subject to compliance with conditions of consent.

 

10.10 Safety and Security

 

A brief Crime Risk Assessment has been included in the Statement of Environmental Effects, despite the proposal providing less than 20 self-contained dwellings. The assessment includes provisions such as CCTV, casual surveillance and control of access to the building via intercom system. A 600mm high fence will delineate the public domain from the private landscaped areas around the development.

 

The design has considered the safety and security of residents and visitors and provides for controlled access and casual surveillance. The provision of glazed communal areas which overlook the external courtyards assists in minimising the potential for concealment. Reception areas and staff areas are well located to assist in controlling entry to the development from Anzac Parade and Brodie Avenue.

 

The development is satisfactory with regard to safety and security.

 

10.11 Materials and Finishes

 

The proposed rendered masonry and metal sheet roofing complies with the DCP requirements for materials and colours. A sample board has been submitted that indicates large wall surfaces of the building will the painted in light colours with stronger feature colours reserved for highlighting architectural features, such as the blade walls at ground floor level. Timber fencing and louvres will provide human scale and provide a residential character to the development.

 

The proposed materials and finishes will have a positive impact on the streetscape of Anzac Parade and surrounding sites, including heritage items.

 

10.12 Sustainable Design

 

The DCP includes objectives and performance criteria for sustainable design within Heritage buildings and structures, the community centre and multi-unit and mixed-use design. The use of the site for residential aged care is not categorised as any of these types of development, however the applicant has submitted a Sustainability Report and made some commitments to achieving energy and water efficiency within the functional requirements of the development.

 

The sustainability report indicates that the development is likely to result in an average reduction in energy use of 35% compared to the average for this type of facility with a reduction in energy used for lighting of 60%. The report indicates an average reduction in water use of 39% compared to the average for this type of facility with a reduction of 99% in the water used for landscape irrigation. Façade cleaning and washdown of pavements have been excluded from the study.

 

While these benchmarks and improvements show a strong commitment to ESD, the applicant has not indicated inclusion of a rainwater tank as per the requirements of the DCP and Council’s Rainwater Tanks Policy. The applicant has included a greywater reuse program on the site as a potential option but this may not be included at the final design stage. Provision of a rainwater tank in the development to complement any future greywater system for irrigation and toilet flushing has been included as a condition of consent (see Condition 24).

 

A waste management plan has been submitted as per the requirements of the DCP.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to Sustainable Design.

 

10.13 Facilities and Access

 

The performance criteria for facilities and access generally apply to multi-unit housing developments. The development provides for pedestrian access from Anzac Parade and Brodie Avenue and vehicular access from Brodie Avenue as per the Master Plan and DCP requirements.

 

The applicant has provided an access report which considers the proposal against the relevant Australian Standard, BCA and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The report indicates the proposal is generally satisfactory with regard to these requirements and makes several recommendations with regard to improvements to achieve compliance. Compliance with these recommendations has been included as a condition of consent (see Condition 25).

 

In order to encourage alternative transport and ESD principles, Condition 19 has been imposed, requiring inclusion of bicycle parking spaces for the development. The development provides adequate facilities and access for residents and visitors.

 

10.14 Parking and Traffic

 

The development complies with the required parking under the approved master plan (with the exception of the location of one disabled parking space). The proposal also complies with the requirements of the DCP – Parking in terms of car parking spaces. The proposal does not provide the required number of bicycle parking spaces. These spaces are to be provided to encourage sustainable modes of transport in line with the Master Plan and the overall vision for the Prince Henry site and achieve compliance with the DCP – Parking. Condition 19 requires 2 bicycle parking spaces be provided to the development.

 

Council raised concern that several recent applications for the Prince Henry site made increases to the density and intensity of development envisaged by the Master Plan. The cumulative impact of these increases on traffic generation have been addressed by the applicant.

 

The additional 24 beds proposed on the subject site result in an additional 12 daily vehicle trips (a total of 62) and an additional 1.2 peak trips per day (a total of 6). The cumulative impact of the likely 22% increase in number of dwellings on the site is to reduce the level of service at Pine Avenue/ Anzac Parade intersection from an A level of service to a B level of service and the Little Bay Road/ Anzac Parade intersection to a B level of service during evening peak times.  The RTA Guide describes Level of Service B as being “good with acceptable delays and spare capacity”. Therefore, the increased dwelling yield on the subject site can be accommodated and will not result in an unreasonable cumulative increase in traffic from the site as a whole.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to traffic and parking.

 

11.     FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.     CONCLUSION

 

It is considered that the proposed building is appropriate on the site given the desired future character of the area, the objectives and standards contained within the RLEP98, the Prince Henry Hospital Site DCP and the approved master plan for the site. The development proposes a building envelope, FSR, height and landscaping that generally meet the criteria and fulfil these objectives.

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties, heritage items and areas and the non-compliances with policy controls will not exacerbate impacts, subject to compliance with conditions of consent. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 43/2005 for Construction of a 2-4 storey Aged Care Facility comprising 124 bed spaces and basement carparking for 43 vehicles at 1430 Anzac Parade - Prince Henry Hospital Site subject to the following conditions:-

 

Heritage Office – General Terms of Approval

 

1.       The development must be in accordance with the following documents:

 

a)       Architectural drawings: L58-A.00(A), L58-A.01(A), L58-A.02(A), L58-A.03(A), L58-A.04(A), L58-A.05(A), L58-A.06(A), L58-A.07(A), L58-A.08(A), L58-A.09(A), L58-A.10(A), L58-A.11(A), LA030(B);

b)      Statement of Environmental Effect (SEE) prepared by GSA Planning Pty Ltd (GSA) dated December 2004 containing Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) dated December 2004, prepared by GSA Planning and Report, dated 18 March, 2004, prepared by Urban Bushland Management Consultants;

c)       Conservation Management Plan (CMP) dated February, 2003 and Archaeological Management Plan (AMP) dated August 2002 prepared by Godden Mackay Logan both endorsed by the NSW Heritage Council;

d)      Landscape Master Plan LA030 prepared by EDAW Gillespies dated November 2004;

e)       Bushland Management Plan, dated November 2004 prepared by Manidis Roberts; and

f)       Road Network Specific Element Conservation Plan (SECP) dated July 2003, prepared by Godden Mackay Logan.

 

Further Information

 

2.       The following further information is to be submitted to Randwick City Council for approval prior to the release of the construction certificate:

 

a)       A schedule of the proposed external colours and finishes is to be submitted to Randwick City Council for approval prior to the release of the construction certificate.  To ensure that the building does not stand out, the palate of external colours and finishes should be muted.  External materials should not include highly reflective materials and large areas of glazing should be shaded to reduce its reflectivity;

b)      A Maintenance and Monitoring Plan, including a cyclic maintenance plan, is to be prepared to ensure regular monitoring, maintenance and repair of Lot’s significant elements, including the Sandstone Outcrops (CMP Item L-15) and the entrance gates to the former Chief Executive Officer’s residence and plantings (CMP Item L-24).  The Plan is to form part of the site’s Community Management Statement to ensure its policies and recommendations are implemented;

c)       To confirm the location and condition of the sandstone pieces which originated from the Chief Executive Officer’s residence complex, their retention and presentation within the proposed landscaping;

 

Aboriginal Archaeology

 

3.       Ground disturbance and excavation undertaken as part of the proposed works are to be undertaken in consultation with the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council (LPLALC) and, where requested, be subject to LPLALC and archaeological monitoring;

 

4.       Prior to the commencement of the proposed works, all contractors and relevant personnel involved are to be made aware of the existence of identified Aboriginal archaeological sites at the Prince Henry site by way of an induction process, and of the possibility that more as yet undiscovered Aboriginal cultural material may exist there;

 

5.       Site contractors are to be advised of their obligations under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) and notification procedures in the event that any Aboriginal cultural material is disturbed or exposed during site works;

 

6.       Should Aboriginal objects be found, the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) is to be informed (as required by the provisions of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974).  Subject to an assessment of the extent, integrity and significance of any exposed objects, applications under either Section 87 or Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act may be required before work could resume.

