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

 

7th June, 2005

 

 

HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 14TH JUNE 2005 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

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

 

Quorum:                                      Eight (8) members.

 

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

 

 

1           Apologies

 

2           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUILDING & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 10TH MAY, 2005.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addresses to Committee by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

6           Development Applications

 

6.1                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 14 BYNG STREET, MAROUBRA.

2

 

6.2                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 96-98 ST PAULS STREET, RANDWICK.

18

 

6.3                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 803 ANZAC PARADE, MAROUBRA.

116

 


 

6.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 6 HAIG STREET, MAROUBRA.

144

 

6.5                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 505-507 BUNNERONG ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

158

 

 

7           Miscellaneous

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 30/2005 - MALABAR HEADLAND.

222

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 31/2005 - REVIEW OF BACKPACKER PROVISIONS APPLYING TO COOGEE.

227

 

7.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 32/2005 -   CONSIDERATION OF A SPOT REZONING (LEP) FOR 10-18 BAY STREET, COOGEE AND/ OR THE SURROUNDING LAND.

233

 

7.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 33/2005 -   INNOVATIVE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORTING PROJECT.

241

 

7.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 34/2005 -   REVIEW OF DUAL OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT.

249

7.6

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 27/2005 - PROPOSED DEED OF AGREEMENT - DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE SITE, BUNDOCK STREET, RANDWICK(DEFERRED)

264

 

 

8           General Business

 

9           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

 

……………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

17 May, 2005

FILE NO:

D/0322/20031

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(2)  Application to relocate the garden shed, widen the driveway cross over and allow the window of Bedroom 2 to be clear glazed and double hung.

PROPERTY:

 14 Byng Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 GKB Constructions Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination as the original application was approved by Council.  The original development consent for the building works was estimated at $200,000, this remains unchanged.

 

The application was notified to adjoining and nearby property owners and no objections were received within the notification period.  However a letter of complaint was received on 19 January 2005 by the adjoining owners at No. 12 Byng Street relating to the west facing window to the first floor bedroom 2, which has already been installed with a double hung clear glass window contrary to Council’s previous Section 96 decision approved on 30 January 2004, initiating this Section 96 application.

 

A further submission was received on 27 May 2005 by No.12 Byng Street reinforcing the above concerns and other issues, which do not relate to this Section 96 application. 

 

Condition 44 of the consent was imposed to address the privacy concerns of the adjoining owners at No. 12 Byng Street and was agreed to by the applicant.  Condition No. 44 required the west-facing window to Bedroom 2 at first floor level to be fixed (non-openable) and obscure glazed for any part of that window below 1.5 metres from floor level.

 

The issues of the proposed modifications are:

 

·        the level of privacy loss from bedroom 2 as modified;

·        whether an adverse impact would result from the relocation of the garden shed;

·        whether the increased driveway width would have an adverse impact on the streetscape; and

·        the majority of the modifications proposed have been carried out initiating this Section 96 application.

 

It is recommended that the modifications be approved and Condition No. 44 requiring obscure glazing to the first floor level to bedroom 2 up to a height of 1.5m be deleted.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to make the following modifications to the approved development:

 

·        to delete Condition No.44 of the development consent to allow the window to Bedroom 2 on the western elevation to be clear glazed and double hung;

 

·        Increase the width of the driveway to 4.5m at the boundary alignment and taper to 4m to the street kerb (previously 3m); and

 

·        Relocate the garden shed and pool filter to the north/west corner of the backyard and reduce the maximum height of the shed to 2m.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Byng Street between Anzac Parade and Mons Avenue in Maroubra.  The site is a regular shape allotment with a frontage width of 13.72m to Byng Street, a side boundary depth of 41.76m and an overall site area of 572.7m².  The site is currently occupied by an existing two storey dwelling house.

 

Neighbouring the property to the east (no.12 Byng Street) and west (no. 16 Byng Street) are single storey dwelling houses and to the rear are single and two storey dwelling houses having frontage to Haig Street.  The streetscape along this side is fairly consistent in terms of the building form, design and front setback.

 

The surrounding area consists predominantly of single and two storey dwelling houses, some of which have had first floor additions.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The original application to make ground & first floor additions including new swimming pool, new double garage and associated landscaping, was approved on 12 August 2003.

 

A Section 96 application was approved on 30 January 2004, to make amendments to the original consent by altering the bedroom layout, render the first floor level, add windows to the south elevation and reposition the north and west windows.  The above approval was subject to the imposition of Condition No. 43 & 44 to address the adjoining owners (No.12 Byng Street) privacy concerns and was agreed to by the applicants.

 

A further Section 96 application was approved on 27 September 2004 to make internal and external alterations including changes to window openings and the verandah roof form.

 

The modifications proposed have been constructed without development consent.  A letter received by the adjoining owner (No. 12 Byng Street), initiated this section 96 application, requiring the owner to authorise the construction of the driveway within the subject site, relocation of the shed (roof has not been constructed) and clear glazing to bedroom 2, which varies from the current development consent.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. Although no submissions were received within the closing date of the notification period it should be noted a letter of complaint was received on the 19 January 2005 from the adjoining owners at No. 12 Byng Street, which initiated this Section 96 application.  The complaint related to the west facing window to bedroom 2 and required the retention of Condition 44, which required fixed/obscure glazing below 1.5 metres from the first floor level.  The Submission also expressed concern to whether screen planting along the western boundary had been undertaken in accordance with the approved plans.

 

A further submission was received on 27 May 2005 from No.12 Byng Street reinforcing the above concerns.  The submission also included further issues, which do not relate to this Section 96 application.

 

The issues raised are as follows:

 

·    strongly opposing to the double hung clear glass window to bedroom 2 in that it has a direct view into the bathroom window;

·    the cloths line and concrete area is an eye-sore on the western boundary and should be located to the northern area of the yard.  Tall screen planting has not been provided along the western wall as stated in the original Development application;

·    as a result of the overall proposal the eastern facing windows lack nature light as the owners at No. 14 Byng Street have built on the existing driveway against Council’s recommendation;

·    the window below bedroom 2 being the kitchen, should be fixed opaque, as it is directly overlooking into their bathroom window;

·    the main entrance door is directly opposite the study room, this should also be fixed opaque to preserve privacy; and

·    bedroom 4 overlooks into the bathroom window and should also be fixed opaque.

 

The window at bedroom 2 has been discussed in Section 8 Environmental Assessment.  With regard to the other issues these do not relate to this application and have already been assessed previously.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

No referrals were required.

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

7.1     Policy Controls

 

a.       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.

 

 

 

 

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Habitable room windows within 9m of another dwelling’s windows are offset by 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing below 1.5m above floor level.

The west facing window to Bedroom 2 is offset and will not directly overlook into the adjoining property’s habitable room windows.  Complies.  It should also be noted that the windows are at different levels and capacity to overlook will be at an angle.  See figures 1 & 2 and refer to assessment below in Section 8.1 – Visual & Acoustic Privacy.

S1

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

Direct view into open space of an adjoining dwelling will not be affected. Complies.  Refer to assessment below in Section 8.1 – Visual & Acoustic Privacy.

S1

Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more or fixed obscure glazing below that height.

Condition No. 44 requiring obscure glazing up to a height of 1.5m was imposed to address the adjoining properties privacy concerns and the application relates to this matter.  Refer to assessment below in Section 8.1 – Visual & Acoustic Privacy.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary.

The proposed modifications will result in a 4.5 metres wide driveway to the street alignment and is setback at least 1 metre from the side boundary. Complies.

S1

Driveways have a maximum width of 3m at the property boundary.

The driveway varies from 4.5m to the boundary alignment at the front boundary and tapers to 4m to the street kerb.  Does not comply – see assessment below in Section 8.1 – Garages, Carports & Driveways.

S2

Driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment

The proposed driveway occupies approximately 33% of the width of the site frontage. Complies.

 

 

 

 

7.2     S96 Assessment

Under the provisions of Section 96 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 has been complied with:-

7.2.1  Substantially the Same Development:

 

The proposed modifications are relatively minor in the context of the original approval, which was for ground & first floor additions and also included the driveway.  As such, the modifications to the development are considered to represent substantially the same development as that originally approved.

 

8.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1     Development Control Plans – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Visual and 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.

 

Due to privacy concerns by the adjoining owners at No. 12 Byng Street, the applicant previously agreed to the imposition of condition no. 44.  Condition no. 44 states:

 

44.     To minimise overlooking of the adjoining property to the west, the west-facing window to Bedroom 2 at first floor level is to be fixed (non-openable) and obscure glazed for any part of that window below 1.5 metres from floor level.  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

On the basis of the site inspection carried out on 2 May 2005, it is considered that the imposition of Condition 44 is unreasonable.  The extent of overlooking is generally identical to the adjoining bedroom 4 (refer to attachment Figures 1 and 2).  Given that the ground floor roof is located adjacent to the window at bedroom 2, the backyard of the neighbouring property cannot be viewed, satisfying the objectives and the performance requirements of the DCP (refer to attachment Figure 3).

 

The three windows in question that may be affected are the ground floor windows of the adjoining property (No.12 Byng Street); these are the bathroom, bedroom and W/C windows.  It also should be noted that the adjoining properties (No.12 Byng Street) bathroom & W/C windows are not defined as habitable room windows in the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.  The Preferred Solution requires that only habitable room windows with a direct outlook to another dwelling’s habitable room windows within 9 metres are to be offset by more than 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing installed below 1.5 metres above floor level.  Accordingly the imposition of condition 44 is considered unreasonable.  Furthermore the bathroom window of No.12 Byng Street is obscure glazing and if the window is closed privacy levels can be preserved.

 

With regard to the adjoining properties bedroom window (No.12 Byng Street), the window to bedroom 2 is offset from the bedroom window of that property and is also at a different level, therefore complying with the preferred solutions.  Furthermore at worst, the overlooking will only occur once standing relatively close to the window sill, (Refer to Figure 2).  It should be noted that the overlooking is similar to bedroom 4, which did not require obscure glazing in the original consent, (Refer to Figure 1).

 

Given the above, it is considered that the loss of privacy is not substantial and therefore Condition No.44 is considered unreasonable and should be deleted.

 

 

Figure 1: View from western side to bedroom 4, which currently is approved as part of the original application and overlooks the adjoining properties (No.12 Byng Street) ground floor windows at an angle.

 

Figure 2: View from western side to bedroom 2 the extent of overlooking would be similar to bedroom 4.

 

Figure 3: View taken from bedroom 2 of the ground floor roof, which indicates that there will be no privacy loss to the backyard if the window was to be of clear glazing.

Figure 4: View taken from bedroom 4 towards rear yard.

 

Figure 5: View taken from the adjoining property (No. 12 Byng Street) bathroom window towards bedroom 2 of No.14 Byng Street.

Figure 6: View taken from the adjoining property (No. 12 Byng Street) bathroom window illustrating the ground floor kitchen window of No.14 Byng Street and the window to bedroom 2.

 

Figure 7: View taken from the adjoining property (No. 12 Byng Street) bedroom window illustrating its location relative to bedroom 2 (left side) and bedroom 4 (right side).

 

Figure 8: View taken from the adjoining property (No. 12 Byng Street) W/C window indicating that bedroom 4 has a much greater privacy concern than bedroom 2 in question.

 

Garages, Carports and Driveways

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP include that car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the street scape; and structures are compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

The extended driveway occupies approximately 33% of the width of the site frontage complying with the preferred solutions.  However the driveway width is greater than the maximum preferred solutions of 3m.  The driveway varies from 4.5m to the boundary alignment at the front of the dwelling and tapers to 4m to the street kerb.  Notwithstanding the increased width will not compromise the level of existing on street parking in that three on street carspaces will be maintained to the eastern side of the site and one carspace will be maintained to the western side of the site.  In addition, given the width of the site (13.72m) the proposed driveway width can be accommodated without resulting in any significant visual impact and without detracting from the appearance of the existing development satisfying the performance requirements.

 

Repositioning of the garden shed and pool filter to the north/west corner of the backyard is considered reasonable, as the new position will be adjacent to the neighbouring properties shed at the rear of the site and it is not considered that the shed will impact on the amenity of the adjoining neighbours in terms of visual impact, solar access or daylight satisfying the performance requirements.

 

9.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification to the original consent satisfies Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in that it will constitute substantially the same development.  In addition approval of the modifications will not result in any significant additional adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape particularly in regard to privacy loss to the adjoining neighbour (No.12 Byng Street).  The modifications to the original Development Consent are considered acceptable and satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and Condition No.44 should be deleted.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. DA-322/2003/C by relocating the rear garden shed, widening the driveway cross over and  allowing the window of Bedroom 2 to be clear glazed and double hung on property 14 Byng Street, MAROUBRA  NSW  2035  in the following manner:

 

·           Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans comprising three (3) sheets numbered 1/3 (a), 2/3 (a), 3/3 (a), dated March 2003 and received by Council on 24 April 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 ‘A’ plans numbered 1/3 to 3/3, Issue (d), dated 16 December 2003 and received by Council on 19 December 2003, as further amended by the Section 96 ‘B’ plans numbered 1/3 to 3/3, Issue (e), dated 31 August 2004 and received by Council on 1 September 2004, and as further amended by the Section 96 ’C’ plans numbered 1/3 (e) & 2/3 (e), dated 31/08/04 and received by Council on 22 March 2005 and as amended 2/05/05, 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 attached plans:

 

·           Condition No. 44 is deleted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

CHAHRAZAD RAHE

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

12 May, 2005

FILE NO:

D/1082/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

Construction of a multi-unit housing development comprising 20 dwellings and car parking for 32 vehicles, to provide accommodation in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004.

PROPERTY:

 96-98 St Pauls Street, Randwick

WARD:

 East Ward

OWNER:

 Randwick Holdings Pty Ltd

APPLICANT:

 Randwick Holdings Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as it is valued at $4 million.

 

The proposal provides a total of 20 self-contained dwellings comprising four (4) x one (1) bedroom apartments, six (6) x two (2) bedroom apartments and ten (10) x three (3) bedroom apartments over five (5) levels, stepped up the site in accordance with the existing topography.  Parking for 32 cars is provided at the Basement Level (entry level) and below existing ground level at the rear of the two residential apartments on Level 1 of the proposed building.

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of St Pauls Street in the 2(a) Residential Zone.  A previous proposal for multi-unit housing on the site, did not establish existing use rights and was refused by Council. A subsequent appeal to the Land and Environment Court was withdrawn by the applicant prior to hearing.

 

The current proposal for multi-unit housing has been lodged in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004 (SEPP 2004), which aims to provide housing of good design to meet the needs of seniors (people aged 55 years or more) or people with a disability.  Although multi-unit housing is prohibited in the 2(a) Residential Zone, SEPP 2004 sets aside local planning controls and as such multi-unit housing is permissible with Council’s consent only under the provisions contained within SEPP 2004.

 

SEPP 2004 provides development standards relating to minimum allotment size and height, as well as development standards that cannot be used as grounds for refusal.  The latter relate to building height, density and scale, landscaped area, deep soil zones, private open space and parking. 

 

The proposal seeks variations to the height control of SEPP 2004 by way of objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for the following:-

 

·       Variation to the 8m maximum height control from existing ground level to the topmost ceiling.  This relates to a relatively small hallway area of the building adjacent to the lift on the topmost level.

·       The number of storeys the building presents to the boundaries of the site, being three storeys to the side boundaries instead of two required by SEPP 2004.

·       A portion of the building, predominantly on the eastern side of the site has a height of two storeys in the rear 25% of the site instead of the one storey required by SEPP 2004.

 

It is considered that the variations to the height control should be supported as the breach in the 8m height control is relatively minor; the building provides a stepped form that ensures a transition in scale of the development in the streetscape and relates to the site topography; and amenity impacts to surrounding properties are minimised subject to a deferred commencement condition requiring screening and/or reconfiguration of upper level balconies facing the side boundaries of the site.

 

The proposed design has had generally a positive endorsement from the Design Review Panel in regards to its density, scale and height and the design has been further refined and improved in relation to the comments made by the Panel.

 

The amended proposal has been the subject of 29 objections relating to such matters as the proposed bulk, scale and height, excessive FSR, lack of integration with area character, traffic and parking and amenity impacts to adjoining properties, including view loss, overshadowing and overlooking.

 

It is considered that the majority of the objections are unsustainable, while the issue of overlooking may be minimised by screening or reconfiguration of the upper level balconies where they face the eastern and western side boundaries.  As such a deferred commencement condition is contained within the Recommendation of the report.  

 

The proposal provides housing choice in accordance with the provisions of SEPP 2004 and it is considered that the proposal will provide an appropriate contextual fit and will improve the visual quality of the area when compared to the existing structures on the site.  As such the recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes a multi-unit development, consisting of 20 apartments and car parking for 32 vehicles in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004 (SEPP 2004).  SEPP 2004 aims for the provision of housing of good design, which meets the needs of seniors or people with a disability, by making efficient use of existing infrastructure and services. 

 

The proposal comprises four (4) x one (1) bedroom apartments, six (6) x two (2) bedroom apartments and ten (10) x three (3) bedroom apartments over five (5) levels.  Due to the steeply sloping nature of the site, the proposal only achieves a maximum of three (3) storeys at one point above the existing ground level, with the carparking levels (Basement and Level 1) excavated to be substantially below existing ground level.  Parking for 3 visitor cars and 18 residential cars are proposed to be located at the Basement Level (entry level) and a further 11 residential car spaces are located below existing ground level at the rear of the two residential apartments on Level 1 of the proposed building.  Storage is provided below existing ground level at the rear of the apartments on Level 2 of the proposed building. 

 

The apartment attributes are summarised in Figure 1 below:-

 

Figure 1: Apartment mix and attributes

 

Level

Unit No.

No. Bedrooms

Cross

Ventilated

Primary orientation of living area

Level 1

1

3B

yes

north

 

2

3B

yes

north

 

 

 

 

 

Level 2

3

3B

yes

north

 

4

3B

yes

north

 

5

2B

no

east & north

 

6

2B

no

west & north

 

 

 

 

 

Level 3

7

2B

yes

north

 

8

2B

yes

north

 

9

1B

no

north & east

 

10

1B

no

north &west

 

11

1B

no

east

 

12

1B

no

west

 

13

3B

yes

north & east

 

14

3B

yes

north &west

 

 

 

 

 

Level 4

15

2B

yes

north &east

 

16

2B

yes

north &west

 

17

3B+

yes

north &east

 

18

3B +

yes

north &west

 

 

 

 

 

Level 5

19

3B

yes

north

 

20

3B

yes

north

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

 

Figure 1: site and locality

 

The subject property is located on the southern side of St Paul’s Street, two allotments to the west of the intersection of St Paul’s Street and Dudley Street in Randwick (refer Figure 1 above). The site is an irregular parcel with a main frontage to St Pauls Street of approximately 31.5 metres.  An access handle to the rear of the site joins Howard Street with a frontage of 6.38m. The rear boundary of the site adjoins Howard Place (a private road), as well as No. 4 Howard Place and measures 69.525 metres. The eastern and western boundaries of the site measure 58.65 and 54.24 metres respectively. The area of the site is 2,283.8m2, including the access handle to Howard Street (approximately 196m2). The site is a north facing slope (having a fall south to north of approximately 14m) and its elevation gives excellent opportunities for coastal and district views.

 

 

The site is currently occupied by three interconnected buildings that form an ‘L’ and leave a north facing area of open space that incorporates a swimming pool and landscaping (refer Figure 2 above).  The buildings are generally 3 storeys with the exception of the original 2 storey dwelling house that connects later brick additions from the 1960s.  To the rear of the site is an open-air hardstand area used for parking that is accessed from Howard Street.  Around the hardstand area is a single storey rendered garage and metal sheds.  Six open air parking spaces are also provided to the front of the site with access from St. Paul’s Street.

 

St Pauls Street forms part of a northern boundary to a large 2(a) Residential Zone that extends south to Maroubra.  The northern side of St Pauls Street (across from the subject site) and the eastern side of Dudley Street (to the east) form part of a 2(c) Residential Zone.  The site is located two allotments to the west of The Spot Heritage Conservation Area and 100m from the Dudley Street Heritage Conservation Area.

 

 

Development adjoining the site.

 
 

 


Figure 3: Development within the vicinity of the site

 

Development in the locality is comprised of a wide variety of residential built form (refer Figure 3 above).  Adjoining the site to the west of the site is a part one/part two storey dwelling house at No. 94 St Pauls Street, which is stepped up its site.  Immediately adjacent to the west is a five storey residential flat building circa 1970’s at 92 St Pauls Street.  Adjacent the site to east is a two storey dwelling house (14C Dudley Street) and a 2–3 storey multi-unit housing development (two separate buildings) known as 14E Dudley Street.

 

No. 86 Howard Street (a single storey dwelling house) adjoins the access handle to Howard Street on its northern side.  Directly to the south (rear) across Howard Place is a single storey detached dwelling house (4 Howard Place) and a pair of semi-detached dwellings (2B and 3 Howard Place).  On the corner of Howard Place and Howard Street (to the southeast of the site) is a three/four storey residential flat building circa 1960’s (59 Howard Street). To the southwest of the site is a two/three storey residential flat building, 3 Hardiman Avenue. 

 

4.       APPLICATION BACKGROUND & SITE HISTORY

 

The approved use of the site, granted on 19 July, 1960, under the County of Cumberland Planning Scheme Ordinance and continuing when the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance came into effect on 28 April, 1978, was that of a “hostel”.  Similarly, this was the only approved use when the Randwick Local Environment Plan 1998 was gazetted on 26 June, 1998. 

 

On 18 December, 2003, Council refused consent to Development Application No. 03/00865/GE to demolish the existing buildings, and erect a multi-unit housing development containing 23 dwellings and 2 levels of basement parking.  The application for multi-unit housing in the Residential 2A Zone relied on the establishment of existing use rights for its permissibility.

On 29 March, 2004, a request for a review of the determination under section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act was lodged with Council. As part of the review, amended plans for a multi-unit housing development containing 20 dwellings and 2 levels of basement parking were received by Council on 2 July, 2004.

 

Notwithstanding that the Section 82A application had not been determined by Council, an appeal of the original determination was lodged in the Land and Environment Court on 1 September, 2004, based on the plans received by Council on 2 July, 2004.    The appeal was set down for a preliminary hearing on 6 and 7 December, 2004, based on a question of law regarding the issue of existing use rights.  Prior to the matter continuing to a hearing in the Land and Environment Court, the appeal was discontinued by the applicant on 1 December, 2004 and subsequently the Section 82A application was withdrawn.

 

The subject application was lodged on 20 December, 2004 and included the strata subdivision of the proposed development as part of the application.  The strata subdivision component of the application was later withdrawn by the applicant by letter dated 11 January, 2005.  The application was advertised and notified to adjacent properties between 19 January, 2005 and 2 February, 2005 and referred to the Design Review Panel, convened under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 for consideration at its meeting on 7 February, 2005 (refer to Section 9.2 of the report).

 

As a result of the advertising and notification of the proposal, Council received 28 letters of objection relating to such matters as the bulk and scale of the development, excessive FSR, lack of integration with the area character, traffic and parking, amenity impacts to adjoining properties, non compliance with the Seniors Living SEPP, concerns that the site topography is unsuitable for seniors and that the development would not be restricted to seniors only.

 

The original proposal detailed works to the right of carriageway and right of way existing over the subject property, including removal of the existing staircase and path system, the construction of a new staircase and landscaping and earth works, which would in effect extinguish the right of ways.  The right of carriageway and right of way are for the private benefit of No. 94 St Pauls Street and as such the proposed works should not be constructed upon or encroach on the existing rights of way.  

 

In response to the above issue regarding the rights of way, objectors’ issues, issues raised by Council Officers detailed by letters dated 27 January 2005 and 22 February 2005, as well as issues raised by the Design Review Panel, the applicant submitted amended plans to Council on 24 March, 2005.  The amended proposal retains the existing access to No. 94 St Pauls Street over the subject property (even though it is not wholly within the existing rights of way) and removes from the application, the previously proposed landscaping and earthworks within the rights of way.

 

The amended proposal was advertised and notified from 20 April 2005 until 4 May 2005 and was the subject of 29 objections (refer Section 5.1 of the report).

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal, both as originally submitted and in its amended form, has been notified and advertised in accordance with the Council’s Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. 

