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

 

 

28th November, 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, 5TH DECEMBER, 2006 AT 6.30 P.M.

 

Committee Members:                  The Mayor, Cr P. Tracey, Crs Andrews, Bastic, Belleli, Daley, Hughes, Kenny, Matson (Deputy Chairperson), Nash (Chairperson), Notley-Smith, 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 HELD ON TUESDAY, 21ST NOVEMBER, 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                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 105/2006 - 102 - 106 BOYCE ROAD, MAROUBRA.

2

 

6.2                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

47 - 53 DUDLEY STREET, COOGEE.

12

 

6.3                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

23 HANNAN STREET, MAROUBRA.

35

 

6.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

255-259 FITZGERALD AVENUE, MAROUBRA.

44

 

6.5                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

46 DOLPHIN STREET, COOGEE.

73

 

6.6                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

1605 ANZAC PARADE, LA PEROUSE.

96

 

6.7                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT –

25 COOGEE STREET , RANDWICK.

132

 

 

7           Miscellaneous

 

7.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 106/2006 - COMPREHENSIVE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN (LEP) AND DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN (DCP) UPDATE AND CONSULTATION STRATEGY.

137

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 107/2006 – COUNCIL'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS - RECEIPT OF OWNERSHIP.

145

 

7.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 108/2006 - NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER LISTING RANDWICK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ON THE STATE HERITAGE REGISTER.

147

 

 

8           Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

9           Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director, City Planning Report 105/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

102 - 106 Boyce Road, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

24 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/302/2006 & PROP039990, 888 & PROP051780

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Development Application No. 302/2006 & Land and Environment Court Proceedings

Appeal No. 10600 of 2006 is the subject of a deemed refusal in the Land and Environment Court (LEC).

 

The applicant was requested by letter dated 3 July, 2006, to address outstanding issues with regard to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1989 (LEP), the Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan (MJTC-DCP), issues raised by Council’s Development Engineers and design issues raised by the Design Review Panel in relation to the design quality principles contained within State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65).  Instead, the applicant chose to lodge a Class 1 appeal in the LEC. 

 

In summary, the issues before the LEC were the following:-

 

·          Number of storeys and height in excess of standard set by Clause 42D of the LEP.

·          Design of the proposed development in regard to the design quality principles of SEPP 65.

·          Acceptability of the proposed development in relation to the MJTC-DCP.

·          Amenity impacts and in particular, view loss and privacy.

·          Consistency with the 3A General Business Zone Objectives.

·          Adequacy of the vehicular access and parking.

·          Adequacy of the proposed waste storage areas.

·          Adequacy of plans in regards to State Environmental Planning Policy: Basix

·          Inadequate information.

 

Amended plans have been lodged with the Court in response to issues raised by the Court Appointed Expert (CAE), Mr Michael Harrison in his preliminary report on the proposal.  The amended plans have been advertised and notified by Council, with the expiry of the advertising and notification period being 15 November, 2006.  As a result 19 submissions were received as detailed below in the report under Issues.

A copy of the CAE’s Statement of Evidence filed with the Court in response to the amended proposal has been received by Council on 20 November, 2006 (attached).

 

In summary, the CAE considers the amended development application is suitable for approval, subject to nine (9) special conditions being incorporated into the consent.  The issues before the LAC and the CAE’s Statement of Evidence are discussed below under the Issues section of this report.

 

As the matter is listed for hearing on 8 December, 2006, it is necessary for Council to consider the amended proposal and decide whether to continue to defend the appeal or agree to the proposed changes through the issue of consent orders.  It should be noted that in accordance with the CAE’s evidence, there are no points to defend.

 

PROPOSAL:

 

The amended proposal is to construct a new mixed use development, containing 26 dwellings, five (5) commercial units and two (2) shops in a new six (6) storey building, with 36 parking spaces in two basement levels.  It has an estimated cost of $4.1 millions.

 

ISSUES:

 

1.         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1989

 

The site is located within the 3A General Business Zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (LEP).  Business premises and multi-unit housing are both permissible forms of development within the 3A Zone.

 

The site is also located within the Maroubra Junction Town Centre and as such Clause 42D of the LEP applies to the proposal.  This clause removes the need to comply with the provisions for floor space ratios, landscaped areas and building heights. Instead, a maximum number of 5 storeys applies to the site as set by the MJTC-DCP, which linked with a maximum building height of 18m from ground level, taken from each point of the boundary, to the underside of the ceiling to the topmost floor.

 

The amended proposal is six (6) storeys, with the top storey setback by 6m from all sides.  The overall height has been calculated as a maximum of 19.2m. 

 

The CAE considers the effect of the increase in permissible height is marginal and generally will not be visually perceptible due the setback of the top storey from the sides of the building below.  The CAE also concludes that the increase in height will not give rise to adverse environmental impacts in relation to overshadowing, overlooking, visual scale and bulk or general overbearing impacts when compared to the building envelope when compared to the building envelope permitted by the built form controls in the MJTC-DCP. 

