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

 

23 May 2006

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 30TH MAY 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 18TH APRIL, 2006.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

6.1                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 31/2006 - 2006 "TREES FOR MUM PROGRAM" - WAIVING OF FEES.

2

 

6.2                      

MAYOR’S MINUTE 32/2006 - INVITATION FROM SISTER CITY COUNCIL.

4

 

6.3                      

MAYOR’S MINUTE 33/2006 - YARRA BAY HOUSE, LA PEROUSE - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE REMOVAL OF A NUMBER OF MATURE CASSUARINA GLAUCA TREES.

6

 

6.4                      

MAYOR’S MINUTE 34/2006 - REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF FEES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A BANNER FOR ST CATHERINE'S SCHOOL.

8

 

6.5                      

MAYOR’S MINUTE 35/2006 - USE OF SOUTH MAROUBRA BEACH FOR INFLATABLE RESCUE BOAT SURF LIFE SAVING CARNIVAL - REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF FEES.

10

 

6.6                        

MAYOR’S MINUTE 36/2006 - SEGRA NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2006.

12

 


 

7           General Manager's Reports

 

7.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 8/2006 - MARCH 2006 QTR REVIEW - 2005/08 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

14

 

7.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 9/2006 - 13-17 BOTANY STREET, RANDWICK.

16

 

7.3                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 10/2006 - WITHDRAWAL OF CAVEAT.

96

 

7.4                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 11/2006 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

98

 

7.5                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 12/2006 - USE OF COUNCIL'S SEAL.

101

 

 

8           Director City Services' Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 30/2006 -   DUNNINGHAM RESERVE TOILET FACILITIES.

103

 

8.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 31/2006 - APPLICATION TO HAVE SIGNS INSTALLED AT VARIOUS GROUNDS TO PREVENT CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL FROM SUNSET TO SUNRISE.

110

 

8.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 32/2006 - ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF THE COMMON INDIAN MYNA.

112

 

8.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 33/2006 - PRINCE HENRY LITTLE BAY - NEW ROAD NAMES.

114

 

8.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 34/2006 -   IDENTIFYING SUITABLE PARKLAND, RESERVE OR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE NAMED AFTER FORMER ALDERMAN JACK DILLON.

117

 

 

9           Director Governance & Financial Services' Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 28/2006 - 2005/2006 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT 31 MARCH 2006.

121

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 29/2006 - IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY OF COUNCIL'S TENDER PROCESS.

126

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 30/2006 - GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (GST) COUNCIL COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS.

130

 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 31/2006 - AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO LICENCE AND AFFIXING OF THE SEAL.

133

 

9.5                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 32/2006 - ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL & COMMITTEE MEETINGS.

136

 

9.6                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 33/2006 - COUNCILLORS' EXPENSES & FACILITIES POLICY.

139

 

9.7                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 34/2006 - 15% LEVY ON CROWN RESERVE LEASES.

153

 

 

10         Director City Planning Reports

 

10.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 37/2006 –

80 MIDDLE STREET AND 133 BOTANY STREET, RANDWICK. (DEFERRED)

155

 

10.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 38/2006 –

7 WILD STREET, MAROUBRA.  (DEFERRED)

249

 

10.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 39/2006 –

 41 TUNSTALL AVENUE, KINGSFORD.  (DEFERRED)

To be separately circularised prior to meeting.

 

10.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 40/2006 –

19 WOLSELEY ROAD, SOUTH COOGEE.

256

 

10.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 41/2006 –

29-31 ALFREDA STREET, COOGEE.

301

 

10.6                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 42/2006 –

4 EDGECLIFFE AVENUE, SOUTH COOGEE.

315

 

10.7                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 43/2006 –

FORMER STA LAND ADJOINING RANDWICK RACECOURSE KNOWN AS 66A DONCASTER AVENUE, RANDWICK.

357

 

10.8                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 44/2006 –

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PROPOSED HEXACHLOROBENZENE (HCB) RE-PACKAGING PLANT - BOTANY INDUSTRIAL PARK

363

 

 

11         Petitions

 

12         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

12.1

Motion By Councillor Bastic – Upgrade Coastal Walkway, Marine Parade between Undine & Wilson Streets.

368

12.2

Motion by Councillor Andrews – Traffic Lights at the intersection of Anzac Parade, Haig Street & Wise Street.

 

12.3

Motion By Councillor Matson – Response to Media Coverage of Light Rail Report Recommendations.

368

12.4

Motion By Councillor Matson – Regional Funding Options for Heffron Park Refurbishments.

368

12.5

Motion By Councillor Matson – Clearing of Endangered Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub on Prince Henry Site. 

369

12.6

Motion By Councillor Matson – Council Concern at State Government Retreat from BASIX.

369

12.7

Motion By Councillor Matson – Response to Moverly Precinct Committee Resolution on Bundock Street Wetlands.

369

 

13         Urgent Business

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

……………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 31/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

2006 "TREES FOR MUM PROGRAM" - WAIVING OF FEES.

 

 

DATE:

4 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06574

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In a letter dated 5 April, 2006, Ms Lauren Adlam, co-founder of the “Trees for Mum” program invited Randwick Council to again participate in this community program.

 

The “Trees for Mum” program began in 2002 with the support of Manly Council and attracted over 150 people to Manly Lagoon Park to plant a commemorative tree. 2003 and 2004 saw wider participation from Councils across the Sydney metropolitan area. In 2005 the program expanded around Australia and Randwick City participated with tree planting in Central Park, Maroubra.  This year Nagle Park, Maroubra was selected for planting.

 

There was no charge for planting a tree, however, donations were encouraged and all proceeds went to the National Centre for Childhood Grief, an organisation which provides education training and support for individuals, schools and other groups handling grief suffered by children.

 

ISSUES:

 

As a participating Council and as part of the Council’s tree management program, a “Trees for Mum” tree planting event was held on Mothers’ Day, Sunday 14 May 2006 at Nagle Park, Maroubra.  A commemorative stand of native trees was planted.

 

Council’s tree management team set aside 30-40, 25-litre native trees for this project and all tree species were native/indigenous to the Randwick City area. An appropriate number of tree management staff and contractors were on hand to facilitate planting, staking and mulching for the activity, together with the “Trees for Mum” organiser who recruited local participants.

 

Council has granted a contribution of $5,000 covering fees associated with the “Trees for Mum “ Mother’s Day planting.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The financial implication to Council is approximately $5,000. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council note $5,000 has been approved to cover the fees associated with the “Trees for Mum” planting day at Nagle Park, Maroubra and funds charged to the Contingency Fund 2005/2006.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 32/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

INVITATION FROM SISTER CITY COUNCIL

 

 

DATE:

12 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07350

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

As a result of a council resolution on 8 February, 2005 a letter was forwarded to Temora Shire Council suggesting that both councils attempt to strengthen our sister city relationship. This resulted in Randwick Council hosting the Mayor, General Manager and Councillors from Temora Shire Council at a dinner in the lodge room on 6 June, 2005.

 

Temora Shire Council has now sent an invitation for Randwick Council representatives to join them in celebrating the centenary of Councils who were established under the Shires Act 1906.

 

ISSUES:

 

To celebrate the centenary, Temora Shire Council is holding a centenary dinner on Saturday 5 August, 2006 and continuing on Sunday 6 August, 2006 with a breakfast and a visit to the Temora Aviation Museum. An invitation is extended to Councillors, senior staff and partners.

 

Accommodation is expected to be very scarce on this weekend so an early response to Temora Shire Council is advised.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Council will incur travel and accommodation expenses which have been allowed for in next year’s budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This weekend celebrates a major milestone for all Shire Councils and attendance by Randwick Council representatives would strengthen our sister city relationship with Temora Shire Council.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        Council accepts the invitation from Temora Sire Council to attend the centenary celebrations in Temora on the weekend of 5 and 6 August, 2006; and

 

(b)        interested Councillors and senior staff advise the Manager, Administrative Services of their attendance as soon as possible and no later than 30 June, 2006.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 33/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

YARRA BAY HOUSE, LA PEROUSE - REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THE REMOVAL OF A NUMBER OF MATURE CASSUARINA GLAUCA TREES.

 

 

DATE:

17 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07359

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter dated 20 April, 2006, has been received from Ms Gail Cooke, Community Officer, Director Guriwal Aboriginal Corporation Botany Bay, seeking Council’s assistance with the removal of eight (8) trees from the grounds of Yarra Bay House.

 

Ms Cooke advises that the trees are causing major problems to the sewerage and the exposed tree roots are very dangerous and causing accidents.

 

ISSUES:

 

The organisation advises that it does not have the machinery or equipment to undertake the work and seeks Council’s assistance.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council adopt this recommendation, costing for works to be undertaken is approximately $8,000 and funds could be provided from Council’s contingency fund.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Guriwal Aboriginal Corporation Botany Bay is a non-profit organisation that runs a ‘work for the dole’ program offering training for the La Perouse Community to gain full time employment.  It is considered worthwhile for Council to assist financially with the removal and stump grinding of the She Oaks, as well as removing and grinding all protruding tree root material in the vicinity of the trees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council’s assistance with the removal of a number of mature Casuarina Glauca (She Oaks) trees growing within Yarra Bay House, La Perouse, be approved and the cost of the work (approximately $8,000) be funded from the 2005/2006 Contingency Fund.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 34/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF FEES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A BANNER FOR ST CATHERINE'S SCHOOL.

 

 

DATE:

17 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07164

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Ms Glenda Donazzan, Community and Public Relations Officer for St Catherine’s School, Waverley requests that the School’s banner be displayed at one of the new sites for banners at the southern end of Arden Street at Malabar Road, from Monday 22 August to Monday 4 September, 2006, advising of the upcoming Spring Fair to be held on Saturday 2 September, 2006.

 

ISSUES:

 

Although St Catherine’s School falls within the Waverley Council area, a percentage of the school children live in Randwick City. Ms Donazzan asks for the associated fees to be waived as the Spring Fair is a major fund raising event and funds raised go to improving the facilities at the school.

 

Costing is as follows:

 

Application fee                                     $130.00

Installation and removal of banner                     $561.00

Total                                                                $691.00

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is that $691.00 which will be charged to the Contingency Fund 2005/06.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that Council should vote to waive the fees associated with the installation and dismantling of a banner and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2005/2006.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)       the fees associated with the installation and dismantling of a banner on the flagpole at Arden Street near to Malabar Road be waived and $691.00 be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2005/06;

 

b)       the Spring Fair organiser undertakes to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the Spring Fair; and

 

c)       the Mayor or his representative be given the opportunity to address the Spring Fair on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 35/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

USE OF SOUTH MAROUBRA BEACH FOR INFLATABLE RESCUE BOAT SURF LIFE SAVING CARNIVAL - REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF FEES.  

 

 

DATE:

4 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/08302

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An application has been received from South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club seeking Council’s assistance in the waiving of fees for the Inflatable Rescue Boat Surf Life Saving Carnival to be held at South Maroubra Beach on Saturday, 10 June, 2006, from 7.00am to 5.00pm. 

 

The activity is to be hosted by the South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club and the Club anticipates that over 200 competitors with approximately 10 inflatable rescue boats will compete. 

 

ISSUES:

 

This non-profit beach event gathers the local community and visitors to the beach and its surrounds and draws many competitors from neighbouring and out of Sydney Surf Clubs.

 

Listed below are associated fees -

 

Application Fee                                                $  88.00

Beach Hire                                                       $396.00

TOTAL                                                            $484.00

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $484.00 and currently there are sufficient funds in the Contingency Fund 2005/2006 to cover this contribution.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

On previous occasions Randwick Council has provided considerable support for similar events and it is considered that Council’s support should be given by the waiving of the associated fees for this worthwhile community event.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)       Council vote $484.00 to cover the fees associated with the Inflatable Rescue Boat Surf Life Saving Carnival to be held at South Maroubra Beach on Saturday, 10 June, 2006, from 7am to 5pm and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2005/2006;

 

b)      the event organisers undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the beach activity; and

 

c)       the Mayor’s representative shall be given the opportunity to address the activity on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 36/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

SEGRA NATIONAL CONFERENCE 2006

 

 

DATE:

18 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00646

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The tenth annual “Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia” (SEGRA) conference is being held on 28 – 30 August, 2006. As this is Australia’s premier forum for addressing issues concerning regional economic development I would like to extend an invitation to interested councillors to attend this conference.

 

ISSUES:

 

Action items on the agenda for SEGRA 2006 include:

 

·        Maximising and optimising government, community, business and practitioner strategies;

·        Foreseeing economic, social, environmental and political trends and their implications for regions;

·        Building community pride and ownership;

·        Building organisational and knowledge capacities to change; and

·        Enhancing decision making capacities for effective strategies.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funds for Councillor attendance at conferences have been allowed for in the current budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is important that Council is open to new ideas, is flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances and experienced enough to know what to keep and what to change. This conference tackles these challenges and I invite interested Councillors to advise the Manager, Administrative Services of their intention to attend.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That interested Councillors be invited to attend the tenth annual “Sustainable Economic Growth for Regional Australia” (SEGRA) conference being held in Launceston from

28 – 30 August, 2006.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 8/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

MARCH 2006 QTR REVIEW - 2005/08 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

DATE:

16 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00380

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors and the community on the implementation of the 2005/08 Management Plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

This is the March 2006 Quarterly Review of the 2005/08 Management Plan. Under the Local Government Act 1993, there is the requirement that a Report must be provided after the end of each quarter, detailing the extent to which performance indicators and targets set by Council’s Management Plan have been achieved during the quarter.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The purpose of March Quarter Report is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all outcomes of the programs contained in the adopted Management Plan 2005-2008.  It provides information on the review against the outcomes and performance indicators that are described with a particular focus on the targets that are not being achieved. The comments provide information about the activities that have been undertaken.

 

The report also includes a summary of progress against the critical 34 corporate key performance indicators.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the report of the March 2006 Quarterly Review – 2005/08 Management Plan is received and noted

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

 March 2006 Quarter Review - 2005/08 Management Plan-under separate cover

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 9/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

13-17 Botany Street, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

17 May, 2006

FILE NO:

DA / 796 / 2005

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application No. 796/2005 for the demolition of existing structures on site and construction of a part 3/ part 4 storey mixed use development comprising 35 dwellings, basement car parking for 70 vehicles, relocation of 2 brush box trees on site, strata subdivision and a new veterinary clinic to be located on the ground floor along Botany Street.  Vehicular access will be off Waratah Avenue.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 26 April, 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

 

 RAY BROWNLEE

 

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:          MANAGER, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

 

DATE:

26 April, 2006

FILE NO:

DA 796/2005

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolish the existing structures on site and construct a part 3 / part 4 storey mixed use development comprising 35 dwellings, basement car parking for 70 vehicles, relocation of 2 brush box trees on site, strata subdivision and a new veterinary clinic to be located on the ground floor along Botany Street. Vehicular access will be off Waratah Avenue.

PROPERTY:

 13-17 Botany Street, RANDWICK

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Doonside Properties Pty Ltd

OWNER:

 Doonside Properties Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

1.       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The estimated cost of the development is $8,350,000 and the application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination.

 

The subject site is comprised of 7 allotments and currently accommodates the Randwick Veterinary Hospital and Eastern Suburbs Dog and Cat Boarding and Grooming. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing structures located on the site and construct a part 3 and part 4 storey mixed use development.

 

The proposal was lodged on the 30 th of September 2005 and involved a mixed development for 36 residential dwellings, basement car park with capacity for 62 vehicles and vehicular access off Waratah Avenue, a new veterinary clinic at ground level addressing Botany Street and strata subdivision.

 

A preliminary assessment of the proposal was undertaken and notification carried out with 6 submissions received.

 

Council raised several concerns with the application and communicated these concerns to the applicant via two letters (dated 17 November 2005 and 5 December 2005) and a meeting held at Council on the 1st of December 2005.

 

The applicant subsequently lodged amended details and plans which were notified. The amended details involved reducing the number of units to 35, increased the number of car spaces to 70 and involves the relocation of two brush box trees on the site.

 

The amended proposal is the subject of this assessment report.

 

The site is within the 2C (Residential C Zone) and multi-unit housing is development allowed with development consent although a veterinary clinic is prohibited development in the 2C zone.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has been able to establish that existing use rights exist, relating to the long standing continual operation of the veterinary hospital at the site.

 

The proposal is therefore permissible in accordance with Sections 106 to 108(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 41(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

It is noted that Clause 41(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 was amended on 29 March 2006 by omitting “including a use that would otherwise be prohibited” from the clause and inserted “but only if that other use is a use that may be carried out with or without development consent” instead.

 

The savings and transitional provisions at clause 286D (2)(a) of the Regulation apply and the amendments do not affect the application.

 

The assessment of the development application against the relevant Planning Instruments, Development Controls Plans and Council Polices has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Land and Environment Court Planning Principles for existing use rights as established in Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council (2005).

 

The residential and non-residential components of the proposed development generally satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in significant adverse impacts upon neighbouring residential properties in Botany Street, Waratah Avenue or Silver Street. The proposed building presents a contemporary architectural style to the streetscape compared to the existing earlier architectural styles displayed elsewhere in the neighbourhood, nonetheless the proposed design is harmonious and complementary to the streetscape.

 

The application is recommended for deferred commencement approval subject to appropriate conditions relating to the layout and design of the basement carpark and proposed methods of waste removal from the basement waste storage rooms.

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

Consent is sought for the demolition of all structures on the site, construction of a mixed development for 35 residential dwellings, basement car park with capacity for 70 vehicles and vehicular access off Waratah Avenue, relocation of two Brush Box trees on the site, a new veterinary clinic at ground level addressing Botany Street and strata subdivision.

 

Building works involve the following:

 

Basement Level

 

·        70 car spaces (including 3 spaces for people with a disability and 3 carwash bays and loading turning bay);

·        Residential garbage room;

·        Garbage chute room;

·        Commercial garbage room;

·        Veterinary kennels, storage and waste disposal room;

·        Bicycle store

·        Lift well;

·        Various stair wells;

 

Ground Floor

 

·        Vehicular access/driveway  to basement from Waratah Avenue at eastern end of site;

·        Veterinary practice including surgery/treatment room, staff room, dark room, radiography room, pharmacy room, storage room, 3 offices, 3 examination rooms, reception/admin counter, waiting room, visitor toilet, staff toilets, lift and fire stairs.

·        10 x 1 bedroom units

·        1 x 2 bedroom unit

·        Garbage and recycling bin pick up area;

·        Landscaping works involving the creation of a water feature along the northern end of the residential building and mass plantings along the northern boundary. The landscaping also involves the removal of all existing trees on site with the relocation of two of the existing trees (2 x Brush Box) in the north eastern corner of the site.

 

First Floor

 

·        6 x 1 bedroom units (including 2 units capable of being adapted for people with a disability);

·        2 x 2 bedroom split level units (i.e. second level of units on second floor of building);

·        8 x 2 bedroom split level units with study.

 

Second Floor

 

·        6 x 1 bedroom units;

·        Second level of 10 x 2 bedroom units from first floor.

 

Third Floor (“Penthouse Floor”)

 

·        1 x 3 bedroom unit;

·        1 x 2 bedroom unit with study.

 

With regard to strata subdivision of the proposed building it is noted that the applicant has not submitted amended draft strata plans with the amended proposal.

 

3.       THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is known as Nos. 13-17 Botany Street and is located on the north east corner of the Botany Street and Waratah Avenue intersection. The site comprises Cnr Lot Lot 1, Section 2 in Deposited Plan 3496 (No. 17 Botany Street)  and Lots 2, 3, 35, 36, 37 and 38, Section 2 in Deposited Plan 3496 (being 13-15 Botany Street).

 

The western boundary (Botany Street frontage) is 36.60m in length, the northern boundary is 88.65m, the eastern boundary is 36.56m and the southern boundary (Waratah Avenue frontage) is 90.55m long. The overall site is generally rectangular in shape and has a total area of 3277m². 

 

The site slopes gently from the eastern boundary rising up to the western boundary with a difference in height of approximately 1m over the 90m length of the site. There is also a mild slope from the southern boundary rising up to the northern boundary with the approximate difference in height being 600m between these two boundaries.

 

The arboricultrists report submitted details 21 trees on the site with a further 6 street trees adjacent to the southern boundary in the Waratah Avenue street verge / green strip.

 

The site accommodates a single storey brick ‘Federation Queen Anne’ style dwelling with slate roof and a series of buildings used as part of the operations of the Randwick Veterinary Hospital and Eastern Suburbs Dog and Cat Boarding and Grooming. The buildings include an office, garage and numerous sheds and stables. The structures are primarily constructed of timber with metal roofing.

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of residential flat buildings and semi-detached and free standing dwellings of varied ages and architectural styles.

 

Adjacent to the subject site to the north is a four storey brick residential flat building that is orientated east to west and addresses Botany Street and is known as No. 11 Botany Street.

 

To the east of No. 11 Botany Street are a row of four properties that are orientated north to south and address Silver Street. The properties are known as 2, 4, 6 and 8 Silver Street and their rear boundaries form part of the northern boundary of the subject site. No. 2 Silver Street accommodates a 3 storey brick residential flat building while 4, 6 and 8 Silver Street accommodate three, late Victorian houses, that are listed as heritage items (inventory No. 397) in Schedule 3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998).

 

On the western side of Botany Street, opposite the subject site, there is a sequence of residential flat buildings of varying ages and architectural styles. The buildings have a 3 storey scale and are of brick construction. The buildings at 18 and 16-14 Botany Street have a painted brick finish while the buildings at 12 and 20 Botany Street have a red face brick finish.

 

South of the subject site along the southern side of Waratah Avenue is a row of free standing and semi-detached residential dwellings. The corner property (south east corner of the Botany Street and Waratah intersection) addresses Botany Street and accommodates a semi-detached, single storey brick dwelling and is known as No.19 Botany Street. There is a small addition at the rear of this site which forms a dual occupancy and is known as 2 Waratah Avenue.

 

No 4 Waratah Avenue accommodates a 1 and 2 storey brick dwelling while nos. No 6 and 8 accommodate single storey freestanding brick dwellings. Located between Nos.10 and 22 Waratah Avenue are a series of semi-detached single storey brick dwellings.

 

Immediately adjoining the subject site to the east, located at 9 Waratah Avenue, is a 4 storey ‘1970’s’style residential flat building. Past this building is another, more recent residential unit complex which is a 3 storey building with pitched roof and basement carpark.

 

4.       SITE HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A pre-lodgement meeting was held with regard to the development on the 10th of February 2005 and a planning advice letter dated 16 February 2005 was sent to the applicant. The letter outlined Council’s general support for the proposal subject to amended plans overcoming various concerns as raised in the letter.

The Randwick/Waverley Design Review Panel also reviewed the pre-lodgement drawings and provided a report in December 2004. The Panel also raised various issues of concern, although indicated support for the scale and density of the design as well as the non-residential component of the proposal.

 

The proposal was revised from its pre-lodgement form and lodged as a Development Application on the 30 th of September 2005.

 

The proposal involved a mixed development for 36 residential dwellings, basement car park with capacity for 62 vehicles and vehicular access off Waratah Avenue, a new veterinary clinic at ground level addressing Botany Street and strata subdivision.

 

A preliminary assessment of the proposal was undertaken and the notification carried out with 6 submissions received.

 

Council raised several concerns with the application and communicated these concerns to the applicant via two letters (dated 17 November 2005 and 5 December 2005) and a meeting held at Council on the 1st of December 2005.

 

The applicant subsequently lodged amended details and plans which were re-notified. The amended details involves reducing the number of units to 35, increasing the number of car spaces to 70 and  relocating two Brush Box trees on the site instead of removing them totally.

 

b.      HISTORY OF SITE USEAGE

 

The following Development Applications have been lodged for this site;

 

17 Botany Street

 

DA 115/68 – Erection of Dog Kennels at No. 17 Botany Street

BA 149/1973 – Garage, Laundry, Store and Kennel.

 

13-15 Botany Street

 

BA 751/1929 - Loose Boxies

BA 311/1930 - Additions to Horse Stables

BA 384/1930 - Addition to Feed Room

BA 389/1934 - Addition to the Labaratory

BA 1024/1993 - Rebuild Existing Stable to Randwick Veterinary Hospital

DA 282/1993 – Alterations and additions to existing house and stables

DA 570/1993 – Alterations to stables and new carport

BA 265/1996 – Replace Boundary Fence to Veterinary Hospital

 

5.         COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with the Public Notification Development Control Plan. The period of notification was 14 days starting on the 19th of October 2005 and ending on the 2nd November 2005. Six (6) submissions were received in respect of the application.

 

The applicant provided Council with amended plans and the amended application was subsequently re-notified in accordance with the Public Notification Development Control Plan. The re-notification period was 14 days starting on the 8th of March 2006 and ending on the 22 March 2006. One (1) submission was received in respect of the re-notified application. The submission received was a ‘re-sent submission’ from a person who had previously lodged an objection with regard to the first ‘round’ of notification.

 

The following submissions were received:

 

5.1     Objections

 

Objections received with respect to the original proposal:

 

Judith M Salmon, 6 Silver Street

 

·        The S.E.E. makes no mention of 6 Silver Street.

·        6 Silver Street is the property most likely to be impacted upon.

·        Visual privacy - A recent addition to the rear of 6 Silver Street involved a new family room with glass bi-folding doors forming the rear entrance. Residents from the new building will be able to “look directly into the family room”.

·        Error in traffic report – The traffic study indicates that traffic cannot turn right from Waratah Avenue into Belmore Road. This is not the case.

 

Comments: The S.E.E. is satisfactory. The proposed building is setback sufficiently and the landscape plan involves a vegetation ‘buffer’ along the northern boundary, including two relocated mature Brush Boxes which will protect the visual privacy of No. 6 Silver Street.

 

A new traffic study has been received with the amended plans.

 

Michelle Mason, (acting on behalf of Tim Archer and herself) owners of Unit 4/21 Waratah Avenue, Randwick

 

·        Bulk, scale and density of proposal will have adverse impacts on the established streetscape, particularly within the streetscape of Waratah Avenue “which is predominantly characterised by a lower density of housing”.

·        The impact of the proposal is “exacerbated by virtue of the fact that the development will cover most of the site” compared to the current arrangement at the site which has a “very low coverage and mature trees located across the site”.

·        The development does not reflect identifying characteristics of other buildings along Botany Street and Waratah Avenue;

·        “The documentation” has not adequately assessed the proposal in its full context;

·        The traffic and parking impacts have not adequately been assessed or addressed;

·        The parking arrangements are unclear and the shared access to the basement car park (for residents, visitors and commercial users of the site) and stacked parking arrangements will result in more on street parking in the area;

·        The application has not adequately demonstrated consistency with the principals of SEPP 65 and objectives of the zone.

 

Comments: Bulk and scale, density, and streetscape issues are addressed in the report below where it is concluded that the proposal is satisfactory and will result in minimal adverse impacts.

 

A new traffic study has been received with the amended plans. An assessment of the traffic issues has been undertaken and comments are found below in this report. Subject to the recommended conditions the proposal is satisfactory in this regard.

 

The SEPP 65 Design Review Panel have indicated support for the application.

 

Francesco Zagami, 20 Waratah Avenue, Randwick

 

·        There are no 4 storey buildings in the residential area in the vicinity of the subject site and the proposal is “out of character height wise with all other buildings”;

·        A veterinary hospital and kennels is out of place in a residential area;

·        Primary concern is if kennels will be “open or closed kennels” as the current open version results in noise from” howling dogs and other animals”;

 

Comments: 3 and 4 storey scale buildings exist in the vicinity of the site. The building, while not compatible to existing development in terms of architectural style, is complementary in to existing development in terms of style and scale.

         

A kennel and vet clinic currently exist at the site and the new clinic will have markedly improved acoustic qualities. The location of the proposed kennels, in the south west corner of the basement level, and the construction materials will ensure an acceptable acoustic outcome for the vet clinic.

 

Michael White, 6 Arthur Street, Randwick

 

·        Increased traffic - Additional traffic turning into Botany Street from Waratah Avenue will increase the danger to pedestrians.

·        Inadequate public transport - Despite the assertion in the report, public transport to and from Randwick is woeful. “Until a railway is built, no further population increase in Randwick should be contemplated.”

·        Construction period - The construction period will result in an eyesore, noise impacts and disruptions and it is unlikely that the residents will receive compensation for this.

·        Heritage impacts - The demolition of a century old house is unacceptable when older style housing is becoming increasingly rare.

·        Loss of amenity – The demolition of all the buildings and removal of the garden and replacement with a “run of the mill” landscape plan will result in the loss of amenity to the area.

 

Comment: The development is satisfactory with regard to the provision of off-street parking and the site is within close proximity to public transport routes.

 

Conditions of consent have been recommended which will limit nuisances during the construction period.

 

The applicant has submitted a Heritage Impact Statement and a thorough heritage assessment has been undertaken by Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner. The site does not contain a heritage item nor is it in a conservation area. The proposal to demolition the existing structures on the site is supported.

 

Charles Lo Presti, (Owner 6 & 8 Waratah Avenue) C/- PO Box 41, Randwick NSW 2031

 

·        Bulk and height of the building represent an overdevelopment of the site. It appears to break Council’s height controls.

·        The proposal will cause overshadowing and loss of sunlight.

·        The proposal will result in increased traffic congestion in Waratah Avenue.

·        The veterinary clinic is prohibited development, once the site is developed with a conforming land use, such as the residential units, the veterinary clinic cannot be approved.

·        The proposal will adversely impact upon the existing and future amenity of the locality.

 

Comment: Bulk and scale, density, and streetscape issues are addressed in the report below where it is concluded that the proposal is satisfactory and will result in minimal adverse impacts. Buildings of similar scale exist in the vicinity of the site. The building, while not compatible to existing development, is complementary in scale and architectural style to existing development.

 

The proposal will increase traffic to and from the site however the proposal includes adequate off-street parking and a suitably sited vehicular access. The site is zoned for medium density development and is acceptable with regard to traffic impacts.

 

The applicant has established existing use rights and in accordance with the provisions of Sections 106 to 108(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 41(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 the proposed uses are permissible with council consent.

 

James A O’Farrell, (Owner 4 Silver Street) PO Box 13, Randwick NSW 2031

 

·        Heritage – The three house to the north of the site of the development are Heritage Items and the very large trees along the northern boundary (i.e. in the background of the 3 Heritage items) enhances the visual setting of these houses. The removal of these trees will diminish the streetscape of the Heritage houses.

·        Traffic Report– The traffic report is brief and based upon data from the RTA. AADT counts are not dated. The report erroneously states that there is no right turn from Waratah Avenue into Belmore Road and that there are no bus routes on Botany Street. There is only approximately 5m of white double centre line marking in Waratah Avenue.

·        Traffic – Botany Street is very busy and constantly filled cars parked on both sides restricting traffic flow. Access to Botany Street in peak times “is almost impossible” and this will be compounded by additional traffic from the development.