 

Historical Archaeology

 

7.       If any relics of state significance are uncovered, further excavation must stop and the NSW Heritage Office notified immediately.  Further approval will need to be obtained from the NSW Heritage Council as changes to the design and scope of the proposed works may be required depending upon the significance of the relics found;

 

8.       Suitable clauses are to be included in all contractor and subcontractor contracts to ensure that on-site personnel are aware of their obligations and requirements in relation to the relics provisions of the Heritage Act;

9.       Prior to the commencement of the proposed works, all those involved are to be made aware by way of an induction of the existence of historical archaeological remains at the Prince Henry site;

 

Landscape

 

10.     The Sandstone Outcrops (CMP Item L-15) and the entrance gates to the former Chief Executive Officer’s residence and plantings (CMP Item L-24) shall be retained and meaningfully integrated and interpreted within the proposed landscape design.

 

11.     Disturbance to existing indigenous vegetation and subsurface deposits should be limited by appropriate protection measures and all efforts should be made to define a specific development impact footprint that should be adhered to throughout the course of the site works;

 

12.     Seed stock indigenous to the site and/or locality (the Prince Henry site, being weed affected, may not be able to provide sufficient stock) should also be used to generate the proposed new landscaping.  Written confirmation of this requirement is to be submitted to the Director of the Heritage Office for approval prior to the release of the construction certificate;

 

Interpretation

 

13.     Any site specific interpretation (proposed themes and media), proposed way signage and street furniture at the SLHC site are to be in accordance with the Prince Henry site Interpretation Strategy, dated November 2004 prepared by Musecape, and submitted to Randwick City Council for approval prior to the release of the construction certificate.  The site specific interpretation should particularly present information about the former buildings and uses on the subject site as well as the sandstone outcrops and the entrance gates to the former Chief Executive Officer’s residence, grass tennis court and plantings. 

 

Works

 

14.     Significant built and landscape elements, features and fragile materials are to be adequately protected during the works from potential damage.  Protection systems must ensure historic fabric is not damaged or removed.  Significant fabric in the vicinity of the development and wherever construction vehicles are used are to be protected during excavation and construction work.  A methodology describing the protection of significant built and landscape elements during the work is to be prepared in consultation with and to the approval of the nominated heritage consultant.  The methodology is to be included in a Master Program and Site Co-ordination Plan (or Work Plan) and submitted to Randwick Council for approval with the Construction Certificate;

 

15.     The installation of services shall be carried out in such a manner as to minimise damage to or removal of historic built and landscape fabric and shall not obscure historic features.  Service runs should be grouped and concealed within the new work.  Proposed service reticulation is to minimise any crossings and interface with retained significant fabric; and

 

S60 application

 

16.     An application under section 60 of the NSW Heritage Act is be submitted and approved by the NSW Heritage Council prior to work commencing.

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

17.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with Revision A of the plans drawn by Morrison Design Partnership numbered L58-A.00 to L58-A.10, and stamped received by Council on 24 January 2005, the Landscape Masterplan drawn by EDAW Gillespies, Issue B of drawing number LA030 and stamped received by Council on 24 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:

 

18.     The fences to courtyards facing Anzac Parade are to be a maximum height of 1.8m and be designed so that the upper two thirds of the fence is at least 50% open, to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the streetscape.

 

19.     A masonry fence 700mm high is to be provided along the Anzac Parade frontage of the site. Details are to be provided on the Construction Certificate plans. This condition is imposed to ensure compliance with the Prince Henry Site DCP and provide a consistent appearance to the Anzac Parade frontage of the site.

 

20.     A minimum of 2 secure bicycle parking spaces are to be provided on the site in close proximity to the eastern entry to the building. Details are to be shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

21.     Any sandstone removed from outcrop to allow for the driveway should be retained and then reused onsite in conjunction with the works identified in the landscape plan.

 

22.     A site specific Interpretation Plan in accordance with Heritage Office requirements is to be prepared and implemented in conjunction with the proposed development and shall be to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  The Interpretation Plan should address, but not be limited to, the significance of the gates and their relationship to the subject site and the subject site’s significance within the wider Prince Henry Hospital context.

 

23.     The finished floor to finished ceiling height of each habitable level within the development is to be 2.7 metres. This condition is imposed to ensure the development meets residential amenity standards and to clarify the approved plans.

 

          Details are to be shown on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

 

24.     A rainwater tank, of sufficient size to provide water for irrigation of landscaped areas within the development and for internal toilet flushing and clothes washing machine use, is to be provided to the development in accordance with Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

          The tank is to be located to minimise its visibility from the street and adjoining sites. The tank is to be installed behind the front building line and is to be located at or below ground level and be incorporated into the relevant construction certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

The following conditions are imposed to ensure the proposal meets accessibility standards:

 

25.     The development is to comply with all recommendations of the Access Review Report prepared by Morris Goding Accessibility Consulting dated 10 January 2005.

 

Details are to be submitted with the Construction Certificate plans.

 

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

 

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

 

          In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an LAeq, 15 min sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Department of Environment & Conservation Noise Control Guidelines.

 

27.     A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

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

 

28.     There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

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

 

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

 

30.     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.

 

31.     All new building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) ,in this case all of the relevant requirements for a Class 9c building , in accordance with Clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

32.     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.

 

33.     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.

 

34.     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.

 

35.     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”.

 

36.     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 relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

37.     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 conditions of consent.

 

38.     In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

41.     A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of potential vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby land/premises.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

43.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of the Matron Dixon building

 

          The report is to be supported with photographic evidence of the status and condition of the buildings and a copy of the report must also be forwarded to the Council and to the owners of each of the abovestated premises, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

44.     The installation of ground or rock anchors underneath any adjoining premises including a public roadway or public place must not be carried out without specific written consent of the owners of the affected adjoining premises and (where applicable) details of compliance must be provided to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of any excavation or building works.

 

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

 

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

 

46.     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.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

49.     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.

 

50.     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.

 

51.     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.

 

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

 

a)       Prior to construction of the first completed floor/floor slab (prior to pouring of concrete), showing the area of land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building is being construction at the approved levels.

 

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

 

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

 

54.     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.

 

55.     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.

 

56.     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.

 

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

 

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

·        location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·        location of building materials for construction;

·        provisions for public safety;

·        dust control measures;

·        site access location and construction

·        details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·        protective measures for tree preservation;

·        provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·        location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·        details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·        construction noise and vibration management.

 

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

 

58.     During demolition excavation and construction works, dust emissions must be minimised, so as not to result in a nuisance to nearby residents or result in a potential pollution incident.

 

          Adequate dust control measures must be provided to the site prior to the works commencing and the measures and practices must be maintained throughout the demolition, excavation and construction process, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

          Dust control measures and practices may include:-

 

·        Provision of geotextile fabric to all perimeter site fencing (attached on the prevailing wind side of the site fencing).

·        Covering of stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material with adequately secured tarpaulins or plastic sheeting.

·        Installation of a water sprinkling system or provision hoses or the like.

·        Regular watering-down of all loose materials and stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material.

·        Minimisation/relocation of stockpiles of materials, to minimise potential for disturbance by prevailing winds.

·        Revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

60.     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.

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

 

61.     A temporary timber crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, to the satisfaction of Council, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

62.     The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $5 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council.

 

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

 

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

 

          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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to provide reasonable levels of access for people with disabilities:

 

64.     Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1 and Council’s development control plan for multi-unit housing.  Details of the proposed access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development in accordance with Section 80 A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity and public health safety.

 

65.     The land must be remediated in accordance with Council’s Development Consent 1188/02 (as amended). If not already furnished to Council, copies of the relevant Clearance Instructions or Site Audit Statements for the relevant land must be provided to the Council prior to any infrastructure works commencing.