 

Given the height and scale of surrounding development at 95-97 Mason Street (6 storeys) at the rear of the site and 108-110 Boyce Road (7-8 storeys) adjacent to the east, the opinion of the CAE in regard to height is concurred with and height should not be determinative matter in regard to the proposal.

2.         State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65)

 

The urban design and amenity for future users of the proposed new building were considered unsatisfactory by the Design Review Panel in its assessment of the original proposal and these were matters that were raised to the LEC. 

 

The CAE has considered the amended proposal against each of the design quality principles of SEPP 65 and concludes that the amended design addresses the SEPP 65 design quality principles appropriately.

 

The main issues arising from the Design Review Panel comments related to apartment layouts, façade design and access arrangements to the commercial suites at the rear of the building.

 

While the access to the commercial suites at the rear of the building via the western side path is not entirely satisfactory, the CAE has advised that providing a commercial entry through the building would be to the detriment of the retail frontage.  The only other alternative would be for a combined residential and commercial entry to the building.  While this is a feasible alternative, it does not accord with the performance criteria of MJTC-DCP.

 

The CAE considers that the revised façade design has been substantially improved in the amended design through increased articulation and the provision of corner balconies; revised materials and colours; better presentation of the vehicle entry; relocation of the fire stair exit from the front of the building to its western side; and more open entry to the side path to the commercial units.

 

Concurrence is given to the opinion of the CAE and while further improvement to the design could be made by a reduction in the number of units and an increased floor plate for the remaining units, it is considered that unit configuration and unit mix has been improved in the amended proposal.  Apartment sizes for 2 bedroom apartments at 69m2 - 74m2 and 3 bedroom apartments at 95m2 - 96m2 are less than the sizes specified in the performance criteria of the MJTC-DCP (80m2 and 125m2), however, it is stated by the CAE that they meet the size criteria in the Residential Design Flat Code for housing affordability.  As such, apartment size should not be a determinative matter in regards to the amended proposal.

 

3.         Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan

 

The amended proposal, still does not achieve compliance with the Block 4 Controls of the MJTC-DCP in regard to building envelope; building depth; building setbacks; and deep soil zone and open space.  These issues are not considered by the CAE to be substantive and in the case of the building envelope, it largely occurs as a result of providing a nil setback to Boyce Road, which is consistent with adjoining development to the east in Boyce Road and therefore appropriate in the site context.  Further, the non compliances with respect to building depth and communal open space are considered marginal. 

 

The deep soil zone along the northern boundary designated as part of the communal open space is considered satisfactory to support tree species of the required size specified by the Design Review Panel for maintaining acceptable levels of environmental amenity between the site and adjoining properties.  It is considered by Council’s Landscape Development Officer however, that the nominated tree species, as per the CAE’s recommendation, will not attain the specified height and should be substituted from within a short list of preferred species as nominated by Council’s Landscape Development Officer.  This may be addressed by an appropriate special condition of consent as contained within the Recommendation of this report.  Further, the Landscape Development Officer has advised that the two specific conditions of consent relating to soil type and construction, as contained within the Recommendations of the CAE’s Statement of Evidence, are considered unnecessary.

 

The main issue arising from the amended proposal is the separation of the proposed building from 108-110 Boyce Road and as stated in the CAE’s Statement of Evidence, this is the “issue most on the mind of the objectors”.  The MJTC-DCP requires a minimum 3m side setback, with building separation distances as follows:

 

·          18m between habitable rooms and balconies

·          13m between habitable rooms and balconies/non –habitable rooms.

·          9m between non-habitable rooms.

 

The amended proposal maintains significant design deficiencies with regard to its eastern side setback and building separation to 108-110 Boyce Road.  On Level 2 of the proposed building (the first residential level) the proposal has a nil side setback and on Levels 3,4 and 5 the setback is increased to a minimum of 2.4m.

 

The separation distances are approximately 4.5m between the proposed side balcony on Level 2 and the balcony of 108-110 Boyce Road, on Levels 3, 4 and 5 the separation distance between balconies is approximately 5.5m and 7.5m, with the distance between habitable rooms and the balconies of 108-110 Boyce Road approximately 6m. 

 

While the primary orientation of the units, is to the front or rear of the site, the potential impacts for visual and acoustic privacy to units on the western side of 108-110 Boyce Road, are considered substantial.  The CAE considers the potential impacts are sufficiently addressed by either the use of highlight windows and privacy louvred screens and recommends the louvred screens to the balconies to be fixed rather than sliding as shown.

 

It is not considered that this is a satisfactory level of amelioration to minimise the impacts to residents who have balconies and windows on the western side of the building at 108-110.  Instead at a minimum, the following changes should be made to the design along the eastern elevation of the proposed building:

 

·          On Level 2, the decks/balconies and planter on the eastern side of Units 2 and 3 should be deleted, with the deck/balcony of the front unit (Unit 3) having the same configuration as the corner units above (Units 9,15 and 21).

