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

 

3rd October, 2006

 

 

HEALTH, BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A HEALTH BUILDING AND PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 10TH OCTOBER, 2006 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

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

 

Quorum:                                      Eight (8) members.

 

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

 

 

1           Apologies/Granting of leave of absences

 

2           Confirmation of the Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEALTH, BUILDING & PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2006.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addressing of Committee by Members of the Public

 

5           Urgent Business

 

6           Development Applications

 

6.1                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT

14, 14A, 16 AND 18 FRANCES STREET, RANDWICK.

2

 

6.2                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

18 ZIONS AVENUE, MALABAR.

92

 

6.3                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

33 ARCADIA STREET, COOGEE.

99

 

6.4                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

291 DARLEY ROAD, RANDWICK.

115

.

6.5                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

145-149S FRANKLIN STREET, MATRAVILLE.

123

 

6.6                        

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

2 WINKURRA STREET, KENSINGTON.

149

 

6.7                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

96-98 ST PAULS STREET, RANDWICK.

177

 

6.8                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

41 FRENCH STREET, MAROUBRA.

203

 

6.9                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

200-210 ARDEN STREET, COOGEE.

214

 

6.10                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

552 BUNNERONG ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

227

 

6.11                      

DIRECTOR CITY PLANNING REPORT 89/2006 –

31 SACKVILLE STREET, MAROUBRA.

240

 

 

7           Miscellaneous

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 90/2006 - COOGEE SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT – LICENSED PREMISES.

255

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 91/2006 - PROPOSED COMMUNITY/AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT ON COUNCIL-OWNED SITE, 64-66 MINNEAPOLIS CRESCENT, MAROUBRA.

258

 

 

8           Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

9           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

……………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

16 August, 2006

FILE NO:

D/466/2006

 

PROPOSAL:

 Staged development including the refurbishment of  the existing heritage items, new basement car park and  Torrens title subdivision into three lots and the construction of a multi-unit housing development at the rear containing 12x 3 bedroom dwellings including strata subdivision. into 12 lots.

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROPERTY:

 14, 14A, 16 and 18 Frances Street, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Barua Pty Ltd

OWNER:

Trustees of the Daughters of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart & Barua P/L

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Health Building Planning Committee meeting as the cost of work is over $2million; construction cost is estimated at $4.7 million.

 

The proposal is for a staged development (two parts) which comprise of;

 

Stage One – involves the refurbishment of the existing heritage listed dwellings at No.s 16 and 18 Frances Street, the construction of a new basement car park for the whole development with access off Kelso Lane at the rear and the Torrens title subdivision of the site into three allotments.

 

Stage Two – involves the construction of a two storey multi-unit housing development at the rear involving the erection of 12 x 3 bedroom attached dwellings with roof top terraces including a common pedestrian access corridor (communal space) off Frances Street and associated landscaping.

 

Council has received a total of 25 objections including a petition with 12 signatories. The submissions have come mainly from the residents living on Cowper Street, Kelso Court, Cook Street and  The Avenue. Their main concern is the generation of additional traffic onto Kelso Lane and associated streets by the development . Other concerns relate to amenity issues  such as overlooking and overshadowing by the rear multi-unit development and also safety and garbage removal.

 

Council has received four letters of support from some residents living on Frances Street who are satisfied with the access being off the rear and believe the proposal to retain and refurbish the Heritage Items, with the new development at the rear is well planned and will not compromise the amenity of the Frances Street streetscape. The letters also acknowledged and understood the concerns raised by the objectors living at the north of the site.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is a staged development in two parts.

 

Stage one involves;

·    The demolition of some unsympathetic central additions and refurbishment of the two heritage properties at No.16 Frances Street (known as “Wirringulla”) and No.18 Frances Street (known as “Ballarat”).

·    A new driveway entry from Kelso Lane which provides access to a partially below ground car park with provision for 30 car parking spaces.

·    The demolition and reconstruction (after completion of the semi-basement car park) of the brick outbuilding/garage at the rear of  No.14 Frances Street for an easement to be provided over part of No.14 to facilitate access to the subject development site.

·    Subdivision of the site into three allotments. Each heritage listed property No.16 and No.18 will be located on their own Torrens title allotment with the third allotment at the rear  which includes a central pedestrian access corridor with frontage off Frances Street.

 

Stage two involves;

·    The construction of 12 x 3 bedroom attached dwellings with rooftop terrace areas.

·    The dwellings are orientated east/west face a central and communal pedestrian entryway which will have main access off Frances Street. Six dwellings will be sited along the western side of the site and six dwellings are sited along the eastern side of the site.

 

The assessment of the application will be constructed in two parts – Part one relating to stage one and Part Two relating to stage two as the development is staged and each component relies on assessing the proposal against different planning controls and provisions. The conditions of consent have also been staged for easier interpretation in assessing the construction certificate and will be easier when constructing the development.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Frances Street between Cook Street to the west and The Avenue to the east. The site is identified as two allotments being 16 Frances Street known as Lot 1 in DP 924463 and 18 Frances Street known as Lot 3 in DP 660489 and also encompasses 14 Frances Street known as Lot 1 in DP 926313 in so far as it relates to an easement across a small rear section of the  rear of the site to help facilitate access to the carpark. The main site has a frontage of 52.405m to Frances street, eastern and western side boundary frontages of 74.425m and 74.21m respectively. The total site area comprises of 3,898sqm.

 

Figure 2: subject site

 

Currently on site exists two heritage listed dwelling houses both grand Federation style mansions constructed around 1907. No.16 Frances Street is known as “Wirringulla” and 18 Frances Street known as “Ballarat”. Although both properties are well intact and preserved there have been some unsympathetic additions mainly constructed to the rear and central section of both properties. These additions occurred circa 1930 and also around and after 1965. The proposal aims to remove these non-traditional elements and restore the dwellings as closely as possible to their original state. The site also includes a large Morton Bay Fig Tree (about 13m in height) at the front which is an important streetscape feature, which will be retained.

 

Immediately to the west of the site is No.14 Frances Street which is a Victorian mansion still owned by the Sisters of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart. This property is also heritage listed and forms an integrated and consistent row of heritage properties along with 16 and 18 Frances street. Immediately adjoining to the east are single storey cottages along Frances street and also approximately 3 blocks of three to four storey walk up residential flat buildings that abut the eastern boundary of the subject site but have their frontage to The Avenue namely 11, 15 and 17 The Avenue. To the north is a three storey multi-unit development known as “Kelso Court”. To the south are Alison Park and a Child care centre. The subject site is located within the St Judes Heritage Conservation Area.

 

The site is located within close proximity to the Randwick commercial centre and also close to Centennial Park. The immediately adjacent area is characterised by a variety of dwelling types and styles including three storey multi-unit housing, single and two storey freestanding dwelling houses and is within close proximity to Randwick Bowling Club and greens, Randwick Public School, Randwick Town Hall and Council chambers.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY/APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Prelodgement:

 

PL 29/2006 – On the 26 May 2006 the applicant submitted a prelodgement application which proposed to restore the existing heritage items and construct a new multi-unit development at the rear with basement carparking and vehicular access off Kelso Lane. The main issues raised in the meeting and subsequent advice related to the non-compliances with side setbacks, landscaped area and the rear setback. The advice encouraged more landscaping and greenery at the rear of the property to break up the bulk. Also the potential privacy impacts that could be generated from the rooftop terraces were also suggested to be given greater consideration.

 

The development application was lodged on 20 June 2006 and was essentially the same design and scheme was proposed as the prelodgement apart from some design adjustments made to the rear façade of the building and a reduction in the length of the rear wall to reduce amenity impacts to the property at the rear known as “Kelso Court”.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised and a sign included on site for a period of 14 days in accordance with Council’s statutory obligations under the Development Control Plan for Notification and Advertising.

5.1     Objections

 

 

Objector

 

Issues raised

1

Mr C Richards

1 Cook Street

Randwick

·      Access inappropriate off Kelso Lane, better off Frances Street.

·      Laneway narrow and increase of a further 30 vehicles will cause adverse traffic impacts.

·      Garbage removal from Kelso lane may also become a problem

2

George and Maria Passas

3 Cook Street

Randwick

·      Traffic and congestion off Kelso lane.

·      Laneway not conducive to additional traffic as proposed.

·      Kelso lane is a “dead end” which attracts children and the residents to congregate and creates a community atmosphere.

·      Traffic problems are currently experienced at the corner of Cowper and Kelso Lane.

·      Frances street is a wider avenue and will provide better and safer access.

·      Traffic congestion currently experienced in the immediate vicinity of the site.

·      Need for a detailed and comprehensive Traffic Management Plan.

·      Potential affect on services and utilities along the lane.

·      General ambience of the area affected by additional density.

·      Waste disposal and removal from Kelso Lane will be problematic.

·      Insufficient setbacks provided.

·      Drainage to the rooftop gardens not addressed

 

3

Geraldine Hoeben

8/22 Rae Street

Randwick

·      Adversely affect access to and from Kelso lane.

·      Will adversely affect the nature and character of the laneway and the built form especially the large block of flats known as “Kelso Court”.

·      Development will lose the community spirit that has been developed by the laneway.

·      Traffic report is considered misleading and oversimplified in its assessment.

·      The proposed easement over No,14 is limited in detail and speculative.

·      The DA for 14 Francis Street needs to relate to this proposal.

·      No mention of how groundwater will be treated.

·      Potential landslide hazard with the removal of the retaining wall.

·      Geotechnical report incomplete without a detailed excavation plan.

4

Mr C Richards

11 Cook Street

Randwick

·      Objects to use of Kelso Lane for access.

·      Lane too narrow and already congested

5

Irene Hutnyk

20/70 Cowper street

Randwick

 

·      Kelso Lane too narrow and congested

·      Added vehicular pressure created to Cowper street

·      Since there is no parking permitted in Kelso lane visitors will park in Cowper Street and further cause pressure on this roadway.

·      Kelso lane too short and narrow for emergency vehicles.

·      The fire exit door from Kelso lane is too close to the Kelso Court building and unsafe.

 

6

Zygmund and Walentyna Robak

3/15 The Avenue

Randwick

·      Increased traffic, congestion and parking problems along Frances Street, Cowper Street and The Avenue.

·      Access off Kelso Lane is unsafe and will provide excessive pressure on the infrastructure and services there.

·      The proposal will increase the economic pressures on the area e.g. road maintenance, pollution, increased levies etc.

·      The amount of excavation may cause structural damage (a condition on the consent could address this).

·      The new townhouses are out of character with the heritage items and affect the curtilage of these properties.

·      Non-conformances with the planning provisions relating to setbacks, soft landscaped area.

·      Privacy and solar access to the drying area will be affected.

·      Rubbish removal from the laneway will be difficult.

7

CF Strata Management

PO Box 636

Kingsford 2032

(strata mangers for 70 Cowper street)

·      Garbage not to be stored or collected from Kelso Lane since more bins will compromise vehicular access to and from the lane.

·      Ensure light and privacy to the unit block not be reduced.

·      Developer be responsible for any damage as well as cleaning.

·      Dilapidation report be carried out for 70 Cowper Street.

·      Block wall between properties and garbage storage area to be reinstated and to be of sandstone materials.

8

Eva Laska

2/70 Cowper street

Randwick

·      Will create excessive traffic and congestion off Kelso Lane and Cowper street

·      Access to and from Frances Street would be safer since it’s a wider roadway.

·      A traffic management plan needs to be provided.

·      The development will create a further unsafe environment for vehicles.

·      Adversely impact on existing services along Kelso Lane

·      Additional pollution, increased privacy and loss of ambiance.

·      Removal of garbage bins a problem off Kelso Lane.

9

Margaret Wilcox

1/70 Cowper Street

Randwick

·      Increase traffic congestion at Kelso Lane and Cowper Street

·      Noise from additional 30 vehicles.

·      Currently very safe and secure area will decrease this feeling by increased density.

·      Loss of privacy, security and general convenience.

10

J.Kay Stoddard

5/70 Cowper Street

Randwick

·      Kelso Lane too narrow and development will further cause traffic and parking congestion.

·      Difficulty will occur with construction works that will block the lane as well.

·      Frances street is a wider and street which provides better access.

·      Need for a traffic management plan but this should also take into consideration partially completed adjoining developments.

·      Affect existing services to residents

·      Additional noise

11

Petition (12 signatories)

·      Access off Kelso Lane inappropriate and will generate undue traffic noise, congestion and parking problems.

·      Adversely affect the community like precinct and ambiance of the laneway.

·      Need for a traffic management plan.

·      Adversely affect the existing services to this laneway.

·      Garbage disposal off Kelso lane will provide further congestion and accessibility problems.

12

Juan, Luisa and Melissa Rojas

1/1 Cook Street

Randwick

·      Additional pressure placed on roadways surrounding the site.

·      Increase traffic congestion

·      Need for a traffic management plan

·      Proposal will not fit in with the character of the heritage homes

·      Potential structural damage due to the large amount of excavation.

·      Failure to comply with Council’s controls namely setbacks, soft landscaping and privacy.

·      Number of visitor car parking spaces is deficient of the minimum required.

13

Ian and Effie Martin

4 Cook Street

Randwick

·      Further traffic and congestion will be created in the immediate locality

·      Unreasonable amount of traffic congestion will be created to Kelso Lane.

·      Significant impact on safety, increased pollution and create an increased cost for road maintenance works.

·      Adverse impact on the heritage significance of the heritage houses.

·      The number of visitor car parking spaces is deficient of the minimum requirement.

14

M and I Bronen

4/70 Cowper Street

Randwick

·      Kelso Lane is too narrow and garbage removal and access off this laneway will be problematic and will add to the existing congestion and accessibility problems.

·      Further difficulty in exiting out of the existing driveway onto the laneway.

·      During construction works occurring there will be further blockages to the laneway.

·      Concern about treatment of any ground water, landslides or damage to structures, retaining walls etc

15

Gregory Chambiras and

Heidi Froehling

7/11A Frances Street

Randwick

·      Additional traffic and congestion will be generated to the locality and to Kelso Lane.

·      The Traffic Management Plan needs to consider the new development on the corner of Cowper Street and Wentworth Street.

·      Increase cost of road maintenance and economic factors such as rates, levies etc.

·      Adverse impact on the heritage houses and their setting.

·      Structural damage caused by excavation.

·      Failure to comply with planning controls such as soft landscaped area, setbacks and privacy.

·      Non-compliance with the minimum required visitor car parking spaces.

·      Overshadowing to the kitchen, lounge room and study.

16

David Jacob Green

4/6 Victoria street

(owner of 4/11a Frances Street)

Randwick

·      Additional traffic and congestion will be generated to the locality and to Kelso Lane.

·      The Traffic Management Plan needs to consider the new development on the corner of Cowper Street and Wentworth Street.

·      Increase cost of road maintenance and economic factors such as rates, levies etc.

·      Adverse impact on the heritage houses and their setting.

·      Structural damage caused by excavation.

·      Failure to comply with planning controls such as soft landscaped area, setbacks and privacy.

·      Non-compliance with the minimum required visitor car parking spaces.

·      Overshadowing and loss of light to outdoor area.

17

Pauline Lewis

8/11A Frances street

Randwick

·      Additional traffic and congestion will be generated to the locality and to Kelso Lane.

·      The Traffic Management Plan needs to consider the new development on the corner of Cowper Street and Wentworth Street.

·      Increase cost of road maintenance and economic factors such as rates, levies etc.

·      Adverse impact on the heritage houses and their setting.

·      Structural damage caused by excavation.

·      Failure to comply with planning controls such as soft landscaped area, setbacks and privacy.

·      Non-compliance with the minimum required visitor car parking spaces.

·      Overshadowing and loss of light to outdoor area.

18

Cindy Tangimetua

7/76 Cowper Street

Randwick

·      Additional traffic and parking congestion in the locality and off Kelso lane

·      The traffic management plan needs to take into consideration the development at the corner of Cowper Street and Wentworth Streets

·      Structural damage from excavation/construction.

·      The proposal will adversely affect the heritage homes and their setting.

·      The proposal fails to comply with the planning controls relating to setbacks, landscaped area, setbacks, privacy and solar access.

·      There is inadequate provision of visitor car parking spaces.

19

TJ Wichman

7/76 Cowper Street

Randwick

·      Additional traffic and parking congestion in the locality and off Kelso lane

·      The traffic management plan needs to take into consideration the development at the corner of Cowper Street and Wentworth Streets

·      Structural damage from excavation/construction.

·      The proposal will adversely affect the heritage homes and their setting.

·      The proposal fails to comply with the planning controls relating to setbacks, landscaped area, setbacks, privacy and solar access.

·      There is inadequate provision of visitor car parking spaces.

·     

20

Angelo Koukos

3 Siddins Way

Pagewood 2035

(owner of 9/11A The Avenue)

·      Concern that excavation will cause structural damage.

·      Traffic congestion along Kelso Lane, The Avenue and Frances Street

·      The Traffic Management Plan needs to consider the new development located on the corner of Wentworth Street and Cowper Street.

·      Will cause an increase in the cost of road maintenance and increase in levies etc.

·      The proposal will adversely affect the heritage character of the heritage items and the immediate area.

·      Non compliance with Council’s controls in respect to setbacks, soft landscaped area, lack of privacy and inadequate provisions of visitor car parking.

21

P. Thomson

18/70 Cowper street

Randwick

·      Excess traffic and congestion created off Kelso Lane.

·      Kelso Lane is at max capacity for vehicular access and any additional vehicles will increase demand on services and will compromise existing levels of safety.

·      During excavation and construction there will be excessive amounts of noise and dust pollution.

·      Waste disposal will be problematic off the laneway.

22

John Kelly

PO Box 959

Randwick

·      Additional traffic and congestion for the additional vehicles accessing Kelso Lane.

·      Pedestrian access to and from Cowper Street to Wentworth is dangerous additional vehicles will adversely affect this situation.

23

Sheila McAndrew

13/70 Cowper Street

Randwick

 

·      Daylight will be severely diminished, 1m from the kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom windows

·      Noise generated from the security gates/electronic garage door to the basement car park.

·      Additional bins off Kelso Lane cause further congestion

·      Unnecessary and unreasonable additional traffic congestion off Kelso Lane.

24

Betty Hegarty

12/70 Cowper Street

Randwick

·      Daylight will be severely diminished, 1m from the kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom windows

·      Noise generated from the security gates/electronic garage door to the basement car park.

·      Additional bins off Kelso Lane cause further congestion

·      Unnecessary and unreasonable additional traffic congestion off Kelso Lane.

25

Mr.John.T.Dicks

Headmaster

Coogee Boys Preparatory School

P.O Box 190

Randwick

·      Will unduly add traffic congestion further place pressure on parking in immediately adjoining streets

·      Parking and safety to students during construction.

·      Access through Kelso Lane too narrow and problematic.

·      Excavation will cause damage to adjoining properties

·      The application is not appropriate in the context of the site being a conservation area and including items

·      The proposal does not comply with RLEP in respect to setbacks, landscaping, parking and privacy/light.

 

The issues raised by the objectors will be addressed in the assessment section of this report.

 

5.2     Support

 

 

 

Supporter

 

 

Issues raised

 

1

 

Alan and Phillippa Clark 11A Frances Street, Randwick

 

 

·      Support the design of the development and preservation of the two heritage properties.

·      In support of access being off the rear rather than off Frances street which is already congested and competing for parking by uses such as the Council, School and Child care centre.

·      Questions whether 2 visitor spaces is enough and that it may create more parking off Frances street for visitors.

 

2

Alix Verge

3 Abbey Street

Randwick

 

·      Overall impression is positive

·      Basement car parking spaces quite narrow

·      Many visitors will most likely park in Frances Street.

 

3

 

 

Robert and Rosemary King

11 Frances Street

Randwick

·      Takes into account heritage importance of the properties

·      Will not adversely affect traffic on Frances Street and The Avenue

·      The development will improve the visual appearance of the heritage houses.

·      Recognition that there will be some pressure on Kelso Lane especially during construction however this is inevitable for any development program.

·      The new townhouses will integrate well with the heritage properties.

 

4

Second letter from

 

Robert and Rosemary King

11 Frances Street

Randwick

·      Understood other residents at the rear have objected to the proposal and were concerned that there may be changes to the design proposed to appease their concerns. As such they would like to be kept informed.

 

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

 

Since the site contains two heritage listed properties and is within a Heritage Conservation Area the application was referred to Council’s Heritage Officer for referral. The following comments were made;

 

“Background

The subject site is occupied by a pair of two storey Federation style villas, “Wirringulla” and “Ballarat” listed as heritage items under Randwick LEP 1998.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheets for the dwellings note that a part of their significance lies in the consistency of the group, comprising nos.14 to 18.  Both of the dwellings were apparently constructed in 1907.  To the west of the site is no.14 Frances Street, constructed in 1906 and also listed as a heritage item.  The property is also within the St. Jude’s Conservation Area.

 

Proposal

The existing convent building is to revert to use as two separate dwelling houses, including internal changes and demolition of additions which have been made between and to the rear of the heritage items.  A new two storey multi-unit housing development over basement carparking is to be constructed towards the rear of the site.  The basement carpark is to be accessed from Kelso Lane to the rear, via an easement over the adjoining Church property.  An outbuilding at the rear of this adjoining site is to be demolished to allow construction of the carpark access.  The basement carpark extends between the rear sections of the heritage buildings to provide carparking for these buildings.  The multi-unit housing development is in the form of two buildings parallel to the site boundaries of the site with a central open space.  It is proposed to subdivide the site into three allotments, one for each of the heritage buildings and one for the multi-unit housing development.

 

Specific works to each of the buildings are as follows:

 

Wirringulla 16 Frances Street-

·    reinstatement of the north (rear), south (front) and east elevation balconies

·    reinstatement of arched entrance to the east elevation

·    restoration of the upper level front window

·    provision of new rear doors to access adjacent courtyard area

·    removal of some internal walls to create open plan living areas to the rear

·    new stair in north east corner to provide access to basement carparking

·    upgrading of upper level bathrooms to suit single family use

·    removal of bedroom partitions

·    relocation of brick and sandstone gatepost to provide pedestrian pathway entrance from Frances Street

 

Ballarat 18 Frances Street-

·    restoration of upper level front window

·    reinstatement of the north (rear) balcony

·    demolition of the work sacristy, possibly the original kitchen, and part of the original building

·    provision of new doors to east elevation to access adjacent garden area

·    new walls to provide rear servery and bathroom area

·    new stair near north west corner to provide access to carparking

·    upgrading of upper level bathrooms to suit single family use, floor of front upper level ensuite to be raised to accommodate plumbing without damage to lobby ceiling below

·    removal of bedroom partitions

·    metal fencing to replace existing timber front fencing.  Sandstone base generally to be retained.

 

A semi-public square is proposed adjacent to Frances Street, centred on the existing fig tree, with a wide landscaped path providing access to the rear townhouses.  A security gate is to be provided to align with the front verandah of no.18.  Separate pathways are proposed to provide access to each of the dwellings, separated from the square by open fencing around 1.5m high, with planting to provide additional screening.

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by City Plan Heritage.  The HIS includes a history of the buildings, an assessment of their significance and conclusions and recommendations.  The HIS also includes conservation policy recommendations, based on rankings of the contribution which individual elements make to the overall significance of the item.  The HIS includes plans of the building, indicating original fabric and later additions and alterations dating from around 1930 and after 1965. 

 

The HIS notes that both homes have a significant curtilage around them.  A copy of the 1890s Waterboard diagram indicates a stable building in the rear north east corner of the site.  The sunken courtyard in front of the stables still remains on the site.  The Waterboard diagram also indicates the original configuration of the west elevation of no.16 Frances Street, prior to construction of the 1930s chapel addition.  The HIS notes that the integrity of the dwellings is high, with interior changes to accommodate convent use being relatively minor and exterior changes largely reversible.  Intact detailing includes leadlight glazing, decorative ceilings, ornate timber joinery, particularly to the stair halls, and stone and tiled fireplaces. 

 

The Statement of Significance for the site contained in the HIS considers that the dwellings are of high local heritage significance, principally for their aesthetic characteristics, constituting some of the best examples of Federation period housing in the Randwick area, with Ballarat in particular retaining much of its original significant fabric.  The Statement notes that the site has been used since the mid 1950s by the Sisters of the Sacred Heart, but that research to date has not identified any particular religious association with the site within the local area community.

 

The HIS argues that restoration of the existing dwellings will have a positive affect on the conservation values.  The HIS notes that no additions are proposed to the external form of either building, and that the proposed demolition affects fabric of lesser significance.  The proposed demolition of to the rear of no. 18 affects a service wing on a rear and secondary elevation and allows for adequate curtilage around the dwelling.  The HIS notes that new openings are proposed to side and rear elevations only with no new openings to principal elevations.  New openings are to be compatible with existing but to be identifiable as new.  The HIS notes that partial demolition of some internal walls is proposed to allow for open plan living areas, with openings cut out of existing walls rather than removing the entire wall, to allow integrity of original rooms to be interpreted.  No significant detailing is to be removed.

 

The HIS argues that the buildings to the rear will not be easily viewed from the streetscape, being set back behind the heritage items and given a lower visual profile through recessive detailing, use of compatible materials and landscaping.  The HIS notes that lower floor to floor heights for the new buildings, will result in them being in lower in scale than the heritage items, and will not visually dominate them.  New development is contemporary in character with no attempt to replicate detailing of the adjacent heritage items.  The HIS notes that the plans of southern-most townhouses have been reversed to provide courtyards rather than completely blank walls adjacent to the heritage items.  Principle views to front and side elevations will not be obscured, and views to and from the rear of the heritage items are not significant.  . 