 

66.     No infrastructure or construction works are permitted to be undertaken unless the subject land has been remediated in accordance with consent 1188/02 (as amended) and all contamination and cross contamination issues have been addressed and the land is the subject of either a Site Audit Statement or a Clearance Instruction.

 

67.     The applicant is to engage the services of a suitably qualified environmental consultant to respond to enquiries and complaints made by the Community or Council in relation to contamination, remediation and construction site management matters.

 

          A specific contact number is to be made available for such enquiries and complaints (including an after hours emergency contact number) and a complaints register is to be maintained to record all such enquiries, complaints and actions taken in response to same, which is to be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

68.     The works shall not give rise to environmental pollution or public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or NSW Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 and Regulations there under.

 

69.     Any new information which comes to light during remediation, demolition or construction works which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination shall be notified to the Council immediately.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

72.     The internal acoustic amenity criteria for the proposed Aged Care facility is to be provided as detailed in AS 2107 and the Noise Impact Assessment (report 2004778/2311A/R1/GP) titled “Prince Henry Lot 9, 18 and 58 Aged Care Development” dated 21 December 2004, which was submitted with this development application.

 

73.     A report/correspondence prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics shall be submitted to Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates that noise and vibration emissions from the development will comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and relevant conditions of approval.

 

74.     A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council ’s Manager of Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

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

 

75.     The location and height of the discharge of mechanical ventilation and exhaust systems are required to satisfy the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS 1668 and details are to be provided in the relevant plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

76.     There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises which give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

77.     An application, in accordance with Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1999, must be submitted to and approved by Council prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development, for the installation and operation of a Greywater Treatment/Diversion System. Details of compliance with relevant NSW Health Department Guidelines are to be provided with the application.

 

78.     The greywater system is to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the requirements of relevant NSW Health Guidelines for Greywater and Sewage Recycling systems and devices.

 

79.     Warm water systems and/or Cooling Towers must be designed, installed and maintained in accordance with the requirement of the Public Health Act 1991 (Part 4 Microbial Control) and Regulations.  The air handling system cooling tower must be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the relevant requirements of AS/NZS 3666.1 (2002), AS/NZS 3666.2 (2002) and AS/NZS 3666.3 (2000).

 

          Details of compliance must be provided with the construction certificate application.

 

          Waste water from cooling tower warm water systems are to be discharged to the sewer under a Trade Waste Agreement from Sydney Water.

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure compliance with Local Government Legislation and Policies of Council:

 

80.     Legionella control – cooling towers, warm water systems and water cooling systems must be registered with the Council prior to occupation and on an annual basis and the systems are to be maintained and certified in accordance with the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1991.

 

          The premises is to be registered with Council together with payment of the approved fee, prior to occupancy of the building.

 

81.     Hairdressers, Beauty salons must comply with the Local Government (Orders) Regulations 1999 and the Public Health Act & Regulations 1991, and the premises is to be registered with Council prior to occupation and on an annual basis and the approved registration/inspection fee is to be forwarded to the Council prior to occupation.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Food Act 2003 and to ensure public health and safety:

 

82.     The premises is to be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004 and Food Standards Code and details of compliance are to be included in the documentation for the construction certificate to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

83.     Food safety practices and operation of the food premises must be in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004, Food Standards Code and Food Safety Standards at all times, including the requirements and provisions relating to:

 

·        Food handling – skills, knowledge and controls.

·        Health and hygiene requirements.

·        Requirements for food handlers and businesses.

·        Cleaning, sanitising and maintenance.

·        Design and construction of food premises, fixtures, fitting and equipment.

 

          A failure to comply with the relevant food safety requirements is an offence and may result in legal proceedings, service of notices and/or the issuing of on-the-spot penalty infringement notices.

 

84.     The food premises must be registered with Council's Environmental Health section and the NSW Food Authority must  also be notified of the food business in accordance with the Food Safety Standards,  prior to commencement of food business operations.

 

85.     Upon completion of the work and prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the premises must be inspected by Council’s Environmental Health Officer to ascertain compliance with relevant Food Safety Standards and the written approval of Council (being the relevant Food Authority for this food business) must be obtained prior to the operation of the food business.

 

86.     The Proprietor of the food business and all staff carrying out food handling and food storage activities must have appropriate skills and knowledge in food safety and food hygiene matters, as required by the Food Safety Standards.

 

87.     The design and construction of food premises must comply with the following requirements, as applicable:-

 

·        The floors of kitchens, food preparation areas and the like are to be constructed of materials which are impervious, non slip and non abrasive.  The floor is to be finished to a smooth even surface, graded and drained to a floor waste connected to the sewer.

 

·        The intersection of walls with floor and plinths is to be coved, to facilitate cleaning.

 

·        Walls of the kitchen preparation areas and the like are to be of suitable construction finished in a light colour with glazed tiles, stainless steel, laminated plastics or similar approved material adhered directly to the wall adjacent to cooking and food preparation facilities or areas, to provide a smooth even surface.

 

·        The glazed tiling or other approved material is to extend up to the underside of any mechanical exhaust ventilation hoods and a minimum of 450mm above bench tops or other facilities and equipment.

 

·        Walls where not tiled are to be cement rendered or be of rigid smooth faced non-absorbent material (i.e. fibrous cement sheeting, plasterboard or other approved material) and finished to a smooth even surface, painted with a washable paint of a light colour or sealed with other approved materials.

 

·        The ceilings of kitchens, food preparation areas, storerooms and the like are to be of rigid smooth-faced, non absorbent material i.e., fibrous plaster, plasterboard, fibre cement sheet, cement render or other approved material.

 

·        All stoves, refrigerators, bain-maries, stock pots, washing machines, hot water heaters, large scales, food mixers, food warmers, cupboards, counters, bars etc…. to be supported on wheels, concrete plinths a minimum 75mm in height, metal legs minimum 150mm in height, brackets or approved metal framework of the like.

 

·        Cupboards, cabinets, benches and shelving may be glass, metal, plastic, timber sheeting or other approved material.  The use of particleboard or similar material is not permitted unless laminated on all surfaces.

 

·        Adequate fly screens and doors with self-closing devices, (where applicable), are to be provided to all external door and window openings.  An electronic insect control device must also be provided within the food premises.

 

·        Garbage storage enclosures are to be fitted with a hose cock and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste connected to the sewer.

 

·        A mechanical ventilation exhaust system hood is to be installed where cooking or heating processes are carried out in the kitchen or in food preparation areas, in accordance with the relevant requirements of Clause F4.12 of the BCA and Australian Standard AS 1668 Parts 1 & 2.

 

·        Wash hand basins must be provided in convenient positions, with hot and cold water, together with a sufficient supply of soap and clean towels.  Such hot and cold water shall be supplied to the wash hand basins through an approved mixing device.

 

·        Ceramic tiles being provided to a height of 450mm above bench tops, wash hand basins and similar fittings.

 

·        A numerically scaled indicating thermometer or recording thermometer, accurate to the nearest degree Celsius being provided to refrigerators, cool rooms, other cooling appliances and bain-maries or other heated food storage/display appliances.  The thermometer is to be located so as to be read easily from the outside of the appliance.

 

·        All food that is to be kept hot should be heated within one (1) hour from the time when it was prepared or was last kept cold, to a temperature of not less than 60C and keep this food hot at or above the temperature.  Food that is to be kept cold should be cooled, within four (4) hours from the time when it was prepared or was last kept hot, to a temperature of not more that 5C and keep this food cold at or below that temperature.

 

88.     Details of proposed mechanical ventilation systems, detailing compliance with the relevant requirements of Clause F4.12 of the BCA and Australian Standard AS 1668 Parts 1 & 2 (including exhaust air quantities and discharge location points) are to be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority with the construction certificate and a copy of relevant documentation is to be provided to Council.