 

The development as originally submitted was the subject of 27 objections from the following:-

 

·        Sydney Water at P O Box A53, Sydney South

·        The Spot Precinct at PO Box 72, St Pauls

·        M Lipiec of 6/11A Dudley Street

·        Bruce Robinson of 1/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·        M Tordin of 10/9 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        BM and BF Goodman of 11/9 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        S Wong of 12/9 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        R Illidge, Secretary Strata Plan 5145, c/- 3/5 Hardiman Avenue, Randwick,

·        H Mulcahy Urban Planning Pty Ltd (on behalf of owners of 14C Dudley Street, Randwick) of PO Box 943 Ashfield

·        G Kompolthy and K Hanstein of 1/11 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        A Tosti of PO Box AA640, Sydney South

·        A and M Ricci of 5/14E  Dudley Street, Randwick

·        A Petersen of 9 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

·        A Barila of 14C Dudley Street, Randwick

·        H Morris of 5/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·        S and S Levi of 4 Howard Place, Randwick

·        P Chilcott of 8/11 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        Dr Emile Tork of 94 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·        B Bourke (owner of 3/3 Hardiman Avenue, Randwick) of 99 Victoria Street, Malabar

·        T Clancy of 12/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·        J and C Hayes of 1/265 Carrington Road, Coogee

·        J Renfrew, Chairman, Body Corporate, Strata Plan 2704 of 59 Howard Street, Randwick

·        L Cable of 10/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·        A Halperin (owner of 3 Howard Place) of PO Box 31, St Pauls  

·        L Powers (on behalf of Melsay Pty Ltd owner of 13/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick) of PO Box 379, Milsons Point

·        J Black of 6/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·        E Levi of 2B Howard Place, Randwick

 

The amended proposal was the subject of 29 objections from the following and as detailed below.  The issues raised are substantially the same as those initially raised in regard to the original Seniors Living proposal and are addressed below and in the Environmental Assessment Section of the report (refer to Section 9).

 

5.1     Objections

 

·        H Mulcahy Urban Planning Pty Ltd (on behalf of owners of 14C Dudley Street, Randwick) of PO Box 943 Ashfield

·        J and S O’Toole of 15/9 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        G Kompolthy and K Hanstein of 1/11 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        A Tosti of PO Box AA640, Sydney South

·        B Redmond and P Kennedy of 18 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        A and M Ricci of 5/14E  Dudley Street, Randwick

·        A Petersen of 9 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick

·        A Barila of 14C Dudley Street, Randwick

·        H Morris of 5/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·        S and S Levi of 4 Howard Place, Randwick

·        S and P Gandevia of 24 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        P Chilcott of 8/11 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        Dr Emile Tork of 94 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·        M Tordin of 10/9 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        B Bourke (owner of 3/3 Hardiman Avenue, Randwick) of 99 Victoria Street, Malabar

·        T Clancy of 12/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·        L Ireland of 1/14E Dudley Street, Randwick

·        J and C Hayes of 1/265 Carrington Road, Coogee

·        L Selby of 1/9 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        J Renfrew, Chairman, Body Corporate, Strata Plan 2704 of 59 Howard Street, Randwick

·        L Cable of 10/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·        BM and BF Goodman of 11/9 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        J Jones of 6/2 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        A Halperin (owner of 3 Howard Place) of PO Box 31, St Pauls   

·        C Maguire of 8 Dudley Street, Randwick

·        Bruce Robinson of 1/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·        L Powers (on behalf of Melsay Pty Ltd, owner of 13/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick) of PO Box 379, Milsons Point

·        J Black of 6/92 St Pauls Street, Randwick

·        E Levi of 2B Howard Place, Randwick

 

Concerns raised include the following:-

 

Bulk, height and scale (16 objections received in this regard)

 

·        The amended proposal makes no substantive changes to the building footprint, height or FSR and the original objections to the excessive bulk and scale of the proposal still stand.  

 

·        The proposed development exceeds the bulk, height and scale of comparable development in the immediate vicinity of the site and is therefore out of context with the established character of the area and has an adverse impact on the streetscape because of its dominance.

·        The proposed building far exceeds the bulk, height and scale of the No. 14C Dudley Street to the east and will have consequent impacts in terms of loss of privacy, overlooking and overshadowing. 

 

·        The proposal contravenes the 8m height limit and the two storey height restriction under Clause 38 (4) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Senior Living) 2004 and at the rear, the proposal exceeds the one storey height limit set by State Environmental Planning Policy (Senior Living) 2004.  The developer should omit the top floor to comply with the SEPP Seniors Living and reduce the impact to neighbouring properties and the street.

 

·        The SEPP 1 Objection provides no compelling reasons for relaxation of the height standard set in SEPP Seniors Living and given the site topography the proposal will appear as 5 to 6 storeys from the street and many other district vantage points and will have an adverse impact on the streetscape as the neighbouring properties are only 2 to 3 storeys in height.

 

·        The height of the completed structure should not exceed existing structure on the site.

 

Planning Comment

 

Refer to Environmental Assessment Section of report (Section 9) for discussion of the above matters. 

 

Density (4 objections received in this regard)

 

·        No SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted with regard to the excessive FSR.  The proposed development has an FSR of 1.128:1 or 1.234:1 when the battleaxe handle is excluded.  There is even an argument that the right of way should be excised from the site area in determining the FSR as it cannot be built upon.  This is excessive in the 2A Zone where the applicable FSR is 0.5:1 and even exceeds the maximum (0.9:1) permissible in the 2C Zone.  Given the design of the semi-enclosed balconies to Units 15, 16, 19 and 20, they should be included in the FSR calculation.

 

Planning Comment

 

SEPP 1 not required for FSR: refer to Environmental Assessment Section of report (Section 9).

 

Overdevelopment (15 objections received in this regard)

 

·        The amended proposal is still an extreme overdevelopment of the site compared with the site topography and is significantly beyond the environmental capabilities of the site.

 

·        A development that does not dominate the site and surrounding location needs to be put forward.

 

·        The development is a form of multi-unit housing which is prohibited in the 2A Zone and will destroy the village like environment which is at the risk of overcrowding.

 

Planning Comment

 

The proposal is permissible under State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004.  Discussion of the proposal’s compliance with the controls contained in this and other relevant planning instruments and its impacts is contained in the Environmental Assessment Section of the report (Section 9).  It is considered that the proposed bulk, scale and density can be sustained on this site, subject to conditions of consent as contained in the Recommendation of the report.

 

Parking and Traffic (20 objections received in this regard)

 

·        The proposed development will increase traffic volumes and demand for on street parking in an already congested area

 

·        Due to the bend in St Pauls Street it will be dangerous to have the car park entrance in St Pauls street.

 

·        The application proposes a kerb blister at the corner of Dudley Street which is essentially a “blind” corner where vehicles travel at high speed and which is also frequented by a substantial number of buses, which frequently cut across lane markings, making for an unsafe situation.   This is especially of undesirable for seniors and people with a disability and will impede safe access to and from the driveway at 14C Dudley Street.  A median strip would be a more appropriate location and less disruptive to the surroundings.

 

·        Ratepayers should not pay for pavement works

 

·        Concern is raised that sightlines for cars exiting 14C Dudley Street will be obscured by structures or podiums adjacent to the common boundary.

 

·        The main entrance doorway to the parking area should be located after the visitor parking spaces to permit direct access to this area.

 

·        Elderly and people with a disability often require carer’s who will be forced to park on the street due to the lack of visitor parking.

 

·        No provision for car wash bays

 

Planning Comment

 

Refer to comments from Council’s Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services regarding traffic issues.  Parking is in compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004 (refer Section 9.3.2 of report) and Council’s Development Control Plan – Parking (refer Section 9.6 of report).  It is considered that the proposal will not adversely affect the sightlines for drivers exiting 14C Dudley Street due to the location of 14C Dudley on the curve in St Pauls Street.  The proposed retaining wall at the front boundary is not likely to further impede the existing limited field of vision available to drivers exiting this site.  A condition requiring two car wash bays is contained in the Recommendation of the report. 

 

Streetscape and area character (15 objections received in this regard)

 

·        The proposal is out of character with the existing streetscape (refer to objections in regard to bulk, height and scale).

 

·        The site is in the vicinity of a number of heritage conservation areas and is substantially out of character with these areas.

 

·        The bulky appearance of the building has not changed in the amended proposal and with its increasing levels it will still dominate the streetscape being on the hillside in a prominent position and set too close to the street.

 

Planning Comment

 

Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape are discussed in Section 9.3.4 of the report.

 

Heritage value of existing house (1 objection received in this regard)

 

Planning Comment

 

This issue is addressed by Council’s Heritage Planner’s Comments (refer Section 6.1 of the report) and comments by the Design Review Panel (refer Section 9.2 of the report).  A condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of the report relating to the archival recording of the original buildings on the site of local interest.

 

Amenity (16 objections received in this regard)

 

·        Loss of views from: 3 Howard Place, 59 Howard Street by the Chairman of the Owners Corporation on behalf of all units, Units 5, 6, 10 and 12 at 92 St Pauls Street, 94 St Pauls Street, 3/3 Hardiman Avenue.

 

·        Loss of value: 1/14E Dudley Street, 5/14E Dudley Street, 94 St Pauls Street, 3 and 4 Howard Place, 10/92 St Pauls Street

 

·        Loss of privacy(visual and acoustic)/overlooking: 10/92 St Pauls Street; 94 St Pauls Street; 3/3 Hardiman Street; 1/14E Dudley Street; 5/ 14E Dudley Street; 14 C Dudley Street

 

·        Loss of solar access/overshadowing: 14E Dudley Street (in particular Unit 1); 14C Dudley Street; Units 5 and 10 at 92 St Pauls Street; 94 St Pauls Street

 

·        Noise pollution from intensity of site use, garage exhaust fans, traffic along Howard Place: 94 St Pauls Street, /14C Dudley Street; 1/14E Dudley Street

 

·        Access to 94 St Pauls Street should be maintained in a safe and proper condition at al times.

 

·        Proximity of windows, balconies, terraces and courtyards facing both east and west towards the side boundaries with adjoining properties, including 14C and 14E Dudley Street, 94 St Pauls Street and 3 Hardiman Avenue.

 

Planning Comment

 

Amenity impacts to surrounding properties are discussed in Section 9.3.4, 9.9 and 9.10 in relation to privacy, views and overshadowing.  Existing access arrangements to No. 94 St Pauls Street are proposed to be retained by the amended proposal.  The maintenance of the existing access is a civil matter between the two properties.  No vehicular access is provided to the site from Howard Place.  Issues of noise pollution from exhaust fans is addressed by appropriate conditions of consent prepared by Council’s Manager Environmental Health and Building as contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

Landscaping (2 objections received in this regard)

 

·        The landscape concept plan shows two evergreen trees located on the common eastern boundary with 14C Dudley Street.  One of these trees will obstruct a side passage thoroughfare at 14C Dudley Street, while both will further block sunlight penetration into living, dining, kitchen and recreation areas.

 

Planning Comment

 

The landscape plan does show two evergreen trees proposed to be planted on the subject site adjacent to the boundary with 14C Dudley Street.  While it is not considered that the trees will necessarily block access on the neighbouring property and may be of benefit for screening purposes, it is considered in appreciation of the neighbour’s concerns, a condition requiring the trees to be setback from the eastern side boundary has been included within the Recommendation.  

 

Materials (3 objections received in this regard)

 

·        The building materials chosen for the upper level (colorbond cladding), as well as metal roofing, inappropriate for the site, aesthetically unpleasing and lacks integration with the materials used for surrounding buildings. 

 

Planning Comment

 

The user of metal cladding on the upper façade elements is not supported as being out of context with the use of such materials and finishes within the area.  A condition requiring a contrasting painted and rendered finish with the submission of a revised Schedule of Materials, Finishes and Colours keyed to the elevations of the building is contained in the Recommendation as a deferred commencement condition.

 

SEPP (Seniors Living) 2004 (13 objections received in this regard)

 

·        The design does not respect the aims of the SEPP, achieve the development standards, such as floor space ratio and design principles, in particular access requirements, security nor does it meet a substantial portion of the Seniors Living Policy Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development.  It does not use design principles to achieve a built form that responds to the characteristics of the site and its form.

 

·        Reaching the east bound bus stop requires crossing at a difficult point on St Pauls Street, which would be dangerous for anyone who could only cross slowly, regardless of the installation of a kerb blister.  As well, the gradient between the building entrance and the west bound bus stop may be too steep.

 

·        Wheelchair access has only been provided via the elevator and there is insufficient egress in event of fire.

 

·        A restriction on the type of persons able to occupy the development is required by Clause 20 (1) of the SEPP.

 

·        The proposal does not satisfy Clause 25 (2) of the SEPP as there are no banks or medical practitioners within 400 metres of the development.

 

·        Seniors are unlikely to purchase expensive units in a hilly area which is difficult for elderly people to cope with in this areaThe configuration of predominantly three bedroom units is quite excessive to the lifestyle needs of ‘seniors living’.

 

·        The clear intention of the SEPP Seniors Living is, for established residential areas, to permit low scale density development in harmony with the surrounding development.  This application fails to achieve this, instead proposing a massive residential flat development.

 

·        A number of units will be partly below ground level and suffer from a lack of substantial natural light into their living areas.  As well, cross ventilation is not possible from some of these units impacting negatively on their amenity.

 

Planning Comment

 

Refer to Section 9.3 for a discussion of compliance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004.  Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building has provided conditions to address fire safety requirements.

 

Waste (1 objections received in this regard)

 

·        Insufficient waste and recycling bins

 

Planning Comment

 

The proposed number of waster and recycling bins is satisfactory for the proposed development (refer to comments received by Council’s Director City Assets in relation to the provision of waste and recycling bins at Section 6.3 of the report). 

 

Excavation, potential property damage & construction management

(9 objections received in this regard)

 

·        As the subject site and surrounding buildings are all built on sand hills, the intensive excavation required is inappropriate for the site, and may result in subsidence and substantial damage to 14C Dudley Street, 2B Howard Place, 4 Howard Place, 94 St Pauls Street and the Sydney Water Tower or its underground pipes.  Council should ensure that the developer is insured with a responsible insurer against any catastrophe before any permission is granted to commence the development.

 

·        There is no information presented by the applicant on the construction impacts of the development, particularly in regard to hours of operation, storage of equipment and what dust, dirt and noise controls that Randwick Council will be enforcing.

 

Planning Comment

 

Conditions regarding structural adequacy and integrity of the proposed building and adjacent premises as a result of excavation and construction, as well as construction management have provided by Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building and included in the Recommendation of the report.

 

Inconsistency and flaws in submitted material (3 objections received in this regard)

 

·        The Statement of Environmental Effects refers to 18 self contained dwellings instead of the currently proposed 20 dwellings, states that that there are no more than 6 units per floor but Level 3 has 8 units, fails to acknowledge the well established palm trees on the site nor that there is access to the site from Howard Street.  As well, the SEPP 1 Objection is incomplete with various information missing. 

 

Planning Comment

 

A revised SEPP 1 has been submitted in regard to missing information, while it is acknowledged that some areas of the Statement of Environmental Effects may have not been updated with the amended proposal it is readily apparent from the submitted plans.

 

Community consultation and scale model (1 objection in this regard)

 

·        Given the substantial impacts on the area, community consultation with the developer would have assisted in addressing residents concerns.  As well, due to the site topography a scale model would assist in identifying the height, scale and bulk of the proposal when compared to surrounding properties.

 

Planning Comment

 

It is acknowledged that a model may have been helpful in the presentation of the proposal but is not required under State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1     Heritage

 

Council’s Heritage Planer has commented on the amended proposal in relation to Clause 46 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan and the recently exhibited draft amendment (Amendment No. 39) to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan as follows:-

 

The subject site is located at the eastern end of St Pauls Street, close to the intersection of Dudley Street, and is occupied by a motel building which has been subject to a range of substantial alterations and additions since its original construction.  To the east of the site, on the opposite side of Howard Street is the Dudley Street Conservation Area.  To the west of the site is The Spot Conservation Area.  Clause 46 of Randwick LEP 1998 requires Council to consider the impact of any proposal on the heritage significance of any heritage conservation area in the vicinity, and its setting.  Draft LEP Amendment No.39, which was on public exhibition from 17 February to 13 May 2005 contains a similar provision.

 

The application proposes the construction of a seniors living development comprising generally three levels above natural ground level with one and two levels of carparking below.

 

It is considered that the subject site and its immediate neighbours to the east and west, including nos.90, 92 St Pauls Street and nos.14C and 14D Dudley Street form a separation between The Spot Conservation Area to the west and the Dudley Street Conservation Area to the east.

 

The eastern end of The Spot Conservation Area is terminated by the light coloured residential flat building at 92 St Pauls Street.  This building separates the lower scale buildings within The Spot Conservation Area from the more bulky buildings at the eastern end of St Pauls Street, including the existing buildings at no.94 St Pauls Street and on the subject site.  It is not considered that the proposed development will adversely impact on the heritage significance of The Spot Conservation Area.

 

The subject site is well separated from the Dudley Street Conservation Area by the curve of the road and the Howard Street/Dudley Street intersection.  The Dudley Street Conservation Area is characterised by its north eastern outlook over Baker Park, while the subject site faces north towards the Dudley Street/St Pauls Street intersection.  It is considered that the subject site does not form part of the immediate Dudley Street Conservation Area streetscape and that the proposal will not adversely impact on its significance.

 

6.2     Environmental Health and Building

 

Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building has advised the following in relation to the proposal:

 

Building Services comments

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing building located upon the site and construction of a new residential development containing 6 levels and having a rise in storeys of 3.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class          -    2          (Residential units)

Class          -    7a        (Basement carpark)

 

Background

 

The existing building on site is a post war brick complex bounded by residential premises.

 

Key Issues

 

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 would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate.

 

Access for people with a disability:

 

The proposal appears to comply with the BCA requirements and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability.

 

Land Contamination

 

The current use of the site is a three storey brick motel with associated pool and car park. The majority of the site is concrete sealed.

 

A document titled Report on Preliminary Contamination Assessment 96-98 St Pauls Street Randwick Project 36758 dated February 2004 was prepared by Douglas Partners and submitted in support of this application. This report concludes that no remediation appears necessary to render the site suitable for the proposed developments and that based on the investigation conducted by Douglas Partners, it is considered that the site, in its present condition is suitable for the proposed development.

 

The Environmental Health Unit has reviewed this document and accepts the findings of the report. No further information or investigation into potentially contaminated lands is necessary.

 

Acoustics 

 

Standard noise conditions are to be placed on any consent given to ensure that the acoustical integrity of both the residents and neighbours of the proposed development is maintained.

 

Conclusion:

 

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

 

6.3     Assets and Infrastructure Services

 

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

 

Landscape Comments

 

There is one Brachychiton acerifolius (Flame tree) of approximately 6 metres in height and 3 metres in width near the northwest corner of the site, which appears in average condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. It will not be possible to retain this tree and proceed with construction of the basement carpark as shown, and as it is not deemed to be a significant specimen, approval is granted for the removal of this tree subject to replacement planting being undertaken elsewhere within the site.

 

To the east, there are two Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palms), both of approximately 6 metres in height. Both appear in reasonable condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, however, this species is not deemed significant, and as such, approval is granted for their removal as shown.

 

Still in the front half of the site, towards the eastern boundary, there is one Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow palm) of approximately 9 metres in height, immediately south of the existing pool. It appears in good health and condition, is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and is the only existing specimen deemed worthy of retention. However, this will not be possible given the extent of the proposed basement, and as it will be easy to compensate for the loss of this one palm with replacement plantings, approval is granted for its removal as shown.

 

There are six (6) Cyathia cooperi (Tree ferns) of around 2 metres in height growing along the southern side of the existing swimming pool, which appear in reasonable condition. Although covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, they are all juvenile specimens, and as such, approval is granted for the removal of all six ferns as shown.

 

There is one Agonis flexuosa (Willow Myrtle) of approximately 6 metres in height on the adjacent property to the south (14E Dudley Street), close to the common boundary. It appears in good health, is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and although the canopy overhangs the common boundary, it should remain unaffected by the proposed works.

 

There are several other small to medium sized shrubs/small trees in the surrounding properties as noted on the plans. As they are located on adjoining sites, the applicant has a responsibility to ensure their retention as part of the site works; however, all are sited at such a distance that they should not be affected by this proposal.

 

For security purposes, it is recommended that lighting be provided for the length of the proposed pedestrian path along the southern boundary, and that only low growing plants be incorporated in this area. A relevant condition has been included in this report.

 

It is noted that the applicant proposes to provide landscape treatment to the right of way fronting St Pauls Street. Council’s Landscape Technician would not object to such a proposal given the benefits it would provide to the streetscape, subject to the applicant meeting Council’s requirements; however, it will ultimately be the responsibility of the DPCD to determine the legalities of this part of the proposal.

 

Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

Traffic / Civil Works Comments

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 20 residential units will be in the range of 72 to 90 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 9 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in St Pauls Street as a result of this development.

 

All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

The driveway opening at the St Pauls Street frontage must be 6.00 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property boundary.

 

The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 6 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work. The submitted plans appear to satisfy this requirement.

 

Pedestrian Access

 

The applicant has proposed to construct a series of concrete kerb ramps at the intersections along Dudley Street between the subject site and the nearby commercial district to the north (that is, at Hardiman Avenue and Nancye Street), in accordance with Seniors Living SEPP requirements for accessible pathways and linkages to retail shops and community facilities.

 

The AIS Department does not object to this proposal and a condition has been included in the report for the construction of these ramps.

 

The applicant has also proposed the construction of a kerb extension on the southern side of St Pauls Street to reduce the crossing width for pedestrians trying to cross St Pauls Street outside the development site.

 

The application was referred to Council’ Traffic Engineer for consideration and the following emailed comments were received:

 

“In regard to the request for the partial closure of the carriageway to facilitate a kerb extension outside the subject site, it is advised that as part of implementation of The Spot Precinct Resident Parking Scheme, it is intended to relocate the existing Bus Stop opposite the site in a westerly direction to a new position east of Hardiman Avenue. The relocation of the bus stop has been approved by the Randwick Traffic Committee and Council.

 

The carriageway at the subject location is only 10.8 metres wide; the location is near a bend at the approach to Dudley Street and Howard Street intersections; and the request for the kerb extension as proposed is therefore not supported.

 

To overcome any anticipated problems experienced by aged pedestrians crossing St. Pauls Street in the vicinity of the proposed development, it is recommended that a pedestrian refugee of 900 mm wide be constructed at a location west of the driveway entrance to the proposed site.  This pedestrian refuge should be designed in such a way to taper down to a width of 600 mm to form a section of a median island that will be constructed outside the subject site, and will extend from a point 10.0 metres east of the eastern extremity of the driveway to a point ten metres west of the western extremity of the driveway.

 

The developer shall be responsible to meet all costs associated with the design and implementation of the above road works and associated line marking to the satisfaction of Director City Services”.

 

Following recept of the above comments, Council’s Traffic Engineer was requested to confirm whether the local traffic committee would support such a proposal, and therefore whether a condition requiring the installation of median island could be incorporated in any development approval issued for the site. The following response was received:

 

“Although the proposal for the pedestrian refuge and the median in St Pauls Street in the vicinity of the site was not a condition of the Traffic Committee (because the DA was never referred for the Committee's advice), the Committee has no objection for the implementation of the proposals as described in my email to Kelly Loveridge. At the Traffic Committee meeting held on 12 April 2005, (ref: item B10), I advised the Committee that Council may impose the provision of these facilities as a condition of its Development Consent for the redevelopment of the site.

 

I hope that this clarifies the position of the Traffic Committee and as Council's Traffic Engineer, I am happy to recommend to impose this condition as stated in my previous email”.

Based on the above comments the following condition has been included in this report:

 

1)      The applicant shall meet all costs associated with design and construction of a new pedestrian refuge island in St Pauls Street opposite the proposed development.

 

The design of the refuge/median island shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be to the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee. The applicant is advised to submit a design for the median island immediately after receiving construction certificate approval for the development, as the approval process (including referral to the Randwick Traffic Committee) may be a lengthy process.

 

Notes:

§  The pedestrian refuge shall be 900 mm wide and be constructed at a location west of the driveway entrance to the proposed site.  The pedestrian refuge should be designed in such a way so as to taper down to a width of 600 mm to form a section of a median island that will be constructed outside the subject site, and will extend from a point 10.0 metres east of the eastern extremity of the driveway to a point ten metres west of the western extremity of the driveway.

§  The detailed design shall include all associated linemarking and signposting requirements.

 

The construction of the new pedestrian refuge island shall be undertaken by Council or a Council approved contractor prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

The DPCD is advised that the applicant has been contacted regarding the proposed inclusion of a condition regarding provision of a median island (in lieu of the kerb extension) and no objections were raised.

 

Right of way / Access Comments

 

The submitted survey plan dated 10 March 2003 by Clement & Reid Consulting Surveyors shows the presence of a right of carriageway and right of way for 94 St Pauls Street across the front of the development site.

 

It is noted that the original proposal involved the removal of the existing staircase and path system accessing 94 St Pauls Street from the footpath outside 96 St Pauls Street, and the construction of a single staircase adjacent to the western property boundary of the development site to join up with the existing staircase in the adjoining property.

 

In our previous memo dated 14 January 2005 (commenting on the original proposal), it was noted that the owner of 94 St Pauls Street appears to be entitled to access their property both on foot and with a vehicle, through this 2.5 metre wide access way (as per the Conveyancing Act 1919, Section 181A). However, it was also noted that such an action is not possible at present.