 

Comments

The City Plan Heritage Impact Statement has addressed the heritage impact of demolition options, including the original single storey wing at the rear of no.18 and the addition to the south west corner of no.16.  In relation to curtilage, the HIS notes that the removal of the additions which currently link the two buildings, will restore the separate character of the buildings.  In relation to reinstatement, the HIS has addressed the impact of the reinstatement of features such as the side entry and the upper level balcony to no.16, and reinstatement of timber windows which have been removed, as well as the making good of internal and external damage to the fabric resulting from the previous convent use.  It is noted that the proposed adaptation generally retains and reinstates the principal elevations and principal rooms of the dwellings, with greater change to secondary elevations and secondary rooms.  For example the proposed stairs to the basement carpark are to be provided towards the rear of the buildings.  The development application does not propose complete restoration the buildings, for example it is not proposed to replace existing concrete tiles to the roof of no.16, nor to remove the metal deck “capping” to the original central outlet roof.  It is noted that the adaptation works which are proposed do not preclude the carrying out of further conservation works in the future, such as re-tuckpointing of brickwork, or the removal of the addition to the south western corner of no.16 Frances Street.  It is noted that Clause 48 of the LEP allows Council to request the submission of a conservation plan to enable the full assessment of a proposal.

 

In relation to replacement of the upper level front window to no.16, the drawing indicates a timber window of similar proportions to the existing aluminium window.  It is recommended that further research be carried out to determine appropriate proportions and detailing to this window, and that detailed drawings submitted.  In relation to reconstruction of side entry porch and balcony to no.16, it is noted that the rear half of the original ground floor arch remains externally, while the front half of the arch has been entirely lost internally, as a result of the construction of the link between the two buildings.  Careful consideration needs to given to the methodology of the construction of the missing half of the ground floor arch, including matching (with either new, second hand or salvaged bricks) of the dark bricks which form the arch itself and the red bricks above the arch.  In relation to the reinstatement of upper level balcony and window between the upper level balcony and bedroom and adjacent bedroom to no.16, it is recommended that further research be carried out to determine appropriate detailing of the balcony handrail, and appropriate proportions and detailing to the window, and that detailed drawings submitted.  In relation to finishes to front walls behind enclosed balcony, it is noted that the existing face brickwork has been painted.  It is recommended that consideration be given to an appropriate finish to this wall, ie- whether existing paintwork can be removed, or whether a paint finish is proposed which is more compatible with the face brickwork of the dwelling. 

 

In relation to the reconstruction of steps to entry porch to no.18, the drawing indicates two treads at the existing edge of the porch, while the 1970 drawings indicate 5 treads and a different configuration at the top and bottom on the steps.  It is recommended that the new steps be more closely modelled on this documentary evidence.  In relation to finishes to rear walls of dwelling where later additions are to be removed, it is noted that the original face brickwork has been painted and in some cases rendered and painted.  It is recommended that consideration be given to an appropriate finish to this wall, ie- whether existing paintwork can be removed, or whether a paint, or render and paint finish is proposed which is more compatible with the face brickwork of the dwelling. 

 

The proposed communal entry square and the proposed private entry gates will require removal/relocation of the brick pier to no.16.  The plan incorrectly indicates the removal of the adjacent stone pier to no.18.  There are no objections to the removal/relocation of the brick pier, however amended drawings should be submitted correctly indicating the retention of the stone pier.  The drawings indicate reinstatement of metal fencing to no.18 (replacing existing timber fencing), but no fencing to no.16 (no fencing currently exists).  Remaining masonry fences to both no.16 and no.18 provide evidence that metal fencing original existed to both properties.  Given also the level difference between the front garden of no.16 and the footpath level below (around 1.5m) it is recommended that appropriate front fencing also be provided to this property.

 

The provision of vehicular access from the rear of the site avoids the impact of provision of an access to the basement carpark from the front of the site, allowing the existing central driveway to be used as a pedestrian access to the development at the rear.  The site plan of the development provides open space to the rear of no.16 and to the eastern side of no.18, as well as the generous front setback area to each of the buildings.  The location and fencing of private open space areas has been considered so as to minimise impact on the streetscape presentation of the heritage buildings.  It appears that the proposal provides privacy to the front setback area through the provision of open fencing and low planting. 

 

The footprint of no.16 allows for a private open space area to the rear and a reasonable separation between the existing building and new development, while the footprint of no.18, with the removal of the original single storey rear wing, allows private open space only on the eastern side and a minimal separation between the existing building and new development.  This curtilage allows for the provision of reasonable open space for each of the heritage buildings, and despite the close proximity of the new development, its lower scale should allow for good liveability for the existing dwellings. 

 

The setting of the buildings will be considerably improved by the by the removal of the single storey buildings which connect the heritage items at the front and the rear.  The removal of the connecting buildings in the between the heritage items will allow a more three dimensional appreciation of the buildings.  The proposed open space between the eastern and western buildings of the new development will extend the view opened up between the existing buildings.  The new development will be visible, but not prominent from the street- the western building will be visible from the along the pedestrian access between the heritage items, while the eastern building will be visible along generous eastern setback area of no.18. 

 

The modern character of the new buildings does not seek to imitate the form and detail of the heritage items on the site, allowing them to be easily understood as a contemporary development.  Three dimensional representations of the new buildings indicate an appropriate degree of articulation.  Careful attention should be give to materials and finishes to ensure compatibility with the materials and finishes of the heritage items”

 

A number of conditions are to be included if consent is to be granted. 

 

6.2     Environmental Health

 

The application was referred to Council’s Environmental Health section and the following response was provided;

 

“Land contamination has been considered as an issue and the information provided by the consultant Martens and Associates concludes that based on previous residential uses and limited soil sampling no indication of contamination was found.

 

Given the previous residential use and history presented with the application no remediation has been proposed and is considered reasonable.

 

Additional information has been submitted in relation to an asbestos survey prepared by Dosan Pty Ltd which concluded no evidence of asbestos was found in the existing buildings.

General conditions have been included in this report relating to any unexpected finds with respect to contamination including requirements for dealing with hazardous and intractable waste.

 

Noise is considered an issue with the proposed mechanical plant such as appropriate conditions have been included in this report.

 

In respect to rainwater tanks discussions with ABC Planning and details in the report indicate rainwater tank use in the proposal it is recommended that standard rainwater tank conditions be included if approval is recommended”.

 

Seven conditions are to be included if consent is to be granted.

 

6.3     Building and Regulatory Services

 

The application was referred to Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building for comment. No major objections were raised and a number of conditions are included if consent is to be granted.

 

6.4     Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development Engineer Co-ordinator has provided the following comments in relation to the proposal and appropriate conditions of consent as contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There is a row of three Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) street trees within Council’s Frances Street nature strip beyond the front (southern) boundary of the site, comprising two to the east of the existing vehicle crossing, and one to the west. All three are in the order of 7-10 metres in height, are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order due to the fact they are located on public property, and form part of an established, significant and highly desirable avenue planting of this species on both sides of Frances Street.

 

While past pruning away from overhead service wires, the pedestrian footpath beneath the northern side of its canopy and the roadway to its south has resulted in the presence of coppiced growth throughout its canopy, all three were observed to be structurally sound, particularly given the resilience of the species, and possess a high retention value due to the positive contribution they provide to the site and streetscape.

 

Given that the majority of work is contained wholly within the site, all three street trees should remain largely unaffected, with protective fencing deemed sufficient enough to ensure their retention. Although the need for pruning would appear unnecessary, a condition has still been included in this report as from past experience, there may be conflict with site machinery or similar at some stage during the course of the works.

 

The imposition of a monetary bond for the protection of these trees is not warranted in this instance given that all works are contained wholly within the site, and the trees should therefore remain unaffected. A condition requiring the installation of an additional street tree along the Frances Street site frontage (immediately south of the existing vehicular crossing) has been included in order to continue and reinforce the avenue planting.

 

The submitted Arborist Report has incorrectly identified a Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Fig) growing within the internal driveway; however, Council’s Landscape Development Officer confirms that this tree is actually a mature Ficus rubiginosa (Port Jackson Fig), as was detailed in the pre-lodgement report.

 

This tree is a dominant and imposing entry feature due to its broad, spreading canopy which measures about 10 metres in height by 10 metres in width, and is seen to complement to the character and heritage value of the existing dwelling, mainly due to its prominent siting towards the front of the site.

 

It is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, with a sparse amount of foliage observed in the northwest quarter of its canopy. There is evidence of past pruning, with several crossing/rubbing branches remaining, as well as a minor amount of dieback to branch tips.

 

However, it is still regarded as being worthy of retention, and given the positive visual impacts this tree provides to the property, combined with the environmental benefits associated with established trees in an urban environment, Council requires it be protected and retained during the course of the proposed works, as was advised in the pre-lodgement application, and as has been shown on these current plans.

 

The existing concrete surfacing surrounding its trunk is shown as being replaced with a combination of sandstone paving and low planting, with crushed gravel mulch provided between sandstone risers proposed beyond the southern side of its trunk, leading down to the front boundary.

 

While increasing the amount of permeable surfacing surrounding its trunk will benefit the tree as it will improve air and moisture exchange to the rootzone, care will still need to be taken during this part of the works in order to avoid damage to the rootzone, with protective fencing also required. Remedial and directional pruning may also be required, with a relevant condition included for this purpose.

 

The Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) of about 6 metres in height near the southwest corner of 16 Frances Street, while native, is deemed an undesirable species due to the ability of seeds to be spread by birds and invade areas that would normally fall outside its natural distribution. As it is not a significant specimen in any way, holding no landscape or amenity value, Council recommends that this tree be removed (as has been indicated), in lieu of new landscape treatment which will be installed as part of the overall planting strategy for the site.

 

In the rear yard of 16 Frances Street, along the western boundary, there is one Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) of approximately 6 metres in height which despite appearing in good condition, a closer inspection reveals that it has been heavily and incorrectly pruned on previous occasions, resulting in numerous ‘knuckles’ or stumps and the resulting poorly attached coppiced growth.

 

While covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and providing a degree of screening between this site and adjoining properties to the west, removal is justified in this instance due to its poor branching structure combined with the additional stress it would be placed under should retention be sought, and given the significant amount of landscape works that will be provided as part of the overall works at the site, consent has been granted for its removal as indicated in the pre-lodgement report.

 

To the east of 18 Frances Street, in the rear yard of 15 The Avenue, close to the common boundary, there are a group of four Cupressus torulosa (Bhutan Cypress) of approximately 8 metres in height which are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and provide effective screening between both properties.

 

An existing retaining wall along the length of this common boundary supports the difference in level between the two properties (higher ground within 15 The Avenue), and providing this wall is maintained in some form during the course of works, these trees will remain completely unaffected as their root systems will be completely contained within this higher ground.

 

There are numerous other shrubs/small trees throughout the site, some of which are only starting to develop; however, the site inspection revealed that they are all too small to be covered by the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and as such, can be removed without consent, with conditions relating to them not included in this report.

 

The submitted Arborists Report contains incorrect information together with an insufficient level of detail. No specific recommendations are provided for a protection program pre, post or during construction; therefore, no reference to this report has been made in the conditions.

 

Drainage Comments

 

On site stormwater detention is required for proposed Lot 3.

 

An inspection of the site revealed that discharge of excessive stormwater flows into Kelso Lane may result in water entering existing garages adjoining the laneway. Consequently, the applicant will be required to either:

 

·    Limit discharge into Kelso Lane through the provision of onsite detention for all storm events up to and including the 1 in 100 year storm event; OR

 

·    Extend Councils underground drainage system in Kelso Lane up to the subject development site so that the site outlet can be connected directly into the underground drainage system. Under these circumstances on-site detention would only be required for all storm events up to the 1 in 20 year storm event.

 

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 for stage 1.

 

Traffic Comments

 

Vehicular Access – Given that access to 16-18 Frances Street is proposed through 14-14A Frances Street, the subject development site has been nominated as 16-18 Frances Street and 14-14A Frances Street. Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate for the refurbished houses (Stage 1), a right of carriageway shall be created over the portion of 14-14A Frances Street that is being utilised to facilitate vehicular access to the new development from Kelso Lane.

 

Parking provisions – According to Council’s DCP – Parking, a total of 25 car spaces shall be provided within the site (18 spaces for the 12 x 3 bedroom townhouses, 4 spaces for the 2 x 3 bedroom houses and 3 visitor spaces). The submitted plans show the provision of 30 car spaces, with two spaces allocated to each of the townhouses and dwelling houses but with only 2 visitor spaces being provided. Although there is a shortage of one visitor space, the Development Engineer does not object to the proposal to provide two spaces for all residences, noting also that the removal of the redundant vehicular crossings from Frances Street will create an additional 2-3 on-street car parking space.

 

Carpark layout – The submitted traffic and parking report states that the internal circulation arrangement will be in accordance with the requirements of AS2890.1:2004; and that all vehicles will be able to enter and exit the basement carpark in a forward direction even if all parking spaces are full.

 

Traffic Generation – As per the RTA’s Guide to Traffic Generating Development, the proposed development will generate approximately 8 vehicle trips per hour in peak traffic periods. The applicant’s traffic consultant has provided figures from a traffic survey undertaken at the intersection of Cowper Street and Kelso Lane during both morning and afternoon peak periods and has concluded that the relatively small traffic generation will not present any adverse traffic capacity or safety circumstances and further that the total traffic flow along Kelso Lane will remain quite minor in nature.

 

Retaining Wall comments

 

The submitted plans indicate that the existing retaining wall located along the northern property boundary of 16-18 Frances Street will be replaced with a new brickwork wall.

 

Further, provision of the proposed vehicular entrance will necessitate the section of retaining wall located at the end of Kelso lane being demolished.

 

A structural/geotechnical engineer will be required to undertake a detailed assessment of the stability of the existing retaining wall in the vicinity of the site and provide full structural plans and a report detailing:

·    How the existing wall will be demolished and the new wall constructed along the northern boundary of 16-18 Frances Street without compromising the stability of the adjoining sections of retaining wall;

·    How the proposed vehicular access will be constructed through the section of wall at the end of Kelso Lane without adversely affecting the adjoining wall; and

·    The engineering design for the new sections of retaining wall.

 

All works shall be undertaken in accordance with the structural/geotechnical engineers report and the engineer shall be present on site throughout the full duration of retaining wall works to supervise the demolition and wall re-construction processes.

 

The engineer supervising the works shall certify on completion that all works have been undertaken in accordance with their design and relevant engineering standards.

 

All reconstructed/new portions of the retaining wall shall be located wholly within the subject development site.

 

Should access be required through any adjoining property to facilitate retaining wall works, the applicant will be required to liaise directly with the adjoining property owner to obtain approval for entry. Such consent shall be obtained prior to the issue of a construction certificate for stage 1 so that if consent is withheld by an adjoining property owner, the construction regime may be modified to remove the need to enter private land.

 

The Planning Officer should ensure that the application is referred to Council’s Regulatory Building and Development Control Services and all comments/ conditions regarding the retaining wall are included in the development consent.

 

It is understood that a condition requiring a dilapidation report will be included in the approval by the Planning Officer. Consequently, no conditions relating to the provision of a dilapidation report have been included in this report.

 

Groundwater Comments

 

The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report by Martens Consulting Engineers dated June 2006. This report states that rock was encountered at depths of 3-4 metres below the existing surface level with no groundwater observed, however it was also noted that seepage water could be found at the soil/rock interface during and after heavy periods of rainfall.

 

Whilst the application does not require referral to the Department of Natural Resources as integrated development, a condition has been included in this report requiring the tanking/waterproofing of the basement carpark should significant seepage flows be encountered during excavation; and/or if the basement carpark intersects the bedrock.

 

Service Authority Comments

 

At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2005, it was resolved on the motion of Councillors Nash and Belelli 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 $4 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.

 

Waste Comments

 

The applicant was previously advised that bins may be collected from Kelso Lane provided that adequate room is available along the site frontage to allow for presentation. Noting that the driveway occupies almost the full width of the laneway, the applicant has proposed an arrangement whereby bins are located along either side of the laneway; with two bins on the western side of the driveway occupying approximately 1.2 metres and 10 stacked bins on the eastern side of the driveway occupying approximately 2.90 metres, with 3.7 metres clearance width maintained for vehicles to enter and exit the site whilst the bins are presented.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Waste Compliance Officer and the following comments were received:

 

I have reviewed the Waste Management Plan and associated drawings prepared by Barua Pty Ltd, received 4 July 2006, regarding the proposed residential development (DA/466/06) at 16-18 Frances St, Randwick.

 

The applicant proposes that the two heritage houses currently onsite will remain, with garbage bins to be stored within each property and presented in Frances St for collection.

 

12 townhouses will be constructed at the rear of the site with access via Kelso Lane. The applicant proposes a basement waste storage area capable of containing 12 x 240 litres mobile garbage bins, in compliance with Council’s requirements.

 

The applicant proposes the bins will be presented just outside the basement car park entrance off the end of Kelso Lane. The applicant has supplied advice that this will not restrict vehicle movements, which needs be confirmed as part of the traffic/vehicle assessment of this DA.

 

Council’s waste collection contractor has confirmed bin collections can take place at the nominated collection point. It will be necessary for the Owner’s Corporation of the proposed development to ensure the bins are presented neatly and as proposed in the waste management plan, as any variations to the proposed arrangements will affect vehicle access in this area.

 

The waste management plan and proposed waste collection arrangements are considered to be satisfactory.

 

In addition to the above, the Planning Officer is advised that the access currently available to the adjoining properties is restricted due to the presence of a retaining wall on the laneway; however the applicant proposes to remove this retaining wall, and construct approximately 3 metres of new road in its place. Further, a diagram and letter from the applicant’s traffic consultant has also been submitted confirming that the proposed bin presentation will not unduly impact on vehicles accessing the basement carpark and that all access movements will be retained.

 

Accordingly, the proposed waste collection arrangement is considered to be generally satisfactory.

 

Subdivision Comments

 

Torrens Title Subdivision of 16-18 Frances Street

The applicant proposes to subdivide 16-18 Frances Street into three new Torrens title allotments. Lots 1 and 2 will encompass the single dwelling houses on 16 and 18 Frances Street respectively; and Lot 3 will encompass the rear of the site (where the townhouses will be constructed) with a central access path off Frances Street.

 

Given that the parking spaces for Lots 1 and 2 will encroach into Lot 3; suitable easements for parking will be required over the parking spaces. Further, easements for access (benefiting Lots 1 and 2) will be required over the carpark circulation aisle to facilitate access to the parking spaces.

 

Noting that it is not proposed to construct the basement with structurally independent elements under each lot, suitable easements for support will be required over Lots 1, 2 and 3 benefiting each other lot.

 

In addition, part of the car parking area for Townhouse 1 (Lot 3) extends into proposed Lot 1; hence an easement for access and parking will be required over the subject portion of Lot 1 to facilitate access to the parking space. An easement for access benefiting Lot 3 will also be required over the portion of the circulation aisle that encroaches into Lot 2.

 

Given that the applicant proposes to construct the basement carpark prior to subdivision, easements for construction of the basement will not be required.

 

Suitable easements for services and internal stormwater lines shall also be provided where required. The applicant is advised that the minimum easement width for any internal stormwater line is 0.9 metres.

 

Strata subdivision of proposed Lot 3

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

 

Additional note: The submitted basement plan shows the proposed Lot 3 boundary extending over the adjoining property (14-14A Frances Street).  It is understood that the applicant intends to create a right of access over the carpark entrance, rather than formally adjusting the boundary between the two sites and allocating the subject portion of 14-14A Frances Street to proposed Lot 3. Accordingly, the plans shall be amended to show the existing boundary between 14-14 A Frances Street and 16 Frances Street being unchanged.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area of 3,898m2 is less than the minimum area required for the submission of a master plan under Council’s RLEP which is 4000m2.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The site is zoned 2C under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (LEP) and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

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

 

·          Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended

·          Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

·          State Environmental Planning Policy No.65

·          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

·          Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking

·          Section 94 Contributions Plan

·          BASIX

·          Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy 2005

·          Building Code of Australia.

 

 

9.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

STAGE ONE

 

Stage one involves the refurbishment of the two heritage listed properties and subdivide the properties into two separate Torrens title allotments and to create a third lot at the rear. Stage one also includes the construction of a carpark with access off Kelso lane.

 

9.1     Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP)

 

·    Zoning

The subject site is zoned Residential 2C under the provisions of the RLEP. The proposal is permissible in the zone and complies with the general objectives of the zone being;

 

·    To allow for a variety of housing types within residential areas and

 

·    to enable residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas.

 

·    Subdivision

 

The first stage of the development includes the Torrens title subdivision of the site into three allotments with the two heritage listed homes being on individual lots.

 

Clause 30 of the RLEP sets out minimum allotment sizes for subdivision. In the 2C zone the minimum allotment size is 325sqm with the minimum frontage width of at least 9m (clause 30(1)). This subclause excludes development for the purpose of multi-unit housing. The control is relevant only to the subdivision of the two dwellings fronting Frances street since the new rear allotment proposes the construction of a multi-unit housing development as part of Stage 2.

 

No.16 Frances Street will have a frontage of 19.6m to Frances Street, depth of 39.7m and overall site area of approximately 780sqm and No.18 Frances Street will have a frontage width to the street of 21.8m, varying depth of 39.8m and 36.1m and approximate site area of 940sqm. Lying between the two properties is the main communal walkway which will provide access to the new rear allotment to the newly proposed 12 townhouses. This accessway has a frontage width of over 10m and tapers in to the rear. It will form part of the rear strata plan and will be designated as open space/communal area. The rear allotment including the communal accessway will have a site area of approximately 2,178sqm.

 

The subdivision sizes for each dwelling complies with the minimum requirements under Clause 30 of the RLEP. Each lot size for each dwelling is considered to provide ample curtilage around the property. Each dwelling will have substantial areas of open space and landscaped area around it. The removal of the central “unsympathetic” additions will further provide greater openness and spaciousness  around each dwelling. The lot sizes are consistent with immediately adjoining properties and will not detract from other heritage items (No.s 2,4,11,11A, 14 and 14A Frances Street), St Judes Church and Randwick Town Hall) or their setting.

 

·    Heritage provisions

 

The proposal involves removing the additions to the dwellings and renovating and refurbishing the heritage properties to bring them back to their original character and appearance. There have been several additions made to the dwellings mainly in 1930, 1965 and some parts further added to after 1965 (previous development applications allude to minor works occurring in 1970 and 1974). The additions mainly relate to the central garage structure and associated rooms which created a connection between the two buildings, also some rear additions.

 

The interior of both dwellings remains remarkably intact with features such as original lead light windows, decorative ceilings, ornate timber joinery and marble fireplaces remaining. A full heritage assessment including a Statement of Significance of the proposal was prepared by City Plan Services and lodged with the application. Council’s Heritage Officer has also made a full and detailed assessment of the proposal (see section 6.1).

 

The proposed changes to each property include;

 

No.16 Frances Street

·    Northern, southern and eastern elevation balconies being reinstated and restored.

·    Replace some aluminium windows with timber windows.

·    New internal stair access provided from the basement car park to the dwelling.

·    New rear living, kitchen and dining areas with new timber framed glass doors providing access to the newly created rear private open space.

·    New open plan arrangement internally and very slight reconfiguration of rooms for more functional and contemporary use.

 

No.18 Frances Street

·    Internal stair access provided from the basement to the dwelling.

·    Balconies and windows along the eastern elevation to be reinstated in their original form.

·    More open plan kitchen, living and dining areas situated along the eastern side adjacent to a newly created and formal private outdoor area.

·    Restore and open up the rear first floor balcony and provide new openings along this elevation.

·    Reconfiguration of internal spaces to make them more practical and functional for residential usage.

 

Both properties are to be refurbished  back to their original state. The proposal is well designed and complies with the objectives and intentions of Clauses 43 (Protection of heritage items, conservation areas and potential archaeological sites). The site is located across the road from No.11 and 11A Frances Street (heritage items) and is adjacent to 14 and 14A Frances Street (designated items) and is within close proximity to other significant items such as the St Judes Church and the Randwick Town Hall. The site is also within the St Judes Conservation Area. The proposal aims to improve the dwellings themselves and enhance their overall setting and will provide a positive streetscape contribution.

 

9.2     Development Control Plan  - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancy

 

The dwellings being subdivided on their own block means the DCP for Dwelling Houses is relevant to consider.

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

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

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

40% of the total site area is provided as landscaped area.

No.16 –  66% landscaped area

complies

No.18 – 68% landscaped area

complies

S1

A minimum of 25m² of useable private open space is to be provided.

Both properties have consistent front and rear/side yard spaces that are well in excess of 25sqm

complies

S1

Each dwelling must provide an area of private open space capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

Exceeds minimum requirements for both sites

complies

S1

Private open space in the front yard area is located behind the building line.

No.16 – private open space provided at the rear – complies

No.18 – private open space along the eastern side however sited behind the building line - complies

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

Well over 20sqm provided for both properties - complies

The Objectives of the DCP with regard to landscaping are that existing significant trees and landscaping are retained and enhanced; dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation space; storm water management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of the dwelling is improved through integrated landscape design; and the native wildlife populations are preserved and enhanced through appropriate planting of indigenous vegetation.