 

89.     Emission control equipment shall be provided in the mechanical exhaust system serving the cooking appliances, to effectively minimise the emission of odours, vapours and oils. 

 

          Details of the proposed emission control equipment must be provided in the documentation for the construction certificate and be approved by the certifying authority in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, prior to issuing the construction certificate.

 

90.     Liquid trade waste materials are to be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water, Trade Waste Department and details of compliance are to be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of works

 

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

 

91.     The applicant shall construct a heavy-duty concrete vehicular crossing and layback at the kerb opposite the proposed vehicular entrance to the site, in Brodie Avenue. The works are to be in accordance with Australian Standard specifications for driveways, and in general accordance with Randwick City Council's ‘Standard Kerb and Gutter and Vehicular Crossing Detail’ (Drawing SD4).

 

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

 

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

 

93.     The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundaries, shall be as follows:

 

·        In Anzac Parade (for the proposed pedestrian entrance) – Match the back of the existing footpath along the site frontage.

 

·        In Brodie Avenue (for the proposed driveway and pedestrian entrance) - Generally 2.5% above the top of the kerb at all points opposite the kerb.

 

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

 

94.     The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

97.     Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been satisfied, must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

98.     Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within the site and shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant must liaise with Energy Australia prior to lodging the construction certificate whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

          The Notice must be issued to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the construction certificate being issued.

 

          The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to occupation of the development.

 

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

 

100.   Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)       A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)      A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system. 

 

c)       Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (ie. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage system.

 

d)      The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.      Grassed areas

iv.      Garden areas

 

e)       Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

f)       Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

g)       The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

101.   All stormwater run-off naturally draining to the site must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

102.   All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged to the new storage pond (located adjacent to Fairway 7 within the Coast golf course), via the street drainage system in Brodie Avenue. The stormwater shall be discharged directly to the underground drainage system via a kerb inlet pit. It is noted that all kerb inlet pits shall be constructed in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD6.

 

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

 

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

 

104.   Any Infiltration systems/Absorption Trenches must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

105.   A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided:-

 

a)       within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system; and

b)      prior to stormwater discharging into any absorption/infiltration system.

 

          The sediment/silt arrester pit shall be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:-

 

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

 

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

 

·        A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

 

·        A galvanised heavy-duty screen located over the outlet pipe/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

 

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

 

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

 

·        A sign adjacent to the pit stating:

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

 

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

 

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

 

107.   Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council’s Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the conditions of development consent. The certification must be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

108.   Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer. The works-as-executed drainage plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and shall include the location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes.

 

109.   Should significant continual seepage flows be encountered within the depth of the basement excavation the basement carpark shall be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

          Notes:-

 

a)       Any subsoil drainage (from planter boxes etc) is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be discharged to Council’s kerb & gutter and/or underground drainage system.

 

b)      Adequate provision is to be made for the seepage water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

110.   Any seepage water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. Seepage water must not be drained from the site.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for waste management:

 

111.   Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the proposed development, the applicant is to submit to Council's Manager of Waste a Waste Management Plan for the site that includes details regarding how the garbage compactor system will be safely managed.

 

112.   The garbage storage area is to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste to the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

113.   The garbage storage area is to be clearly signposted.

 

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

 

114.   The landscaped areas shown on the landscape Masterplan prepared by EDAW-Gillespie, Issue B, project number VE01973, drawing number LA030, dated 10/11/2004 shall be the subject of detailed landscape drawings and specifications, which are to be submitted to, and approved by, the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. If Council is not the certifying authority for the site, the applicant will still be required to forward a copy of the approved plans to Council for record purposes. The landscape drawings and specifications are to be prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect who is eligible for membership with the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA). The documentation is to include:

 

a.       A site plan at an appropriate scale showing existing site boundaries, existing trees within the property (clearly identified as being retained or removed), existing street trees (clearly identified as being retained or removed), features on adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary (buildings, trees, other structures etc), council’s footway, existing and proposed ground levels shown as spot heights and/or contours over the site, at site boundaries, and at the base of the trees to be retained, proposed building envelope, proposed areas of pavement, and proposed landscaped areas.

 

          The plan shall clearly show the position, canopy spread (location of dripline), trunk diameter, height and names of all existing trees upon the site and adjoining sites within 6 metres of the common property boundary which are likely to be affected by the development.

 

b.       A planting plan at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 indicating the location of all proposed planting and existing trees to be retained. All plants are to be drawn at their mature size with a dense planting of shrubs, accent plants and ground covers within all garden beds so that a continuous planted cover is achieved. Plant spacings are to be clearly indicated for all accent and groundcovers.

 

c.       A planting schedule listing all plants by botanic & common names, plant numbers, plant spacings for groundcovers and accent planting, pot sizes, the estimated size of the plant at maturity (height & spread) and proposed staking methods when applicable.

 

d.       Additional notation showing soil and mulch details, irrigation details, lighting details, edging, paving, fencing details, surface finishes, retaining wall details, and any other landscape elements in sufficient detail to fully describe the proposed landscape works.

 

e.       Position of existing and proposed site services including water, gas, electricity, sewer, stormwater, etc.

 

f.        Sectional elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

g.       The plan shall respect the prevailing coastal influences and the coast's special design considerations and requirements, and shall be designed accordingly. Generally, species selection shall be restricted to local indigenous coastal species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

h.       Location of easements within the site and upon adjacent sites (if any).

 

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

 

116.   To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic irrigation system shall be installed throughout all the landscaped areas. Such system shall provide full coverage to all the landscaped areas with no overspray onto driveways and pathways.

 

          Details of the automatic irrigation system shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans and specifications. The system shall comply with all Sydney Water requirements, and relevant Australian Standards.

 

117.   The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu Turf or similar. Such works shall be installed prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

118.   The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be maintained by the applicant in accordance with Council guidelines. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, watering, mowing, fertilising, and the removal of weeds.

 

119.   Any substation required shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications.

 

120.   All detention tanks and stormwater infiltration systems located within the landscaped areas shall have a minimum soil cover of 600mm to ensure sufficient soil depth to permit the establishment of landscaping on top of these services as stipulated by these conditions of development consent.

 

          All stormwater documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show the top of the detention tanks and stormwater infiltration devices being 600mm below the finished ground level of the landscaped areas.

 

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

 

122.   A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque, or bank guarantee for the amount of $10,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

a.       The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months after the issue of a final occupation certificate by the principle certifying authority providing the landscape works have been successfully implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape documentation. Throughout the maintenance/bond period, the applicant shall be responsible for all routine maintenance such as grass cutting, weeding, watering, fertilising, spraying, staking and replacement of all failed plant stock.  There must be no alteration to the original design, including substitution of trees and shrubs, without the prior approval of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

b.       Any contravention of Council's landscape conditions at any time during the construction period or prior to the expiration of a period of twelve (12) months from the date a final occupation certificate is issued will result in the Council claiming all or part of the lodged security.

 

123.   In order to organise for an inspection for the release of the security deposit, the applicant shall contact the Principal Certifying Authority for the development to liaise with Council’s Asset & Infrastructure Department to arrange for an inspection of the landscaping to be carried out. Should the landscaping be found to be unsatisfactory, thus necessitating further inspections, the applicant is advised that each additional inspection will be charged at $55.00 (incl. GST) and that this amount  shall be paid into Account Number 41901939, Code RGJ at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to any further inspection being carried out.

 

          The applicant shall present the receipt at the Asset and Infrastructure Services counter on the First Floor to organise for a further inspection to be undertaken.

 

124.   Approval is granted for the removal of the following tree subject to the planting of  at least 12 x 75 litre broad canopied trees (not palms) within the site (as detailed in the concept landscape plan by EDAW-Gillespie, Issue B, project number VE01973, drawing number LA030, dated 10/11/2004). The species selected shall be those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

a)       One Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) towards the eastern boundary, above the sandstone outcrop

 

125.   The applicant shall be required to ensure the retention and long term health of all trees located on adjoining properties adjacent to the proposed development. As a general guide there shall be minimal excavation or root pruning within the driplines of the subject trees.