 

·          The eastern deck/balcony to Units 8,14and 20 should be deleted and replaced with windows with a fixed external louvred privacy screens.

 

·          Privacy screens should be fixed to decks/balconies of Units at the front of the building (Units 3, 9, 15, 21 and Units 5, 11, 17, 25) and should extend from the rear (north) of the deck to the front (southern) wall alignment of their living areas.

 

4.         Development Control Plan - Parking

 

When assessed against Council’s DCP-Parking, the amended proposal results in a shortfall of two (2) resident car spaces, four (4) visitor spaces and three (3) commercial spaces, as well one (additional) space for service and delivery vehicles is required, giving a total shortfall of 10 spaces. 

 

A Traffic Report has been submitted to the Court by the applicant, which provides justification as to why the shortfall is acceptable in the circumstances.  The CAE has considered the shortfall acceptable on the basis that less parking can be provided for the studio units, the proximity of the site to the commercial centre of Maroubra and accessibility to public transport.  As well, one on-street carparking space is returned to the area due to the proposed closure of one of the existing driveways serving the site and the re-instatement of the kerb, thus resulting in a net loss of three (3) visitor spaces. 

 

A Section 94 levy is applicable for the shortfall in commercial carparking.  It is considered appropriate in the circumstances that a minimum of one car parking space be provided for each residential dwelling and one only for each commercial tenancy and on this basis it is considered that the net quantum of the shortfall at five (5) spaces is acceptable in the site circumstances.  As such an appropriate special condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of the report.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has provided advice with regard to the proposed vehicular access as follows:

 

All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings are generally required to be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines. The submitted plans show a 2 x 2.5 metre splay on the eastern side of the vehicular access although the western side wall does not have any splay or lowering provided.  It is noted however, that the proposed vehicular access is for two-way traffic flow; hence exiting vehicles will be on the eastern side of the driveway with the western laneway provided for entering vehicles effectively offering adequate sight distance.

 

The driveway opening at the Boyce Road frontage must be minimum 5.50 metres wide (plus 300mm kerb either side) and located at least 1.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

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

 

In accordance with Council’s Development Engineer’s requirements above, which may be specified in an appropriate condition of consent, it is considered that vehicular access is acceptable.  This may result in slight reduction in the internal floor area Retail Tenancy No. 1.

 

5.         Objectors Issues

 

The original proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans, until 24 May, 2006, with 18 submissions and a petition containing 108 signatures were received.  The amended proposal was further notified and advertised in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans, until 15 November, 2006.  As a result, 19 submissions beingreceived from the following:

·          Resident of Unit 42, 108 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of Unit 33, 108 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of Unit 11, 108-110 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of Unit 12, 108 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of Unit 31, 108 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Residents of 108-110 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of Unit 1, 108-110 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of Unit 29, 108 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Secretary of Owners Corporation 108-110 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of Unit 45, 108-110 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of Unit 22, 108 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of Unit 4, 108 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Chairman, Owners’ Corporation, Strata Plan 51742 of 108 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of 34/108 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of Unit 41, 108-110 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of Unit 7, 108 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of Unit 14, 108 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Resident of 4/165 Blamey Cres, Campbell, ACT 2612

·          Resident of 43/108-110 Boyce Road, Maroubra

·          Chairperson, Aquilo Owners’ Corporation, 95-97 Mason St, Maroubra.

 

All submissions to the amended proposal were received from owners and/or occupiers of the neighbouring building to the east (108-110 Boyce Road, Maroubra) and raise the following issues:

·          Potential for damage to adjoining property during construction

·          Building separation and consequent amenity impacts: privacy (visual and acoustic), solar access, natural ventilation, disruption caused by construction works and overcrowding

·          Views and outlook

·          Non compliance with LEP and MJTC-DCP: height, setbacks, building envelope, building separation and setbacks, deep soil zone and communal open space, articulation, apartment and balcony size, storage, ceiling heights,

·          Traffic and safety

·          Parking

·          Air pollution, energy efficiency, water penetration

·          Poor quality of development: low ceiling heights, small sized apartments and balconies, insufficient daylight access to apartments.