 

Subsequent to concerns being raised by the AIS Department regarding the proposed works in the right of way, the applicant submitted amended plans (dated 23 March 2005) showing no alterations to the existing access arrangement over the right of way. Legal advice was sought from Council’s solicitors regarding the matter and it is understood that provided the proposed development does not encroach upon the existing right of way, Council is able to proceed with assessment of the development application without further concern to the existing access arrangements.

Based on the above advice, no objections are raised to the amended plans which show no changes to the existing stairs and pathway configuration accessing the adjacent property (94 St Pauls Street).

 

Waste Comments

 

The garbage room areas shall be sized to contain a total of 18 x 240 litre bins (9 garbage bins & 9 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. The amended plans (dated 23 March 2005) show the provision of a suitably sized waste storage area.

 

Groundwater Comments

 

In response to our memo dated 11 January 2005, provisional geotechnical advice from Douglas Partners (dated 23 February 2004) was submitted by the applicant regarding whether the proposed development will have any effect on or be affected by groundwater/seepage water.

 

The geotechnical consultant stated that whilst seepage water is likely to be present in the subsoils, it is anticipated that the proposed basement excavation would not intercept the permanent standing water table. Further, the consultant noted that the permanent standing water table was likely to be in excess of 10 metres below the existing ground level.

 

Based no the above comments it is considered that the application does not require referral to DIPNR as integrated development. DIPNR have advised that they do not required referral of applications where seepage water only will be encountered.

 

As the above site may encounter seepage water within the depth of the basement excavation the basement carpark is to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area (2283m2) is less than required for the submission of a master plan (4,000m2)

 

8.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

9.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

·        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended

·        Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

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

·        State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004

·        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·        Building Code of Australia

 

9.1     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998).  Multi-unit housing is prohibited in the 2A Residential Zone under the RLEP 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent only under the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004.  As such the clauses of the RLEP 1998 relating to landscaped area (Clause 31), floor space ratios (Clause 32) and building heights (Clause 33) do not apply.  Instead State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004 provides development standards relating to minimum allotment size and height, as well as development standards that cannot be used as grounds for refusal (refer to Section 9.3 below). 

 

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

 

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 7 February, 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 are set out below:-

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The proposal will be assessed under SEPP for Aged/Senior Living

 

The revised design is a significantly altered proposal to the original scheme. The scheme is still higher than the adjoining building to the east, however maintains a predominantly one storey relationship above ground level to the southern elevation.

 

The proposal now provides the adjoining development levels. The interface with adjoining sites is considered acceptable and the proposal does not appear out of scale with the context.      

 

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The panel considers that massing is generally well considered.

 

Panel considers that the scale and the height of the development are satisfactory.

 

The scale has been broken down by stepping the building down and across the site, providing a more complex and articulated form. The design effectively separates the building into two forms.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The proposed massing, site planning and the provision of a courtyard are supported. The proposal maintains a high level of amenity to occupants. However it results in an excessive amount of excavation and provides for a large void area in the basement. Whilst this does not result in an inappropriate external built form it does not maintain the principles of minimising excavation and alteration of the natural terrain.

 

4.       The Proposed Density

 

This appears to be justified. The revised design provides for a density that can be sustained from a design viewpoint.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

The proposal at this stage provides a good framework for satisfying this principle, except for the excessive amount of soil to be removed from the site.

 

More opportunities for natural day lighting and cross ventilation should be investigated.

 

2.       The Proposed Landscape

 

The Panel noted that the landscaped frontage facing north should be more appropriately landscaped. A more considered approach should be taken to enhance the streetscape, break down the scale and provide amenity to ground floor apartments.

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

         

The Panel noted that the carpark entrance is a traffic management issue. This is something that can be resolved by altering the height of the front retaining wall and can be resolved with Council officers.

 

The distance of travel from the corners of the carpark to the lift lobby are excessive and should be improved. The fire egress distances should be checked against BCA requirements.

 

In the current design the long entrance corridor will require 24 hour artificial lighting. Opportunities to introduce natural light should be investigated.

 

It is noted that all rooms are to be used for seniors living and should be designed to meet the appropriate standards.

 

It is considered that some protection should be provided to terrace areas off living rooms as they are uncovered and exposed to the elements. Some roof cover to these areas will also reduce the heat load to the interior spaces.

 

Overlooking from balcony to balcony and to neighbouring properties should be reduced.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

The panel believes that the entry sequence of the car park needs to be improved.  The entries do not possess clear sight lines from the curving street.

 

9.       Social issues

 

Improvement in the mix of units is recommended. The proposal has a high number of three bedroom units for a Seniors Living proposal.

 

The Panel recommends that a comprehensive record be made of the original building which is of local interest. The applicant should prepare a history of the site, record the buildings in accordance with heritage Office guidelines and lodge the information in Council’s Local history section of the Library. This information should inform an interpretation strategy for the proposed development.

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The Panel believes that the articulation of primary and secondary facades is generally appropriate, however the large areas of blank walls to the street and the entry could be considered to enliven the street frontage.

 

Summary and Recommendations

 

The Panel recognizes the good design qualities of the application. The Panel believes that subject to the resolution of the issues raised, to be undertaken in discussion with the assessing planner, this proposal should progress to its subsequent stages.

 

Planning Comment

 

The following changes were incorporated into the design following the Design Review Panel comments:

 

·        The void area originally proposed to the rear of Levels 1 and 2 above the Basement Level have been reconfigured so to split the parking over the basement level and Level 1, with storage areas, and an area provided for plant room and rainwater on Level 2 in the area originally shown as void area.  This approach also has allowed a decrease in the amount of site excavation, the provision of rainwater tanks and an increased area of deep soil planting compared to the original proposal.

·        The amenity of Units 8 and 9 has been improved by the introduction of natural light into their internal corridors.  Similarly natural light has been brought into the laundries of both Units 13, 14, 17 and 18, the entries of Units 13 and 17 and the bathrooms of Units 19 and 20.  As a result of these changes, the laundries of Units 14 and 18 are directly opposite the entry windows of Units 13 and 17.  It is therefore recommended that the entry windows of Units 13 and 17 be non operable opaque glass to allow the laundry windows of Units 14 and 18 to open for natural ventilation.  Similarly the bathrooms of Units 19 and 20 should be opaque glass and be top opening only for privacy and natural ventilation.  Appropriate conditions of consent are contained within the Recommendation of this report to address these issues.

·        Retractable awnings and pergolas have been provided to upper level balconies and terraces in order to provide weather protection.

·        Overlooking from balcony to balcony and to neighbouring properties has not satisfactorily addressed and requires further design detail and as such is a matter of a deferred commencement condition of consent contained within the Recommendation of the report.

·        The mix of units has been improved without changing the overall building envelope as originally proposed.  The development now includes 4 x one bedroom units as part of the proposal.

·        The Panel’s recommendation for a comprehensive record of the original building in accordance with Heritage Office guidelines has been addressed by an appropriate condition of consent contained within the Recommendation of the report.

·        Additional corner windows have been introduced to front façade to reduce the area of blank wall to the street.  This is considered a positive change to the façade treatment.

·        It is noted that the application proposes 2.4m finished floor level to finished ceiling level within the residential apartments.  This variation to the 2.7m minimum ceiling height recommended by the Residential Flat Design Code is not supported.  In order not to raise the building height which may compound view and overshadowing impacts, it is understood from discussions with the architect that there is scope to take up the additional residential ceiling height requirements by lowering the lower level basement carpark, without adversely impacting on pedestrian and vehicle accessibility requirements of SEPP 2004 and also introducing raked ceilings in the upper level apartments.  These upper level apartments would have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.4m and a maximum floor to ceiling height of 3.6m.  Accordingly this design change is the subject of a deferred commencement condition of consent as contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

9.3     State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004

 

“Seniors” are defined in SEPP 2004 as “people aged 55 years or more”, while people with a disability are “people of any age who, as a result of an intellectual, physical, psychiatric or sensory impairment, either permanently or for an extended period, have substantially limited opportunities to enjoy a full or active life”. 

 

The application proposes “seniors housing” (residential accommodation that is, or is intended to be used permanently for seniors or people with a disability) in the form of “self-contained dwellings” and as “in-fill self-care housing”.

 

A “self-contained dwelling” is defined in SEPP 2004 as “a dwelling or part of a building (other than a hostel), whether attached to another dwelling or not, housing seniors or people with a disability, where private facilities for significant cooking, sleeping and washing are included in the dwelling or part of the building, but where clothes washing facilities or other facilities for use in connection with the dwelling or part of the building may be provided on a shared basis”.  Seniors housing is limited to the following:-

 

a)      seniors or people with a disability

b)      people who live within the same household with seniors or people with a disability,

c)       staff employed to assist in the administration of and provision of services to housing provided by SEPP 2004.

 

Council is required by SEPP 2004 to impose a condition on any consent restricting the occupation of the premises to those types of people specified above.  Accordingly an appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of this report.

 

‘In-fill self care housing” is defined in SEPP 2004 as “seniors housing on land zoned primarily for urban purposes that consists of 2 or more self contained dwellings where none of the following services are provided on site as part of the development: meals, cleaning services, personal care, nursing care”.  Under Clause 29 of SEPP 2004 consideration must be given by Council to the provisions of Seniors Living Policy: Urban Design Guideline for Infill Development published by the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (March 2004).

 

Aims

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004 (SEPP 2004) aims to encourage the provision of housing that will:-

 

a)         increase the supply and diversity of residences that meets the needs of seniors or people with a disability, and

b)         make efficient use of existing infrastructure and services, and

c)         be of good design.

 

In order to achieve the above listed aims, SEPP 2004 sets aside local planning controls and in their place puts its own site related requirements, design principles and development standards. 

 

9.3.1  Site related requirements

 

Location and access to facilities

 

Clause 25 of SEPP 2004 relates specifically to the location of the site and access to facilities including shops, banks and other retail and commercial services that residents may reasonably require, along with community services and recreation facilities and the practice of a general medical practitioner.

 

Subclause 2 of Clause 25 states that access complies if the above mentioned facilities and services are either:-

 

a)       located at a distance of not more than 400m from the subject site and is subject to an overall gradient of 1:14 along the distance or increased gradients for specified distances, or

b)      there is a public transport service available to the future residents (available at least once between 8am and 12pm and once between 12pm and 6pm, Monday to Friday), which is not more than 400m from the subject site and which will take those residents to a place not more than 400m from the relevant facilities or services.

 

Although the subject site is located within 400m of The Spot shopping precinct, which provides a range of shops, services and a cinema (The Ritz), the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects acknowledges that a general medical practitioner is not located within the shopping precinct, and residents would need to travel greater than 400m for such a service.  Although the submitted access report specifies that the gradients from the subject site to The Spot are no greater than 1:14, infrastructure works will be required to Council’s footpath, involving the installation of kerb ramps at specified intersections (refer to Assets and Infrastructure Services comments at Section 6.1 of this report).

 

Notwithstanding the proposal’s non compliance with a) above, the proposal meets the access requirements specified in b) above, as there is pedestrian access to bus stops within 400m of the subject site, with bus services to Coogee, Randwick, the City and Bondi.  The timetables of these services would appear to satisfy the prescribed hours of SEPP 2004.

 

In order to improve pedestrian amenity, the applicant has proposed on the submitted plans, the construction of a kerb extension on the western side of the proposed driveway entry.  This option is not supported by Council’s Traffic Engineer, who instead requires (by condition of consent as contained in the Recommendation of this report) the installation of a pedestrian refuge island, at the applicant’s expense, opposite the subject site.  This will improve access to the proposed relocated bus stop (required as part of The Spot Precinct Resident Parking Scheme) to the west of Hardiman Street (refer Section 6.1 of the report). 

 

9.3.2  Development standards

 

Clauses 38 and 81 of SEPP 2004 provide development standards applicable to the proposal.  Clause 38 provides standards with respect to size and height which the proposed development must achieve compliance with in order for Council to grant consent.  As well, Clause 81 of SEPP 2004 provides standards which cannot be used to refuse development consent for self contained dwellings if the development achieves compliance.  These relate to building height, density and scale, landscaped area, deep soil zones, private open space and parking.  Figure 4 below provides a compliance table for both sets of standards under Clauses 38 and 81 of SEPP 2004.  Where variation to the standard is proposed, it is discussed in further detail in the main body of the report:-

 

Figure 4: Development standards

 

Part 4 – Development standards to be complied with

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

38 (2) – Site size

·     1,000 m2 (min)

2283m2

Yes

38 (3) – Site frontage

·     20m (min) measured at the building line

·     32.3m

Yes

38 (4) - Height

·     8m (max) overall

·     2 storeys (max) adjacent to a boundary

·     1 storey (max) in the rear 25% of the site area

·     9.5m (max)

·     3 storeys

·     2 storeys

No - refer SEPP 1 below

Part 7 – Development standards that cannot be used as grounds to refuse consent

 

Clause No.

Effect

Applies

Comment

81(a) - Building height

·     8m (max)

9.5m (max)

 Refer discussion in SEPP 1 below

81(b) – Density and scale

·     FSR is 0.5:1 or less

1.2 :1

Refer discussion below

81(c) - Landscaped area

·     30% (min) of site area

55%

Yes

81(d) – Deep soil zones

·     15% (min) of site area

·     2/3 located at rear

·     3m (min) dimension

·     31.5%

·     12.7% located at rear

·     variable dimensions determined by location of retaining walls

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

81(e) – Solar access

·     70% (min) of dwellings achieve 3 hours direct sunlight between  9am & 3pm to living rooms & private open spaces in mid-winter

75% of units receive 3 hours or more direct sunlight to living rooms and private open spaces.

Yes

81(f) – Private open space

·     15m2 for each ground floor dwelling & 3m  x 3m (min) dimension accessible from a living area

 

·     6m2 balcony (1 Bed unit) or 10m2 other units & 2m (min) dimension accessible from a living area

·     All ground level terraces and balconies meet minimum area requirements.

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

81(g) – Visitor parking

2 spaces (min) with a maximum parking period of 4 hours

3 visitor (no time restriction)

Yes

81(h) - Parking

0.5 car space per bedroom  = 23 spaces

29 spaces

Yes

 

Height

 

As the proposal is in the 2A Residential Zone, where multi-unit housing (in the form of a residential flat building) is ordinarily not permitted, limitations are imposed on such development with respect to its height by Clause 38 (4) of SEPP 2004 as follows:-

 

a)       the height of the building, measured from existing ground level to the underside ceiling of the top most storey, must not exceed 8m; and

b)       the height of the building adjacent to a site boundary must not exceed 2 storeys; and

c)       the height of the building, where it is located in the rear 25% of the site, must not exceed 1 storey. 

 

The proposal does not comply with the maximum height restrictions as specified above in the following respects:-

 

1.      The proposed development has been excavated into the site with the maximum height from existing ground level to the topmost ceiling of approximately 8m, except for the hallway adjacent to the relocated lift shaft (refer Section 1). 

2.      The proposal also has a predominantly 3 storey form to the eastern and western boundaries, although the walls of the topmost level are setback a greater distance from the side boundaries than the lower levels.

3.      A portion of the building predominantly on the eastern side of the site has a height of 2 storeys in the rear 25% of the site area.

 

As the height restrictions under Clause 38 (4) are development standards, the applicant has lodged objections to the numeric standards under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1).  SEPP 1 was introduced in 1980 to allow flexibility in the application of numeric standards.  It enables Councils to vary a statutory development standard where strict compliance with that standard is shown to be unreasonable or unnecessary, as for example, where it would hinder the attainment of the objects specified in Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EPA Act) and which state the following:-

 

“5 (a) to encourage

 

(i)      the proper management, development and conservation of natural and man-made resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment.

(ii)     The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use of and development of land”.

The underlying objective of the height and storey standards set out in Clause 38(4) is not stated in SEPP 2004, except for the two storey height restriction adjacent to a boundary of a site where the purpose is noted as the following:-

 

to avoid an abrupt change in the scale of development in the streetscape”.

 

As Clause 38(4) relates to zones where residential flat buildings are not permitted, it is also considered reasonable to assume, that the objectives relating to the 2A Residential Zone may be applicable, as well as the following:-

 

(a)     to ensure buildings resulting from new development are compatible with existing buildings in terms of height, and

(b)     to minimise the effects of bulk and scale of buildings arising from new development in existing residential areas

(c)     to protect public and private views

 

The objectives of the Zone No. 2A are:-

 

(a)     to maintain the character of established residential areas, and

(b)     to allow for a range of community facilities to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors, and

(c)     to enable redevelopment for low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development, and

(d)     to allow people to carry out a range of activities from their homes, where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the environment of the locality.

 

SEPP 1 objections have been received with the application that argue that compliance with the above numerical standards in this instance is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:-

 

·        The height and scale of the proposed building is compatible with existing buildings in terms of height when viewed from the street frontage.

·        The proposal has minimal effects on the bulk and scale of buildings arising from new development in existing residential areas in terms of impacts on views, overshadowing and the streetscape.

·        The proposal provides for the protection public and private views.

 

Planning comment

 

The SEPP 1 objection is generally considered to be well founded and should be supported for the following reasons:-

 

·        The extent of the breach of the 8m height control is considered relatively minor when considered in relation to the overall size of the development as it relates to a small area of approximately 20.06m2 of access area to the two third floor rear apartments in the centre of the building’s footprint.  The area consists of the lift access hall and a portion of the landing to the fire stairs which service the two rear Level 5 apartments.  The non complying section of the building does not relate to habitable space, as all the apartments on this upper level comply with the 8m height control.  The maximum breach of the adjacent hallway is a maximum of 800mm above the control, tapering to zero due to the slope of the land.  The original proposal, with the lift to the rear of the entry foyer instead of its relocated position, complied with the 8 m height control.  The revised position of the lift to the front of the foyer, facing the building entry, in the amended plans provides a more logical entry sequence to the building and higher visibility for pedestrian approach to the building.  The lift over-run is located further away from properties to the rear in Howard Place, while having minimal impact to views of surrounding properties (refer Section 9.9 of the report).

 

·        The breach of the storey control arises from the three storey nature of the development, particularly to the side and front boundaries of the site, while in the rear 25% of the site area it is noted that it has a two storey form.  Due to the higher level of land along the rear boundary and to Howard Place it will have a predominantly a one and a half storey appearance.  The upper level walls of the proposed development, where it constitutes a third storey are generally setback a further 2m to the western and eastern side boundaries than the walls at the lower levels. 

 

·        The setbacks provided to the side boundaries for a third level (a minimum of 7m) and to the rear boundary (a minimum of 7.8m) are considered generous, particularly when considered in relation to the preferred solutions for a 3m side setback for a three level dwelling house or dual occupancy development and a 4.5m rear setback in the 2A Zone as specified in the Randwick Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy Development Control Plan.  It is considered that the privacy and overlooking impacts arising from the additional storey are considered to be acceptable subject deferred commencement conditions for privacy screening on the upper level balconies (refer to Section 9.3.4 of the report).

 

·        The bulk and scale impacts of the proposed development are considered acceptable in relation to site context and topography (refer to Design Review Panel comments in Section 9.2 of the report), including view impacts, overshadowing, privacy and streetscape  subject to appropriate conditions (refer Sections 9.9 and 9.3.4 of the report). 

 

It is therefore considered for the above reasons that the proposed development meets the stated purpose and underlying objectives of the height standard, in that it minimises the impact to adjoining and nearby land and ensures an adequate transition in scale of the development in the streetscape.  As well, it is considered to be not inconsistent with the objectives of the 2(a) Residential Zone.  As such, it is unnecessary and unreasonable to enforce the height standard in the circumstances of the case and to enforce compliance would tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the EPA Act.  Accordingly the SEPP 1 objection is supported.

 

Density and Scale

 

Under the provisions of Clause 81 of SEPP 2004, for developments having a density and scale when expressed as a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.5:1, or less, the FSR is a development standard which Council cannot use to refuse consent.  It is not a standard that necessarily requires compliance and as such a SEPP 1 objection is not required for proposals, such as the subject proposal, where the FSR is approximately 1.2:1 (when calculated in accordance with the provisions of SEPP 2004). 

 

The provisions of Clause 81 do not impose any limitations, where the FSR of the proposal exceeds 0.5:1, on the grounds on which Council may grant development consent.  Instead, the bulk and scale of the proposal is a matter for Council to consider on its merits.

 

It should be noted in consideration of the proposal that the FSR of the existing buildings is given as 0.8:1 and while the proposal represents an increase over the existing FSR, it does involve the replacement of three aesthetically poor structures with a replacement building which has some design merit. 

 

In particular the proposed building is well articulated by way of balconies and terraces and façade treatment and having a stepped form that responds to the topography of the site.  The bulk is minimised by way of its extensive excavation, such that the overall height of the proposal is generally below the height of the existing buildings on the site.  Thus minimising impacts on views to surrounding properties (refer to Section 9.9 of the report) and the effects of overshadowing (refer Section 9.10 of the report). 

 

The setbacks to the side, rear and front boundaries provide generous deep soil landscaped areas (in excess of the minimum allowed by Clause 81 of SEPP 2004) which will allow landscaping to soften the visual bulk in accordance with the submitted landscape concept plan.  It should be noted in this regard that the existing situation on the site provides minimal landscaping by way of trees and shrubs.  It is therefore considered that the proposed development will provide an appropriate contextual fit within the streetscape without significant adverse impacts to surrounding properties.

 

9.3.3  Standards for access and useability

 

Division 4 of SEPP 2004 provides standards for self-contained dwellings for seniors housing relating to access and useability.  Council must not consent to the proposed development unless the development complies with these standards. 

 

The access and useability standards relate to such things as gradients for wheelchair accessibility to the site, street signage, letterboxes, car space dimensions and clearances, entries, bathrooms and toilets of dwellings in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards (AS 4299 and AS 1428); circulation spaces within dwellings; kitchen and bathroom fit-outs; and surface finishes for balconies and external paved areas.  It is considered that the design of the proposal generally has the capacity to comply with the detailed requirements for access and useability during the construction documentation stage.  As such a condition is contained within the Recommendation of this report requiring certification of each of these access and useability components with detailed drawings and/or specifications provided prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

9.3.4  Design Principles

 

SEPP 2004 sets out design principles that must be considered for development to achieve built form that responds to the site characteristics and achieve a high standard of urban design and amenity for both new and existing residents.  Further guidance to the design principles is given by the Seniors Living Policy Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development.  It is considered that the proposed development generally satisfies the design principles with regard to solar access and design for climate, stormwater, crime prevention, accessibility, and waste management, however particular concerns have been raised regarding streetscape and privacy and these issues are discussed below.  

 

Neighbourhood amenity and streetscape

 

New development proposed under SEPP 2004 is required to contribute to the quality and identity of the area and to achieve an appropriate ‘neighbourhood fit’. 

 

Concerns raised in the objections relate to the proposed development being contextually inappropriate and out of character with immediately adjacent buildings due to its footprint, bulk, height, scale and setbacks.  As well, a common thread is that it will have an adverse impact on the streetscape due to its visual dominance and also will impact on the nearby heritage conservation areas.

 

It is considered that an analysis of the existing neighbourhood and streetscape should not be confined to the immediately neighbouring properties in St Pauls Street both of which are dwelling houses.  Rather a contextual analysis of the site draws from a wider visual catchment which takes into consideration a diverse mixture of architectural styles and building heights, in particular the multi-storey residential flat building located at 92 St Pauls Street forms a backdrop to the site when viewed from the east, while the three storey red brick residential flat building is located at the rear of the site to the south-east (refer to Figure 5 below).

 

As well, it should be noted that although the dwelling houses immediately adjacent to the east and west are only a maximum of two storeys at any one point, they display a stepped three storey form to the street.  The multi-unit development at 14E Dudley Street located to the rear of 14C Dudley Street also gives a layered appearance of built form to the natural topography when viewed from St Pauls Street. 

 

The proposed development is layered into the site by way of excavation and presents visually as a two/three level stepped form that recedes visually up the slope of the hill, as well as from the side boundaries.  The proposed scale, massing, site planning, density and provision of courtyards at ground level are all supported as suitable for the site context by the Design Review Panel (refer Section 9.2 of the report).  The apparent bulk and visual impact of the roof form is broken down into smaller roof elements, while the building façade is strongly articulated by way of balconies and screening elements.  Council’s Heritage Planner has commented on the proposal and does not consider that there will be any detrimental impact to the adjacent conservation areas resulting from the proposal (refer to Section 6.1 of the report).  It is therefore considered that the proposal will provide an appropriate contextual fit and will improve the visual quality of the area when compared to the existing structures on the site.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: Architectural forms within the site       context

 
 

 

Visual and acoustic privacy

 

New development is required to consider the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbours by way of appropriate site planning, location and design of windows and balconies and the use of screening devices and landscaping.