 

126.   In order to prevent possible damage during construction, permission is granted for the selective pruning of the lower growing branches, damaged limbs and any dead or dying wood only on the five (5) Ficus microcarpa ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Figs), located towards the southwest of the site. All pruning must be undertaken by a qualified Arborist, with suitable qualifications in Arboriculture and to Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

127.   In order to ensure the retention of the Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) towards the northeast corner of the site on top of the sandstone outcrop, as well as the row of five (5) Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Figs) located towards the southwest of the site, amongst the heritage listed gate posts in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

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

 

b.       Detailed architectural, building, demolition, engineering (structural, stormwater & drainage, services), and landscape documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show no alteration in the existing soil levels or the location of any structures, services, footings, paving, detention tanks, stormwater infiltration systems, pipes, cutting or battering of the existing soil profile, or any excavations within a radius of 4 metres from the outside edge of the tree trunks.

 

c.       The trees are to be physically protected by the installation of protective fencing around the trees using 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing. This fencing shall be located to a minimum radius of 2 metres from the outside edge of the tree trunks.

 

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

 

d.       Within this zone there is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of in the area, no stockpiling of soil or rubble, or any works listed in Point b.

 

          Any works required within this zone (only as approved on the construction certificate) shall be under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, a suitably qualified Arborist.

 

e.       The installation of woodchip mulch to a depth of 75mm within the fenced off protection area as described in Point c.

 

f.        Watering of the tree (within the fenced off area) three times a week for the duration of the period of the refundable deposit described in Point h.

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

 

h.       A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $15,050.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the preservation of the five Ficus trees in accordance with the requirements described in this condition.

 

 

   QUANTITY

 

        SPECIES       

 

   AMOUNT

 

Five

 

Ficus microcarpa ‘Hilii’ (Hill’s Weeping Fig)

 

$15,050.00

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

$15,050.00

 

The refundable deposit is placed to ensure that the tree protection measures as described in this condition are undertaken throughout the demolition and construction period. The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months from the time of issue of a final occupation certificate by the certifying authority providing the tree protection measures (including amendments to the plans) have been undertaken throughout the demolition and construction period and the trees have been retained in good health.

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to the trees at any time during the demolition and construction period or prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate will result in the Council claiming all of the lodged security.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

a)       Part B1                 -        Structural provisions

b)      Part C1                -        Fire resistance and stability

c)       Part D3                -        Access for people with disabilities

d)      Clause D3.5         -        Car parking for people with disabilities

e)       Part E1                 -        Fire fighting equipment

f)       Part E2                 -        Smoke Hazard Management

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

h)       Part F1                 -        Damp and weatherproofing

i)        Part F2                 -        Sanitary and other facilities

j)       Part F4                 -        Light and ventilation, in particular, the carpark

 

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

 

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

 

A2     The applicant/owner is advised that this approval does not guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the applicant should therefore consider their liability under the Act.  In this regard, the applicant is advised that compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standard 1428.1 - Design for Access and Mobility does not necessarily satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

RACHEL AITKEN

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Acting Director, City Planning Report 39/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

22 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06282

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

It is necessary for Council’s Seal to be affixed to the signing of service agreements for the 2005 – 2006 period between Council and the Department of Community Services, for the continuation of funding received for the following Council positions:

 

·    Community Development Officer Youth Services

·    Community Development Officer Multicultural & Special Projects

·    Generalist Community Development Officer La Perouse & Surrounding Areas

·    Coordinator / Team Leader Community Development

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no unforeseen financial impact for Council entering into a new service agreement for the 2005 – 2006 financial year with the Department of Community Services. Once the agreement is finalised, an income of $69,906 will be made available to Council by the Department of Community Services as a contribution towards salary costs for the abovementioned positions.

 

CONCLUSION:

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the service agreements for the 2005 – 2006 financial year period, between Council and the Department of Community Services

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

PATRIZIA FAVORITO

ACTING DIRECTOR

CITY PLANNING

TEAM LEADER

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director, City Planning Report 40/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Heffron Park Plan of Management Progress Report

 

 

DATE:

15 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/08398

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 19 October 2004 Council resolved to prepare a new draft Plan of Management and Landscape (Master) Plan for Heffron Park.  The primary reasons for preparing a new Plan of Management is to ensure that developments and improvements in the Park are relevant to the community’s sports and recreational needs (both current and future) and are compatible with the purpose, culture, value and features of Heffron Park.  In addition, Council has had requests from a number of sporting clubs and associations in relation to proposed improvement or expansion of existing facilities or development of new facilities in the park.

 

The Plan of Management will provide clear guidelines and designation of areas to minimise any conflict between existing and future user groups and enable the satisfactory use of the park by all the community.

 

This report provides an update on the preparation of the Plan of Management and Landscape (Master) Plan as required in the Council resolution of 19 October 2004.

 

BACKGROUND RESEARCH:

 

Future Demand

 

An analysis of the likely future demand for space, facilities and type of recreational activity (including passive recreation in Heffron Park) has been undertaken as part of the preparation of the Plan.  This analysis included a background paper “Analysis of Current and Future Recreation Demand” which was provided to the first meeting of the Committees.  The following points were identified based on a review of Randwick City demographic change (1991 to 2001), population forecasts and general recreation trends:

·    strong sport participation rates for youth and generally less organised sports for an ageing population;

·    increasing demand for informal activities such as walking for exercise, cycling and running;

·    increasing demand for indoor activities such as aerobics/fitness and swimming (both indoor and outdoor);

·    cultural diversity will see strong demand for active non-competitive recreation such as jogging, aerobics and tennis and other individual sports and recreation activities;

·    the trend towards higher density residential living has created a demand for both more and improved recreational facilities;

·    demand for sports areas and facilities will continue in areas attracting young families (such as Matraville); and

·    organised sport will continue to be important, although it is anticipated that there will be significant growth in the demand for passive and less organised recreation activities.

 

Whilst the above issues have highlighted some of the anticipated future demands for open space in Randwick City, it is important to ensure that Heffron Park retains its primary function as a venue for organised sports, as it is one of only a few parks which are of a size and landform to fulfil a range of existing demand for active recreation in the eastern suburbs.  Nevertheless, the analysis showed a need for the plan of management to also improve the opportunities for informal recreation (such as walking, picnics and children’s playground) and better facilities (such as indoor sporting facilities) which will complement the use of the park for sporting activities.

 

Consultation with members on the Working Committee and Community Representative Sub-Committee identified a number of specific issues relating to the park, including the need to:

·    recognise the importance of the park as a major sporting venue;

·    encourage use by all age groups for both passive and active recreation (eg. walking paths, BBQ facilities and children’s cycle track);

·    improve the appearance of the park (gateways/boundary, pathways, landscaping and garbage facilities);

·    ensure safe and efficient traffic and pedestrian movement; and

·    encourage sustainable design (landscaping, building materials and solar power);

 

A summary of the issues raised by the Committees is included as Attachment 2 to this report.

 

Current Demands:

 

A review of the current use of the park by sporting groups and schools has also been presented to the Committees.  The outcomes of the review (in summary) were not unexpected, with rugby league and netball identified as significant users of the park during the winter season and cricket and cycling during summer.  The park is mainly used by school groups during weekdays and OZ tag in the evenings.  The amount (and extent) of use of the park by sporting groups is being further investigated, however (based on 2004/05 bookings) many of the sporting fields in the park appear to be underutilised, particularly during weekdays, or only used either in the summer or winter season.