·          Bulk, scale and height

·          Density

·          Landscape design: lack of landscape softening to front and side boundaries

·          Safety and security

·          Location of garbage bins

·          Lack of detail with regard to proposed commercial uses

·          Overdevelopment

·          Loss in property values

·          Not in the public interest

 

The CAE has generally addressed the objector’s issues, however, it is recommended that the privacy impacts arising from the proposed development needs further attention to detail, as outlined above in the report and as contained within the Recommendation of this report.   The CAE has requested Council to advise whether it is satisfied with the waste management strategy for the development.  Council’s Development Engineer has advised that the waste management strategy is generally satisfactory, subject to the submission of additional information, prior to a construction certificate being issued , which details the method of transportation of waste bins from the waste storage area to the kerbside for collection.  As such, an appropriate special condition of consent is contained within the Recommendation of this report.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:      Excellence in urban design and development

Direction 4a:     Improved design and sustainability across all development

Key Action:      Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

This matter is set down for hearing in the Land & Environment Court on 8 December 2006.  The decision to enter into consent orders would not affect the costs that Council would incur to be represented at the hearing.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The amended proposal before the Court generally addresses the preliminary findings of the Court Appointed Expert.  The main issues outstanding are the privacy impacts to the neighbouring building to the east (108-110 Boyce Road) due to the location and proximity of decks/balconies on Levels 2-5, the location of the commercial entry to the western side of the building, the shortfall in parking and unit sizes.  The overall appearance and façade articulation has been improved in the amended proposal.  It is not considered that issues relating to parking, commercial entry and apartment size should be determinative in the way of refusal of application, if the privacy impacts to 108-110 Boyce Road can be satisfactorily addressed.  In this regard it is recommended that consent orders should be entered into on the basis of the re-design of the decks/balconies on the eastern façade as contained with the special conditions within the Recommendation.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.              That Council agree in principle to enter into consent orders in respect of the proceedings No. 10600 of 2006 before the Land and Environment Court subject to those orders being satisfactory to the Court and compliance with the following special conditions:

 

1.         The architectural plans shall be amended in according with the following requirements:

 

·          On Level 2, the decks/balconies and planter on the eastern side of Units 2 and 3 shall be deleted, with the deck/balcony of the front unit (Unit 3) having the same configuration as the corner units above (Units 9,15 and 21).

 

·          The eastern deck/balcony to Units 8,14and 20 shall be deleted and replaced with windows with a fixed external louvred privacy screens.

 

·          Privacy screens shall be fixed to decks/balconies of the front Units (Units 3, 9, 15, 21 and Units 5, 11, 17, 25) and shall extend from the rear (north) of the deck to the front (southern) wall alignment of their the living areas.

 

2.         Ceiling fans shall be provided to the living rooms and bedroom of all units and to all commercial and retail tenancies and shall be detailed as such on the construction certificate plans prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

3.         Prior to the release of the construction certificate the landscape plan shall be amended to show a minimum number of 2 x 75 litre (pot size at the time of planting), broad canopied native evergreen trees provided within the deep soil zone nominated at the northern end of the site, comprising one tree towards the northwest corner of the site.  The tree species shall be selected from the following species list:

 

·    Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum)

·    Angophora floribunda (Rough Barked Apple)

·    Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum)

·    Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum)

·    Eucalyptus mannifera (Brittle Gum)

·    Eucalyptus sideroxylon (Ironbark)

 

4.         Prior to the issue of the occupation certificate., the lift shall have security mechanisms to allow only resident use to Levels 2, 3, 4 and 5, while allowing commercial and retail use from the carpark levels to the ground floor level of the building.  Security mechanisms shall be installed allowing residential use from the lift through the commercial internal corridor during daylight hours.   

 

5.         In order to provide a safe and secure environment for residents, security mechanisms for pedestrian building entry 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 the development.

 

6.         In order to ensure that the basement car park is secure for residents and visitors a security gate to the basement car park shall be provided with intercom facilities at the car park entrance for visitors, capable of being accessed by people with a disability.  Details shall be provided to the satisfaction of the certifying authority prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

7.         Lighting shall be provided to all common areas internal and external to the building and shall be on a timer and operated between sunset and sunrise.  Details shall be provided to the certifying authority prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

 

8.         A minimum of one car parking space shall be provided for each residential dwelling; one car parking space shall only be provided for each commercial/retail tenancy; and three (3) car parking spaces shall be provided for visitor use.  The car spaces shall be allocated as such on the strata plans prior to the release of the Strata Subdivision Certificate.  

 

9.         Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, the applicant shall submit to Council documentation detailing how full waste bins are to be transported from the basement storage area to the kerbside for collection, as the internal ramp grades are too steep for the manual transportation of bins

 

10.       All loading and unloading by service and delivery vehicles for the retail and commercial premises shall be undertaken within the allocated retail/commercial car spaces.

 

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

 

a)       for the provision or improvement of open space               $34,150.08

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities   $15,099.52

c)       for townscape improvements                                                       $ 9,047.70

d)       for car parking                                                                            $33,375.00

e)       Administration fee                                                                       $     425.00

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to

 

a)       a construction certificate being issued

b)       a subdivision certificate being issued

 

for the proposed development, together with payment of the required Section 94 Administration Fee of $425.00.  Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

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

 

a)       all of the premises adjoining the subject site.

 

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.  Any damage caused to neighbouring properties as a result of the works shall be made good prior to the issue of the occupation certificate.