 

Neighbours at 10/92 St Pauls Street; 94 St Pauls Street; 3/3 Hardiman Street; 1/14E Dudley Street; 5/ 14E Dudley Street; 14 C Dudley Street have all raised concerns regarding loss of visual and acoustic privacy that may result from the proposed development. 

 

Nos. 3/3 Hardiman and 10/92 St Pauls Street are separated from the subject development by No. 94 St Pauls Street by a distance of approximately 18m and 15m respectively.  The minimum distance at any point between the built form at the rear and the boundary of the property to Howard Place is 7.5m.  Howard Place itself provides a further 3m approximately separation to the properties at 2B and 3 Howard Place.   In regards to the above, it should be noted that as a rule of thumb the preferred solution for horizontal separation between windows in Council’s Multi-Unit Housing Code is 10m.

 

The proposal provides landscaped setbacks to its eastern, western side boundaries and the rear (southern) boundary.  With regard to the neighbouring properties at 94 St Pauls Street and 14E Dudley Street the setbacks to the built form generally represent an improvement to the existing situation as the built form currently comes to within 2m of the side boundaries with these properties.  It should be noted also that the existing wall adjacent to 14E Dudley Street does not contain windows or balconies.

 

Along the western boundary, some of the objector’s concerns with the potential overlooking are validated, in particular at the upper levels toward the rear of the site where the balconies of Units 10, 16, 18 and 20 should screened to minimise overlooking to the private open space of 94 St Pauls Street (refer Figure 6 below).  An appropriate deferred commencement condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of the report to address this issue by design changes.  As well, the ensuite window of the topmost unit at the rear on the western side should have opaque glass for a similar reason. This is addressed by an appropriate condition of consent contained within the Recommendation.

 

 

 

Figure 6: Rear yard of 94 St Pauls Street

 and relationship with existing building on the site

 

Along the eastern boundary of the site, the existing building at No. 14C Dudley Street is is almost built to the western boundary line.  Currently this property enjoys a large setback to the existing buildings on the subject site provided by way of the landscaped area which includes the existing swimming pool.  The proposed development while providing north facing balconies also has large areas of balconies along the eastern side which will potentially overlook the adjoining private open space of No. 14 C Dudley Street and also No. 14E Dudley Street.  In this regard the balconies of Units 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 17 and 19 should have screening devices introduced along the western elevation to minimise the impact to adjoining properties.  As such an appropriate deferred commencement condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of the report.  As well, the ensuite window of the topmost unit at the rear on the eastern side should have opaque glass for a similar reason and an appropriate condition is contained within the Recommendation of the report.  .

 

9.4     Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004  (Draft SEPP 2004)

 

The Draft SEPP 2004 (Application of Development Standards) seeks to replace the provisions of SEPP 1 and has been publicly exhibited (concluding on 18 June 2004). The new SEPP will introduce new provisions for assessing whether flexibility of a planning standard are acceptable or not.

 

The additional tests include whether the proposal will result in a better environmental outcome than a complying development, design quality and whether the development meets the objectives of the controls.  Notwithstanding, that the SEPP is a draft document requiring consideration under section 79C of the EP&A Act, Clause 14 of the draft document includes savings provisions that any development application made and not determined when the draft SEPP is gazetted is to be assessed against the existing provisions of SEPP No. 1.

 

Further, legal advice provided to Council considers that the draft SEPP should not be given any significant weight, as its final form is neither imminent nor certain and would not apply given that it contains a provision saving the subject application.  As such, further consideration of the Draft SEPP is therefore not required, however it is considered that the proposal results in a better environmental outcome on the site than that which could have been achieved had the standards been complied with due to its exceptional design quality, in particular its scale and form within the streetscape.  A thorough assessment of the proposal against the existing provisions of SEPP No. 1 and against Council’s statutory control and its objectives has been made in Section 9.21 and 9.22 of this report.

 

9.5     Draft Amendment LEP

 

9.6     Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The parking provision for the amended proposal is fully compliant with Council’s DCP Parking (refer Figure 7 below). 

 

Figure 7: Parking requirements

 

Type of land use

Parking Requirements

Provided

Compliance

Housing for aged and persons with a disability

 

 

 

    Residential

0.5 space per bedroom

TOTAL = 23 spaces

   29 spaces  plus 3 visitor spaces

Yes

 

9.7     Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The calculations for the proposed development are set out in Figure 8 below. 

 

Figure 8: Levies for additional residential dwellings

 

Units

Open space levy per unit ($)

Total open

Space

($)

Community facilities levy per unit ($)

Total community facilities

($)

4 x 1 Bedroom

1,195.25

 4,781.00

  528.50

 2,114.00

6 x 2 Bedroom

1,792.88

10,757.28

  792.72

 4,756.32

10 x 3 Bedroom

2,732.00

27,320.00

1,208.00

12,080.00

TOTAL*

 

42,858.28

 

18,950.32

 

*Note: An administrative charge of $425.00 is payable for all developments.

 

9.8     Randwick Rainwater Tank Policy

 

Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy, effective from the 15th October, 2003, requires all new development to install a rainwater tank for the collection and reuse of roof water.  An area is specified at the rear of Level 2 for rainwater tanks and accordingly an appropriate condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of the report to ensure that the provision of rainwater tanks in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy.

 

9.9     View Impacts

 

A site inspection, wherever possible, was undertaken from surrounding properties that lodged submissions pertaining to view loss issues resulting from the proposed development, including properties in Howard Lane, Hardiman and Howard Streets, units at 92 St Pauls Street and the adjoining neighbour at 94 St Pauls Street.

 

It should also be noted that the SEPP 2004 does not make mention of the concept of view sharing, neither does the Seniors Living Policy Urban Design Guidelines for Infill Development applicable to the site call up the concept of ‘view sharing’.  The notion of ‘view sharing’ is invoked, however, when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment. (Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.)

 

The Land and Environment Court (Tenacity v Warringah Council – 2004) has given guidance on whether or not view sharing is reasonable, by way of a four part assessment, being:

 

1.       An assessment of views to be affected.

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

3.       Assessment of the extent of the impact

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

 

Applying the above principles to views obtained from surrounding properties, it was evident that the views obtained would either not be affected as the units were so high that they look completely over the site and the proposed development or the views would not be significantly affected given the nature, size and height of the existing roof forms on the site, which are generally higher than the roof forms proposed.  Also when it is noted from what part of the property the views are obtained, it is considered that it would be an unreasonable expectation to sustain such views.

 

59 Howard Street

 

An inspection of view loss was only available from Unit 9, which is situated on the top level of this multi-storey residential flat building.  Secondary district views are obtained over the site to the north-west from a bedroom/sitting area (refer Figure 9 below).  As the proposed development is below the ridge line of the hipped roof section of the existing building on the site, the loss of district views are minimal.  The primary view from this unit is obtained at the front of the building from the living area and associated balcony, which have unimpeded views to the South Pacific Ocean.  It is understood that the units on this side of the building have a similar configuration and orientation.  Accordingly it is considered that the view loss issue raised in the objection for 59 Howard Street is unsustainable.

 

 

Figure 9: view from 9/59 Howard Street

 

2B, 3 and 4 Howard Place

 

Dwellings at Nos. 2B, 3 and 4 Howard Place to the rear (south) of the site have district views to the north from the front yards and verandahs of their properties to the ridge line running from the Bondi skyline down to Clovelly.  This is broken by the existing buildings along the rear of the subject site, having both hipped and flat roof forms (refer Figure 10 below).  No 4 Howard Place has some distant water views to the north-east across the existing flat roofed section of building (refer Figure 11 below).  Due to the topography of area, based on survey levels, the front yards of these properties are at a similar level as the flat section of the existing roof.  The proposed new roof of the development will be approximately 2m below the ridge of the hipped section of existing roof and approximately 1.3m above the flat section of roof.  Some district views will be lost as a result of the proposal, and other areas of views may be gained, while No. 4 will still retain some water views over 14E Dudley Street.  Given the location from where the views are visible, the nature and extent of the views obtained, it is considered that the issue of view loss is unsustainable in the circumstances.

 

 

Figure 10: view over subject site

from front yard of 3 Howard Place

 

 

 

Figure 11: view to north east

from front verandah of 4 Howard Place

 

3/3 Hardiman Avenue

 

The view is obtained across the subject site from the kitchen window of this top floor apartment.  The distant water view to the north-east is largely obscured by the hipped roof of the existing building on the subject site (refer to Figure 12 below).  The new roof form of the proposed development is generally lower than the existing hipped roof and should partially open up foreground views otherwise not obtained, even though background views over the flat section of the roof may be partially lost.  Given the extent of probable view loss and the location of where the view is obtained, it is considered that the objection cannot be sustained.

 

 

Figure 12: view from kitchen window 3/3 Hardiman Street

 

94 St Pauls Street

 

No. 94 St Pauls Street is a residential dwelling house located immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the site.  The property enjoys district views to the north and some water views to the north-east, particularly from the terrace area at the front of the dwelling, past the existing building on the subject site located adjacent to its western boundary.  Some views are also obtained from upper level windows across the roof terrace of the existing building on the subject site (refer Figure 13 below).

 

Due to the greater setbacks of the proposed building from the western boundary compared to the existing building on the site, as well the proposed orientation and setback to the front boundary, it is considered that the view angles past the new building form will be an improvement when compared to those currently existing, both from the terrace area and from the second floor, notwithstanding that views from side windows across the roof terrace may be partially obstructed by the new built form.  It is therefore considered that No. 94 will benefit from a greater net gain in views across the front of the property.  Accordingly the issue of view loss is considered unsustainable in the circumstances. 

 

 

 

Figure 13: Existing views obtained from No. 94 St Pauls Street

 

92 St Pauls Street

 

Units 12 and 13 located on the top level of this residential flat building are elevated with respect to the proposed new building form in the orientation of their view to the east and north-east respectively and it is considered that the proposal will not result in any significant view loss (refer Figures 14 and 15 below). 

 

Unit 5 is located on the western side of the building, opposite to the direction of the view and enjoys northern district views and water views to the north-east from its front balcony (refer Figure 16), which will remain uninterrupted due to the greater front setback of the proposed development. 

 

Unit 6 is located at the front of the building on the eastern side.  Its view directly to the east is largely blocked by No. 94 St Pauls Street, however it still enjoys expansive views to the north-east to the water from its front balcony and living area.  This is unlikely to be significantly affected due to the stepped form and greater setback at the upper levels of the proposed new building (refer Figure 17 below).

 

Unit 10 appears to be the most likely to be affected as a result of the proposed development due to its location toward the rear of building, one level down from the top.  Its existing view is located over the flat roofed section of building on the subject site and is sandwiched between the hipped roof form of 94 St Pauls Street the gabled roof end of the older building on the subject site (refer Figure 18 below).  Comparison of the relative levels of the existing flat roof section (RL 74.99) to the skillion roof proposed in this section of building, which rises at its northern end from RL 74.58 below the existing level to approximately RL 75.68 to the point where the gabled roof form now exists indicates at that while a small portion of district view below the water line on the horizon may be lost at the southern end of the view, the water view will be substantially retained.  Accordingly, it is considered the objection cannot be sustained.

    

 

Figure 14: View from 12/92 St Pauls Street  Figure 15: View from 13/92 St Pauls Street

 

 

 

Figure 16: View from 5/92 St Pauls Street      Figure 17: View from 6/92 St Pauls Street

 

Figure 18: View from 10/92 St Pauls Street

 

9.10   Shadow impacts

 

Surrounding properties have lodged objections in relation to overshadowing, including Nos. 14E and 14C Dudley Street, Units 5 and 10 at 92 St Pauls Street and No. 94 St Pauls Street.  Shadow diagrams for the winter solstice (June 21), being the worst case scenario, show that properties on the western and southern sides will remain unaffected by the proposed shadows, that is both Nos 92 and 94 St Pauls Street will not be overshadowed by the proposal and consequently it is considered that their objections cannot be sustained. 

 

Buildings and their private open space located adjacent to the western boundary of the site (Nos. 14E and 14C Dudley Street) will be affected by afternoon shadows from the proposed development.  It should be noted, however, that of the two existing buildings at 14E Dudley Street adjacent to the western boundary, the southern most building has no windows in its western wall.  As well, the existing building on the subject site is located in close proximity to the western boundary (varying from approximately 200mm to 2m) and already substantially overshadows the western side of No. 14E Dudley Street, at the winter solstice.  Accordingly, it is considered that overshadowing objections from this property cannot be sustained.

 

One of the downstairs living area windows of 14C Dudley Street will be affected by shadow at the winter solstice from approximately 2.30pm onwards, while the private open space at the rear of the dwelling house will be affected by shadows from the proposed development from approximately 12.30pm onwards at the winter solstice.  It should be noted, however, that the shadow diagrams indicate that this dwelling house already substantially overshadows its own private open space at the rear during the winter solstice.  Solar access will be maintained to the living area of the dwelling through the front windows and the window at the northern end of its western side.  It is therefore considered that the objection relating to overshadowing of 14C Dudley Street cannot be sustained.

 

10.     FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposal seeks, by way of SEPP 1 objections, variation to the statutory control for height as set out in SEPP 2004.  The SEPP 1 objections are considered appropriate in the circumstances of the site and its constraints, including its topography.  It is considered that the proposed design will not have any significant detrimental impact to the streetscape or the character of the area and subject to deferred commencement conditions to ensure appropriate ceiling heights and screening of balconies on its eastern and western elevations to minimise overlooking may be approved.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 to vary the provisions of Clause 38 (4) of construction of a multi-unit housing development comprising 20 dwellings and car parking for 32 vehicles, to provide accommodation in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004. relating to height in zones where residential flat buildings are not permitted on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality and the Director of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources be notified accordingly,

 

AND

 

B.       THAT Council, as the responsible authority, grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No DA 1082/2004 for construction of a multi-unit housing development comprising 20 dwellings and car parking for 32 vehicles, to provide accommodation in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004. at 96-98 St Pauls Street, Randwick, subject to the following conditions-

 

DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS

 

The consent is not to operate until the following amendments/material have been submitted to and approved by the Director of City Planning:

 

1.               The plans shall be amended to show, without raising the top roof levels of the building and while still complying with the access requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004, the following finished floor level (FFL) to finished ceiling level (FCL) heights for all habitable rooms as follows :-

 

i)        Units 7 and 8 on Level 3, Units 15 and 16 on Level 4 and Units 19 and 20 on Level 5 all to have raked ceilings with a 2.4m minimum and a 3.6m maximum, whilst providing necessary insulation for thermal comfort in compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

 

ii)       All other units within the development shall have a 2.7m minimum floor to ceiling height.

2.               The plans shall be amended to minimise overlooking to adjacent properties in the following manner:-

 

i)        The balconies to Units 4, 10, 12, 16, and 20 and the living room balcony of Unit 18 shall be screened on their western elevation to minimise overlooking to the private open space and windows of 94 St Pauls Street.

 

ii)       The balconies to Units 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 19  and the living room window of Unit 17 shall be screened on their eastern elevation to minimise overlooking to the private open space of 14C and 14E Dudley Street.

 

3.               The submission of a revised Schedule of Materials, Finishes and Colours keyed to the elevations of the building including the detailing of a contrasting painted and rendered finish on the upper levels of the building in lieu of the metal cladding as detailed.

 

Evidence required to satisfy the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the date of this consent.

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

C.      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 DA 1082/2004 for Construction of a multi-unit housing development comprising 20 dwellings and car parking for 32 vehicles, to provide accommodation in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004. at 96-98 St Pauls Street, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:-

 

REFERENCED PLANS:  

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 020, 030-036, 040-044, 050-055, all Issue B, dated 1 23/03/05, prepared by Buzacottwebber and received by Council on 24/03/05, 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 by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENTITY:

 

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

 

2.       Strata subdivision of the development shall be the subject of a separate development application.

 

3.       The proposed development shall not substantially interfere with the proper use of the rights of way benefiting No. 94 St Pauls Street.

 

4.       Detailed drawings and specifications shall be provided for approval with the construction certificate application demonstrating compliance with each of the standards concerning access and useability for self-contained dwellings under Division 4 (Clauses 52 to72) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004.  Certification of compliance of the plans and specifications with the requirements of Division 4 (Clauses 52 to72) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004 by an Access Advisor shall be provided to the certifying authority prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

5.       The entry windows of Units 13 and 17 shall be opaque glass and the laundry windows of Units 14 and 18 shall be opaque glass hopper style windows for privacy and natural ventilation.  Details shall be shown on construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

6.       The bathrooms of Units 19 and 20 should be opaque glass hopper style windows for privacy and natural ventilation. 

 

7.       The ensuite window of Unit 20 on the western elevation and the ensuite window of Unit 19 on the eastern elevation shall be opaque glass to minimise overlooking to the private open space of 94 St Pauls Street and 14E Dudley Street respectively and shall be specified as such on the construction certificate plans prior to the release of the construction certificate.

 

8.       Prior to the release of any strata subdivision certificate and prior to the occupation of the development, a “restriction on the use of the land” and “positive covenant” (under Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be registered on the title of the subject property (in conjunction with the registration of the plan of subdivision for this property), to ensure that the dwellings contained within the development can only be occupied in accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004, that is the dwellings can only be occupied by seniors (people aged 55 years or more) or people who have a disability or people who live within the same household as seniors or people who have a disability.  The restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of Council.

 

The “restriction on the use of the land” and “positive covenant” shall be prepared and specified to the satisfaction of Council.

 

9.       In accordance with the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004 only seniors (people aged 55 years or more) or people who have a disability or people who live within the same household with seniors or people who have a disability may occupy dwellings in the development.

 

10.     Visitor entry to all units, basement carpark and common areas shall be controlled by intercom remote controlled locking systems.  Details shall be provided with the construction certificate application.

 

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

 

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

 

13.     Street numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, to the satisfaction of Council.

         

In this regard, prior to occupation of the building, an application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, together with the required fee, for the allocation of an appropriate street number/s to the development.

 

14.     The enclosure of balconies is prohibited by this consent.

 

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

 

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

 

17.     The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent.  The details and samples of the glass to be used are to be submitted with the colour and material schedule for the approval of Council’s Director of City Planning, prior to the commencement of works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

21.     Solar hot water heaters or other structures are not permitted to be installed on the roof of the building unless the prior written approval of Council’s Director of Planning has been obtained beforehand.

 

ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & ENERGY EFFICIENCY: 

 

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

 

22.     The development must be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum energy efficiency NatHERS rating of 3.5 stars or equivalent and a NatHERS certificate or equivalent, prepared by a suitably qualified person, is to be submitted to the certifying authority with the construction certificate application.

 

The design of the building must be consistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the energy efficiency rating may necessitate a new or amendment to the development consent prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

23.     The consumption of water within the building shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.  Details of compliance are to be noted in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

24.     Appliances provided within the development must satisfy as a minimum the following energy ratings:

 

·      Clothes dryers minimum 2.5 star

·      Dishwashers minimum 3 star

·      Clothes washers minimum 45 star

·      Fridge minimum 4 star

 

25.     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 a minimum of a) 1.5m from the side boundaries and is to have a maximum height of 2.4 metres.  The tank is to be installed behind the front building line and is to be located at 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.

 

SECTION 94 Contributions:

 

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

 

26.     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             $42,858.28

b)         for the provision or improvement of community facilities $18,950.32

c)         Administration fee $425.00                                                       $     425.00

 

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

 

CONSERVATION/HERITAGE:

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain the heritage significance and amenity of the premises and locality:

 

27.     An archival recording of the original building on the site shall be prepared, including the early history of the site and 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 development.  This recording shall be in accordance with the Guidelines for the preparation of archival recordings set out by the NSW Heritage Office.  Three copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library.  This information shall be used in the preparation of an interpretation strategy for the development and the interpretation strategy shall be implemented in conjunction with the development.

 

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY AND DANGEROUS GOODS: 

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure adequate environmental protection and occupational health and safety:

 

28.     All site works shall comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of WorkCover NSW.

 

29.     All hazardous or intractable wastes and materials (including asbestos) shall be removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW, the Environmental Protection Authority, including the following provisions:

 

Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001; and

The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant Environmental Protection Authority Guidelines

 

30.     Prior to demolition of any building constructed before 1970, the person acting on this consent shall prepare a Work Plan prepared in accordance with Australian Standards AS260-2001, Demolition of Structures by a suitably qualified person.  The Work Plan shall outline the identification of any hazardous materials, including materials containing asbestos and surfaces coated with lead paint and the plan should detail the method of demolition, the precautions to be employed to ensure public safety and to minimise any dust nuisance and methods of disposal of any hazardous materials.  A copy of the work plan is to be forwarded to the Council prior to commencing such works.

 

31.     Hazardous dust must not be allowed to escape from the site.  The use of fine mesh dust proof screens or other relevant measures is recommended.  Any existing accumulations of dust (eg, ceiling voids and wall cavities) must be removed by the use of an industrial vacuum fitted with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter or equally effective methods.  All dusty surfaces and dust created from work is to be suppressed by a fine water spray.  Water must not be allowed to enter the street and stormwater systems.  Demolition is not to be performed during high winds, which may cause dust to spread beyond site boundaries.

 

32.     The removal, cleaning and disposal of any lead-based paints must be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures, The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the requirements and guidelines of the Environmental Protection Authority.

 

NOISE EMISSION CONDITIONS:

 

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:

 

33.     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).

 

34.     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.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION & CONTROL:

 

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:

 

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

 

36.     The location and facilities for the collection, storage and disposal of wastes generated within the premises shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the commencement of works.

 

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

 

Details of compliance are to be provided in the relevant documentation for the construction certificate.

 

PRESCRIBED BUILDING & FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS:

 

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

 

38.     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.

 

39.     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.

 

40.     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.

 

41.     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.

 

42.     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.

 

43.     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”.

 

44.     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.

 

45.     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.

 

46.     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.

 

47.     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.

 

48.     Fire safety notices must be provided to fire-isolated stairways, passageways or ramps in accordance with clause 183 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, at all times.

 

49.     The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.  The smoke detectors located within the stairway, corridors or the like must be interconnected.

 

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

 

STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY:

 

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

 

50.     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.

 

51.     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.

 

52.     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.

 

53.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, including ancillary structures (i.e. including dwellings, residential flat buildings, commercial/industrial building, garages, carports, verandahs, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc.) located upon:

 

a)   all of the premises adjoining the subject site

b)   2A, 2B, 3 and 4 Howard Place.

 

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 above stated premises, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

54.     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.

 

55.     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.

 

CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT:

 

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:

 

56.     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.

 

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

 

58.     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.

 

59.     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.

 

60.     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.

 

61.     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.

 

62.     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.

 

63.     Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery and pile drivers (or the like) must be minimised by using appropriate plant and equipment and silencers and a construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be implemented during the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

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

 

b)       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.

 

e)       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.

 

65.     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.

 

66.     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.

 

67.     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.

 

68.     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.

 

69.     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.

 

70.     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.

 

71.     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 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.

 

72.     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.

 

73.     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.

 

74.     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.

 

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

 

A temporary safety fence is to be provided to protect the public, located to the perimeter of the site. Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing, with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

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

 

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

 

The public place adjacent to the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place and any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed upon completion of the work.

 

Hoardings and temporary 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.

 

ACCESS & FACILITIES FOR DISABLED:

 

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

 

76.     Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided to and within the building in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1 and Clauses 52 – 72 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004 to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.  Details of the proposed access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

SECURITY DEPOSIT CONDITIONS

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate security against damage to Council’s infrastructure:

 

77.     The following damage/civil works security deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)         $10,000.00      -           Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash or unconditional bank guarantee with the Council and is refundable upon:-

 

·    A satisfactory inspection by Council that no damage has occurred to the Council assets such as roadway, kerb, guttering, drainage pits footway, or verge; and

·    Upon the completion of the civil works (including the new pedestrian refuge/median island) as conditioned in this development consent by Council.

 

The applicant is to advise Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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

 

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS/CIVIL WORKS CONDITIONS

 

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

 

78.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a)   Construct a concrete heavy duty vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site in St Pauls Street.

 

b)   Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks in both St Pauls Street and Howard Street and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

c)   Reconstruct any damaged sections of kerb and gutter for the full site frontages except opposite the vehicular entrance and exit points.

 

d)   Construct a new concrete footpath along the full site frontage in St Pauls Street.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

e)   Construct concrete pram ramps along the southern side of Dudley Street at the intersections of Hardiman Avenue and Nancye Street.

 

Note: The pram ramps shall be constructed in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD5.

 

f)    Extend Council’s stormwater pipeline in Dudley Street up to the eastern side boundary of the site and construct a new kerb inlet pit in St Pauls Street.

 

Notes:

i)    All new kerb inlet pits shall be constructed in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD6.

ii)   This condition may be waived if there is no stormwater runoff being discharged from the site (refer to drainage conditions)

 

79.     The applicant shall meet all costs associated with design and construction of a new pedestrian refuge island in St Pauls Street opposite the proposed development.