·        Noise – The design of the new veterinary clinic is a critical in order to ensure that the noise problems associated with the current veterinary clinic are not repeated. The DA is lacking detail with regard to the kennelling arrangements and the layout of the vet clinic. It is essential that the highest level of noise reduction methods be incorporated into the construction of the facility.

 

Comments: The applicant has submitted a Heritage Impact Statement and a thorough heritage assessment has been undertaken by Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner. The site does not contain a heritage item nor is it in a conservation area. The proposal to demolition the existing structures on the site is supported. The proposal will not result in a diminished setting for the nearby heritage items as viewed from Silver Street. 

 

A new traffic study has been received with the amended plans. The study outlines the source and dates that the traffic survey information was collated. The site is zoned for medium density housing and the proposal involves adequate off-street parking. The existing road system is capable of coping with the increase in trip generations expected from the development.

 

A kennel and vet clinic currently exist at the site and the new clinic will have markedly improved acoustic treatment. The basement location of proposed kennels, in the south west corner of the site away from the northern boundary is also a positive outcome in terms of acoustic privacy for adjacent development. The proposed construction materials will also ensure a greater level of acoustic privacy than currently exists.

 

Objections received with respect to the amended proposal:

 

Judith M Salmon, 6 Silver Street

 

·        The S.E.E. makes no mention of 6 Silver Street.

·        6 Silver Street is the property most likely to be impacted upon.

·        Visual privacy - A recent addition to the rear of 6 Silver Street involved a new family room with glass bi-folding doors forming the rear entrance. Residents from the new building will be able to “look directly into the family room”.

·        Error in traffic report – The traffic study indicates that traffic cannot turn right from Waratah Avenue into Belmore Road. This is not the case.

 

Comments: See comments above with regard to Judith M Salmon’s original objection.

 

5.2     Support

 

Nil

 

 

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 Issues

 

Landscape Comments

 

Note: Due to the number of trees proposed to be removed the landscape comments are lengthy and detailed. Not all of the comments have been reproduced in this report. In summary the comments that have not been reproduced in this section details each of the trees to be removed and Council’s approach to their removal. In general Council supports the removal of the trees for varying reasons and subject to suitable replacement trees where relevant and in appropriate locations.

 

“Previous engineering reports confirmed that removal of the majority of trees from within the site could be justified due to a combination of either poor form, structure and maintenance/management practices, or, direct conflict with the proposed building works, with a consistent recommendation from the outset being that a high priority be given to the retention of existing trees around the perimeter of the site where possible and appropriate, with only two Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box, Trees 1 & 2 in the Arborists Report) near the eastern boundary of the site possibly able to satisfy this requirement.

 

Numerous re-designs have been undertaken over several months in order to satisfy the various architectural and design concerns which have been raised; however, at no stage during this process have the two Brush Box’s been afforded the same level of consideration, with none of the ongoing amendments allowing for their integration into the development, despite repeated and consistent advice that these trees should be retained and protected.

 

The significant impact their retention would have had on the layout of the proposal is recognised, but in the context of achieving an acceptable balance between the natural and built forms, was considered to be a reasonable request.

 

The current plans propose that both trees, measuring approximately 10 metres in height and 10 metres in width, be transplanted to an alternative location along the northern boundary to ensure they are incorporated into the site in one form or another, with supporting documentation from a well respected Arborist and a specialised tree transplanting company confirming their support and willingness to be involved in such a project.

 

However, it must be noted from the outset that despite this species being one of the hardiest native trees, there is still a large amount of uncertainty as to the success and feasibility of such a proposal due to the sandy soil and species involved. Council’s Landscape Development Officer remains sceptical of such a proposal, preferring (from a practicality point of view) to retain them in situ rather than pursuing such a complicated procedure.

As all avenues for their retention appear to have been exhausted, conditions in this report require that these trees be transplanted as proposed. The applicant will be required to submit a highly detailed Arborist’s report detailing how the transplanting works will be undertaken prior to the issue of a construction certificate. All transplanting works shall be under taken in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Arborist’s report.

 

An extended maintenance period (24 months) will apply to ensure the applicant is held responsible for their maintenance and upkeep through to a stage where they are self-sustaining; with the requirement to provide advanced replacements which will replicate the form, function and size of the Brush Box should they fail at some stage in the future also included.

 

Generally, given the quantity and size of trees which will be removed from the site, as well as the loss of canopy cover and reduction of environmental amenity that will result; an emphasis is placed on presenting a high quality landscape treatment to both frontages, incorporating an acceptable mix of advanced specimens throughout, with any replacement trees to be native, broad canopied species that will achieve a similar appearance to that which currently exists.

 

Five of the six Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Figs, Tree’s 19-24 in the Arborists Report) growing on Council’s Waratah Avenue frontage have been shown for retention in the Arborists Report with the exception of the most eastern tree which is listed for removal in order to accommodate the vehicle crossing; however, the Landscape Plan shows it as being retained with the vehicle crossing provided on both sides of its trunk.

 

Retention of this Fig Tree on Council’s Waratah Avenue nature strip is not supported by Council as damage (cracking, uplifting etc) of the adjoining infrastructure is highly likely given the proximity to its trunk to the proposed crossing coupled with this species highly invasive and aggressive root system. Given the girth of its trunk, consideration would also need to be given to maintaining an acceptable ‘line of sight’ for vehicles exiting the property should it be retained and the split driveway constructed as proposed.

 

When approval is granted for removal of a street tree to accommodate the development of private property,  the applicant is generally required to cover Council’s costs associated with removal, replacement and loss of amenity; however Council’s Aggressive Rooted Street Tree Policy (report 75/2004) states that where an approved development necessitates the removal of certain street tree species deemed as undesirable, Hills Weeping Figs being one of those, a separate approval through Council’s Greening Randwick Committee will be needed, with the applicant not being charged for loss of amenity.

 

The Aggressive Street Tree Policy also details that in order to minimize the loss of canopy cover and amenity associated with removing several of these trees at once, progressive removal shall be staged over a ten year period, with no more than 10% of canopy cover within a particular street to be removed over the course of a calendar year where the species comprises the dominant planting.

 

Discussions with Council’s Tree Management Officer confirm that he would support removal of this tree as it is in accordance with the intent of the policy, and additionally, the impacts associated with its removal would be minimized given the presence of the same species within the nature strip immediately to the east and west.

 

As such, a separate report will be prepared for submission to Council’s Greening Randwick Committee, detailing that Council endorses removal of the eastern most Fig Tree, with the applicant required to cover all costs associated with removal and replacement, with no amenity to be charged in accordance with the provisions of the Aggressive Rooted Street Tree Policy.

 

Landscape Plan Comments

 

Consistency between documents and plans will need to be achieved prior to acceptance, as trees that were recommended for removal in the Arborist's report have been shown for retention on the landscape plan.

 

Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

Traffic Comments

 

Parking space allocation

 

According to Council’s DCP - Parking the development will require a total of 61 parking spaces as detailed below:

 

1.             LAND USE

2.             PARKING DEMAND

3.             22 x 1 bedroom

4.             12 x 2 bedroom

5.             1 x 3 bedroom

6.            

7.             22

8.             14.4

9.             1.5

10.           38 spaces

11.           Visitor spaces (1 space / 4 units)

12.           9 spaces

13.           Business (1 space / 40 sqm)

14.           14 spaces

15.          

16.          

17.           TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED

18.           61 spaces

 

The submitted plans show a total of 70 parking spaces, however, 38 of these spaces are tandem spaces (30 residential and 8 commercial).

 

Tandem spaces are only acceptable when the two spaces may be allocated to the same residential unit. Consequently, the 30 tandem residential spaces must be allocated to 15 units and the remaining 20 single residential spaces shall each be allocated to one residential unit. The use of tandem parking spaces for commercial tenancies is not generally supported unless the rear spaces are allocated to staff.

 

The Planning Officer shall ensure that appropriate conditions are included in the development consent in relation to parking allocation.

 

Suitable signage shall be installed throughout the basement carpark to clearly define the parking allocations and direct users to the commercial, residential and/or visitor parking spaces as appropriate. A condition has been included in the report to address this matter.

 

Carpark Layout

 

There appears to be some aspects of the carpark layout that are not in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004). In particular it is noted that the aisle adjacent to commercial parking spaces 1, 4 and 8 should be extended 1 metre. This will result in a loss in deep soil planting and the Planning Officer should determine whether this is acceptable.

 

In addition it appears that the widths of several of the parking spaces (such as spaces 61 and 62 and disabled space 37) are inadequate.

 

Given that the required amendments to the carpark layout may necessitate significant changes to the basement, a deferred commencement condition requiring the basement carpark to be amended to comply with AS 2890.1 (2004) has been included in this report.

 

Security of car parking spaces

 

Concerns are raised regarding the security of the residential parking spaces given that commercial and residential visitors will be required to drive through the residential parking area to access the visitor and commercial parking spaces. Given that the parking spaces are not wide enough to facilitate them being caged to improve security, a deferred commencement condition has been included in the report requiring the applicant to submit documentation detailing how satisfactory security can be provided to all car spaces within the basement carpark.

 

Vehicular Access

 

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 Waratah Avenue site frontage must be 5.50 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 6 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site.

 

Service Vehicle arrangements

 

Council’s DCP - Parking specifies that a loading dock sized to contain a truck is required for a development of this size. The proposed loading bay (and associated manoeuvring area) appears to be sized so as to fit only regular light vehicles and vans with very little space around the parked vehicle. The development engineer does not support this proposal and recommends that the size of the loading dock be increased. Further, given that the applicant proposes to use the loading dock as a turning bay, it is recommended that the loading bay be restricted to short term parking.

 

To address the above issues, the planning officer is advised that a condition has been included in the report requiring the proposed loading bay and adjacent visitor parking space be combined to create one 5.20 metre wide loading bay/turning bay and further that the storage areas at the rear be deleted to facilitate a larger loading/turning area. An additional condition also specifies that the new space shall be linemarked and signposted so as to restrict loading/turning vehicles to a maximum length of stay of five minutes.

 

The planning officer should determine whether the loss of one visitor parking space to facilitate a loading/turning bay as detailed above is acceptable.

 

Splay corner comments

 

To improve visibility at the intersection of Botany Street and Waratah Avenue, a minimum 3.0 metre x 3.0 metre splay corner shall be provided at ground level. There shall be no walls or planting higher than 600mm located within the splay corner. The submitted plan DA-03 issue C demonstrates compliance with this requirement.

 

Waste Comments

 

Residential waste

 

The submitted plans show the residential waste storage area being sized to contain a compactor plus a total of 27 x 240 litre bins as required for a development containing 35 units. A chute feed has also been provided however this is not centrally located making it potentially difficult for all residents to access regularly. Further, the recycling waste storage area is located in the basement, requiring the residents to access two locations on two separate levels of the development in order to dispose of waste.

 

Given the size of the proposed chute room and garbage room, it is considered that the compactor and chute feed may be removed, with reconfiguration of these two rooms enabling one waste storage area to be provided for both residential garbage and recycling within the basement level. Council’s Waste Compliance Officer has indicated that the resulting arrangement would be considered satisfactory. Accordingly, a condition has been included in the report to address this matter.

 

Commercial waste

 

The submitted plans show the provision of a commercial office waste storage area sized to contain 4 x 240 litre bins (2 garbage bins and 2 recycling bins) with satisfactory access to each bin. A room approximately 8m2 in size has also been provided within the basement level as a veterinary waste storage area. The submitted Waste Management Plan notes that veterinary wastes will be stored in this room and disposed of through the existing commercial contractor.

 

Transporting of waste bins

 

The submitted plans show the driveway access ramp having a maximum grade of approximately 1:6. This grade is beyond the 1:14 bin carting grade recommended in the Better Practice Guide for Waste Management in Multi-Unit dwellings. Accordingly, a deferred commencement condition has been included in the report requiring the applicant to address how full bins will be transported from the basement level to the kerbside for weekly collection.

 

Groundwater Comments

 

Appendix 5 of the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects contains a report from Geotechnique. This report indicates that groundwater was recorded on the site at depths ranging between 1.42 and 1.87 metres. Consequently, it appears that excavation for the basement carpark will intersect groundwater.

 

It is noted that conditions have been included in this report requiring the tanking/waterproofing of the basement carpark and the submission of an excavation/dewatering report prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

In addition, the Department of Natural Resources was contacted to determine whether the application should be referred to them as integrated development. The Department advised that referral was not required.

 

Service Authority Comments

 

At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2005, Council resolved that:

 

(a)     the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million;

 

(b)     the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with Aerial Bundled Cables in the vicinity of the development site, when the cost of works on the site exceeds $1 million up to $2 million; and

 

(c)     the Director, City Planning investigate the feasibility of funding the undergrounding of existing overhead cables for new development under the new options provided for in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (Developer Contributions) Act 2005.

 

Given that the cost of works is over $8 million, the applicant shall be required to meet the full cost for undergrounding cables in the vicinity of the development site. A condition regarding this matter has been included in this report.

 

6.2  Environmental Health comments

 

Land Contamination

 

A report titled ADC-LUCAS Proposed Unit Development Lots 1-3 & 35-38 section 2 in DP3496 Botany Street Randwick Preliminary Contamination Assessment report number 10747/1-AA dated 22 April 2005 was submitted in support of this application. This report concludes that the site does not present a significant risk of harm to human health or the environment and can be made suitable for the proposed development through the following:

 

·        Identification and remediation of any localised areas of soil contamination (if present).

·        Validation of completion of remediation.

 

The report has identified that the potential for contamination within the site is considered

low. Some minor and/or isolated contamination may be present, as follows:

 

·    Some shallow filling has been identified, and there may be more present beneath the site. Imported fill materials would be from unknown sources and, therefore, it is possible that contaminants are present.

 

·    The chemical storage area(s) may be impacted by solvents and/or other volatile compounds.

 

·    The presence of the galvanised iron (GI) structures indicates the potential zinc contamination of the surface soil in the immediate vicinity, resulting from degradation of the GI over time. Lead contamination is also possible if the structures were painted in the past with lead based paint.

 

·    In the vicinity of the metal garages there is potential for Heavy Metals to accumulate in the surface soil, due to the degradation of the metals over time. Heavy Metals generally of concern include cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc.

 

·    There is potential for arsenic and pesticides contamination of the surface soil in the immediate vicinity of the timber structures, resulting from possible pest control. 

 

The Environmental Health Unit accepts the conclusion made that the site can be made suitable for the proposed development. Conditions requiring further investigation, identification, remediation and validation of any localised areas of soil contamination (if present) will be included.

 

Acoustics

 

An acoustic report titled 13-17 Botany Road Randwick Acoustic Assessment for Development Application TB921-01F02 (rev 3) DA report.doc prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates Pty Ltd dated 30 May 2005 was submitted in support of this application. This report presents an assessment of noise intrusion into and operational noise from the proposed development.

 

The acoustic report concludes that the noise from into and out of the proposed development can satisfy the relevant noise control guidelines and legislation as long as the recommendations contained in the acoustic report are adopted. These recommendations include:

 

In relation to the potential for noise nuisance from veterinary and the kennels located in the basement the acoustic consultant identifies that there are no Australian Standards from which guidance may be sought as to the level of sound isolation required to achieve acceptable conditions. The adopted design principle for the project is that animal noise breakout should be inaudible within the apartment’s habitable spaces.

 

The acoustic assessment of the veterinary component of the proposed development has been based on the requirement that the animals will be located on the basement during the night periods, that is between 10:00pm and 7:00am. This requirement is to be included as a condition of consent on any approval given.

 

Councils Environmental Health Officer contacted the applicant who confirmed in writing that the acoustic attenuation techniques recommended in the acoustic report have been incorporated into the design of the building.

 

6.3  Building Services comments

 

It is noted that Council’s Building Surveyor provided comments with regard to the original application and these are outlined below.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class   -           5          (Veterinary surgery)

Class   -           2          (Residential units)

Class   -           7a        (Carpark)

 

Background

 

The existing buildings on site are a brick dwelling as well as detached outbuildings bounded by residential flat buildings.

 

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 does not demonstrate compliance with the BCA requirements and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability.

 

Access for people with a disability is required to be provided to the basement car park and the ground floor veterinary surgery, sanitary facilities for people with a disability are also required to be provided to the development, in accordance with the provisions of the BCA.

 

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

 

The applicant or other person having the benefit of the consent is also advised to fulfil their obligations under the DA.

 

Conclusion:

 

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

 

It is noted that the amended application has addressed some of the issues raised with regard to access for people with a disability. Specifically appropriately sized car spaces and access to the basement carpark and veterinary clinic have been provided for people wit a disability. A ‘customer’ toilet to the veterinary clinic has also been provided and this toilet has the capability of servicing a person with a disability.

 

Nonetheless, conditions have been included in the recommendation to ensure compliance with BCA requirements and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) objectives

 

6.4  Heritage comments

 

The subject site is currently used as a Veterinary Hospital and features a number of buildings on the site including a Federation period dwelling in the south west corner and a variety of single storey structures, mostly constructed of timber.  Given the location of the site, being in the vicinity of the race course, and the period and types of structures there is the potential for the site to demonstrate some significant heritage values.  The site has been in the ownership of a single family, well renowned in the Veterinary Industry of NSW since the 1860s and was a purpose built hospital for horses before being converted to a clinic and boarding kennels for smaller domestic animals.  The Federation period dwelling has the potential to demonstrate some significant qualities relevant to architectural style and form.  However, it is evident the structures on the site have undergone some degree of change and their condition is not excellent.  Some of the earlier structures associated with the use of the site as a veterinary hospital for horses are the house, timber shed, laundry, stables, sand yard, forge and wash, and the cottage.  Most of the later structures on the site are associated with conversion for use as a clinic and kennels for smaller animals.  The site is not listed as a Heritage Item and is not located within a Conservation Area.

 

The subject site is also in the vicinity of three heritage items which are located adjacent to the north of the subject site and front Silver Street.  These dwellings form a group of single storey late Victorian cottages which are good and substantially intact examples of the type.  Other development along Silver Street consists of 3 and 4 storey post war flat buildings.

 

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the construction of new part three and part 4 storey mixed residential and commercial flat building.

 

A Heritage Impact Statement was submitted with Development Application.  The HIS assessed the significance of the place and the impact the proposed works will have on any associated values and provides recommendations.  The HIS concludes that the site is of moderate ‘potential’ significance and its most significant constituent elements are also only of moderate significance.  It identifies the buildings as being heavily altered and mostly in very poor condition.  In regard to the demolition of the buildings the HIS recognises the loss of some historic fabric but concludes that as the site or constituent buildings do not reach a threshold for listing as a heritage item then retention is not warranted.  The HIS makes recommendations for the interpretation of the site, the potential relocation of the early timber cottage as part of that interpretation and the archival recording of the existing structures.  In regard to archaeology, the report has found that the site is unlikely to contain relics and recommends that “in the event any relic is uncovered during excavation, an Excavation Permit should be obtained in accordance with Section 139 of the NSW Heritage Act.”

 

The building with the best potential for conservation is the Federation period dwelling, however, this building is considered to have limited potential to demonstrate the significant historic values associated with the site without interpretation.  Its aesthetic values as a Federation period dwelling are not of such high quality to warrant conservation.  It is really only the early stable buildings that can provide a tangible link to the original use and the overall original site layout, unfortunately these buildings and the original layout have been heavily altered and are in poor condition.  The original fabric which embodies the significant historic values of the site has been so altered that it is no longer demonstrative of the use and without significant reconstruction it will never be.  The change in the nature of veterinary practice during the post war period had a significant impact on the site and its fabric ultimately resulting in the erosion of the original structures.  As the original use for which the site was constructed is no longer viable, and has not been viable for the past 50 years, the only option for conservation and retention of fabric is adaptive reuse.  The extent of change that has already occurred for adaptive reuse in the last 50 years has already eroded the significance while the potential to reuse any conserved and reconstructed structures in a meaningful and viable manner is considered to be very limited due to the nature of the place.  Although it is regrettable that fabric with an historic association is to be lost, that fabric is considered not able to aptly demonstrate the historic values associated with the place and the condition and alterations have seriously marginalised the potential for meaningful conservation.

 

It is considered that the proposal will not have any detrimental impact upon the significance of the Heritage Items to the rear as it does not affect the way the group is understood in the streetscape, other similar scale development has already eroded any significant context and there will be no physical or visual impact.

 

Recommendations:

 

That the following conditions should be included with any consent:

 

·        An Interpretation Strategy, in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office Policy and Guidelines for Interpreting Heritage Places.  The Interpretation should address, but not be limited to,

 

the Stewart Family,

the Veterinary Hospital and its constituent elements,

The association with the racecourse,

Veterinary practices of the period

Market gardens

The reuse or display of relevant fabric and relics, such as the forge, which may be salvaged from the site and are appropriate for interpretation

 

The interpretation is to be located in a publicly visible place on the site and the Strategy is to include a maintenance and ownership plan to be adopted by the body corporate for the proposed building.  This Interpretation Strategy shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Heritage Consultant, and shall be to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

·        An oral history is to be prepared in accordance with the Oral History Association Handbook (4th Edition), by Beth Robertson, by a member of the Oral Historian Association of Australia.  This Oral History shall be to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  The Oral History is to be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library.

 

·        In the event any relic is uncovered during excavation, an Excavation Permit is to be obtained in accordance with Section 139 of the NSW Heritage Act.

 

·        The historical information collated in the Heritage Impact Statement prepared by GSA Planning, the Oral History and the Interpretation Strategy is to be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library.

 

·        An archival recording of the property shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  This recording shall be in accordance with the Guidelines for the preparation of archival recordings set out by the NSW Heritage Office.  Particular consideration should be given to the recording of structures and features, with relevant details, identified as having moderate significance in the GSA Planning HIS.  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.

 

7     RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

 

Clause 7 of SEPP 55 requires Council to consider whether land is contaminated prior to granting consent to the carrying out of any development on that land. Should the land be contaminated, Council must be satisfied that the land is suitable in a contaminated state for the proposed use. If the land requires remediation to be undertaken to make the land suitable for the proposed use, Council must be satisfied that the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

 

A Preliminary Contamination Assessment report titled ADC-LUCAS Proposed Unit Development Lots 1-3 & 35-38 section 2 in DP3496 Botany Street Randwick, report number 10747/1-AA dated 22 April 2005 was submitted in support of the application. The report concludes that the site does not present a significant risk of harm to human health or the environment and can be made suitable for the proposed development. Council’s Environmental Health Unit has accepted the conclusions made that the site can be made suitable for the proposed development and suitable conditions of consent have been recommended to ensure as much. The conditions require further investigation, identification, remediation and validation of any localised areas of soil contamination.

 

(b)     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – Residential Design Quality aims to improve the design quality of residential flat developments in the state.  SEPP 65 applies to all applications that involve erection of a residential flat building.  The SEPP defines residential flat buildings as any building that includes:

 

·        3 or more storeys (not including levels below ground level provided for car parking or storage, or both, that protrude less than 1.2 metres above ground level), and

·        4 or more self-contained dwellings (whether or not the building includes uses for other purposes, such as shops).

 

“30           Determination of development applications

 

(1)               After receipt of a development application for consent to carry out residential flat development and before it determines the application, the consent authority is to obtain the advice of the relevant design review panel (if any) concerning the design quality of the residential flat development.

 

(2)              In determining a development application for consent to carry out residential flat development, a consent authority is to take into consideration (in addition to any other matters that are required to be, or may be, taken into consideration):

 

(a)    the advice (if any) obtained in accordance with subclause (1), and

 

(b)    the design quality of the residential flat development when evaluated in accordance with the design quality principles, and

 

(c)    the publication Residential Flat Design Code (a publication of the Department of Planning, September 2002).”

 

The design of the building was directed by Geoff Bonus of Bonus + Associates and a Design Verification Statement was submitted with the development application which addresses the 10 design principles set out in the SEPP.

 

The application was referred to the joint Randwick / Waverley Design Review Panel and a report (dated 14/11/2005) from the Panel has been received by Council. In summary the Panel considered that the proposal satisfied the requirements of SEPP 65 subject to various recommendations. The Panels comments are outlined below.

 

PANEL COMMENTS

 

1.         Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

           

The Panel considers that the proposal sits well within its context with regard to built form, permeability, height, scale and use, and that although a number of trees will be removed from the site, the proposal has the ability to maintain the character of Waratah Avenue and the surrounding streets.

 

Maintaining the veterinary practice on this site is supported by the Panel, as it provides continuity of use. The location and form of the non-residential component on the Botany Street frontage is highly appropriate.

 

2.         The Scale of the Proposal

 

It is considered by the Panel that the scale of the proposal is satisfactory.

 

3.         The Built Form of the Proposal

 

The Panel previously commented that the Waratah Street elevation could have more variation in keeping with the complexity of the existing streetscape, however the view from the Botany Street corner displays and interesting mix of building height, detail and use which satisfies this criteria. 

 

The position and detail of the driveway should be further developed to achieve the retention of trees near the boundary or enable the planting of new trees and buffer planting.

 

The Panel suggests that the roof design be further developed to incorporate clerestory windows over internal stairs, bathrooms and corridors.

 

The subterranean area of the Veterinary Practice is noted to contain surgery, kennels and storage.  Appropriate floor space for plant, venting and risers to service this area has not been indicated.   Bathroom facilities should also be indicated. Some daylight and natural ventilation could also be provided to this area.

 

Some consideration could be given to moving the Botany Street building to the south to allow for more amenity to the north boundary (a 3 metre off set from the boundary would be appropriate).  This item should be discussed further with Council’s Assessing Officer.

 

The lift overrun height should be coordinated on all elevations.

 

4.         The Proposed Density

 

The density is considered appropriate.  The site is well located with regard to transport services, important institutions and local amenity. 

 

The apartment designs provide quality accommodation which indicates that the density is appropriate.  Some improvement could be made by increasing the access to natural daylight for some bathrooms.

 

5.         Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

As previously noted:

 

The high proportion of cross ventilated apartments and northern orientation is commended, however more consideration to natural day lighting from the east and west walls, and to the bathrooms should be investigated.

 

Clerestory lighting and ventilating skylights should be introduced to internal bathrooms on the top floors.

 

The Panel encourages the provision of water retention, particularly for garden maintenance.

 

Operable windows to the lift foyer should be clarified on the drawings.

 

Window operation generally should be indicated on the plans or elevations.  It is important that the selected window types allow for variable cross ventilation.  Windows should also be able to be left open at night without compromising security for the occupants. 

 

Appropriate sun shading will be required for west facing windows

 

6.         The Proposed Landscape

 

The landscape plan is well considered however the Panel would like more landscape treatment to reduce the impact of the driveway, and the incorporation of tree planting in this area. The Panel would be keen to retain more trees where possible, particularly along the eastern boundary.

 

The proposed pond areas could be developed to allow some direct ground access for the apartments.

 

7.         The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

           

As previously noted the design achieves appropriate levels of amenity which could be further developed with the addition of a number of windows and clerestory lights.

 

More roof cover to the entry stair areas would also increase amenity.

 

Weather protection should be considered for exposed windows such as Unit 8 living room.

 

8.         The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

The provision of multiple entries along the street facade assists in maintaining passive surveillance, street safety, and encourages street life.

 

9.         Social issues

 

As previously stated:

The site currently contains an early twentieth century dwelling and a former veterinary clinic, with an array of buildings for housing animals. These are of local historic 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.

 

The provision on a non-residential use on the Botany Street corner is supported, even though it may not be envisaged under the current zoning. The commercial space would add to the vitality of the street, whereas a residential use in this position would have poor amenity.

 

10.       The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The Panel commends the thoughtful way in which the contemporary design of the proposal has been placed within the streetscape and local context.  The Panel finds the aesthetics and building type entirely appropriate to the site.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The Panel considers that, with the above noted items addressed, this proposal satisfies the requirements of SEPP 65.

 

The amended plans submitted by the applicant addresses the majority of the items raised by the Panel and the amended design is satisfactory with regard to the provisions of SEPP 65.

 

(c)     State Environmental Planning Policy (BASIX) 2004

 

The Development Application was lodged on 30 September 2005. BASIX did not apply to new multi unit residential buildings until October 2005. BASIX certification is therefore not required for the proposal.

 

(d)     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2C (Residential C Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and multi-unit housing is permissible with Council’s consent although a veterinary clinic is prohibited development in the 2C zone.

 

Notwithstanding the above, Council’s records indicate that the site has been used for veterinary purposes and animal housing purposes for considerable time (i.e. Council’s records show that additions to stables and an associated laboratory were approved in the 1930’s) and the applicant has been able to establish to Council’s satisfaction that existing use rights exist, relating to the long standing continual operation of the veterinary hospital at the site.

 

The proposed veterinary clinic is therefore permissible with Councils consent in accordance with Sections 106 to 108(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 41(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

It is noted that Clause 41(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 was amended on 29 March 2006 by omitting “including a use that would otherwise be prohibited” from the clause and inserted “but only if that other use is a use that may be carried out with or without development consent” instead.

 

The savings and transitional provisions at clause 286D (2)(a) of the Regulation apply and therefore the recent amendments to the regulation do not affect the application.

 

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

 

Clause 21 – Subdivision

 

The subdivision of land is allowed only with the consent of Council. The proposal involves the strata subdivision of the proposed building – not the subdivision of land. The strata subdivision of the building is supported subject to submission of an amended strata plan to Council’s satisfaction. Appropriate conditions of consent have been recommended with regard to an amended strata plan.

 

Clause 22 – Services

 

Prior to the granting of consent Council is to be satisfied that adequate facilities are available to the development site for the supply of water and for removal or disposal of sewage and drainage.

 

The subject site is within an established suburb and adequate facilities are available to the site.

 

Clause 28 – Tree preservation orders

 

The proposal involves the removal of 19 trees and the relocation of 2 Brush Box trees on the site. A detailed assessment of the trees to be removed and the landscape plan has been carried out by Council’s landscape officer (see comments above under section 6.1) which concluded that subject to the recommended conditions the proposal was satisfactory with regard to the removal of the trees as proposed and also with regard to the relocation of the two Brush Box trees from the eastern end of the site to the north eastern corner.

 

Clause 31 – Landscaped Area

 

The application relies upon existing use rights, and therefore the proposal is not strictly subject to the development standard.

 

The landscaped area development standard found at Clause 31 of RLEP 1998 provides that development otherwise than for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No 2B or 2C must provide a minimum of 50% of the total site area as landscaped area. 50% of the subject site equals 1638.5m2.

 

The proposal achieves a landscaped area of approximately 1700m2 and complies.

 

Clause 31 also requires that landscaping over podiums or excavated basement areas must not exceed 50% of the landscaped area required i.e. 819.25m2.

 

The landscaped area not at podium level or over a basement is approximately 830m2 and therefore the proposal complies with the development standard.