 

13.       Prior to the issue of the construction certificate, certification shall be provided that the commercial components of the development are in accordance with Australian Standard (AS) 1428-2001.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

23 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/221/2006 & PROP020761, 020769, 020773 & 020817

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 82a Review of determination relating to reduction in scale of bulk of proposed fourth storey addition to multi-unit development including amendment of design by altering materials, having only unit 11 as two-storey with set backs from building perimeter.

 

 

PROPERTY:

 47 - 53 Dudley Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 CSA Architects Pty Ltd

OWNER:

Leystreet Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This is a review of Council’s previous determination of Development Application 221/2006. The original development application was referred to an Ordinary Council Meeting for determination at the request of Councillors Chris Bastic, Michael Daley and Dominic Sullivan.

 

Council refused consent to the original application on the grounds of height, floor space ratio, design and view-loss.

 

The original application proposed an additional fourth storey to the approved development.  The new level would have consisted of living, dining, kitchen and balcony areas for Units 10 and 11, accessed by internal stairs from each apartment from the level below.  An additional bedroom was also proposed for these reconfigured units.  No changes were proposed to the basement carpark or to the ground and first floor levels of the approved development.

 

The applicant has submitted a revised proposal for review. The fourth level addition now consists of living, dining, kitchen and balcony for unit 11 only, accessed by internal stairs from the apartment. An additional bedroom is also proposed on the lower level of this unit. Accordingly, the floor area of the proposed addition is about half of what was originally proposed.

 

The revised proposal was considered by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel. The panel offered [The] flat roofed design is more in character with the rest of the building … as the proposal makes use of the roof space and would not appear to have adverse impacts, it is the Panel’s view that it could be approved. However, the Panel’s comments are primarily design based and have not contemplated the adverse impacts to the amenity of surrounding residents of non-compliance with the external wall height and floor space ratio controls. Accordingly the Panel’s advice is given little weight in the final recommendation.

 

The revised proposal was the subject of eight further objections from nearby landowners. The objections related to the proposed building form; height, bulk and scale, view loss, overshadowing, acoustic and visual privacy, groundwater, and traffic and parking.

 

The proposal is in excess of the maximum FSR and maximum external wall height requirements prescribed by the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998  (LEP) and relies on objections to these standards submitted pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for approval of the application.  It is considered that these objections are not well founded, with impacts to the neighbouring properties particularly with regards to view sharing. Moreover, the application is not accompanied by a relevant BASIX certificate and therefore has not been properly made. Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

 

1.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The original application proposed a fourth storey addition to the three-storey residential flat building previously approved 8 November 2005 and later modified 14 March 2006.

 

The original fourth storey addition consisted of living, dining and kitchen areas for Units 10 and 11 and an associated balcony located off the living area.  The layout of these units on the floor below was also modified to include an additional third bedroom to each unit in lieu of the relocated living, dining and kitchen areas and also includes internal stair access from Level 3 of each apartment to the new fourth level.

 

The original proposal was revised for this review and now comprises a fourth storey addition for unit 11 only. The proposed internal re-configuration remains the same as the original proposal, but for unit 11 only.

 

The new proposal would result in a new unit mix of three (3) x  one (1) bedroom, eight (8) x two (2) bedroom and two (2) x  three (3) bedroom dwellings within the development.  No changes are proposed to the basement carpark or to the ground, first and second floor levels.  The proposal is assessed only against the changes as proposed to the approved development.

 

The applicant offers the following reason for requesting the review:

 

Since this proposal now meets the objectives of the development standards and SEPP 65, it should be approved on its merits.

 

2.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The proposal relates to a regular shaped corner site with frontages to Asher Street and Dudley Street in Coogee (refer Figure 1 over page).  The site has a total site area of approximately 1,231.5m2 and consists of four properties as follows:-

 

·          No. 47 Dudley Street identified as Lot 11 in DP 165538 and Lot 1 in DP 1070296;

·          No. 49 Dudley Street identified as Lot 1 in DP 620973;

·          No. 51 Dudley Street identified as Lot 2 in DP 620973;

·          No. 53 Dudley Street (also known as 14 Asher Street) and identified as Lot 1 in DP 1079162.

 

The subject site is bounded by Dudley Street on its south with a frontage of 36.505m and Asher Street on its east with a frontage of 33.635m.  The northern (rear) and western (side) boundaries measure 24.315m and 33.765m, respectively.  The site has a common boundary, to the north, with No. 16 Asher Street (alternately known as 12 Asher Street) containing a single storey doctor’s surgery and to its west, with No. 45 Dudley Street, containing a two storey multi-unit housing building, containing two (2) dwellings.  The site falls from the west to the east by approximately 2 metres, with its low point on its south-eastern boundary at the corner of Asher and Dudley Streets.

 

The surrounding locality consists of a mix of residential properties of various types and scale.  Located opposite on the north-east corner of Dudley and Asher Street (55 Dudley Street) is a single storey dwelling house.  On the opposite (southern) side of Dudley Street are a variety of dwelling types including single storey detached dwelling houses, two storey older style residential flat buildings and recent three storey multi-unit housing developments above raised basement carparks. Figures 2 and 3 show the street setting of the subject site is Dudley St and Asher Street.