 

The design of the refuge/median island shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and shall be to the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee. The applicant is advised to submit a design for the median island immediately after receiving construction certificate approval for the development, as the approval process (including referral to the Randwick Traffic Committee) may be a lengthy process.

 

Notes:

 

i)            The pedestrian refuge shall be 900 mm wide and be constructed at a location west of the driveway entrance to the proposed site.  The pedestrian refuge should be designed in such a way so as to taper down to a width of 600 mm to form a section of a median island that will be constructed outside the subject site, and will extend from a point 10.0 metres east of the eastern extremity of the driveway to a point ten metres west of the western extremity of the driveway.

ii)            The detailed design shall include all associated linemarking and signposting requirements.

iii)           The design of the median island shall not impede existing vehicular access to No. 14C Dudley Street.

 

The construction of the new pedestrian refuge island shall be undertaken by Council or a Council approved contractor prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the site.

 

80.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

81.     The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

82.     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.

 

83.     The driveway opening at the St Pauls Street frontage must be 6.00 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property boundary.

 

84.     The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 6 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

85.     A work zone is to be provided in St Pauls Street for the duration of the construction works.  The ‘work zone’ shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee and shall have a minimum length of 12 metres. The prescribed fee for the work zone must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site.

 

It is noted that the requirement for a workzone may be waived if it can be demonstrated (to the satisfaction of Council’s traffic engineer) that all construction related activities (including all loading and unloading operations) may be undertaken wholly within the site.

 

Alignment Level Conditions

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for future civil works in the road reserve:

 

86.     The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for the driveway and adjoining pedestrian entrance, shall be as follows:

 

·     St Pauls Street frontage:

o Western side of combined driveway/pedestrian access: RL 59.15

o Eastern side of combined driveway/pedestrian access: RL 59.55

o Grade linearly between the two points detailed above

 

·     Howard Street frontage:

Match the back of the existing footpath, along the full site frontage.

 

(As per the submitted Survey Plan by Clement & Reid P/L, dated 10 March 2003)

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0923.

 

The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

87.     The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the kerb/footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

88.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $1255 calculated at $33.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

SERVICE AUTHORITY CONDITIONS

 

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

 

89.     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.

 

90.     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.

 

91.     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.  In particular, the applicant shall liaise with Sydney Water regarding their requirements for construction over the existing stormwater and sewer lines at the front of the site.

 

92.     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.

 

93.    A section 73 Compliance Certificate, under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water.  An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator.  For details, please refer to the “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site www.sydneywater.com.au then the “e-developer” icon or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Following the application, a “Notice of Requirements” will be provided, detailing water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

A copy of Sydney Water’s ‘Notice of Requirements’ must be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to issuing a Construction Certificate.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council prior to issuing an occupation certificate or subdivision certificate, whichever the sooner.

 

DRAINAGE CONDITIONS

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

94.     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.  This may involve either connection to the Council's street gutter, or into a Council stormwater pit.  Note:  All proposals should indicate the location of the closest Council stormwater pit and line regardless of the point of discharge.  This information can be obtained by a visual inspection of the area and perusing Council's drainage plans.

 

c)         Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (ie. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage system.

 

d)         The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.          Roof areas

ii.          Paved areas

iii.         Grassed areas

iv.         Garden areas

 

e)         Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

f)          Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

g)         The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

95.     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.

 

96.     All site stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) to either:

 

a)         The underground drainage system in Dudley Street, via a new kerb inlet pit and extension of the existing stormwater pipeline in Dudley Street to the eastern side boundary of the site; OR

 

b)         A suitably sized infiltration system (subject to geotechnical investigation confirming that the ground conditions are suitable for an infiltration system).

 

Notes:

 

a.   All new kerb inlet pits shall be constructed in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD6.

b.   With the exception of the site discharge pipe, all new pipelines constructed within council’s road reserve shall be minimum 375 mm diameter, spigot and socket rubber ringed jointed, steel reinforced concrete pipeline (RRRCP). Prior to backfilling, all pipelines in council’s road reserve shall be inspected and approved by the Hydraulic Engineer certifying the works and Council.

 

97.     Site discharge pipelines shall cross the verge at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the kerb line.

 

98.     A work-as-executed plan prepared and signed by the hydraulic engineer or a registered surveyor, must be submitted to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, detailing the as constructed details for all works within Council’s road reserve (including detailed levels).

 

99.     All drainage details (for the external drainage works) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified hydraulic consultant who shall, at the completion of the works, certify that the drainage works have been constructed in accordance with the approved drainage plans and relevant standards. The plans and specifications for all works on Council property shall be submitted to and approval by the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

100.   Should stormwater be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, on-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm, the on-site detention system shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

For small areas up to 0.5 hectares, determination of the required cumulative storage must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible the detention tank must have an open base to infiltrate stormwater to the groundwater. Note that the ground water and any rock stratum has to be a minimum of 2.0 metres below the base of the tank.

 

101.   Should stormwater be discharged to an infiltration system, the infiltration area shall be  sized for all storm events up to the 1 in 20 year storm event with provision for a formal overland flow path to Council’s Street drainage system.

 

Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm, the infiltration system shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

102.   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.

 

103.   The detention area/infiltration system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

104.   The maximum depth of ponding in above ground detention areas (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) shall be as follows:

 

c)         300mm in landscaped areas (where child proof fencing is not provided around the outside of the detention area and sides slopes are steeper than 1 in 10)

d)         600mm in landscaped areas where the side slopes of the detention area have a maximum grade of 1 in 10.

e)         1200mm in landscaped areas where a childproof fence is provided around the outside of the detention area

 

Notes:

§ It is noted that above ground storage will not be permitted in basement carparks or in any area which may be used for storage of goods.

§ Mulch/bark must not be used in onsite detention areas

 

105.   The stormwater detention area (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

106.   The floor level of all habitable and storage areas adjacent to the detention area (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be constructed.

 

(In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

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

 

108.   A `V' drain is to be constructed along the perimeter of the property, where required, to direct all stormwater to the detention/infiltration area.

 

109.   A reflux valve shall be provided (within the site) over the pipeline discharging from the site to ensure that stormwater from Council drainage system does not surcharge back into the site stormwater system.

 

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

 

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

 

111.   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.

 

112.   Prior to occupation of the development, a "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

a.   The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services Department.

b.   If new linen plans are being prepared for the site, the plans shall indicate the location and dimensions of the detention/infiltration areas. 

 

113.   Two covered car washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

a)         The car washing bays must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

b)         The car washing bays must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system.

 

c)         The car washing bays must be signposted with Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

 

d)         The car washing bays must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bays (or equivalent)

 

e)         A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bays.

 

114.   Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer. The works-as-executed drainage plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and shall include the following details:

 

a)                  The location of the detention basin with finished surface levels;

 

b)                  Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

 

c)                  Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

 

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

 

e)                  The orifice size(s) (if applicable);

 

f)                   Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

 

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

 

115.   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.

 

116.   As the above site may encounter seepage water within the depth of the basement excavation the basement carpark is to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

a)   Any subsoil drainage 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 ground water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water/seepage water through the development site).

 

117.   Any seepage water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. Seepage water must not be drained from the site.

 

WASTE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for waste management:

 

118.   The garbage room areas shall be sized to contain a total of 18 x 240 litre bins (9 garbage bins & 9 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

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

 

120.   The waste storage areas are to be suitably signposted.

 

121.   Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste a Waste Management Plan detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for the development site, post construction.

 

LANDSCAPE CONDITIONS

 

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

 

122.   The landscaping shall be installed substantially in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Narelle Sonter, of Botannica Landscape and Horticultural Specialists, job number 020301, drawing number LCP.01/B, sheet 1 of 1, amendment B, dated 21.03.05. The landscaping details submitted for the construction certificate shall be based on the above mentioned plan, with the following additional details:

 

a.         A planting schedule listing all plants by botanic & common names, plant numbers, plant spacings, accent planting, pot sizes at time of planting, the estimated size of the plant at maturity (height & spread) and proposed staking methods when applicable.

 

Note: Only low growing species, or trees which can be under pruned to achieve a clearance of 1.8 metres, shall be used along the proposed pedestrian access path along the southern boundary.

 

b.         Additional notation showing soil and mulch details, edging, paving, fencing details, surface finishes, retaining wall details as well as lighting for the length of the proposed pedestrian walkway along the southern boundary, and any other landscape elements in sufficient detail to fully describe the proposed landscape works.

 

c.         Position of existing and proposed site services including water, gas, electricity, sewer, stormwater, etc.

 

d.         Sectional elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

Note: All planter boxes and garden beds constructed on slab must have a minimum soil depth of 600mm. The planter box detail shall be amended to comply with this requirement, and shall be submitted with the detailed landscape plans.

 

e.         Relocation of the two Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) referred to as BI on the Landscape Concept Plan and shown as adjacent to the eastern boundary with 14C Dudley Street shall be relocated elsewhere within the deep soil zone in this area of the site in order to minimise any encroachment of their canopy over the eastern boundary with 14C Dudley Street.

 

123.   In order to reduce the amount of stormwater generated by the site, as well as to recharge groundwater supplies, porous paving shall be used in all paved areas not over slab. Details are to be provided with the construction certificate application.

 

124.   To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic irrigation system shall be installed throughout all planted areas. Such a system shall provide full coverage to all planted areas with no overspray onto driveways and pathways.

 

The system shall comply with all Sydney Water requirements, and relevant Australian Standards.

 

125.   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.

 

126.   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.

 

127.   In order to visually 'soften' the expanses of hard pavement, brick unit pavers, stencilled concrete (or similar) shall be used throughout the driveway areas on the site.

 

128.   Any substation required shall be suitably screened from view. The proposed location, elevation and screening method shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications.

 

129.   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.

 

TREE MANAGEMENT

 

130.   The applicant shall submit a total payment of $808.50 to Council,

 

a.         Being the cost for Council to supply and install 3 x 45 litre street trees along the St Pauls site frontage, comprising one on the eastern side of the proposed driveway, and two on the western side of the proposed driveway at the completion of all works ($735.00) + GST.

 

The contribution shall be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

131.   Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees subject to the planting of 5 x 75 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) within the site. The species selected shall be those that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity.

 

·    One Brachychiton acerifolius (Flame Tree) near the northwest corner of the site

·    Two Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palms) in the front yard

·    Six Cyathea cooperi (Tree Ferns) on the southern side of the existing pool

 

132.   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.

 

133.   A refundable deposit in the form of cash cheque or bank guarantee (with no expiry date) 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.

 

The contribution shall be paid into Landscaping Bond Code R41 at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

                

a.           The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months after the issue of a final occupation certificate by the principle certifying authority providing the landscape works have been successfully implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape documentation. Throughout the maintenance/bond period, the applicant shall be responsible for all routine maintenance such as weeding, watering, fertilising, spraying, staking and replacement of all failed plant stock.  There must be no alteration to the original design, including substitution of trees and shrubs, without the prior approval of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

b.           Any contravention of Council's landscape conditions at any time during the construction period or prior to the expiration of a period of twelve (12) months from the date a final occupation certificate is issued will result in the Council claiming all or part of the lodged security.

 

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 C2                      -       Compartmentation and separation

g)       Part D1                      -       Provisions for escape

h)       Clause D1.2               -       Number of exits required

j)        Clause D1.4               -       Exit travel distances

p)       Part E1                       -       Fire fighting equipment

q)       Part E2                       -       Smoke Hazard Management

r)        Part E3                       -       Lift Installations

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

t)        Part F1                       -       Damp and weatherproofing

u)       Part F2                       -       Sanitary and other facilities (for employees)

w)      Part F4                       -       Light and ventilation,(carpark, bathrooms,etc)

x)       Part F5                       -       Sound Transmission and Insulation

 

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

 

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

 

A2     The applicant/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.

 

A3     The applicant/owner is requested to give consideration to providing access and facilities for people with disabilities in accordance with Australian Standard 1428 Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 - Design for Access and Mobility, which may be necessary to satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

A4     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.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 plans

Photomontage of proposal

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 


Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

31 May, 2005

FILE NO:

DA 0293/2002   B

 

PROPOSAL:

 Modification to Development Consent No. 293/02 for the demolition of the existing buildings & erection of a part 4 & part 8 storey mixed commercial / residential development with basement parking.  The modifications are to alter the internal layout & design of units, new mechanical ventilation duct on ground floor, new corridor & access staircase relocated, reduce number of parking spaces & remove car stackers.

PROPERTY:

 803 Anzac Parade, MAROUBRA

WARD:

 Central Ward

OWNER:

 Pasternak Freehold

APPLICANT:

 Tony Soglimbene

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee as the original application was determined by Council

 

The application is for a modification to the approved plans for a mixed multi unit development approved by Council on 30 September 2002. The modifications are to alter the internal configuration of the buildings by reducing the number of residential and commercial units resulting in larger apartments. The modifications also results in the removal of internal car stackers and reduces parking from 14 spaces to 12 spaces. Minor design changes are proposed to the glass blocks on the northern elevation and an internal corridor is proposed at ground level.

 

The subject site is zoned 3A general business and contains a vacant allotment with dimensions 7.62m x 67.07m, having a total area of 511.1 sq.m. The site has frontage to both Anzac Parade and Ferguson Street. The surrounding area exhibits a variety of commercial and residential development ranging from single storey to 10 storey development.

 

The proposed development is substantially the same as the original proposal and results in a minor increase in floor area of some 27.2 sq.m. The approved building envelope remains substantially unchanged (the minor change being at ground level for an internal connecting corridor). The development is considered to be substantially the same development and the impacts generated by the alterations are the same as, if not less than, the approved application. No objections were received with respect to the alterations and the proposed development generally complies with the primary development controls, block controls and design controls in the Maroubra Town Centre Development Control Plan.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed section 96 modification involves the following amendments:

 

·    To make internal alterations to change the number and type of units within each of the two towers and provide a better quality development. The approved development contained 12 x 1 bedroom residential units, 2 home office units, and 4 commercial units totalling 18 units. The proposed development has 9 x 2 bedroom residential units, 2 home office units and 1 commercial unit totalling 12 units. The number of storeys and the building envelopes remain unaltered as part of the proposal.

·    New corridor internally at ground level and mechanical ventilation to car park internally.

·    Make internal alterations to reduce the number of car parking spaces to reflect the proposed number and type of units (i.e a reduction in the approve amount of 14 to 12 spaces).

·    Remove the car stackers, construct the basement level at RL 22 and drain the basement (as opposed to tanking it).

·    Reduce the area of glass bricks used in a small area of the northern facade of the proposed building fronting Anzac Parade.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade and south of the intersection of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road. The site also has frontage to Ferguson Street. The site is regular in shape with a width of 7.62m and a depth of 67.07 m, and an area of  511.1 sq.m. 

 

The site is currently vacant. To the south of the subject site is a part 6 and part 7 storey, mix-use commercial/residential development at No. 805-813 Anzac Parade. To the west on the opposite side of Ferguson Street are dwelling houses having frontage to Ferguson Street at No. 28 and 30 Ferguson Street. To the north is a development site which currently being excavated. This site has been approved for a seven storey residential development fronting Anzac Parade and town houses fronting Ferguson Street.  Further to the north is a row of part-one and part-two storey brick buildings containing a mix of single and double storey shops forming part of the Maroubra Junction centre. To the east on the opposite side of Anzac Parade are existing single and double storey retail/commercial developments fronting Anzac Parade.

 

The subject site is small in size compared to the larger consolidated sites for the multi-storey mixed residential/commercial developments that have been approved on the northern and southern side of the subject site. In this context, the subject site is an unconsolidated narrow site.

 

   

 

Adjacent site to north. Rear of site                   Subject site at right with adjacent units left.

visible at left.

 

 

 

   

 

Anzac Pde streetscape looking north with             View of Anzac Pde to north of site.   

site at left.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Council’s records indicate that the subject site was approved for use as a motor spare parts retail shop on 7 July 1964.

 

Development Application No. 1410/1999 for a proposal involving the demolition of the existing building and erection of a part-3 and part-7 level mix-use residential/commercial development with basement carparking was refused on 1 May 2000.

 

Development application 812/2000 was approved on 27 December 2000 for the demolition of an existing commercial building and erection of a part 3 and part 7 level mixed commercial and residential development with two levels of basement parking (10 spaces). The proposal was for 10 one bedroom, 6 studio, 2 home office and 4 commercial units.

 

Development Application No. 965/2001 for use of the shop premises fronting Anzac Parade as a discount variety shop was approved under delegated authority on 14 November 2001.

 

In relation to the small size of the site, the owner of the subject site had previously been made aware of Council’s concerns given the large scale developments in adjoining lots north and south of the subject site. In this respect, Council had conveyed to the owner of the subject land its preference for the subject site to be amalgamated with those of adjoining developments in the interest of avoiding adhoc and fragmented development in the Maroubra commercial centre.

 

Development application 293/2002 amending the approval issued under DA 812/2000 was approved on 30 September 2002 for the demolition of the existing commercial building and erection of a new part 4 and part 8 storey, mixed commercial/residential development containing 12 dwellings, 2 home office units and 4 commercial units and basement car parking over two levels for 14 vehicles.

 

An application to modify the consent issued under DA 293/2002 was approved on 24 December 2002 to modify the conditions of consent relating to Section 94 contributions, driveway levels, provisions for refuse and landscaping.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. No submissions were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Building and Construction Issues

 

Building Services comments

 

The proposal provides for the internal alteration and reconfiguration of some of the units.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class 6            -           Retail/Shops

Class 2                        -           Residential units

Class 7a          -           Car park

 

Background

 

The proposed development was originally approved as part of development application 293/2002, which was for the demolition of the existing commercial building and erection of a new part 4 and part 8 storey mixed commercial/residential development containing 12 sole occupancy units, 2 home office units and 4 commercial units, and basement car parking over 2 levels for 14 vehicles.

 

Key Issues

 

An assessment of the section 96 plans revealed that the exit travel distances from the basement level Carpark do not comply with the deemed to satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

In this regard, Trevor R Howse and Associates provided a performance based report, dated 31 October 1999, for the travel distances to an exit, which revealed through testing of ASET and RSET, the basement level Carpark travel distances will achieve compliance with the applicable performance requirements.

 

This report was accepted in the environmental impact statement, which then would form part of the development consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

As the main issues regarding compliance with the Building Code of Australia have been addressed in the original development consent, there is no need for additional conditions to be included in regards to the section 96 application.

 

Health Comments

The proposal

The section 96 application provides for the internal alteration and reconfiguration of the units including new mechanical ductwork.

 

Background

 

The proposed development was originally approved as part of development application 293/2002, which was for the demolition of the existing commercial building and erection of a new part 4 and part 8 storey mixed commercial/residential development containing 12 sole occupancy units, 2 home office units and 4 commercial units, and basement car parking over 2 levels for 14 vehicles.

Key Issues

 

Acoustics

 

Standard conditions in relation to noise should be attached to the consent so as to ensure that noise emanating from the proposed mechanical ventilation system and lift do not create a nuisance and affect the amenity of the proposed residents.

 

RECOMMENDATION

Conditions provided if consent issued.

 

6.2  Engineering Issues

 

An application has been received to modify development consent for the construction of a mixed commercial and residential development at the above site.

 

The modifications to the development consent include altering the internal layout and design of units and the reduction of car parking spaces.

 

Traffic Comments

 

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

 

It is noted that no alterations to the AIS report (as amended in December 2002) are required; should the S96 application be approved.

 

Note – the Assets and Infrastructure Services Section has advised that all original engineering conditions of consent should remain and none require deletion or alteration (particularly in relation to the detention of water and the impact on the ground water table)..

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

          -        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

          -        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

          -        Building Code of Australia.

          -        Development Control Plan– Multi Unit Housing

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 3A – General Business under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. Under Amendment 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, clauses 31 – Landscaped Area, 32 – Floor Space Ratios, and 33 – Building Heights of the LEP do not apply to the land within the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.

 

The proposed internal alterations convert a large amount of floor area from commercial/home office to residential. The proposed development has a gross floor area of 1449.9 sq.m while the approved application has a gross floor area of 1422.7 sq.m. The proposed modification therefore results in an increased floor area of 27.2 sqm. The proposed modification results in an increase in the residential floor area by 253.3 sq.m. and a reduction in the commercial/home office floor area by 226.7 sq.m. A corridor connecting the front and rear buildings has been proposed at ground level and this corridor is where the additional 27.2 sqm of floor area is proposed.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.    Maroubra Town Centre- Development Control Plan

 

Figure 1: Primary Development Controls (Part 3.1)

 

Control

Performance Criteria

Compliance

3.1.1    Amalgamation

20m (min) site frontage  or dual street frontage with access from secondary street

The site has dual street frontage with access from Ferguson Street which is the secondary street frontage.

3.1.2    Subdivision

Must relate to street hierarchy and  meet design controls for open space; pedestrian access and residential amenity

Not Applicable - subdivision not proposed.

3.1.3    Building envelope

Residential floors 70% of max building envelope

Commercial floors 80% of maximum building envelope

The proposed development results in the same envelope as that approved originally which is a maximum of 69.6%, therefore complying.

3.1.4    Building Height

8 storeys to Anzac Parade – 26.7m (max)

Remains unchanged.       Yes 25.2m (max).

 

5 storeys to Ferguson St -  18.0m (max)

Remains unchanged.         Yes 15.26 (max).

3.1.5    Building Depth

22m for residential (18m glass line to glass line)

Front building, remains unchanged but does not comply - 25.5m (20.5m glass to glass).

Rear building, remains unchanged and complies – 20m (14.7m glass to glass).

3.1.6    Building separation

18-27m

Envelopes remain unchanged, separation is 13.9m. Doesn’t comply.

3.1.7    Articulation

1m (min) at rear and front above ground floor retail/commercial.

600mm (max) projection of balconies beyond building envelope

Complies.

 

 

 

3.1.8    Street setbacks

Nil set back along Anzac Parade (refer Block 10 controls)

Complies, proposal built to property boundary with Anzac Parade.

3.1.9    Side and rear setbacks

Nil side setback (refer Block 10 controls)

Must comply with Building separation above

Complies. Nil side setback.

3.1.10  Rights of carriageway

Where required by Building envelope plan in Block by Block controls

Not provided by block control.

 

Figure 2: Block 10 Controls

 

Control

Performance Criteria

Compliance

Building Envelope Plan

Gross floor area is not to occupy more than 70% of the building envelope for residential floors and 80% for commercial/retail floors above ground level

The proposed modification does not alter the approved envelopes, however the gross floor area occupies up to 69.6% of the building envelopes and therefore complies.

Building Use

Along Anzac Parade south of strata titled building (767-771 Anzac Parade):

One floor of retail commercial with residential above.

 

Along Ferguson Street

- one floor of commercial with residential above (home office uses encouraged)

 

Complies, ground floor is commercial and floors above are residential.

 

 

 

Complies, ground floor is a home office unit, floors above are residential.

Building Depth

 

Commercial/retail floors

- max 22m (20m glass to glass line)

Residential floors

- max 22m  (18m glass to glass line)

The proposed modification does not alter the approved building envelopes. Does not comply for building fronting Anzac Parade.

Setbacks

Front

 

 

 

0m along Anzac Parade

 

 

 

 

Min 3m along Ferguson Street

 

 

Complies – 0m at ground floor.  Articulated at upper levels.

 

Complies, 4.57m proposed.

Open Space

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deep Soil Zone

 

Minimum of 25% of total site area to be provided as communal open space,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No requirement

There is a loss of 21 sq.m of open space at ground level located in the centre of the site. The area lost is a result of the proposed connecting corridor. The loss in open space area is minor and reasonable private open space is provided to each dwelling in the form of balconies and/or a courtyard.

 

None provided.

Other Controls

Road widening: Lots on Ferguson Street are to comply with Randwick City Council’s Subdivision Code.

No alteration is proposed with respect to Road widening under this amendment.

 

 

 

 

 

Design Controls

 

Control

Performance Criteria

Compliance

4.1     Site Design

4.1.1    Deep soil zones

 

 

 

 

4.1.2    Fences and walls

 

 

 

 

4.1.3    Landscape design

 

 

 

 

4.1.4    Open space

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.1.5    Planting on structures

 

 

4.1.6    Heritage

 

 

As required by Block by Block controls above (No requirement)

 

 

1.2m (max) for fences

 

 

 

 

Landscape plan prepared by qualified landscape architect required

 

 

25% of total site area is required as communal open space

 

All dwellings to have access to private, useable, functional area off main living area.

 

25m2 of private open space with min dimension of 4m in one direction for  apartments at ground level/podium

 

Minimum soil depths in accordance with plant size

 

Developments to be appropriate scale, proportion and materials

 

 

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

Not proposed.

 

 

 

 

None proposed.

 

 

 

 

No communal open space provided.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

Not applicable.

 

 

Site not identified as heritage item or within conservation area.

4.2     Site Access

 

4.2.1    Parking

 

 

 

 

4.2.2    Pedestrian access

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2.3    Vehicle access

 

 

 

 

 

To be in accordance with DCP-Parking and accommodated underground.