 

Clause 32 – Floor space ratio

 

As stated above the application relies upon existing use rights, and therefore the proposal is not strictly subject to the development standard. However in accordance with Planning Principles established by the Land and Environment Court in Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council (2005), due consideration to relevant planning controls must be given with respect to proposals relying on existing use rights. The relationship of new development to its existing and likely future context is a matter to be considered in all planning assessment. Standards and controls relating to height, FSR, setbacks, etc, have relevance in that assessment and go to matters of impacts on adjoining sites and quality and degree of internal amenity.

 

The proposal results in a gross floor area of approximately 3495m2 on a site area of 3277m2. The FSR is therefore approximately 1.07:1 and the proposal is higher than the 0.9:1 FSR set by clause 32.

 

The floor space ratio (FSR) is a numerical development standard which, when combined with the building height and landscaped area development standards, set the framework for the control of urban density. These standards also help form the urban design and bulk and scale parameters of development.

 

The proposed density in this instance is not considered excessive and the proposal will not result in adverse impacts upon the amenity of nearby residential development or result in a diminished streetscape.

 

It is considered that the proposed design results in a bulk and scale, building height and urban design outcomes that are complementary to the existing scale, form and style of development in the vicinity of the site and which is also compatible with the desired future character of the neighbourhood.

 

The proposal maintains satisfactory setbacks to adjacent sites and the street frontages, and complies with the landscape provisions of the LEP.

 

The proposal does not require a SEPP 1 objection to the FSR development standard, although it is considered that an objection in this instance could be supported.

 

The proposal does not compromise the zones objectives and is the proposed density is satisfactory.

 

Clause 33 – Building heights

 

The maximum height for a building in the 2C zone is 12m measured vertically from any point on ground level. The proposal has a maximum height of 13.6m to the top of the lift encasement.

 

The maximum height for any external wall of a building in the 2C zone is 10m measured vertically from any point on ground level. The proposal has a maximum external wall height of 12.8m.

 

As stated previously, the application relies upon existing use rights, and therefore the proposal is not strictly subject to the development standard.

 

Although the proposal seeks a built form that exceeds the height standards the development is acceptable for the following reasons.

The proposed five residential towers addressing Waratah Avenue are lower than the 12m height limit and are of a similar scale to the 4 storey residential flat building located to the east, at No 9 Waratah Avenue.

 

These buildings are compatible with the scale of buildings along the northern side of Waratah Avenue and have compatible setbacks from the street boundary.

 

The separation of the five towers, as seen from the southern elevation, replicates the  pattern and dimension of separation between buildings along Waratah Avenue.

 

The mixed use commercial/residential tower at the western end of the site addressing Botany Street is one level higher than the five residential towers and it is this building that exceeds the overall height limit.

 

The design of this tower provides visual relief to adjoining properties and to the public domain by employing setbacks at the 4th storey level, such that the western, northern and southern building walls of the 4th storey are all well set back from the corresponding building walls of lower levels.

 

Well articulated and modulated elevations and the incorporation of a flat roof also ensure that the bulk and visual massing of the building is minimised.

 

It is noted that due to the orientation and corner position of the site that the additional height will not result in adverse solar access impacts for adjoining properties and the higher built element is considered appropriate to the corner location.

 

Clause 40 – Excavation and filling land

 

Excavation is allowed only with Council consent. Council must have regard to likely disruption of, or detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality and the effect on the likely future redevelopment of the land.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to the provisions of clause 40 subject to the recommended conditions of consent with regard to drainage, excavation and site management methods.

 

Clause 40A – Master plans

 

Consent may not be granted to a development application made in respect of a site area consisting of more than (4000m2) only if a master plan has been adopted.

 

The total site area of 3277m2 is less than that required for the submission of a master plan.

 

Clause 42B – Contaminated land

 

Clause 42B of the LEP requires Council to be satisfied that contaminated land will be suitable for the proposed purpose of the development after remediation and that remediation will be carried before the land is used for that purpose.

 

As previously stated, a preliminary site investigation has been undertaken and a report submitted in support of the application. The report concludes that the site is not a significant risk of harm to human health or the environment and can be made suitable for the proposed development. The report recommends further investigation and sampling be undertaken post demolition of the structures on the site. Subject to the outcome of the further investigation a Remedial Action Plan, RAP, may be required and validation upon completion of remediation.

 

Appropriate conditions of consent have been incorporated within the Recommendation of this report.

 

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

 

The site is not listed as a Heritage Item and is not located within a Conservation Area.

 

Despite the fact that the subject site does not contain any heritage items, nor is located in a conservation area, the applicant submitted a Heritage Impact Statement with the Development Application. Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner has provided detailed comments with regard to the heritage concerns of the development and these are found above in section 6.4 of his report.

 

In summary the heritage comments indicate that the proposal is satisfactory in terms of heritage concerns subject to the recommendations provided by the Consultant Heritage Planner. These conditions have been included in the Recommendation of this report.

 

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

 

The site is within the vicinity of three heritage items which are located adjacent to the northern boundary of the subject site. The items are known as 4, 6 and 8 Siler Street and are comprised of a group of 3 x single storey late Victorian cottages which are substantially intact. The items are identified as inventory No. 397 within Schedule 3 – Heritage Items of the LEP.

 

It is considered that the proposal will not have any detrimental impact upon the significance of the Heritage Items to the north and Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner has concluded that the proposal will not “affect the way the group is understood in the streetscape, other similar scale development has already eroded any significant context and there will be no physical or visual impact”.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Clause 46.

 

7.1     Policy Controls

 

a.         Development Control Plan - Multi Unit Housing:

 

Standard

Requirement – preferred solutions

Provided

Compliance

Setbacks

-Front

 

 

 

 

 

-Side

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Rear

 

 

-Determined by character of the streetscape

 

 

 

 

-Buildings maintain a minimum average setback of 5m, be no closer than 3.5m and maximum length of any wall without articulation 10m.

 

-Buildings maintain a minimum average setback of 8m, be no closer than 6m and maximum length of any one section of the wall without articulation 10m, minimum length of any step 3m.

 

Ranges from 3.04m to 4.630m to Botany Street and 3.35m to 6m set back to Waratah Avenue

 

North  - min 4.5m

Max 11m

 

 

 

 

 

East  – min 7.5m, max 8.5m

 

 

Yes

 

 

 
Yes

 

 

 

 
Yes

Fences

 

-Solid front fences facing the street are no higher than 1.2m.

 

May be increased to 1.8m where the fence has openings that make it at least 50% transparent

The main fences to the Waratah Ave elevation are 1.2m

 

There is a small section of slated timber fence to the western elevation adjacent to No. 11 Botany Street. This fence is 1.8m .

Yes

 

 

 

The fence is recessed behind the western building wall and is not considered a front fence as such. The fence is not out of context.

Landscaped Area

Private open space for flats and apartments has a minimum area of 8m2 and minimum dimension of 2m

All units have private open space in the form of terraces/balconies with min dimension on 2m and area of 8m2

Yes

Privacy

Where there is a horizontal separation of less than 10 metres between windows, they should offset, angled or screened to reduce potential privacy impacts.

 

A sill level of 1.6 metres above floor level provides satisfactory protection for overlooking.

 

 Walls and floors between dwellings are constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia regarding sound transmission and insulation.

 

The majority of windows facing buildings on adjacent properties have 10m separation from adjoining buildings and where they do not the windows are offset to opposing

 

 

 

The building accords or has the capability of according with the BCA windows.

Yes- The proposal achieves a satisfactory level of visual and acoustic privacy.

 

It is noted that there are no overlooking issues to the east, west or south.

 

Potential for overlooking from the northern facing openings and terraces of the residential units towards the rear yards of properties to the north is mitigated by the proposed mass plantings of vegetation along the northern boundary as part of the landscaped plan. The relocation of two existing mature brush boxes in the north eastern corner will further ensure an adequate level of visual privacy is maintained to the dwellings which share the northern boundary with the subject site.

SOLAR ACCESS AND ENERGY

EFFICIENCY

 

75% of dwellings in a development achieve 3.5 star rating by Nat HERS or equivalent and no dwelling achieves less than 3 stars, unless the site analysis can demonstrate that this is not achievable on a particular site and an Energy Performance Statement demonstrates that the design of the dwelling units satisfies the intent of these objectives and performance criteria. The NatHERS rating for each dwelling (on a typical unit basis) is provided with the application. 

 

Adequate roof area should be provided facing between 45 degrees east and 45 degrees west of north, and a slope between 15 and 55 degrees to the horizontal is provided for the installation of solar collectors.

 

 

NATHERS assessment submitted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The design includes north and south facing terraces and openings to all units, with east and west facing terraces to several units.

 

The design incorporates skylights to the roof areas and overhangs to terraces and balconies for solar shading.

The NATHERS assessment deals with the original design and indicates that the proposal complies.

An amended assessment is required and this has been requested within the recommended conditions

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes – The orientation of the site, location of adjoining buildings and incorporation of suitable terrace overhangs for north facing terraces ensures that adequate solar shading will occur to the units while achieving a satisfactory level of natural light penetration to internal living areas.

SAFETY AND SECURITY

 

Building and landscaping design allows casual surveillance of footpaths and driveways (which is important for the safety of residents and passing pedestrians, and for the security of the neighbourhood).

 

P2 Approaches to the site and the entries of each dwelling are visible from within that dwelling.

 

P3 High walls and parking structures around buildings and open space areas which obstruct views into the development are avoided.

 

P4 Resident car parking areas are equipped with security grilles or doors.

 

P5 Visitor parking spaces are clearly identifiable and located to facilitate surveillance by some units.

 

P6 Visitor entry to all units and internal common areas is controlled by intercom and remote locking systems.

 

P7 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security is provided in common and access areas of the development.

 

P8 External lighting is neither intrusive nor creates a nuisance for nearby residents.

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes – roller door to basement.

 

 

No – Basement parking only

 

 

 

Yes – gated entries to residential towers and common areas to the north at ground level.

 

Can be incorporated as recommended condition of consent.

 

STORAGE

 

10m2 of storage space is provided for each dwelling with a minimum clearance height of 2.1 metres.

 

At least 50% of the storage space is within the dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area of that dwelling. Storage facilities may be provided in basement or sub floor areas, or attached to garages .

 

Storage areas provided within each dwelling and also at basement level for each dwelling.

 

 

Yes – Although the storage areas provided are not large it is considered that the combination of storage /cupboard space provided internally combined with the designated storage areas in the basement level will be adequate.

BARRIER-FREE ACCESS

 

Publicly accessible areas within private developments are provided with facilities for access and mobility in accordance with the Building Code of Australia.

 

At grade access, ramps and lifts are provided.

The proposal generally complies with the BCA with regard to access and mobility and where it does not conditions have been recommended to ensure as much.

WASTE MINIMISATION AND

MANAGEMENT

 

Each dwelling has a waste storage cupboard in the kitchen sufficient to enable separation of recyclable material.

 

Facilities are capable of holding at least a single

day’s waste and allow for source separation of garbage, recyclable and compostible material.

 

Design of landscaped areas makes provision for on-site composting. Waste facilities should not be located between the front alignment of the building and the road.

 

A waste management plan has been submitted and the design demonstrates consideration of waste minimisation and management .

The proposal generally complies with Councils requirements although there are areas which Councils engineers have identified that require amendment and or further detail. See comments above under the section 6.1.

 

It is considered that the  issues raised in section 6.1 can be addressed by way of conditions of consent and these have been recommended accordingly.

 

In particular conditions dealing with the proposed waste chute have been recommended and a deferred commencement condition relating to the proposed method of removing waste from the basement to the kerbside.

 

b.       Development Control Plan Parking

 

Detailed comments outlining the parking and servicing requirements as well as Council’s technical assessment of the basement carpark are provided above under the heading 6.1.

 

In summary however Council’s DCP - Parking requires a total of 61 parking spaces being 38 spaces for the residential unit, 9 visitor spaces for residential component and14 spaces for the business component. The proposal is also required to provide 1 servicing/loading bay.

 

The application provides 70 spaces in total comprising 10 commercial, 59 residential and one space with a multi-purpose use, being a loading bay, turning bay and ‘spare’ short term car space.

 

The proposal provides the required amount of disabled parking and also car wash bays.

 

A traffic report was submitted with the original application and a new report was subsequently submitted with the amended plans.

 

The latest report (dated February 2006, prepared by GSA Planning) seeks to justify the stacked nature of 8 of the commercial car spaces and some of the residential spaces. The report also seeks to justify the lack of commercial spaces i.e. 10 provided as opposed to 14 required.

 

The survey evidence presented in the report adequately justifies the shortfall of 4 commercial spaces. Specifically, short term visitations by clients to the vet clinic, combined with the proposed number of employees and operational capacity of the clinic, i.e. three examination room only, means that the proposed 10 commercial spaces is adequate to accommodate the operation needs of the veterinary clinic.

 

It is reasonable however to require the rear stacked spaces in the commercial carpark to be used by staff, leaving free the visitor spaces for clients and any unused ‘front’ stacked spaces. The stacked spaces in the residential carpark are to be allocated to one unit.

 

Council’s engineer has highlighted several issues with the basement car park in terms of the dimensions of the loading/turning bay, widths of several carspaces and the aisle length at the western end of the commercial carspaces. It is noted that in order to widen the loading bay it may be necessary to reduce visitor parking by one space. This is considered acceptable in the circumstances given that the development has provided more than the required amount of residential spaces and it can be reasonably expected that at times residential visitors will be able to park in residential allocated spaces particularly when visiting the units that have two spaces allocated to them.

 

It is considered that the issues raised are all matters that can be dealt with by way of conditions and to this regard the recommendations of Council’s engineer have been adopted in this report.

 

Subject to the recommended conditions, the carparking arrangements are considered satisfactory.

 

9        ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1     Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposal will result in a floor space ratio of 1.07:1, which exceeds the floor space ratio standard of 0.9:1 as specified in Clause 32 (1) of the Randwick LEP 1998.

The objectives of this standard as stated in the LEP and reinforced in the DCP – Multi-unit housing are to control the size, bulk and scale of development to reflect the desired future character of the area.

 

Notwithstanding that the proposal relies on existing use rights and therefore the standard does not strictly apply, it is considered that the proposed development achieves the objectives and results in a development density that is appropriate to the site and locality.

 

9.2     Landscaping /Open Space Provision

 

The proposal complies with the landscaped area requirements under Clause 31(2) of the Randwick LEP 1998 and the objectives of Section 4.1 of Development Control Plan - Multi-unit housing.

 

Apart from ground floor terraces attached to the ground floor units the landscaped area around the proposed building will be treated as communal open space for use by all residents and not divided up and allocated to individual dwellings within the development to the exclusion of other users on upper levels. The provision of a large water feature will have aesthetic and ecologically sustainable development benefits and the applicant has provided on-going management details which will ensure the feature remains filtered and in clean working order and does not become a mosquito ‘breeding ground’.

 

In terms of the removal of vegetation from the site the proposal is supported. While it is preferable to maintain the two large Brush Box trees near the eastern boundary in situ, there relocation to the north eastern section of the site is an acceptable compromise and will benefit properties to the east and north in terms of outlook and visual privacy.

 

The proposed landscape plan results in an overall scheme for the site that will complement the aesthetic of the built form and will provide a visual privacy buffer to adjacent properties.

 

9.3     Building Height

 

The western most tower element of the proposal does not comply with the 12m building height limitation under Clause 33(2) and10m external wall height under Clause 33(4) of Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The proposal however will not result in significant adverse impacts upon the residential amenity of adjoining sites. Specifically the heights will not result in bulk and scale issues as the higher parts of the building are set back from side boundaries and street frontages.

 

The height of walls, their location and orientation do not cause substantial adverse impacts on the existing streetscape or adjoining properties, particularly in relation to privacy and solar access. Variations in height and massing have been provided to create visual interest, distribute the bulk of the building and minimise impacts on adjoining properties and the streetscape. The proposed external materials and the well articulated elevations will result in a visually interesting built form.

 

9.4     Side and Rear Boundary Setbacks

The proposal generally satisfies the front, side and rear setback requirements of the DCP - Multi-unit housing. The excavated basement car park will encroach on the side and rear setback restrictions, however this level is fully excavated and does not protrude above existing natural ground levels within the specified minimum setback. The DCP allows for a relaxation of the requirements in instances such as these as the applicant has demonstrated that no significant or sustainable adverse impact on adjoining properties will occur and landscaping requirements are achieved.

 

The overall objectives of this section of the DCP are to reduce the impact of the development upon the adjoining premises, ensure there is adequate separation between buildings for landscaping, visual and acoustic privacy, sunlight penetration and private open space, and to integrate development with desirable characteristics of the established streetscape. The subject development is deemed to satisfy these objectives.

 

9.5     Car parking and Access

 

The basement carpark is deficient in terms of dimensions with regard to several car spaces and aisle length. It is considered that these deficiencies can be addressed to Council’s satisfaction by way of deferred commencement conditions.

 

There is a shortfall in commercial parking which is slightly offset by addition of extra spaces for the residential component of the development. The shortfall is also considered acceptable having regard to the traffic study submitted with the amended plans and the operational aspects of the proposed vet clinic. The overall number of spaces provided is more than satisfies the DCP requirement and the shortfall in commercial spaces is acceptable in this instance.

 

9.6     Design

 

With respect to the design of the proposed development in relation to the immediate locality, there is a variety of building styles and types, many of which have little merit when assessed against current expectations of modern urban design and compatibility with streetscape context and character of the locality.

 

The proposed development will result in the demolition of a ‘Queen Anne’ style dwelling, however the area is zoned for higher density styles of residential development and the structures proposed to be demolished are not heritage items or considered significance in the context of the municipality.

 

The design of the new building is contemporary and has merit in terms of overall architectural style, siting, building envelope and scale. The external materials chosen, timber, rendered masonry and metal roofing, reinforce the contemporary style. The timber finish to the residential towers is also compatible with the ‘leafy’ nature of the Waratah Avenue frontage due to the large ficus trees in the street verge.

 

It is recognised that the flat roof form does not accord with Council’s pre-lodgement advice however, the roof form is suited to the contemporary design of the building and is compatible with the vertical and horizontal proportioning of the western and southern elevations. The contemporary design is considered acceptable within the mixed character of the Botany Street and Waratah Avenue streetscapes and the constructed building will be of a substantially higher architectural quality than many existing examples of multi-unit housing developments in Botany Street, Waratah Avenue, and Silver Streets.

 

9.7     Amenity Impacts

 

9.7.1    Overshadowing

 

The applicant has included shadow diagrams with the application, which indicate that, due to the orientation of the site and its position of the northern side of Waratah Avenue and the eastern side of Botany Street, there will be minimal additional shadow cast on adjoining properties. The majority of additional winter shadow cast by the development will fall on onto Waratah Avenue and the front yards of properties on the southern side of Waratah Avenue.

 

9.7.2    Privacy & Overlooking

 

The main potential for overlooking and loss of privacy would be from the  residential terraces facing north. The terraces however, are sited well back from the northern boundary, being setback between 11m (those in the five residential towers) and 4.5m (the terrace to the penthouse in the north western tower).

 

The proposed vegetation buffer between the residential properties and the northern boundary will also minimise overlooking opportunities.

 

Openings to the south and west overlook roads, while the openings to the east are limited, have adequate setbacks and do not directly oppose openings on the western wall of No. 9 Waratah Avenue.

 

The proposal will not result in significant adverse overlooking or visual privacy impacts.

 

9.7.3  Views

 

There are no significant views that will be affected by the proposal.

 

9.7.4  Noise

 

Concern has been raised by local residents with regard to the potential noise emanating from the proposed new veterinary clinic and kennels. It is noted that details have been submitted with regard to operations of the vet clinic and also with regard to the noise insulation qualities.

 

To this regard it is noted that overnight kennelling of animals will occur in the basement level which will offer a high degree of natural noise insulation. The proposed construction materials will also ensure a high level of insulation to the basement. The location of the kennels, to the south west corner of the basement is also considered the best position for the kennels given it is adjacent to Waratah Avenue and Botany Street as opposed to residential dwellings.

 

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

 

9.8     Hours of Operation

 

The hours of operation proposed for the veterinary clinic are 7.30am to 8.00pm Mondays to Fridays, 9.00am to 5.00pm Saturdays and 10.00am to 4.00pm Sundays, with after hours service by appointment only.

 

The hours of operation proposed are considered reasonable within the predominantly residential context of the locality. The hours are similar to those of the existing vet and kennel arrangement and do not pose a threat to the amenity of the locality.

 

9.9     Site Suitability

 

Provided that adverse effects on adjoining properties can be minimised, this site is considered suitable to accommodate the proposed residential development and also the proposed veterinary clinic.

 

Subject to the recommended conditions, the application and the above assessment demonstrate that there will be minimal adverse effect upon adjoining properties and the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

 

9.10   Section 94 Contributions

 

The proposed development attracts the following contributions, as calculated under Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan in force as at the date of the lodgement of the application.

 

The proposed development attracts the following contributions, as calculated under Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan in force as at the date of the lodgement of the application.

 

Open Space:                                        22 x $1195.25 = $26,295.50

                                                            12 x $1792.88 = $21,514.56

                                                            1  x  $2732.00 = $  2,732.00

                                                                                    = $50,542.06

(minus existing credit                             (-$2732)                                     = $47,810.06

for the 1x3 bedroom dwelling)

 

Community Facilities:                            22 x $528.50   = $11,627.00

                                                            12 x $792.72   = $  9,512.64

                                                            1  x  $1208.00 = $  1,208.00

                                                                                    = $22,347.64

 (minus existing credit)               (-$1208.00)                               = $21139.64

 

Administration fee:                                                                                  = $425

 

10      FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11      CONCLUSION

 

The applicant has established existing use rights and therefore the residential and commercial development proposed is development allowed with Council’s consent.

 

The proposed residential development is appropriate on the site given the desired future character of the area and the objectives contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. 

 

The proposed commercial use (veterinary clinic) is also an appropriate use given there has been a veterinary clinic of some descript operating at the site for many years and the proposal and above assessment demonstrate that the impacts from the clinic will be minimal.

 

Sufficient parking has been provided to ensure that the proposal does not impact upon the existing levels of street parking.  Deferred commencement conditions will be imposed requiring adjustments to the basement car park in order to achieve compliance with Council’s controls and the relevant Australian Standards.

 

The removal of most of the existing vegetation from the site is of concern, however this is addressed by a comprehensive landscape plan for the development that includes sufficient private and open landscape area and which incorporates the relocation of two significant Brush Box trees on the site as well as abundant new plantings.

 

The landscape plan will achieve an appropriate setting for the new building and will provide a visual and privacy buffer along the northern boundary.

 

The proposal exceeds the height standard and FSR standard for the site, however the scale, architectural style and built form of the development are considered to be complementary to the existing diverse form of buildings in the vicinity. The density of the building is not out of context with adjacent development and a variation to the standards would be supported in this instance.

 

Although relying on existing use rights and therefore the proposal is not strictly required to comply with the development standards, it is considered that the proposed mixed use, residential and commercial building satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and objectives of the LEP, and will not result in any adverse impacts upon the neighbouring properties or the Streetscape of Botany Street or Waratah Avenue.

 

The application is recommended for deferred commencement approval, subject to appropriate conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the consent authority pursuant to section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 grant “Deferred Commencement Consent” to Development Application No D/796/2005 for demolition of existing structures on site and construction of a part 3 / part 4 storey mixed use development comprising 35 dwellings, basement car parking, relocation of two Brush Box trees on site, strata subdivision and a new veterinary clinic at 13-17 Botany Street subject to the following conditions:

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

The consent is not to operate until the following materials / amendments have been submitted to and approved by the Director, City Planning.

 

1    Amended plans showing the internal carpark layout being modified to comply with the provisions of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 shall be submitted to Council prior to this consent becoming operational. It is noted that this may necessitate the basement being extended to the west to allow for adequate maneuvering room adjacent to spaces 30 and 35.

 

2    Prior to the consent becoming operational, the applicant shall submit to Council, documentation prepared by a suitably qualified traffic engineer detailing how satisfactory security can be provided to all car spaces within the basement carpark. In particular, the security of the residential spaces should be considered given that commercial and residential visitors drive through the residential carpark to access the commercial and visitor parking spaces.

 

3    Prior to the consent becoming operational, the applicant shall submit documentation to Council demonstrating how full waste bins will be safely transported from the basement level to the kerbside for collection.

 

4    The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building shall be as detailed in the Statement of Environmental Effects and as detailed on the approved plans and the two submitted photo-montages are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director, City Planning.

 

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

 

Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement conditions, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Planning, development consent is granted under Section 80 & 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01, DA02, DA03, DA04, DA05, DA06, DA07, DA7.1, DA7.2, DA08 Issue C, prepared by Bonus + Associates and all received by Council on 27 February 2006, and landscape plan numbered LA01 Revision C, prepared by Taylor Brammer, dated 14/12/2005  and received by Council on 27 February 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and the details/amendments approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.       Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate a Nat HERS assessment is to be submitted demonstrating that 75% of dwellings in a development achieve 3.5 star rating by Nat HERS or equivalent and no dwelling achieves less than 3 stars.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that a record of the heritage significance of aspects and structures on the site are recorded and preserved for the benefit of the public.

 

3.       An Interpretation Strategy is to be prepared in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office Policy and Guidelines for Interpreting Heritage Places.  The Interpretation should address, but not be limited to:

 

o   the Stewart Family,

o   the Veterinary Hospital and its constituent elements,

o   The association with the racecourse,

o   Veterinary practices of the period

o   Market gardens

o   The reuse or display of relevant fabric and relics, such as the forge, which may be salvaged from the site and are appropriate for interpretation

 

          The interpretation is to be located in a publicly visible place on the site and the Strategy is to include a maintenance and ownership plan to be adopted by the body corporate for the proposed building.  This Interpretation Strategy shall be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Heritage Consultant, and shall be to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

4        An oral history is to be prepared in accordance with the Oral History Association Handbook (4th Edition), by Beth Robertson, by a member of the Oral Historian Association of Australia.  This Oral History shall be to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  The Oral History is to be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library.

 

5        In the event any relic is uncovered during excavation, an Excavation Permit is to be obtained in accordance with Section 139 of the NSW Heritage Act.

 

6        The historical information collated in the Heritage Impact Statement prepared by GSA Planning, the Oral History and the Interpretation Strategy is to be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library.

7        An archival recording of the property shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  This recording shall be in accordance with the Guidelines for the preparation of archival recordings set out by the NSW Heritage Office.  Particular consideration should be given to the recording of structures and features, with relevant details, identified as having moderate significance in the GSA Planning HIS.  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.

 

Section 94 Contributions.

 

8        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             $47,810.06

b)           for the provision or improvement of community facilities $21,139.64

c)           Administration fee                                                                     $     425.00

 

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

1           

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.

 

9        Any gate openings shall be constructed so that the gates, when hung, will be fitted in such a manner that they will not open over the footway or public place.

 

10      External walls sited less that 500mm from the boundaries of the site are to be erected as ‘face brickwork’ or other maintenance free materials, to ensure that adequate provisions are made for maintenance purposes within the property boundaries.

 

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

 

12      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.

 

13      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.

 

14      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.

 

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

 

16      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.

 

17      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.

 

18      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.

 

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

 

19      Prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development, a detailed site contamination investigation must be undertaken by an independent appropriately qualified environmental consultant in order to provide information on land and ground water contamination and migration in relation to past and current activities and uses that may have occurred on the site.

 

          The report is to be prepared in accordance with Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and relevant Guidelines made or approved by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly EPA), including the Guidelines for Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites and the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM) 1999.  Also, as detailed in the Planning Guidelines to SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land, the report is to assess the nature, extent and degree of contamination upon the land.  The detailed site contamination report must be sufficiently detailed and be submitted to and accepted by Council’s Manager of Environmental Health & Building Services prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

a)         Should the Detailed Site Investigation Report demonstrate that the land and groundwater is not contaminated, the conclusion to the report must clearly state that ‘the land is suitable for its intended land use, posing no immediate or long term risk to public health or the environment and is fit for occupation by persons, together with clear justification for the statement.  The report must demonstrate that any site contamination satisfies the relevant criteria in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999.

 

            The written concurrence of Council must be obtained before a construction certificate is issued for the development.

 

b)         Should the Detailed Site Investigation Report identify that the land is contaminated and the land requires remedial works to meet the relevant criteria in the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM) 1999, the following matters must be complied with:-

 

i.            A Remediation Action Plan (RAP) is required to be prepared and be submitted to Council prior to commencing remediation works.  The RAP is also required to be reviewed by an independent NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) Accredited Site Auditor.

 

ii.            The RAP is to be prepared in accordance with the relevant                        Guidelines made or approved by NSW Department of Environment      and Conservation (DEC), including the Guidelines for Consultants             Reporting on Contaminated Sites.

 

This RAP is to include procedures for the following:

 

a.   Excavation of Hydrocarbon-contaminated soil,

b.   Validation sampling and analysis,

c.   Prevention of cross contamination and migration or release                    of contaminants,

d.   Site management planning,

e.   Ground water remediation, dewatering, drainage,                                  monitoring and validation,

f.    Unexpected finds.

 

iii.           Prior to commencing any remediation works, a written statement is to be provided to the Council by the Site Auditor, which confirms that the Remediation Action Plan satisfies the relevant legislative guidelines and requirements and that the land is able to be remediated to the required level and be suitable for the intended development and use.

 

iv.           The applicant is to engage a NSW Department of Environment and Conservation Accredited Site Auditor, accredited under sections 49 & 50 of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. The Site Auditor is to assess the suitability of the site for its intended development and use.  The Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report is to be submitted to Council and must verify that the land has been remediated and the site is suitable for the intended development and satisfies the relevant criteria in the NEPM 1999.

 

Any additional conditions that are specified in the Site Audit Statement and Summary Site Audit Report by the EPA accredited site auditor, form part of this consent and Council must be consulted with prior to the development and imposition of any conditions.

 

The Site Audit Statement must be submitted to Council, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the development.

 

v.           Remediation works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, environmental planning instruments applying to the site, guidelines made by the NSW Department of Environment and Conservation and Department of Infrastructure Planning & Natural Resources, Randwick City Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

vi.           The site remediation including ground water must fully comply with all relevant Commonwealth and State Legislation, Regulations and Standards.

 

vii.       Any fill importation to the site is to be monitored and classified by the Site Auditor appointed for remediation of the site or a person with his qualifications. Only ‘Virgin Excavated Natural Material’ (VENM) is to be imported to the site, as defined within the NSW EPA ‘Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and management of Liquid and Non-Liquid Wastes. 1999’.

 

viii.         A Site Remediation Management Plan must be prepared prior to the commencement of remediation works by a suitably qualified environmental consultant and be implemented throughout remediation works. A copy is to be forwarded to Council. The Site Remediation Management Plan shall include measures to address the following matters:

 

·      general site management, site security, barriers, traffic management and signage

·      hazard identification and control

·      worker health & safety, work zones and decontamination procedures

·      cross contamination

·      site drainage and dewatering

·      air and water quality monitoring

·      disposable of hazardous wastes

·      contingency plans and incident reporting, and

·      details of provisions for monitoring implementation of remediation works including details of the person/consultant responsible.