The Performance Requirements are that the size and dimensions of landscaping suit the needs of the occupants; location and design of open space takes advantage of aspect for year round use; indigenous species are used and existing vegetation is recycled where possible; planting does not obstruct or interfere with entries; and unpaved areas are maximised to allow stormwater infiltration.

Currently both dwellings have a substantial area of rear open space. This area has no real connection with the properties and is not functional or highly useable since it’s greatly overlooked by neighbouring properties and the rear additions created additional service rooms rather than living rooms that orientated out and related to the open space. Therefore much of the space was unusable and non-functional. The intent to upgrade both properties aims to create more practical and private areas of open space that relate directly to the properties and their internal areas. No.16 Frances street will have a large, spacious northern private courtyard area at the rear of the dwelling. No.18 the resurrection of the eastern facing first floor balcony and the creation of sizable ground floor living, dining and kitchen areas will facilitate the creation of a private and large eastern courtyard. Originally the dwelling had its main orientation along this side for outdoor space that is private.

The landscape plan prepared by 360degrees and lodged with the application provides for large amounts of soft landscaped areas around the periphery of both homes with emphasis on attractive feature planting, boundary shrubbery which will reach a height of between 2-3m to provide additional privacy and screening.

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 applies. 

FSR for No.16 is 0.47:1 complies

FSR for No.18 is 0.52:1 does not comply

(see assessment)

 

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

The floor space ratio for No.16 Frances street complies with the minimum requirement. The floor space ratio for No.18 Frances Street slightly exceeds the requirement by about 32sqm in floor space. The proposal involves no change to the overall scale and height of either dwelling and reduces the visual bulk of both dwellings since the proposal removes the central and rear additions to both dwellings and also opens up some of their unsympathetically enclosed balconies. The footprint of both dwellings remains the same  and is actually reduced by the amendments. There is no physical additions proposed. Both dwellings are also sited on large allotments (780sqm and 982sqm respectively) that will be dedicated to them under Torrens title subdivision will allow for the two buildings to be easily identifiable and two uniquely independent structures. This will also allow for ample curtilage around the perimeter of both dwellings.

The additional floor space for No.18 is considered minor in respect to the overall context of the dwelling, it’s siting and the fact there is no alteration to the footprint or height of the dwellings and will not create any additional adverse amenity impacts.

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The maximum wall height for;

No.16 is 7-9.5m does not comply

(see assessment)

No.18 is 7.5-10.5m does not comply

(see assessment)

S1

External wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5 m.

Not applicable

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Basement car park is centrally located and will not affect any boundary of adjoining premises.

 

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Not applicable to this stage of the development.

 

S4

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

There is no immediate change to either property other than the rear additions being removed and the length of each dwelling is reduced . The buildings are also setback more than 1.5m to the side boundaries.

Complies

S5

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

Not applicable.

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

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

There is no change to the wall height or overall height of either dwelling. The majority of each dwelling’s side elevations comply with the minimum wall height by being 7m high however there are gabled roof forms and elements that increase the wall height to over 7m. These elements are original architectural forms of the Federation style of the buildings and break up their bulk and massing and are inherent and authentic design features. They do not contribute to unnecessary height or additional visual bulk or scale.

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

No.16 remains unchanged at 12-13m – complies

No.18 remains unchanged at 11-14m – complies

S2

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

No.16 setback 8m – complies

No.18 setback 3m – doesn’t not comply (see assessment below)

S3

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

No.16 setback 3-4m - complies

No.18 setback 1-8m – complies

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

No.16 setback 3-4m – complies

No.18 setback 900mm-8m – doesn’t comply (see assessment)

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable

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

The rear setback of No.18 Frances Street does not comply with minimum rear boundary setback requirement of 4.5m. The building is setback only 3m. This dwelling is set on a large allotment of 980sqm and has been refurbished to have its main private open space situated along the eastern side of the site rather than the rear. The dwellings original design incorporated a large bay window and upper level balcony along the eastern elevation which was one of its main design features and the proposed upgrade of the building aims to create an open plan internal arrangement with the focus of the living/dining and kitchen areas towards the eastern side. The rear of the site retains its main laundry, store and other ancillary service rooms and therefore there is little relationship with the rear area. The first floor of this dwelling is setback approximately 8.5m from the rear so as to reduce any potential for overlooking and hence complies with the rear setback requirement.

Immediately to the rear of No.18 is the new multi-unit development comprising of 12 townhouses. One of the dwellings has its southern side elevation/wall abutting the boundary of No.18. The wall of the new dwelling has no openings and hence the separation between the two buildings is considered adequate due to the fact there is no privacy or adverse amenity concerns plus No.18 Frances Street has been designed in a way that the rear areas are secondary and ancillary areas that are detached from the small area at the rear.

The side setback of No.18 Frances Street does not comply with the minimum first floor side boundary setback requirement of 1.5m along the western side. There is a small northern most section of the wall (only approximately 4m in length) that is only setback 900mm at the ground and first floor level. This is considered to be a minor non-compliance and abuts the central pedestrian accessway that links Frances Street to the proposed new development at the rear. The accessway is well landscaped and provides a spacious buffer between the two heritages listed homes and also provides a wide avenue to help distinguish the entry to the new development at the rear. The setback although quite small is only for a small portion of the building and due to the large pathway and the extensive planting and open space proposed the setback is considered to be satisfactory.

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

No change to either dwelling apart from the reinstatement of some balconies or providing some new window and door openings on the ground floor which will not overlook other dwellings windows.

Complies

S1

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

complies

S1

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

Not applicable – adequate separation between properties provided.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

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

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

The proposal has been well designed and does not introduce any new elements or openings to the homes that would create additional overlooking or privacy concerns. The proposal aims to reinstate original elements of the design which are architecturally appropriate.

Safety & Security

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

Yes – complies

S1,3

Dwellings have at least one habitable room window overlooking the street.

Yes – complies

S2

A Council-approved street number is conspicuously displayed at the front of the dwelling or front fence.

 

Yes – complies

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that a safe physical environment and crime prevention is promoted through design, including that buildings are designed to face the street and other public areas to provide for surveillance; dwellings and their entrances are readily identifiable by street numbering and design of front fences; and landscaped areas allows for safe access to the dwelling. The proposal complies with the objectives and intentions of this section of the DCP.

Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Council’s Parking DCP requires 1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.

2 car parking spaces provided for each dwelling – complies

S1

Car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m.

Complies

S1

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

Not applicable.

S1

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

 

Not applicable.

S1

Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 thereafter.

 

Not applicable.

S1

With respect to garages and carports to rear lanes these should be set back 1m to improve pedestrian visibility.

 

Not applicable.

S2

Parking and access is provided from the rear of the allotment where possible.

 

Not applicable.

S2

Garages and carports located behind the building line where parking only available from the front of the site.

The car spaces are located below ground and are accessed by an internal staircase to each dwelling.

Complies

S2

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

The car park is accessed off Kelso Lane  and does not take up more than 35% of the allotment.

Complies

 

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

 

The design and location of the car parking below ground is considered a preferred option rather than a garage off Frances Street which would provide poor streetscape presentation and will also detract from the heritage significance and original character of each property. This can already be seen by the unsympathetic central garage structure which is out of character with the properties and is proposed to be removed.

 

Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Yes – complies

The existing fence to No.16 will remain and for No.18 the original sandstone base and columns will be retained and a new open style steel palisade fence (900mm high) will be introduced above the sandstone base.

This is considered to be satisfactory and will be in character with the dwelling and will retain the most original features.

New gates are proposed that are keeping with the architectural quality of the homes.

The new development will have some fencing and formal entry introduced which is located between the two homes. The fencing for this section of the development will be more modern to represent the contemporary nature of the rear development. The distinction between old and new is important and this will provide an appropriate transition between the two.

S1

Solid front fences or on street frontages in front of the building line are no higher than 1.2m.

Some of the fencing exceeds 1.2m in height (maximum height 1.6m) however it is an open style form of fencing which is appropriate and compatible with the dwellings and the streetscape character.

S1

Fences in front of the building line or on street frontages may be up to 1.8m provided that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

Complies – front fencing reaches a maximum height of 1.6m and two-thirds is of an open style.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

New dwellings comply with a minimum of 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

Not applicable.

S2

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

Overshadowing is reduced as the rear and central additions have been removed.

S2,8

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

Complies – no change

S9

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained between 9am and 3pm each throughout the year.

Complies – does not affect any solar collectors.

S9

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

Complies – no change

S9

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

Complies – no change

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

The proposal complies with the objectives and intentions of the DCP in respect to overshadowing and the two houses do not adversely affect immediately adjoining properties or the proposed new development at the rear (which is sited on the northern side).

 

STAGE TWO

 

This stage involves the construction of the multi-unit development at the rear which comprises of 12 dwellings and strata subdivision of the development. Although the construction of the car park is tied into Stage One (in terms of its physical construction) the assessment of this area is more appropriate with this stage as it is more integrated with the multi-unit development.

 

9.3     Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP)

 

The site is zoned 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998 (RLEP) and the proposed multi-unit development is permissible with Council’s consent. The following clauses of the RLEP apply to the new multi-unit development on the rear allotment.

 

Residential 2C provisions

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31 – Landscaped area (based on the new rear lot)

31(2) Total area

 

 

 

31(3) Podium Area

50% of total area landscaped

Landscaping over podiums must not exceed 50% of landscaped area (maximum of 266m2)

51% provided

 

300sqm over podium makes up 56% of landscaped area

Complies

 

 

Does not comply

SEPP No.1 lodged see assessment

 

32 – FSR

0.9:1

0.97:1

0.85:1 (excluding the basement storage areas)

 

Does not comply SEPP No.1 lodged

See assessment

33 – Building Height

 

33(2) Overall

33(4) Wall

 

 

 

12m overall height

10m wall height

 

 

9m

6-9m

 

 

Complies

Complies

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

43

Heritage Item and/or Conservation Area

Within the St Judes conservation area

Complies

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

In the vicinity of Nos. 11, 11A and 14 Frances Street and close to St Judes Church and Randwick Town Hall

Complies with intentions and objectives of the clause

Refer Heritage Planner’s comments

(Section 6.1 of the

report above)

 

Clause 31 – Landscaped Area

 

Under Clause 31(2) of the RLEP a minimum landscaped area required for the multi-unit development at the rear is 50%. The proposal provides for approximately 51% of the site which is equivalent to 1090sqm (minimum required is 1065sqm).The proposal complies with this control.

 

Clause 32(3) of the RLEP 1998 stipulates that no less than 50% of the required landscaped area should be sited above podium areas. This translates to no more than 266sqm of area being sited over a podium. The proposal provides for 300sqm of landscaped area to be situated above the basement podium. This equates to 56 % which exceeds the control.

 

In response to this non-compliance the applicant has submitted a State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standard objection. This SEPP No.1 submission was lodged  in conjunction with the application and argues that strict compliance with clause 31(3) of the RLEP is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons;

 

·  Variation to the deep soil landscaped control is justified in this instance due to the acceptable design and amenity outcomes which result from the proposal.

 

·  A major feature of the proposal is to provide the town houses in a landscape setting. This is reflected in the high quality of the landscape plan which illustrates a combination of deep soil and above ground planting in the form of planter beds which allow for mature tree species. The plan demonstrates that each townhouse and common area will be provided in an attractive landscape setting.

 

·  The total area required for landscaping on the rear portion of the site exceeds the minimum requirement of 50% and provides for 51% of landscaped area.

 

·  If we were to consider the whole site (since most of the soft landscaped area has been reserved and dedicated to the heritage listed homes to provide and retain their soft landscaped setting) there is 1285sqm of deep soil landscaping provided which consists of approximately 66% of soft landscaped area over the whole site of which 33% is sited over podiums. This would comply with Council’s controls. Therefore the non-compliance is a non-technical one if the subdivision of the site wasn’t proposed, hence the development would comply.

 

·  The non-compliance with the standard does not result in any adverse impact to any internal or surrounding area.

 

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No.1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

1. Whether or not the planning control is a development standard.

 

The landscaping control in question is a development standard as contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

2. The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

The objective of Clause 31 is;

 

“To establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban runoff and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes”

 

3. The consistency of the development with the aims of the policy and objects of the EP and An Act.

 

The proposed development will be consistent with the planning objectives in the Act since the non-compliance with the standard is considered to be minimal and the development provides for acceptable design and amenity outcomes which result in the proposal not adversely affecting the “encouragement of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and providing  for a better environment”.

 

The proposal does provide for a high quality of overall landscaped area which will provide appropriate screening and greenery to the whole site. Each townhouse is provided with an attractive area and adequate size of  private open space and there is ample provision for deep soil planting in planter boxes and the like. The development also offers spacious areas of communal open space which incorporate a variety of trees and species to provide diversity in the landscaping proposed. The maintenance of vast areas of soft landscaped area around the curtilage of each heritage listed dwelling further adds to the development’s high quality approach to providing landscaped areas that are in keeping and in character with the immediate locality and streetscape.

 

As such strict compliance with the standard would tend to hinder the attainments of the objects specified in Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the EP and A Act which encourage the proper management, development and conservation of natural and man made resources and the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use of and development of land.

 

4. Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?.

 

In the circumstances of the case the non-compliance is considered minimal and will not compromise the planning intent for the site or the character and amenity of the surrounding area. As previously stated the site retains a large amount of landscaped area and the  minimum overall requirement for landscaped area is exceeded and the fact that the amount of landscaped area sited over a podium level is greater than the minimum required this does not compromise the objective of the landscape standard not does it provide an excessive amount of hard landscaped area. The control aims to minimise the amount of hard spaces (over podium levels) in an aim to encourage more deep soil planting to provide for larger plants and trees to help screen developments, make them more attractive and provide a greater amount of greenery.

 

The development provides more large expansive areas around the perimeter of the site for landscaping and with the provision of planter boxes there is still an ability to provide for larger scale trees and plants to help screen the development and also reduce runoff. The landscape plan provided with the application provides for a diverse range of plants and landscaped areas to both private and communal areas which are attractive and create a high quality development and environment. The overall amenity of the proposal is not compromised by the non-compliance. In the circumstances compliance is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

5. Whether the objection is well founded?

 

An assessment of the SEPP No. 1 objection indicates that it has:

 

·        Articulated the underlying stated objectives of the standard clearly.

 

·        Demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of loss of amenity to the individual townhouses or loss of privacy to adjoining development or lacks the provision of adequate soft landscaping.

·        Addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying stated objectives of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality, and objectives of the Act.

 

·        Stated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, namely:

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with other development in the locality and its general setting in terms of the overall numerical provision, design, size and type of landscaping proposed.

The proposal provides for communal open space and private open space that incorporates the provision of a variety of interesting landscape features including planter boxes for deep soil planting and permeable areas.

The proposal will contribute positively to the appearance and character of the area.

The proposal will not result in any unreasonable adverse amenity impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy or an adverse visual impact.

The proposal provides high quality landscaping within the context of the contemporary built form at the rear and more traditional approach to landscaping for the heritage listed dwellings at the front which will enhance the Frances Street streetscape.

 

It is therefore considered, having regards to the merits of proposal that the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

Clause 32-Floor Space Ratios

 

Under Clause 32(2), a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.9:1 is applicable for the site.  The proposed development has a FSR of approximately 0.97:1 which does not comply with the development standard.

 

In response to this non-compliance the applicant has submitted a State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standard objection. This SEPP No.1 submission was lodged  in conjunction with the application and argues that strict compliance with clause 32(2) of the RLEP is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons;

·    It is considered that the non-compliance is minor and that the additional floor space is sited entirely below ground (in the form of storage areas) and is within the building footprint.

·    The bulk, scale and height of the development is considered to be in keeping with the nature of development in the immediate vicinity of the site and will not be out of character with adjoining development.

·    The townhouse development is of a smaller overall scale and height than the heritage listed homes that they are adjacent to that front Frances Street.

·    The proposed floor space is consistent with the main principles behind the standard as the design achieves an appropriate and reasonable built form that will not detrimentally affect the amenity of adjoining properties in respect to overshadowing or overlooking.

 

In assessing the SEPP No.1 objection the following issues need to be considered;

 

1.       Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

 

The floor space ratio control in question is a development standard as contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

2.       The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

The stated objective of the standard, as outlined in the LEP is as follows:-

 

“To establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential, business, industrial and special use zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided.  This will help to reduce potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.”

 

3.       Consistency of the development with the aims of the policy and the objects of the EP & A Act

 

The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that the new development will allow for the redevelopment potential of the subject land to be further realised without creating any significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding developments.  Furthermore, the proposal maintains a restrained approach to the bulk and scale of the proposed development by keeping its scale lower than immediately adjoining properties (including No.16 and 18 Frances Street) and the additional bulk is sited below ground in the form of storage areas which are not visible elements. The development has been well designed to be broken up and articulated to reduce the bulk and massing of the overall scheme. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the planning objectives for the locality and the aims of the policy.  As such, strict compliance with the standard would tend to hinder the attainments of the objects, specified in Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act, which encourages the proper management, development and conservation of natural and man made resources and the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use of and development of land. 

 

4.       Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

The fact that the site is being subdivided and staged in two parts means that the if it wasn’t subdivided the development for the whole site would be under the 0.9:1 floor space ratio standard since the heritage listed properties respectively only take up 50% of their overall site coverage and combined with the floor space of the townhouses would be much less than Council’s overall control.

 

The applicant has intentionally Torrens title subdivided the two heritage listed properties, and set them on large, spacious lots to retain their original character and heritage integrity. Council’s RLEP does also allow for heritage incentives to be utilised (to capture additional floor space if the proposal involves the retention and preservation of heritage items or properties within heritage conservation areas). In this case the applicant has not relied on these provisions as they feel the non-compliance is minimal and that they have designed a development that ultimately aims at complying with the majority of Council’s controls and is creating an attractive and high quality environment that will not unreasonably or adversely affect immediately adjoining properties.

 

5.       Whether the objection is well founded.

 

An assessment of the SEPP No. 1 objection indicates that it has:

 

·        Articulated the underlying stated objectives of the standard clearly.

 

·        Demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts.

 

·        Addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying stated objectives of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality, and objectives of the Act.

 

·        Stated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, namely:

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with other development in the locality in terms of height, bulk and scale, particularly in relation to other multi-unit housing buildings in the area.

The proposal will contribute positively to the appearance and character of the area.

The proposal will not result in any unreasonable adverse amenity impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing or visual impact.

The proposal provides high quality residential accommodation, within a contemporary built form, appropriate in the context of the conservation area it is situated in.

 

The multi-unit development has been well designed and its scale, massing and orientation  is considered appropriate for the site and will not be seen as a bulky and dominating development.

 

It is therefore considered, having regards to the merits of proposal that the SEPP 1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Clause 33 – Building Heights

 

Clause 33 (2) of RLEP 1998 requires that the maximum building height for a building, within Zone No.2C be no more than 12m.  The maximum overall height of the development is 9m (this includes the roof terrace areas and their access). Clause 33 (4) states that the maximum external wall height of the building shall be no greater than 10m. The external wall height of the townhouses is between 6-9m. The proposed wall height and overall height complies with the maximum requirements and satisfies the objectives and intentions of the  height control which is;

 

“To set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas”.

 

Despite compliance with the height control it should be noted that the rear townhouse development is lower than the overall height of No.s 16 and 18 Frances street and will be lower than most immediately adjoining development particularly the blocks of three storey walk up flats located along The Avenue that abut the site to the east.

 

9.4     Development Control Plan for Multi-unit development

 

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

 

Figure 5: Multi-Unit Housing DCP Compliance Table

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1 Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

Complies

Detailed technical assessment of the site, the proposal and its surrounds is provided. A prelodgement application examined all the alternative possible design options for the site and  this design was considered the most suitable.

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

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

Complies

The development is staged in two parts and has been well planned out and designed. Several other design and planning options were provided to Council at the prelodgement stage but this proposal was considered to be the most suitable for the site and its surrounds.

 

Height

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

 

Complies

The scale of the development is compatible with adjoining properties and the wall and overall height complies with the statutory height controls under RLEP

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

 

Complies

The development has a very modern and contemporary design and feel to it and provides for a large amount of modulation and articulation to all facades.

 

The height of the development complies with the maximum statutory height controls outlined in Council’s RLEP. A more detailed assessment was provided in section 9.3. The scale and height of the proposal is in keeping with the character and nature of immediately adjoining development and is in fact lower than many of its immediately neighbours (mainly those to the east). The development’s relationship to the three storey multi-unit development to the rear “Kelso Court” is explained in further detail below under building setbacks.

 

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

Not applicable

This issue was addressed in the Stage one assessment of this application.

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

§ Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

 

Ground floor (east)

5.2m – complies

ground floor (west)

5.2m – Complies

First floor (east)

3.3m – 5.2m

does not comply (see assessment below)

First floor (west)

3.3m – 5.2m

does not comply (see assessment below)

roof deck (east)

15m – complies

roof deck (west)

14.5m – complies

 

complies

 

 

complies (4m – 8m long steps in the building along both the eastern and western side)

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

§ Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

 

 

Ground floor

900mm – 4.5m

does not comply (see assessment below)

First floor

900mm – 4.5m

does not comply (see assessment below)

roof deck 2.5m

does not comply (see assessment below)

 

complies – building well articulated and broken up.

 

P4  General

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

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

Complies

 

The proposal does not comply with all the minimum setback requirements. The two main areas where compliance is not fully achieved is;

 

·    Side setbacks at the first floor

 

The setback of the building at the ground floor along both the eastern and western sides complies with the minimum setback requirement of 5m since the length of the ground floor private courtyards measure 5.2m. At the upper levels the bedroom No.1 which has a width of approximately 4m canterlivers above the ground floor level and is setback 3.3m from the eastern and western boundaries which exceeds the minimum and average setback control. This bedroom incorporates a 500mm deep juliette balcony and also has aluminium full length Venetian blinds provided to the full height and length of the bedroom window to reduce any potential for overlooking.

 

Along the eastern side the first floor level for all townhouses the floor level is situated at RL78.00 and the three sets of three storey walk up flat buildings that are located to the east (No.17, 15 and 13 The Avenue) are sited on much higher ground. The top of the retaining wall which is a common boundary wall between the properties along the east varies from RL77.96 to RL78.24. There are also garages at No.13 and 15 the Avenue that  are higher and provide screening (to dwellings7, 8 and 11 in particular) as well as existing substantially tall cypress trees along the full length of the rear of No.15 The Avenue that currently provide total privacy between the two properties will further provide additional screening. The buildings along The Avenue are also setback a considerable distance from the boundary (approximately 16metres) this accompanied by the fact that the proposal will incorporate deep soil along the boundaries that will allow for plants reaching an overall height of about 4-5m which will provide ample screening of the bedroom windows.

 

On the western side the first floor bedroom windows face the existing rear open space of No.14 Frances Street. Although new screen planting proposed along the western boundary will help mitigate the potential for overlooking to some degree . However, since the  level of the subject site and its neighbour (No.14) is at the same grade there will be essentially a row of large windows  on the first floor located along this side. Considering this is also the western side of the site the bedrooms will become hot and solar protection should be required. It is suggested by way of a condition of consent that 2m of the juliette balcony incorporate a fixed privacy screen with a height of 1.5m that will reduce the potential for direct overlooking at this upper level.

 

Setting the bedroom wall back a further 2.7m will not provide a marked improvement in the amenity as the distance and separation between the properties, the existing topography, landscaping and additional landscaping proposed is considered to adequately screen the development from its neighbours.

 

·    Rear setback at all levels

 

The development has been designed with an east/west orientation of the dwellings and as such the rear setback isn’t a traditional one. Dwellings No.s 6 and 7 have their northern wall facing this side of the site. Immediately to the north is the southern elevation of the block of flats known as “Kelso Court”. This block of units is sited on much lower ground.  The building is setback approximately 2.5m and the boundary retaining wall from the laneway along the northern side is some 9m in height and in currently poor condition as it is a mixture of a sandstone base with brick wall above and also includes some nasty metal beams and supports.

 

Along this southern elevation of Kelso Court there are a variety of windows to service and amenity areas such as kitchens and bathrooms (some with obscure glazing) however some dwellings have bedrooms facing this side.

 

The proposal has been designed to be articulated in the way that both dwellings have internal courtyards which have their wall setback 4.2m from the boundary and at the first floor level bedroom No.1 is setback approximately 3m which further breaks up the visual bulk. The central access corridor has a width of some 9m and further breaks up the building mass. The main concern is the closeness and height of the 9m length of the two storey wall for both townhouses that is only setback 900mm from the boundary. The wall is to be a “green wall” with climbers on it to make it more attractive. It should be noted there are no privacy concerns since all windows of the development are highlight windows and there is no overshadowing as the development is sited to the south of Kelso Court. However since the neighbouring block currently looks into the open and spacious rear yard area of No.16 and 18 Frances street it is important that the development tries to create a more inviting and attractive visual appearance along this side. A number of conditions are suggested that will improve the visual amenity of the proposal along this side and improve the outlook for the residents at Kelso Court. These include;

·      The existing retaining wall along this side which is an unattractive feature and in terrible condition is to be rebuilt in blockwork. It is suggested that the proposed blockwork be of a light sandstone colour to improve the visual appearance of the wall.

·      The height and appearance of the boundary fencing above the retaining wall be of lighter more open style materials. For example the base can be solid (maximum height of 500mm) and the upper 1.3m shall be constructed of horizontal timber slats to soften the appearance.

·      The small fin wall (1.2m in length) along the balcony to bedroom 3 of dwellings 6 and 7 shall not be a solid wall but be replaced with a timber slat screen measuring a maximum height of 1.6m to reduce some bulk and the length of the wall.