 

 

Figure 1 – Aerial photograph of the subject site and locality

 

 

 

Figure 2 – Looking west along Dudley Street. Subject site in the foreground (fenced with construction fencing)

 

 

Figure 3 – Looking north along Asher Street. Subject site in the foreground (fenced with construction fencing)

 

4.         HISTORY

 

Following is a chronological outline of the site’s recent development application history.

 

1.       Development Application No. 285/2004 (DA 285/2004) for a slightly larger site that included No. 45 Dudley Street and which proposed a part three/part four storey multi-housing development containing 19 dwellings was refused by Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 23 November, 2004.

 

2.       Development Application No. 68/2005 (DA 68/2005) for a three (3) storey multi-unit housing development containing 13 dwellings, being three (3) x one (1) bedroom, nine (9) x two (2) bedroom and one (1) x three (3) bedroom apartments, with basement parking for 19 cars and strata subdivision into 13 lots was approved by way of a deferred commencement consent by Council at its Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November, 2005.  This approval relates to a site reduced in size by one allotment (45 Dudley Street) from the site relating to the previous refusal (DA 285/2004).

 

3.       A Section 96 (2) application to modify the consent was approved by Council at its Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 14 March, 2006.  This application included increasing the size of the basement car park to accommodate an additional three (3) parking spaces, extension of the building to the rear and enclosure of ground and first floor balconies to Dudley Street, as well as modifications to the internal layout to provide study areas and resultant changes to the fenestration.  The approval of the Section 96 application included a condition that removed the enclosure of the front balconies and the resultant approved floor space ratio was 1.16:1.

 

4.       Development Application No. 221/2006 (now subject to this review) was refused consent for the following reasons:

a.     The proposal is in excess of the maximum floor space ratio applicable to the site and the buildings bulk, scale and form is visually excessive.

 

b.     The proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height of 10m and the increased height and built form is visually excessive and not well integrated to the approved development.

 

c.     The proposal is inconsistent with the design quality principles of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 in particular:- Principle 1: Context; Principle 2: Scale; Principle 3: Built Form; Principle 4: Density; Principle 7: Amenity; and Principle 10: Aesthetics.

 

d.     The proposed development does not achieve the objectives of the 2C Residential Zone in that the proposed building form, height, scale and density will compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

 

e.     The proposal is inconsistent with the view sharing performance requirements and objectives of the Randwick Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing in that it results in the loss of views and outlook to properties on the southern side of Dudley Street, Coogee.

 

5.    STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 82A:

 

Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 enables an applicant to request a Review of a Determination of a Development Application or condition/s of Development Consent.  Council may accept amendments to the original development proposal if the proposed amendments result in substantially the same development as that originally described in the development application. Council may review the Determination, and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the Determination.

 

The revised proposal is considered to be substantially the same development for the purposes of this review.

 

6.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans, until 15 November, 2006.  A total of nine submissions were received from the following people.

·    Jane Becker and Harriet Grahame of 80 Dudley Street, Coogee.

·    Michael Richards of 88 Dudley Street, Coogee.

·    Jenny Shaw of Unit 3/78A Dudley Street, Coogee.

·    Jim Henry of Unit 1/82 Dudley Street, Coogee.

·    Jessie Kennedy of Unit 3/82 Dudley Street, Coogee.

·    Judy Bridgeman of 5 Logan Court, Mt Ommaney, QLD (owner of 45 Dudley Street, Coogee)

·    Marjorie Little of 2/137 Brook Street, Coogee.

·    P.R Greig of 5/78A Dudley Street, Coogee.

 

6.1 Objections

 

The following issues have been paraphrased from each objection and categorised according to subject matter.

 

Streetscape and Building Form

 

·    This review only slightly reduces the original DA but still leaves a “pimple on a pumpkin”.

 

·    The proposed 4th storey is an add-on and of no architectural merit to the original design. The addition is ugly and breaks the horizontal line of the roof.

 

·    The top of the building is a hotch-potch and is visible coming down Dudley Street from Brook Street..

 

·    The appearance of this development is not in keeping with other buildings in the area, e.g 82 and 84 Dudley Street.

 

·    The plan to change the design of unit 11 will be a backward step and spoil the sky-line.

 

·    The amendment will adversely effect the streetscape

 

·    The design will be just a large box.

 

Planning comment: The Design Review Panel constituted under State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 Design of Residential Flat Buildings found that the form and style of the proposed addition was an appropriate manner in which to provide additional space on the roof of this building.  

 

Height, Bulk and Scale

 

·    The latest proposal makes no new arguments of merit and seeks permission from Council to breach existing planning controls [FSR and height] even further.

 

·    The size and bulk of this development has always been a major issue and this review only increases what has been approved.

 

·    The building will be too-high and too large for the suburb, lot and surrounding buildings.