 

ix.      Remediation must be completed to the satisfaction of the Accredited Site Auditor and the written concurrence of Council must be obtained prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.

 

x.    The works shall not give rise to environmental pollution or public   nuisance or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act (2000) & Regulations (2001).

 

20      Site remediation must be carried out in accordance with the following general requirements (as applicable):

 

a)   Any odours from excavated materials shall be mitigated by the use of an odour suppressant, such as Biosolve, and shall not give rise to an offensive odour as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997. Stockpiles shall also be covered and dampened down to reduce odour and dust impacts.

 

b)   On-site land farming of contaminated soil is not permitted, except with the written approval of Council’s Manager of Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

c)   All trucks and service vehicles leaving the site shall go through a suitably constructed on site truck wash down area, to ensure no tracking of material occurs from the site onto roads adjoining the site. Details are to be submitted to Council in the Site Management Plan.

 

d)   Prior to the commencement and throughout the duration of the remediation and construction works adequate sediment and stormwater control measures shall be in place and maintained on site at all times.  Sediment laden stormwater shall be controlled using measures outlined in the manual Managing Urban Stormwater Soils and Construction produced by the NSW Department of Housing.

 

e)   Remediation work shall be conducted within the following hours:

 

Monday – Friday 7am – 5pm

Saturday                          8am – 5pm

No work permitted on Sundays or Public Holidays

 

f)    A sign displaying the contact details of the remediation contractor (and the site manager if different to remediation contractor) shall be displayed on the site adjacent to the site access.  This sign shall be displayed throughout the duration of the remediation works.

 

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

 

21        Hazardous or intractable wastes arising from the demolition process being removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Environment Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

a.         New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2000;

b.         The Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001;

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

d.         Protection Of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) and

e.          Environment Protection Authority's Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid and Non Liquid Wastes (1999).

 

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

 

22      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).

 

23      No animals are to be kept within the veterinary clinic located on the ground floor during the night time period (10:00pm to 7:00am). Animals are to be placed in the kennels provided in the basement level.

 

24      The attenuation measures recommended in the acoustic report prepared by Renzo Tonin & Associates Pty Ltd titled 13-17 Botany Road Randwick Acoustic Assessment for Development Application TB921-01F02 (rev 3) DA report.doc dated 30 May 2005 form part of this approval. 

 

25      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.

 

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

27      The hours of operation of the Veterinary Clinic are limited to:

 

Monday to Fridays          7:30am to 8.00pm

 

Saturdays                        9.00am to 5.00pm

 

Sundays                          10.am to 4.00pm

 

Any visits outside the above hours of operation are to be for emergency cases and by appointment only.

 

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

 

28      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.

 

29      Development consent is required to be obtained in relation to the specific ‘use’ of commercial tenancies/occupancies and ‘shop fit outs’, in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

30      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.

 

Security Deposit Conditions

 

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

 

31      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

§ 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:

 

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

 

a.   Construct a heavy duty concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site in Waratah Avenue.

 

b.   Remove all redundant vehicular crossings and laybacks and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

c.   Construct new concrete kerb and gutter along the Waratah Avenue site frontage, except opposite the vehicular entrance, including associated road works.

 

d.   Reconstruct any damaged sections of kerb and gutter along the Botany Street site frontage, including associated road works.

 

e.   Construct new concrete footpath along both site frontages.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

33      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.

 

34      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.

 

35      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.

 

36      The driveway opening at the Waratah Avenue site frontage must be 5.50 metres wide and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

37      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.

 

38      The proposed visitor space 5 and the turning/loading bay in the basement level shall be combined to provide one 5.20 metre wide loading/turning bay. In addition the proposed storage areas at the rear of these spaces shall be deleted to facilitate a larger loading/turning area. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

39      The loading/turning bay shall be linemarked and signposted so as to restrict loading/turning vehicles to a maximum length of stay of five minutes. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

40      The carpark layout and all car spaces within the basement carpark shall be in accordance with the provisions of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004. The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

41      Suitable signage shall be installed throughout the basement carpark to clearly define the parking allocations and direct users to the commercial, residential and/or visitor parking spaces as appropriate. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

42      To improve visibility at the intersection of Botany Street and Waratah Avenue, a minimum 3.0 metre x 3.0 metre splay corner shall be provided at ground level. There shall be no walls or planting higher than 600mm located within the splay corner.

 

Note: The submitted plan DA03 Issue C demonstrates compliance with this requirement.

 

43      A Works Zone is to be provided in Waratah Avenue 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.

 

44      Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, the applicant shall submit for approval and have approved by Council's Traffic Engineer a detailed construction traffic management plan. The plan shall demonstrate how construction and delivery vehicles will access the development site during the demolition and construction phase of the development.

 

45      All recommendations contained in the traffic engineers report prepared to satisfy the deferred commencement condition regarding security of car spaces within the basement carpark shall be implemented.

 

Alignment Level Conditions

 

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

 

46      The Council’s Development Engineer has inspected the above site and has 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:

 

·   Waratah Avenue:       Match the back of the existing concrete footpath along the full site frontage.

 

·   Botany Street:            20mm above the back of the existing concrete footpath at all points opposite the footpath, along the full site frontage.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineers on 9399 0923.

 

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

 

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

 

48      The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $5572 calculated at $44.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

49      The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment must be at least 150mm below the alignment level as specified for the vehicular access. 

 

Service Authority Conditions

 

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

 

50      The applicant shall meet the full cost of the overhead power lines and telecommunication cables located in the vicinity of the development site to be relocated underground and all redundant power poles to be removed. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be relocated. All cables most be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

51      All power supply and telecommunications cabling to the development shall be underground.

 

52      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.

 

53      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.

 

54      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.

 

55      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 to determine whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

56      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 release of the plan of subdivision.

 

Drainage Conditions

 

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

 

57      Stormwater drainage plans have not been approved as part of this development consent. Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)         A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)         A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system. 

 

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

 

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

 

i.          Roof areas

ii.          Paved areas

iii.         Grassed areas

iv.         Garden areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

58      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.

 

59      All site stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) to the underground drainage system in Waratah Avenue, via a new and/or existing kerb inlet pit.

 

Notes:

 

a.   All new kerb inlet pits shall be constructed in general accordance with Council’s standard drawing SD7a.

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.

c.   Details for all stormwater drainage works in Council Property shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Asset’s Drainage Engineer prior to the stormwater works being undertaken.

 

60      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 Council.  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.

 

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

 

62      The maximum depth of ponding in above ground detention areas 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

 

63      Any above ground stormwater detention areas must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

64      The floor level of all habitable and storage areas adjacent to the detention area must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level in the detention area 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).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

68      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.

 

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

 

          The 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.

 

70      Three 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.

 

71      Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to Council, 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); and

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

 

72      Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, 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 following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the certifying engineers and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

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

 

Notes:-

 

a)           Any subsoil drainage (from planter boxes etc) is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be discharged to Council’s kerb & gutter and/or underground drainage system.

 

b)           Adequate provision is to be made for the 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).

 

74      A report must be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority or an accredited certifier, prior to issuing the Construction Certificate, detailing the proposed method of excavation and dewatering process.  This report is to be prepared by suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical, Hydrological and Structural Engineers and is to include but not limited to:

 

·          The proposed method of shoring/piling and dewatering.

·          The zone of influence of any possible settlement.

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

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

 

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.

Waste Management Conditions

 

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

 

75      The proposed garbage compactor and chute feed system shall be deleted from the plans submitted for the construction certificate.

 

76      The residential waste storage area shall be sized to contain a total of 36 x 240 litre bins (18 garbage bins & 18 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

77      The commercial office waste storage area shall be sized to contain a total of 4 x 240 litre bins (2 garbage bins & 2 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

78      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.

 

79      The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

Strata Subdivision Conditions

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works:

 

80      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 (in conjunction with registration of the plan of subdivision) 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:

b.        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.

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

 

81      The applicant shall create suitable right of carriageway, easements for services and internal stormwater lines, as required. The applicant shall be advised that the minimum easement width for any internal stormwater line is 0.9 metres.

 

82      Prior the issue of a Strata Certificate under Section 37 of the Strata Titles Act, the applicant is to submit an application for Section 37 Certificate together with a a survey plan, prepared by a registered surveyor, and at least four copies for certification by the General Manager or delegate.

 

          The Strata Plans should demonstrate that any stacked residential parking is allocated to one unit, visitor car spaces are to be shown as common property.

 

83      All conditions of development consent must be satisfied and all public roads and reserves must be satisfactorily restored prior to endorsement of the subdivision plans.

 

84      The applicant shall provide Council with a survey plan of the property prior to endorsement of the subdivision plans.

 

Landscape Conditions

 

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

 

85      Landscaping at the site shall be installed substantially in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by JH of Taylor Brammer Landscape Architects, drawing number LA01, job number 04-200S, revision A, dated 12.12.2005, subject to the following additional requirements being shown an amended plan, to satisfaction of the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The documentation is to include:

 

a.          The two Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) along the eastern boundary, being transplanted to an appropriate location towards the northeast corner of the site, with the exact location and details to be determined by Arborist and Landscape Architect.

 

b.         All trees within the site and on Council’s Waratah Avenue and Botany Street road reserve are to be numbered to correspond with the Arborists Report, prepared by Danny Draper, of Urban Tree Management, reference number 7194, dated 27th January 2005, and are to be clearly marked for retention or removal in accordance with the conditions contained in this consent.

           

c.          A planting plan which specifies the location of all proposed planting, with plants to be drawn at their mature size with a dense planting of shrubs, accent plants and ground covers within all garden beds so that a continuous planted cover is achieved.

 

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

 

e.         All tree species proposed shall be a minimum pot size of 100 litres at the time of planting, with a minimum number of 18 to be suitably located along all four boundaries of the site. The species selected shall consist of those native evergreens which will achieve a minimum height at maturity of between 6-20 metres.

 

d.         Additional notation showing soil and mulch details, irrigation details, edging, paving, fencing details, surface finishes, retaining wall details, and any other landscape elements in sufficient detail to fully describe the proposed landscape works.

 

e.         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 and all lawn areas must have a minimum soil depth of 300mm. Planter box details shall be submitted with the detailed landscape plans.

 

86      The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved documentation prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate and shall be maintained in accordance with those plans.

 

87      Documentary evidence is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the principal certifying authority (PCA) (and the Council, if the Council is not the PCA) prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate which confirms that the landscaping works have been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

88      To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaped areas, an automatic drip irrigation system shall be installed throughout all planted areas, with details of the system to be shown on the detailed landscape plans and specifications, and in accordance with all current Sydney Water requirements.

 

89      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.

 

90      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.

 

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

 

92      All detention tanks and below ground 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.

 

93      Documentary evidence is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the principal certifying authority (PCA) (and the Council, if the Council is not the PCA) 12 months after the issue of a final occupation certificate, confirming that landscaping works have been maintained in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and conditions of consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

Tree Management

 

94      Removal of the Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Fig) (in the vicinity of the new vehicular access at the eastern end of the site) is subject to approval from Council’s Works Committee. Should approval be granted for its removal, the applicant shall submit a total payment of $1,155.00 to Council,

 

a.         Being the cost for Council to remove the existing street tree specimen of Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Fig) from the Waratah Street nature strip, near the eastern boundary in order to accommodate the vehicle access as proposed ($1050.00 + GST).

 

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

 

NOTE 1: A replacement street tree is not feasible given the lack of available space and line of sight issues, with the standard loss of amenity charge not to be applied in this instance in accordance with Council’s Aggressive Rooted Street Tree Policy.

         

Should Council’s Works Committee determine that the street tree shall not be removed, the tree shall be retained in general accordance with the submitted plans. Under these circumstances, a report (prepared by a suitably qualified Arborist) detailing how it is proposed to design the driveway/footpath around the tree to prevent footpath lifting and avoid trip hazards shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

95      Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees, subject to the implementation of landscaping in accordance with the conditions listed in this consent.

 

a.   One Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box, tree 27 in the Arborists Report) in the northwest corner of the site.

b.   Two (2) Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurels, Tree’s 26 and 16 in the Arborists Report respectively) immediately to the south of the tree described above.

c.   One Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box, Tree 17 in the Arborists Report) immediately to the south, towards the southwest corner of the site.

d.   One Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel, Tree 14 in the Arborists Report) near the southeast corner of the existing dwelling at 17 Botany Street.

e.   One Bauhinia variegata (Orchid Tree, Tree 13 in the Arborists Report) immediately to the east of the tree described above as it is too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

f.    One Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel, Tree 8 in the Arborists Report) about halfway along the southern boundary.

g.   The Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palm, Tree 11 in the Arborists Report) towards the centre of the site as this species is no longer covered by Council’s revised Tree Preservation Order.

h.   One Salix matsudana ‘Tortuosa’ (Twisted Willow, Tree 15 in the Arborists Report) towards the northwest corner of the site, close to the northern boundary.

i.    One Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel, Tree 12 in the Arborists Report) immediately to the east of the tree described above.

j.    One Brachychiton acerifolius (Flame Tree, Tree 9 in the Arborists Report) immediately to the east of the tree described above.

k.   One prominent Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda, tree 10 in the Arborists Report) in the centre of the site.

l.    One Schinus areira (Peppercorn Tree, tree 7 in the Arborists Report) northeast of the tree described above.

m.  One Callistemon viminalis (Bottlebrush, tree 6 in the Arborists Report) adjacent the tree described above.

n.   Two (2) Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurels, Trees 5 & 4 in the Arborists Report) immediately north, along the northern boundary.

o.   One Schinus areira (Peppercorn Tree, Tree 3 in the Arborists Report) in the same immediate area.

p.   One Populus nigra ‘Italica’ (Lombardy Poplar, Tree 25 in the Arborists Report) in the northeast corner of the site.

 

Tree Transplanting Conditions

 

96      The applicant shall cover all costs associated with transplanting the two Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box’s, Trees 1 & 2 in the Arborists Report) from near the eastern boundary to a suitable location, final location to be determined between the Arborist, Landscape Architect and Applicant, in the northeast corner of the site.

 

97      The applicant will be required to engage a suitably qualified and professional Arborist, who is a registered member of a nationally recognized organization, for the duration of the works to supervise all demolition, excavation and machinery operation in close proximity to these trees, with all site personnel to comply with any recommendations provided by the Arborist. Minimum qualification for the site Arborist shall be certificate 5 or Diploma in Arboriculture, with all relevant details, qualifications and examples of previous transplanting work to be submitted to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

98      Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, the site Arborist will be required to submit to the certifying authority (and a copy forwarded to Council if Council is not the certifying authority) a highly detailed and site specific written statement of the processes involved in protecting and transplanting both trees. The report shall include, but not be limited to protection measures during demolition, site preparation, transplanting method, irrigation schedule, timing of works, machinery access, clearance requirements and aftercare (including requirements for protective fencing).

 

99      Following the issue of the final occupation certificate, a maintenance period of 24 months shall apply to both trees, during which time the Arborist will be required to regularly monitor and record the health, condition and stability of both trees, and advise of any works required to assist with their survival. Any recommendations from the Arborist shall be implemented.

 

100    A brief written report shall be submitted to Council at 6 monthly intervals during the 24 month maintenance period detailing the findings and observations of these routine inspections, and any works that have been undertaken or recommendations to assist their survival.

 

101    Should either tree fail at any time during this 24 month maintenance period, super-advanced, minimum pot size at the time of planting 200 litres, replacement trees shall be provided. The species selected will be those natives which will attain similar dimensions to the Brush Box trees upon maturity. Details of the replacement species proposed shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to installation.

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

102    In order to ensure the retention of the row of five Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Figs), located on Council’s Waratah Avenue nature strip in good health (with the exception of the most eastern street tree), the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

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

 

b.         The trees are to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which is to be located to the edge of the pedestrian footpath to the north of their trunks, along the edge of kerb to the south of their trunks, and a minimum distance of 3 metres off the east and west sides of each trunk to completely enclose each tree.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

e.         No pruning of these five street trees shall be undertaken at any time without the express permission of Council’s Landscape Development Officer.

 

f.          Should pruning be needed in order to avoid damage/conflict with site machinery during the course of the proposed works, the applicant shall contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613, giving at least 48 hours notice

 

g.         Should these trees become damaged at any stage during the course of the works, necessitating repair, removal or replacement, the applicant will be required to cover all associated costs for Council or Council’s approved contractors to perform the necessary work.

 

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

 

103    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.

 

104    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.

 

105      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:

 

          a)         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.

 

106      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.

 

107      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:

 

108    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.

 

109    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.

 

110    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.

 

111    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.

 

112    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.

 

113    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.

 

114    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.

 

115    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.

 

116    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.

 

117    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.

 

118    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.

 

119    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.

 

120    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.

 

121    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.

 

122    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.

 

123    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.

 

124    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.

 

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.

 

125    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.

 

126    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.

 

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

 

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

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings 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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

128    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 relevant Council development control plans for the subject development, 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.

 

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

 

129    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.

 

          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.

 

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

 

130    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.

 

131    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.

 

2            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.

 

132    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.

 

133    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”.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

          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.

 

136    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.

 

137    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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1     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.

 

A2     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

d)       Part D1                      -       Provisions for escape

e)       Part D3                      -       Access for people with disabilities

f)        Clause D3.5               -       Car parking for people with disabilities

g)       Part E1                       -       Fire fighting equipment

h)       Part E2                       -       Smoke Hazard Management

i)        Part E3                       -       Lift Installations

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

k)       Part F4                       -       Light and ventilation

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

 

A3     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.

 

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.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KERRY KYRIACOU

STUART MACDONALD

MANAGER, DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

SJB PLANNING


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 10/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

WITHDRAWAL OF CAVEAT

 

 

DATE:

8 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06862

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the ‘Withdrawal of Caveat’ form to remove a caveat number ‘L182667’ from the title of property at 392 Beauchamp Road, Maroubra (Folio Identifier: 332/231907).  This caveat placed a restriction on the re-sale of the said property within a period of three (3) years from the date of acquisition. 

 

As the date of the acquisition was 8 November 1968, the caveat is now redundant.  The removal of the caveat will enable the transfer of the property.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority is granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the ‘Withdrawal of Caveat’ form relating to the property at 392 Beauchamp Road, Maroubra.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 11/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

4 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07367

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

1.           Oleksandr Diamandi (T/As Vino Vino) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 30 St Pauls Street, Randwick.

2.           South Eastern Sydney & Illawarra Area Health Services in relation to a deed of licence over part of Lot 11 DP 1042814 more particularly known as 21 Munda Street, Randwick.

3.           Ann Jackson (T/As Kenso Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 174 Anzac Parade Kensington.

4.           A residential lease for 129 Boyce Road, Maroubra.

5.           Vasaport Jeensad (T/As EnThaiCing) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 186-188 Marine Parade, Maroubra.

6.           Eastern Suburbs Swimming Association Inc. Club in relation to two licences for part of Lots 1211, 7026-7027 DP 752015 more particularly known as the Des Renford Aquatic Centre Club room.

7.           Vaat Schoonvimoot (T/As Flavours of Thai) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 39 Perouse Road, Randwick

8.           Scott Luland (Siam Spice) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 215 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

9.           David Robert Donald (T/As Cushion) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 238-246 Arden Street, Coogee.

10.         Nicholas Vicari (T/As Boncaffe) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 46 Frenchmans Road, Randwick.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

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

 

1.       An outdoor dining licence agreement with Oleksandr Diamandi (T/As Vino Vino) will generate an annual income of $1,781.15 + GST.

2.       A deed of licence with South Eastern Sydney & Illawarra Area Health Services will generate an annual income of $35,000 + GST.

3.       An outdoor dining licence agreement with Ann Jackson (T/As Kenso Café) will generate an annual income of $1,489.05 + GST.

4.       The lease agreement for 129 Boyce Road, Maroubra will generate an annual income of $14,339.28.

5.       An outdoor dining licence agreement with Vasaporn Jeensad (T/As EnThaiCing) will generate an annual income of $1,095.55 + GST.

6.       The licence agreements with Eastern Suburbs Swimming Association will generate an annual income of $1.00 + GST.

7.       An outdoor dining licence agreement with Vaat Schoonvimoot (T/As Flavours of Thai) will generate an annual income of $1,656.02 + GST.

8.       An outdoor dining licence agreement with Scott Luland (T/As Siam Spice) will generate an annual income of $1,069.10 + GST.

9.       An outdoor dining licence agreement with David Robert Donald (T/As Cushion Crown Plaza Coogee) will generate an annual income of $18,709.32 + GST.

10.     An outdoor dining licence agreement with Nicholas Vicari (T/As Boncaffe) will generate an annual income of $1,614.00 + GST.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

1.       Oleksandr Diamandi (T/As Vino Vino) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 30 St Pauls Street, Randwick.

2.       South Eastern Sydney & Illawarra Area Health Services in relation to a deed of licence over part of Lot 11 DP 1042814 more particularly known as 21 Munda Street, Randwick.

3.       Ann Jackson (T/As Kenso Café) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 174 Anzac Parade Kensington.

4.       A residential lease for 129 Boyce Road, Maroubra.

5.       Vasaport Jeensad (T/As EnThaiCing) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 186-188 Marine Parade, Maroubra.

6.       Eastern Suburbs Swimming Association Inc. Club in relation to two licences for part of Lots 1211, 7026-7027 DP 752015 more particularly known as the Des Renford Aquatic Centre Club room.

7.       Vaat Schoonvimoot (T/As Flavours of Thai) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 39 Perouse Road, Randwick

8.       Scott Luland (Siam Spice) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 215 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

9.       David Robert Donald (T/As Cushion) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 238-246 Arden Street, Coogee.

10.     Nicholas Vicari (T/As Boncaffe) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 46 Frenchmans Road, Randwick.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 12/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

USE OF COUNCIL'S SEAL

 

 

DATE:

18 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06555

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Randwick City Council has a long-standing tradition of using official Council Seals on annual award certificates namely the RCC Awards for Sporting Achievements and Australia Day Community Service & Youth Awards. 

 

ISSUES:

 

Recently is was bought to Councils attention that the Department of Local Government, in its recently issued “Meetings Practice Note” states “Council Seals should not be used for certificates and statements of merit or letters of congratulations

 

The following is an excerpt from the Local Government Regulations relating to the use of seals.

 

As Council will be aware, cl 43 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulation 1993 (NSW) makes provision for the affixing of Council’s seal.  However, the only relevant part of that clause which in any way relates to the circumstances in which the seal may or is to be affixed is subclause (4) which states that the seal must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to the “business” of Council and Council has resolved (by resolution specifically referring to the document) that the seal be so affixed.

 

This then poses the question whether to continue with the current practise of using Council Seals on Awards certificates.  Given that the above is a guideline it is advisable that Council vote on both the award programs in order to seek a resolution that seals may be used on the Award Certificates.

 

Randwick Council promotes the council seal within its entry forms for both the Australia Day Community Service & Youth Awards and the RCC Awards for Sporting Achievements with the following statement "Presented under the Seal of Council, these awards acknowledge our finest athletes".

 

The inclusion of Council Seals on the Award Certificates enures a distinctive and auspicious motif that enhances a printed certificate to a keepsake. 

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council continue the practise of using the Council Seal on both the Sporting Award Certificates and the Australia Day Community Service & Youth Awards.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 30/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

DUNNINGHAM RESERVE TOILET  FACILITIES

 

 

DATE:

17 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/08256

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council adopted funding of $600,000 in its 2005/06 budget for Coogee Beach & Foreshore POM works.  The identified works were the refurbishment of toilet facilities in Grant Reserve and the construction of new (replacement) facilities in Dunningham Reserve in accordance with the recommendations of the Coogee Beach and Foreshores Plan of Management.  The figures below show the location of the Dunningham Reserve toilet block in the first aerial photograph (located between the Coogee Fishing Club and the coastal walkway) and the location of the Grant Reserve toilet block in the second aerial photograph (located north of the Grant Reserve rotunda).

 

 

 

ISSUES:

 

GHD, a multidisciplinary consultancy firm, were engaged to undertake site planning, sketch plan preparation, design development and construction documentation.

 

The main features of the replacement facility for Dunningham Reserve include the following:

 

·        Separate male and female facilities incorporating disabled toilets;

·        Small change rooms and showers in each facility;

·        An outdoor shower accommodating up to four persons an any one time;

·        Potential use of the roof of the Fishermen’s Club as a viewing deck overlooking Coogee Beach ( as per the POM recommendations);

·        Sustainability principles incorporating roof water collection tank for toilet pan flushing and dry men’s urinal;

·        Light and airy building incorporating vandal resistant materials.

 

The main features of the replacement facility for Grant Reserve include the following:

 

·        Remodelling of the existing building to provide additional capacity and facilities;

·        Relocated entry to the female toilets for improved safety;

·        Unisex disabled toilet facility;

·        A small room that may be used as a store or change room;

·        Incorporation of artistic elements into the fabric of the building.

 

Plans and elevations which illustrate the proposals follow:

 


 

Public  Consultation

 

The proposed works fall within the category of exempt and complying development under Council’s LEP.  Nonetheless, the proposals were publicly exhibited over March and April 2006 with written submissions being invited from the public.  Council’s Manager Technical Services also presented the proposals to the Coogee Precinct Committee on the 20th March, 2006.  The plans were well received by the Precinct Committee.

 

Following the closure of the public consultation phase, Council received 5 written submissions concerning the proposal at Dunningham Reserve. No submissions were received in relation the proposal for Grant Reserve.  The submissions are summarised as follows:

 

·        3 of the 5 submissions generally supported the intention to upgrade the toilets in Dunningham Reserve.

 

·        2 of the 5 submissions requested that the public toilets be closed after hours.

 

There are no plans to keep the new facilities open any longer than other existing facilities in the area.  The new toilets will be locked in accordance with existing practice for Council’s other amenities buildings.

 

·        4 of the 5 submissions objected to the elevated location of the toilet facilities arguing that the new building will detract from the ocean views obtained from within the reserve.

 

The proposed new facility will essentially be constructed over the footprint of the existing building.  The new facility will however have a larger footprint and the height of the structure will be a little higher owing to the proposed roof. The proposed location will allow disability access requirements to be met for persons wishing to access the building form the adjacent coastal walkway.

 

It may be possible to lower the building a little, but this will be dependant on the depth and location of the existing sewer lines. Lowering the building to the level of the adjacent fishing club building (as suggested in one of the submissions) will significantly increase the costs for the project as it may necessitate the installation of sewer pumps.  More importantly though, disability access requirements will not be able to be met at all.

 

·        1 of the 5 submissions objected to the proposal to link the new toilets/change rooms with the roof of the fishing club building ie, the proposal to create a lookout from that building’s roof.  The basis of the objection appears to be that Council may see that as an opportunity to establish a food outlet at or near that location.

 

The Coogee Beach and Foreshore Plan of Management does not support the establishment of a food outlet within Dunningham Reserve. Council has no such proposals.

 

·        1 of the 5 submissions objected to the proposal on the basis that the building will impose on the natural beauty of the landscape rather than compliment it and requested that the building be redesigned to ‘fit in with the natural contour of the land’.

 

The land to the north of the proposed location continues to rise and whilst there may be merit in the suggestion, the current proposal needs to meet other criteria as well, such as disability access.

 

Summary

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposal to construct the new facilities at Dunningham Reserve and to modify the existing toilet facilities in Grant Reserve were well received with a only a small number of comments being received requesting modifications and one submission objecting to the proposal.  The submissions will be forwarded to Council’s consultants with a view to meeting as best as may be possible the concerns raised within those submissions.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

 

The estimate for these works is within the approved budget.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Given the generally positive feedback from the public consultation phase, it is considered that the proposed works should proceed with amendments where possible as outlined earlier in the report.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the designs for the new amenities building at Dunningham Reserve and refurbishment of the existing toilet facilities at Grant Reserve proceed to tender documentation phase and that tenders be called for the construction of the works.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

 COORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 31/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

APPLICATION TO HAVE SIGNS INSTALLED AT VARIOUS GROUNDS TO PREVENT CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL FROM SUNSET TO SUNRISE.

 

 

DATE:

17 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/00873

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An application has been received from Commander P Rogerson, Eastern Beaches Local Area Command on behalf of Sergeant Gray of the Maroubra Licensing Office to have signage erected to prevent consumption of alcohol from sunset to sunrise at Pioneer Park, Malabar and other Randwick Council grounds.

 

The other fields which have evening football are Snape Oval, Kensington Oval and the Heffron Fields.

 

ISSUES:

 

Sergeant Gray comments that -

 

“on Friday 7 April, 2006, Police attended Pioneer Park, Malabar. A walk around the ground revealed a group of up to 100 apparent under age persons consuming alcohol on the hill behind the goal posts at the northern end of the ground.  A decision was made not to take action due to a possible confrontation taking place.

 

Police made contact with officials of South Sydney Juniors to meet with Licensing Police over this issue and similar problems which may occur at other grounds.

 

The Police advise that Malabar and Chifley already have a problem with under age persons consuming alcohol. The concept of Friday night football gives the youth of the area something to do on a Friday evening, however, this should not be at the expense of the quiet and good order of the neighbourhood.

 

 Avenues for Police to control any problems are limited to issuing a $20 infringement notice to underage persons consuming or possessing alcohol. This is no deterrent.

 

If signage is erected Police are able to issue an infringement under Section 632(l) of the Local Government Act 1993. The penalty is $110.  This would have a far bigger impact.”

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council adopt this report’s recommendation the financial impact would be in the vicinity of $8,000 for the installation of signage and funds are available from the Regulation Signage Vote.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Sergeant Gray’s application is strongly supported by Commander Eastern Beaches Local Area Command P Rogerson and the Crime Manager Eastern Beaches Detective Inspector J Cassar and asks that this request be given immediate attention.

 

Sergeant Gray advises that Souths Juniors officials have indicated that they also support the application.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That signage be installed in Pioneer Park, Malabar, Kensington Oval, Snape Oval and Heffron Park grounds advising that alcohol is not to be consumed from sunset to sunrise.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 32/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF THE COMMON INDIAN MYNA

 

 

DATE:

12 April, 2006

FILE NO:

f2004/06488 xr F2005/00171

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 28 February 2006, resolved on the Motion of Councillor Matson and Councillor Woodsmith that –

 

“the outcome of the meeting scheduled for 14th March 2006, which Council staff will be attending, be reported back to the next available Ordinary Council Meeting”

 

Previously Council at its meeting on 22 November 2005, resolved on the Motion of Councillor Matson and Councillor Woodsmith that –

 

“feedback be sought from Environment ACT on the outcome of the Myna minimisation trials and a report be brought before a future Council Meeting detailing options for working through SSROC to implement a regional Myna Minimisation Campaign in this area of Sydney.”