·      The privacy screens to the internal courtyards shall be deleted as the rear boundary fence will provide adequate screening.

·      Within the 900mm setback there shall be an allowance of 500mm for some greater deep soil planting along this boundary for some larger, greener plants.

·      Any proposed balustrades to the roof terraces are to be constructed of clear glass.

These few mechanisms aim to improve the visual appearance of the development along this elevation and soften and break up the mass further. Since the development is not contributing to any direct overlooking or overshadowing to Kelso Court at the rear the intentions of the multi-unit DCP are met, in respect to the purpose of the rear setback requirement.

Density

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

 

Complies

The two storey scale and bulk of the development is compatible with the predominant character of the area (mainly made up of three storey walk up residential flat buildings)

 

Although the floor space ratio of the development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio control under RLEP (a detailed assessment of the non-compliance was considered in section 9.3 of this report) the bulk and scale of the development is in keeping with the character and nature of the properties in the immediate locality.

 

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have:       

§ consistent with streetscape;

§ Entrances highlighted; and

§ Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

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

 

The eastern and western boundary fences will have maximum heights of 1.8m in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act (condition on consent)

The rear fencing will be quite high at 1.8m due to the height on top of the existing retaining wall, and will be appropriately conditioned to reduce its height and bulk and soften its visual appearance.

 

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

Complies

P2 Areas around multi-unit buildings are communal open space and not divided up for allocation to individual units to the exclusion of other users on upper levels.

 

Complies

The development involves terrace type townhouses which all require private open space.

In the design of the development there is no need for communal areas to be provided. The only communal areas of open space is the large and spacious central accessway for pedestrians and this provides a formal access point to the development and breaks up the bulk of the development as well as provides some attractive separation.

 

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

Complies

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

 

 

Complies

P5  Townhouses

Each dwelling is provided with an area of useable private open space or courtyard area, at ground or podium level.

S5 Minimum area of 25m2 and a minimum dimension of 3 x 4 metres.

The smallest areas of private open space have dimensions of 5.2m x 5m having a total area of 26sqm.

Complies

 

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

Complies

Living areas are all situated on the ground floor and have access to internal courtyards and rear private garden space. There will be no direct overlooking from these areas to immediately adjoining properties.

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Complies

Each area of open space within the development for each townhouse has been designed to provide privacy to each occupant and with the inclusion of boundary fences and suitable soft perimeter landscaping these areas will be adequately screened and will no contribute to any overlooking.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Complies

Standard conditions of consent will ensure this is maintained.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

Complies

Each dwelling has been designed to incorporate a centralised roof deck/terrace. This area will have an independent internal staircase which will access the area from the area below. The staircase structures are  enclosed and also centralised within the building envelope and will act as a screen between the roof terraces to provide privacy between each terrace but also wont be visible from the ground level due to their location. Although there may be a little overlooking between the western and eastern terraces since they face each other it is unlikely that these areas will be highly utilised as they are accessed for the upper bedroom level (rather than the living room level which would provide more ease of access for entertaining purposes) and they aim to provide a central area that allows occupants to come and relax. On both the eastern and western sides the terraces are setback some 14.5m from the boundary which is a considerable distance and the roof decks incorporate perimeter planting to provide additional greenery and screening.

 

View Sharing

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

 

Not applicable

P2 Development minimises effects on views and shows how view loss is minimised.

 

Not applicable

P3 Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

Complies.

Some properties along The Avenue obtain city skyline views over the subject site.  These views will be maintained as these properties are elevated above the subject site and retain these vistas

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

Complies

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

 

Complies

No solar collectors on adjoining properties

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

 

Complies

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

 

Complies

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

§ Living areas are orientated to the north.

§ Larger windows are located on the north.

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

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

Complies

Proposal satisfies BASIX commitments and minimum requirements

P5 Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

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

Does not comply

Flat roof proposed to provide roof terraces.

 

In respect to overshadowing the proposal will comply in respect to providing immediately adjoining properties a minimum of 3hours of sunlight during the day to their living areas during the winter solstice. Kelso Court which is located directly to the north of the subject site will overshadow the proposed development and will not receive any overshadowing.

 

No.14 Frances Street to the west will be overshadowed at 9am but only about 30% of its eastern side mainly affecting the side setback area, a portion of the rear yard and the rear garage structure. The shadow cast will not affect the main living areas or main outdoor area which are situated in the centre of the site. From 12noon there is no shadow cast by the development.

 

In regard to the adjoining properties to the east (four blocks of flats facing The Avenue), these properties are unaffected by the development at 9am (and cast shadows on themselves), by 12noon there is no overshadowing to the rear part of these properties. By 3pm the eastern townhouses cast some shadows onto the rear yards of these blocks of flats however the shadows do not touch the building’s wall since they have substantial setbacks from the rear boundary and at worst 50% of the rear yard is affected. It should be noted that the shadow diagrams submitted do not take into account the existing cypress trees (which reach about 8m in height) and other outbuildings (existing garages)  located at the rear of these flats that would currently overshadow the rear yard at this time of day.

 

In respect to the adjoining neighbour No.20 Frances Street (single storey dwelling) it maintains 3 hours of sunlight during the day to the rear yard and adjoining rear living areas.

 

The two heritage properties (No.16 and 18) do receive overshadowing by the rear townhouses since they are sited to the north of these buildings. No.18 Frances Street has the benefit of having its main living and outdoor entertainment areas sited to the east so that from 12pm onwards this area is free of shadows. No.16 Frances Street is less fortunate and will have more of its northern private open space in shadow. Only about 30% of this area would receive light at 12noon and then at 3pm however considering the scale and size of the dwelling and its extensive side setbacks it still should receive ample light during the day.

 

In respect to the townhouses at the rear the townhouses orientated with their rear yards to the west will receive good solar access from 12noon onwards to their private open space and living rooms. The townhouses on the east are disadvantaged as they are located on lower ground then the flats off The Avenue where both the flats, retaining walls and associated structures on these properties will cast shadows onto the private courtyards and most of the living areas of these dwellings at 9am, by 12noon there will be about 50% of the courtyards to dwellings 8,9,10,11,12 free of shadows, but by 3pm these areas are again in full shadow. The only benefit for these dwellings is the design of them. They incorporate internal courtyards which are generally free of shadows at 12noon which will help filter and provide light to the living and kitchen areas and they open out onto these areas. Also each living area has a front terrace which will be quite private since its setback and elevated from the front communal entry and the front terraces will have light at 12noon. The very open plan of each dwelling and incorporation of a terrace, internal courtyard and rear yard having provides the ability to have light at different parts of the day throughout the main living areas of the dwelling.

 

As such the degree of overshadowing created by the development is reasonable and will not adversely affect immediately adjoining residences and will comply with the minimum requirements for solar access.

 

Safety and Security

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

Complies – a condition will require sensitive and appropriate lighting to be provided to the communal pedestrian walkway.

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Complies – all entries are well defined and easily accessible.

P3 High walls and structures avoided.

 

Complies – the design maintains a generally open feel particularly along the Frances street frontage to maintain the integrity of the two heritage items and immediate streetscape.

P4 Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

Complies – each area designated for a dwelling will have an open style security grill to the garage. The visitor spaces will be open and accessible at all times

P5 Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

Subject to condition of consent as contained within Recommendation

P6 Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

Subject to condition of consent as contained within Recommendation (see P1 above).

P7 Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

Subject to condition of consent as contained within Recommendation

P8 External lighting does create a nuisance.

 

Subject to condition of consent as contained within Recommendation

 

Parking

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

Yes refer Section 9.6 of this report

P1 Garages and parking structures do not dominate the street frontage.

 

Complies

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

 

Not required due to scale of the proposal.

P3 Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

Appropriate condition of consent is contained within Recommendation.

 

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1 Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

Yes – complies

P2 Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

Yes – complies

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

S3 Long driveways provide passing bays.

Yes – complies

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

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

 Yes – complies

P5 Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5 Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

Yes – complies

P6 Driveway gradients safe.

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

Complies

 

Storage

P1 Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

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

Complies

 

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1 Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

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

Complies

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

 

Waste management plan satisfactory

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

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

Yes – complies

 

Heritage Conservation Areas and Heritage Items

P1  Design and construction of development:

§ Compliments architectural character of adjacent items or the conservation area;

§ Does not detract or overwhelm the conservation area in scale and proportions;

§ Retains the identified significance of the item or area;

§ Pays attention to the nature of design in terms of massing, style, roof pitch, window design and proportion, and external materials; and

§ Compliments but does not mimic features of a heritage item.

Complies

 

The heritage aspects of the design and development have been covered in extensive detail in section 6.3 of this report.

The proposed rear development has been designed sympathetically to respect the architectural qualities of the adjoining heritage listed properties and immediately adjoining conservation area.

 

P2  Respects nearby heritage buildings.

Complies

 

P3  The design is in accordance with heritage advice.

Complies

P4  New development:

§ Maintains a curtilage between heritage buildings and new buildings;

§ Is massed to provide transition in scale between old and new; and

§ Retains sightlines from public areas to the heritage item.

Complies

9.5     State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Review Panel

 

The proposal does not fall under the definition of SEPP 65 which captures new residential flat buildings that are “three or more storeys (not including levels that protrude less than 1.2m above ground level that are devoted to car parking and storage) and four or more self contained  dwelling units. The definition does not include small flat complexes (of two stories or less and those containing  less than four units) and development where the dwelling units are side by side (not top of another), generally regarded as townhouses or terrace houses”.

 

In this case the development did not have to be referred to the Design Review Panel for comment.

 

9.6    Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The parking provision for the proposal is fully compliant with the numeric requirements of Council’s DCP Parking (refer to the table below).

 

Type of land use

Parking Requirements

Provided

Compliance

Multi-unit housing

 

 

 

      Residential

1.5 spaces per 12 x 3 Bed dwellings

(stage 2 multi unit development)

 = 18 spaces

 

1.5 spaces per 2 x 3 bed dwellings

(stage 1 heritage dwellings)

= 3 spaces

 

TOTAL

 =  21 spaces

  

 

 

 

24 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

4 spaces

 

TOTAL

= 28 spaces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

complies

      Visitor

1 space per 4 units = 3 spaces including 1 car wash bay

TOTAL = 3 spaces

 2 spaces with one being a car wash bay 

 

Does not comply

See assessment below

      Bicycle (residential)

1 residential space per 3 units

 

TOTAL = 4 spaces

Nil.

Does not comply

Conditioned to comply.

 

A total of 24 off street car parking spaces are to be provided for the development in accordance with the DCP - Parking. The development alone is to provide for 21 car spaces and actually provides 28 spaces (two spaces for all 14 dwellings on site). This is considered satisfactory and despite exceeding the minimum car parking requirement it is acknowledged that the existing heritage homes are very large and the new townhouses t the rear are three bedroom and quite spacious in their layout so it is very likely that the occupants of each dwelling will have two cars. In respect to visitor car parking a total of three spaces are required however only two spaces within the basement are provided. It is more than likely that visitors will park along Frances street as this is where the main pedestrian entry for the whole development is. It should also be noted that the removal of the central additions located between No.16 and 18 Frances Street will return the two driveway crossovers to two additional on street car parking spaces which is a positive contribution to this streetscape. So in actual fact the development is providing 4 additional spaces (two specifically designated for visitors and two for visitors/residents along the  Frances street frontage).

 

Many residents in the immediate vicinity of the site are concerned about the amount of traffic generation and congestion that will be generated from the development. Many residents feel that Kelso Lane is too narrow for access to and from the site and they question access being achieved for emergency vehicles and the like.

 

Access off Frances street was explored during the prelodgement application however this was not considered to be acceptable for a number of reasons namely;

 

1.         It would generate a lot more excavation deeper into the site and would reduced the amount of deep soil landscaped area around the curtilage of the heritage homes which is an important feature for both properties.

2.         The gradient to access a basement from Frances street would create a long driveway purely for access and currently there are no long access points provided.

3.         The driveway off Frances street would adversely affect and detract from the heritage qualities of the three heritage dwellings and their streetscape/conservation setting.

4.         If the driveway was proposed in the centre of the two properties (No.s 16 and 18) this would require the removal of the large and very important Moreton bay fig tree and this is an important element in the streetscape and immediate locality. If the driveway is located on either the eastern or western sides of No.16 or 18 it would detrimentally affect the integrity of either property.

 

The driveway is situated in the most appropriate location. Kelso Lane was always designed as a point of vehicular access to the properties along Cook Street (most of which have garages fronting the lane) and for vehicular access for the dwellings at Kelso Court that also have a row of garages fronting this laneway. A traffic report was submitted with the application and considered the potential traffic generation that will be created by the development in accordance with the RTA requirements. It was calculated that the development would generate  approximately 8 vehicular movements per hour which is considered to be generally minor. The report believes that “the relatively small traffic generation resultant to the proposed redevelopment will not present any adverse traffic capacity or safety circumstances and the total traffic flow along Kelso Lane will remain quite minor in nature. It should be noted that Kelso lane is a straight road with “no standing “ signs along either sides of the roadway. As such it would be quite easy for emergency vehicles to access the development and park along Kelso Lane if any emergency would require such access. Also due to the straight and level nature of the roadway visibility and sight distances are considered to be acceptable. The traffic report specifies that “vehicles accessing Kelso Lane have good sight distances available and do not experience any undue delays as gaps are introduced  into Cowper street flows as a result of the operation of traffic signals at the Avoca and Alison Road intersections as well as the speed constraining roundabouts at the Church street and Prince Street intersections”. Also in respect to traffic generation and traffic movements as previously mentioned it is most likely that visitors to the development will most likely park along Frances street since Cowper street, Cook street and other streets at the rear are at times difficult to park in due to the numerous blocks of units in the vicinity. Frances street on the other hand, is also highly utilised for parking during the weekday hours of 8am till 5pm due to the uses surrounding the site being a school, child care centre, Council offices etc however after 5pm on weekdays and all weekend Frances street provides for an ample amount of off-street parking.

 

In respect to garbage removal,  garbage is collected from the laneway so the additional bins from the development would also be collected from this site with the exception of No.s 16 and 18 Frances street who would get their rubbish removed from Frances street. Council’s waste manager raises no objection to the applicants waste management plan.

 

9.7     Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The calculations for the residential component of the proposed development are set out in the table below.  Please note a credit has been given for the existing two heritages listed dwelling houses on the site and the calculation is based on the 12 new dwellings.

 

Levies for additional residential dwellings

 

Units

Open space levy per unit ($)

Total open

Space

($)

Community facilities levy per unit ($)

Total community facilities

($)

12 x 3 Bedroom

2,732.00

32,784

1,208.00

14,496

 

TOTAL*

 

 

 

$47,280

 

*Note: An administrative charge of $425.00 is payable for all developments (see condition of consent)

 

9.8 Randwick Rainwater Tank Policy

 

Council’s Rainwater Tank Policy, effective from the 15th October, 2003, requires all new development to install a rainwater tank for the collection and reuse of roof water.  A BASIX report has been submitted with the application and the development complies with the minimum requirements and commitments stipulated in the report. Standard conditions of consent are imposed to ensure compliance with BASIX.

 

9.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome: Excellence in urban design   

 

Direction 5a and associated key action: Improved design and sustainability across all development:  Develop and implement effective processes and strategies to manage the impact of new and existing development.

 

10.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is considered to be well planned and designed and will not adversely affect immediately adjoining properties and the immediate locality. The new development at the rear is small scale and compatible with the height, bulk, scale and design of immediately adjoining properties. The development proposal aims to restore and refurbish the existing heritage listed properties at No.16 and 18 Frances Street and remove the unsympathetic additions as bring the properties back to their original state. The proposal generally complies with the main statutory planning controls and the areas of non-compliance are considered to be minor and will not detrimentally affect the amenity of immediately adjoining residences.

 

The proposal is considered to fit in comfortably within the context of the Conservation area and create a good inter-relationship between the new building works and the older heritage items. The application is recommended for approval subject to the imposition of conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council assume the concurrence of the Director of Planning to vary the provisions of Clause 31(3) and Clause 32 (1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to landscaped area and floor space ratio controls   under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 since the proposal complies with the objectives of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality and that the Director-General of Planning be notified accordingly.

 

AND

 

B.      THAT Council, as the responsible authority grant its development consent as Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 466/2006 for alterations and the refurbishment of the heritage listed properties (No.s 16 and 18 Frances Street) and for the construction of the basement car park and Torrens title subdivision of the site into three allotments, with easement over the rear portion of No.14 Frances Street (Stage One) and the construction of 12 x 2 storey dwellings on the rear portion of the site and strata subdivision (Stage Two) at No.s 14, 16 and 18 Frances Street, Randwick subject to the following Deferred Commencement conditions;

 

DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS

 

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

 

HERITAGE/CONSERVATION

 

1.       A Schedule of Conservation Works for the existing buildings shall be prepared in accordance with the principles embodied in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and the methodology outlined in J.S. Kerr’s The Conservation Plan.  This Plan shall be prepared by an architect suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation, and shall be to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning.

 

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces (new work) to the buildings No.16 and 18 Frances street are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted. The materials and colours proposed are to be keyed to the elevations of the buildings. This shall include ddetails of the proposed paint scheme.

 

3.       Further research is to be carried out to determine appropriate proportions and detailing to the upper level front window to no.16.

 

4.       Careful consideration is to be given to the methodology of the construction of the missing half of the ground floor side entry arch to no.16, including matching (with either new, second hand or salvaged bricks) of the dark bricks which form the arch itself and the red bricks above the arch.  General details of this methodology are to be provided in the Schedule of Conservation Works, but can be varied in consultation with Council’s Director City Planning 

 

5.       Further details are to be provided in relation to the selection of the most appropriate and sympathetic materials and detailing to the upper level side balcony to no.16.

 

6.       Further detail is to be provided in relation to the reinstatement of upper level front balcony to no.16 and the window between the upper level balcony and the adjacent bedroom, to determine appropriate materials and detailing of the balcony handrail, and appropriate proportions and detailing to the window.

 

7.       Additional details are to be provided in relation to the appropriate finish to the wall between the upper level front balcony and the adjacent bedroom, ie- whether existing paintwork can be removed, or whether a paint finish is proposed and which is more compatible with the face brickwork of the dwelling.  Details of the proposed materials and finishes are to be submitted.

 

8.       Details are to be provided in relation to appropriate materials, colours and detailing to the rear upper level balconies to no.16 and no.18 which are to be reinstated. 

 

9.       Details are to be provided in respect of the materials to be incorporated for the steps to entry porch to no.18.  Detailing of the steps is to be based on the 1970 drawings indicating their earlier configuration.

 

10.     Details are to be provided in relation to the appropriate finish to the rear walls of dwellings (No.16 and 18) where later additions are to be removed, where original face brickwork has been painted and in some cases rendered and painted.

 

11.     The sandstone capping to the existing masonry pier to the fence to no.16 is to be salvaged and reused in the construction of the new masonry pier.  Existing bricks to the existing brick masonry pier to no.16 are to be salvaged and reused if possible in the construction of the new masonry pier.  Amended plans of the front fencing are to be submitted to highlight this aspect. The plan is to be consistent with the elevations which have been submitted, indicating the retention of the western-most stone pier to no.18.

 

12.     Consideration is to be given to the provision of front fencing to no.16, given the level difference between the front garden and the footpath below.  Consideration is to be given to appropriate materials and detailing metal fencing to no.16 and no.18, based on evidence of the remaining masonry fences.

 

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

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

C.      Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement conditions, to the satisfaction of the Director of City Planning, development consent be granted under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 466/2006 for alterations and the refurbishment of the heritage listed properties (No.s 16 and 18 Frances Street) and for the construction of the basement car park and Torrens title subdivision of the site into three allotments, with easement over the rear portion of No.14 Frances Street (Stage One) and the construction of 12 x 2 storey dwellings on the rear portion of the site and strata subdivision (Stage Two) at No.s 14, 16 and 18 Frances Street, Randwick subject to the following conditions;

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

REFERENCED PLANS:  

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans  and reports outlined below and received by Council on 20 June 2006;

Plans:

 

·    Numbered  DA01 through to DA30 prepared by Fox Johnston Architects and dated June 2006

 

·    Survey plan prepared by Watson Buchan P/L and dated 17 May 2005

 

·    Landscape plans numbered LPDA-01 and LPDA-02 prepared by 360 Landscapes and dated June 2006

 

Reports

·    Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by City Plan Heritage and dated May 2006

 

·    Geotechnical and Stage 1 Contamination Assessment prepared by Dosan P/L and dated June 2006

·    Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by ABC Planning and dated June 2006

·    Traffic and Parking Assessment prepared by Transport and Traffic Planning Associates and dated June 2006.

·    BASIX assessment dated 19 June 2006

·    Schedule of colours and materials board received with the application and prepared by Fox Johnston Architects.

 

and including the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

           

HERITAGE CONSERVATION

 

2.         The conservation policies and maintenance program outlined in the Schedule of Conservation Works (as approved by Deferred Commencement No.1) are to be implemented in conjunction with the proposed development.  An architect suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation shall be engaged to oversee the implementation of the endorsed Conservation Plan to ensure the use of technically sound and appropriate techniques.  All work shall be carried out in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and to the satisfaction of the Director City Planning and shall be implemented prior to issuing the Final Occupation Certificate for Stage 1.

 

3.         All the proposed details, colours and materials outlined in the amended plans satisfying Deferred Commencement Condition No.2 shall be incorporated in the Construction certificate for Stage 1.

 

4.         A longer term Maintenance Schedule shall be prepared for No.s 16 and 18 Frances street and shall highlight the works in the buildings that are likely to require repair or restoration. The plan shall highlight internal and external works for the two terms (five and ten years). The schedule shall include the potential areas that may need attention and how these areas/works are to be treated (likely method of repairing the elements). The Maintenance Schedule is to accompany the contract for the sale of both No.16 and 18 Frances Street so that potential buyers know what work may need to be done. The Maintenance Schedule shall be prepared and shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of City Planning prior to the Final Occupation Certificate is issued for stage 1 works.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENTITY:

 

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

 

5.         The northern retaining wall along the boundary that is to be rebuilt of blockwork is to be of a light, consistent colour preferably resembling sandstone to improve its visual appearance. Details of compliance shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of City Services prior to the issuing of the construction certificate for Stage 1.

 

6.         The northern boundary fence above the retaining wall that is to be reconstructed shall have a solid base (maximum 600mm) and the remaining fencing (1.3m in height) above the solid base shall be light timber slats, steel pickets or open style materials to soften its visual appearance. The maximum overall height of the fence is to be 1.8m. Details of compliance shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of City Planning prior to issuing the construction certificate for Stage 2.

 

7.         A solid masonry fence to a maximum height of 1.8m shall be provided for a length of 5.5m extending from the east of the site to provide privacy to the rear courtyard of dwelling No.7. Details of compliance with this condition shall be provided prior to issuing the construction certificate for Stage 2.

 

8.       Fences located on the side of the premises shall not exceed a maximum height of 1800mm measured above the existing ground levels

 

On sloping sites or at changes in ground levels, the maximum height of the fence may exceed the abovementioned specified height by up to 150mm maximum adjacent to any required ‘step-downs’ or changes in ground level.

 

The applicant and owner is advised that the relevant provisions of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 are to be satisfied accordingly and any necessary approvals or agreements should be obtained from the owner/s of the adjoining land beforehand.

 

9.         The privacy screens proposed along the northern sides of the internal courtyards to dwellings Nos 6 and 7 at the rear shall be deleted in order to reduce the bulk and amount of physical structures along this northern side. Details of compliance shall be provided prior to the issuing of the construction certificate for Stage 2.

 

10.       Along the western side of the townhouses at the first floor level a horizontal privacy screen shall be fixed to the external edge of the balustrade to the juliette balcony off bedroom No.1 and shall have a minimum length of 2m and minimum height of 1.5m and located off the balustrade to the balcony to reduce the potential for overlooking to the rear of No.14 Frances street. Details of compliance shall be provided prior to the issuing of the Construction Certificate for Stage 2.

 

11.       If balustrades are required around each rooftop terrace in accordance with the Building Code of Australia the balustrade shall be of clear glass or very open style materials and shall be located on the inner perimeter of the roof. Details of compliance shall be provided prior to issuing the construction certificate for Stage 2.

 

12.       The planting along the perimeter of the roof terrace shall reach a minimum height of 1m and shall be plants that are easy to maintain and prune. Details of the planting species shall be included with the landscape plan and details shall be provided prior to issuing the construction certificate for Stage 2.

 

13.       Within the 900mm rear setback to dwellings Nos 6 and 7 the soil depth over the basement slab shall be increased to 600mm so that plants reaching a minimum height of 2m can be achieved. Details of compliance shall be included in the landscape plan and shall be provided prior to issuing the construction certificate for Stage 2.

 

14.       There must be no encroachment of the structure/s onto any adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place, unless permission has been obtained from the owner/s of the adjoining land accordingly at any stage of building works occurring.

 

15.       Any new roofing to the existing dwelling houses at No.16 and 18 Frances Street shall be non-reflective. Also the proposed aluminium privacy louvres or screens proposed for the new townhouses at the rear shall be constructed of non-reflective materials.

 

13.       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.

 

14.       All plumbing and drainage pipes, other than rainwater heads, gutters and downpipes, must be concealed within all the buildings on site.