 

·    The height and size of the proposed building is not in keeping with the area.

 

·    The proposal exceeds the height guidelines.

 

·    The height and size is not in keeping with the new buildings in the block (at 82-84 Dudley Street)

 

Planning comment: The proposed addition is at variance with the prescribed floor space ratio and external wall height controls for the site. These matters are considered in detail under the relevant sections of this report and have determinative weight for the proposal. The non-compliance is considered to be a reason for refusal because of the impact on the amenity enjoyed by surrounding residents.

 

View Loss

 

·    It is simply incorrect to suggest that our views will not be ‘significantly impacted’. Currently, we delight in good coastal views of the ocean and the Clovelly headland, seen across an interesting array of rooftops and trees. The already approved development leaves us with a sliver of headland and water, and no variegated rooftops, just a big monolithic block. Therefore, the water and headland views we retain are even more significant to us. We currently enjoy these views from our balcony, where a large part of our daily living is undertaken, and also from our dining room, hallway, front bedroom and lounge room. The proposal for placement of the additional fourth storey element at the western end of the building means that our treasured view across to the Clovelly headland will be completely obliterated. We regard our water and headland view as treasured and significant, and a major portion of it will be lost if this review is successful.

 

·    It will have a major impact on sightlines of surrounding properties. There is a new development across the road in which people have not moved in and they will be impacted greatly by the addition of this fourth floor.

 

·    The claim that water views from this property will not be impacted upon is outrageous … a strip of blue on top of a building is not a view. The combination of shapes, tree-tops, etc compliments the sea view. The headland is obscured and the view is completely lost.

 

·    We object to the height of the building. It decreases our view..

 

·    Like others in the street my lovely ocean views, Clovelly Headland, Gordons bay, etc will be replaces by a huge brick wall.

 

·    The effect of an additional floor will severely affect the views from my property and as a consequence the value and lifestyle enjoyed.

 

·    When the second [proposal] is superimposed [in elevation] over the first, there is very little difference in size and impact as seen from my unit.

 

Planning comment: View loss is considered in comprehensive detail in the relevant section of this report. View loss is given determinative weight in this assessment and is included as a reason for refusal in the recommendation.

Overshadowing

 

·    We object to the height of the building. It decreases our sunlight. Also it increases the shadow in Dudley Street in winter.

 

·    An additional storey will tower over my property and would cast a large shadow, greatly reducing natural light and airflow to my units.

 

·    The addition will create further shadow areas for surrounding properties.

 

Planning comment: The proposed addition would slightly increase the amount of overshadowing to the west of the subject site. The additional overshadowing would not be in breach of the solar access requirements of Council’s Multi-unit Housing Development Control Plan and is not considered to be a reason for refusal.

 

Acoustic and Visual Privacy

 

·    This development is in the bottom of the valley and as this DA places the entertaining area on the large flat roof all sound will echo to all surrounding properties.

 

·    This proposed alteration would detrimentally affect the living standards and privacy of the tenants who currently occupy my building.

 

Planning comment: The proposed addition is sufficiently distant or obscured from adjoining and nearby development so as to satisfy the privacy protection requirements of Council’s Multi-Unit Housing Development Control Plan. This matter is not considered to be a reason to refuse consent to the proposal.

 

Groundwater

 

·    I am very concerned by the huge amount of ground water which is flooding through the currently excavated site. They have had pumps going 24 hours a day to try and contain the water to very little success.

 

·    Research shows that this development is on a water table.

 

·    The foundations are now in place and full of water.

 

Planning comment: During a site inspection, Council’s Assessment Officer observed a water-pump draining the ground water from the site. This is consistent with normal construction practices. There is no nexus between this issue and the proposed addition.

 

Traffic and parking

 

·    With the fourth story, there will be more traffic in Dudley Street, which is already in excess. It is already impossible to find a parking spot in Dudley Street.

 

·    Extra bedrooms equates to more people and more cars creating further congestion, and the need for additional car parking.

 

Planning comment: The proposed addition would increase the nominal parking demand generated by the whole development by 0.3 spaces. The increase would be adequately accommodated by the approved parking arrangements and is not considered to be a reason to refuse consent to the proposal.

 

6.2   Support

 

There were no letters of support.

 

7.     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.

 

7.1     Environmental Health and Building

 

Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building has advised the following:

 

The Proposal

 

The subject development relates to the alterations and additions for an already approved multi unit housing development, which proposes to construct an additional storey for units 10 and 11.

 

It is noted that a development application has already been submitted for the construction of a multi unit development (DA-68/2005), in which conditions have been provided for the construction of the entire development (excluding the above proposal). These conditions include BCA related issues, fire safety, potential noise generation, site management and disabled access requirements.

 

No objection is raised to the proposed development application, subject to any conditions and advice as detailed below.

 

Recommendation:

 

No additional building related conditions of consent need to be included in this determination.  However, the applicant is advised of the necessity to ensure compliance with the original conditions of development consent as applied on DA-68/2005.