 

The Director City Services’ Report was considered by Council on 28 February 2006 providing the relevant information and with regard to the implementation of a regional campaign to control Mynas, the report recommended waiting to determine the outcome of the inaugural meeting of the Sydney South Regional Feral Animal Management Committee.

 

This meeting took place on 14th March 2006 and was attended by staff from local councils and relevant state government agencies.

 

ISSUES:

 

Regional approach to controlling Indian Mynas

 

The inaugural meeting of the Sydney South Regional Feral Animal Management Committee did not resolve to take immediate action on Indian Mynas. However, from discussions during the meeting, it is considered likely that Indian Mynas may be the first or one of the first species for which a regional initiative is taken.

 

One outcome from the meeting was to compile information on the full range of issues in each Council area. This information is to be tabled at the next meeting of the Committee, scheduled for 23 May 2006. This will assist in setting priorities on the first initiatives to be taken.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Indian Mynas are considered a pest in most, if not all, parts of southern Sydney. A regional approach is most likely required if Indian Myna control is to be successful.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)       the report be received and noted; and

 

b)      Council participates in any regional initiatives to control Indian Mynas.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

DANIEL HIRSCHFELD

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

BUShlanD FIELD OFFICER   

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 33/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

PRINCE HENRY LITTLE BAY - NEW ROAD NAMES

 

 

DATE:

17 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07140

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter dated 15 May, 2006, has been received from Mr Garry Bauer, Development Director, Prince Henry at Little Bay seeking approval for road names for four (4) new roads.

 

The letter reads as follows:-

 

“Landcom submits for Randwick City Council (RCC) consideration and approval the recommended road names for four new roads created as a result of changes in 2005 to the Prince Henry Masterplan.  Two of the four roads will, in due course, be dedicated to Council as per the Landcom and RCC developer agreement..

 

As per our previous application to names roads and parks, Landcom engaged independent consultants Musespace Pty Ltd to review the material and prepare recommendations. A copy of the report dated May 2006 is attached.  These recommendations have given serious consideration to the requests of the Prince Henry Trained Nurses Association and Landcom comments in our letter to Council dated 5 April, 2005, that is “Landcom would be happy to give priority to the two women’s names identified by the PHHTNA i.e. Mary Meyler and Jean McMaster.”

 

In summary the recommended names are -

 

New Road 6 –              Meyler Close

New Road 7 –              McMaster Place

Private Drive 8 –        Stanley Crescent

Private Drive 9 –        Gull Way.

 

The recommendations have been developed based on the same principle as outlined in the previous report. These include compliance with procedure and regulations, consultation with key stateholders, recognition of the heritage significance of the building, the existing road network and names and the interpretation philosophy adopted for the site.

 

Landcom requests that Council supports the recommendations.”

 

ISSUES:

 

As advised by Landcom that as a result of changes to the Prince Henry at Little Bay 2005 Masterplan, four new roads have been created and require naming.  Two of these roads remain in private ownership as part of the Reserve Trust being set up to manage public land on site, whilst two will be dedicated to Council. 

 

Landcom further advises that the selection of road names is governed by the same philosophy which applied to the determination of the road names in 2005.

 

New Road 6   Meyler Close.

Named after Matron Mary Meyler, the first Matron of the Coast Hospital in 1881. This new road extends from Ewing Avenue and rejoins it further south, creating an enclosure around the proposed new dwellings.

 

New Road McMaster Place

Named after Matron Jean McMaster appointed Matron in 1891 and responsible for establishment of the Nurses Training School in 1894. This new road is located east of Ewing Avenue and loops around the rear of the proposed dwellings to join NR6.

 

The naming of these roads after two women whose nursing careers is significant in the development of the Coast and Prince Henry Hospitals seems an appropriate response to previous submissions regarding naming on site. It also recognises the importance of women, which previously has been of a concern for the Prince Henry Trained Nurses’ Association.

 

Private Drive 8  Stanley Crescent 

Named after Dr Neville Stanley who joined the staff of the McIlrath Department of Pathology at Prince Henry Hospital in 1944 as a bacteriologist and epidemiologist.  Private Road 8 extends from Brodie Avenue west turning south to join Harvey Street. Because the form of this road is a gentle curve.

 

Private Drive 9  Gull Place

Given an existing road name as it extends in a westerly direction opposite Gull Street on the western side of Brodie Street.  Because this new road extends directly in line with Gull Street, it seems reasonable to retain the association as previously with Harvey Street. Because this road is a private drive it is considered to be a sub-set of Gull Street.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

No financial impact to Council.

 


CONCLUSION:

 

There is a Stanley Street existing within the Randwick City, however, this is not considered to be an issue, as the current Stanley Street is located in Randwick North.

 

It is considered that the road name proposal recognizes the sound roots for identifying the roads on the Prince Henry site which derive from the site heritage and individual contribution to the hospital, in patient care and nursing education. In assigning these road names in a location where there is a connection with former activities also enhances the road names significance as part of the strategy to promote heritage significance through interpretation.

 

In accordance with the Guidelines of the Geographical Names Board, it is recommended that an advertisement be placed in the local paper seeking interested submissions from all interested parties prior to this matter being further considered.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That submissions and suggestions be sought from residents and other interested people, by placing an advertisement in the local paper of the proposal to name the new roads at Prince Henry Little Bay and all the guidelines of the Geographical Names Board be met prior to a further report being prepared for Council’s consideration.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 34/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

IDENTIFYING SUITABLE PARKLAND, RESERVE OR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE NAMED AFTER FORMER ALDERMAN JACK DILLON.

 

 

DATE:

3 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00266

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 28 March, 2006, resolved on the Motion of the Mayor Councillor Seng that -

 

a.   The meeting observes a minutes silence as a mark of respect for the passing of former Randwick Council Alderman Jack Dillon; and

 

b.   a report be brought back to Council identifying suitable parkland, reserve or public infrastructure to be named after former Alderman Jack Dillon as an on-going acknowledgement of his service to the community.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

A former Alderman of Randwick Council, Jack Dillon passed away on Saturday 25 March 2006.

 

Jack Dillon was elected as an Alderman of Randwick Council in 1977 and was a representative of the North and East Wards until 1995.  He was deputy Mayor in 1991-1992 and was vocal on many local issues including the environment and services for local residents.

 

Jack was a long standing member of Council’s Finance and Works Committees and also served on a number of other Council Committee, including the Community Services Awards Committee.

 

 

 

 

Council has issued a tender for construction of the coastal walkway along Alexandria Parade between Trennery Reserve and Wisdom Street Coogee.  The works are expected to be completed in July 2006.  Part of this project includes the creation of a sitting/viewing area near the intersections of Alexandria Parade and Wisdom Street.  The sitting area has a sandstone paved area and low retaining wall immediately off the coastal walkway.  This area will allow walkers an opportunity to rest and enjoy the spectacular views of the coastline up towards Wedding Cake Island and Coogee. An aerial view of the location together with an extract from the plans follows:

 

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council adopt this report’s recommendations, the financial impact would be in the vicinity of $1,000.00.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution, it is considered that this portion of the coastal walkway would be a suitable piece of Council’s infrastructure to bear the name of former North and East Wards’ Alderman Jack Dillon.

 

Jack Dillon Rest Point is considered an appropriate name for this area.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the viewing area adjacent the coastal walk (near the intersections of Alexandria Parade and Wisdom Street) be named Jack Dillon Rest Point and a suitable plaque be installed to recognise Alderman Jack Dillon’s service to the community.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

COORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 28/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

2005/2006 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT 31 MARCH 2006

 

 

DATE:

17 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06516

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Section 203 (1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2005/2006 year.

 

The regulation (Section 203 (2)) also requires that the budget review statement must include, or be accompanied by:

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

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

 

ISSUES:

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2005/2006 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for 2005/2006.

 

It proposes variations to Council’s adopted budget, which will result in a projected surplus at year end of $39,623 and is summarised below.

 

FINANCIAL POSITION

$

 

 

Original projected deficit/(surplus)

(4,762)

 

 

Projected deficit/(surplus) as at 31 December 2005 Review

(11,105)

Variations Proposed This Review

 

Increase in Expenditure

363,815

Decrease in Expenditure

(36,500)

Increase in Income

(525,833)

Decrease in Income

170,000

Total Variations This Review

(28,518)

 

 

Projected deficit/(surplus) as at 31 March 2006

(39,623)

 

Attachments 1 to 2 summarised Council’s Financial Performance, Source and Application of Funds and Council’s Financial Position.

 

Comments on all major variations are listed in the table below and all other contra variations are listed in Attachment 3.

 

PROPOSED BUDGET VARIATIONS

 

 

Increase / (Decrease) in Expenditure

(Increase) / Decrease in Income

Budget Result Deficit / (Surplus)

Projected deficit/(surplus) as at December 2005 Review

 

 

(11,105)

 

 

 

 

INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.   Councillors Contingency Fund

As per Council Resolution 14 March 2006, an additional amount of $20,000 be allocated to the Councillors’ Contingency Fund

20,000

 

 

2.   Matraville Library Re-roofing

Expenditure greater than anticipated costs

43,800

 

 

3.   Emergency Evacuation System

Additional funds required to implement an emergency evacuation system to comply with Building Compliance Legislation

70,000

 

 

4.   Workers Compensation Premium

Premium for 2005/2006 greater than anticipated due to new “F” Factor imposed by Workcover

109,266

 

 

5.   Advertising – Communications

Additional expenditure required for advertising in Southern Courier for Mayoral Column

20,000

 

 

6.   Employment Costs – Media Officer

Expenditure required due to employment of Media Officer

17,669

 

 

7.   Information Technology Communications

Additional costs for wireless broadband access and additional cabling/communications works

44,000

 

 

8.   Pensioner Rates Subsidies

Revised subsidy based on reduction in number of rebates

26,975

 

 

9.   Mayor and Councillors Allowances

Increase in accordance with the Remuneration Tribunal’s special determination.

12,105

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECREASE IN EXPENDITURE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. Cash Collections

Savings as a result of less than anticipated costs

(30,000)

 

 

11. Rates Notice Production

Reduced costs for rates notice production

(6,500)

 

 

 

 

 

 

INCREASE IN INCOME

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. Bus Shelter Fees

Additional income received for Bus Shelter Advertising

 

(150,000)

 

13. Hoists Approvals Income

14. Hoarding/Articles Approvals Income

15. Waste Bins/Skip Approvals Income

Increase in section 68 applications and fees

 

(81,500)

 

16. Accredited Certifier Certificate Income

Increase in application income from Accredited Certifiers

 

(5,000)

 

17. Building Certificate Income

Increase in income due to additional number of applications.

 

(9,500)

 

18. Change of Address Income

Increased income from additional change of address requests

 

(6,000)

 

19. Residential Rates Income

Increase in residential rates income due to additional supplementary levies

 

(227,833)

 

20. Pensioner Rebates Income

Revised Income based on current actuals

 

(46,000)

 

DECREASE IN INCOME

 

 

 

21. Rezoning Fees

Rezoning applications not expected for end of year due to introduction of new NSW legislation

 

20,000

 

22. Street Trees and TPO’s Contribution

Income will not reach estimate

 

 

150,000

 

 

 

 

 

Total Variations following this review

327,315

(355,833)

(28,518)

 

 

 

 

Projected deficit/(surplus) as at 31 March 2006

 

 

(39,623)

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The proposed variations listed in this report and in Attachment 3 will result in a projected surplus at year end of $39,623.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s Director Governance & Financial Services as the responsible accounting officer, advises that the projected financial position is satisfactory.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.       That the report in relation to the March 2006 budget review be received and noted.

2.       That the proposed March 2006 budget variations shown in Attachment 3 to this report be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

   SOURCE AND APPLICATION OF FUNDS

2. FINANCIAL POSITION

3. BUDGET VARIATIONS - ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

 

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

 


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 29/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY OF COUNCIL'S TENDER PROCESS

 

 

DATE:

18 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00699

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Mayor’s Minute 30/2006 entitled “Improving Transparency of Council’s Tender Process” was considered at the 18 April 2006 Council Meeting and Council resolved as follows:

 

“That the General Manager prepare a report for Council’s consideration addressing ways in which confidential tender documents may be released to the public after the tender has been awarded and contractual arrangements have been finalised, with the intent that Council develop a policy in this respect taking into consideration the following matters:

 

1.       confidential documents (including the tender submissions and evaluation results) relating to each tender shall be released publicly 3 months after the tender has been awarded and contractual arrangements have been finalised;

 

2.       Council’s policy to eventually release all confidential documents relating to the tender process be included in the tender specifications;

 

3.       if necessary, unsuccessful tenderers be given the opportunity for particulars of their tender submission to be deleted from the documents released to the public;

 

4.       Council minutes shall record reasons for the acceptance of the successful tender; and

 

5.       where possible, Council’s deliberations concerning the awarding of a tender be carried out in open Council session.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The Department of Local Government has produced draft “Tender Guidelines for NSW Local Government” which aim to assist Councils in applying clear policies, consistent procedures and affective risk management strategies in accordance with the Local Government Act, the Local Government (General) Regulation and other relevant legislation.

 

The guidelines have been prepared under Section 23A of the Local Government Act and, therefore, must be considered by Councils as part of the tendering process.

 

The document contains standards of behaviour and ethical principals which are based on those developed by all NSW State Government agencies and the Department suggests that Councils “should adopt these standards.”  One of the standards of behaviour is “honesty and fairness.”  The following is an extract from the Tender Guidelines in relation to honesty and fairness:

 

“Councils must conduct all tendering, procurement and business relationships with honesty, fairness and probity at all levels.  Councils must not disclose confidential or proprietary information.”

 

In relation to the issue of confidentiality, the guidelines state:

 

“Councils must not disclose tender information received from tenderers that is intellectual property, proprietary, commercial-in-confidence or otherwise confidential.  In addition, Council staff or Councillors must not disclose information regarding the specific details of a tendering process, including a recommendation of the tender evaluation or assessment panel before the Council has made a resolution on the matter at a Council Meeting.

 

Section 10A of the Local Government Act outlines the circumstances under which a Council or Council Committee Meeting may be closed to the public.  This includes information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.  This also includes commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed, prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it or confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council or reveal a trade secret.”

 

In relation to reporting tender evaluation outcomes to Council, the guidelines state:

 

“The contents of the report to Council should include:

§  Background information..........

§  Full details of all tender received.  For non-complying or alternate tenders, a detailed analysis of the non-compliance should be included and the reasons for Council to consider this appropriate or otherwise

§  Detailed and accessible financial analysis of the tenders providing a comparison of all options on the basis of unit price, service price, annual cost, total cost or other appropriate measures depending on the nature of the tender…..

§  Details of the evaluation criteria, the relative weightings and the analysis of tender against the criteria, including a summary of the experience of each tenderer in relation to the nature of the tender.

§  Details of any post-tender contact and the reasons for or results of that contact, such as contact for the purpose of clarification and the outcome of this clarification.

§  Summary of the tender considered most suitable in the circumstances, including the rationale for the conclusions or the rationale for considering none of the tenders suitable.

§  A recommendation for the acceptance of a tender including, if applicable, any conditions or requirements associated with the acceptance or proposals to vary the contract conditions as a result of the tendering process or errors in documentation, or a recommendation not to accept any of the tenders.”

 

“In accordance with Clause 179 of the Local Government (General) Regulation, Councils must make information on the outcome of the tendering process publicly available by displaying the name and amount of the successful tender or a notice stating that none of the tenders were accepted.”

 

In addition, the Premier’s Department has produced guidelines designed to clarify what information relating to the Government’s contractual arrangement with the private sector should, and should not, be made public. These guidelines establish government practice to:

 

§  Vary the disclosure of information according to the size of the project;

§  Limit the extent of commercial-in-confidence material to very specific areas and not disclose it unless required by law; and

§  Treat the information in an unsuccessful tender as commercial-in-confidence and not disclose it unless required by law.

 

With respect to contracts between the value of $100,000 and $5million, the following information is disclosed routinely:

 

§  Details of contract (description of project to be completed or goods/services to be provided or property to be transferred; commencement date of the contract; the period of the contract);

§  The full identity of the successful tenderer including details of cross ownership of relevant companies;

§  The price payable by the agency and the basis for future changes in this price;

§  The significant evaluation criteria and the weightings used in tender assessment;

§  Provisions for re-negotiation (where applicable).

 

Items not to be disclosed for any contracts are:

 

§  The contractor’s financing arrangements;

§  The contractor’s cost structure or profit margin;

§  Items of the contractor having an intellectual property characteristic;

§  Any other matters where disclosure would place the contractor at a substantial commercial disadvantage with its competitors both at the time of entering into the contract and at any later date when there would be an effect on future competitive arrangements.

 

It would not be advisable for Council to make a decision with respect to the disclosure of tender/contract information that was in contravention of either of the above mentioned guidelines.

Council’s current tender specifications indicate that Council will not disclose confidential or proprietary information and this is in accordance with best practice guidelines.  If Council were to remove the confidentiality provisions from it tender specification, the number of organisations responding to the tender would be significantly reduced (as financing arrangement, cost structures and profit margins etc are often passionately protected by private sector firms).  This would result in increased costs for Council due to reduced competition and also reduced value for money in Council’s tendering processes.

 

While tender reports could be presented in open Council rather than in closed session, the current reporting format would need to be changed significantly to ensure that commercial –in-confidence information was not disclosed.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is recommended that the Department of Local Government and Premier’s Department Guidelines be adhered to and that Council’s current tendering practices remain unchanged with respect to the receipt and management of confidential information.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)         Council affirm its support for the Department of Local Government’s “Tendering Guidelines for NSW Local Government” and also the Premier’s Departments “Guidelines for the Disclosure of Information in NSW Government Contracts” particularly with respect to the confidentiality of tender/contract information.

 

b)         Where possible, taking the above guidelines into consideration, Council’s deliberations concerning the awarding of a tender be carried out in open Council session.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

JULIE HARTSHORN

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR

 

 


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 30/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council Compliance Requirements   

 

 

DATE:

18 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06546

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Department of Local Government have introduced changes to the methodology concerning certification of Council’s GST compliance. Councils are now required to supply a Goods and Services Tax Certificate to the Department of Local Government.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The Department of Local Government requires all local governing bodies to  complete a GST certificate of compliance confirming that all GST payments have been made and that adequate management arrangements and internal controls are in place to enable Council to adequately account for its GST liabilities and recoup all GST input tax credits eligible to be claimed.

 

The Department will collate the returns from councils and will provide advice to the NSW Treasury for confirmation with the Commonwealth Commissioner of Taxation.

 

The Goods and Services Tax Certificate requires the signature of  the Mayor, another Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Goods and Services Tax Certificate for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 April 2006 be approved and signed by the Mayor, another Councillor, the General Manager and the Responsible Accounting Officer.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Goods and Services Tax Certificate for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 April 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

GREG BYRNE

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

MANAGER FINANCIAL OPERATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

 

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX CERTIFICATE

 

 

Payment of Voluntary GST 1 July 2005 to 30 April 2006

 

 

To assist compliance with Section 114 of the Commonwealth Constitution, we certify that:

 

·        Voluntary GST has been paid by (name of Council) for the period 1 July 2005 to 30 April 2006.

 

·        Adequate management arrangements and internal controls were in place to enable the Council to adequately account for its GST liabilities and recoup all GST input tax credits eligible to be claimed.

 

·        No GST non-compliance events by the Council were identified by or raised with the Australian Taxation Office.

 

Signed in accordance with a resolution of Council made on 30 May 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………                                …………………………

 

Cllr Ted Seng                                                   …………………………

MAYOR                                                         COUNCILLOR

 

 

 

 

…………………………                                …………………………

 

Ray Brownlee                                                   Geoff Banting

 

GENERAL MANAGER                               RESPONSIBLE ACCOUNTING OFFICER

 


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 31/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO LICENCE AND AFFIXING OF THE SEAL

 

 

DATE:

13 April, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07367

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Property Services are proposing to enter into lease and licence agreements over two (2) Council owned premises and are seeking Council’s authority to enter into the agreements.

 

Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal for the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

Lease for Suite 2, Ground Floor, Bowen Library, 669 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

 

In December 2004 a Mayoral Minute No. 115/2004 was tabled detailing Council’s commitment to locating Randwick Information & Community Centre (RICC) within the Bowen Library premises.  RICC, now known as The Junction Neighbourhood Centre Inc. expressed their interest in occupying a second tenancy on the Ground Floor of the Library in the retail premises currently occupied by New Design Centre (Kitchen Showroom).  The proposed lease would replace the current lease for Suite 1, Ground Floor, Bowen Library and the expired lease for Level 2, Bowen Library.

 

The existing lease agreement for Suite 2 with New Design Centre has now expired.  Notice to quit must be provided to the current retail tenant, New Design Centre, in accordance with the Retail Leases Act.

 

The proposed lease will run in line with the current lease period for Suite 1, terminating on 31 March 2010 with a five (5) year option.

 

 

Entering into a lease agreement with The Junction Neighbourhood Centre Inc. will result in a decrease in rental income for the premises to Council due to the community services nature of the business and the rental subsidy to be provided in line with the Council Grants Donations & Subsidies report, however, The Junction Neighbourhood Centre Inc. will be required vacate the rental premises on Level 2 to occupy Suite 2 on the ground floor, this will then enable Council to either lease the Level 2 premises off-setting the decrease in income from Suite 2, Ground Floor, or occupy the Level 2 tenancy increasing the space available to Library Services.

 

Licence for Upper, 1B Prince Edward Street, Malabar

 

The South Eastern Sydney & Illawarra Area Health Service (The Royal Hospital for Women) is seeking to licence the premises as a clinic for the Malabar Community Midwifery and Maternal and Child Health Link Project. It is proposed to utilise the clinic space for antenatal, postnatal and women's health clinics for Aboriginal, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse women.

 

The premise is proposed to base a community midwifery group practice at the centre. The centre would also be a venue for a Child & Family Health Clinic and Women's Health Clinic for the local community.  The proposed licence would be for a period of three (3) years.

 

The premise is currently vacant and no income is being generated at present for the property.  The proposed rental represents a 65% rental subsidy applied to the market rental, using the calculations detailed in the Council Grants Donations & Subsidies report.

 

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

 

1.         The Junction Neighbourhood Centre Inc.

 

2.         South Eastern Sydney & Illawarra Area Health Service

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

1.         The current market rental for Suite 1 & Suite 2, 669 Anzac Parade, Maroubra is $77,150 per annum.  Council will receive a rental income of $23,955.08 by entering into a lease with The Junction Neighbourhood Centre Inc.  This represents a 70% rental subsidy. 

2.         The current market rental for Upper 1B Prince Edward Street, Malabar is $22,500 per annum.  Council will receive a rental income of $8,150.63 by entering into a licence with South Eastern Sydney & Illawarra Area Health Service.  This represents a 65% rental subsidy.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority is granted to enter into lease and licence agreements with The Junction Neighbourhood Centre Inc. (for Suite 2, Ground Floor, 669 Anzac Parade, Maroubra) and South Eastern Sydney & Illawarra Area Health Service (for Upper 1B Prince Edward Street, Malabar) and Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the agreements.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

SHARON PLUNKETT

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

PROPERTY COORDINATOR


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 32/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

ATTENDANCE AT COUNCIL & COMMITTEE MEETINGS

 

 

DATE:

11 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06567

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this report is to bring to the attention of the Council recent issues with respect to attendance at Council and Committee Meetings and to suggest an approach to resolve the issues for the future.

 

ISSUES:

 

Minor amendment to Council’s Code of Meeting Practice with respect to the granting of leave -

 

Section 234(d) of the Local Government Act states that a civic office becomes vacant if the holder is absent from three (3) consecutive ordinary meetings of the Council without:

 

(i)         prior leave of the Council, or

(ii)        leave granted by the Council at any of the meetings concerned.

 

Council has received legal advice to the effect that the submission of an apology if accepted by resolution of the Council is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 234(d)(ii).

 

There are no procedures in the Local Government Act or the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 that prescribe or specify the procedure for obtaining the leave of the Council and Council’s Code of Meeting Practice is also silent on the issue.  In order to make it abundantly clear for the future that acceptance of an apology amounts to the granting of leave by the Council, it is suggested Council’s Code of Meeting Practice be amended to incorporate a provision in the following terms:

 

“The acceptance by the Council of an apology tendered by a Councillor for the non attendance of the Councillor at an ordinary Council Meeting or Committee Meeting is deemed to be leave granted by the Council for the absence of the Councillor from that meeting provided that the apology is tendered prior to the meeting.”


Membership of Administration & Finance Committee

At the 20 September 2005 Council Meeting, the following Councillors were appointed as members of the Administration & Finance Committee:

 

His Worship the Mayor, Cr T Seng, plus seven (7) Councillors (being Councillors Bastic, Daley, Hughes (Chairperson), Kenny, Matson, Nash (Deputy Chairperson) and Sullivan).

 

The quorum for the Administration & Finance Committee is five (5) members.

 

Attendance at Administration & Finance Committee Meetings between September 2005 and May 2006 has been as follows:

 

Meeting Date                                        No. of Councillors in attendance

13 September 2005                                                      6

11 October 2005                                                         7

8 November 2005                                                        5

6 December 2005                                                        5

14 February 2006                                                        7

14 March 2006                                                            5

11 April 2006                                       Lack of quorum for meeting to commence

9 May 2006                                                                 5

 

Given these statistics, it may be appropriate for the Committee membership to be reviewed, with a view to either changing the membership or including additional members on the Committee to avoid quorum issues in the future.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is suggested that a minor amendment be made to Council’s Code of Meeting Practice in order to avoid any confusion about the significance of Council accepting apologies (by resolution).

 

It is also suggested that the membership of the Administration & Finance Committee be reviewed with a view to either changing the membership or including additional members on the Committee to avoid quorum issues in the future.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

a)       That Council’s Code of Meeting Practice be amended to incorporate a provision in the following terms:

 

“The acceptance by the Council of an apology tendered by a Councillor for the non attendance of the Councillor at an ordinary Council Meeting or Committee Meeting is deemed to be leave granted by the Council for the absence of the Councillor from that meeting provided that the apology is tendered prior to the meeting.”

 

b)      That the membership of Council’s Administration and Finance Committee be reviewed.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

JULIE HARTSHORN

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 33/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCILLORS' EXPENSES & FACILITIES POLICY

 

 

DATE:

20 April, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00176

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Section 252 of the Local Government Act requires Councils to adopt a policy for the payment of expenses incurred by and the provision of facilities to, Mayors, Deputy Mayors and other Councillors.  Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors can only be reimbursed for expenses and provided with facilities, in discharging the functions of civic office, in accordance with this policy.

 

A revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy was considered at the 28 February 2006 Council Meeting, where in it was resolved “that the draft Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy (as distributed) be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the requirements of Section 253 of the Local Government Act and that the matter be reported back to Council at the conclusion of the public exhibition period.

 

ISSUES:

 

The revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy was on public exhibition from 21 March 2006 to 17 April 2006. 

 

During the public exhibition period, the policy was available to be viewed at Council’s Customer Service Centre, the three (3) Council libraries and on Council’s website.  The availability of the document was advertised in the Southern Courier Newspaper.

 

There were no submissions received during the public exhibition period.

 

On 11 March 2005, the Local Government Association of NSW wrote to the Mayor indicating that it would be working with the Department of Local Government to draw up guidelines for setting reasonable expenses for Councillors.  The guidelines have not yet been published, but on 18 April 2006, the Local Government & Shires Associations distributed a Media Release endorsing accountability, transparency and caps on expenses for elected Councillors and senior staff.  A copy of the media release is attached for Councillors’ information.

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is recommended that the revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy (copy attached) be adopted for immediate implementation.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)       it be noted that there were no submission received as a result of the public exhibition of the revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy.

 

b)      the revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy (as distributed) be adopted for immediate implementation.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.         Draft (revised) Councillors' Expenses & Facilities Policy.

2.         Media Release from Local Government & Shires Associations – “Local Government Endorses Transparency On Expenses

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

JULIE HARTSHORN

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COUNCILLORS’ EXPENSES

& FACILITIES POLICY

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adopted 15 February, 1994.

Last updated 30 May 2006.

 

PAYMENT OF EXPENSES AND PROVISION OF FACILITIES POLICY

 

CONTENTS

 

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….…………………………………..3

 

PART 1 – PRELIMINARY………………………………………………………….……………………………….……3

 

PART 2 – CONFERENCES, SEMINARS AND VISITATIONS (including Sister City

Relationships…………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………….….3

 

PART 3 – FACILITIES FOR MAYOR………………… …………………………………………………………...5

 

PART 4 – FACILITIES FOR DEPUTY MAYOR……………… ………………………………………………..6

 

PART 5 – FACILITIES FOR COUNCILLORS………………………………………..……………………… ..7

 

APPENDIX A

CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES BY COUNCILLORS……………………………….10


INTRODUCTION

This policy is made under the Local Government Act, 1993, including section 252 to 254.  The Act requires that the Council must adopt a policy concerning the payment of expenses and the provision of facilities to the Mayor and other Councillors.

 

Section 428(2)(f) requires a council to include in its Annual Report:

 

-        The total amount of money expended during the year on Mayoral fees and Councillor fees.

-        Council's policy on the provision of facilities for, and the payment of expenses to Councillors.

-        The total amount of money expended during the year on providing those facilities and paying those expenses.

 

Section 12 provides that the public is entitled to inspect the Council's policy concerning the payment of expenses incurred by, and the provision of facilities to, councillors, free of charge, and may obtain a copy, either free of charge or on payment of reasonable copying charges.

 

 PART 1 - PRELIMINARY

(i)       Citation

This policy is in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act, 1993, and may be cited as the "Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities to Councillors Policy".

 

(ii)      Commencement

This policy was initially adopted by Council on 15th February, 1994.

 

(iii)     Policy objectives

·              To ensure that the fees paid, civic expenses reimbursed and facilities provided to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors are appropriate to the importance of the Office and are consistently applied and transparent.

·              To ensure that no Councillors suffer hardship by reason of meeting their civic responsibilities as an elected person.

·              To adequately reimburse Councillors for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties, including expenses incurred in becoming adequately informed on subjects relevant to their civic duties.

 

PART 2 - CONFERENCES, SEMINARS AND VISITATIONS (Including Sister City relationships)

Conferences, seminars, courses within NSW

(i)       Councillors may attend conferences, seminars and accredited courses within NSW without the approval of the Council.

 

However, approval to attend conferences and seminars within NSW must be determined by the Mayor and the General Manager upon a written request by the individual Councillor wishing to attend a conference, etc, stating the reasons why he or she wishes to attend and what benefits it will bring to the Council.

 

(ii)      The Mayor and Councillors may attend conferences, seminars and accredited courses outside NSW only with approval of the Council, and shall submit a written request for this purpose stating the reasons why he or she wishes to attend and what benefits it will bring to the Council.

 

(iii)     The Mayor may attend conferences in NSW as necessary without approval.  Further, all Councillors are eligible to attend the Annual Conference of the NSW Local Government Association and all female Councillors are eligible to attend the Annual Australian Local Government Women's Association's NSW Branch Conference.