 

15.       Street numbering of both the dwellings and the new townhouse development at the rear must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, to the satisfaction of Council. The main communal entry off Frances Street should include the provision of letterboxes which are clearly identified. Details of compliance shall be provided prior to issuing the construction certificate for Stages 1 and 2.

 

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

 

17.       Internal or external clothes drying facilities to the townhouses are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. There shall be no clothes drying facilities provided on the roof terraces or front and rear first floor balconies or entries to the dwellings. Any external clothes drying facilities for the dwellings at the front (No.s 16 and 18 Frances street) shall be screened from view and shall be located at the back of the buildings.

 

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

 

18.       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.

 

19.       Lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents or motorists and to ensure that light overspill does not affect the amenity of the area. Low level but effective entry lighting shall be provided along the communal entry to the rear development and shall also be provided to the entry to the dwellings off Frances street (No.16 and 18) as well as to the car park entry. Details of the type, height and style of lights is to be detailed in the landscape plan and shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of City Planning prior to the approval of the construction certificate for Stage 1.

 

23.       In order to provide a safe and secure environment for residents, security mechanisms for the pedestrian building entry to the new development at the rear including the existing dwellings shall be provided, including an audio or video intercom system located at the building entry for visitors to communicate with residents.  Details shall be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for Stage 2 the development.

 

24.       In order to ensure that the basement car park is secure for residents and visitors a security gate to the basement shall be provided with intercom facilities at the car park entrance for visitors, capable of being accessed by people with a disability. The security gate shall be recessed behind the front entry and shall be in line with the north-western boundary of No.16 Frances Street.   Details shall be provided to the satisfaction of the certifying authority prior to the issue of the construction certificate for Stage 1.

 

25.       The existing garage at the rear of No.14 Frances Street which is to be demolished to provide access for easement over the property is to be rebuilt. The size, scale and height of the new structure shall match as closely as possible the existing buildings. The proposed materials and colours shall resemble as closely as possible the existing construction materials and colours. New roofing shall be non-reflective. Details of compliance shall be provided prior to issuing the construction certificate for Stage 1.

 

26.       Three bicycle spaces shall be provided within the basement of the proposed development.  Details to be provided with the construction certificate application for Stage 1 works

 

27.       Visitor car parking spaces shall be clearly marked. Details of compliance shall be provided prior to issuing the final occupation certificate for Stage 1.

 

28.       Individual car spaces within the basement car park shall not be enclosed at any time.

 

29.       The basement car park including the associated storage areas shall be kept clean and tidy at all times.

 

30.       There shall be no storage of waste or rubbish along Frances Street or Kelso Lane at any time.

 

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

 

32.       Any television aerials shall be sited behind the building line and shall not be visible from any street frontages (including Kelso Lane)

 

33.       Consent is not granted under this application for any satellite dishes.

 

34.       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.

 

ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & ENERGY EFFICIENCY: 

 

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

 

35.       In accordance with Section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all of the required commitments listed in the relevant BASIX Certificate for this development are fulfilled prior to the issuing of the construction certificate for Stage 2.

 

36.       The following provisions are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant BASIX Certificate and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate for Stage 2 documentation (as applicable), to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority:

 

·           Stormwater management (i.e. rainwater tanks)

·           Water efficiency (i.e. triple A rated taps and showers, dual flush toilets and water re-use)

·           Landscaping provisions

·           Thermal comfort (i.e. construction materials, glazing and insulation)

·           Energy efficiency (i.e. cooling & heating provisions and hot water systems)

 

37.       In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue a final Occupation Certificate for Stage 2 of this development, unless it is satisfied that each of the required BASIX commitments have been fulfilled.

 

Relevant documentary evidence of compliance with the BASIX commitments is to be forwarded to the Council upon issuing the final Occupation Certificate of Stage 2.

 

SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS

 

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

 

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

 

a)         for the provision or improvement of open space                             $ 32,784.00

b)         for the provision or improvement of community facilities                 $ 14,496.00

 

d)         Administration fee                                                                               $425.00

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to a construction certificate being issued for Stage 1, 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.

 

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY AND DANGEROUS GOODS: 

 

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

 

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

 

ASBESTOS POLICY REQUIREMENTS

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of public health, amenity and safety:

 

40.       The demolition, removal, storage, handling and disposal of products and materials containing asbestos must be carried out in accordance with Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy and the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW and the NSW Department of Environment & Conservation (formerly the Environment Protection Authority), including:

·          Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·          Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

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

·          WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·          Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·          The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

·          Relevant Department of Environment & Conservation (DEC) / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines.

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

41.       A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures.

 

The Work Plan must include the following information (as applicable):-

·          The name, address, contact details and licence number of the Demolisher /Asbestos Removal Contractor

·          Details of hazardous materials, including asbestos

·          Method/s of demolition and removal of asbestos

·          Measures and processes to be implemented to ensure the health & safety of workers and community

·          Measures to be implemented to minimise any airborne asbestos and dust

·          Methods and location of disposal of any asbestos or other hazardous materials

·          Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented as identified in the Asbestos Survey

·          Date the demolition and removal of asbestos will commence

 

The Demolition Work Plan must be submitted to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) if the Council is not the PCA, not less than two (2) working days before commencing any demolition works involving asbestos products or materials.  A copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Note it is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

 

42.       A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 200 m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation). Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.

 

43.       On demolition sites involving the removal of asbestos, a  professionally manufactured sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS” and include details of the licensed contractor. The sign shall measure not less than 400mm x 300mm and the sign is to be installed prior to demolition work commencing and is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos has been safely removed from the site.

 

44.       Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

 

Asbestos waste must be disposed of at an approved waste disposal depot (refer to the DEC or Waste Service NSW for details of sites). Copies of all receipts detailing method and location of disposal must be maintained on site and be provided to Council officers upon request, as evidence of correct disposal.

 

45.       A Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council upon completion of the works (prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued), which confirms that the relevant requirements contained in the Asbestos Survey and conditions of consent, in relation to the safe removal and disposal of asbestos, have been satisfied.

 

46.       To provide reasonable access for persons with disabilities, suitable access ramp/s are to be provided from the entry to the premises and to the building entrance to the satisfaction of the certifying authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

NOISE EMISSION CONDITIONS:

 

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

 

47.       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 a 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).

 

48.       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.

 

49.       The installation of rainwater tanks and greywater treatment systems shall comply with the following noise control requirements:-

 

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

 

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

 

b)         Plant and equipment associated with rainwater tank(s) and greywater treatment systems are to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

c)         The operation of plant and equipment associated with the rainwater tank(s) and greywater treatment systems are to be restricted, if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises:

 

·          before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on weekends or public holiday; or

·          before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION & CONTROL:

 

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

 

50.       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.

 

51.       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.

 

PRESCRIBED BUILDING & FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS:

 

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

 

52.       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.

 

BUILDING REQUIREMENTS

 

53.       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.

 

54.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

56.       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.

 

57.       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”.

 

58.       An Occupation Certificate must be obtained for Stages 1 and 2 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 staged 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.

 

59.       Prior to the issuing of an interim or final occupation certificate for stages 1 and 2, 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

61.       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 for stage 1 and 2 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 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

62.       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 stage 1 and stage 2 of the development.

 

STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY:

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

 

63.       A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for Stage 1, 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 for Stage 1.

 

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

 

64.       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 for Stage 1, 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 for Stage 1.

 

65.       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)         70 Cowper Street – known as “Kelso Court” (just the dwellings in the rear/southern block)

 

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

 

66.       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.

 

67.       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 for Stage 1 and 2, certifying the structural adequacy of the building and that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT:

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

 

68.       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.

 

69.       A copy of the construction certificate (for Stages 1 and 2), 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.

 

70.       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.

 

71.       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.

 

72.       Except with the written approval of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services, all building, demolition and associated site works (including site deliveries) must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive and between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and Public Holidays.

 

In addition, the use of any rock excavation machinery or any mechanical pile drivers or the like, is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum) on Monday to Friday only, to minimise the noise levels during construction and loss of amenity to nearby residents.

 

73.       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.

 

74.       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.

 

Should noise and vibration emissions not comply with the terms and conditions of consent, work must cease forthwith and is not to recommence until details of compliance are submitted to Council.

 

75.       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.

 

76.       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.

 

77.       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.

 

78.       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.

 

79.       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.

 

80.       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.

 

81.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

83.       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.

 

84.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

86.       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.

 

Security Deposit Conditions

 

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

 

87.       The following damage/civil works security deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for stage 1 of the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

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

 

The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash or 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 advising Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works.

 

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:

 

88.       Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the dwelling houses (stage 1) the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a)     Undertake civil works in Kelso Lane as required to facilitate vehicular access to the site. This shall include:

·         Construct a heavy duty concrete layback opposite the proposed vehicular entrance to the site in Kelso Lane;

·         Demolition of the existing low retaining wall in Kelso Lane;

·         Construction of a new sandstone retaining wall (within the laneway road reserve) along the eastern side of Kelso Lane between the new layback and the existing vehicular crossing into 70 Cowper Street;

·         Carrying out full width laneway reconstruction works in front of the new layback for a minimum length of 5 metres;

·         Construction of concrete kerb and gutter (and/or layback as required) along the eastern side of Kelso Lane for the full length of the laneway reconstruction works;

·         Construction of concrete kerb and gutter (and/or layback as required) along the western side of Kelso Lane for the full length of the laneway reconstruction works; and

·         Construction of full width concrete footpath between the concrete kerb and gutter and the property boundaries (and/or new retaining wall) on both the eastern and western sides of the laneway.

 

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

 

c)     Reconstruct kerb and gutter along the full site frontage of 16-18 Frances Street.

 

Note: this shall include reconstruction of the existing kerb inlet pit located along the site frontage.

 

d)     Carry out a full depth minimum 1.50 metre wide, road construction in front of the new kerb and gutter along the Frances Street site frontage.

 

e)    Reconstruct any damaged sections of concrete footpath along the full site frontage of 16-18 Frances Street.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

89.       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.

 

90.       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.

 

91.       A Works Zone is to be provided in the vicinity of the subject site 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.

 

92.       Prior to the issue of a construction certificate for stage 1, 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.

 

93.       Prior to the issue of a construction certificate stage 1, a structural/geotechnical engineer shall undertake a detailed assessment of the stability of the existing retaining wall along the northern boundary of the site. The assessment shall extend to cover the sections of wall adjoining the development site and the engineer shall provide full structural plans and a report detailing:

·      How the existing wall will be demolished and the new wall constructed along the northern boundary of 16-18 Frances Street without compromising the stability of the adjoining sections of retaining wall;

·      How the proposed vehicular access will be constructed through the section of wall at the end of Kelso Lane without adversely affecting the adjoining sections of wall; and

·      The engineering design for the new sections of retaining wall.

If approval is granted to the above method and works the adjoining building at No.70 Cowper Street (Kelso Court) shall be informed in writing when construction activity is to commence on the site. Ideally two weeks notice should be provided.

 

94.       All works shall be undertaken in accordance with the structural/geotechnical engineers report and the engineer shall be present on site throughout the full duration of retaining wall works to supervise the demolition and wall re-construction processes.

 

95.       The engineer supervising the works shall certify on completion that all works have been undertaken in accordance with their design and relevant engineering standard.

 

96.       All reconstructed/new portions of the retaining wall shall be located wholly within the subject development site.

 

97.       Should access be required through any adjoining property to facilitate retaining wall works, the applicant will be required to liaise directly with the adjoining property owner to obtain approval for entry. Such consent shall be obtained prior to the issue of a construction certificate for stage 1 so that if consent is withheld by an adjoining property owner, the construction regime may be modified to remove the need to enter private land.

 

98.       Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate for the dwelling houses (stage 1), suitable easements for access shall be created over the access driveway from Kelso Lane. The easement shall be created over 14-14A Frances Street (benefiting 16-18 Frances Street) and shall be limited in height to allow for the shed to be rebuilt over the top of the access driveway.

 

Note: The submitted draft subdivision plan shows the access driveway being incorporated into Lot 3 (rather than being covered by an easement for access). The subdivision plans shall be amended to show the existing boundary between 14-14A Frances Street and 16 Frances Street being unchanged prior to the endorsement of the subdivision plans.

 

Alignment Level Conditions

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

 

99.       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:

 

·        Frances Street: Match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

          (As per the submitted survey plan by Watson Buchan dated 17 May 2005)

·        Kelso Lane: RL 70.33 (AHD)

          (As per the amended Basement Plan DA31 by Fox Johnston dated 2 August 2006)

 

100.     The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment levels at the property boundaries must be strictly adhered to.

 

101.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $2305 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 stage 1 of the development.

Service Authority Conditions

 

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

 

102.     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.

 

103.     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.

 

104.     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 stage 1 of the development.

 

105.     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 for stage 1 to determine whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

106.     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 wires/cables to be relocated. All wires/cables must be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the dwelling houses (stage 1).

 

107.     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 for stage 1.

·    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:

 

108.     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 (for entire development at 16-18 Frances Street) shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for stage 1 of 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.

 

109.     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.

 

110.     All stormwater runoff from proposed Lots 1 and 2 must be discharged (by gravity) to either:

 

a)   The underground drainage system in Frances Street via a kerb inlet pit; OR

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

 

111.     All stormwater runoff from proposed Lot 3 must be discharged (by gravity) to either:

 

c)   The underground drainage system in Frances Street;

d)   The kerb and gutter or drainage system in Kelso Lane; OR

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

 

112.     Should stormwater from proposed Lot 3 be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, on-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from Lot 3 does not 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 Lot 3 for all storms up to the 1 in 100 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.

 

The on-site detention system may be sized for the 1 in 20 year storm event (rather than the 1 in 100 year storm event) if stormwater run off from the site is discharged directly into Council’s underground drainage system. This would require the applicant to meet all costs associated with extending Council’s underground drainage system in Kelso Lane to the proposed site outlet point.

 

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.

 

113.     Should stormwater from proposed Lots 1 or 2 be discharged to an infiltration system, the infiltration area shall be sized for all storm events up to the 1 in 20 year storm event with provision for a formal overland flow path to Council’s Street drainage system.

 

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

 

114.     Should stormwater from proposed Lot 3 be discharged to an infiltration system, the infiltration area shall be sized for all storm events up to the 1 in 100 year storm event with provision for a satisfactory overland flow path.

 

115.     Any Infiltration systems/Absorption Trenches must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

116.     The detention areas/infiltration systems must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure they function as required by the design.

 

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

 

f)      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);

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

h)     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

 

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

 

119.     The floor level of all habitable and storage areas adjacent to the detention area (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level 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).

 

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

 

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

 

122.     If stormwater is to be discharged to Council’s underground drainage system:

 

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

 

·    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. All costs associated with reinstating areas damaged by the pipeline installation shall be met by the applicant;

 

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

 

123.     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.

 

124.     Sediment/silt arrester pits must be provided:-

 

i)         within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system; and

j)        prior to stormwater discharging into any absorption/infiltration system.

 

The sediment/silt arrester pits 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.

 

125.     A minimum of one covered car washing bay shall be provided for this development.

 

a)     The car washing bay 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 an occupation certificate being issued.

 

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

 

c)     The car washing bay may be located within one of the visitor parking spaces provided it is 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 bay must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bay (or equivalent)

 

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

 

126.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the townhouse development (stage 2), 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:

 

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

l)          Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

m)        Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

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

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

p)         Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

127.     Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate for the townhouse development (stage 2), 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.

 

128.     Should significant seepage flows be encountered within the depth of the basement excavation; and/or the basement carpark intersect the bedrock, 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 prior to the issue of an occupation certificate for stage 1.

 

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).

Waste Management Conditions

 

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

 

129.     The waste storage area for the 12 townhouses shall be sized to contain a total of 12 x 240 litre bins (6 garbage bins & 6 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

130.     The waste storage areas for the two dwelling houses shall each be sized to contain 1 x 120 litre garbage bin, 1 x 240 litre recycling bin and 1 x 240 litre green waste bins. The plans submitted for the construction certificates for stages 1 shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

131.     The waste storage area for the 12 townhouses is 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.

 

132.     The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

133.     Waste bins for the townhouses shall be presented for weekly collection in Kelso Lane in general accordance with the diagram submitted to Council by Barua Pty Limited, received 4 July 2006.

 

134.     Waste bins for the dwelling houses shall be presented for weekly collection in Frances Street.

 

135.     Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for stage 1 of the proposed development the applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste Services, a Waste Management Plan detailing waste and recycling storage and disposal for the development site.

 

The plan shall detail the type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development; demolition waste; construction waste; materials to be re-used or recycled; facilities/procedures for the storage, collection recycling & disposal of waste and the on-going management of waste.

Subdivision Conditions

 

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

 

Torrens title subdivision of 16-18 Frances Street to create 3 new lots

 

136.     The applicant shall create suitable easements for support over Lots 1, 2 and 3 (benefiting each other lot) at basement level. This condition has been included as it is not proposed to construct the basement with structurally independent elements under each lot.

 

137.     The applicant shall create suitable easements for access (benefiting Lots 1 and 2) through the access aisle in the basement carpark (Lot 3) to facilitate access to the parking spaces allocated to Lots 1 and 2 (Stage 1).

 

138.     The applicant shall create suitable easements for parking and access (benefiting Lots 1 and 2 as appropriate) over the portion of the parking spaces and egress stairs allocated to Lots 1 and 2 that encroach into Lot 3 (Stage 1).

 

139.     Part of the car parking area for Townhouse 1 (Lot 3) extends into proposed Lot 1; hence an easement for access and parking (benefiting Lot 3) shall be created over the subject portion of Lot 1 to facilitate access to the parking space.

 

140.     An easement for access/right of access benefiting Lot 3 shall be created over the portion of the circulation aisle that encroaches into Lot 2 (Stage 1).

 

141.     Suitable easements for services and stormwater lines shall be created where required. The applicant is advised that the minimum easement width for any internal stormwater line is 0.9 metres.

 

142.     Each of the easements required by the above conditions of consent shall be registered in conjunction with the plan of Torrens title subdivision creating the three new allotments

 

143.     A subdivision certificate for the proposed deposited plan subdivision shall not be issued prior to the completion of all Stage 1 works.

 

Strata subdivision of Lot 3

 

144.     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 strata subdivision for the townhouses) (Stage 2) to ensure that the onsite detention system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

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

b.   The subdivision plans shall indicate the location and dimensions of the detention/infiltration areas. 

c.   The works as executed drainage plan and hydraulic certification must be submitted to Council prior to the “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” being executed by Council.

 

145.     The applicant shall create suitable easements as required.

 

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

 

147.     The applicant shall provide Council with a survey plan of the property prior to endorsement of the strata subdivision plans for Stages 1 and 2.

Landscape Conditions

 

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

 

148.     Landscaping at the site shall be installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plan prepared GM of 360 Landscape Architects, drawing number LPDA-01, issue A, sheet 1 & 2, dated June 2006 and stamped received at Council on 20th June 2006, subject to the following additional requirements being shown on an amended plan, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate for stage 1:

 

a.         In order to provide sufficient and appropriate levels of screening and privacy between this site and adjoining properties, as well as to ensure that the proposed planting is in keeping with the scale and bulk of the development, making full use of those areas of deep soil which will accommodate larger specimens than the 4 metre high species proposed, a minimum number of a 5 x 25 litre (pot size at the time of planting) trees shall be provided within the rear (northern) half of the site, using those native species which will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity, and will comprise a minimum number of two along the western boundary and a minimum of three along the eastern boundary (Stage 2)

 

b.         The exact quantity of species proposed throughout the site needs to be clearly indicated on the planting plan.

 

d.         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.

 

149.     Documentary evidence is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the principal certifying authority (PCA) (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate for stage 2 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.

 

150.     To ensure satisfactory maintenance of the landscaping, an automatic drip irrigation system shall be installed to provide full coverage to all planted areas (grass/turf exempt) within 16-18 Frances Street.

 

Details are to be submitted showing connection of this system to the sites rainwater tanks, with back-up connection to the mains supply, in accordance with current Sydney Water requirements.

 

151.     The naturestrip upon Council's Frances Street 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 for stage 1. If the verge is damaged during construction of stage 2, the naturestrip shall be re-turfed again prior to the issue of an occupation certificate for stage 2.

 

152.     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.

 

153.     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 certificates application shall show the top of the detention tanks and stormwater infiltration devices being 600mm below the finished ground level of the landscaped areas.

 

Tree Management

 

154.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $107.25 (including GST) to Council,

 

a.         Being the cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre street tree (Lophostemon confertus, Brush Box) along the Frances Street frontage (immediately south of the existing vehicular crossing to 16-18 France Street) at the completion of all works ($97.50 + GST).

 

The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income account no 4001.768401 at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to a construction certificate being issued for stage 1 of the development.

 

The applicant will be required to contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613, giving at least two working weeks notice, to arrange for provision of this new street tree upon completion of all site works.

 

155.     The following trees shall be removed as part of the proposed works, subject to implementation of landscaping at the site which is installed substantially in accordance with the landscape plan approved in the construction certificate:

 

r)      One Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) in the front portion of the site, near the southwest corner of the existing dwelling (16 Frances Street) due to its undesirable, weed-like properties and to allow for the provision of new landscaping in this area.

 

s)     One Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) in the rear yard, along the western boundary of 16 Frances Street, near the northwest corner of the existing dwelling due to its poor form as well as to accommodate the proposed works as indicated.

 

156.     A professional Arborist (‘the site Arborist’), holding a minimum qualification of Certificate 4 in Arboriculture, and who is a registered member of a nationally recognized organisation, shall be engaged to supervise those components of the proposed works which have the potential to affect (either directly or indirectly) those trees listed for retention in this consent, with all site staff required to comply with any written or verbal instructions issued by the site Arborist which relates to the preservation of these trees.

 

157.     All relevant details of the site Arborist shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, prior to the physical commencement of any works at the site.

 

158.     Permission is granted for the minimal and selective pruning of only those lower growing branches from the Ficus rubiginosa (Port Jackson Fig), located within the existing internal driveway serving 16-18 Frances Street, which need to be removed in order to avoid damage/conflict with site machinery during the course of the proposed works. The amount of pruning will not be such that it will significantly alter the habit of form of this tree, and will only be undertaken by the site Arborist, to the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

159.     Permission is granted for the selective under-pruning of only those lower growing branches from the three Lophostomen confertus (Brush Box) street trees located on Council’s nature strip in front of 16-18 Frances Street, comprising one to the west of the existing vehicle crossing and two to the east, which need to be removed in order to avoid damage/conflict with site machinery during the course of the proposed works. The applicant/site Arborist will be required to contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613, giving at least 2 working days notice, to ensure supervision of any pruning of these street trees. This pruning will be undertaken by the site Arborist, to the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

160.     Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate for the dwelling houses (stage 1), the applicant/site Arborist shall provide written certification, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, confirming attendance on site during the relevant stages of the proposed works, and that all recommendations and conditions of consent relating to the protection of those trees listed for retention were complied with during the course of the works.

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

161.     In order to ensure the retention of the three Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) street trees located on Council’s nature strip in front of 16-18 Frances Street, comprising two to the east of the existing vehicle crossing and one to its west in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.         All detailed documentation submitted for the construction certificate applications shall show the retention of these street trees 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 shall be located along the back of the kerb, a minimum distance of 1 metre off the eastern and western sides of each trunk and along the back of the footpath in order 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 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".

 

162.     In order to ensure the retention of the Ficus rubiginosa (Port Jackson Fig) located within the existing internal driveway (serving 16-18 Frances Street) in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.   All detailed documentation submitted for the construction certificate applications shall show the retention of the existing specimen with the position of its trunk and full diameter of its canopy clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.   In order to prevent the indiscriminate damage of roots or branches by site machinery, the demolition of any concrete surfacing within 3.5 metres of the outside edge of the trunk shall be initially performed and removed by hand under the directions of the site Arborist.

 

c.   Any excavations required for footings associated with the proposed sandstone risers to the south of its trunk or the retaining wall to its east shall be initially performed by hand, and under the direction/supervision of the site Arborist.

 

d.   Should any significant roots be encountered which the site Arborist determines must be preserved, the footing for these structures shall be relocated over/around/away from these roots (using a construction method that is satisfactory to both the engineer and site Arborist) in order to prevent disturbance to these roots. Any smaller, insignificant roots which the site Arborist determines can be pruned without affecting the health or stability of the tree shall be cut cleanly by hand and the affected area backfilled as soon as practically possible.

 

e.   Other than works associated with the proposed sandstone surfacing surrounding its trunk, this tree is to be physically protected at all times by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing which shall be located a minimum distance of 3 metres off the northern side of the trunk, 3.5 metres off the western and eastern sides and 1.5 metres off the southern side of its trunk (to allow site access).

 

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

 

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

 

Any works required within this zone (only as approved on the construction certificates) shall be under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, the Arborist.

 

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

a)         Part B1            -           Structural provisions

b)         Part C1            -           Fire resistance and stability

f)          Clause C3.2&C3.4      -           Protection of openings in external walls

p)         Part E1 -           Fire fighting equipment

q)         Part E2 -           Smoke Hazard Management

r)          Part E3 -           Lift Installations

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

t)          Part F1 -           Damp and weatherproofing

w)        Part F4 -           Light and ventilation, in particular, the carpark

x)         Part F5 -           Sound Transmission and Insulation

 

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

 

You are 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.