 

Pedestrian access from the street & car parking area to apartments clearly identified on DA plans

 

Barrier free access to and within at least 1 in 15 dwellings,

 

New vehicle access is not to be provided from Anzac Pde but from secondary streets

 

 

 

Refer Section 7 – Parking below.

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

Not required but available.

 

 

 

Proposed vehicle access from Ferguson Street provided.

Part 4.3: Site Amenity

 

4.3.1    Building entry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.3.2    Visual privacy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.3.3    Safety + security

 

 

 

 

 

·    Identifiable and clearly visible from street

·    Separate entries for different uses, ground floor apartments, pedestrians and cars.

·    Sheltered, well lit and highly visible spaces for building entry & collection of mail

·    Entries, lifts and associated circulation space of adequate size to allow movement of furniture between public & private space

 

·    New development to provide adequate building separation and side and rear setbacks

·    Overlooking minimised

·    Building and site design to increase privacy without compromising access to light and air

 

Crime risk assessment for developments with 20 or more dwellings

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No issues arise regarding visual privacy as a result of the modifications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No requirement.

4.4 Building Configuration

 

4.4.1    Apartment layout

 

 

 

 

 

4.4.2    Apartment mix

 

 

 

4.4.3    Balconies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.4.4    Ceiling Heights 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.4.5    Corner buildings

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.4.6    Flexibility

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.4.7    Ground floor apartments

 

 

4.4.8    Home Offices

 

 

 

 

4.4.9    Internal circulation

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.4.10  Storage

 

 

 

 

 

Min apartment sizes:

Studio = 40m2

       1B = 50m2

       2B = 80m2

       3B = 125m2

 

Mix of studio, 1B, 2B and 3B

 

 

·    2.5m (min) balcony depth

 

 

 

·    Min balcony sizes:

        1B         = 6m2

        2B &3B = 10m2

       

Ground floor= 3.6m

First floor = 3.3m

All floors above= 2.7m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buildings to align & reflect the corner by reinforce spatial relationships, accentuating topography and clarifying street hierarchy

 

·    Buildings designed to accommodate future change in use

 

·    All commercial/retail components to comply with AS 1428-2001

 

Ground floor apartments maximised for housing choice

 

Clearly identifiable area capable of being closed off from rest of dwelling; adequate storage

 

10 (max) apartments to common lobby

8(max) apartments off a double loaded corridor

Generous corridor/lobby widths and ceiling heights

 

·    50% (min) of required storage accessible from hall or living area.

 

·    Minimum areas of accessible storage:

      Studio = 6m3

            1B = 8m3

            2B = 10m3

            3B = 12m3

 

·    1.5m (min) height

 

 

 

 

All units comply.

 

 

 

 

 

All units proposed are two bedrooms only.

 

 

No alterations proposed to balconies which all comply.

 

 

No alterations proposed to balconies which all comply.

 

Ground floor complies and all residential floors comply except the first floors which are 2.75m high. No alteration is proposed from the approved development with respect to first floor to ceiling heights.

 

 

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rear ground floor apartment to be used for residential.

 

No identifiable area shown on current or approved plans.

 

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does not comply – no storage area proposed or approved.

 

 

 

Part 4.5      Building Amenity

 

4.5.1    Acoustic privacy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.5.2    Daylight Access

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.5.3    Natural Ventilation

 

 

 

Units to comply with internal acoustic amenity in accordance with Australian Standard either naturally or mechanically ventilated (Acoustic  report required)

 

 

 

 

·    Single aspect apartments not to be orientated to Anzac Pde.

 

 

 

·    Living rooms & private open spaces for 70% (min) of apartments to receive 3 hours (min) direct sunlight between 9am & 3pm mid-winter

 

All apartments single loaded or dual aspect to allow air cross-flow

 

 

Acoustic conditions imposed on original consent still relevant and apply.

 

 

 

 

 

 

All units dual aspect from level two up. No single aspect apartments oriented to Anzac Parade.

 

Complies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

All apartments achieve cross ventilation

 

 

Parking

 

The total car parking requirement for the proposed development under DCP - Parking is 21 spaces. This comprises 13.2 spaces for the residential units, 2 additional spaces for the home offices, 2.5 spaces for the commercial area and 3 spaces for visitors.  The proposal provides 12 spaces and therefore does not comply with the car parking requirement, providing a shortfall of 9 spaces. The proposal also does not comply with the design and layout requirements for car parks under the DCP - Parking.

 

Councils Department of Asset and Infrastructure Services advises that the peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposal would be less than 15 trips per hour which is not expected to adversely impact on Ferguson Street.

 

Due to the small and narrow nature of the subject site, the proposal cannot practically meet the car parking requirements of DCP – Parking.

 

The approved scheme required the provision of 24 spaces under DCP-Parking, whereas only 14 were approved resulting in a shortfall of 10. Given this, the proposed amendments actually improve the parking situation by having a shortfall of 9.

 

The applicant submits the following with respect to parking:

 

The original approval under Development Application No. 812/2000 provided a total of 10 car parking spaces for a total of 22 units (10 one bedroom, 6 studio, 2 home office and 4 commercial units). Council has approved DA No.293/2002 for the erection of a mixed commercial/residential development containing 12 dwellings, 2 home office units and 4 commercial units – representing a total of 18 units. Under the same consent, although the proposed number of car parking spaces did not comply with the requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking, Council approved the provision of 14 car parking spaces within the development (representing a shortfall by 10 spaces to the number required).

It is proposed to make minor internal alterations to the approved plans to provide a total of only 12 units (9 two bedroom units, 2 home office units and 1 commercial unit). It is also proposed to make internal modifications to the approved car parking levels to reduce the number of car parking spaces to 12. Whilst a minor reduction is proposed, the proposed change will result in an improved an more appropriate situation for car parking allocation within the development as each unit will now be allocated a car parking space.

The stacked car spaces (which are not encouraged under Council’s codes) are proposed to be removed. The turntable will be retained to provide safe ingress/egress within the development (allows vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward direction).

It is considered that the proposed modification to number of car parking spaces is minor as:

 

·     The proposed modifications are limited to internal modifications only – the exterior presentation of the approved development remains unchanged and as such, is substantially the same as the approved development; and

·     The proposed modification in the number of car parking spaces adequately and more appropriately will reflect the number of units within the development.

 

As the proposed changes are limited to internal modifications only, no environmental impact will result from the proposed modifications to the number of car parking spaces.  The proposed modifications will, in fact, result in an improved parking situation and a better quality development in that each unit will be provided with a car parking space (previously 4 units would not have associated car parking).  This in turn provides a more marketable development that meets the market demand for the area.

 

It is considered that the proposed modifications should not require any additional Section 94 contributions to be made in lieu of a shortfall in parking for the following reasons:

 

·     The previously approved plans for the development did not attract any Section 94 contributions in lieu of a shortfall in the car parking provided on the site;

·     Each unit will be provided with a car parking space under the proposed plans within the development (12 spaces for 12 units).  This represents an improvement in the on site car parking facilities as the previously approved plans did not provide spaces for each unit (14 spaces for 18 units);

·     The proposed plans for the building do not propose changes to the building envelope, only the use of the internal spaces.  The fact that the previously approved plans provided smaller units (some being studios) hence requiring fewer spaces to be provided is irrelevant.  The proposed plans, whilst providing two less spaces, include a fewer number of units promoting better amenity;

·     Council’s previous justifications for permitting a shortfall in the provision of on site car parking facilities are still relevant as no changes are proposed to the building envelope and the amount of commercial floor area is being reduced (i.e. “the impracticality of providing for visitor parking within the development due to constraints imposed by the limited configuration and size of the site and without compromising the presentation of the proposed building to the Anzac Parade streetscape”  and “that credit is to be given for the existing [commercial] floor area on the site”).

 

A shortfall in on site car parking was recognised in the approved scheme.  Accordingly, it is recommended that the lesser shortfall of the proposed amended scheme should again be considered acceptable.

 

It is considered that the modified parking plan is a better solution than the original plan in that it removes the car stackers, provides a car space for every unit in the building and provides a lesser shortfall than the approved proposal. Given the very narrow size of the site, obtaining additional parking would require significant additional excavation and is not practical given Council has agreed to a higher shortfall in parking under the previous approval. It is considered that the proposed parking is a reasonable solution on a constrained site and the shortfall in parking is unlikely to generate significant parking and traffic issues within the surrounding streets.

 

Design.

 

The proposed modifications include reducing the area of glass blocks over all levels to the northern elevation of the building fronting Anzac Parade. This elevation faces a large site which is currently being developed for commercial/residential purposes. The reduction in glass blocks has no impact to the adjacent property. The glass blocks as proposed prevent overlooking to the adjacent site but enable light to penetrate the apartments.

 

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

 

Application of Policy-

 

This Policy applies to development being:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

The original development was not referred to the SEPP 65 Panel as at the time of its assessment, SEPP 65 had not been gazetted. Ordinarily the SEPP would apply to a development such as this, however given the proposal is for minor modifications and the envelopes, unit orientation, height and general floor area remain predominantly unchanged, the proposed alterations are not considered substantial and do not require referral to the panel.

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1  Substantially the same

The proposed modifications are minor and will not result in any additional impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape and therefore the proposed modifications to the original development proposal are considered to represent substantially the same development.

 

9.2  Consideration of submissions

 

The proposed modification was notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification and no objections were received.

 

10.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed alterations result in an internal reconfiguration of the building reducing the  number of apartments and commercial floor area so that there is a single commercial area at the front of the site, reducing the number of residential apartments from 1 x 12 bedroom apartments to 9 x 2 bedroom apartments. The approved envelopes remain unaltered and the modifications result in no additional impacts to adjacent and surrounding properties. The alterations generally comply with the requirements of the Maroubra Town Centre DCP.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. 02/00293 on property 803 Anzac Parade, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

·      Amend Condition No. 1 to read as follows:

 

1        The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the details set out on the plans numbered DA001A to DA005A, 101A, and 201A to 203A dated 17 July 2002 and stamped received by Randwick City Council on 1 August 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered plans numbered 101 A to 109 A, all dated 04.04.05 and received by Council on 7 April 2005, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on those 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 attached plans:

 

·      Amend condition 24 to read as follows:

 

 

a.         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).

 

·      Add the following conditions:

 

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:

 

i.          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.

 

ii.          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:

 

iii.         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.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

LUKE JACKSON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR , CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

16 May, 2005

FILE NO:

D1123/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and proposed first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including new rear first floor balcony.

PROPERTY:

 6 Haig Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

OWNER:

 Mr & Mrs Delinaoum

APPLICANT:

 Mr J Spiteri

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Robert Belleli, Ted Seng.

 

The application seeks consent to carry out alterations and first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including a rear first floor balcony.

 

The estimated cost of development is $100,000.

 

The issues for consideration are the siting of the proposed first floor additions at the front of the dwelling and its impact on the symmetrical appearance of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and the potential for overlooking into the private open spaces of 8 Haig Street from the proposed rear first floor balcony.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to carry out the following works:

 

§  Erection of a staircase from the ground floor to the proposed first floor of the dwelling.

§  Erection of new roof over the existing patio to the rear of the existing

dwelling.

§  Erection of first floor additions to the existing dwelling including a rear balcony.

 

The proposed additions will provide for 75sqm of additional floor area to the existing dwelling.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the north-eastern corner of Haig Street and Byng Lane in Maroubra and is presently occupied by an existing single storey semi-detached dwelling.  The site has a frontage width of 7.62m, a side boundary depth of 36.845m and has an overall site area of 279m².  Neighbouring the property to the west across Byng Lane is a three storey multi-unit housing building, to the east is the other half of the pair (No. 8) of the single storey semi-detached dwelling and to the rear is a single storey freestanding outbuilding.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Application No. 545/2004 for the alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including new first floor addition with front and rear balconies was refused on 3 August 2004 as the proposal failed to meet the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Parts 4.2 Floor Area, 4.3 Height, Form & Materials and 4.5 Visual & Acoustic Privacy of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in terms of the siting of the first floor addition, the bulk and scale of the proposal, and loss of privacy and would adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining dwellings, the character of the locality and streetscape.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The owners of the adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  As a result of this notification, two submissions were received. One submission was received from the owners of the adjoining semi detached dwelling at 8 Haig Street and the second submission from a consultant architect acting on behalf of the owners of 8 Haig Street.

 

5.1     Objections

 

Mr I & Mrs J Thompson – 8 Haig Street Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

Current proposal slight improvement on previous proposal (refused by Council) however still excessive in bulk and scale compared to No 8 and the fact that the subject dwelling is one of a pair of semi detached dwellings does not seem to have been taken into account. Contend a more modest addition would be more appropriate.

Agreed. This issue has been addressed in Section 7 of this report.

Strong concern for the potential adverse privacy impacts from this balcony to their rear yard area and kitchen and living areas. Contend this balcony would also drastically affect sunlight to their living areas from mid afternoon onwards.

Agreed. The proposed rear balcony is inappropriate and will adversely affect the privacy of the adjacent semi. The applicant has agreed to the deletion of this balcony. See Section 5.2 below.

Request that the staircase be sited on the opposite wall to the common wall to reduce the considerable noise from seven people. Maintain they would like the same consideration that gave their neighbours in previous years.

Having regard to the ground floor layout of the existing dwelling, the proposed staircase location is considered to be the most practical location within the dwelling. It would be unreasonable and impractical to require the staircase to be relocated to the opposite side of the dwelling.  

Concern for a possible detrimental affect on the value of their property as well as neighbouring properties.

This is not a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

 

 

 

Campbell Luscombe Folk Lichtman Architects (on behalf of owners of 8 Haig Street)

 

Issue

Comment

Acknowledge that the current proposal is an improvement on the previous application, however maintain that the issue of the proposal being one half of a pair of semis has still not been addressed. Contend that the nominated recommendations for upper floor additions in the DCP do not appear to have been taken into account and this is born out by the rudimentary Statement of Environmental Effects accompanying the application, particularly in respect of a pair of semi detached dwellings.

Agreed. The Statement of Environmental Effects submitted with the application is substandard and fails to address the compliance with the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies adequately. See also Section 7 of this report.

Massing of the upper floor addition does not appear to have met the performance requirements. Reference is made to the relevant sections of the dwelling house DCP including the diagrams on pages 53 and 54 regarding the siting of the additions. It is contended that the second storey is not contained within the roof space with the new roof being higher than the existing one. Contends the proposal looks overly dominant within the streetscape relative to its neighbouring semi with an insubstantial portion of the original roofline left intact.

Agreed. The proposal fails to comply with the preferred solution of Part 4.3 of the DCP and the Statement of Environmental Effects also fails to provide sufficient justification for the non-compliance. 

The proposal fails to comply with the side setback requirement and the upper floor component appears bulky and imposing when viewed from the rear.

The proposal fails to comply with the preferred solution of the DCP in regards to side setbacks and insufficient justification for the departures has been provided in the Statement of Environmental Effects.

The proposed rear first floor balcony has a major visual and acoustic affects on the privacy of the adjacent semi. The 1.8m high privacy screen does not adequately provide necessary privacy for the neighbours.  

Agreed. The proposed rear balcony is inappropriate and will adversely affect the privacy of the adjacent semi. The applicant has agreed to the deletion of this balcony. See Section 5.2 of this report.

Concern about the location of the internal staircase on the party wall, with noise generated from the stairs.

This issue has been addressed above.

The shadow diagram is very basic and only shows the shadow of the proposed development at 3pm on 22 June. 

It is acknowledged that the shadow diagram is basic but the overall shadowing impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings would be minimal.

The insensitive scaling and massing of the proposed development could cause the property values of the adjoining neighbours to fall.

As noted above, this is not a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

5.2     Support

 

The applicant has responded to the above issues and the following comments were provided:

 

§  The detached shed to the rear of the dwelling is a garage associated structure and its area has no bearing on the design and scale of the proposal.

§  The existing roof form and pitch is not adequate for providing a habitable area within.

§  The design of the proposed first floor addition allows for a future symmetrical addition at 8 Haig Street. 

§  Taking into consideration the corner position of the subject dwelling and the close proximity to the Anzac Parade commercial strip and the bulk, scale, front and side boundaries setbacks of surrounding buildings, the design and positioning of the proposed first floor addition is considered to be a reasonable infill development.

§  The proposed rear first floor balcony will be deleted.

§  The proposed first floor additions will cast shadows over Haig Street and Byng Lane between 9am – 12noon on the 22nd June and will provide no loss of sunlight to the private open space of 8 Haig Street.

§  It is considered that the proposal satisfies the intent of Council’s objectives relative to floor space, height, form, building setbacks, visual & acoustic privacy and open space.

 

6.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

6.1     Policy Controls

a.       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 0.65:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.698:1. Does not comply – see assessment below.

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 6.9 metres. Complies.

S5

The second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

The proposed first floor addition will be sited forward of the main ridge of the roof and does not integrate with the adjacent dwelling. Does not comply – see assessment below.

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed first floor is setback approximately 7 metres from the front boundary. Complies.

S2

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

The proposed first floor is approximately 14 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level.

Not applicable.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed first floor is setback 970mm from the western side boundary. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

 

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Habitable room windows within 9m of another dwelling’s windows are offset by 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing below 1.5m above floor level.

The proposed first floor windows and doors will serve bedroom and bathroom areas which will not result in any significant adverse impact on the privacy of the neighbouring residents. Complies.

S1

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

The first floor rear balcony will overlook the internal living spaces and rear yard areas of the adjoining properties. Does not comply – see assessment below. 

S1

Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more or fixed obscure glazing below that height.

The proposed first floor windows are for bathroom and WC and will be fitted with obscure glazing. Complies.

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 not be overshadowed by the proposal. 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 more than 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.

S9

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained between 9am and 3pm each throughout the year.

The proposal will not overshadow solar collectors on adjoining properties. 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.

The proposal will not reduce solar access to less than 3 hours on north-facing windows. Complies.

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.

 

7.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

7.1     Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Floor Area

 

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, streets and public open space.

 

The Statement of Environmental Effects indicates the proposal will have a total gross floor area of 179.83 sqm, providing a floor space ratio of 0.645:1, which complies with the preferred solution of 0.65:1 for a site area under 300 sqm. However, it does not appear to include an existing shed structure attached to the garage at the rear of the site, which has an approximate area of 15 sqm, resulting in a floor space ration of 0.698:1, which does not comply with the preferred solution of the DCP.

 

The proposal also fails to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that the siting of the proposed upper floor addition at the front of the dwelling will not be compatible with the symmetrical appearance of the adjacent semi-detached dwelling at No. 8 Haig Street and adds significant bulk and scale to the streetscape.

 

It should be noted that the Statement of Environmental Effects has failed to provide sufficient justification for the above non-compliance.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

The Objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality; 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; with respect to additions to semi-detached dwellings they integrate with the attached dwelling; and views are shared.

 

The proposal fails to comply with the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solution of the DCP in that the siting of the first floor addition forward of the main ridge of the roof will appear overly dominate in the streetscape and does not integrate satisfactorily with the adjacent semi-detached dwelling. The Statement of Environmental Effects also fails to provide sufficient justification for the non-compliance.

 

Building Setbacks

 

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

 

The side setbacks of the proposed first floor addition are considered to be acceptable in that the setback from the western boundary adjoins a laneway and the eastern side boundary setback is mostly to the party wall of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. The non-compliance should not result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining premises.

 

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 noted that there would be a potential for a significant and unreasonable capacity of overlooking into the rear yard and internal living area of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 8 Haig Street from the proposed rear first floor balcony. Notwithstanding, a 1.8m high privacy screen on the eastern end of the balcony does not adequately provide necessary privacy for the neighbouring residents. As noted earlier in Sections 5.1 & 5.2, the applicant has acknowledged this potential for privacy loss and agreed to the deletion of this balcony. Furthermore, no privacy screen is proposed on the western side of the balcony where direct view into the internal living areas of the adjoining three storey multi-unit building would be possible.

 

8.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

9.       CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Parts 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and the Statement of Environmental Effects fails to provide sufficient justification for the areas of non-compliance.

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal.  

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 1123/2004 for alterations and proposed first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including new rear first floor balcony at 6 Haig Street, Maroubra for the following reasons:-

 

1.       The proposed first floor addition does not comply with the preferred solutions of Part 4.2 Floor Area of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the floor area of the dwelling will be 0.696:1 which exceed the preferred solution maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 and compliance with the performance requirements and objectives has not been established.

 

2.       The proposed first floor addition does not comply with the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Part 4.3 Height, Form & Materials of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the siting of the first floor addition forward of the main ridge of the roof will detract from the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the design & siting of the first floor addition does not integrate with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and the streetscape.

 

3.       The proposed rear first floor balcony does not comply with the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Part 4.5 Visual and Acoustic Privacy of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the balcony will adversely affect the privacy of the immediate adjoining residents, particularly No. 8 Haig Street.

 

4.       Approval of this proposal would not be in the public interest in that it would set a poor precedent for residential development in the locality and would significantly detract from the appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings and the local streetscape.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 configuration plans .

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

20 May, 2005

FILE NO:

D088/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a 4 storey mixed-use development including 16 dwellings, 2 ground floor commercial premises and ground and basement car parking for 24 vehicles.

PROPERTY:

 505-507 Bunnerong Rd Matraville

WARD:

 South Ward

OWNER:

Graham Waterhouse, Waterhouse Developments P/L

APPLICANT:

 Waterhouse Developments P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as it is valued at $3 million.

 

The subject site comprises two parcels of land at Nos 505-507 Bunnerong Road.  Number 507 Bunnerong Road has an existing consent and work has commenced on the construction of a 4 storey multi unit development comprising a mixed development containing one commercial tenancy and 10 dwellings with basement car parking for 24 vehicles. This application seeks to consolidate the approved development at No. 507 Bunnerong Road with a similarly scaled development at No. 505 Bunnerong Road which will total 16 residential units and 2 retail tenancies with basement parking for 24 vehicles.

 

As part of the assessment of this application a number of issues were raised by Council and the Design Review Panel, including concern for the density of the proposed development above the maximum permissible FSR of 1.5:1, poor internal amenity particularly in regard to the layout of the courtyard and a negative relationship to the adjoining approved development known as No. 495-503 Bunnerong Road.

 

Objections were received from adjoining neighbours primarily in regards to the relationship of the development to the approved development at No. 495-503 Bunnerong Road and the adjoining presbytery at No. 509 Bunnerong Road.

 

Several sets of amended plans were submitted by the applicant which only achieved a piecemeal resolution of these issues. The final set of amended plans dated 5 May 2005 satisfied the majority of outstanding issues and resulted in a compliant development that achieves the objectives of  the development standards contained within Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) and the 10 design principles of SEPP 65. It is also considered that the amended plans satisfactorily address the points of objection raised as part of the notification period.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions of consent.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for construction of a new mixed-use multi-unit development comprising four storeys with 16 residential dwellings, two ground floor commercial tenancies and parking for 24 vehicles to the basement and ground floor levels.  The retail tenancies have a floor area of 39.5sqm for tenancy 1 and 85sqm for tenancy 2. 10 one bedroom units are provided and 6 two bedroom units.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is comprised of Nos. 505 and 507 Bunnerong Road and is located on the eastern side of Bunnerong Road between the intersecting streets of Daunt Ave and Perry St. The site has a total area of 905.79sqm and is a regular rectangular shaped block, with a combined frontage of 23.774m and a depth of 38.1m. The site has a cross fall to the street of approximately 1m.

 

The subject site is located within a commercial shopping strip where there are a number of recently constructed mixed-use developments with ground floor shops and residential units above. To the north and east of the subject site is No. 495-503 Bunnerong Road which has consent for a mixed-use development comprising of a maximum of 5 storeys, this site encircles the subject site. To the south of the site is a single storey brick cottage which is used as the presbytery for the adjoining Catholic Church and associated primary school.

 

The site is currently vacant where the single storey dwelling house of No. 505 Bunnerong Road has been demolished as per DA consent 420/04 adjacent to the partially complete four storey building of the approved multi unit development for No. 507 Bunnerong Road.

 

 

Subject site No. 505 Bunnerong Road                                              No. 507 Bunnerong Road looking at southern elevation

 

495-503 Bunnerong Road redevelopment site adjacent to subject site to north

 

 

St Agnes Catholic Church  & primary school

 

 

Presbytery 509 Bunnerong Road                                      Looking towards Perry St east side of Bunnerong Road

 

Western side of Bunnerong Road looking south           Western side Bunnerong Road looking North.

 

No. 507 Bunnerong Road in final stages of completion

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Consent for No. 507 Bunnerong Road for DA 02/00862 for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a three storey mixed use development containing one commercial tenancy and ten (10) dwellings with basement car parking was granted under delegated authority on the 26 March 2003. This consent was modified per section 96 modification on the 10 February 2004. This modification sought an addition of a further level at the western end of the building and internal re-configuration such that Units 5 and 6 become split level apartments. Works have commenced on this approval and the building is approaching lock-up stage.