 

(iv)     No advance sustenance allowance will be paid, but that the actual cost of meals, which are not provided as part of the approved conference or seminar programme, be met by Council (by way of reimbursement to Councillors following their return).

 

(v)      The council will pay all normal registration costs which are charged by organisers including the cost of related official luncheons, dinners and tours which are relevant to the interest of the Council or assist Councillors to discharge the functions of their civic office.

 

(vi)     Full economy airfare will be used by Councillors travelling to and from conferences, except where a Councillor indicates he/she is confident that no changes will be made to the proposed itinerary in which case a review of the cheapest fares available be undertaken.  Further, that in all cases, advantage be taken of special conference discount fares to achieve significant economies in travel expenses.

 

(vii)    If a private motor vehicle is used the "mileage" allowance will be paid at the then current rate set by the NSW Local Government (State) Award.

 

If a Councillor decides to drive his/her own vehicle to an intrastate or interstate conference, the mileage allowance payable to that individual is not to exceed the return economy class air fare for travel to the destination in question.

 

Costs of vehicle hire and/or taxi fares which are reasonably incurred while attending conferences will be reimbursed by the Council.

 

(viii)    Reasonable accommodation costs, including the night before and/or after the conference where this is necessary, will be met by the Council for conferences and seminars outside the Sydney metropolitan area.

 

(ix)     Reasonable business out-of-pocket expenses will be reimbursed for costs associated with attending the conference, seminar, meeting or function.  Reasonable out-of-pocket expenses will be limited to: parking fees; taxi fares; meals not included in the conference program and the reasonable cost of drinks accompanying a meal.  Council will not meet the cost of laundry or the cost incurred for the use of a bar-fridge in a hotel room.

 

(x)      Where the attendee is accompanied by his or her spouse/partner, the Council will not pay for any cost supplement involved in the accommodation.  All costs for the spouse/partner (including travel, tours, meals etc.) are to borne by the attendee.

 

(xi)     Any visitations to, and travel and accommodation costs associated with, sister city arrangements by Randwick Councillors must be approved by a Council Meeting prior to acceptance of any invitations, and any gifts or benefits associated with such visits by both parties shall show full regard to the requirements of both Councils’ Codes of Conduct.

 

Interstate & overseas travel

(xii)     Council will pay the same expenses as detailed above (for conferences within NSW) for Councillors travelling interstate and overseas on Council business only if Council resolves that such travel be undertaken.  The proposal will be considered at an Open Council Meeting through a report from the General Manager.  Reports are to indicate:

 

o     The total cost of the travel and a break-down of the total cost into the following areas - transport, accommodation and out-of-pocket reimbursement of expenses per person (including any amounts expected to be reimbursed by participants). 

o     Who is to take part in the travel;

o     The length of the stay overseas;

o     The purpose of the travel and the objectives to be achieved in undertaking the travel, including an explanation of what community benefits are expected as a result of the travel;

o     Where exceptional cases arise for overseas travel (ie. the travel has not been documented in Council’s adopted Management Plan) and travel has to be undertaken at short notice, the report to the Council will include why the travel is considered to be exceptional.

 

If the trip is to be sponsored by private enterprise, ICAC guidelines and reporting structures shall be followed.

 

For overseas travel, a daily meal and an incidental expenses allowance will be paid to each authorised attendee in accordance with the Australian Taxation Office determination in relation to reasonable travel and meal allowance expense amounts, provided that such expenses are subject to a period of stay not exceeding the period for the conference or authorised business plus one day each way for travelling.

 

[Note: the Ruling for the 2005-2006 financial year is TD 2005/32 and is available on the ATO Legal Database at www.ato.gov.au.  The median salary range will be used]

 

Text Box: Reimbursements for conferences, seminars and visitations must be verified by the provision of receipts.

Claims for reimbursement of expenses must be submitted on the claim form attached to this policy (see Appendix A).  

Claims for reimbursement of expenditure may be back-dated for a period of three (3) months or back to the beginning of the current financial year (whichever is the longer period of time).


Claims for reimbursement of conferences/seminars/courses expenses must be submitted on the claim form attached to the policy.


PART 3 - FACILITIES FOR MAYOR

The Mayor is entitled to receive:

 

(i)       A Mayoral Fee (Allowance) to be set by Council annually following determination by the Remuneration Tribunal.

 

(ii)      Full private use of the Council's Mayoral vehicle.

 

(iii)     A mobile telephone (and car kit) with the rental and maintenance, to be paid by the Council, but with a limitation of $300 per month as the maximum call cost to be borne by the Council. 

 

(iv)     Mayoral name badges.

 

(v)      Chauffeur services when required on Council matters.

 

(vi)     Office accommodation at the Town Hall and standard business equipment.  The provision of a refreshment cabinet in the Mayor’s Office maintained and stocked by the Council within budgetary limits.

 

(vii)    A copy of the Local Government Act and Regulations in the Mayor's Office.

 

(viii)    Use of the Mayoral Robes and Mayoral Chain of Office while acting in the official capacity of Mayor.

 

(ix)     Reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred by the Mayor in attending functions or performing duties in the role of Mayor.

 

(x)      Expenses of the Mayor’s spouse/partner in the following circumstances:

a.       Where the reasonable expenses of the spouse/partner have been met by the Mayor; and

b.       The Mayor’s spouse/partner has been officially invited to and has accompanied the Mayor to a function/event; and

c.       The function relates to the discharge of the civic and/or ceremonial functions of the Mayor; and

 

d.       The attendance of the Mayor’s spouse at the function(s) is considered reasonable necessary or appropriate in order for the Mayor to fulfil his/her statutory role (eg. Where the Mayor is hosting a ball or reception, or the attendance of the Mayor and his/her spouse/partner as official guests at a local function to which guests are invited with their respective spouses/partners.

 

This reimbursement does not extend to functions where the attendance of the Mayor’s spouse or partner may be convenient, but could not be properly seen as relating to the discharge of functions of civic office (eg. Attendance at the Annual Conference of the Local Government Association).

 

(xi)     All benefits provided to a Councillor.


PART 4 - FACILITIES FOR DEPUTY MAYOR

The Deputy Mayor is entitled to receive:

 

(i)       A Deputy Mayoral Fee (Allowance) to be set by Council annually following determination by the Remuneration Tribunal.

 

(ii)      Deputy Mayoral name badges.

 

(iii)     A mobile telephone with the rental and maintenance to be paid by the Council, but with a limitation of $300 per month as the maximum call cost to be borne by the Council.  (Note: There is a requirement for utilization of the “Call Select” (*) or other mobile provider’s facility which allows for private telephone calls to be segregated for billing purposes and which allows the raising of Sundry Debtors accounts by Council relating to private use.)

 

(iv)     All benefits provided to a Councillor with the proviso that the Deputy Mayor will only be provided with one mobile phone and the total call costs will be in accordance with Part 4, Clause (iii) (above).

 

PART 5 - FACILITIES FOR COUNCILLORS

Councillors are entitled to receive:

 

(i)       A Councillor's Fee (Allowance) to be set by Council annually following determination by the Remuneration Tribunal.

 

(ii)      An expandable attaché case with combination lock (Dimensions 44.5cm, x 31.8cm x 10cm) as per the current State Government Contract or South Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils’ Purchasing Agreement.

 

(iii)     Stationery items limited to letterheads, business cards (bearing coloured personal photographs if requested), "With Compliments" slips and envelopes, for use on Council business and subject to reasonable limits as determined by the General Manager.

 

(iv)     A maximum of 300 Christmas Cards per Councillor per annum for use in a Councillor’s official role as an elected member.  The cards to be arranged and ordered by Council staff in accordance with budgetary limits.

1            

(v)      The cost of postage associated with mail sent by Councillors, in the course of carrying out their civic duties, to their constituents will be borne by the Council to a maximum of $600 per Councillor per annum, including the postage costs for the up to 300 Christmas cards supplied to Councillors in accordance with Part 5, Clause (xvii) of this Code (see below).

 

(vi)     Councillors' name badges.

 

(vii)    Secretarial support when required on Council matters.

 

(viii)    Cabcharge facilities, use of a Council driver upon request or reimbursement for use of private vehicles (in accordance with the NSW Local Government (State) Award).   Councillors will be reimbursed for out-of-pocket travel expenses incurred in attending approved courses, conferences, seminars, Council or Council Committee Meetings, authorised Council inspections or other authorised business of the Council (including travel to any organization to which a Councillor has been appointed as a delegate or any other activity that has been authorised by the Council.

 

(ix)     Meals and refreshments following meetings of Council and its Committees.

 

(x)      A copy of the Council's Policy Register and other necessary codes required for reference purposes.

 

(xi)     A copy of the Local Government Act and Regulations, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and Building Code of Australia in the Councillors' Rooms.

 

(xii)     Access, to the a shared Councillors' Rooms in the Town Hall.

 

(xiii)    Full indemnity against any action, liability, claim or demand, arising from the bona fide performance of their responsibilities, with the exception of defamation claims where the availability and extent of an indemnity shall be determined by Council, in its absolute discretion, after the claim has been disposed of by a final judgement in proceedings, withdrawn, settlement or compromise of proceedings or otherwise as the case may be, having regard to all circumstances that Council, in its absolute discretion, considers relevant. 

 

(xiv)    That Councillors be reimbursed reasonable expenses for the use of child care facilities whilst attending Council or Committee meetings, subject to a limit of $600 per Councillor per annum.

 

(xv)    A laptop computer, as per the current State Government Contract, with specification and configuration necessary to access and utilise appropriate Council systems.  Laptops will be provided with: Windows operating system; standard Microsoft Office package; anti-virus software; and facilities to enable dial-up to Council.  No unauthorised or unlicensed software is to be installed on the laptops and Councillors are required to comply with Council’s Internet & Email Usage Policy at all times, when using Council’s laptops. 

 

(xvi)    The following office equipment to facilitate communication between Councillors, Council’s administration and residents, with Council responsible for equipment, rental, maintenance, consumables and service charges and costs:

 

a)       A fax phone/printer/copier/scanner unit incorporating handset and answering machine or equivalent as per the current State Government Contract and Council will arrange and pay for the installation of a telephone line at each Councillor’s place of residence (if required) to facilitate the operation of the phone/printer/copier/scanner unit and meet all necessary installation and connection costs.  A Maximum of $100 per Councillor per month to be borne by Council for call costs;

 

         and

 

b)       A standard issue mobile phone (as provided to Council staff) with rental and maintenance to be paid by Council, but with a maximum of $200 per Councillor per month to be borne by Council for call costs;

 

and

 

c)       A person pager and paging service.

 

The above mentioned “office equipment” to be updated periodically as and when considered appropriate by the General Manager.

 

(xvii)   All equipment remains the property of Council and is returnable on a Councillor ceasing to hold office.  However, Councillors not seeking re-election, resigning or defeated at the Poll may request to retain/purchase these items.  The General Manager shall consider each request and determine an appropriate price, having regard to Council’s policy on disposal of “minor value” assets under the Disposal of Assets Policy and Procedures.

 

Payment for the purchase of the equipment must be made within 7 working days of the determined price being conveyed to the Councillor.

 

(xviii)  From within the Councillors’ Rooms in the Town Hall, access to external E-mail and internet facilities and internal E-mail with staff appearing on the Councillor/Staff Liaison Listing (as periodically issued by the General Manager).  Further, Council will pay each Councillor up to $50 per month for expenses relating to the provision of internet facilities at their private residences, as arranged by them with their external internet provider.

 

(xix)    Reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred by a Councillor in attending functions if officially invited to functions/events representing the Council.

 

(xx)    Expenses of a Councillor’s spouse/partner in the following circumstances:

a.     Where the reasonable expenses of the spouse/partner have been met by the Councillor; and

b.     The Councillor’s spouse/partner has been officially invited to and has accompanied the Councillor to a function/event; and

c.     The function relates to the discharge of the civic functions of the Councillor; and

d.     The attendance of the Councillor’s spouse at the function(s) is considered reasonable necessary or appropriate in order for the Councillor to fulfil his/her statutory role (eg. Where the Councillor is hosting a reception, or the attendance of the Councillor and his/her spouse/partner as official guests at a local function to which guests are invited with their respective spouses/partners and the Councillor is representing the Council at the function.

 

This reimbursement does not extend to functions where the attendance of the Mayor’s spouse or partner may be convenient, but could not be properly seen as relating to the discharge of functions of civic office (eg. Attendance at the Annual Conference of the Local Government Association).

 

Claims for reimbursement of all expenses must be submitted on the claim form attached to this policy (see Appendix A)

 

 

Note: A reference to “per annum” in this policy refers to a financial year (from 1 July to 30 June) or part thereof.  Where a Councillor only holds office for part of a financial year, “per annum” expenditure limits will be reimbursed on a pro-rata basis.  Claims for reimbursement of expenditure may be back-dated for a period of three (3) months or back to the beginning of the current financial year (whichever is the longer period of time).

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


APPENDIX A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

BY COUNCILLORS

 

I hereby submit my claim for reimbursement of expenses in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act and Council’s Policy with respect to the Payment of Expenses & Provision of Facilities to Councillors.

 

 

Name of claimant:   Councillor………………………………………………….

 

Claim for reimbursement of expenses:

Date

Nature of business

Nature of claim

Amount claimed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Claim for reimbursement of travel expenses:

Date

Nature of business (include where the travel was to/from & the purpose of the travel)

Method of travel

Distance in Kms

Rate/Km

Amount claimed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total amount claimed:                                                                                            $

 

Please note: Receipts must be attached to this claim form in order for reimbursement to be processed.

 

 

Signature:…………………………… ……………………………………………….

 

Date:………………………………………………..
18 April 2006

LOCAL GOVERNMENT & SHIRES ASSOCIATIONS - MEDIA RELEASE

Local Government Endorses Transparency On Expenses

 

The Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW  today endorsed accountability, transparency and caps on expenses for elected councillors and senior staff.

 

The Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW  today endorsed accountability, transparency and caps on expenses for elected councillors and senior staff.

 

The Department of Local Government supervises sanctions against inappropriate councillor or staff use of expenses, and can demand refunds from individuals claiming inappropriate expenses.

Each council must put on public display an expenses code for councillors which is open to public comment, and must publish councillor expenses in their annual report to ratepayers.

The President of the Local Government Association, Cr Genia McCaffery, said unlike other areas of government, local communities can view individual council policies on permitted expenses.

"All councils are accountable to their community through a transparent public policy. If a council decides to vary their policy, they must advertise the changes and allow 28 days for public comment.

"At North Sydney Council, where I am the Mayor, all staff are assessed against integrity in all dealings as part of their performance assessment.

"Our Associations support any measures that ensure there is no abuse of expenditure, and individual councils that abuse the trust of the community will answer to the authorities, or the ratepayers at election time.

"While scrutiny of expenses is of public interest we shouldn't lose track of more important issues facing local government, such as the level of cost shifting between governments, the financial sustainability of local government, and the future growth of our towns and cities and erosion of council planning powers," Cr McCaffery said.

The President of the Shires Association, Cr Col Sullivan OAM, said the Department of Local Government, or ICAC, had powers to examine inappropriate expenditure by councillors or staff and order refunds if required.

"The Department can order repayments from staff or councillors of any disallowed expenditure resulting from negligence or misconduct.

"Councillors and staff must use council resources effectively and economically in undertaking their public or professional duties.

"Participation by councillors in conferences should be determined by debate in open council so that ratepayers themselves can judge the effectiveness of individual participation

"Local Government is a six billion dollar industry in NSW, and the vast majority of expense claims are consistent with the corporate sector, but we have a lot more public scrutiny of our internal workings," Cr Sullivan said.

 

Media Officer: Michael Ross - 0419 406 400
Media comment: Cr Genia McCaffery - 0419 404 867
Media comment: Cr Col Sullivan - 0418 660 276


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 34/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

15% LEVY ON CROWN RESERVE LEASES

 

 

DATE:

18 May, 2006

FILE NO:

F2006/00221

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Department of Lands has written to Council advising that a levy of 15% of all proceeds received in respect of the leases/licences over Crown Reserves must be paid into the Public Reserves Management Fund pursuant to Section 106 of the Crown Lands Act, 1989.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Crown Lands Act prevents Council from passing this levy on to lessees/licencees.  The current invoices are as follows:

 

Latham Park $2,145; Coogee Bowling Club $2,178; Bunnerong Gymnastic Assoc (Heffron Park) $8,362.20; and South Headland Reserve $9,157.50.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Council has budgeted for these levy payments which will offset the income that Council receives from its Crown Reserve leases and licences.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This levy has been in place since 2002 and is used by the Department of Lands for the Crown Reserves grants and loans programme.  There is no formal right of appeal by individual trusts against the Minister’s direction.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

JULIE HARTSHORN

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 37/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

80 Middle Street and 133 Botany Street, Randwick. (DEFERRED)

 

 

DATE:

18 May, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/568/2005

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING   

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the assessment report for Section 82A Review of Development Application No. 568/2005 which was put to the Health Building and Planning Committee for consideration at the meeting on 9 May 2006. At this meeting Council resolved “ that this matter be deferred to the next ordinary council meeting to allow council to seek legal advice and for a report and other relevant documentation to come back to council to allow councillors to consider the issue of existing use rights with respect to this application.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Advice has been obtained from Council’s solicitor regarding the issue of existing use rights. The advice primarily clarifies and confirms that the site has the benefit of existing use rights. The advice, together with all files relating to the development application, have been made available for Councillor’s perusal.

 

It should be noted that the legal advice, together with relevant legal documents attached with the advice, constitute privileged material as they are part of a matter that is currently the subject of a court action and therefore should be kept in confidence.  Accordingly, Council’s solicitor has advised that objectors to the development application cannot have access to the legal advice and its relevant attached documents.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Section 82A Review of Development Application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID ONGKILI

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

24 April, 2006

FILE NO:

D/0568/2005

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A application to review Council's refusal of the proposed multi-unit development incorporating 21 dwellings in 2 and 3 storey type attached town-houses in 5 separate buildings, basement carparking and strata subdivision. 

PROPERTY:

 80 Middle Street and 133 Botany Street, Randwick

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Exceland Property Group Pty. Limited

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 at its meeting on 13 December 2005.

 

The original development application for the demolition of the existing structures on the site, excavation and construction of a multi unit housing development comprising 21 two and three storey attached townhouses in 5 separate buildings over basement level parking for 31 vehicles, and strata subdivision into 21 lots was refused by Council at its meeting on 13 December 2005.

 

The application pursuant to Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) seeks a review of Council’s determination. In support of this the applicant states that the plans as originally submitted and determined have been amended to address each of the reasons for refusal in the original determination. An assessment of the amendments indicates an improved proposal that addresses all of the issues raised in the refusal of the DA.

 

The prevailing concern associated with the validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights. Accordingly, this report has assessed the remaining issues of merit associated with the Section 82 proposal as they relate to the reasons of refusal of the original DA. These issues have been satisfactorily addressed in the Section 82A application. In particular, the scale and form of the amended proposal is appropriate on the site and will be compatible with existing development in the locality given the existing character of this residential area. The development proposes a building envelope, height, and landscaping treatment that generally meet the criteria and fulfil the objectives contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and Council’s Development Control Plans. In addition, the proposal will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding properties. Accordingly, the application for review is supported and approval of the development application is recommended, subject to conditions of consent.

 

It is recommended that Council’s original determination of Development Application No. 568/2005 be rescinded and the development application be approved.  

 

2.       THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant advises that the  Section 82A application involves an amendment to the original proposal to address Council’s reasons for refusal of the original DA. The applicant further advises that, in doing so, the amended development is substantially the same as that proposed by the original application. The applicant’s response to the reasons for refusal are detailed below (an assessment of the merits of the responses/proposed amendments is undertaken in Section 10.1):  

 


Reason for refusal No. 1

 

“1.    The proposed development of the site for multi-unit housing is prohibited within the 2(a) zone of RLEP 1998, and ‘existing-use-rights’ have not been established.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The issue of Existing Use Rights (EUR) is currently under discussion between the legal representatives acting on behalf of both Council and the Applicant. We believe that this issue can be appropriately resolved, such that Council is satisfied that the site has the benefit of EUR.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 2

 

“2.    The proposed development has not minimised its impact in terms of overlooking of adjoining properties and dwellings within the development. In particular, the north facing balcony to Unit A.03 and the south-facing balconies at first floor level of Building E and design of the southern elevation to the first floor of Building E. These impacts could be addressed by conditions of consent deleting balconies and providing obscure glazing.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The following amendments have been made to the proposal in order to address this reason for refusal:

 

·          dwelling A.03 has been reconfigured by relocating the north-facing balcony to within the external envelope, to minimise opportunities for overlooking into No. 78 Middle Street;

·          a 1m wide awning has been provided over the north-facing terrace to dwelling A.01 to minimise opportunities for overlooking;

·          opaque glazing has been provided to the following windows:

o Building A stairwell window;

o B.05 Bathroom window;

o C.06 Bathroom window;

o E.01 stair window; and

o E.02 stair window.

·          the south-facing balconies to dwellings E.01 and E.02 have been deleted to minimise opportunities for overlooking into No. 135 Botany Street.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 3

 

“3.    The scale of the proposed building fronting Botany Street is incompatible with directly adjoining buildings and should be reduced to minimise its streetscape dominance. This impact could be satisfactorily addressed by redesign and a reduced roof height for the front section of the building, to give the building a one and a half storey scale to the street with the upper level contained in the roof form; or for the upper level to be stepped back from the street so that the scale of the building was compatible with its single storey neighbours. A skillion roof form may also be considered over the basement parking and driveway on the southern side of this building to be more compatible with the surrounding residential forms.”

The applicant responds as follows: “The proposal has been amended to address this reason for refusal. In particular, the front setback of the upper level of dwelling E.02 has been increased by 1.92m and a terrace has been provided in the western elevation of this dwelling. This gives the building a one and a half storey scale, as recommended by Council. Furthermore, a hip roof is now proposed to the two (2) storey portion of this building, while a skillion roof is provided over the driveway to the basement.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 4

 

“4.    The proposed colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are incompatible with the predominantly light coloured finishes of traditional stone or weatherboard buildings in the heritage conservation area. Details of the finishes could be resubmitted to satisfactorily address this issue.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “Turner and Associates have prepared a revised sample board, which proposes the use of the following materials and finishes:

 

·          light coloured facebrick;

·          timber cladding and battens

·          light coloured paint finish;

·          metal zinc roofing; and

·          light coloured aluminium door frames.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 5: Flood study

 

“5.    The flood study submitted does not adequately demonstrate that the proposed floor levels provide minimum 300mm clearance above the 100 year ARI flood levels and it has not been demonstrated that the proposed driveway high points provided provide a minimum of 150mm clearance above the 100 year ARI flood levels. An addendum to the flood study should be provided to address this concern.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “Reason for refusal No. 5 states that the flood study submitted with the DA did not adequately demonstrate that the proposed floor levels and driveway high points provide the required clearances above the 1:100 year flood levels.

 

Henry and Hymas Consulting Engineers have prepared a revised Flood Study, in order to address issues raised by Brown Partners, Council’s hydraulic consultants. In this regard, we enclose two (2) copies of the following documentation from Henry and Hymas:

 

·          correspondence dated 13 December 2005; and

·          Flood Report Revision 2 dated July 2005.

 

These documents confirm the flood levels at the site, and confirm that the floor levels adopted in the amended proposal are at least 300mm above the 100 year flood level, and that the adopted driveway high points are at least 150mm above the 100 year flood level, as required by Council.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 6

 

“6.    The plans do not demonstrate that the access driveways provide satisfactory ramp grades and transitions in accordance with the requirements of AS 2890.1 (2004).”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The driveway ramp gradients have been revised in accordance with advice from Traffix traffic consultants, as follows:

 

·          maximum gradient of 1:8 up from street boundary;

·          flat up to 6m from street boundary;

·          1:8 for min 2m;

·          1:4 for the main ramp; and

·          1:8 for a minimum of 2m at basement.”

 

Reason for refusal No. 7

 

“7.    The proposed Floor Space Ratio is considered to be excessive.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The DA which was refused by Council’s elected representatives had a Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 1,862.18m2, which represented a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.87:1.

 

The amendments described throughout this proposal have reduced the GFA of the proposal by 30m2. In this regard, the amended proposal has a GFA of 1,832.18m2 which represents a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.85:1. Furthermore, if the GFA of the proposal which is contained in the attics of the respective buildings is excluded, the proposal would have a GFA of 1,638.18m2, and an FSR of 0.76:1.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Botany Street, and the northern side of Middle Street in Randwick and is located within the block bounded by Jane Street, Barker Street, Botany and Middle Streets in Randwick.

 

The site is comprised of five separate allotments and is known as 80 Middle Street and 133 Botany Street, Randwick, set out as follows:

 

80 Middle Street

 

§ Lot 1 in DP 76670 (Detached two storey Dwelling house)

§ Lots B and D in DP 344998 (Single storey stable buildings to the rear of the two storey dwelling house)

 

133 Botany Street

 

§ Lot 1 in DP69695 (Single storey stable buildings to the rear of the two storey dwelling house)

 

The subject site has a combined area of 2,140 sqm with a frontage to Botany Street (west) of approximately 9.5 metres, to Middle Street (south) of approximately 8.75 metres. The eastern boundary of the site (adjacent to Hay Lane) is 81.09 metres long. The northern boundary of the site is 29.91 metres in length.

 

The western boundary of the site is irregular, stepping to create two rectangular lots between Lot 1 in DP69695 and Lot 1 in DP 76670. Lot B in DP344998 (the northernmost allotment of the two central lots) has a western boundary of 20.865 metres and a depth (west to east) of approximately 42 metres. Lot D in DP344998 has a western boundary of 22.395 metres and a depth (west to east) of approximately 30 metres.

 

Hay Lane (also known as Norbar Lane) is a 2.4 metre wide unformed laneway and stormwater channel which runs along the eastern boundary of the site. The lane reserve widens to approximately 3.0 metres in width to the north of the subject site boundaries.

 

Whilst the site is generally level owing to previous improvements, there is a fall north to south approximately 2 metres. However due to the length of the site this fall does not result in a substantial gradient across the site.

 

Existing on the site and in the vicinity of the works are several large trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

The site is located in the Struggletown Heritage Conservation area and there are several heritage items in the vicinity of the site (refer to hatched properties in aerial photograph below).

 

Surrounding development is generally consistent with the 2A Residential zoning, being comprised of detached and semi-detached dwelling houses.

 

To the North

 

Immediately adjacent to the site to the north (side boundary adjoining), at 131A Botany Street are two detached dwelling houses (1/131A to the front of the lot is 1-2 storeys and 2/131A to the rear of the lot is single storey).

Further to the north and northeast of the site are the Royal Hospital for Women and a strip of small scale commercial uses (on Barker Street), including a convenience store and petrol station at the corner of Barker and Botany Streets.

 

To the West

 

Immediately adjacent the site to the west are the rear boundaries of properties fronting Botany Street (135-141 Botany Street). These allotments contain 1-2 storey dwelling houses including a pair of semi detached dwellings (135-137 Botany Street). 135 Botany Street shares a side and rear boundary with the subject site. 139 Botany Street is a two storey dwelling house which is listed as a heritage item under RLEP98.

 

Immediately to the west of the allotment which addresses Middle Street is 78 Middle Street, a one to two storey dwelling house.

 

Further to the west of the site (across Botany Street) is the continuation of the 2A zone with small scale residential uses interspersed with 3 storey walk-up type flat buildings constructed prior to the current planning controls.

To the South

 

To the south of the site (across Middle Street) the 2A residential zone continues with small scale residential uses along Middle Street. Horse breeding and training facilities including a large carpark (181 Botany Street) exist to the rear of these residential uses (made permissible by Schedule 2 of RLEP98 - refers to RLEP70).

 

To the East

 

Immediately to the east of the site is 82 Middle Street (side boundary adjoining) and 6 and 8 Jane Street (rear boundaries adjoining). 82 Middle Street and 6 Jane Street are occupied by two storey dwelling houses. 8 Jane Street is occupied by a single storey dwelling house.

 

Further to the east are small scale residential uses (on the eastern side of Jane Street) including several heritage items with horse salesyards and stables behind (made permissible by Schedule 2 of RLEP98 - refers to RLEP70).

 

The Struggletown Heritage Conservation Area extends to Barker Street in the north, Young Street to the east, the southern boundary of 181 Botany Street to the south and along Botany Street and the western boundary of 181 Botany Street to the west.

 

The surrounding area is shown in the aerial photograph below. Heritage items are hatched and the Struggletown Heritage Conservation Area is outlined. The subject site is shaded.

 

4.    SITE/APPLICATION HISTORY

 

a.       APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The development application was refused by Council at its meeting on 13 December 2005 (the reasons for refusal are listed in section 2 above and 10.1.1 below). On 23 December 2006, the applicant lodged the subject Section 82A application as detailed in Section 2 above.

 

The original development application was the subject of a Class 1 Appeal with the Land and Environment Court on the basis of “deemed refusal”. Following the refusal of the development application, the appeal was rescheduled for hearing on 27 and 28 March 2006. In February 2006, the applicant applied to, and was subsequently granted by, the Court to have the issue with respect to existing use rights considered separately from the merits of the appeal.

 

On the 10 March 2006, the applicant filed various affidavits and Statutory Declarations with the Court in support of the claim to existing use rights. Following a review of these documents, Council’s solicitor has advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed that he site has the benefit of existing use rights. Based on this advice, Council advised the Court that it would not pursue the issue of existing use rights. The hearing dates for 27 and 28 March were subsequently vacated and the appeal has been relisted for hearing on 8 and 9 June 2006 on the merits of the appeal.

b.       HISTORY OF SITE USAGE

 

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

 

Address

Approval

No.

Development Details

Date of Approval

80 Middle Street

BA391/66

Two storey dwelling house and single storey stables to the rear of the two storey dwelling house

3/5/1966

 

DA313/85

Erect roof over sandyard

2/12/1985

 

DA165/89

Construct roof over existing sandpit and additions at rear

11/7/1989

 

BA1063/89

Construct roof over sandpit and garden shed

13/10/1989

133 Botany Street

BA356/64

Cottage and stables

6/4/1968*

 

BA997/66

Demolition of existing cottage and stables and construction of new brick cottage and stables.

1/11/1966

 

BA360/68

Addition of cloak and bathroom at western end of stables

5/5/1964*

*Dates as they appear in Council’s database records, seems to be an error in data transfer as dates do not appear to accurately correspond to application dates.

 

5.   COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

Following the request for a review, the amended proposal was notified to surrounding property owners and advertised on 5 February 2003. In response to this notification the following submissions were received:

 

5.1     Objections

 

S. & R. Spina, 109-111 Middle Street, Randwick

S. Carnes, 117 Middle Street, Randwick

(These two objectors have similar objections as listed below)

 

§ Development not in keeping with the area and density will create problems for the area.