 

Existing major sporting group users of the park include rugby league, netball, cricket, soccer, cycling, tennis, gymnastics and swimming. Other major user groups identified, who are also being contacted to discuss their existing and desired usage levels of the park include hockey, school groups, touch football and OZ tag.  The existing and expected specific needs of each group are being surveyed through the committee and separate individual consultations (comments received to date are noted in Attachment 2).There are also over 30 other local sporting groups identified which may have existing or potential use of the park that are also being individually surveyed. 

 

COMMITTEES AND CONSULTATION

 

Establishment of the Heffron Park Working Committee

 

The Working Committee is an advisory group overseeing the preparation of the draft Plan of Management and, as per Council’s resolution of 19 October 2004, Ward Councillors form part of the Working Committee.  The Working Committee members also comprise representatives from sporting and user groups and community representatives (nominated by the Community Representative Sub-Committee).  A representative from the Department of Tourism, Sport and Recreation was also invited but due to resourcing issues has been unable to attend.  Council staff services the Committee.  The Committee was established in April 2005 and has met 3 times to date, as discussed in more detail in Attachment 1. 

 

Establishment of the Community Representative Sub-Committee

 

In February 2005, Council advertised for two positions of Community Representatives on the Working Committee.  Notices were placed in the local newspaper, on Council’s website and residents surrounding the park were letter dropped.  Council received strong interest in the positions from the community; the nominations coming from people with a wide range of interests and concerns.  All nominees were invited to be part of a Community Representative Sub-Committee, two members of which were then to represent the views of the Sub-Committee to the Working Committee meeting.  The Sub-Committee was also established in April 2005 and has met 3 times to date, as discussed in more detail in Attachment 1. 

 

Consultation with Crown

The required consultation with the Crown (owner of the site) has been undertaken by Council.  The Department of Lands was supportive of Council’s approach to the preparation of the Plan of Management and requested an early draft of the document.  The draft Plan of Management will be forwarded to the Crown for comment prior to public exhibition.

 

Consultation with Sporting Groups

As noted above, consultation with sporting groups has been undertaken on their current use of Heffron Park.  Additional consultation (phone interviews and meetings) is being undertaken to identify issues and ideas for the park and the needs of individual groups.  These will be incorporated into the brief for the Landscape (Master) Plan.  In addition, the consultation will assist in the analysis of sporting and recreation need in a forthcoming review of Council’s S.94 Contributions Plan.

 

Consultation with the Community

During July, the outcomes of the consultation with sporting groups, Councillors and community representatives (refer Attachment 2) will be developed into a discussion paper which will be posted on Council’s website and advertised in the local newspaper.  The community will be invited to comment on the issues raised in the discussion paper for further public input to the preparation of the draft plan.

 

PLAN PREPARATION:

 

Brief for Landscape (Master) Plan

The brief for the Landscape (Master) Plan is currently being finalised and will include all comments and ideas received from the Working Committee, Community Representative Sub-Committee and sporting groups currently using Heffron Park (refer Attachment 2).  The brief will outline the objectives of the project, scope of work and matters to be addressed (including the requirements of clause 40A (Master plans) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and stress the importance of sustainable design.

 

A landscape architectural company will be commissioned in July to translate the issues identified by the Committees, including the information on current and future needs and demands as well as the opportunities and constraints, into a design drawing and associated requirements for the park.

 

Review of existing Heffron Park POM and Best Practice POMs

A review of the existing Plan of Management, including updating of the schedule of works, is currently being undertaken to ensure that all relevant issues and works are included in the new draft Plan of Management.  Examples of best practice plans of management are also being reviewed.  The preparation of the draft plan content; introductory, background and statutory sections has commenced.

 

OTHER ISSUES:

 

Air Quality Monitoring Station

The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) have approached Council about locating a small air quality monitoring building in Heffron Park.  Council will liaise with DEC on permissibility of the monitoring station and ensure that any proposal has minimal visual impact on the park.   

 

Contamination Investigation

Given the park’s history of varied use, Council is undertaking the appropriate contamination investigations according to the State legislative requirements.  It is proposed to engage a contamination expert to investigate the mound areas in the centre of the site, and samples throughout the site, to identify any areas that may need special consideration in the preparation of the Landscape (Master) Plan and any management arrangements required to ensure the ongoing safe use of the site.

 

NEXT STEPS:

 

It is anticipated that a draft Plan of Management including a Landscape (Master) Plan will be presented to the committees in September 2005, with working reports continuing to be presented for consideration and input by both committees.  Depending on the comments of the committees and the Crown (and any changes required), the draft Plan of Management will be reported to Council in October/November for public exhibition.  Updates will continue to be provided to Councillors during the preparation of the draft plan of management.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Council resolved that the cost of the preparation of the draft Plan of Management and Landscape (Master) Plan be allocated from Section 94 contributions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council note the above progress report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1:  Summary of Working Committee and Community

      Representative Sub-Committee Meetings to

      date.

2:  Summary of issues raised at meetings to include

      in landscape design brief.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU  

KERRY LONGFORD

A/DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

CONSULTANT - STRATEGIC PLANNING

 

 


Attachment 1

 

Summary of Working Committee & Community Representative Sub-Committee Meetings

 

First meetings of the Working Committee and Community Representative Sub-Committee held on Wednesday 23rd March:

The meetings were chaired by an independent facilitator, Mr John Harrison.  Both meetings were well attended and the discussions were open and cooperative.  Members of both committees were provided with “Procedures” and “Terms of Reference” of the Working Committee or Sub-Committee.  The meeting provided a background to the preparation of the Plan of Management, an overview of the Randwick City planning controls and the function and form of Plans of Management.  Members of both committees were also provided with a draft background paper on recreation needs and demand in general, titled “Analysis of Current and Future Recreation Demands”, to review.  Comments on the draft background paper by committee members have been provided.

 

Second meeting (held on 27 April for the Sub-Committee and 4 May for the Working Committee) was in the form of a workshop:

Attendees were asked to identify the positives and negatives of the park, ideas for improvement, requirements of individual sporting groups and general issues to be incorporated into the research work and a design brief for the preparation of the Landscape (Master) Plan.  A summary of the points raised at both meetings is included as Attachment 2.  Consultation with all sporting groups will be undertaken prior to the finalisation of the Landscape (Master) Plan brief.

 

Third meeting (held on 1 June for the Sub-Committee and 7 June for the Working Committee):

This meeting outlined the current patterns of usage via the current leases and licenses and bookings on Heffron Park held by sporting groups.  A brief overview of open space use in Randwick City was also provided, to consider the park in a broader context.  The information used in this analysis was sourced from Council’s open space bookings and discussions with sporting groups.  The sporting groups represented on the Working Committee were also asked to provide details of extent of use, player and spectator numbers for both summer and winter.  The Community Representative Sub-Committee members provided anecdotal evidence of park use and the impact on local residents.

 

Information obtained through discussions with committee members during the six meetings (above) has been collated and will be included in the brief for the preparation of the draft Landscape (Master) Plan and the background sections of the draft Plan of Management.

 

Next meetings:

The July, August and September meetings will discuss in more detail the needs and opportunities identified by the specific sporting groups, the multiple use of areas and facilities and principles for any new facilities and new leases and licences.  The issue of safety and security was raised by both the Working Committee and the Community Representative Sub-Committee.  Council has organised for the NSW Police to provide a short overview of the current security situation at Heffron Park.  The landscape design brief and the Plan of Management will consider security (particularly in the design of the park) as a major issue and we will liaise with the NSW Police on the future design.  Council’s Sustaining Our Cities team (funded by the Environmental Levy) has been working closely with the University of New South Wales on sustainability projects.  As part of this collaboration, fourth year Landscape Design Architecture students have been undertaking a design project using the Des Renford Aquatic Centre and Heffron Park.  A number of the design projects will be presented to the committees for comment and discussion.  The landscape designers will be appointed and it is anticipated they will present to the August and September meetings.