 

A2.      The applicant/owner is advised that this approval does not guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the applicant should therefore consider their liability under the Act.  In this regard, the applicant is advised that compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standard 1428.1 - Design for Access and Mobility does not necessarily satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

LARISSA OZOG

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

COORDIANTOR, MAJOR ASSESSMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                            



Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

21 September, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/648/2006Nil & PROP011689

 

PROPOSAL:

 Proposed home activity for a hairdresser within the existing dwelling

PROPERTY:

 18 Zions Avenue MALABAR

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 John Spiteri

OWNER:

 Mr H Lambrou & Mrs V Lambrou

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee because the owner of the property is a Council employee.

 

This application proposes a home activity for a hairdresser within the existing dwelling.  No objections have been received to the proposal.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

This application proposes a home activity for a hairdresser within the existing dwelling. The nature of the activity is the cutting, colouring and styling of hair. The activity will be carried out within the living room and laundry of the dwelling and the bathroom may be used for the convenience and amenity of clients. The home activity will operate for 2 to 3 hours per day and cater to up to 3 clients per day. The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Sunday 8am to 6pm. Clients will enter via the existing driveway and side entrance. A moveable screen will be in place to separate the living room and kitchen. Proposed signage is 1m x 0.15m, will be for business identification purposes and located on the front fence of the subject site.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Zions Avenue between Lucas Avenue and Prince Edward Street in Malabar and is currently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling. The site has a frontage width of 13.72m, a side boundary depth of 39.62m and an overall site area approx. 543m². Neighbouring the property to the west is a single storey dwelling, to the east is a two storey dwelling and to the rear is a two storey dwelling. The surrounding area is predominantly residential with a mixture of single and two storey dwellings.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

There is no relevant history for this application.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1   Objections

 

No objections have been received for this application.

 

5.2   Support

 

No supporting letters have been received for this application.

 

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  Environmental Health Referral

 

The application has been referred to the Environmental Health Department for comment, conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted. The following comments have been provided:-

 

Environmental Health comments

 

The proposal consists of a development application seeking approval for a home activity hairdressing salon.

 

Key Issues

 

The activity proposed is the cutting, colouring and styling of hair as a home activity. The premises will be required to comply with the requirements of the New South Wales Department of Health and Local Government Act 1993 and associated Regulations.

 

6.2 BCA Classification

 

Under the Building Code of Australia, the classification of the building is:-

Dwelling House – Class 1a,

Supply of services direct to the public – Class 6.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The subject site is less than 4000m² and therefore a master plan is not required.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

-         Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended;

-         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998;

-         Building Code of Australia;

-         Development Control Plan - Outdoor Advertising, Parking.

-         Merit-based assessment.

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 - Home Activity

 

Home activity means any business, profession or industry carried on in a building or room or a number of rooms forming part of, attached to, or within the curtilage of, a dwelling, where:

 

(a)    only goods made or produced, or services offered, as a result of the activity or pursuit are displayed, sold or provided, and

(b)    the primary use of the dwelling is for residential purposes, and

(c)    the activity or pursuit does not:

(i)    interfere with the amenity of the locality by reason of the emission of excessive noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil or otherwise, or

(ii)   involve exposure to view form any public place of any matter, or

(iii)  require the provision of any essential service main of a greater capacity than that available in the locality, or

(iv)  generate traffic out of keeping with the surrounding area, and

(d)    the activity is carried out by the permanent residents of the dwelling,

 

but (in Part 2) does not include any land use elsewhere defined in this clause.”

 

The definition outlined in the RLEP 1998 is consistent with the proposed home activity at the subject site.

 

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.

 

(a)  Development Control Plan – Outdoor Advertising

 

The relevant objectives for outdoor advertising within Residential zones:

·      Preserve the residential amenity of the locality;

·      Minimise the visual impact of signs;

·      Allow for legitimate commercial uses in residential zones such as doctor’s surgery, dentists and other similar types of activities to be able to be adequately and effectively be identified by potential users.

 

The proposed home activity includes a business identification sign measuring 1m x 0.15m located by the front fence. This sign will be painted on a waterproof board, it will not be illuminated and the top of the sign will be a maximum of 2m above ground. The content of the sign has not been provided and as such a condition is included in the recommendation requiring details to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of the use.

 

The sign adequately addresses the abovementioned objectives and will not result in any unreasonable impact on the locality due to the size of the sign which will not detract from the amenity of the dwelling or surrounding properties and will not be visually dominating or inconsistent with the relevant assessment criteria.

 

(b)  Development Control Plan – Parking

 

The proposal has been assessed in accordance with Council’s DCP for Parking. The DCP outlines that one (1) additional car parking space is required for the dwelling.

 

As there is no proposed increase in the floor area additional car parking is not required. The proposed home activity is not considered to result in a significant increase in parking pressures. Also, the dwelling has an existing driveway and garage which may facilitate tandem or stack parking if required, although it is considered that there is adequate off-street parking in the locality to facilitate demand.

 

(c)  Merit-based assessment

 

The proposed home activity is considered to be acceptable as it is consistent with the requirements of the objectives and assessment criteria of the Residential 2A zone, RLEP 1998 and the relevant Development Control Plans. The proposed home activity will be contained within the existing dwelling and no structural changes are proposed. The area occupied by the home activity is approximately 25m² which is considered to be acceptable.

 

The home activity does not impede on the integrity of the dwelling and the 1.8m moveable screen will be in place to separate the kitchen and living room. The procedure for welcoming clients via the driveway and side entrance provides for a separation of home and professional conduct. The proposed home activity proposes 2 to 3 clients per day which is not considered to create an excessive amount of noise in the use of the driveway to enter the property for the use of the home activity. Noise conditions and hours of operation have been imposed to ensure noise impacts are not excessive.

 

(d)  Site Suitability

 

This application proposes a home activity within a residential zone. The proposal will not have any adverse impacts on the adjoining dwellings as the use of the dwelling as a hairdresser will not result in any significant adverse impacts such as noise or odour. For this reason the hours of operation are considered to be acceptable.

 

10.  RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome:             A strong local economy

 

Direction 9a and associated action: Vibrant town centres that adequately serve the community and support local business.

 

11.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is permissible with consent in the Residential 2A zone and complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998), relevant Development Control Plans and the merit-based assessment.  The proposed home activity will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. This application is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No DA/648/2006 for Proposed home activity for hairdresser within existing dwelling at 18 Zions Avenue MALABAR subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered “Dwg No 1.04, 1.05, 1.06 and 1.07”, dated 26 May 2006 and received by Council on 29 June 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.         Details of the content of the proposed sign including wording and colours shall be submitted to an approved by the Director of City Planning prior to the commencement of the use.

 

3.         The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance.

 

4.         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.

 

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

 

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

 

6.         Hairdressers must comply with the Local Government (General) Regulations 2005 and the Public Health Act & Regulations 1991, and the premises is to be registered with Council prior to occupation and on an annual basis and the approved registration/inspection fee is to be forwarded to the Council prior to occupation.

 

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

 

7.         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.

 

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

 

9.         The hours of operation of the business are restricted to:

Monday to Sunday 8am to 6pm.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

 

 

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SACHA KALESS

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

STUDENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

25 September, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/614/2006 & PROP016231

 

PROPOSAL:

 Enlargement of window on eastern elevation, internal alterations and relocation of front door

PROPERTY:

 33 Arcadia Street, COOGEE

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Fanitsa Kokkinomagoulos

 

OWNER:

 Proprietors of Sp18983

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillor Chris Bastic, Councillor Paul Tracey and Councillor Dominic Sullivan.

 

This application proposes alterations to the existing residential flat building. This includes the enlargement of the existing window on the eastern elevation, internal work and reconfiguration of rooms, and the relocation of the front door to Unit 1. Work on the proposal was commenced without development consent.  The applicant subsequently lodged the subject application to complete the proposed works.

 

An objection has been received which details a variety of concerns. One of the main concerns of the objection is that the visual and acoustic privacy impacts will be increased with the proposal. The enlargement of the window will result in a situation where the objector’s living room will overlook the bedroom of the applicant. A suitable condition is included requiring fixed obscure glazing to a height of 1.5m above floor level.

 

There is an minor increase in the floor area of the subject unit, resulting from the repositioning of the front door. A SEPP No.1 has been submitted arguing that compliance with the development standard relating to the maximum floor space ratio in RLEP 1998, is unnecessary and unreasonable as the proposal will only increase the floor area of the unit by 2m2. It is considered that the increase in floor area is minimal and will be negligible in terms of adding bulk to the building.

 

Overall, it is considered that there are no significant environmental impacts as a result of this application. The proposal is acceptable and is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

This application proposes alterations to the existing residential unit. This includes the enlargement of the existing window on the eastern elevation, internal work and reconfiguration of rooms, and the relocation of the front door to Unit 1.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Arcadia Street between Beach Street and Major Street in Coogee and is presently occupied by an existing three storey multi-unit development consisting of 12 units. The site has a frontage width of 15m, a side boundary depth of 36m and has an overall site area of 540m².  Neighbouring the property to the east, west and rear are three storey residential flat buildings. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of a mixture of detached and semi-detached dwelling houses and residential flat buildings.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

The subject property was inspected by Council’s Compliance Officer after complaints that the window openings in the subject building were being enlarged without development consent. The owner of the building was advised that the external window, which had been enlarged is required to be restored to its original condition or to lodge a Development Application to Council to complete the works.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.

 

5.1  Objections

 

One (1) objection for this application has been received:

 

Michelle Waldon, Unit 3, 35 Arcadia Street COOGEE NSW 2034

 

Issue

Comment

The statement regarding site layout is incorrect as it does not include other changes made to exterior windows of other units; Incorrect site description made regarding the number of units in the building.

This application deals only with the window enlargement of Unit 1 from the subject property.

The three storey multi-unit development consists of four units to each level and consists of a total of 12 units.

The statement regarding external changes to the building is incorrect as external changes have been made to other units, including Unit 3. 

This is not a matter for consideration under this application.  The concerns raised in relation to unauthorised works to other parts of the building will be referred to Council’s Regulatory Section.

Statements made concerning the visual impact of the proposal do not indicate internal impacts; external changes will have a visual impact from the adjacent building.

The proposed change to the window is not considered to be a significant change as it maintains the position of the existing window, it is not visible from the streetscape and a condition for obscure glazing is to be imposed with any consent.

The increasing of the side window on the eastern side of the building will result in an increase to the noise level. Previous complaints about noise have been referred to the police.

The enlarged window is not expected to significantly increase the levels of noise being able to be emitted from the unit. A bedroom is not considered to a high intensity use when compared to a living room and walls and floors are conditioned to comply with the requirements of the BCA for sound transmission and insulation.

Privacy impacts as a result of the adjacent lounge room looking into the bedroom of the subject Unit.

Due to concerns regarding privacy and overlooking a condition requiring sill heights of windows below 1.5m is to be obscure glazing as included in the recommendation.

Future applications, particularly the application for the window to Unit 3 will increase the visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

This application deals only with the window enlargement of Unit 1 from the subject property.

Future applications for 33 Arcadia Street will be appropriately assessed taking into account impacts on adjoining neighbours and noise. This is not a consideration in respect of the proposed development.

 

5.2  Support

 

No supporting letters for this application have been received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Development Engineer

 

The application has been referred to the Development Engineer for comment. No objections were raised subject to conditions with any approval.  The following comments have been provided:-

 

An application has been received for alterations and additions to Unit 1 of the existing residential flat building at the above site.

 

Landscape Comments

There are no existing trees, (covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal.

 

Flooding Comments

The Planning Officer is advised that there is a potential overland flow path through the subject development site. If the proposed scope of works included complete redevelopment of the site, the applicant may be required to undertake a flood study to determine the 1 in 100 year flood level for the site; and then design the building to prevent stormwater inundation.

 

However, the submitted plans show only minor changes to the ground floor level. Further, the total width of the reconfigured front door opening onto Acadia Street is the same as the total width of the existing opening.

 

Consequently, it is considered beyond the scope of this development application to require the applicant to submit a flood study and potentially redesign the proposed new ground floor area (if required as a result of the study).

 

Notwithstanding the above, the Development Engineer initially considered whether the applicant should be conditioned to implement minor measures to reduce the potential for stormwater to enter the development. However, a site inspection has revealed that the front door has a step up from the porch level of approximately 50mm, and further that a tiled bunding approximately 50mm high has been constructed at the front of the porch to direct stormwater away from the entrance to the unit. Accordingly, no conditions have been included in this report in regard to this matter.

 

6.2  BCA Classification

 

Under the Building Code of Australia, the classification of the building is:-

Multi-unit building – Class 2.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The subject site is less than 4000m² and therefore a master plan is not required.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-        Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended;

-        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998;

-        Building Code of Australia;

-        Development Control Plan – Multi-unit Housing;

-        State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1.

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 - FSR

0.65:1

1.18:1

Non Compliance.

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

Complies.

Randwick Local Environmental Plan – Clause 29, Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The purpose of this clause is “to identify visually prominent residential areas along the coast and establish consent requirements for development in these areas to protect and enhance their visual qualities”.

 

The subject site is part of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. However, the proposed works will not have a significant impact on the aesthetic appearance of the building in relation to the foreshore as most of the work is internal and/or not visible from the streetscape. The relocation of the front door to Unit 1 which is visible from the streetscape is minor in nature and will not impact on the appearance of the building. 

 

Overall, the proposal will not adversely affect the amenity or the character of the locality and satisfies the objectives of Clause 29 of RLEP 1998.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan – Clause 32, Floor Space Ratio

Clause 32(1) of RLEP 1998 states that a maximum floor space ratio for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within land zoned 2C is 0.9:1. However, Clause 2 states that if the land has a total site area less than 700 m2, the floor space ratio is 0.65:1.

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 1.18:1 and, therefore, does not comply.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) and the applicant has lodged an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development standards (SEPP No.1) to the floor space ratio control arguing that strict compliance with Clause 32(2) of RLEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.

SEPP 1 Objection – Floor Space Ratio (Clause 32)

A floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.65:1 is applicable to the subject site zoned Residential 2C pursuant to Clause 32 of RLEP 1998. The existing building has a floor space ratio of 1:17:1 and the proposed additional floor area which will result in relocating the front door to Unit 1 and creating the new hallway inside the Unit will increase the floor area by 2m2 resulting in a floor space ratio of 1.18:1.

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No.1 objection the following matters are addressed:

1.   Whether or not the planning controls is a development standard:

The FSR control in question is a development standard contained within the RLEP 1998.

2.   The underlying object or purpose of the standard:

The stated purpose of the standard, as outlined in RLEP 1998 is:

“To establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential, business, industrial and special uses zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help to reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.”

3.   Consistency of the development with local planning objectives for the locality:

The proposed development is consistent with the relevant planning objectives for the locality as there will be no significant impacts on the appearance and amenity of the building and no significant environmental impacts on neighbouring units and buildings. The condition to provide obscure glazing to the enlarged window on the eastern elevation will ensure visual privacy for adjoining residents.

4.   Whether compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed FSR controls would be unreasonable given that the existing building exceeds the allowable FSR.  Furthermore, the increase in the floor area is minimal and the effects are considered to be minor in nature. The proposal achieves the associated objectives of the standard.

5.   Whether the objection is well founded:

An assessment of the SEPP No. 1 objection indicates that the applicant has:

·        Articulated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development as the changes are considered to be minimal and will not have an affect on the amenity of the building and locality;

·        Addressed the underlying and stated purpose of the standard;

·        Stated why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, namely that:

1.       The proposed variation is minimal (2m2), but is still consistent with the scale of existing three storey redevelopment in the immediate surroundings; and,

2.       Does not compromise the amenity of the building and residential area;

3.       The relocation of the front door (which increases the floor space area and therefore the FSR) does not project forward of the front wall of the building.

 

In conclusion, it is considered that compliance with this development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary because the aims of the controls are met and there are no adverse impacts associated with the additional floor area.

 

·        The proposed changes to the Unit are in keeping with the established character of the locality which contains a number of three storey residential flat buildings;

·        The proposed development will not compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential developments in that there will not be any significant adverse or unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining residences;

·        Strict compliance with the LEP controls in Clause 32 of the LEP will not result in any significant difference in comparison to the proposed development; and,

·        The development readily complies with the LEP control relating to Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

It is considered that the above SEPP No.1 objection is well founded and should be supported.

 

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       Development Control Plan – Multi-unit Housing

 

The DCP for Multi-Unit Housing states that a proposal is deemed to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP if it complies with the corresponding preferred solutions. Therefore, the tables below assess the proposal against the preferred solutions, and where non-compliance results, assessment is made against the relevant objectives and performance requirements.

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets  Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

The proposal has habitable room windows that overlook those of adjoining dwellings within 9 metres and sill heights of 800mm from floor level; Does not comply – see assessment below.

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Not applicable.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

Safety and Security

P1 Design allows surveillance.

 

The windows at the front of the unit are not altered as part of this proposal and the front door is only being relocated forward to meet the existing front wall of the unit; Complies.

P2 Approaches and entries are visible.

 

The front door is visible from the property entry and the streetscape; Complies.

Foreshore Scenic Protection Areas

P1 Building form is sympathetic in appearance with surroundings buildings, and buildings on stepped sites are articulated so that massing and scale respects the slope.

 

There is a minor change to the exterior window though it remains in line with other windows, is located at the side of the building and is sympathetic to the appearance of the building and surroundings buildings; Complies.

 

 

9.2       Likely Impacts

 

The objective of the DCP is to ensure that new buildings and additions meet the occupant and neighbours requirements for visual and acoustic privacy. The current proposal has windows which are within 9m of adjoining neighbours windows which may overlook internal private living areas and raises privacy concerns. The sill height is currently 1m above floor level. This will be rectified by conditioning the glazing of the window below 1.5m from floor level to be obscured glazing to ensure that there will not be a significant impact on visual privacy for the occupant/s and neighbours.

The internal alterations and relocation of the front door forward to meet the existing front wall line of the Unit is considered to be compatible with the appearance of the existing building and surrounding buildings within the streetscape. A safe physical environment still remains as front windows and the front door remain readily identifiable and look out to the street.

This property is located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area however the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the building or on the locality. The proposal will result in minor changes to the exterior of the building because of the relocation of the front door to Unit 1. The door will also remain in symmetry with the windows and doors at the front of the building.

 

9.3       Site Suitability

 

The current proposal is not considered to have significant impacts on the surrounding properties or on the units surrounding and above. The majority of the work is for internal alterations which will not impact upon other dwellings or buildings in the vicinity. External changes include replacing and enlarging a window, which will not impact upon the symmetry of the building and is considered reasonable as it will increase levels of internal amenity by improving natural light and ventilation.

 

10.  RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Excellence in urban design        

 

Direction 5a and associated key action: Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

11.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant assessment criteria and objectives under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Act 1998, the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) and Development Control Plan for Multi-unit Housing. The proposal is permissible with consent in the Residential 2C zone and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining properties or the character of the locality or the Foreshore scenic Protection Area.

 

The main issues arising from this Development Application are visual and acoustic privacy arising from the enlargement of a window and reconfiguration of living room and bedroom. Appropriate conditions have been imposed including obscure glazing to the enlarged window on the eastern elevation where the sill height is below 1.5m and compliance with the Building Code of Australia for sound transmission and insulation in the construction of walls and floors. Any adverse impacts to the amenity and appearance of the subject building and neighbouring properties have been minimised.

 

The SEPP No. 1 objection argues that strict compliance with Clause 32 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) is unreasonable and unnecessary. This is considered to be well founded as the existing building already exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio and the proposal minimally increases the floor area. 

 

The proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval, subject to conditions of consent.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 32(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 198 (as amended), relating to maximum floor space ratio on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly;

 

AND

 

B.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/614/2006 for the enlargement of window on eastern elevation, internal alterations and relocation of front door at 33 Arcadia Street, Coogee subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered “Drawing No. 2002196-A04” dated Jul 02, and unnumbered, undated plans received by Council on the 2nd August 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.       The proposed ground floor bedroom window located on the eastern elevation must be constructed of fixed obscured glazing to a minimum height of 1.5 metres from the finished floor level.

 

3.       The external materials, colours and finishes of the building are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building.

 

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

 

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

 

5.       New external timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls and roofs are to be provided with insulation (i.e. bulk insulation and a reflective building membrane/reflective sarking/foil insulation), having a minimum total thermal resistance R–value of 3.0 in roofs and 1.5 in external walls.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturer’s details.

 

Details of compliance with the requirements for insulation are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

6.       New hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation and must also satisfy any relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

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

 

7.       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.

 

8.       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.

 

9.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

                                                  

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

 

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

 

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

11.     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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

13.     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.

 

14.     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 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

16.     The demolition, removal, storage, handling and disposal of building products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment & Conservation (formerly the Environment Protection Authority) and Randwick City Council policies and conditions, including:

 

·               Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000;

·               Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001;

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

·               WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos;

·               Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures;

·               The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996;

·               Relevant Department of Environment & Conservation (DEC) / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines;

·               Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005).

 

·        A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

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

 

18.     Except with the written approval of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services, all building, demolition and associated site works (including site deliveries) must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive and between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and Public Holidays.

 

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

           

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

22.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate security provisions are made for vehicular access, parking and public infrastructure:

 

25.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to install vehicular crossings and 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. 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

 

 

 

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SACHA KALESS

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

STUDENT PLANNER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

11 September, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/610/2006   & PROP014491

 

PROPOSAL:

 Hardstand carspace

PROPERTY:

 291 Darley Road, Randwick NSW 2031

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 O & G Vaneris

OWNER:

O & G Vaneris

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee at the request of Councillors Nash, Hughes & Matson.

 

The proposal is for a new hardstand car space to the front of the existing semi-detached dwelling house. The main issues with the application is the non-compliance of the proposed carspace with the minimum length requirement of 5.5m pursuant to the DCP- Parking and the potential for vehicles to overhang onto the footpath due to the shortfall in length of the proposed carspace, which is 4.75m.

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for a new hardstand carspace (4.75m x 2.5m) to the front of the existing semi-detached dwelling.

 

Picture: 291 Darley Road Randwick

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Darley Road between Hooper Lane and Bella Street in North Randwick and is presently occupied by an existing single storey semi-detached dwelling.  The site has a frontage width of 6m, a side boundary depth of 40.55m and has an overall site area of approximately 244m².  Neighbouring the property to the east is the adjoining single storey semi-detached dwelling (293 Darley Road) and to the east is a semi-detached single storey dwelling (289 Darley Road). The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of single to two storey dwellings. Queens Park on the opposite side of the street is a haven for regular recreational activities throughout the week. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

No relevant site history.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Engineering and Landscaping Issues

 

The application has been referred to the Development Engineers for comment. The Development Engineering team does not support the proposed carspace due to its non-compliance with the minimum dimensions. The following comments were made:

 

The submitted plans show the dimensions of the carspace as having a depth of 4.750m which does not comply with Council’s DCP or AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 which shows the base dimension for B85 vehicles as 4.910m.

 

The assessing officer is advised that the Development Engineering team does not support the proposed carspace due to its depth size and the fact that vehicles greater than the depth will need to encroach over Council’s footpath which is located adjacent to the property boundary and hinder pedestrian traffic flow.

 

The applicant has referred to the approval of the carspace at No 68a Carrington Road (depth 4.60m). The assessing officer is advised that it appears the carspace at this site was approved as a complying development certificate and further enquiries into this matter should be directed to Council’s Building Services Department whom deal with these applications.

 

Landscape comments

There are no existing trees, (covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The subject sites area does not fall within the scope of master planning requirements.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-    Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-    Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

-    Development Control Plan - Parking

-    Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item

A Heritage Item adjoins the subject site to the rear - 81-83 Pine Street.

The proposed works will not result in an adverse impact on the significance of the Heritage item, given the degree of separation.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.   Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(How applicant has achieved performance requirements of performance solutions).

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  The size and dimensions of landscaped area suit the projected requirements of the dwelling occupants and accommodate outdoor recreation needs as well as providing space for service functions.

P2 Paved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised and are designed to facilitate infiltration of stormwater

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

S2  A minimum of 20% of the site area has a permeable (soft landscaped) treatment.

No, The proposed hardstand carspace (11.875sqm) reduces the landscaped area to approximately 39% (95sqm) of the site area (244sqm). See assessment below in Section 9.1.1.

 

Yes, 27% of the site area has a permeable treatment.

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·      enable the efficient use of carspaces.

·      safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2 Do not dominate or detract from the appearance of the development and local streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

S1  Car parking spaces have minimum dimensions of 5.5 metres x 2.5 metres.

 

 

 

 

 

Note:  Council’s Parking DCP allows for a small carspace (4.9m x 2.4m) in circumstances where they are located in areas to avoid obstruction of traffic circulation and where it overhangs an area not required as a footway or for some similar purpose.

 

·      Driveways have a minimum width of three metres and are set back at least one metre from the side boundary (max width 3m at boundary).

 

 

 

 

 

·      Driveway gradients have a maximum of 1 in 6. The gradient for the first 5m from street not more than 1 in 8.

 

S2  Carports and garages located behind the building where rear access available, or behind building line where front access available.

 

S3  Driveways, car parking facilities <35% of frontage.

No, The proposed carspace is 4.75 x 2.5m.  See assessment in section 9.1.2 below.

 

 

 

 

No, the carspace doesn’t meet the minimum dimensions for a small carspace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, The driveway width is 2.5m and setback 650mm from the side boundary. However, given the narrowness of the frontage of the site the proposed width and setback of the driveway is considered acceptable.

 

N/A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. The hardstand  carspace occupies 41.3% of the site frontage. See assessment below under section 9.2

 

b.   Development Control Plan Parking.