 

A prelodgement application was submitted for the consolidation of the two sites Nos 505 and 507 Bunnerong Road by way of an infill development to No. 505 Bunnerong Road. At this meeting the applicant was advised that No. 505 Bunnerong Road could not be assessed independently of No. 507 Bunnerong Road and as such the new DA will be a consideration of the entire consolidated site including the works already commenced.

 

The DA was lodged with Council in October 2004 and was referred to the design review panel for comment. Based on the panel and assessing officer comments, a number of issues were raised. These issues, incorporating engineering and panel issues included insufficient unit mix, poor amenity to the courtyard, non-compliant floor space ratio (FSR), deficient retail areas, poor internal planning, poor car park layout and pedestrian visibility.  Based on these concerns a number of amended plans were submitted plot dated the 14 October 2004, 28 February 2005, 26 April 2005 and the current plans 5 May 2005. These final plans are considered to adequately address many of these issues where the amenity of individual units is improved by the relocation of the lift, the courtyard has been opened up to the communal open space of the adjoining development by deletion of a unit to provide improved solar access, the mix has been altered to increase the number of 2 bedroom units, greater retail areas and driveway design will achieve the requirements of Parking DCP and applicable Australian Standards subject to conditions of consent. As a result, the development is compliant with an FSR of below 1.5:1 and a finished height below the 12m maximum.

 

5.       COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised and referred to Precinct Committee in accordance with the Development Control Plan Public Notification. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1     Objections

 

G J Clarke

26 Pillars Place

 

 

T Pizzolato

495-503 Bunnerong Road

 

Fr. A Simari

509 Bunnerong Road

 

·        If approval has yet to be issued it is queried how works can have started and should cease until approval is granted

 

Comment

 

The works currently underway relate to No. 507 Bunnerong Road for which consent has been already granted.

 

·        The mix has been incorrectly noted in the statement of environmental effects

 

Comment

 

The mix is assessed based on the final set of plans not the statement of environmental effects

 

·        The additional height above that permissible has no community benefit and will have an impact on the building to the east

 

Comment

 

The amended plans have a development which is compliant in regards to height

 

·        The additional height and FSR should be offset by a contribution to Council’s Affordable Housing initiative

 

Comment

 

The additional height is within that which is permissible pursuant to RLEP 1998 however it is noted that Section 94 levying is not based on a SEPP 1 objection to a development standard. Section 94 contributions will be levied based on the number of bedrooms proposed and commercial space.

 

·        Insufficient landscaping is provided between the two development sites of 495-503 and 505-507 Bunnerong Road.

 

Comment

 

As part of the amended plans a corridor to the north-eastern corner will be opened up this will provide for a link between the proposed landscape podium to No. 495-503 Bunnerong Road and the subject site. Landscaping can be provided to this locality which will resolve this point of objection.

 

·        Northern aspect should be maintained and a view corridor through to the church maintained

Comment

 

Maintaining a view corridor to the church would preclude any redevelopment options for the subject site. It is noted that there is no requirement within applicable development standards to provide such a view corridor and there are no minimum setbacks applicable to this commercially zoned block. Further discussion on building separation and landscaped areas is provided under the Environmental Assessment section of this report.

 

·        Setbacks differ between the subject development and No. 495-503 Bunnerong Road

 

Comment

 

No. 495-503 Bunnerong Road has very different site attributes to the subject site where the subject site is not governed by the principles of a Masterplan. As such, consistent rear setbacks are neither appropriate nor reasonable between these two properties where there is a significant variation in site dimensions and area. It is noted that front and side setbacks to Bunnerong Road are consistent which is necessary to provide for a uniform streetscape elevation.

 

·        The glass bricks are of poor architectural merit and do not comply with the BCA

 

Comment

 

The use of glass blocks will be considered as part of the BCA assessment required with the construction certificate application. In terms of aesthetics these bricks will not be visible from the street being well setback from street boundaries.

 

·        Balconies to the northern and eastern elevation should be treated with privacy screens

 

Comment

 

Balconies to the eastern elevation have been fitted with privacy screens, to the northern elevation sightlines will be obscured by proposed planting in the deep soil zone varying in mature heights of between 5m and 12m.

 

·        Residents are against development in excess of council regulations

 

Comment

 

The development, as proposed with the amended plans, the subject of this assessment, is compliant with the applicable development standards.

 

·        The development should be four storeys only, to add an additional storey to the building will be out of character with nearby buildings

 

Comment

 

The proposed development does not exceed four storeys and a basement. The proposed development is consistent with approved heights to both No. 495-503 Bunnerong Road and No. 507 Bunnerong Road.

 

·        Loss of privacy from south facing windows

 

Comment

 

Windows to the southern elevation are fitted with privacy screens or are not transparent being constructed of glass blocks

 

·        The setback of 900mm between the southern elevation and adjoining boundary wall will allow for vermin to breed

 

Comment

 

This setback has been approved as part of the previous development consent however it is noted that this setback will allow for access, maintenance and separation for No. 509 Bunnerong Road and is supported as part of this proposal. A nil setback for the rear half of this elevation would have an adverse impact on the building to the south.

 

6.       TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1     Engineering comments

 

An amended application has been received for the construction of a part four/part five storey residential flat building at the above site containing 16 units, two retail/commercial tenancies and ground & basement car parking for 26  vehicles.

 

It is understood that the strata subdivision is not sought as part of this development application.

 

Landscape Comments

 

The application was referred to Council’s Landscape Technician and the following comments were received:

 

There are no trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order within the proposed development site.

 

As this site falls within the Matraville Commercial Centre, the applicant will be required to submit a separate design dealing specifically with Council’s footpath area for the full width of the site. As part of fulfilling this requirement, there is one Acmena smithii (Lilly Pilly) of approximately 4 metres in height on Council’s nature strip (in front of 505 Bunnerong Road) that will need to be removed and replaced in order to form a consistent streetscape in accordance with footpath upgrades being undertaken as part of the development at the adjacent site, 495-503 Bunnerong Road.

 

The proposed awning along the Bunnerong Road frontage shall be set back 1 metre from the kerb line in Bunnerong Road to allow for future growth of the proposed street trees.

 

Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

Traffic Comments

 

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

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 8 vehicles per hour is considered low and delays should not be experienced in Bunnerong Road as a direct result of this development.

 

The combined entry/exit driveway opening at the Bunnerong Road street frontage shall be minimum 5.00 metres wide. Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

It is noted that the Development Engineer would still prefer the provision of a minimum 5.50 metre wide vehicular access, however, given the reduction in development size proposed in the amended plans; the substantial construction that has already been undertaken at 507 Bunnerong Road and also that it would appear a 5m wide driveway would not be in non-compliance with the Australian Standards; the Development Engineer would not consider the lesser width as  grounds for refusal.

 

Sight distance

All new walls adjacent to the southern side of the driveway (the ‘exiting’ side) shall 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. Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

Waste Management Comments

 

For a development of this size, the garbage room area/s shall be sized to contain 1 garbage bin and 1 recycling bin per 2 units. Given the amended proposal is for 16 units, 8 garbage bins and 8 recycling bins would be required, giving a required total of 16 x 240 litre bins.

 

The submitted amended plans show two residential garbage storage areas being provided. These areas appear to be more than adequate to store the required number of bins with satisfactory access being provided to all bins.

 

It is noted that the Development Engineer does not object to the proposed two waste areas being provided within the ground floor carpark, however the DCP is advised that there appears to be scope to reduce the size of the waste rooms if required.

 

The submitted plans show separate garbage areas for each of the retail/commercial tenancies. These areas are each sized to contain 2 x 240 litre bins (i.e. 1 garbage bin & 1 recycling bin). The retail/commercial waste provisions are considered to be adequate.

 

Groundwater Comments

 

A geotechnical report by Jeffery & Katauskas dated 11 May 2004 was previously submitted by the applicant. The investigations carried out by the consultant indicated that under the ‘current’ rainfall / weather conditions, groundwater flow may be limited to within the sandstone layer, however earlier investigations in May 2003 revealed the presence of groundwater in overlying sands; hence should the prevailing dry weather conditions change, groundwater levels would be expected to rise.

 

The consultant has since submitted a supplementary letter dated 11 March 2005, providing additional comments on groundwater issues at the site. This letter notes that based upon results of investigations at #505, combined with observations of the basement excavation for #507, groundwater would not be problematic for excavation at #505. The consultant also stated that some seepage in the excavation will occur, most likely at the Bunnerong Road end of the excavation, in the vicinity of the existing dyke.

 

As the above site may encounter groundwater/seepage water within the depth of the basement excavation, the basement carpark shall be suitably tanked and waterproofed.

 

It is noted that should dewatering be required at any point during the excavation, the applicant shall contact the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) to obtain a temporary dewatering license.

 

It is further recommended that a report be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority or an accredited certifier, prior to issuing the Construction Certificate, detailing the proposed method of excavation and dewatering (should dewatering be required during the excavation). The report should outline appropriate construction methods that will be implemented to ensure that no unacceptable damage will occur to adjoining buildings as a result of the development.

 

It is suggested that the following condition may be included by the DCP to address this matter:

 

1)      A report must be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority or an accredited certifier, prior to issuing the Construction Certificate, detailing the proposed method of excavation and dewatering, should dewatering be required during the excavation. This report is to be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical, Hydrological and Structural Engineers and is to include but not be limited to:

 

·        The proposed method of shoring/piling and dewatering.

·        The zone of influence of any possible settlement.

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

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

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

·        Details of any consultation and arrangements made with owners of any potentially affected nearby premises (i.e. in relation to access, monitoring and rectification of possible damage to other premises)

·        Details of groundwater quality and proposed disposal of any potentially contaminated groundwater in accordance with relevant requirements of the Department of Environment & Conservation, Council and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, in an environmentally sensitive manner.

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

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

·        Confirmation that the proposed methods of dewatering and excavation are appropriate and in accordance with ‘best practice’ principles and should not result in any unacceptable levels of settlement or damage of the adjoining or nearby buildings within the zone of influence.

 

Any practices or recommendations made by the consulting Engineer/s must be implemented accordingly.

 

The dewatering process must be monitored by the consulting Engineer/s to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority and documentary evidence of compliance with the relevant conditions of consent and dewatering requirements must be provided to the principal certifying authority and the Council.

 

The site conditions and fluctuations in the water table are to be reviewed by the consulting Engineer prior to and during the excavation/construction process, to ensure the suitability of the excavation and dewatering process and compliance with Council's conditions of consent.

 

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

 

6.2     Building comments

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the construction of a new 5 storey mixed residential and commercial development.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class          -        5 or 6          (Offices/Shops)

Class          -        2                 (Residential units)

Class          -        7a               (Car park)

 

Background

 

Building works have commenced on the adjoining site in accordance with a previously approved DA No. 862/2002 and it is now proposed to incorporate the adjoining site as part of this development.

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

 

No construction site management details have been provided with the DA to address issues such as the location of stock piled material or the storage and disposal of excavated materials, sediment and erosion control, public safety and perimeter safety fencing. Standard conditions can be included in the consent to address construction site management issues.

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

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

 

Access for people with a disability:

 

The proposal appears to satisfy the BCA requirements and DDA objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability. However, as the development will contain more than 14 units it must have an accessible unit to comply with Council’s multi unit housing DCP.

 

Standard conditions will be included to confirm these requirements.

 

Conclusion:

 

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

 

6.3     Roads and Traffic Authority

 

The proposal was referred to the RTA for comment as the subject development as submitted is a category 2 driveway under the Roads Act 1998 and AS2890.1-2004. The RTA advised the following:

 

The RTA has reviewed the development application and would grant its concurrence to the vehicular crossing off Bunnerong under section 183(2) of the Roads Act subject to the following comments being included in the consent conditions

 

1.       In accordance with AS 2890.1-2004, the driveway shall be a category 2 driveway with a minimum width of 6 metres splaying out to 8m at the kerb line of Bunnerong Road. In addition, AS 2890.1- 2004 states that the minimum width of a driveway within the subject site is 5.5 metres for a least the first 6 metres from the property boundary.

2.       The design and construction of the vehicular crossing shall be in accordance with RTA requirements. Details of these requirements should be obtained from RTA’s Project Services Manager, Traffic Projects Section Blacktown.

3.       All works associated with the development shall be at no cost to the RTA.

 

Additional advisory comments to Council for consideration have also been included.

 

The proposed development does not achieve compliance with point 1 on the RTAs comments as the driveway has been already constructed in accordance with approval 862/02 requiring such an extensive increase in driveway width would necessitate the demolition of much works which have been already undertaken at No. 507 Bunnerong Road. As part of amended plans the number of units has been decreased from 19 dwellings to 16 and the number of car spaces to 24 as such the development no longer requires a category 2 driveway and the amended driveway design as discussed in the Council’s Engineer section of this report satisfies AS2890.1-2004 and Council Parking DCP. The remaining conditions including the advisory points will be incorporated into recommended conditions of consent.

 

7.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

7.1     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 3B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Commercial

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 - FSR

1.5:1

1.49:1

Yes

33 - Building Height

12m

Max 11.31m

Yes

Clause 14 RLEP 1998 Zone No. 3B (Local Business Zone)

 

The objectives of the 3B zone are:

 

a.       To provide opportunities for local retail and business development

b.       To provide opportunities for associated development such as car parking, service industries and the like

c.       To provide opportunities for residential accommodation in local business centres where it does not interfere with the primary business function of the zone

d.       To minimise the impact of development on adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

The proposed development achieves each of these objectives in allowing for appropriate retail development to the local business centre and associated parking. Residential accommodation is also provided as part of this application and is considered acceptable, as it will not interfere with the primary function of the business centre. The development will not have an adverse impact on the retail centre nor the surrounding residential properties.

 

7.2     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

As SEPP 65 applies to this development the proposal was referred to the Design Review Panel for comment the following are the comments provided for each of the referrals:

 

PANEL COMMENTS

 

PRELODGEMENT COMMENTS

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The relationship to neighbours and location of windows is required to be shown on all plans.

 

The Panel observed that many difficult issues in relationship to the adjoining approvals have not satisfactorily been resolved.

 

The neighboring DA is required to be shown on all plans, sections, elevations etc.

         

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The panel considers that a predominantly 4 storey building with some 5th storey element would be acceptable in this location. However the site planning of the current proposal is not acceptable. The courtyard space should open to the adjoining development’s courtyard, increase sunlight, air movement and a sense of spaciousness to this otherwise entombed space.

 

The access stair, lift and walkways are very poorly planned, and break the courtyard into a series of mean light wells. As a result privacy within the courtyard is also unacceptable.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

An increased rear setback on site would allow for amenity to be maximised for both sites. Distances between windows of habitable rooms do not appear to comply with the 12m requirement in SEPP 65. An alternative configuration should consider turning the rear block to face north.

 

The Panel believes that BCA assessment is required, particularly in regard to fire safety.

 

Panel considers that the site planning is very compromised and that many environmental and amenity problems arise due to this.

 

4.       The Proposed Density

 

The higher than code FSR that is being sought is not supported.  Any argument for increased density needs to be supported by high quality design, good amenity to all dwellings and reasonable impacts on neighbours. At this stage the Panel is unconvinced the proposal justifies the additional FSR.

 

In the current proposal, the Panel considers the amenity and environmental quality of too many units to be substandard.

 

The Panel believes that a reduction in floor space would solve many of the amenity issues associated to the site.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

The poor environmental quality of the courtyard compromises the environmental performance of the proposal.

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

 

The lack of deep soil planting on the site is unacceptable to the Panel. Deep soil planting is required to be provided on this site. 

 

The amenity of the central courtyard and private courtyard terraces between the front and rear blocks is considered to be poor, with little privacy afforded to terraces, excessive shading and visual clutter of access bridges and stairs.

 

Landscaped areas to the rear of the development are inadequate and should be increased in depth to improve privacy and visual amenity.

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

         

Solar penetration and ventilation to the building - units, lobbies, hallways etc is required to be provided.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

9.       Social issues

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

          It is considered that additional input from an urban designer is required.      

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel recommends that the scheme be redesigned to address all the concerns listed above.

 

The Panel reiterates its belief that the two sites should be developed concurrently however the floor space applied for on the subject site is considered excessive and must be reduced so that the internal planning and external design issues can be overcome.

 

The Panel would like to see the amended scheme.

 

FIRST DA REFERRAL

 

The Panel previously considered this application at the June 2004 meeting.

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

         

The Panel would like to see further detailed contextual information, particularly showing the building in relation to all neighbours. This information should be displayed on all plans, sections, elevations and shadow diagrams. This requirement was noted in the previous Panel report, and has not adequately been addressed.

 

This is a complex scheme with complex relationships to neighbours; plans, sections and elevations are required to show 1 per page.

 

4.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

A streetscape analysis of the proposal within its context is required to be undertaken.

The scale of the proposal in the street needs further consideration. The Panel is concerned that the new part is over-articulated, with a poor relationship to the approved structures on either side. The use of operable screens to the west facade is appropriate, however the scale and massing need to be reconsidered.

 

5.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The internal courtyard needs to be fundamentally improved (see below).

 

The built form of this proposal is to be improved and its overall bulk minimised. A roof plan is to be prepared and provided.

 

The Panel is concerned that the massing is not at all resolved architecturally, with a unrelated elements often awkwardly juxtaposed.

 

6.       The Proposed Density

 

The density is above LEP controls, and the amount of building is clearly leading to problems in terms of scale, built form, amenity and aesthetics. Given the above, the Panel sees no case for allowing a density above the LEP.

 

7.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

While most units ostensibly have cross ventilation, the poor design of the courtyard (see below) would be a major constraint for future residents. The Panel is concerned that the windows indicated would not be opened due to security, visual and acoustic privacy problems. The detailed design and placement of all openings needs to be better considered

 

The applicant is to consider the introduction of natural ventilation to the ground floor car park areas to provide some air and light.

 

8.       The Proposed Landscape

 

The proposed landscape does not meet SEPP 65 standards.

 

The courtyard space needs to be further resolved to provide a well designed useable space. The quality of the landscape treatment in the courtyard space needs to be substantially improved. The Panel considers that opportunities to introduce planting in generous containers in the courtyard should be provided.  Unlike the condition illustrated in the submitted section, the depth and surface levels of all planters needs to be resolved with the structure. As no deep soil planting is provided, the planters are to have a minimum soil depth of 600-1200mm plus space for falls and drainage layers.

 

Design input from a Landscape architect is required and a Landscape Plan is to be submitted.

 

9        The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

         

The proposed amenity does not meet SEPP 65 standards.

 

The amenity for future residents depends on the quality of the central courtyard. The courtyard should provide excellent address, light, air and some outlook to greenery and the sky. Clear lines of sight, elegant structure and privacy screening should all be seamlessly accommodated in such a space. Instead the proposed courtyard is a riot of unresolved elements, heavy overhead bridges, awkward changes of level, un-integrated landscape, visual and acoustic privacy conflicts and poor address. The idea of the space on such a site is good, the current design is unacceptable in all regards.

 

The Panel have concerns about many aspects of the internal planning of the proposal and believe that amenity within the development can be greatly improved. 

 

10      The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

The Panel believes that BCA assessment is required, and recommendations incorporated into the revised design.

 

Stair clearances should be checked.

 

11      Social issues

 

As noted above, the entry sequence for residents is not acceptable. At street level, the residential entry, escape and car access need further consideration to improve safety.

 

12      The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

All aspects of the character of the architecture need to be improved in order to meet SEPP 65 requirements. The elevations, roof forms, courtyard and massing of the rear facade all need to be redesigned.

 

Panel suggests the applicant reconsider the colours and materials of the proposal.

 

The character of the proposal to the street is required to improve.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The documentation submitted does not meet SEPP 65 requirements. The Panel had difficulty in understanding the plans as they were not well represented. The relationship to adjoining developments is not adequately shown.  The Panel would like the subsequent plans submitted to have 1 per page. The Panel recommends that a study model should also be prepared at 1:100 scale, also showing neighbouring buildings. The model would help address the problems of the massing, roofscape, streetscape, and the courtyard design identified by the Panel.

 

Drafting conventions should be observed, such as dotting overhead roofs and walkways.

 

While aspects of the scheme have improved to a minor degree, elements such as the courtyard have become more confused are contorted. The architect has to maximise amenity, aesthetics etc to meet all the SEPP 65 design quality principles.

 

The Panel recommends that the scheme be redesigned to address all the concerns listed above.  The input of an urban design consultant is suggested. The Panel would like to see this application again when the matters raised have been addressed, in association with the assessing planner.

 

SECOND DA REFERRAL

 

The Panel has reviewed this proposal a number of times previously, and provided the architect with detailed responses outlining issues that need to be better resolved.

 

1.       Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

·        A streetscape / context analysis of the proposal has at no stage been satisfactorily addressed by the architect in presentations to the Panel. In particular the elevation should correctly show the relationship to the approved DA immediately to the north.

·        A model of the application is needed to understand the built form interrelationship with the adjoining developments.

         

6.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

·        The Panel understands that the first stage of the proposal was approved prior to the introduction of SEPP 65. The Panel is cognizant of the Council’s planning controls for the area and considers that these are relevant in the future determination of the proposal.

·        The Panel considers that the form, scale, height and internal arrangements of the development are not satisfactorily resolved.

·        The street elevation is awkwardly broken into too many parts, which are poorly related to each other in terms of heights and width.

·        The previous and current schemes do not satisfy this SEPP principle, and the building needs further design resolution.

 

7.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

·        The courtyard is the most important space in this scheme, and it has not received adequate design consideration. This and other issues have been highlighted in previous Panel reports.

·        The main entry stair sequence from the street is extremely poorly resolved.

·        The lift and lobby are poorly laid out, and the lift location would probably be better associated with the main stair.

·        The Panel is concerned that the driveway is overly wide, and detracts from the continuity of the shopfronts in what is a shopping precinct. This concern needs to be balanced with the safety of pedestrians. In the current scheme, neither concern is adequately addressed.

·        Car parking should be reconfigured to allow an area of deep soil planting. The present arrangement is inefficient at ground floor.

·        The Panel believes that BCA assessment is required in regard to all aspects of the building, particularly fire safety, egress and protection of openings.

·        The previous and current schemes do not satisfy this SEPP principle, and the building needs further design resolution.

 

9.       The Proposed Density

 

·        The proposed density is above the LEP FSR control. The proposed density is not supported by the Panel, given the many shortcomings of the design listed in this report.

 

10.     Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

·        Opportunities to increase solar access, light penetration and cross-ventilation through the use of top light windows, skylights and roof penetrations have not been adequately explored.

·        Cross ventilation to living room areas needs to be achievable in all weather conditions.

 

7.       The Proposed Landscape

 

·        The proposal provides minimal landscaping and no deep soil zones. 

·        The previous and current schemes do not satisfy this SEPP principle, and the building needs to be redesigned to meet the SEPP and Design Code requirements.

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

·        The Panel has major concerns about many aspects of the internal planning of the proposal and believe that amenity within the development can be greatly improved.

·        The Panel has previously highlighted the many areas where privacy is compromised, and the extent of undesirable undercrofts in the courtyard. While reconfigured in this most recent iteration, the design remains unacceptable. An example is the compromised relationship between the common stair and bedroom 2 window in Unit 15 on the Second Floor Plan. Another is the internal stair in the split level units, which clearly lack sufficient headroom.

·        The previous and current schemes do not satisfy this SEPP principle, and the building needs further design resolution.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

See previous comments

 

9.       Social issues

 

·        The Panel is concerned that the retail areas proposed are tokenistic, as they are of minimal depth and occupy less than half the frontage.

 

10.     The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

·        The building needs further design resolution of external and courtyard elevations in relation to amenity, scale, proportion, materials, colours and details.

·        The previous and current schemes do not satisfy this SEPP principle, and the building needs further design resolution.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel considers that it has to revisit time and again the same issues as outlined in previous DRP recommendations. The project does not display a resolved handling of many SEPP 65 issues, such as scale, built form or amenity. As noted above, the Panel had proposed that a physical model be made, which has not been done.

 

Therefore the Panel recommends that Council refuse this Development Application.

 

The Panel advises that any new application should employ new design and site strategies to conform to the SEPP and that this may call for a reduced number of apartments.

 

The final amended plans, the subject of this assessment, were informally referred to the Design Review Panel for review. In preliminary discussions with the panel members it was noted that the plans addressed Council officer’s concerns for bulk, internal and courtyard amenity, compliance with relevant development standards and greater unit mix.

 

It is considered that the specific concerns raised in regard to internal planning and amenity from communal stair access has been addressed by these final plans which provide adequate distances and head height level for movement around the development. Each of the units achieves adequate cross ventilation and solar access. Privacy screen treatments will ensure that internal overlooking is resolved and satisfies requirements for building separation.  The bulk of the development has been reduced to have a compliant FSR and height.