Attachment 2

 

Combination of Working Committee and Community Representative Sub-Committee notes to incorporate into brief for landscape designer

 

DESIGN PRINCIPLES (Broad):

Facilities

· Co-locating similar sports

· Integration of Facilities

· Multi-use facilities

· Encourage a variety of users

· Park to cater for all age groups and ability levels (eg, toddlers/teenagers etc)

· Amenity of Facilities (safe, hygienic, accessible)

· Principal use as a Sporting Facility and add with passive activity

· New facilities user pays and revenue raising

· Flexibility of new facilities – easily adaptable

· Multi purpose facility that is linked by walking paths and includes other services eg, café (indoor netball, gym)

Access

· Improve pedestrian access

· Safe and efficient traffic and pedestrian flows

· Fence the park for security

· Control access to the park

· Design a road around the perimeter of park that could be used by cyclist (both passive and racing)

Design

· Sustainable and best practice design (vegetation, materials, solar power etc)

· Design for safety

· Buffer zones and quality of landscaping around park

Management

· Garbage – adopt Bicentennial Park/Centennial Park Best Practice (good signage)

 

 

THINGS TO RETAIN / POSITIVES:

Landscape and Topography

· Open space

· Trees

· Natural shrub land, native birds

· Existing landscaping

· Undulation – maintain topography

· Size of park

· Drainage – sandy soils well drained

· Good drainage of sports fields

Uses / Facilities

· Variety of sports/facilities

· Pool – big drawcard

· Range of facilities

· Existing facilities are good

· Could be a world class cycling track

· Cycling track is wide, generally safe, challenging standard

· Opportunity to add hockey as use

· Park well used (would like to see more uses added)

· Don’t want to see the park overused

· Gymnastics cater 610 regular users (other uses such as birthday parties); 3 people at AIS; an individual training for the Olympic team; elite coaches and long opening hours

· Netball reasonably good facilities, over 2,000 players.  Fields are at a good district standard

Access

· Plenty of parking

· Access to the park is a  good features, with roads on all sides

· Shared parking for the pool and cycling is a positive

Spectator Facilities

· Some seating for spectators is required

 

 

SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS:

Landscaping / Topography

· Vegetation types need to be considered in the design

· Entry to carpark near tennis courts gets flooded

· Possibility of asbestos where building materials buried (sandpit area)

· Lack of shade and more trees needed

· Sand pit area, drains in middle of the park and is dangerous

· Soccer field has an issue with drainage

Facilities

· Quality of facilities – building needs to be upgraded; outdate and asbestos removed

· No BBQ facilities or picnic shelters

· Not many bubblers

Children’s Play

· Lack of swings and play equipment

· No safe bike track for toddlers.  Need an area in the centre of the bike track for parents to watch children

Safety & Security

· Access into park – dumped cars, need to stop access.  Need emergency access

· Lack of lighting – safety issue

· Graffiti problem

· Use of park by golfers

· Signage – not enough

· Motorbikes using the park illegally

· No rangers for parking enforcement – illegal parking

· No physical separation between netball and cycle track – balls on the track and the layout of the track is dangerous

· Glass on cycle tracks from underage drinkers (security after dark)

· Gym building inadequate.  Noted that there is drug use behind the building and that more lighting is needed.

· Playground equipment dangerous

· Shared cycle track (cycling and walking) is dangerous during events

· Early morning cycle training – no signs and it’s dangerous

· Fines not enough for penalties

Maintenance

· Garbage bins – not enough.  After events rubbish left, it should be the responsibility of users to clean up the park

· Toilets locked, not available (consider single toilets)

· Poor ground maintenance

· Cricket nets in poor state

Access

· Pedestrian access along Fitzgerald Avenue and Jersey Road (especially on Saturday) – should have refuges for pedestrians.  Need formalised parking arranged along Fitzgerald Avenue

· Need to look at traffic flow around park – need traffic and pedestrian study

· No path to walk through the park – to encourage walking to Southpoint or Eastgardens – need East/West and South/North links

· Carparking in Jersey Road is an issue

· Need coach or bus parking

· No wheelchair access

· Motorcycles and trailbikes and sometimes cars access the park illegally

Other Issues

· Noise from sports (eg. pool competitions) disturbing for residents

· Inadequate leash free dog walking areas (Nagle Park leash free)

 

 

 

DESIGN BRIEF:

To consider the elements raised by the Working Committee and the Community Representative Sub-Committee as follows:

Appearance of the Park

· Definable edge to the park

· Improve aesthetic of park

· Design to reduce windflow

· Park to become a feature and positive of Randwick City.  Example of best practice

· Need distinct access points (and stairs) to the park

· Protect existing trees

· Sustainable water reuse

· Naming of sporting areas after sportspeople

Children’s Facilities

· 2 x play grounds (0-5, 5-10) needed

· Kids’ bike track (with adult supervision area) needed

Passive Recreation

· More community and picnic areas

· More extensive walking and running tracks

· Leash free dog area

· Pedestrian access across Fitzgerald Avenue

· BBQ facilities

· Walking tracks that are attractive with trees and possibly water features

· Continuous green links throughout the park needed

· Outdoor gymnasium station

· Lighting of existing and proposed cycle and walkways (solar) needs to be improved

· Café/kiosk facilities

· Picnic facilities for families, including BBQ facilities

Facilities for Spectators

· Outdoor presentation area/amphitheatre needed

· Incorporate stepped seating into landscaping for spectators

Indoor Sports Centre (Multi Use Facility)  / Swimming Pools

· Weights room, sauna area, triathlons, 50m indoor pool, water polo 33m, hydrotherapy pool, toddlers pool, child recreation (slides etc) all in one facility

· Indoor sports centre (climbing centre, exercise centre, indoor netball, basketball, squash courts etc)

· Indoor centre with yoga, pilates etc

· Associated health care, physiotherapy, massage

 

Other Wide Ranging Suggested Facilities

These need further investigation as to suitability and permissibility.

· Golf driving range

· Licenced club house

· Residential development on top of clubhouse

· Commercial space for sporting associations

· Accommodation for sports people on site (motel)

Management

Issues to be considered in the Plan of Management.

· Long term management strategy (possibly including S355 committee)

· Co-ordinate events and broad use of facilities (eg, triathlon)

· Concern if new work done in park then user sporting groups will have to pay more rent

 

SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF SPORTING GROUPS

Netball:

· Drainage of netball courts is not good

· Netball needs 7 hard courts extra to allow State competition level

· Netball needs bigger canteen, more storage space, meeting room and office space and another male toilet

· Lighting of playing fields (training lighting) needs to be modernised with minimal spill

Cycling:

· Quality of surface of cycling track dangerous, need to hotmix top surface

· Cycling track should be designed to ensure it does not have to be crossed over by pedestrians accessing other activities in the park.

· Safety issue raised re bridges and tunnels over cycling track.

· World class cycling track

Gymnastics:

· Gym needs 2x existing areas and higher roof.  Building could be used for indoor climbing.  Noted that gymnastic equipment needs to be bolted to the floor.  The clubhouse needs to be used exclusively for gymnastics (insurance issue) and the buildings need to be climate controlled.  Possible to have squash (for example) on the ground floor and gymnastics on the first floor.  Crucial that existing building continues operating during construction of any new facility.