Comment: The proposal is for a predominantly medium density town-house development with numbers of dwellings that are commensurate with an FSR that will be compatible in the area in terms of density and impact (see sections 10.1.2, 10.3.2.1, 10.3.2.2  and 10.3.2.3 below).

§ Rental dwellings result in people moving in and out of the area constantly.

Comment: The sale of the dwellings after construction and whether they will be owner-occupied or rental is a market consideration and not a planning issue and as such beyond the scope of consideration of the application.

§ Inadequate provision for removalist and service vehicles results in dwelling contents thrown on the streets.

Comment: Tradespeople and commercial vehicles such as vans or utes will be able to utilise the basement visitor parking. Parking for light rigid trucks or emergency vehicles is not specifically required under the DCP – Parking for a development of this size. Unauthorised rubbish disposal on Council footpath is an issue that can be dealt with through Council’s compliance unit in discussion with resident/strata management groups. 

§ No horse business has been conducted on No. 80 Middle Street and various persons occupy the late Stuart Bathis’ dwelling.

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

§ Narrow streets with constant non-resident car parking on either side restricts traffic flow.

Comment: The traffic impacts of the development are considered acceptable as discussed in Section 10.3.2.4 of this report.

§ Overcrowding will increase noise and detrimentally affect the locality.

Comment: The proposal is for a predominantly medium density town-house development with numbers of dwellings that are commensurate with an FSR that will be compatible in the area in terms of density and impact (see sections 10.1.2, 10.3.2.1, 10.3.2.2  and 10.3.2.3 below).

§ Flood plain and water table a risk to underground carpark.

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has investigated the submitted flood study and is satisfied with the provided levels, subject to a high point being included in the carpark driveway.

 

B. Pratt, 8 Jane Street, Randwick

 

§ Density will create overcrowding/problems for the area.

Comment: The proposal is for a predominantly medium density town-house development with numbers of dwellings that are commensurate with an FSR that will be compatible in the area in terms of density and impact (see sections 10.1.2, 10.3.2.1, 10.3.2.2  and 10.3.2.3 below).

§ Proposal lacks central open space.

Comment : The proposal complies with the landscaping standard in the RLEP 1998 and therefore provides adequate internal landscape areas which can be used suitably for recreational purposes as addressed in Section 10.1.2.3 below. Additionally, Section 94 contributions for open space and community facilities will be charged for the development.

§ Inadequate setbacks from Hay Lane restricts solar access and privacy to adjoining residences.

Comment: The development does not meet the preferred solutions for side setbacks above ground floor level along Hay Lane. Despite the non-compliance, the location of the buildings on the laneway result in a separation distance to the rear boundaries of properties that address Jane Street of 3-4.8 metres. Windows to the Hay Lane elevations have been minimised to ensure privacy impacts do not occur and the separation distance provided by the laneway is adequate to minimise visual bulk and scale and overshadowing impacts to properties at 6-8 Jane Street.

§ Gross overdevelopment

Comment: Density, and the bulk and scale of the development has been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents and will not result in a development which is out of character with the surrounding 2A zone and Heritage Conservation Area. Council’s heritage planner has assessed the application and raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions in any consent.

§ Detailed evidence from a number of residents adjoining the subject site that existing use rights have been abandoned for Lot 1 DP 76670, Lots B & D DP 344998, and Lot 1 DP 69695, and that existing use rights do not extend to 133 Botany Street.

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

§ Concern regarding waste collection arrangements due to narrow street frontages, will cause a hazard to pedestrians and vehicles

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the waste management plan and the plans have been annotated to show the presentation of bins so that they do not cause a hazard.

§ Large volume of extra traffic will be generated, Middle Street is narrow

Comment: The traffic impacts of the development are considered acceptable as discussed in Section 10.3.2.4 of this report.

 

A & J Bathgate, 50 Denison Street, Bondi Junction (owner of 82 Middle Street)

 

§ 80 Middle Street and 133 Botany Street have not been used in association with stables at the rear and no horses seen or heard entering stables in excess of two years so their use has ceased.

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

§ The bulk and scale of the proposal is not consistent with the existing stable, associated residential development on the site and adjoining buildings.

Comment: Density, and the bulk and scale of the development has been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents and will not result in a development which is out of character with the surrounding 2A zone and Heritage Conservation Area. Council’s heritage planner has assessed the application and raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions in any consent.

§ Overshadowing to the rear yard at 3:00pm in winter.

Comment: The overshadowing impacts to surrounding properties were  addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the rear yard of the objectors’ property, the assessment noted that “…the properties at 82 Middle Street and 6-8 Jane Street will experience some overshadowing to their rear yards from 1pm onwards, maintaining the existing good solar access from 10am. A usable area of the rear yards of 6-8 Jane Street will remain in sun until 2pm on midwinter days and 82 Middle Street will not overshadow itself at 9am so these properties will all achieve 5 hours of solar access to their rear yards midwinter. This complies with the minimum required under the DCP of 3 hours per day.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Loss of privacy from rear verandah/terrace on the first floor of Block A, and the relocated windows on the first floor of Block B

Comment : As discussed in Section 10.1.1.2 below, the north-facing balcony to dwelling unit A.03 has been effectively partially recessed within the envelope of the dwelling unit and the envelope extended to enclose the sides of the proposed balcony in response to reason for refusal No. 2. This partial recessing and enclosing of the subject balcony will minimise overlooking into the objector’s property. The objector’s reference to relocated windows on the first floor of Building B is incorrect.

§ Erroneous reference to objectors’ backyard as “heavily landscaped”.

Comment: The applicant’s information has not been relied upon in this assessment and a site inspection has been undertaken.

§ Use of Norbar/Hay Lane will increase noise and reduce privacy.

Comment: Vehicular access from Middle Street to Barker Street via Hay Lane will not be possible under the proposed development given that Hay Lane will becomes a landscaped and paved pedestrian pathway for the whole length of the laneway adjoining the proposed development. Hay Lane is already a public laneway for public access. Land which fronts this public road is entitled to use that way for access. The proposed restricted vehicular access and enhanced pedestrian access along Hay Lane is not inconsistent with this designated access and the proposed number of dwellings that will be served by the laneway is not considered excessive and accordingly is not considered give rise to any noise or privacy issues.

§ Does not meet minimum setback from adjacent buildings and from Hay Lane.

Comment: Along Hay Lane, the development does not meet the preferred solutions for side setbacks above ground floor level. Despite the non-compliance, the location of the buildings on the laneway result in a separation distance to the rear boundaries of properties that address Jane Street of 3-4.8 metres. Windows to the Hay Lane elevations have been minimised to ensure privacy impacts do not occur and the separation distance provided by the laneway is adequate to minimise visual bulk and scale and overshadowing impacts to properties at 6-8 Jane Street.

§ Unsatisfactory internal amenity due since Norbay/Hay Lane is used as a gated footpath.

Comment: Gates previously shown as restricting access from Middle Street to Hay Lane have been deleted in the original proposal. Requirements for the laneway to ensure public access to the lane can be maintained at all times has been included as part of the conditions imposed on any approval.

§ The proposal fails to meet the requirements of SEPP 65.

Comment: Council’s Design Review Panel has reviewed the original application with regard to SEPP 65 at several meetings of the Panel to ensure that the proposal maximises improvements to the general design, energy use and internal amenity. In the development application, the applicant provided additional information to address the concerns of the Panel. These improvements remain valid and applicable to the current amended proposal. Accordingly, the proposal has satisfactorily met the requirements of SEPP 65.

§ Proposal not compatible with the heritage significance of the Struggletown Heritage Conservation Area and the heritage item at 139 Botany Road.

Comment: Council’s heritage planner is generally satisfied with the heritage impact of the development, especially having regard to the design changes and additional details of colours and materials provided with the Section 82A application (refer to comments in Section 6.1).

§ The proposal does not meet the carparking requirements for Dwelling Houses and attached Dual Occupancy.

Comment: The proposal is for a multi-unit housing development, not dwelling houses or attached dual occupancy. The proposal complies with the carparking requirements for multi-unit housing in the DCP - Parking

§ Inadequate access for service vehicles.

Comment: Tradespeople and commercial vehicles such as vans or utes will be able to utilise the basement visitor parking. Parking for light rigid trucks or emergency vehicles is not specifically required under the DCP – Parking for a development of this size.

§ Design of basement carpark and gradients does not comply with DCP – Parking and AS2890.1.

Comment: The proposal is satisfactory in terms of the requirements of Council’s DCP-Parking and AS2890.1. The applicant has submitted amended gradients with the current amended proposal which Council’s Development Engineer raises no objections to subject to conditions should approval be granted.

§ Proposal will increase traffic in narrow streets.

Comment: The traffic impacts of the development are considered acceptable as discussed in Section 10.3.2.4 of this report.

§ Inadequate street frontage for garbage bin collection.

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the waste management plan and the plans have been annotated to show the presentation of bins so that they do not cause a hazard.

§ Impact of construction traffic and noise from the Middle Street access and one site access only provided during construction, should be an access to Botany Road as well as Middle Street

Comment: A detailed construction site management plan is required for the development as a condition of consent which includes that all site frontages be utilised to access the site.

§ Site does not have benefit of Existing Use Rights

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

§ Narrow street frontages

Comment: Street frontages are adequate and commensurate with the scale and proportion of the buildings proposed. The reduction in scale of Building A in the current amended proposal will make this building more compatible with its frontage to Botany Street and with adjoining properties.

 

A Crossley, PO Box 4, St Paul’s (owner of 78 Middle Street)

 

§ Number of dwellings too numerous for the area.

Comment: The number of dwellings can be accommodated on the site with required parking and private open space. The density is based on gross floor area, not the number of dwellings and has been assessed as satisfactory as discussed in section 10.2

§ Proposal too crowded and apartments are too small

Comment: Council’s Design Review Panel has reviewed the original plans having regard to the Residential Flat Design Code and was satisfied that the units are adequately sized. This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Proposal will result in conditions associated with boarding house accommodation.

Comment : Proposal is for development of individual town-houses and dwelling units – not boarding houses.

§ Rental dwellings result in transient occupants who create noise pollution and security problems.

Comment: The sale of the dwellings after construction and whether they will be owner-occupied or rental is a market consideration and not a planning issue and as such beyond the scope of consideration of the application.

§ Use of Norbar/Hay Lane will create security problems.

Comment: Safety and security have been discussed under Section 10.3.2.1  of this report.

§ Garbage bin collection at Middle Street will impede/create hazard and noise.

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the waste management plan and the plans have been annotated to show the presentation of bins so that they do not cause a hazard.

§ Letter boxes on Town House B will create junk-mail litter on the lane.

Comment: This is not a planning issue and as such beyond the scope of consideration of the application.

§ Fire services report to address restricted size of entrances and exits in fire emergencies.

Comment: The proposal will be required to meet the requirements of the Building Code of Australia with regard to fire separation. Further details in relation to fire safety are not required at DA stage.

§ Description of 78 Middle Street is misleading.

Comment: The applicant’s information has not been relied upon in this assessment and a site inspection has been undertaken.

§ Bulk and scale of Building A results in loss of sunlight and privacy.

Comment: The overshadowing impacts to surrounding properties were  addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the objector’s property, this assessment noted that “… the northern elevation of 78 Middle Street is already overshadowed at ground level by the high boundary wall which will be retained by the development. At first floor level there are bedroom and bathroom windows on the northern elevation. Although living rooms are generally considered critical in the assessment of overshadowing the development has ensured that additional overshadowing to the northern elevation of 78 Middle Street affects one bedroom window at 9am midwinter. For the remainder of the day all windows are in full sun and this more than complies with the preferred solution of 3 hours under the DCP (which applies to living areas).The proposal will not result in any additional overshadowing to the living areas of 78 Middle Street. This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Overwhelming bulk and scale of Building B to the northern boundary of No. 78 Middle Street.

Comment: Density, and the bulk and scale of the development has been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents and will not result in a development which is out of character with the surrounding 2A zone and Heritage Conservation Area. Council’s heritage planner has assessed the application and raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions in any consent.

 

S Crossley, PO Box 4, St Paul’s (owner of 78 Middle Street)

 

§ Site has lost existing use rights

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

§ Height, bulk and scale of Building A inconsistent with existing building and that of immediate vicinity.

Comment: Density, and the bulk and scale of the development has been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents and will not result in a development which is out of character with the surrounding 2A zone and Heritage Conservation Area. Council’s heritage planner has assessed the application and raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions in any consent.

§ Proposal not compatible with the heritage significance of the Struggletown Heritage Conservation Area.

Comment: Council’s heritage planner is generally satisfied with the heritage impact of the development, especially having regard to the design changes and additional details of colours and materials provided with the Section 82A application (refer to comments in Section 6.1).

§ Loss of privacy from south-facing balcony of unit A02 in Building A. Comment: As discussed in Section 10.3.2.3, to address this concern, a condition will applied requiring the installation of a privacy screen for the whole length of the western edge of the first floor balcony to dwelling unit A02 in Building A should approval be granted.

§ First floor balcony to Unit A03 will overlook/overshadow objectors’ kitchen area.

Comment : As discussed in Section 10.1.1.2 below, the north-facing balcony to dwelling unit A.03 has been effectively partially recessed within the envelope of the dwelling unit and the envelope extended to enclose the sides of the proposed balcony in response to reason for refusal No. 2. This partial recessing and enclosing of the subject balcony will minimise overlooking into the objector’s property. The balcony is not considered to give rise to any adverse overshadowing impact on the objector’s kitchen given its size and recessed position within the proposed building envelope.

§ Privacy awning to unit A01 is unnecessary and creates a security risk to objectors’ property from people accessing and jumping off the awning.

Comment: The provision of an awning to unit A01 is considered reasonable for minimising opportunities for overlooking the rear yard of Unit A01 from Unit A03 above. The objector’s concern regarding security from this awning is considered unreasonable in view of the location of this awning within the private curtilage of Building A (rather than a public domain).  

§ Overlooking from first floor bedrooms/bathrooms of Building B.

Comment: The overlooking impacts within the proposed development were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically it was noted in the assessment that “…The southern elevation of Building B addresses the rear boundary of 78 Middle Street. The proposal will retain a 3 metre high wall along the southern boundary of the site. This has minimised the opportunities for overlooking between Building B and 78 Middle Street. At ground floor level there will be no opportunities for overlooking. At first floor level three bedroom windows have opportunity to overlook the first floor windows of 78 Middle Street, no overlooking of private open spaces will occur. The elevations of Building B and 78 Middle street are approximately 7 metres apart, this is less than the 9 metres generally recommended. The design has recognised the potential for impacts by providing timber battened screens to these windows. The screens will also prevent cross viewing into the rear yard of 76A Middle Street from these windows. There will be no overlooking from the attic skylights in the roof of Building B.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Increase noise pollution and traffic vibration

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 10.3.2.4 of this report and are considered acceptable. Furthermore, standard conditions for construction management will be applied should approval be granted.

§ Loss of street parking

Comment : The proposal complies with Council’s DCP – Parking and therefore, provides adequate carparking for residents and visitors.

§ Garbage bin collection at Middle Street will impede/create hazard.

Comment: Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the waste management plan and the plans have been annotated to show the presentation of bins so that they do not cause a hazard.

§ Security concerns from the opening of Norbar/Hay Lane.

Comment: Safety and security have been discussed under Section 10.3.2.1  of this report.

 

A & R Richardson, 141 Botany Road, Randwick

 

§ No outlook and privacy for proposed town-houses

Comment: The overlooking impacts within the proposed development were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically it was noted that “…the separation distances between Buildings A and B, B and C and D and E exceed 9 metres and considered adequate to maintain privacy between dwellings within the development. Approximately 8 metres separation distance is provided between buildings C and D, however these buildings have been designed so that building D turns its back to Building C with minimal windows addressing Building C. Adequate outlook into private open spaces separating the proposed town-houses will be maintained. Furthermore, no open space at the rear of the Building D  will be overlooked by Building D. Apart from Building A, all units are vertically organised as single occupancies, so that there will not be any significant overlooking as a result of living areas of one dwelling being located over the private open spaces of adjoining dwellings. Subject to compliance with conditions of consent, the proposal will provide good privacy to dwellings within the development.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Loss of privacy

Comment: The overlooking impacts to surrounding properties were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the rear yards of properties at Nos. 135 to 141 Botany Street (which includes the objector’s property), the assessment noted that “…only three west facing bathroom windows are provided at first floor level in the western elevations of Buildings B, C and D which face these rear yards. There are no west-facing windows in the attic level of this elevation. A condition will be applied requiring the bathroom windows in Building B (which faces the objectors’ property) and Building C to be obscurely glazed up to 1.7m above finished floor level.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Loss of sunlight

Comment: The overshadowing impacts to surrounding properties were  addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, it was noted that “…in relation to the rear yards of properties at Nos. 135 to 141 Botany Street (which includes the objector’s property) some overshadowing during midwinter mornings will be experienced. However, as a minimum these properties will have usable areas of their rear yards in sun from 10am to 2pm midwinter thus complying with the minimum required under the DCP of 3 hours per day.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

 

J Minary, 135 Botany Street, Randwick

 

§ Overshadowing of north elevation windows.

Comment: The overshadowing impacts to surrounding properties were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal. Specifically, in relation to the objector’s property, the original assessment noted that “…the northern elevation of this property would be completely in shadow as a result of the development at 9am on midwinter mornings. By midday all windows on the northern elevation of this property would have a majority of their surface in sun. By 3pm all except for one window will have sun on a portion of their surface. The proposal achieves solar access to a portion of the surface of all windows on the northern elevation of the objector’s property between 11am and 3pm midwinter and meets the preferred solution of three hours per day. The overshadowing impact is considered to be largely the result of orientation such that a reduced or more skilful design is unlikely to be able to remedy this impact. Building E, which is causing the overshadowing to this property is setback in excess of the dwelling house requirements and it is likely a two storey dwelling house which complied with Council’s DCP requirements would result in the same or greater shadow impacts to the northern elevation of the objector’s property.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Eastern rear and northern side boundary fences should be 2.5m high for privacy and security.

Comment: Although fencing to the height requested is generally discouraged due to issues of bulk and scale and the potential for overshadowing, in this instance the fencing is considered appropriate for maintaining privacy. The fence will not result in any additional overshadowing to the objector’s property than what is already proposed. Accordingly, a condition will be applied for the fence requested to ensure privacy for the objector’s property should approval be granted. 

§ The proposed driveway off Botany Street and pathways proposed along the eastern rear and northern side boundaries create noise, and privacy and security impacts.

Comment: The privacy impacts to surrounding properties were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the objector’s property, the original assessment noted that “…the pedestrian and vehicular entries to the site from Botany Street adjoining the objector’s property would be unlikely to cause significant disruption to this property given that the pedestrian entry serves a maximum of 12 dwellings (buildings C, D and E). The majority of residents and visitors to the site are expected to enter from the basement carpark and potentially from the public laneway to the east of the site (where the mailboxes are located).” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal. Furthermore, the provision of alternative entry from Middle Street will distribute access to the site and good surveillance from Botany Street will reduce the potential for crime and  vandalism to occur in the pathway.

§ Noise from mechanical exhaust system and construction activity.

Comment: Standard conditions will be applied requiring that 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.

§ Structural damage during excavation and construction.

Comment: A condition requiring a Dilapidation Report prior to works will be applied.

§ Overlooking from Buildings C, D and E.

Comment:  The overlooking impacts to surrounding properties were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the rear yards of properties at Nos. 135 to 141 Botany Street (which includes the objector’s property), the assessment noted that “…only three west facing bathroom windows are provided at first floor level in the western elevations of Buildings B, C and D which face these rear yards. There are no west-facing windows in the attic level of this elevation. A condition will be applied requiring the bathroom windows in Building B and Building C (which faces the objectors’ property) to be obscurely glazed up to 1.7m above finished floor level. In relation to overlooking from the upper floor of Building E, the deletion of the south-facing first floor balconies in Building E under the current amended plan will eliminate this overlooking issue.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Proposal is overdevelopment and will be overcrowded.

Comment: The proposal is for a predominantly medium density town-house development with numbers of dwellings that are commensurate with an FSR that will be compatible in the area in terms of density and impact (see sections 10.1.2, 10.3.2.1, 10.3.2.2  and 10.3.2.3 below).

§ Result in flooding and drainage problems.

Comment: A revised Flood Study has been submitted with the Section 82A review in response to reason for refusal No. 5 which has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and found to provide adequate finished levels for flood level clearances (see Section 6.2 below).

§ Increased traffic especially during construction.

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 10.3.2.4 of this report and are considered acceptable. Furthermore, standard conditions for construction management will be applied should approval be granted.

 

L & P Lum, 139 Botany Street, Randwick

 

§ Sanitary drainage runs through 80 Middle Street and access to boundary trap can only be accessed through 80 Middle Street. Applicant should relocate trap so that access to the trap can be easily gained for maintenance/ in case of blockage.

Comment: Condition requiring relocation of the boundary trap as requested will be applied should consent be granted.

§ Overshadowing of backyard and heritage listed property which has limited window openings

Comment: The overshadowing impacts to surrounding properties were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the rear yards of properties at Nos. 135 to 141 Botany Street (which includes the objector’s property) the assessment noted that “…some overshadowing during midwinter mornings will be experienced. However, as a minimum these properties will have usable areas of their rear yards in sun from 10am to 2pm midwinter thus complying with the minimum required under the DCP of 3 hours per day.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Increase vehicular traffic in Middle Street and Botany Street especially impact on emergency vehicles/services on Botany Street.

Comment: Traffic and Parking impacts have been discussed in Section 10.3.2.4 of this report and are considered acceptable.

§ Loss of privacy to backyard

Comment: The overlooking impacts to surrounding properties were addressed in the assessment of the original proposal as indicated in Section 10.3.2.3 below. Specifically, in relation to the rear yards of properties at Nos. 135 to 141 Botany Street (which includes the objector’s property), the assessment noted that “…only three west facing bathroom windows are provided at first floor level in the western elevations of Buildings B, C and D which face these rear yards. There are no west-facing windows in the attic level of this elevation. A condition will be applied requiring the bathroom windows in Building B (which faces the objectors’ property) and Building C to be obscurely glazed up to 1.7m above finished floor level.” This assessment remains valid and applicable to the amended proposal.

§ Increased security risk.

Comment: Density, character and security have been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents including those related to security.

§ Out of character with heritage conservation area.

Comment: Council’s heritage planner is generally satisfied with the heritage impact of the development, especially having regard to the design changes and additional details of colours and materials provided with the Section 82A application (refer to comments in Section 6.1).

 

S&M Kanapathipillai, 2/131A Botany Street, Randwick

 

§ Overlooking from 5 townhouses, balconies should be bricked up privacy screens are insufficient.

Comment: Privacy impacts are discussed in Section 10.3.2.3 of this report. The proposed privacy screens in the original proposal remain in the amended proposal and are considered adequate to prevent direct sightlines to 2/131A Botany Street. It should be noted that the last dwelling in Building D was deleted in the original proposal to prevent direct overlooking of the private open space of this dwelling.

§ Structural damage from basement in close proximity

Comment: A dilapidation report and standard conditions to ensure construction is undertaken in a proper and professional manner would be imposed on any consent.

§ Noise pollution from occupants

Comment: Council’s standard noise conditions for residential development would be  recommended on any consent. It is not considered that there would be undue noise from the occupants of the development.

§ Noise and vibration of plant in basement will cause structural damage

Comment: Council’s standard conditions with regard to operation of plant and equipment, noise and vibration emissions would be included on any consent.

§ Increased traffic impacts

Comment: Traffic impacts of the development have been considered under Section 10.3.2.4.

§ Heritage impact, inconsistent bulk and scale, balconies are inconsistent with style of surrounding buildings

Comment: Density, and the bulk and scale of the development has been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents and will not result in a development which is out of character with the surrounding 2A zone and Heritage Conservation Area. Council’s heritage planner has assessed the application and raises no objections to the proposal subject to conditions in any consent.

§ Existing use rights do not apply, houses have not been used by people associated with the stables

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

 


Y Sabbadini, 153 Arden Street, Coogee (owner 1/131A Botany Street)

 

§ Proposal exceeds size and scale of what could be considered as existing use

Comment: The site enjoys the benefit of existing use rights such that the EP & A Act allows for changes to, enlargement and intensification of the existing uses on the site.

§ Overlooking, noise pollution

Comment: Privacy impacts are discussed in Section 10.3.2.3 of this report. Standard noise conditions have been imposed.

§ Safety and security impacts

Comment: Safety and security have been discussed under Section 10.3.2.1 of this report.

§ Heritage impacts

Comment: Council’s heritage planner is generally satisfied with the heritage impact of the development, especially having regard to the design changes and additional details of colours and materials provided with the Section 82A application (refer to comments in Section 6.1).

 

R & D Stokes, 132 Barker Street, Randwick

 

§ Overlooking, our property is single storey and will be overlooked by development

Comment: The rear boundary of 132 Barker Street is approximately 12 metres from the rear boundary of the subject site and Building D is over 12 metres from the rear boundary of 132 Barker Street. There will be no overlooking impact to this property.

§ Bulk and scale is inconsistent with surrounding 2A zone

Comment: Density, and the bulk and scale of the development has been discussed throughout this report and the density will not result in significant amenity impacts to surrounding residents and will not result in a development which is out of character with the surrounding 2A zone and Heritage Conservation Area.

§ Heritage impacts

Comment: Council’s heritage planner is generally satisfied with the heritage impact of the development, especially having regard to the design changes and additional details of colours and materials provided with the Section 82A application (refer to comments in Section 6.1).

§ Safety during demolition, particularly with regard to asbestos

Comment: Standard conditions in accordance with Council’s Asbestos Policy would be included with any approval.

§ Traffic congestion

Comment: Traffic impacts have been discussed under Section 10.3.2.4 of this report.

§ Inaccurate and misleading proposal, dwelling and adjoining dwelling is single storey

Comment: The applicant’s information has not been relied upon in this assessment and a site inspection has been undertaken.

§ Security as a result of overlooking and public lane

Comment: As noted above, overlooking of this dwelling will not occur due to the significant separation distance. The laneway is one allotment to the east of this property and is unlikely to result in any significant security impact.

On 7 April 2006, a letter was received from the following residents raising concerns regarding the validity of Existing Use Rights for the subject site:

 

B. Pratt, 8 Jane Street, Randwick

A & J Bathgate, 50 Denison Street, Bondi Junction (owner of 82 Middle Street)

S Crossley, PO Box 4, St Paul’s (owner of 78 Middle Street)

V Howell 137 Botany Street, Randwick

S&M Kanapathipillai, 2/131A Botany Street, Randwick

L & P Lum, 139 Botany Street, Randwick

J Minary, 135 Botany Street, Randwick

A Conrecorde & C Walsh, 113 Middle Street Randwick

 

Comment: The validity of the existing use rights has been addressed through the applicant’s filing of appropriate evidence (affidavits and statutory declarations) with the Land and Environment Court. Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed that the site has the benefit of existing use rights.

 

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 Planners Comments

 

Council’s Heritage Planner advises that the previous comments applied to the original proposal are still applicable to the current amended proposal and these are as follows:

 

“The subject site is located to the rear of a number of properties facing Middle and Botany Streets, but with accesses to both streets, and is occupied by a number of stables buildings.  The site is within the Struggletown Conservation Area.  The cottage at no.139 Botany Road is listed as a heritage item, as well as cottages at nos.11 and 15 Jane Street, and nos.84 and 88 Middle Street.

 

The application proposes demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new residential development, of two levels and two levels with attic, over a basement carpark.  The proposal is to comprise five separate buildings, including one fronting Middle Street and one fronting Botany Street.  Following receipt of the original application, a number of concerns were raised and amended plans have now been received. 

 

The original application is accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Graham Brooks and Associates Pty Ltd.  The HIS provides a detailed history of the development of the site between 1860 and 1970, including detailed diagrams.  The history notes that the central area of the block bounded by Barker, Botany, Middle and Jane Streets was dissected by a stream that fed into Bird’s Gully to the south, and was originally used for the purpose of market gardens, and later for horse stabling, with cottages fronting the streets.  The central area of the subject site contains several stables buildings, including a U-shaped block built in 1884, and a smaller block built c.1890-1900, another built in 1924 and another built in 1941.  There is also a single story dwelling at no.133 Botany Street built in early 1960s and a two storey residential building at no.80 Middle Street apparently constructed in 1970.

 

The HIS notes that due to the earlier uses on the site, it is likely to have high archaeological potential.  In terms of grading of heritage significance, the HIS considers that the 1884 stables have high heritage significance in historical and social terms, providing a tangible link to the late nineteenth century social history of Struggletown with its important horse racing associations.  The 1890/1900 stables are considered by the HIS to have moderate significance, while the 1924 stable, the 1941 stable and the house at no.133 Middle Street have little significance and the house at no.80 Middle Street is intrusive.

 

The HIS argues that the condition and integrity of the stables buildings do not allow for their continued use of re-use as stables, as they cannot be upgraded to meet current standards; and that they cannot be adapted for a different use, due to their purpose-built nature.  The possibility of retention of a portion of the stables building has been investigated, but proved to be a major impediment to the development of the site.  A comprehensive interpretation program has therefore been developed, which has investigated a number of options.  These options are as follows:

 

Option 1- a written history

Option 2- incorporation of sections of old fabric in common areas

Option 3- development naming

Option 4- use of graphic material in marketing

Option 5- plaques and signage

Option 6- interpretative reconstruction of selected components

Option 7- partial in-situ retention of selected components

Option 8- landscaping plans

The HIS recommends a combination of Options 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8, with some elements of Option 5.

 

Given the difficulties of continued or resumed use of the building for horse stabling, there are no heritage objections to demolition of the stables building subject to archival recording and the implementation of an interpretation program which will allow the significance of the site to be understood by both residents of the site and the wider public.

 

The HIS considers that the demolition of the existing buildings fronting Middle and Botany Streets will not detract from the heritage significance of the Struggletown Conservation Area, or from heritage items in the vicinity.  The HIS argues that the scale, roof forms, materials and detailing of the proposal will be compatible with surrounding development, and that the main bulk of the development will be well set back from the street and less intrusive. 