 

It is considered that generally the proposal as per the amended plans dated 5 May 2005 is not inconsistent with the 10 principles of SEPP 65.

 

7.3     Development Control Plan No. DCP 19 Matraville Commercial Centre

 

Control

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

Building height plane

8m external wall height with 45deg roof pitch.

12m with flat roof

No- however the development achieves compliance with the applicable LEP controls for height.

12m height limit

12m

11.31m

Yes

Side and rear boundary setbacks

SEPP 20-Minimum Standards for Residential Flat development apply where less than 25% of floor area has a commercial component

Nil to commercial frontage and min 900mm to southern boundary and 3.27m to the northern boundary. 4.5m to rear (eastern) boundary.

SEPP 20 has been repealed and is not applicable.

 

7.3.1    Side and rear boundary setbacks

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 20 has been repealed therefore there are no setback controls for the subject site. The development incorporates commercial/retail space to the ground floor, which matches the setbacks of the shopping strip.

 

There are three levels of residential floor space provided above the commercial footprint matching that nil setback so as to maintain the ‘urban wall’ to the street alignment in keeping with the Bunnerong Road shopping strip. Additional residential accommodation is provided to the centre and rear of the site separated by a corridor. This secondary residential footprint provides a minimum 900mm side setback to the south and a minimum 3.795m setback to the north. A rear setback of 4.5m is provided.

 

It is considered that these setbacks provide sufficient separation between this proposal and adjoining development to both the northern, southern and eastern boundaries. The bulk of the development is considered to be kept to a minimum and will ensure the residential amenity of neighbouring properties is maintained.

 

7.3.2    Commercial Development

 

The proposed development incorporates ground floor shop space to ensure continuity of the retail activities within the precinct.

 

7.3.3    Awning and colonnades

 

The front façade has been architecturally treated to provide a consistent treatment to the streetscape. The built form of the street frontage has been designed to respond to the façade of the approved building to the north No. 495-503 Bunnerong Road. A continuous awning has been provided at the same height and distance from the kerb as that approved to the adjacent development.

 

8.         ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

8.1       Built form

 

The proposed built form of the development is considered to be consistent with the approved development at No. 495-503 Bunnerong Road and the commenced development of No. 507 Bunnerong Road to which this development application integrates. It is noted that the character of the Matraville town centre is changing with examples of the original development form of two storey shop top developments, redevelopments of a scale and form similar to that proposed as part of this application in various stages of completion and service uses such as a primary school and service station. As such, it is the emerging character of four storey and basement parking, ground floor commercial and residential above that is the guiding form to be maintained as part of this current proposal.

 

It is considered that this site continues the form and scale of the adjoining property to the north with a consistent height stepping down towards the lower scale development to the south (presbytery, Church and primary school unlikely to be redeveloped in the near future) and a continuation of horizontal elements and shop level awning throughout the shopping strip

 

The design review panel did not raise particular concern with the façade of the development and its relationship to Bunnerong Road and as such no issue is raised from a planning perspective where the new built form maintains the street elevation approved as part of 862/02 for No. 507 Bunnerong Road and is in keeping with recently approved developments within the town centre.

 

8.2       Bulk and scale

 

The bulk of the development has been reduced as part of the final set of amended plans dated 5 May 2005 to a compliant FSR and height with the number of storeys provided being consistent with the adjoining development and scale of the Matraville town centre. 

 

When the proposed development is viewed from the adjacent development to the north and east, the proposed development will not read as uncharacteristically bulky as the landscaped area to the centre of the site has been maintained. As such, the open space between both developments provides a high level of amenity for units oriented towards this open space. The open space also allows for extensive landscaping which will provide an additional buffer between the two developments thereby softening the appearance of the new buildings. Units oriented towards the landscaped areas have been designed to provide additional articulation with balconies oriented in this direction so as to provide visual relief and reducing the apparent bulk.

 

The northern elevation, adjacent to the landscaped podium incorporates extensive setbacks to maintain solar access to proposed units and sufficient levels of visual separation between the two developments.

 

The development, when viewed from the southern neighbour, the Catholic Church and in particular the associated presbytery, will not appear overly bulky as the setbacks of this neighbour have been reproduced with a nil setback to the front portion of the building, a light well for the mid section consistent with the beginning of the landscaped podium and then a 900mm setback for the rear unit common with the second half of the southern elevation of the presbytery. It is considered that for the most part the four storeys of the adjacent development will not be visible from the presbytery. The visible portion will be to the rear where the rear elevation is set within the rear alignment of the presbytery and does not represent a significant amount of building bulk.

 

It should be noted that the scale of this development is consistent with the commercial zoning of the site therefore altering the design of this development on the grounds of bulk and scale would be unreasonable as the development complies with relevant development standards.

 

8.3       Privacy

 

There are no windows provided to the northern elevation that are within sight distances of a neighbouring dwelling (either within the site or overlooking an adjacent site) that have not been fitted with louvred privacy screens. There are balconies provided that have not been fitted with privacy screens however it is noted that adequate separation between these balconies and neighbouring properties is provided where the balconies overlook the landscaped podium and where landscaping will provide for a visual barrier to obscure sightlines to adjoining neighbours.

 

Likewise to the east, windows are provided with a louvred treatment to minimise overlooking however balconies oriented over the courtyard area do not require a privacy treatment as overlooking will be minimised by landscape plantings and there exists a distance of some 9m from proposed windows to proposed neighbouring units.

 

The Residential Flat Design Code recommends a minimum separation of 12m between buildings to maintain adequate levels of acoustic and visual privacy, solar access and usable communal open space. The proposal has a minimum separation at podium level of 7m. This is deficient of the preferred 12m however it should be noted that a portion of this site has already been constructed as per a previous development consent. As such this application must design around the constraints of the approved development as the separation has been approved at 7m. It is noted that 862/2002 was made prior to the commencement date of SEPP 65. It is considered that the provision of privacy screens and off setting of windows will ensure that there is adequate visual separation between units even if the physical separation is less than would be required as part of an entirely new development proposal.

 

8.4       Landscaping and private open space

 

It is noted that there are no landscaping requirements for a commercially zoned site pursuant to RLEP 1998.

 

There is no true deep soil planting provided as part of this proposal as there is basement parking provided for the entire site area. A landscape plan has however been submitted which nominates and details a zone which will allow for deep soil planting to the north-eastern corner of the site. This area will sustain the planting of trees with a maximum mature height of 12m. It is considered that this will provide adequate landscaping and permeable area for the development to satisfy the requirements of SEPP 65.

 

A communal courtyard is provided to the north-eastern corner of the site and to the centre of the site providing separation between the front units addressing the street and the units located to the centre of the subject site. This communal courtyard provides a total landscaped area of 224.64sqm which represents 25% of the total site area. Under the Residential Flat Design Code ideally a minimum of 25% of this area should be provided as deep soil. It is noted that 26% of this area is provided as deep soil area which achieves the minimum of the Code. The proposed depth of this zone at 1m will sustain medium sized trees (8m diameter at maturity) as specified under ‘planting on structures’ in the Code.

 

It is considered that the extent of landscaped area is sufficient for this density of development proposed for this site. It is also considered that the design and location of this opens space is adequate where it provides for adequate site circulation for pedestrians as well as a suitable relationship to landscaped areas on adjoining sites.

 

Private open space has been provided for each of the units in the form of private courtyards to the first floor and balconies for upper level units. Balconies oriented over Bunnerong Road have a minimum depth of 1.5m, less than the preferred 2m in the Residential Flat Design Code, however this is considered suitable as these balcony areas will have significant heat loading due to the westerly orientation and the balconies address this busy arterial road. In most instances secondary balconies are provided which will ensure sufficient private open space to achieve satisfactory recreation areas. Balconies to the rear of the site have greater dimensions well exceeding the  minimum dimension in the Residential Flat Design Code.

 

8.5       Solar access

 

The proposed development overshadows the northern elevation of the adjoining development to the south in the afternoon of the winter solstice. This adjoining building to the south is the presbytery associated with the adjoining Catholic Church. It is noted that there are windows provided to this elevation however these windows will already be overshadowed by the previously approved development to No. 507 Bunnerong Road. This development does not increase the amount of overshadowing to this adjoining property.

 

Additional shadow cast by the addition of No 505 Bunnerong Road to the approved development of No. 507 Bunnerong Road will fall primarily over the subject site and over Bunnerong Road.

 

8.6       Parking

 

The proposed development has been Assessed under the requirements of DCP Parking. In accordance with the parking DCP the development requires a total of 24 spaces including 17.2 residential spaces, 3.1 commercial spaces and 4 for visitors.

 

Control

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

1 bed - 1 space per unit

10

10

Yes

2 bed - 1.2 space per unit

7.2

7.2

Yes

Visitor - 1 space every 4 units

4

4

Yes

Disabled - 1 per every 15 units

1

1

Yes for visitor, 1 space to be conditioned for the adaptable unit

Commercial - 1 per every 40sqm

3.1

3

Yes

Loading

1

1

Yes

Car wash

1

1

Yes

Driveway gradient 

1 in 6

Max grade of 1:8

Yes

 

9.       FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10.     CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, the 10 design principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65,  the provisions of the Development Control Plan- Parking and the intent of Development Control Plan No. 19 Matraville Town Centre. The development will not have an adverse impact on the quality of the town centre, the character of the streetscape or the amenity of neighbouring properties.

 

As such the development proposal, as amended by the plans the subject of this assessment, is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council, as the responsible authority, grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application 886/2004 for Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a 4 storey mixed-use development including 16 dwellings, 2 ground floor commercial premises and ground and basement car parking for 24 vehicles. at 505-507 Bunnerong Rd Matraville subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Condition

 

The consent is not to operate until the following amendments/details has been submitted to and approved by the Director, City Planning:

 

1.       An amended colours, materials and finishes board is to be submitted for the development.  The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with surrounding buildings in particular the approved colour schedule for No. 495-503 Bunnerong Rd Matraville. 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, City Planning.

 

Evidence required to satisfy the above conditions must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the date of this consent.

 

B.      Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement condition, development consent is granted under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application 886/2004 for Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a 4 storey mixed-use development including 16 dwellings, 2 ground floor commercial premises and ground and basement car parking for 24 vehicles. at 505-507 Bunnerong Rd Matraville subject to the following conditions:-

 

REFERENCED PLANS:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered  WAT-C01 through to 10 Rev D 5/5/05, dated 14 July 2004  and received by Council on 11 May 2005, information submitted to satisfy the deferred commencement condition, 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 proposed development shall be in accordance with the details approved pursuant to deferred commencement condition No. 1.

 

3.       One unit that is capable of being adapted into an accessible unit shall be provided within the development to conform to AS4299-1995 and 1428.1-2001. Lift design shall also enable equitable access and one of the parking spaces allocated to this unit shall also be designed to be accessible for persons with a disability.

 

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

 

5.       One loading dock shall be provided within the basement car park. The car wash can be a shared use with one of visitor spaces.

 

6.       Street numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

          In this regard, prior to occupation of the building, an application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, together with the required fee, for the allocation of an appropriate street number/s to the development.

 

7.       The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent.  The details and samples of the glass to be used are to be submitted with the colour and material schedule for the approval of Council’s Director of City Planning, prior to the commencement of works.

 

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

 

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

 

10.     Where access is required to adjoining premises for construction purposes, the consent of the owner/s of the subject adjoining premises must be provided to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to carrying out any construction works from or upon the adjoining premises.

 

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

 

12.     The installation of roller shutters or security grilles to the shopfront is not permitted, unless a specific development consent has been obtained from Council.

 

13.     All signage and advertising must be in accordance with Council’ s Development Control Plan (DCP) for Outdoor Advertising and development consent must be obtained for all signage and advertising in accordance with Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998 (unless exempt from approval under Council's DCP for Exempt and Complying Development).

 

14.     All advertising and signage must be written in English language or both English and relevant non-English language equally. The use of only non-English written advertising is not permissible.

 

15.     Public access to the visitor’s carparking spaces is to be maintained at all times and an intercom system is to be provided adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the carpark, together with appropriate signage providing instructions for use.

 

 

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

 

17.     The development must be designed and constructed to achieve a minimum energy efficiency NatHERS rating of 3.5 stars or equivalent and a NatHERS certificate or equivalent, prepared by a suitably qualified person, is to be submitted to the certifying authority with the construction certificate application.

 

18.     The consumption of water within the building shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.  Details of compliance are to be noted in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

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

 

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

 

21.     Hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation  and must also satisfy any relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

22.     Appliances provided within the development must satisfy any relevant BASIX requirements and as a minimum appliances should satisfy the following energy ratings:

 

Clothes dryers minimum 2.5 star

Dishwashers minimum 3 star

Air conditioners minimum 4 star

Clothes washers minimum 45 star

Fridge minimum 4 star

 

23.     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 a minimum of 1.5m from the side boundaries and is to have a maximum height of 2.4 metres.  The tank is to be installed behind the front building line and is to be located at ground level and be incorporated into the relevant construction certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

SECTION 94 Contributions:

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the increased demand for public amenities and public services:

 

24.     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 $10757.28

b)           for the provision or improvement of community facilities $4756.32

c)       for townscape improvements                                              $7221.00

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.

 

25. A formal subdivision application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council and all conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

 

26. Development consent is required to be obtained in relation to the specific ‘use and operation’ of commercial tenancies/occupancies and ‘shop fit out works’, in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

27.     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.

 

28.     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.

 

29.     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.

 

30.     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.

 

31.     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.

 

32.     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”.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

34.     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.

 

35.     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.

 

36.     Fire safety notices must be provided to fire-isolated stairways, passageways or ramps in accordance with clause 183 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, at all times.

 

37.     The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units and a smoke detection system in areas not within the sole-occupancy units.  The smoke detectors located within the stairway, corridors or the like must be interconnected.

 

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

 

The following 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:

 

38.     Upon completion of the development and prior to the issuing of the strata subdivision, documentary evidence is to be submitted to the Council by the Principal Certifying Authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the owner of the premises, to the satisfaction of Council) which confirms that the development has been carried out in accordance with the relevant development consent conditions.

 

          Details of critical stage inspections carried out by or on behalf of the principal certifying authority together with any certification relied upon and the occupation certificate for the building must also be provided to Council prior to approval of the strata subdivision plans.

 

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

 

39.     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.

 

40.     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.

 

41.     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.

 

42.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, including ancillary structures (i.e. including dwellings, residential flat buildings, commercial/industrial building, garages, carports, verandah’s, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc.) located upon all of the premises adjoining the subject site.

 

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

 

43.     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.

 

44.     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:

 

45.     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.

 

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

 

47.     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.

 

48.     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.

 

49.     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.

 

50.     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.

 

51.     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.

 

52.     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.

 

53.     Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery and pile drivers (or the like) must be minimised by using appropriate plant and equipment and silencers and a construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be implemented during the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

54.     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.

 

55.     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.

 

56.     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.

 

57.     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.

 

58.     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.

 

59.     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.

 

60.     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.

 

61.     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.

 

62.     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.

 

63.     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.

 

64.     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.

 

65.     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.

 

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

 

          A temporary safety fence is to be provided to protect the public, located to the perimeter of the site. Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing, with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          The public place adjacent to the work site must be kept lit between sunset and sunrise if it is likely to be hazardous to persons in the public place and any such hoarding, fence or awning is to be removed upon completion of the work.

 

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

 

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

 

68.     A ‘B Class’ overhead type hoarding is required is be provided to protect the public, located adjacent to the development, prior to the commencement of any works on the site which comprise:-

 

·        any works or hoisting of materials over a public footway or adjoining premises, or

·        any building or demolition works on buildings which are over 7.5m in height and located within 3.6 metres of the street alignment.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

69.     Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided to and within the building in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1 and Council’s development control plan for multi-unit housing to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.  Details of the proposed access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

Security Deposit Conditions

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate security against damage to Council’s infrastructure:

 

70.     The following damage/civil works security deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)       $1000.00  -           Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

          The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council that no damage has occurred to the Council assets such as roadway, kerb, guttering, drainage pits footway, or verge and upon the completion of the civil works as conditioned in this development consent by Council. The applicant is to advise Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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

 

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions

 

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

 

71.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a.       Construct full width heavy-duty concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

b.       Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks along the Bunnerong Road site frontage and reinstate the area with footpath and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

c.       Replace any damaged sections of Council’s kerb and gutter along the full site frontage in Bunnerong Road. It is noted that this shall include road reconstruction works where required.

 

d.       Reconstruct the Bunnerong Road site frontage in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Matraville Commercial Centre. It is noted that this may include pavements, street trees, tree squares, tree guards, bins and seat installations as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0786.

 

72.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

73.     The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

74.     The driveway opening at the Bunnerong Road street frontage must be a minimum of 5.00 metres wide (clear width). Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

75.     The northern wall adjacent to the opening of retail space 1 shall be constructed of glass alongside the driveway entrance/exit to maintain suitable sightlines to any pedestrians walking from the south.

 

76.     A ‘Stop’ sign to face exiting motorists and a holding line (extending across the southern half of the access ramp) shall be provided at the carpark exit. It is noted that the signage and linemarking shall be provided wholly within the development site.

 

77.     A car park type speed hump is to be installed on the southern half of the access ramp 1.0 metre inside the boundary line to slow vehicles exiting the site.

 

78.     A Works Zone is to be provided in Bunnerong Road for the duration of the construction works.  The ‘Works Zone’ shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee and shall have a minimum length of 12 metres. The prescribed fee for the Works Zone must be paid to Council at least four (4) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site.

 

          It is noted that the requirement for a Works Zone may be waived if it can be demonstrated (to the satisfaction of Council’s traffic engineer) that all construction related activities (including all loading and unloading operations) may be undertaken wholly within the site.

 

79.     The proposed awnings along the Bunnerong Road site frontage must be not less than 3m above the footpath at any point and shall be set back 1 metre from the kerb line in Bunnerong Road to allow for future growth of the proposed street trees.

 

80.     Upon completion of the construction of the awning, certification of the structural adequacy of the awning must be provided to the Council.

 

81.     Other than approved street level awnings, there shall be no portion of the building (including balconies and awnings) located beyond the property line.Alignment Level Conditions

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for future civil works in the road reserve:

 

82.     The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be:

 

·        2% above the existing top of the kerb level, at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage.

 

          Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0923.

 

          The design alignment level at the property boundary must be strictly adhered to.

 

83.     The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the kerb must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

84.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services have been issued at a prescribed fee of $785 calculated at $33.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Service Authority Conditions

 

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

 

85.     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.

 

86.     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.

 

87.     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.

 

88.     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.

 

89.     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.

 

Drainage Conditions

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

90.     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.

 

c)       Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (i.e. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage system.

 

d)      The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.      Grassed areas

iv.      Garden areas

 

e)       Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

f)       Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

g)       The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

91.     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.

 

92.     All site stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) to either:

 

a.       The underground drainage system in Bunnerong Road, via a new kerb inlet pit; OR

b.       A suitably sized infiltration system (subject to geotechnical investigation confirming that the ground conditions are suitable for an infiltration system).

 

          Notes:

a.       All new kerb inlet pits shall be constructed in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD6.

b.       With the exception of the site discharge pipe, all new pipelines constructed within council’s road reserve shall be minimum 375 mm diameter, spigot and socket rubber ringed jointed, steel reinforced concrete pipeline (RRRCP). Prior to backfilling, all pipelines in council’s road reserve shall be inspected and approved by the Hydraulic Engineer certifying the works and Council.

 

93.     A reflux valve shall be provided (within the site) over any pipeline discharging from the site to ensure that stormwater from Council drainage system does not surcharge back into the site stormwater system.

 

94.     Site discharge pipelines shall cross the verge at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the kerb line.

 

95.     A work-as-executed plan prepared and signed by the hydraulic engineer or a registered surveyor, must be submitted to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, detailing the as constructed details for all works within Council’s road reserve (including detailed levels).

 

96.     All drainage details (for the external drainage works) shall be prepared by a suitably qualified hydraulic consultant who shall, at the completion of the works, certify that the drainage works have been constructed in accordance with the approved drainage plans and relevant standards. The plans and specifications for all works on Council property shall be submitted to and approval by the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

97.     Should stormwater be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, on-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

          Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm, the on-site detention system shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

          For small areas up to 0.5 hectares, determination of the required cumulative storage must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

          Where possible the detention tank must have an open base to infiltrate stormwater to the groundwater. Note that the ground water and any rock stratum has to be a minimum of 2.0 metres below the base of the tank.

 

98.     Should stormwater be discharged to an infiltration system, the infiltration area shall be  sized for all storm events up to the 1 in 20 year storm event with provision for a formal overland flow path to Council’s Street drainage system.

 

          Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm, the infiltration system shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

99.     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.

 

100.   The detention area/infiltration system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

101.   The maximum depth of ponding in above ground detention areas (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) shall be as follows:

 

a.       300mm in landscaped areas (where child proof fencing is not provided around the outside of the detention area and sides slopes are steeper than 1 in 10)

b.       600mm in landscaped areas where the side slopes of the detention area have a maximum grade of 1 in 10.

c.       1200mm in landscaped areas where a childproof fence is provided around the outside of the detention area

 

          Notes:

§  It is noted that above ground storage will not be permitted in basement carparks or in any area which may be used for storage of goods.

§  Mulch/bark must not be used in onsite detention areas

 

102.   The stormwater detention area (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

103.   The floor level of all habitable, retail, commercial and storage areas located adjacent to any detention and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level (in the detention/infiltration area) for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be provided.

 

          (In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

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

 

105.   A `V' drain is to be constructed along the perimeter of the property, where required, to direct all stormwater to the detention/infiltration area.

 

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

 

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

 

107.   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 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.

 

108.   Prior to occupation of the development, a "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention/infiltration system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

a.       The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Services Department.

b.       If new linen plans are being prepared for the site, the plans shall indicate the location and dimensions of the detention/infiltration areas. 

 

109.   Two covered car washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

a)       The car washing bays must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

b)      The car washing bays must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system.

 

c)       The car washing bays must be signposted with Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

 

d)      The car washing bays must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bays (or equivalent)

 

e)       A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bays.

 

110.   Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to Council's Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer. The works-as-executed drainage plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and shall include the following details:

 

a.       The location of the detention basin with finished surface levels;

b.       Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

c.       Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

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

e.       The orifice size(s) (if applicable);

f.        Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

111.   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.

 

112.   As the above site may encounter groundwater/seepage water within the depth of the basement excavation, the basement carpark is to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

          Notes:-

 

a)       Any subsoil drainage (from planter boxes etc) is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be discharged to Council’s kerb & gutter and/or underground drainage system.

 

b)      Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site).

 

113.   Should dewatering be required at any point during the excavation, the applicant shall contact the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) to obtain a temporary dewatering license.

 

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

 

Waste Management Conditions

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for waste management:

 

115.   The residential garbage room areas shall be sized to contain a total of 16 x 240 litre bins (8 garbage bins & 8 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

116.   Each of the retail/commercial garbage areas shall be sized to contain 2 x 240 litre bins (i.e. 1 garbage bin & 1 recycling bin for each tenancy) with adequate provisions for access to the bins.

 

117.   The retail/commercial garbage areas must be kept separated from the residential bin storage areas.

 

118.   The garbage storage areas are to be clearly signposted.

 

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

 

120.   Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste a Waste Management Plan detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for both the residential and retail components of the development site, post construction.

 

Landscape Conditions

 

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

 

121.   The landscaping is to be carried out in accordance with the landscaping plans submitted with the development application, prepared by Wallman Partners Pty Ltd, Landscape Architects, drawing number L1, project number 04:10:05, dated October 2004, subject to the following amendments:

 

a.       Deletion of Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Weeping Elm) from the planting schedule, to be replaced with a more suitably sized, alternative species.

 

          The following additional details shall be provided (with the amended landscape plan) to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate:

 

a.       Details showing the position of existing and proposed site services including water, gas, electricity, sewer, stormwater, etc.

 

b.       Details showing the location of easements within the site and upon adjacent sites (if any).

 

c.       Sectional elevations through the site showing the existing and proposed groundlines, building elevations, and mature height of proposed planting.

 

122.   Any substation required shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications.

 

123.   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.

 

124.   A refundable deposit in the form of cash, cheque or bank guarantee for the amount of $3000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development to ensure the implementation and maintenance of the landscape works in accordance with the approved landscape documentation.

 

a.       The refundable deposit will be released twelve (12) months after the issue of a final occupation certificate by the principle certifying authority providing the landscape works have been successfully implemented and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape documentation. Throughout the maintenance/bond period, the applicant shall be responsible for all routine maintenance such as weeding, watering, fertilising, spraying, staking and replacement of all failed plant stock.  There must be no alteration to the original design, including substitution of trees and shrubs, without the prior approval of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

b.       Any contravention of Council's landscape conditions at any time during the construction period or prior to the expiration of a period of twelve (12) months from the date a final occupation certificate is issued will result in the Council claiming all or part of the lodged security.

 

125.   In