Rugby League:

· Playing fields (near corner of Jersey Road and Bunnerong Road) need to be levelled and maintained better

· Lighting of playing fields (training lighting) needs to be modernised with minimal spill

Hockey:

· Synthetic pitch for hockey – Jersey Road

Tennis:

· 14 tennis courts including 2 centre courts with stands for tournaments.  Improved orientation of the courts.  Oval competitions

 

 

 

 


MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

 

11.1     Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Daley, Procopiadis, Sullivan, Tracey & White – Ordinary Council Meeting, 24th May, 2005 – Item 6.13 - Mayor’s Minute 71/2005 - Developer Donations. (F2005/00518)

 

That the resolution passed at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 24th May, 2005 reading as follows:-

 

that Council:

 

(a)        recognises the potential or perceived corrupting effect of campaign donations from development interests to parties and candidates for council elections;

 

(b)        believes changes to the Local Government Act are necessary in order to ban such donations in future; and delegates authority to the General Manager to write to the Minister for Local Government and to the Premier to inform them of Council’s position and requesting the Local Government Act be amended before the Council elections in 2008 to ban developer donations,

 

(c)        in the interim, requests all individual councillors who have accepted donations from corporations and individuals with property development interests, or councillors who represent a state party that has passed on to them donations from corporations and individuals with property development interests, to declare the details and extent of those donations and to absent themselves from any vote where those donors will receive a benefit from the passing of a council resolution; and

 

(d)        establishes a committee comprising the Mayor and a one representative of the Greens, Liberal and Labor parties to investigate and report back to Council no later than 11 April, 2006 on:

       the changes required to the New South Wales Local Government Act 1993 and other relevant legislation to achieve the objectives of this resolution, including addressing perceived conflicts of interest between Councillors and donors and seeking the Minister to issue a discussion paper on reforms to the Act that can include the prohibition of donations from corporations, companies and other entities (including political parties) and permitting donations from individuals only to the maximum of $2,000 per year; that expenditure in cash and kind (except volunteers) on election campaigns for local government be capped at a maximum of $1 per enrolled vote in a candidate’s Council Ward (or local government area if wards do not exist);

       adopt any changes to Council’s Code of Conduct and Code of Meeting Practice which would enable implementation of the objects of this resolution as interim measures;

(e)        prepare and bring a report back to an Ordinary Council meeting on the introduction of Independent Assessment Panels for Randwick City Council; and

(f)        note the ICAC Commissioner Irene Moss’ recommendation that Councillors do not caucus on development applications before them.

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

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

 

That:

 

(a)        Council seeks a commitment from all parties represented on Council that they will not caucus on development applications; and

 

(b)        Council will investigate the introduction of an Independent Hearing Assessment Panel in Randwick.

 

11.2     Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Daley, Procopiadis, Tracey & White – Extraordinary Council Meeting, 14th June, 2005 – Item 4.2 - Mayoral Minute 73/2005 - Council Response to Proposed Local Government Election Legislation Amendments.  (F2004/06305)

 

That the resolution passed at the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 14th June, 2005 reading as follows:-

 

that Council:

 

writes as a matter of priority to the NSW Minister for Local Government, the leaders of all the major parties and the cross benches in the Upper House, in reference to the Minister’s announced voluntary councillor reduction legislation:

 

1)             Urging that the legislation specifically contain provisions blocking the adoption of an optimal preferential voting system for electing Councillors as per the present provisions for elections conducted under two-Councillor-per ward-systems;

 

2)             Urging that the legislation maximises community representation by enforcing the use of multi member Council wards or areas based on proportional voting systems to elect Councillors in normal elections;

 

3)             Declaring its strong opposition to the proposal to allow mid term decisions to reduce Councillor numbers without seeking a mandate from the electorate via a constitutional referendum;

 

4)             Suggesting that more representative and accountable ways of reducing the cost to the community of by-elections would be to replace the outgoing Councillor with either:

 

a)             in the case of a non-independent, a candidate nominated by the registered officer of that Councillor’s political party; or

 

b)             the next candidate who would be elected if the elected candidate’s ballot papers were redistributed in full.

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

11.3     Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Daley, Procopiadis, Tracey & White – Extraordinary Council Meeting, 14th June, 2005 – Item 4.5 - Mayoral Minute 76/2005 – Council Position On Sale Of Crown Land Adjacent To Kensington Park. (F2004/06326)

 

That the resolution passed at the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 14th June, 2005 reading as follows:-

 

that Council:

 

a)         request advice from the State Minister as to whether Council was in a position to proceed with the sale of this parcel of land; and

 

b)         seeks legal advice as to the potential financial liabilities that Council could incur if the decision is rescinded.

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

11.4     Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Daley, Procopiadis, Tracey & White – Extraordinary Council Meeting, 14th June, 2005 – Item 4.6 - Mayoral Minute 77/2005 - Council Response To Recent Bundock Street Works. (F2004/07842)

 

That the resolution passed at the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 14th June, 2005 reading as follows:-

 

that Council:

 

a)         immediately contact GHD Holdings and urge that better dust mitigation procedures be employed in the works;

 

b)         authorises the General Manager to seek special dispensation for GHD Holdings to use hydrant water for dust mitigation if required;

 

c)         write to the Commonwealth Government and local Federal and state MP’s demanding the removal of all contaminants off the site prior to the construction of any further dwellings or associated buildings and that such removal of contaminants be in accordance with all relevant certified safe practices; and;

 

d)         will adopt a policy of referring all future Section 96 applications dealing with any part of the surplus Defence Force land at Bundock Street to a meeting of Councillors for resolution.

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

11.5     Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Andrews, Daley, Procopiadis, Tracey & White – Extraordinary Council Meeting, 14th June, 2005 – Item 4.8 - Mayoral Minute 79/2005 – Support For National Union Of Students Campaign On Student Unionism. (F2004/06574)

 

that Council will:

 

1)         make a submission to the Inquiry into the Provisions of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Union Fees) Bill 2005 by the closing date of June 17th which shall state that Council opposes the Bill’s provisions because:

 

a)         they are a threat to the employment of Council residents currently working in service industries at the University of New South Wales;

 

b)         they will oblige students, many of whom are local residents, to pay more for student services on the campus and may see the loss of some current services;

 

c)         they will reduce recreational and cultural opportunities for the residents as services to the community are reduced;

 

d)         they will compromise the vibrancy of cultural, political and social debate in the municipality; and

 

2)                  advise the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) of this resolution and of Council’s support for NTEU’s campaign against the Bill.  LOST.

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

(Note: This rescission motion is out of order as there is no Council resolution to rescind.)

 

11.6          By Councillor Belleli – Street Names Prince Henry Site Development. (F2004/07970 xr F2005/00171)

 

In the event of more roads being constructed in the Prince Henry Little Bay development, that Council and Landcom consult with the Prince Henry Nurses Association for appropriate names for any new streets.

 

11.7          By Councillor Belleli – Rage Cage Facility (xr F2005/00171)

 

That a report be prepared on the kids’ and teenagers’ fun outdoor/indoor multi use recreational sports activity centre, known as a “Rage Cage” facility. This report should cover possible locations, costs and the experience of other Councils which have installed them (as well as Sydney Olympic Village) with regard to the benefits for local youth. Also safety and impact on neighbouring areas.

 

11.8          By Councillor Notley-Smith – Improvement to Garbage Bins at Coogee Beach. (F2004/07347xr F2005/00171)

 

That Council authorises the Director of City Services to either enclose the wheelie bins on the promenade at Coogee Beach or replace them with a more attractive and secure bin.

 

11.9          By Councillor Notley-Smith – Improvements to Lighting in Dunningham and Grant Reserves. (F2004/08077 xr F2004/08256 xr F2005/00171)

 

That Council take immediate steps to improve lighting in Dunningham and Grant reserves and investigates options to deter late night loitering in these reserves, particularly by underage drinkers in the picnic shelters. That the General Manager be delegated authority to implement strategies to achieve this outcome.

 

11.10      By Councillor Hughes – Need to Confirm Council’s Commitment to a West Kingsford/Kensington LATM. (F2004/08216 xr F2005/00171)

 

That, regardless of funding options, Council affirms its intent to design and implement an LATM for streets in the Kensington/Kingsford area, regardless of whether the proposed Access Ramps from Southern Cross Drive to Gardeners Road are constructed or not.

 

11.11      By Councillor Hughes – PCYC Friday Night Swimming. (F2005/00432 xr F2005/00171)

 

That Council waive entry fees and provide pool space and the cost of a lifeguard at the Des Renford Aquatic Centre on Friday nights after 5.45p.m. to assist the Friday Night Swimming project of the Maroubra PCYC.