                                                    

CONTROLS

OBJECTIVES

DCP CONTROLS -

COMPLIANCE

DESIGN GUIDELINES: PARKING LAYOUT

·  To ensure parking facilities are efficient adequate and safe

·  To consider public safety and convenience in designing parking areas.

The length and width of carspaces may be varied from the 5.5m x 2.5m dimensions in the following circumstances:

 

Small carspace: in certain circumstances it may be appropriate to provide spaces smaller than specified above and which are designated as small carspaces. The minimum dimensions are 4.9m long and 2.4 wide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. as indicated the proposed carspace is 4.75 x 2.5m.  See assessment in section 9.1.2 below.

 

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     DCP - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Landscaping/Open Space

 

9.1.1      Provision of open spaces, its function and landscaping

 

The Objectives of the DCP with regard to landscaping are that existing significant trees and landscaping are retained and enhanced; dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation space; storm water management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of the dwelling is improved through integrated landscape design; and the native wildlife populations are preserved and enhanced through appropriate planting of indigenous vegetation.

 

The Performance Requirements are that the size and dimensions of landscaping suit the needs of the occupants; location and design of open space takes advantage of aspect for year round use; indigenous species are used and existing vegetation is recycled where possible; planting does not obstruct or interfere with entries; and unpaved areas are maximised to allow stormwater infiltration.

 

The level of non-compliance (1% or 2.4sqm) with Councils preferred solution for landscaping is considered reasonable and considered to meet Councils relevant performance requirements and objectives of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP for the following reasons:

 

·      The strategic location of landscaping is considered to soften the impact of hard landscaping to the front of the site.

·      The site has adequate levels of permeable/soft landscaping to the rear of the site (23%) to minimise stormwater runoff

·      There is no reduction in the principle area of private open space located at the rear and

·      The level of non-compliance with Councils preferred solution is considered to be minor due to the small size of the lot.

 

9.1.2  Garages Carports Driveways and Parking layout

 

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

 

In terms of the hardstand taking up more than 35% of the frontage of the site, it is considered reasonable in this instance due its narrowness, and as noted above in section 9.1.1 the soft landscaping provided to the subject site is considered to soften the impact of the amount of hard landscaping and hardstand carspace will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling. It is considered the proposal meets the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP in relation to the extent of the parking area at the front of the dwelling.

 

In terms of non-compliance with the length of the carspace, the applicant has argued that a precedent exists for small carspaces at various properties on Carrington Road, Market Street and Darley Road. In respect to Darley Road, it is not considered such a precedent exists for small carspaces in the immedicate vicinity of the subject site. While the width of the carspace complies with the minimum requirement allowing for adequate manoeuvring, the depth is 750mm short of a normal carspace (5.5m) and 150mm short of a small carspace (4.9m) as defined by the DCP – Parking. For this reason, the shortfall in length, creates the potential for cars to overhang onto the footpath and does not meet with the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP-Dwelling Houses.

 

10.   RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 9:  Integrated and accessible transport

 

Direction: 9a. A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycle ways linking major land uses and recreation opportunities

 

11.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed carspace does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and the DCP for Parking.

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/610/2006 for a new hardstand carspace at 291 Darley Road, Randwick NSW 2031 for the following reasons:-

 

1.       The proposed hardstand carspace does not comply with the minimum length of a carspace as stipulated in the DCP Parking and DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual occupancies.

 

2.       The proposal is likely to result in parked vehicles impeding pedestrians given the deficiency in the length of the proposed carspace.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ELIAS COOREY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

dEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

14 August, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/0639/2005 & PROP032454

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82A review of the determination to refuse consent for the construction and operation of a telecommunications facility consisting of a 19.4m monopole supporting three panel antennas in the form of a cluster mount (amounting to a total height of 22m including antennas) and installation of one equipment cabin and other ancillary works such as earthworks, cabling, electrical and air conditioning.

PROPERTY:

 145-149S Franklin Street, Matraville

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Vodafone Network Pty Limited

OWNER:

 Energy Australia

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The original development application proposes the construction and operation of a telecommunications facility consisting of a 19.4m monopole supporting three panel antennas in the form of a cluster mount (amounting to a total height of 22m including antennas) and installation of one equipment cabin and other ancillary works such as earthworks, cabling, electrical and air conditioning at the Energy Australia substation site located on the south-western corner of Wassell Street and Franklin Street. 

 

A report recommending approval of the original development application was considered at the Health, Building & Planning Committee meeting on 9 May 2006, whereby the Committee resolved on the motion of Councillors Robert Belleli and Alan White, that:

 

A.   Council as the responsible authority refuse its development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 639/2005 to construct and operate telecommunications facility consisting of 22m high monopole supporting 1 cluster mount antenna, 2 equipment shelters (single storey) within a fenced compound on existing substation site at 145-149S Franklin Street, Matraville, for the following reasons:-

 

1.   The proposed development fails to comply with the general objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the development will adversely affect the appearance and amenity of the streetscape.

 

2.   The height, scale and visual appearance of the proposal is considered to be out of character and inconsistent with the nature of the streetscape and immediate locality.

 

3.   The proposal does not comply with the provisions of Section 79 (1b) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, as amended, in that the height and scale of the development will have an adverse impact on the scenic qualities and features of the landscape; and

 

4.   Pursuant to Section 79 (1e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, as amended, the proposed development is not in the public interest.

 

The subject application constitutes a request under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) to review the original decision to refuse development consent to the original development application. The original proposal remains unaltered.

 

The subject site is located on the south-western corner of Franklin Street and Wassell Street in Matraville. The site has an area of approximately 1,960 sqm and is currently occupies by an existing electrical substation owned by Energy Australia. The proposed telecommunications facility is to be located on the south-western corner of the site and proposes a 700mm setback from the southern boundary and no setback from the western boundary. The adjoining property to the western and southern boundaries is Crown land.

 

During the exhibition period, 57 objection letters and a petition containing 51 signatories were received and most submissions raised concerns regarding potential health and safety risk, visual impact, devaluation of surrounding properties, traffic generation and interference with other communication equipments. 

 

It is pertinent to note that in a recent Land and Environment Court proceedings (i.e. Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133), the applicant appealed to the Land and Environment Court by way of merits review against the refusal of Hornsby Shire Council, of a proposed mobile telephone base station. The primary ground of refusal was the concern of the Council and certain residents that the radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME) emitted from the proposed facility might adversely affect the health and safety of the residents in the vicinity. The Council and the residents urged the Court to apply the precautionary principle to refuse consent to the proposed facility. A number of experts gave evidence in relation to the effects of RF EME including on public health and safety. The Court found that RF EME emitted from the proposed facility would not cause any adverse biological or health effect to the general public and determined to uphold the appeal and grant development consent to the proposed development. Chief Justice Preston stated the following:

 

In the present case, there is no probative evidence upon which the Court could make findings of adverse effects on the amenity of the locality or on the health and safety of persons in the locality or on the environment. Equally, there is no logical basis upon which a decision could reasonably be made to refuse consent to the proposed base station where there is no such probative evidence of effects.

                                                                                                                                             

It should be further noted that the Court not only upheld the appeal and granted development consent, it also ordered the Council to pay for the costs of proceedings on the basis that Council should have foreseen that there was no reasonable prospect that the argument founded on the residents’ unjustified fears could succeed in the Court.

 

In consideration of the above, whilst the concerns in relation to RF EME are acknowledged, the abovementioned Land and Environment Court case has noted that refusal of a telecommunications facility cannot be justified purely on the basis of perceived health impacts resulting from exposure to RF EME. Any decision must be based on probative evidence. In this regard, the original application including the applicant’s RF EME report was reviewed by Council’s appointed expert consultant and concluded that the proposed development would remain significantly below the Australia Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) standard for EME emission from the proposed facility. It is clear that the proposed development complies with the relevant ARPANSA standard and would not cause any adverse biological or health effect to the general public.

 

 

 

 

The proposed communications facility shall benefit the community by increasing the mobile network coverage within the Matraville and surrounding areas. The visual impact of the proposed facility is considered minimal when considering the existing structure on site and the measures the applicant has undertaken to reduce the visual impact on the surrounding landscape (i.e. slimline monopole painted in colours that will blend with the background).

 

The subject application has been assessed in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) and is considered to comply with the relevant provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

It is recommended that Council’s determination of the original development application should be rescinded and the current application should be approved subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE REVIEW

 

The subject application for a review of the determination of the Development Application No. 639/2005 is made under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

It should be noted that no amendments to the application previously considered by the Committee on 9 May 2006 are proposed.

 

The original proposal sought consent to construct, install and operate a telecommunications facility consists of a 19.4m slimline monopole supporting three panel antennas in the form of a cluster mount (amounting to a total height of 22m including antennas) and installation of one equipment cabin and other ancillary works such as earthworks, cabling, electrical and air conditioning.

 

The proposal will also involve the construction of an equipment cabin measuring 3m by 2.5m adjacent to the base of the proposed monopole. The proposed works at the base of the monopole will also include a steel staircase, railings and retaining walls that will provide pedestrian access for maintenance work to be undertaken. The ancillary structures located at the base of the monopole will require excavation 3.15 metres below the existing natural ground level and will not be readily visible from Wassell Street or Franklin Street.

 

The top half of the proposed monopole will be painted blue while the lower half will be painted green to help visually integrate the monopole with the surrounding environment.

 

The proposed development does not include any alteration to the existing electricity substation.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is situated on the corner of Franklin Street and Wassell Street, Matraville. The surrounding area to the north, east and south-east is characterised by residential dwellings, predominantly detached single dwellings with a mix of higher density townhouse developments. The immediate area west, south-west and south of the site is open space consisting of eucalyptus trees and shrubs. The open space forms into a natural shallow depressing approximately 200 metres west of the subject site which accommodates a series of market gardens.

 

The subject site has a boundary to Wassell Street of 46 metres, a frontage to Franklin Street of 40 metres and a site area of 1959 sqm. The subject site is relatively level at the street frontages however slopes steeply from the western facing wall of the substation to the western boundary. The residential areas to the north-east and south-east of the subject site are moderately undulating.

 

Vehicular access to the site is via both street frontages and the site does not have any boundary fencing to the street boundaries. The western boundary and portions of the southern and northern boundaries feature barbed wire and chain link fencing. A cluster of three casurina sp. trees approximately 13 metres in height occupy the Franklin Street frontage of the site. There is no other significant vegetation on the site.

 

4.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A report recommending approval of the original development application was considered at the Health, Building & Planning Committee meeting on 9 May 2006 where Council resolved to refuse the application for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposed development fails to comply with the general objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the development will adversely affect the appearance and amenity of the streetscape.

 

2.   The height, scale and visual appearance of the proposal is considered to be out of character and inconsistent with the nature of the streetscape and immediate locality.

 

3.   The proposal does not comply with the provisions of Section 79 (1b) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, as amended, in that the height and scale of the development will have an adverse impact on the scenic qualities and features of the landscape; and

 

4.   Pursuant to Section 79 (1e) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, as amended, the proposed development is not in the public interest.  

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The subject application has been notified and advertised in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposal and Council Plans. The following submissions were received:

 

1.         Garry and Nicole Michailidis – residents at 31 Franklin Street, Matraville

2.         Barry & Joy Brown – residents at 34 Franklin Street, Matraville

3.         Peter Abbey – resident at 41 Franklin Street, Matraville

4.         Michael Liang – resident at 43 Franklin Street, Matraville

5.         R Muscat – resident at 45 Franklin Street, Matraville

6.         Y S Loan – resident at 46 Franklin Street, Matraville

7.         V Coure – resident at 49 Franklin Street, Matraville

8.         S & M Stefanidis – owners of 144 Franklin Street, Matraville

9.         Judith Smith – resident at 146 Franklin Street, Matraville

10.       Mohammed Abdur Razzaque & Amatul Abdur Razzaque – 148 Franklin Street, Matraville

11.       J Bates – 151 Franklin Street, Chifley

12.       John & Maria Vigliante – residents at 152 Franklin Street, Matraville

13.       Mr & Mrs Lee – 153 Franklin Street, Chifley

14.       Stephen McKeon – resident at 161 Franklin Street, Chifley

15.       A R & M M Martin – residents at 171 Franklin Street, Matraville

16.       Scott & Jodie MaInness – 172A Franklin Street, Matraville

17.       Alexandra Gratsis – resident at 174A Franklin Street, Matraville

18.       P & D Brander – residents at 178 Franklin Street, Matraville

19.       Kerrie O’Brien – resident at 2/187 Franklin Street, Matraville

20.       Lee & Owen Holzhauser – residents at 3 Wassell Street, Chifley

21.       Donna & Terry Whitty – 5A Wassell Street, Chifley

22.       Neng Sheng Jiang – resident at 99/16 Wassell Street, Matraville

23.       Joe C N Wong – owner of 107/16 Wassell Street, Matraville

24.       PV Innes – owner of 130/16 Wassell Street, Matraville

25.       Andrew Wong – owner of Unit 21/16-18 Wassell Street, Matraville

26.       Robert Truong – resident at 106/16-18 Wassell Street, Matraville

27.       Fawzi Jreige – resident at 26/22-24 Wassell Street, Matraville

28.       Rachel Smith – resident at 36/22-24 Wassell Street, Chifley

29.       Gabrielle Predie – resident at 56/22-24 Wassell Street, Matraville

30.       Carol Benson – resident at 63 Knowles Avenue, Matraville

31.       Mrs D Lane – resident at 67 Knowles Avenue, Matraville

32.       Kevin Balk – resident at 2 Mitchell Street, Chifley

33.       Tao Wang & Zhao Yue Zhang – residents at 4 Mitchell Street, Chifley

34.       Michele & Ron Charlton – residents at 6 Mitchell Street, Chifley

35.       Mrs M Fritz – resident at 7 Mitchell Street, Matraville

36.       D Lawler – resident at 8 Mitchell Street, Chifley

37.       Mr R Madden – resident at 10 Mitchell Street, Chifley

38.       George Petkos – owner of 4 Cunningham Street, Matraville

39.       Leanne Smith – owner of 6 Cunningham Street, Matraville

40.       S Sun and family – 7 Clarence Street, Matraville

41.       G D Peng & Q Yang – 9 Clarence Street, Matraville

42.       Jennifer Zuber – resident at 10 Clarence Street, Matraville

43.       Richard Aerlic – resident at 10 Clarence Street, Matraville

44.       Ivka Aerlic – resident at 10A Clarence Street, Matraville

45.       John Karmokar – resident at 17 Clarence Street, Matraville

46.       Michael Sutedja – resident at 27 Clarence Street, Matraville

47.       Win & Reg Linsley – residents at 3 Blaxland Street, Matraville

48.       Mr P Adamo – resident at 4 Blaxland Street, Matraville

49.       Richard & Carla Smolenski – residents at 6 Blaxland Street, Matraville

50.       John & Rene Van Vilet – 11 Barwon Crescent, Matraville

51.       Principal of Matraville Soldiers Settlement Primary School – Menin Road, Matraville

52.       Nick Plackson – resident at 19A Larose Avenue, Matraville

53.       Alan & Pamela Sulway – residents at 18 Hume Street, Chifley

54.       Ms M Tripodi – resident at 8 Caley Street, Chifley

55.       Maria Ginis (no residential address provided)

56.       J McDonnell – resident at 12A Hunter Avenue, Matraville

57.       K Marble – resident at Unit 2, 63 Broome Street, Maroubra

58.       A petition from the residents of 16-18 Wassell Street, Matraville containing a total of 51 signatures.

 

The main issues raised by the above objectors are as follows:

 

§ Visual impact

§ Health and safety

§ Devaluation of surrounding properties

§ Interference with other communication equipment (i.e. TV and mobile signal reception)

§ The need for the facility

§ Traffic generation

 

The above issues have been addressed in Section 9 of this report.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application for the Section 82A review has not been referred to the relevant technical officers, as the original comments received remain applicable. The following comments were provided for the original application:

 

6.1       Building Services comments

 

       The following comments were received on 15 August 2005 and are for the original proposed development:

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the installation of a joint Vodafone and Telstra mobile phone network facility on the site also occupied by an existing electricity substation. The development will include a 25m high concrete monopole with associated antennae and transmission dishes and 2 pre-fabricated equipment sheds. It is proposed to erect a 3m high retaining wall to provide a level base for the structures adjoining vacant Crown land.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class        -           10a      (non habitable equipment sheds)

Class        -           10b      (Retaining walls and monopole)

 

Background

 

The existing building on site is a post war brick electricity substation bounded by Crown land.

 

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 are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate.

 

Conclusion:

 

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

 

6.2       Environmental Health Comments

 

The following comments were received on 4 April 2006:

 

The proposal

 

The application consists of a proposal for the installation of a mobile phone base station to be located on the corner of Franklin Street and Wassell Street Matraville. The proposed base station will consist of a slim line pole and three panel antennas located at the top with a total height of 22 meters above the current ground level.

 

Key Issues

 

Electromagnetic Energy

 

The applicant has provided an Electromagnetic Energy (EME) report prepared by aap communications services QLD in support of the application. The entire application was referred by Council to EMC Technologies who are able to provide specialist knowledge on electromagnetic emissions.

 

EMC Technologies have concluded that the report has been prepared in accordance with the format required by the Australian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), and the proposed telecommunications installation if built and installed as per the development application will comply with the Australian Standard Radiation Protection Standard No 3 (RPS3).

 

 

 

 

6.3       Council’s appointed expert consultant - EMC Technologies Pty Ltd

 

The original application was referred to an external expert consultant, EMC Technologies Pty Ltd, to verify the estimated EME levels. The following findings were provided to Council on 30 March 2006:

 

i.    The consultant could not exactly replicate the results provided by the applicant, however EMC Technologies Pty Ltd calculated level of EME at 1.5 metres above ground level emitted by the proposed facility would be 0.0482% of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) standard,

 

ii.    The predictions in the report were based on the facility operating at 100%. The actual operation of the facility would generally be approximately 40% of full capacity,

 

iii.   The report findings did not include possible radio signal attenuation from buildings or the topography.

 

The report concludes that the proposed development would remain significantly below the ARPANSA standards for EME emission from mobile phone towers and that the figures provided by the applicant are generally consistent with the report findings.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The subject site has a site area of less than 4,000sqm and as such, a masterplan is not required.

 

8.    RELEVANT STATUTORY CONTROLS

 

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

 

§  The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) standard for the calculation and expression of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME) levels, which is expressed as a percentage of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) mandated maximum exposure limits.

§  Telecommunications Act 1997

§  Australian Communications Industry Forum Industry Code – Deployment of Mobile Phone Network Infrastructure

§  Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended)

§  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

9.1       Relevant Statutory Controls

 

9.1.1    Telecommunications Act 1997

 

The proposed communications facility is not classified as a ‘low impact facility’ in accordance with the requirements of the Telecommunication (low-impact facilities) Determination 1997. In this regard and in accordance with the Telecommunications Act 1997, the proposal requires consent from Council and is therefore subject to the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and local planning controls.

 

9.1.2    Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency Standard

 

On 1 July 2005, the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Communications Authority merged to become the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The ACMA is responsible for the regulation of broadcasting, radiocommunications, telecommunications and online content.

 

The ACMA under section 376(2) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and section 162(3) of the Radiocommunications Act 1992 sets standards that limit human exposure to EME. The ACMA has adopted the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) standard as the mandatory standard for human exposure to EME from mobile base stations. This standard is based on recent global scientific research in this field and incorporates EME limits that are well below the level at which health effects are know to occur.

 

The exposure limits stipulated in the ARPANSA Standard are complex and depend upon the frequency of the RF radiation. In brief, the limits in the ARPANSA Standard are design to protect against all known adverse health effects and to prevent unwanted nuisance effects that may arise through any of the following mechanisms, a) electrical simulation, b) heat stress, and c) auditory response.

 

The ARPANSA Standard involves expressing EME levels as a percentage of the ACMA mandated maximum exposure limits, rather than as an absolute figure.

 

In relating to the subject proposal, the applicant submitted a RF EME report prepared by AAP Communications Services (dated 9 November 2005), in accordance with the requirements of ARPANSA. The report concluded that the maximum cumulative RF EME level of exposure at 1.5 metres above ground level is estimated to be 0.099% of the maximum cumulative RF EME level permitted by the ACMA mandated exposure limits and such level will occur at a distance of 125.42 metres, 292.68° from the antenna.

 

The original application including the applicant’s RF EME report was also referred to an external expert consultant, EMC Technologies Pty Ltd, to verify the estimated EME levels. The report also concluded that the proposed development would remain significantly below the ARPANSA standards for EME emission from the proposed facility and that the figures provided by the applicant are generally consistent with the report findings.

 

It is clear that the proposed development complies with the relevant ACMA/ARPANSA standard.

 

9.1.3    Australian Communications Industry Forum (Industry Code – Deployment of Mobile Phone Network Infrastructure)

 

The Australian Communications Industry Forum (ACIF) has developed an industry code in response to community concern about the siting of communication facilities. The aim of the code is to have “carriers apply a precautionary approach to the design, operation and selection of sites for communications facilities.” The code also allows the community and councils to have greater participation in decisions made by carriers.

 

The code places obligation on telecommunications carriers with respect to most radiocommunications infrastructure except for infrastructure that is used to supply services on a property at the request of the occupier (and is not intended for re-transmission), a facility for defence purposes, or a facility to provide emergency services.

 

The obligations relating to all radiocommunications infrastructure (with the exceptions above) include:

 

§ design and operate radiocommunications infrastructure to minimise EME exposure;

§ provide certain information to the public on request about EME for specific sites;

§ develop consultation plans for installations at new sites for certain facilities;

§ provide information to councils on network forward planning for the region if requested;

§ turn off transmitters that are out of service;

§ document their decision-making process; and

§ A written procedure for dealing with complaints.

 

A number of obligations outlined above are on-going matters that carriers are required to comply with, or relate to information that should be made public, on requests. In this instance, the applicant has addressed the necessary requirements in the revised Statement of Environmental Effects dated November 2005, particularly in relation to RF EME levels.

 

The code also provides a list of objectives that telecommunication carriers, who are regulated under the Telecommunications Act 1997, must consider prior to selecting a site to construct a telecommunications facility such as mobile phone base station. Under the code a carrier must consider the following factors when deciding a site:


 


Factor of consideration from the Deployment of Radiocommunications Infrastructure code

Outcome for this development application

Minimising public exposure to EME

The site is located within the predominantly residential suburb of Matraville. The nearest residential properties are located 50 metres across Wassell St.  There are no adjoining neighbouring residential properties to the subject site. The area to the south and south west is open space used for recreation and market gardens. There are two large properties 65 metres to the south which contain a large number of townhouses. Generally the surrounding area is predominantly residential with substantial areas open space.

Whether it be a community sensitive location

The nearest example of a community sensitive location is a child care centre located approximately 260 metres from the subject site. The nearest school is located 420 metres to the north of the subject site. There are no schools, aged care centres or hospitals located within 400 metres of the subject site.

The outcome of the consultation with Councils and communities

The applicant met with Council regarding development of a mobile phone base station prior to the development application being lodged. The applicant did not undertake any community consultation during the development assessment process.

Service objectives

The amended design will satisfy the service objectives for the telecommunications carrier.

Physical characteristics of the site, such as height and terrain

The proposed monopole will be located to the rear of the existing electricity substation. When viewed from the north-east and east the lower half of the pole will be obstructed by the existing electricity substation. The ground level of the subject site is similar to adjacent residential properties.

Ability to connect with the rest of the network

The connection to the network will be via fibre or cable interface and not via a microwave link.

Cost factors

A cost analysis was undertaken by the carrier prior to lodgement of the development application.

 

The proposed development generally adheres to the main objectives of the code and the applicant has provided evidence showing some analysis was undertaken prior to the selection of the site. Although the code does not provide numerical controls it requires the carriers to undertake adequate analysis of the subject site to ensure the community is not significantly affected by a communications facility.

 

9.1.4    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

 

The site is zoned No. 5 (Special Uses Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed development is defined as a communications facility which is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the RLEP apply to the proposal:

 

Clause 17 – Zone No. 5 (Special Uses Zone)

 

The objectives of the zone are:

 

a)   to accommodate development by public authorities on publicly owned lands, and

b)   to accommodate development for educational, religious, public transport or similar purposes on both publicly and privately owned land, and

c)   to allow appropriate community uses, and

d)   to enable associated and ancillary development, and

e)   to identity and protect land intended to be acquired for special uses, and

f)    to allow for the redevelopment of land no longer required for a special use.

 

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with (c) above in that it will provide telecommunication services to the users of Optus and Vodafone’s third generation mobile network (i.e. 2100 Megahertz or 3G network) in the Matraville and surrounding areas. In this regard, the proposal should benefit the people who live and work in Matraville and surrounding areas and people visiting or travelling through the areas.

 

Clause 37A - Development in Special Uses Zone

 

Clause 37A of the LEP requires Council to be satisfied that development in the Special Uses zone is “compatible with the character of the locality and will not adversely affect the amenity of nearby and adjoining development”, prior to granting any development consent.

 

The potential amenity impact of the proposed facility have been identified and addressed in this report and it is considered that the impacts of the proposed facility would be minimal when considering the existing structure on site and the mitigatory measures to be undertaken by the applicant to reduce the visual impact on the nearby development. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed development is acceptable and should not result in any unreasonable adverse impact on the amenity of the nearby development.