 

There are no heritage objections to the demolition of the existing buildings fronting Middle Street and Botany Streets which are not considered to contribute to the heritage significance of the Struggletown Conservation Area.  Concerns were raised in relation to the original application that the proposed buildings fronting Middle Street and Botany Street would be incompatible with the predominant single storey scale of the conservation area.  ).  The two storey scale of the buildings which front the streets will be accentuated by their narrow footprint which is necessitated by the need for vehicular entrances and exit from the basement carpark.  It is noted that recent infill development replacing single storey cottages in the surrounding area including Jane and Middle Streets, have been designed to have upper level rooms contained within the roof form.  In relation to the proposed building fronting Middle Street, it is noted that the existing dwelling which is to be demolished and a number of dwellings in the immediate vicinity are of two storey scale.  There are no heritage objections to the two storey scale of the proposed building which is similar in form to the existing building on the site.  In relation to the proposed building fronting Botany Street, it is noted that the majority of buildings comprising nineteenth century cottages and Interwar and Post War detached and semi-detached cottages are of a single storey scale, either with hipped roofs (twentieth century dwellings) or gables to side elevations only (nineteenth century dwellings).  It is recommended that the proposed building fronting Botany Street be redesigned to reduce its scale to the street and to reduce its streetscape dominance.  Such redesign could take the form of a considerably reduced roof height for the front section of the building, to give the building a one and a half storey scale to the street with the upper level room was contained in the roof form; or for the upper level to be stepped back from the street so that the scale of the building was compatible with its single storey neighbours. (Comment: The applicant, as part of the Section 82A application, has amended the proposal appropriately as reflected in the response to reason for refusal No. 2.)

 

Concerns were raised in relation to the original application that the proposed development, comprising three bulky buildings in this central area of the site, would detract from the traditional development pattern on the site and in the surrounding area, which comprises closely spaced buildings defining the street edges and scattered outbuildings in the centre of the block.  It is noted however that the scale and bulk of the buildings in the central area of the site will not be prominent from the street.

 

There are no heritage objections to the modern design of the development which is appropriate to an infill development on a site of this size.  A materials and finishes board has been submitted in conjunction with the application, however there are concerns that the proposed materials and finishes comprising generally dark brickwork and dark metal wall cladding, will not be compatible with the predominately light coloured finishes of traditional stone or weatherboard buildings in the area.  An amended materials and finishes board is to be submitted. (Comment: The applicant has submitted a revised materials and finishes board as part of the Section 82A application and has been found satisfactory by the heritage planner).

 

Conditions should be included in any consent.”

 

6.2   Development Engineers Comments

 

The Development Engineer advises as follows:

 

“A section 82A review has been received for the above development application.

 

The subject development application is for construction of a multi-unit housing development at the above site containing 21 townhouses with associated strata subdivision. It is understood that the planning officer is not going to include approval for strata subdivision as part of this application. Consequently there are no strata subdivision conditions included in this report.

 

Subsequent to the original application being assessed, the applicant has submitted amended plans and an amended floodstudy.

 

The comments and conditions contained in this report are based on the following plans and details (note: the items in bold are amended plans and details):

 

§ Basement Floor Plan, DA010 (issue k), Job No. 05015 by Turner & Associates dated 15.12.05.

§ Ground Floor Plan, DA011 (issue k), Job No. 05015 by Turner & Associates dated 15.12.05.

§ Landscape Plan and Planting Schedule prepared by Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture, drawing number L01, project number 050623, sheet 1, Issue C, dated July 2005

§ Arboricultural Assessment Report prepared by Peter Richards of Tree and Landscape Consultants, reference number 519-1 06, dated 8 July 2005

§ Waste Management Plan dated 17 November 2005

§ Flood Report by Henry & Hymas Civil and Structural Engineers, Revision 2, dated July 2005 and received by Council on the 23 December 2005

§ Review of Flood Report by Brown Consulting (X05232) dated 17 January 2006.

 

Landscape Comments

The following landscape comments were received from Council’s Landscape Development Officer:

 

There are a total 23 trees which may be directly affected by this application.

 

Supplementary documentation in the form of an Arboricultural Assessment Report prepared by Peter Richards of Tree and Landscape Consultants, reference number 519-1 06, dated 8th July 2005 and stamped received at Council on 15th July 2005 (referred to as ‘the Arborist Report’ in this memo) has been received; however, neither the Arborists Report or the Landscape Plan and Planting Schedule prepared by Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture, drawing number L01, project number 050623, sheet 1, Issue C, dated July 2005 and stamped received at Council on 15th July 2005 have been updated to reflect the changes made to the architectural plans, and therefore, a revised landscape plan will be required prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Along the eastern boundary, off the Middle Street frontage, there are a total of eight (8) Syagrus romanzoffianum (Cocos Palms, tree’s 8-14 & 23 in the Arborists Report). All these palms are around 12 metres in height and have been shown for removal on the plans provided.

 

Approval is not required for the removal of this species as they are no longer covered by the revised Tree Preservation Order; however, consent has still been included in this report for the applicant’s information.

 

In this same area, adjacent the southeast corner of the existing 2 storey brick stables building, there is one large and prominent Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda, Tree 17) of approximately 17 metres in height and 9 metres in width which appears in reasonable condition and is of a scale covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

Although deemed a reasonably significant example of the species which contributes to the amenity of this site and surrounding properties, it will not be physically possible to retain this tree and proceed with demolition of the existing structures or construction of the basement as shown, and as such, approval has been granted for its removal on the basis that advanced replacements will be provided in this specific area of the site in order to directly compensate for the loss of established canopy cover.

 

It should also be noted that Council’s revised Tree Preservation Order states that where a tree is located within 2 metres of an existing building structure, as is the case with this tree, consent is no longer required for its removal; however, permission has still been provided in this report for clarity purposes.

 

In the rear yards of adjoining properties to the east, 4 and 6 Jane Street, there is a row of five (5) Cupressus sempervirens (Italian Cypress, Trees 3-7) of approximately 10-12 metres in height, as well as one Persea americanna (Avocado Tree, tree 15) and one Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gum, Tree 16) both of about 6 metres in height. All seven (7) of these trees are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

These trees are sited at such a distance from the basement carpark that they would remain unaffected, with the only works to be undertaken in close proximity being construction of a new concrete footpath and nature strip along the length of laneway. Therefore, the implementation of only minimal protection measures is considered necessary.

 

Within the existing central grassed courtyard, there is a total of five (5) Archontophoenix alexandrae (Alexander Palms, tree 18-22) of between 5-8 metres in height which appear in reasonable condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

The proposed excavated basement completely encompasses this area of the site, and as it would not be possible to retain these palms in their current location, the Arborist has recommended that they be transplanted elsewhere within the site for incorporation into the landscape scheme as existing/advanced specimens. 

 

This initiative is supported as it is deemed reasonable (given the size and quantity of trees to be removed from the site to accommodate the proposed works), as well as feasible, given the resilience of this species to the effects of excavation/construction. As such, conditions have been included in this report requiring the submission of more detailed information regarding the transplant technique and aftercare prior to the commencement work.

 

Towards the western portion of the site, in the rear yard of 133 Middle Street, there is one Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box, Tree 2) of approximately 10 metres in height which appears in reasonable condition, is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and has been listed for removal on the plans and in the Arborists Report in order to accommodate the excavated basement level as shown.

 

This tree is setback at such a distance from the Botany Street frontage that only a very minimal loss of amenity would result from removal of the Brush Box. It is considered that a redesign to ensure its retention not justified given that it is not deemed an overly significant specimen as well as the fact that replacement plantings could achieve a reasonable size and level of amenity within a relatively short period of time. As such, approval has been granted for the removal of this tree.

 

On Council’s Botany Street nature strip, there is one Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box, Tree 1) of approximately 6 metres in height which is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order as it is located on public property, however, it appears in average condition due to the effects of heavy topping and lopping around overhead wires by service authorities over a protracted period of time.

 

This tree forms part of an established avenue of this species on both sides of Botany Street which is believed to have been in place for around 20 years, and is the first and only tree in this immediate area when entering from the north.

 

It is understood that the plans have already been amended several times in order to appease a variety of concerns relating to building design, amenity and objections from neighbouring properties, with this current issue showing the provision of a 1140mm wide pedestrian entrance path against the southern boundary, with a 3400mm wide vehicle entrance (at the property boundary) adjacent to the paths northern edge.

 

Excavations for the cross over on the nature strip (opposite the proposed driveway) would involve the removal of about 40% of its root plate including fine feeder roots required for air, moisture and nutrient uptake, as well as woody roots which are necessary for stability and anchorage.

 

Removal of this amount of root material would directly increase the threat of part or full tree failure due to the decline in health and condition that would be experienced, and would undermine Council’s duty of care as it is not in the best interests of the long term management of the tree.

 

The feasibility of ‘swapping’ the location of the proposed vehicle entrance and pedestrian path in an attempt to increase the distance between its trunk and any excavations to minimize root disturbance was explored; however, it is understood that this will not be feasible given the requirement to provide a direct pedestrian path providing access to the rear portion of the site.

 

The use of a pier and beam style/cantilevered slab for the section of driveway over the nature strip was also investigated; however, this construction method would still require significant excavations into the root plate of the tree.

 

Despite being a relatively poor example of the species, retention is still considered the most desirable course of action due to the avenue effect which exists in this street; however, due to the layout required for the ground floor level and the lack of available room or other options, retention will not be feasible.

 

It is likely that this tree will decline in the foreseeable future due to the cumulative effects of the heavy pruning regime employed by service authorities, and therefore, regrettably, a condition has been included in this report granting consent for its removal, with the applicant required to cover Council’s costs for removal, replacement and loss of amenity from the streetscape.

 

 

Flooding Comments

The Planning Officer is advised that the subject site is located adjacent to a council stormwater drainage line and may be subject to stormwater inundation during major storm events.

 

An amended flood study by Henry and Hymas Civil and Structural Engineers, was submitted to Council on the 23 December 2005. This floodstudy was subsequently referred to Brown Consulting for independent review. Brown Consulting concluded that:

 

‘The levels established in the Henry and Hymas flood report are generally reasonable, but rely on many assumptions that are difficult to verify. This uncertainty should be considered in setting freeboards’.

 

The flood levels determined in the Henry and Hymas report are as follows:

 

§ Botany Street – Northern property boundary: RL 44.03 (AHD)

§ Botany Street – Southern property boundary: RL 43.86 (AHD)

§ Botany Street – Northern side of vehicular access: RL 43.95 (AHD)

§ Middle Street – Along site frontage: RL 42.15 (AHD)

§ Easement – adjacent to Block D: RL 42.99-42.85 (AHD)

§ Easement – adjacent to Block C: RL 42.70-42.54 (AHD)

§ Easement – adjacent to Block B: RL 42.39-42.26 (AHD)

§ Easement – adjacent to Block A: RL 42.15 (AHD)

 

Given the uncertainties in the determined flood levels (refer to review by Brown Consulting) combined with the high flow velocities (generally in excess of 1.5 m/s) it is considered that the freeboards should be increased from 300mm to 450mm for all ground floor levels; and from 150mm to 300mm for the driveway entrance points. The minimal freeboards of 300mm and 150mm are considered inappropriate given the assumptions/uncertainties in the study and the high flow velocities.

 

The submitted plans show the following floor levels and driveway high points:

 

§ Block A: RL 42.54 (390 mm above flood level)

§ Block B: RL 43.00 (610 mm above flood level)

§ Block C: RL 43.30 (600 mm above flood level)

§ Block D: RL 43.60 (610 mm above flood level)

§ Block E: RL 44.33 (300 mm above flood level)

§ Driveway high point off Middle Street: RL 42.30 (150 mm above flood level)

§ Driveway high point off Botany Street: RL 44.18 (230 mm above flood level)

 

 

Consequently the highpoint in the driveway off Middle Street shall be raised by 150mm to RL 42.45 (AHD) and the high point in the driveway off Botany Street shall be raised 70 mm to RL 44.25 (AHD). Further the floor level of Block A shall be raised by 60mm to RL 42.60 (AHD) and the floor level of block E shall be raised by 150mm to RL 44.48 (AHD). All other floor levels are considered to be satisfactory based on the flood study by Henry and Hymas Consulting Engineers.

 

To address the flooding issues on the site the following deferred commencement condition has been included in this report:

 

Prior to this consent becoming operational, the applicant shall submit amended plans showing:

 

§  The high point in the driveway off Middle Street being raised by 150mm to RL 42.45 (AHD);

§  The high point in the driveway off Botany Street being raised by 70 mm to RL 44.25 (AHD);

§  The floor level of Block A being raised by 60mm to RL 42.60 (AHD); and

§  The floor level of block E being raised by 150mm to RL 44.48 (AHD).

 

The above deferred commencement condition may be deleted if amended plans addressing the issue are received prior to development approval being granted:

 

 

Comments regarding works in Council’s unformed laneway

As detailed above the subject site is located adjacent to a Council stormwater drainage line. The stormwater line is located within a variable width laneway located adjacent to the eastern property boundary.

 

Whilst the laneway extends all the way from Barker Street to Middle Street, it is unformed and contains numerous obstructions (such as fences and sheds).

 

The submitted plans show a new footpath being constructed through the laneway to facilitate pedestrian access to the townhouses. Council Assets Engineers have reviewed the proposal and do not object in principal to the applicant upgrading the laneway for pedestrian use, provided that the following requirements are complied with:

 

1.         The footpath constructed over the laneway is to be concrete and constructed in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works";

2.         The footpath constructed over the laneway is to match the level of the footpath in Middle Street (at the Middle Street alignment) as well as the alignment levels of the adjacent properties to the east and west of the laneway;

3.         The laneway shall be contoured to direct overland flows through to Middle Street;

4.         No landscaping shall be provided in Council’s laneway. Any landscaping proposed adjacent to the laneway will require approval from Council to ensure that the species selected will not result in root damage to either the proposed footpath or the existing stormwater drainage line;

5.         Suitable lighting shall be provided within the laneway.

6.         No fencing shall be installed across the laneway at either the northern boundary of 133 Botany Street or the eastern boundary of 80 Middle Street, as the laneway is to remain clear and unobstructed for public access.

 

With regard to item 5 above it is noted that appropriate lighting of the laneway must be provided from within the subject development site. The following condition has been included in this report to address the issue of lighting the laneway:

 

Details of the proposal method for lighting the laneway shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to the issuing of a construction certificate. It is noted that the lighting must be provided from within the subject development site and must not cause lightspill into adjoining properties.

 

Further to the above comments regarding use of the laneway for pedestrian access, it is noted that the development engineer raises some concerns regarding pedestrian safety within the laneway. It is understood that the application has been referred to the police for a crime risk assessment. The planning officer should ensure that any comments received from the police (particularly with regard pedestrian safety in the public laneway) are incorporated into the approval.

 

There shall be no encroachment of any portion of the development into the laneway. 

 

Comments regarding protection of Council’s pipeline

Prior to the issue of a construction Certificate, the applicant shall engage a suitably qualified surveyor to accurately locate the drainage line located adjacent to the eastern site boundary.  The following details shall be submitted to Council:

 

(i)         The drainage line location and the offset distance/clearance from the outside edge of the drainage line to the proposed development; and

 

(ii)        The invert levels of the drainage line.

 

The footings of any structures located adjacent to the stormwater drainage line burdening the site shall be founded on rock, or, extended below a 30 degree line taken from the pipe invert level at the edge of the laneway (‘angle of repose’). The building works must be inspected by the applicant's engineer to ensure that these footings extend below the ‘angle of repose’ and documentary evidence of compliance is to be submitted to Council, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction.

 

The applicant shall provide details of how it is proposed to fully protect and maintain Council’s drainage line during all excavation and construction works. The details shall be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer and shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

The pipeline located within the laneway adjacent to the eastern site boundary shall be fully protected during all excavation and construction works. There shall be no movement of construction equipment, nor the storage of any material on the laneway.

 

Prior to the commencement of work on the site, the applicant shall submit to Council’s Director of City Services a CCTV survey of the pipeline located within the laneway adjacent to the eastern site boundary. The CCTV survey shall inspect the stormwater pipe for any pre-existing damage.

 

Upon completion of all construction works, the applicant shall undertake another CCTV survey of the pipeline to determine if the pipeline has been damaged during work on the site. The second CCTV shall be submitted to Director of City Services for approval prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

 

Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall meet the full cost for repairing/replacing any sections of the pipeline that are damaged by works on the site.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

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

 

Service Authority Comments

At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8th November 2005, Council resolved that:

 

(a)     the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million;

 

(b)     the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with Aerial Bundled Cables in the vicinity of the development site, when the cost of works on the site exceeds $1 million up to $2 million; and

 

(c)     the Director, City Planning investigate the feasibility of funding the undergrounding of existing overhead cables for new development under the new options provided for in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (Developer Contributions) Act 2005.

 

Given that the cost of works is approximately $5 million, the applicant shall be required to meet the full cost for undergrounding cables in the vicinity of the development site. A condition regarding this matter has been included in this report.

 

The applicant shall meet the full cost for Energy Australia to relocate/remove the power pole located immediately adjacent to the western side of the proposed vehicular crossing in Middle Street prior to construction of the new vehicular crossing.

 

Alignment Level Comments

The alignment levels at the property boundary in Middle Street and Botany Street should match the back of the existing footpath. Consequently, the alignment levels shown on the submitted plans are too high and should be reduced as detailed below:

 

§ Alignment level at the vehicular exit in Middle Street – Reduced from RL 41.85 (AHD) to RL 41.78 (AHD)

§ Alignment level at the vehicular entry in Botany Street – Reduced from RL 43.80 (AHD) to RL 43.72 (AHD)

 

Note: These levels are based on the submitted survey plan (24057DT)

 

Driveway Grade Comments

The access ramps into the property will need to be modified to suit the alignment levels (detailed above) and provide the required high points (refer to flooding comments).

 

The following deferred commencement condition has been included in this report and may be deleted if amended plans addressing the issue are received prior to development approval being granted:

 

Prior to this consent becoming operational the applicant shall submit for approval, and have approved by Council, amended plans and longitudinal sections through the both the ingress and egress driveways showing:

 

§ Compliance with the issued alignment levels at the property boundary (i.e. RL 41.78 (AHD) at the Middle Street vehicular exit point and RL 43.72 (AHD) at the Botany Street vehicular entry point);

§ Compliance with the required internal driveway high points (i.e. RL 42.45 (AHD) along the Middle Street driveway and RL 44.25 (AHD) along the Botany Street driveway);

§ Satisfactory ramp grades and transitions in accordance with the requirements of AS 2890.1 (2004); and

§ Satisfactory headroom/height clearances over the access ramps in accordance with the requirements of AS 2890.1 (2004).

 

The sections shall be checked and certified by a suitably qualified traffic engineer and a copy of the certification shall be submitted to Council with the amended plans.

 

Traffic / Parking Comments

The Planning Officer should ensure the proposed parking provisions and internal carpark layout are satisfactory.

 

Council generally requires all new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings being 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. However, as the driveway in Botany Street is to be a one-way entry crossing, the requirement for splays on this crossing may be waived.

 

All new walls adjacent to the driveway opening at the Middle Street frontage (which is to be the exit point for the development) must be lowered to a height of 600mm and/or splayed 1.5 m x 1.5 m as detailed above.

 

The vehicular entry and exit driveways shall be designed in accordance with the requirements of AS 2890.1 (2004) and shall have a minimum clear width of 3 metres.

 

Waste Comments

Council generally requires developments containing more than 20 units to provide chute fed compactor systems to reduce the number of residential garbage bins by half. Whilst the subject development contains 21 units, it is noted that the units are provide in a town house style of development with no common cores. Consequently the provision of a garbage chute would be very difficult.

 

Given the above, it is considered that the requirement for a chute fed compactor system may be waived in this instance. Consequently, the garbage storage areas shall be sized to contain a total of 11 x 240 litre garbage bins and 11 x 240 litre recycling bins (whilst maintaining satisfactory access to all bins). The submitted plans demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

The submitted plans show ramps grades of up to 1 in 4. These grades are too steep to facilitate manual wheeling of the bins from the basement up to the kerbside for collection. Council’s development engineer recommended that provision be made for moving full bins up to the kerb using a mechanical bin mover or similar attached to the side of the driveway, however, the applicant has indicated (refer to the submitted waste management plan dated 17 November 2005) that they would prefer to attach a positive covenant to the title of the property noting that the transfer of bins from the basement to the to the kerb for weekly collection is the responsibility of the owners corporation and that such a transfer will be undertaken by an appropriately dimensioned vehicle.

 

Consequently, the following condition has been included in this report:

 

Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate, a positive covenant shall be registered on the title of the subject property stating that the owners corporation will be responsible for ensuring that all full bins are safely transferred from the basement to the kerbside for collection each week using an appropriately dimensioned vehicle. The method of moving bins up the steep driveway ramps shall be in general accordance with the details contained in the letter from Bell Star Group dated 17 November 2005.

 

Groundwater Comments

The applicant has submitted a preliminary geotechnical assessment by Argus Australia dated August 2005. The report states that two bore holes were drilled with rock being located at depths of 3 metres and 3.6 metres. The applicant’s consultant noted that groundwater was not encountered in either of the boreholes. Given the proposed basement extends to only 2.4 metres below the existing ground level, the application does not require referral to the Department of Natural Resources as integrated development.

 

Should the application be approved the following deferred commencement conditions shall be complied with prior to the consent becoming operational:”

 

6.3       Manager, Environmental Health Comments

 

The Manager, Environmental Health and Building has provided the following comments in relation to the original development application (which remain valid and applicable to the amended proposal):

 

6.3.1           Environmental Health Comments

 

“The proposal

 

The proposed development involves the following:

 

§  Demolition of all existing structures on the site;

§  Construction of a multi – unit housing development comprising twenty – four (24) dwellings, predominantly in the form of two (2) storey or two (2) storey plus attic townhouses; and

§  Shared basement parking for thirty – six (36) vehicles.

 

Key Issues

 

Land Contamination

 

A preliminary site contamination investigation report was requested to be submitted as part of an additional information request. Subsequently, a preliminary investigation report prepared by Aargus Pty Ltd dated September 2005 was submitted. In summary, the report states that, ‘the site is considered suitable for the proposed residential development.

 

It is therefore considered that standard conditions in relation to land contamination should therefore be attached to the consent.

 

Acoustics

 

It is considered that the proposed development will have a minimal impact on the surrounding residential premises and therefore standard conditions should be attached to the consent.

 

Asbestos

 

The preliminary investigation report submitted with the application reveals that some forms of asbestos are located on the site. It is therefore considered that standard conditions in relation to the removal of asbestos are to be attached by the Assessing Planning Officer.

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

6.3.2           Building Comments

 

“The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing dwellings and construction of a new 2 and 3 storey Multi Unit Housing residential development containing 24 sole occupancy units and a basement carpark..

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class -        2       (Residential Units)

Class -        7a     (Carpark)

 

Background

 

The existing buildings on site are post war brick and timber frame cottages with stables bounded by buildings of a similar nature.

 

Key Issues

 

Noise:

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

 

Site Management:

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

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Access for people with a disability:

1               Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1 and Council’s development control plan for multi-     unit housing to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.  Details of the proposed access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

Conclusion

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

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

 

(Comment: Conditions suggested by the Manager, Environmental Health and Building have been included in the Recommendation section of this report).

 

7.       MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area (1,709m2) is less than that required for the submission of a master plan under Clause 40A of Randwick LEP 1998.

 

8.       RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The Section 82A review application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

8.1         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2(a) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP) and the proposed activity (multi-unit housing) is prohibited within the zone. Despite this prohibition, the site enjoys the benefit of existing use rights as an “animal establishment” and that this use has not been abandoned as indicated in the evidence filed by the applicant to the Land and Environment Court and reviewed by Council’s solicitor.

 

It should be noted that on 29 March 2006, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Existing Uses) Regulation 2006 was gazetted so that, amongst other things, an existing use can no longer be changed to another prohibited use. The amending Regulation also contains savings and transitional provisions which essentially protect the rights provided for under Sections 106 to 108 of the EP&A Act for an existing use that is the subject of an application for development consent made before the commencement of the amending Regulation. Accordingly, and notwithstanding the provisions of the EP&A Amendment (Existing Uses) Regulation 2006, the subject site still enjoys the benefits of existing use rights as provided for in Sections 106 to 108 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, provisions in the Act which remain unchanged.

 

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

The relevant objectives of the 2(a) zone are as follows:

 

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

 

The following clauses of the RLEP have been considered during the assessment of the proposal:

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

(Original Proposal)

Provided

(Amended Proposal)

Compliance

31(1) - Landscaped Area

40% of site area (or 856m2)

53% or 1,154m2

53% or 1,154m2

Yes

31(3) – Landscaped Area over Basement

Less than 50% of landscape  area requirement

(428m2)

53% or 1,154m2

53% or 1,154m2

No, however proposal meets intent of standard as 26% of site area is soft landscaping

32 - FSR

0.5:1 (1,070m2)

0.87:1 (1,862.18 m2)

0.85:1 (1,832.18 m2)

No

33(1) – Building Height

9.5m max. overall

9m max.

9m max.

Yes

33(3) – External Wall Height

7m max. wall height

6m max

6m max

Yes

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Applies

Comment

21

Strata Subdivision

Yes

Yes

Strata plans not submitted to Council for assessment.

43

Heritage Item or Conservation Area

Yes

Yes

See Heritage Planners assessment in Section 6.3

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

Yes

Yes

See Heritage Planners assessment in Section 6.3

 

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

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated in the consideration of development applications. As the site has been used to house animals, a preliminary Environmental Site Assessment report was submitted to Council’s Environmental Health department. Council’s Environmental Health officer has reviewed the submitted material and indicated that the site is suitable for the proposed residential use, subject to conditions of consent.

 

Council has carefully considered the issue of contamination, proposed appropriate conditions and fulfilled its obligations under SEPP 55.

 

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

 

The original proposal was subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings and the proposal was referred to the Design Review Panel in October 2005. Amended plans were further referred to the Panel in December 2005 responding to the Panel’s comments. The amended proposal still incorporates and retains the Panel’s comments and recommendations and accordingly the proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to SEPP 65 and the principles of good design.

 

9.         POLICY CONTROLS

 

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

 

§  DCP – Parking 1998

§  Section 94 Contributions Plan

§  Contaminated Land Policy 1999

§  Rainwater Tank Policy 2003

 

Council’s Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP does not apply to the proposal (which is multi-unit housing). The Multi-Unit Housing DCP only applies to development within the 2(b) and 2(c) zone and therefore is not applicable to the subject site, which is zoned 2(a). Notwithstanding this, relevant provisions of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP have been applied as a guide in assessing the DA.

 

10.     ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

10.1   Statutory Controls – S79C(1)(a)

 

10.1.1              Section 82A Review

 

The applicant advises that the Section 82A application seeks to amend the original proposal so as to address Council’s reasons for refusal of the original DA and that, in doing so, the amended development will be substantially the same as that proposed in the original application. The merits of the applicant’s response/amendments are addressed as follows:

 

Reason for refusal No. 1

 

“1.    The proposed development of the site for multi-unit housing is prohibited within the 2(a) zone of RLEP 1998, and ‘existing-use-rights’ have not been established.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The issue of Existing Use Rights (EUR) is currently under discussion between the legal representatives acting on behalf of both Council and the Applicant. We believe that this issue can be appropriately resolved, such that Council is satisfied that the site has the benefit of EUR.”

 

Comment:  The existing use on 80 Middle Street and 133 Botany Street, being the horse stables, was lawfully commenced as indicated in the development consents granted for both sites (see Section 4 above). On 10 March 2006, the applicant filed a number of affidavits and statutory declarations with the Land and Environment Court as evidence that the  existing use rights had not been abandoned. The evidence comprises the following:

 

§ Affidavit of Mr Norrie Bathis, the owner of No. 80 Middle Street, with attached rental statements from previous renters of No. 133 Botany Street obtained from PRD Nationwide Wills Bros.

 

§ Affidavit of Mr Matthew Bathis, the son of Mr Norrie Bathis, asserting the use of the stables, as a rest point for horses between journeys, associated with the business of horse transporting.

 

§ Affidavit of Mr Timothy Michael O’Riordan, a tenant at No. 80 Middle Street, asserting the stabling of ponies on the site.

 

§ Affidavit of Mr Geoff Allan Borger, Race Horse Trainer previously renting at No. 133 Botany Street, asserting the stabling of horses at the premises on a continual basis throughout the rental period.

 

Council’s solicitor has reviewed this evidence and advised that the applicant’s claim has merit and confirmed the site has the benefit of existing use rights. Accordingly, the applicant has adequately and satisfactorily addressed the reason for refusal No. 1.

 

Reason for refusal No. 2

 

“2.    The proposed development has not minimised its impact in terms of overlooking of adjoining properties and dwellings within the development. In particular, the north facing balcony to Unit A.03 and the south-facing balconies at first floor level of Building E and design of the southern elevation to the first floor of Building E. These impacts could be addressed by conditions of consent deleting balconies and providing obscure glazing.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The following amendments have been made to the proposal in order to address this reason for refusal:

 

·          dwelling A.03 has been reconfigured by relocating the north-facing balcony to within the external envelope, to minimise opportunities for overlooking into No. 78 Middle Street;

·          a 1m wide awning has been provided over the north-facing terrace to dwelling A.01 to minimise opportunities for overlooking;

·          opaque glazing has been provided to the following windows:

o Building A stairwell window;

o B.05 Bathroom window;

o C.06 Bathroom window;

o E.01 stair window; and

o E.02 stair window.

·          the south-facing balconies to dwellings E.01 and E.02 have been deleted to minimise opportunities for overlooking into No. 135 Botany Street.”

 

Comment: The above-listed changes have been verified in the Section 82A plans and the following assessment is made:

 

1.         The north-facing balcony to dwelling unit A.03 has been effectively partially recessed within the envelope of the dwelling unit and the envelope extended to enclose the sides of the proposed balcony. This partial recessing and enclosing of the subject balcony represents a significant improvement (in terms of minimising overlooking of adjoining properties at 78 and 82 Middle Street) over the projecting balcony in the original proposal. Accordingly, objections from the owners of No. 78 and 82 Middle Street concerning overlooking from this balcony have been adequately addressed in that the recessed and enclosed nature of the amended balcony will minimise overlooking into their respective backyards.

 

2.       The use of opaque glazing will assist in minimising potential overlooking from the stairwells, stair and bathroom areas of the applicable dwelling units in Buildings A, B C and E, although the degree of overlooking from these areas would have been minor in any case given that these are not living areas.

 

3.         The deletion of the proposed south facing balconies to dwellings E.01 and E.02 will eliminate the potential overlooking impacts from these balconies onto the adjoining southern property.

 

The amendments as listed above have adequately and satisfactorily addressed the reason for refusal No. 2.

 

Reason for refusal No. 3

 

“3.    The scale of the proposed building fronting Botany Street is incompatible with directly adjoining buildings and should be reduced to minimise its streetscape dominance. This impact could be satisfactorily addressed by redesign and a reduced roof height for the front section of the building, to give the building a one and a half storey scale to the street with the upper level contained in the roof form; or for the upper level to be stepped back from the street so that the scale of the building was compatible with its single storey neighbours. A skillion roof form may also be considered over the basement parking and driveway on the southern side of this building to be more compatible with the surrounding residential forms.”

 

The applicant responds as follows: “The proposal has been amended to address this reason for refusal. In particular, the front setback of the upper level of dwelling E.02 has been increased by 1.92m and a terrace has been pr