 

9.2       Matters raised by local residents

 

9.2.1    Health and Safety

 

Concern was expressed that the proposal presents a health risk to the residents who live in the nearby areas.

 

As noted previously, the EME level for the proposed development is 0.099% of the maximum cumulative RF EME level permitted by the ACMA mandated exposure limits and is therefore considered to be well within the acceptable EME parameter established by the ACMA standard for human exposure to EME.

 

It should be further noted that in a recent Land and Environment Court proceedings (i.e. Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council), a number of experts gave evidence in relation to the issue of RF EME. The Court found that RF EME emitted from the proposed base station would not cause any adverse biological or health effect to the general public. Chief Justice Preston stated the following:

 

In the present case, there is no probative evidence upon which the Court could make findings of adverse effects on the amenity of the locality or on the health and safety of persons in the locality or on the environment. Equally, there is no logical basis upon which a decision could reasonably be made to refuse consent to the proposed base station where there is no such probative evidence of effects. To make such a decision would be to infringe these principles of proper administrative decision-making. The charge of arbitrariness would be made out.

 

To make such an arbitrary decision would cause a greater disservice to the community than making a rational one. It would raise unnecessarily the fears of the community. This is the reason for the responsible authority ARPANSA stating in the Australian Standard RPS 3 that incorporation of additional safety factors beyond the exposure limits of the Standard is not supported.”

 

In consideration of the above, whilst the concerns in relation to RF EME are acknowledge, the abovementioned Land and Environment Court case has noted that refusal of a telecommunications facility cannot be justified purely on the basis of perceived health impacts resulting from exposure to RF EME. In addition, Chief Justice Preston has also stated that ‘community concerns are best corrected by proper application of the authoritative adopted standards, including the Australian Standard RPS 3, and the provision of proper information, not by responding to unsubstantiated and unreasonable fears.” Any consideration of the relevant matters must be based on probative evidence.

 

9.2.2    Visual impact

 

As noted in the previous Development Application report, dated 24 April 2006, the most visually prominent parts of the proposed development are the equipment cabin and the monopole.  The impact of the monopole will be most noticeable as a vertical extrusion beyond the existing horizontal plane of the site. However, due to the visual barrier created by the substation, only the top-most 12.5 metres of the pole will be visible from Wassell Street and other areas to the east, north-east and south-east of the pole. The monopole will be most visible from the north-west, west and south west of the site, although the scattered shrubs and vegetation on the adjoining western property will screen the lower half of the monopole and the equipment cabin from Franklin Road.

 

It should be noted that the proposal incorporates colour treatments to the monopole and equipment cabin to reduce the visual impact on the surrounding landscape. The lower 10m of the monopole and equipment cabin would be painted ‘Plantation’ colour (grey/green), which would help to blend in these structures with the background of the substation building and nearby vegetation; and the upper section of the monopole and antennas would be painted ‘Missouri Sky’ colour (blue/grey) that would help blend this section of the monopole with the sky.

 

It is agreed that the proposed monopole will have little, if any, visual impact on the immediate areas. While visible, the measures undertaken by the applicant will minimise the visual impact on the adjoining residential development and the streetscape. In this regard, visual impact of the proposed development is considered acceptable.

 

9.2.3    Devaluation of surrounding properties

 

Property valuation is considered a complex issue because there are numerous factors that potentially can affect the monetary value of a property. These may range from the overall state of the property market and the policy of financial institutions to the physical and locational conditions of a particular property and how these are shaped by personal perceptions and preferences of potential buyers and sellers in the market. As such, it is considered that, strictly speaking, the issue of property valuation is a matter that goes beyond the scope of matters of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, as any claim that the subject proposal would affect the value of adjoining and surrounding properties will be tenuous and a matter of speculation.

 

9.2.4    Traffic Generation

 

The operation of the proposed communication facility will not require a permanent staff member, however during construction there may be approximately 6 people on site at any particular time. A larger number of people may be required on site during the period when the monopole is positioned however this is likely to be for a total of approximately 4 days.

 

A majority of the facility will be operated remotely and it is likely that technicians will visit the site approximately four times every year.

 

The proposed development will includes an access way via adjacent crown land property for access from Franklin Street. Considering the site will not employ any staff and service technician visits will be limited, this access way will have no significant affect to the traffic movement on Franklin Street or surrounding roads.

 

9.2.5    Interference with other communication equipments

 

Concern has been raised that the proposed facility will interfere with other communication equipments and devices such as TV, radio and mobile. The applicant submitted a written response to this concern, as follow:

 

“In Australia, the Third Generation (3G) networks operate in the 2100MHz frequency band. Each carrier is assigned a specific frequency range by the ACMA in which to operate. Similarly, Vodafone operates within its licensed frequency. These frequencies are different to frequencies in which other system such as radio, TV, radar, paging systems operate. The 3G frequency does not interfere with any other operating frequency.”

 

9.2.6    The need for the facility

 

Concern has been raised regarding the need for a proposed development in the Matraville area. The applicant indicates that the proposed facility would introduce new Vodafone and Optus 3G mobile phone network to the Matraville area and also to parts of Chifley, Malabar and Philip Bay. The new network will offer the latest mobile communications services including wireless internet, e-mail, data, video and voice services to the areas. Without the proposed facility, there would be a coverage deficiency in the Vodafone and Optus 3G network in the area. The existing Vodafone and Optus stations in the nearby areas do not provide the required radiofrequency coverage to the subject area and therefore the need for the facility is established in this instance. 

 

10.  RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:              A vibrant and diverse community

 

Direction 2b:          Enrich our range of community services that meet our community’s needs.

 

As noted previously, the proposed facility will provide new telecommunication services to the users of 3G phone network in Matraville and surrounding areas and will benefit the existing and future residents who live, work or visiting the areas.

 

11.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

It is pertinent to note that in Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133 (24 March 2006) case, the Court not only upheld the appeal and grant development consent, it also ordered Hornsby Shire Council to pay for the costs of the proceedings.  Hornsby Shire Council argues that, “notwithstanding that all of the expert evidence established that there would be no health or biological effects by exposure to RF EME, nevertheless the residents’ fear that there might be an adverse effect on them or their amenity justified refusal of the development application.” Chief Justice Preston stated that “a fear without rational or justified foundation is not a matter which can properly be considered to be an amenity or social impacts. Little, if any, weight can be given to such fears.” The Court’s decision was made on the basis that Hornsby Shire Council should have foreseen that there was no reasonable prospect that the argument founded on the residents’ unjustified fears could succeed in the Court. Chief Justice Preston further stated that “a consent authority’s decision to oppose an appeal by an applicant against the consent authority’s determination and the grounds on which to maintain opposition, should be based on probative evidence and on reason. If there is no probative evidence in support of an issue, and a decision to refuse consent to a development application cannot be reached by a process of logical reasoning on probative evidence, the consent authority, as a responsible public body, ought not to raise or maintain such an issue or raise or maintain a position that development consent should be refused by the Court.”

 

12.  CONCLUSION

 

The application has been reviewed taking into account of the reasons and arguments submitted by the applicant. Whilst the concerns in relation to RF EME are acknowledged, the recent Land and Environment Court case has clearly noted that refusal of a telecommunications facility cannot be justified purely on the basis of perceived health impacts resulting from exposure to RF EME. Any consideration of the relevant matters must be based on probative evidence. In this regard, given no objections were raised by Council’s Environmental Health & Building Services section and Council’s appointed external EME expert, it is clear that there would be no adverse health or biological effects by exposure to RF EME emitted from the  proposed communications facility. 

 

It is agreed that the proposed monopole will have little visual impact on the immediate area. While visible, the measures undertaken by the applicant will minimise the visual impact on the adjoining residential development and the streetscape. In this regard, visual impact of the proposed development is considered acceptable.

 

For the above reasons, it is recommended that Council’s determination of the original development application should be rescinded and the application should be approved subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council’s original determination of Development Application No. 639/2005 dated 12 May 2006 for the construction and operation of telecommunications facility consisting of 22m high monopole supporting 1 cluster mount antenna, 2 equipment shelters (single storey) within a fenced compound on existing substation site at 145-149S Franklin Street, Matraville, be rescinded.

 

B.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 639/20065 for Section 82A review of the determination to refuse the construction and operation of a telecommunications facility consisting of a 19.4m monopole supporting three panel antennas in the form of a cluster mount (amounting to a total height of 22m including antennas) and installation of one equipment cabin and other ancillary works such as earthworks, cabling, electrical and air conditioning.  at 145-149S Franklin Street, Matraville, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 27651-G2 Rev. D, 27651-G3 Rev. D, dated 22 November 2005 and received by Council on 1 December 2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.         The lower 10m of the monopole and equipment cabin shall be painted ‘Plantation’ colour (grey/green) and the upper section of the monopole and antennas shall be painted ‘Missouri Sky’ colour (blue/grey).

 

Details of the proposed monopole and equipment cabin colours shall be indicated on a 1:100 scale elevation diagram of the monopole and equipment cabin schedule which shall include samples of the actual colours to be used. This additional information is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the relevant building works.

 

3.         There must be no encroachment of the structure/s onto any adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place, unless permission has been obtained from the owner/s of the adjoining land accordingly.

 

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:

 

4.         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).

 

5.         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.

 

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:

 

6.         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.

 

7.         A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in electro magnetic energy emissions shall be submitted to Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that the EME emissions from the development when it is operational, will comply with the standards outlined in the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) Radio Protection Standard – Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields – 3kHz to 300GHz.

 

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

 

8.         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.

 

9.         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.

 

10.       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.

 

11.       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, 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.

 

12.       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.

 

13.       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”.

 

14.       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.

 

15.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

18.       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.

 

19.       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:

 

20.       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.

 

21.       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.

 

22.       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.

 

23.       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.

 

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

 

25.       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.

 

26.       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.

 

27.       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.

 

28.       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.

 

29.       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.

 

30.       A Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of 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.

 

31.       During 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.

 

32.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A temporary safety fence is to be provided to protect the public, located to the perimeter of the site. 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.

 

35.       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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            a)         Part 3.1            -           Site preparation

            b)         Part 3.2            -           Footings and slabs

            c)         Part 3.3            -           Masonry construction

            d)         Part 3.9            -           Safe movement and access

            e)         Part 3.9.2         -           Balustrades, design, location and height

             f)         Part 3.11        -           Structural design manuals

 

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

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

FRANK KO

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

13 September, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/548/2006 &

PROP010097

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and new first floor additions to the existing dwelling house including new double garage and boundary fencing. 

PROPERTY:

 2 Winkurra Street, Kensington

WARD:

 West Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr R R Potter

OWNER:

 Mr R R Potter

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    SEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Bradley Hughes, Murray Matson and Scott Nash.

 

The subject Development Application (DA) proposes the alterations and new first floor additions to the existing dwelling house including a double garage and new boundary fencing.

 

The subject site is located on the north western side of Winkurra Street between Dowling Street and Milroy Avenue in Kensington and is occupied by an existing single storey dwelling.  The site is irregular in shape and has an overall site area of 463m². The site is also within the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area. 

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans and two (2) objections were received. The objections were concerned mainly with the bulk and scale of the additions, overshadowing and impact to the heritage conservation area.

 

The main issues considered in the assessment are the variations from the preferred solutions for floor space ratio, rear setback and front fence. Despite the variations with the relevant preferred solutions, the proposal is considered to be acceptable as it responds to the constraints presented by the site and meets the associated objectives and performance requirements of the controls. Having regard to all relevant matters for consideration, the proposal will not result in any significant adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality, including the heritage significance of the West Kensington heritage conservation area.

 

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal, in balance, is satisfactory from an environmental planning perspective. The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The subject DA proposes the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including a new first floor addition, extensions to the east of the existing dwelling, a new double garage in the south-western corner of the site and new boundary fences.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the north western side of Winkurra Street between Dowling Street and Milroy Avenue in Kensington and is within the West Kensington Conservation Area.  The site is occupied by an existing single storey dwelling.  The site is irregular in shape and has an overall site area of 463m². 

 

Neighbouring the property to the northeast is a single storey dwelling which is sited higher than the subject site due to the slope of the topography, to the west is a single storey dwelling fronting Dowling Street with a single garage at the rear fronting Winkurra Street and to the rear is the rear yard of a dwelling fronting Dowling Street. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of single and two storey free standing dwellings.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received:

 

Maria Mavromatis – resident at 51 Dowling Street, Kensington

Issue

Comment

The proposal will cast additional shadow the adjoining property.

The majority of the proposed shadows will be cast over the street and will not overshadow any windows and private open spaces of the adjoining dwellings.

The upper level addition should be setback a metre further from the eastern side boundary.

It is considered that the request to have the upper level addition setback a metre further from the eastern boundary is unreasonable and unnecessary in that the upper level addition is already setback 5.9 metres from the western boundary and based on the applicant’s shadow diagrams, the proposal will not overshadow the principal outdoor space of the adjoining dwelling at 51 Dowling Street.   

The existing tree adjacent to the eastern side boundary of the subject site should remain intact.

The tree in the south-western corner of the site is close to the proposed garage footings and will not be possible to retain. In addition, Council’s Landscaped Development Officer has reviewed the application and indicated that the subject tree is not deemed a significant specimen and has no objection to the removal of the tree.  

The proposed garage should have the same length as the existing garage at 51 Dowling Street.

An appropriate condition is to be included in the recommendation requiring the length of the garage to be reduced and sited in line with the adjoining garage to reduce any additional bulk and height.

 

Dr Stephen Klugman – resident at 17 Winkurra Street, Kensington

Issue

Comment

The proposed first floor addition does not comply with the Development Control Plan for the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area.

These issues have been addressed in Section 5.2 of this report. Given the subject site is not a contributory element in the conservation area and is not located within

a streetscape that is characteristic of the area, the proposed development is therefore not considered to have any significant impact on the heritage significance of the conservation area and the character of the locality.

The proposal will have a significant impact on the street appearance.

The proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio allowed for the site.

This issue has been addressed in Section 7.3 of this report. Whilst the proposal does not meet the preferred solution of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, it has been demonstrated in this report that the relevant objective and performance requirement are satisfied and it is not considered that the proposed bulk and scale of the development will result in any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings. 

The proposal does not provide sufficient soft landscaped area as required by Council.

24.3% of the site is provided as soft landscaped area which complies with the requirement of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

5.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

5.1       Development Engineers

 

Council’s Development Engineers have reviewed the proposal and the following comments are provided:

 

An application has been received for alterations and additions at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

·    DA01-04 by Arlington Property Group dated July 2006.

 

Landscape Comments

 

On Council’s Winkurra Street nature strip, there is one Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta LillyPilly) of approximately 2-3 metres in height which is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order due to being located on public property. Providing the protection measures listed in this report are adhered to, this tree will eventually fulfil its intended role within the future streetscape.

 

Right in the southwest corner of the site, virtually hard up against the eastern wall of the neighbouring garage (51 Dowling Street), there is one Thuja occidentalis (White Cedar) measuring about 4 metres in height by 4 metres wide.

 

It is not deemed a significant specimen and is located inappropriately close to existing structures. As it will not be possible to retain this tree and construct the proposed garage as shown, approval is granted for its removal as requested.

 

Still within the site, in the rear yard along the northern boundary, there is another Thuja occidentalis (White Cedar) of approximately 5 metres in height which is too small to be covered by the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and is also in direct conflict with the proposed works.

 

A redesign of the courtyard to accommodate its retention is not warranted, and as such, approval is also granted for its removal.

 

Right at the ‘bend’ of the site, along southern boundary is another Thuja occidentalis (White Cedar) of only around 4 metres in height. Despite the perimeter fence/wall shown as being designed around this tree, retention is not supported due to the damage that the root system would sustain as a result of the required footing, with the northern side of its canopy also needing to be completely removed in order to accommodate the height of the proposed fence.

 

Therefore, conditions in this report require that this tree be removed, with the assessing officer confirming that this ‘step’ in the fence should still be provided in order to allow for the establishment of landscaping which will soften the appearance of this solid wall. Further, replacement shrubs/trees have been conditioned for planting within the rear yard in order to maintain reasonable levels of amenity both within the site and to the neighbours/streetscape.

 

Right in the northeast corner of the site is one Persea americanna (Avocado Tree) of approximately 8 metres in height which appears in average condition, is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and is the most significant vegetation at the site which provides a degree of screening between this site and adjoining properties to the north and east, as well as shading of this rear yard.

 

The single trunk divides into co-dominant leaders at around 4 metres, with one leading to the west and the other to the northeast. Past pruning of all lower growing branches has been undertaken primarily to provide a suitable clearance away/off the neighbouring garage to the east, 4-6 Winkurra Street, with all of these wounds completely callused over.

 

An existing dividing brick wall runs along the northeast corner of the site (common boundary), close to its trunk, with the new perimeter fencing proposed 2 metres beyond its trunk along the eastern boundary, beneath the eastern half its canopy not likely to affect this tree due to the distance provided between its trunk and the wall. The minimal protection measures listed in this report are deemed adequate to ensure its retention.

 

The plans indicate small cut-outs or setbacks within the new boundary fence which will support low key planting to assist with softening the effects of the proposed solid wall; however, further details of species selection will need to be provided to ensure that future growth does not impede pedestrian access of the footpath adjacent the length of the southern boundary.

 

Comment

 

Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation of this report.

 

5.2       Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner

 

Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposed development and the following comments are provided:

 

The Subject Site

 

The subject building is a small single storey post war brick dwelling featuring a hipped and tiled roof, timber sash windows and a masonry awning over the entry.  The site appears to have been subdivided from the site which fronts Dowling Street and is a small irregularly shaped site.

 

Surrounding Context

 

Opposite the site to the south is the side boundary of a dwelling fronting Dowling Street; to the south east along Winkurra Street is a small cul-de-sac development of five two storey dwellings; to the north east of the site is a modified single storey federation cottage which is sited higher than the subject site as the land slopes up towards the north east; to the west of the site is another single storey federation cottage which addresses Dowling Street.  The subject site is the only site which fronts this section of Winkurra Street as most of the dwellings in the street are located on the section which runs in a north-east to south west direction.  Therefore there is no distinct and cohesive pattern of dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the subject site.

 

Significance

 

The subject site is located within the West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area which is significant for its collection of late Federation and Inter War period detached dwellings.  The subject dwelling was constructed after this period and is considered to make a neutral contribution to the significance of the area.  The east-west section of Winkurra Street in which the subject site is located is not considered to demonstrate the streetscape qualities commonly found in other streets throughout the Conservation Area because it is not comprised of Federation period dwellings.  The section of Winkurra Street to the north east does demonstrate the characteristics typical of the conservation area however due to the change in topography and alignment of the street the subject site is not considered to be within the visual catchment of this section of the street.  The subject site is hence not a contributory element in the conservation area and is not located within a streetscape that is characteristic of the area.

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal is for extensive alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a first floor addition, extensions to the east of the existing dwelling, a new double garage in the south western corner of the site and a new boundary fence.  The additions are to feature a pitched and tiled roof, rendered walling and a gabled balcony extending from the eastern elevation. A new fence will be constructed along the southern boundary.  Given the extent of alteration proposed, for heritage purposes, the proposal essentially demolishes the existing dwelling and constructs a new infill dwelling.

 

Supporting Documentation

 

A short heritage impact statement was submitted with the application.  The HIS notes the mixed character of this section of Winkurra Street and having regard to that character considers the proposal acceptable.

 

Potential Impacts

 

Extensive alteration/demolition of existing dwelling:

 

The existing dwelling does not contribute to the significance of the conservation area as described in the Draft DCP because it was constructed after the defining phase of development in the area and is not one of the housing styles which characterises the area.  The dwelling makes a neutral contribution to the area and its replacement with a neutral element is appropriate.

 

Infill Dwelling

 

Although the proposed dwelling will exceed the FSR controls and is considered to be reasonably large having regard to the size of the site there is considered to be no adverse impact to the significance of the conservation because of the particular streetscape context.  The dwelling is not within a consistent row of dwellings that contribute to the character of the area and this section of Winkurra Street is comprised largely of side elevations to dwellings which front Dowling Street.  The site is not within a consistently single storey streetscape that would incur adverse impact from the proposed two storey dwelling.  The scale, form, setbacks and massing of the proposal will not have an adverse impact on a cohesive and characteristic streetscape and therefore the proposal will not be disruptive to the character of the conservation area.

 

The style, fenestration, roof form and materials of the proposal are considered reasonable as they are relatively traditional and are not uncharacteristic within the conservation area.  The proposed palette of colours for the dwelling, which were submitted with the application, is considered appropriate for the area.

 

Draft West Kensington DCP Controls

 

The objective for Section 3.6 Infill is for new buildings to be in keeping with the neighbours and the conservation area with being a copy of original buildings.  As described previously the subject site is sufficiently dislocated from the Winkurra Street and Dowling Street streetscapes so there is no consistent character to which the proposal needs to respond.  The design of the proposal is considered compatible with the conservation area as it is relatively simple and traditional.

 

Fence

 

The proposed fence is considered to have some adverse impact to the streetscape due to its solidity and height.  The fence is over 2m high in some locations and there are large unarticulated expanses.  It is noted that the eastern portion of the fence encloses the private open space of the site, however this also address the street.  It is recommended that the height of the fence is reduced.  The section of fence in front of the southern elevation of the dwelling is to be a maximum of 1.5m with the top one third to feature 50% open pickets.  The section of the fence to the east of the alignment of the eastern elevation of the dwelling is to be a maximum of 1.8m high with the top one third to be pickets.  Pickets may be more closely space to provide privacy.  Planter boxes similar to those proposed may be included in the design of the fences.

 

Garage

 

The proposal includes a double masonry garage in the south western corner of the site.  The garage is to feature a parapet roof and the door type has not been specified.  Directly adjacent on the western boundary is a garage belonging to the dwelling fronting Dowling Street.  As this street frontage already features a garage and is not within a sensitive streetscape the garage proposed to this site is considered to have no adverse heritage impact on the conservation area.  To reduce its presence in the streetscape it is recommended that the height of the garage is reduced to match the height of the adjacent garage.”

 

Comment

 

Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation of this report requiring the height of the garage to be reduced to match the height of the adjacent garage and the openings are to feature timber panel lift doors and the section of fence in front of the southern elevation of the dwelling is to be a maximum height of 1.5m with the top one third to feature 50% open pickets. The section of the fence to the east of the alignment of the eastern elevation of the dwelling is to be a maximum of 1.8m high with the top one third to be pickets. Pickets may be more closely space to provide privacy.

 

6.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

§ Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended)

§ Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

§ Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

§ Building Code of Australia

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

7.1       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

 

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

 

Clause 10 – Zone No 2A (Residential A Zone)

 

The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Residential 2A zone in that the amenity of surrounding residential areas would be maintained and the proposal would have minimal impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the existing character of the streetscape.

 

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

 

The subject site is located within the West Kensington Conservation Area. 

 

Under Clause 43 of the RLEP, Council must consider the likely effect of the proposal upon the significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area.

 

As noted in Section 5.2 above, the proposal has been referred to Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner for assessment and appropriate consent conditions are to be included to address issues in relation to the height of the garage and the front fence.

 

7.2       Draft Development Control Plan - West Kensington Heritage Conservation Area

 

The draft DCP for the conservation area notes that second level additions will only be permitted in the conservation area in very limited circumstances, except the existing building on the land has no particular significance, and the height and scale of the proposal are modest and compatible with neighbouring single level development. The second level is confined to the rear, either out of sight or setback far enough to appear as a separate structure.

 

As noted in Section 5.2 above, Council’s Consultant Heritage Planner has reviewed the proposal and appropriated conditions are to be included with any consent to minimise impact on the heritage significance of the West Kensington heritage conservation area.

 

7.3       Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

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

 

Landscaping

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

40% of the total site area is provided as landscaped area.

51.8% of the site is landscaped area. Complies.

S1

A minimum of 25m² of useable private open space is to be provided.

The rear yard has an area of approximately 94 sqm. Complies.

S1

Private open space in the front yard area is located behind the building line.

The above area is located in the rear yard. Complies.

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

24.3% of the site is permeable. Complies.

 

Floor Area

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposed floor space ratio is 0.7:1. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

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

 

The maximum preferred gross floor area is 273.79 sqm and the proposal has a total gross floor area of 323.66 sqm, which equates to an excess of 49.87 sqm. It is not considered that the above variation will result in any significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings in that the subject site is on the northern side of the street and is the only site which fronts this section of Winkurra Street, the majority of additional shadows will be cast over the street and would have minimal impact on the adjoining dwellings in terms of solar access. The proposed bulk and scale of the development is also considered acceptable in that the section of Winkurra Street in which the subject site is located does not demonstrate a consistent streetscape qualities commonly found in other streets throughout the conservation area and due to the change in topography and alignment of the street, the proposal will result in an appropriate streetscape fit. The proposal is also considered to be comparable with the bulk and scale of the existing dwelling on the north-eastern side of the site. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant objective and performance requirement of the DCP in terms of bulk and scale and should not result in any significant impact on the character of the immediate locality.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 6.5 metres. Complies.

S1

External wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5 m.

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

The proposal includes minimal excavation for footings. Appropriate conditions are to be included in the recommendation of this report to ensure the excavation works are carried out in accordance with relevant Australian Standards.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Not applicable.

S4

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

The first floor addition is setback more than 1.5m from the southern boundary.

S5

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

Not applicable.

 

Building Setbacks

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The front setback of the existing dwelling remains unaltered.

S2

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

The proposed additions are setback 1.5m from the rear boundary at ground level and 2m at first floor level. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S3