 

8.         MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site area of 1231.5m2 is less than the 4000m2 required for a master plan.

 

9.         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 Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

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

·   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

·   Randwick Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

·   Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking

·   Randwick Section 94 Contributions Plan

·   Randwick City Council Rainwater Tanks Policy

·   Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy 2005

·   Building Code of Australia.

 

9.1       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

The revised proposal was referred to the Design Review Panel convened under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65).  The design was considered by the Panel, in relation to the design quality principles for residential flat buildings, as set out in Part 2 of SEPP 65, at its meeting on 9 October 2006,  The Panel’s comments are set out below:

 

Subsequent to the Panel’s meeting, the applicant has submitted an alternative flat roofed design that is more in character with the rest of the building. It is the Panel’s view that this is a far more appropriate manner in which to provide additional space on the roof of this building. It is noted that the proposed addition is within the prescribed height limit.

 

The detail resolution of handrails, screens and sun-shading is important to the success of the addition and details of these elements should be provided to the assessing officer.

 

It is recommended that the windows be designed to permit partial secure opening at night and that external sun control measures provided where required.

 

As the proposal makes use of the roof space and would not appear to have adverse impacts, it is the Panel’s view that it could be approved.

 

The Panel’s comments are principally design based and while the proposed addition does integrate better with the approved development, the Panel were not able to adequately consider the adverse impact to the amenity of surrounding residents. This is because the applicant submitted a view-loss assessment only after the Panel considered the proposal. The height of the proposed addition is substantially above the prescribed external-wall height limit. The additional floor space is also wholly outside the maximum prescribed Floor Space Ratio. These non-compliances are directly responsible for significant view loss. Moreover, the applicant has not submitted the detailed resolution of handrails, screens and sun-shading devices as recommended. In light of these issues, the Panel’s view that it could be approved is given a relatively low weight in this assessment. The lack of information required to assess the success of the addition, while ordinarily a matter for a consent condition, is given as a reason for refusal in the recommendation.

 

9.2       State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX)

 

State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 came into force for multi-unit housing where development applications were lodged on or after 1 October 2005.  A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

The applicant has not submitted a BASIX certificate for the revised development subject to this review. Consequently the application is not properly made according to Clause 50 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and cannot be approved. This matter is determinative and included as a reason for refusal in the recommendation.

 

9.3       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998 (LEP) and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following clauses of the LEP apply to the proposal as set out in Figure 8 below:-

 

Figure 8: LEP compliance table

 

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31 – Landscaped area

50% (min) of site area

 

50% (max) of landscaped area over podium/basement carpark

57%

 

49.9% of landscaped area over podium/basement car park

 

 

 

No change to the development as approved.

32 - FSR

09:1

1.18:1

No – refer SEPP 1 below

33 - Building Height

12m (max)-overall

 

10m (max)-external wall

12m (max)-overall

 

11.85m (max)-external wall

Yes

 

No - refer SEPP 1 below

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

21

Subdivision

Application does not propose strata subdivision although part of previous approval

Separate development application required for strata subdivision if application is approved

 

9.31     Zone Objectives

 

Clause 12 of the LEP states the objectives of Zone No. 2c as the following:-

 

a)         to allow a variety of housing types within residential areas, and

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

c)         to enable residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas, and

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

 

The proposal is considered inconsistent with Clause 12 (c) above as the amenity of the surrounding streetscape and neighbouring properties are affected by the proposal for the additional fourth-storey to the approved development.  The proposal results in a loss of views and outlook to a number of properties as a direct consequence of non-compliance with the prescribed height and floor space ratio limits.

 

9.32     Floor Space Ratios

 

Under Clause 32 (1), a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.9:1 is applicable to the site.  The proposed development has a FSR of approximately 1.12:1 (excluding below-ground floor area), which represents an increase of 64m2 to the floor space already approved by DA 68/2005 and a total amount of (above-ground) floor space of approximately 255m2 in excess of the standard set by Clause 32 (1) of the LEP.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1) in respect to the non-compliance with the maximum permissible floor space ratio and has argued that strict compliance with Clause 32 (1) of the LEP is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.  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 floor space ratio control is a development standard as contained in Clause 32 (1) of the LEP.

 

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 Environmental Planning & Assessment Act

 

The approved development achieves a reasonable level of (re)development and is already some 300m2 in excess of the prescribed maximum. The proposed addition would create floor space that is entirely outside the prescribed floor space ratio for the site, at the cost of the views enjoyed by residents to the south. A comprehensive view loss analysis is included under the “Environmental Assessment” heading in this report.

 

The proposed addition is considered to be in conflict with the stated underlying purpose of the standard because it seeks greater than reasonable development potential and creates adverse impacts on nearby and adjoining development.

 

The proposed addition is also considered to be in conflict with the objects of the Act because realising greater than reasonable development potential at the expense of the amenity of nearby residents is not considered to be “the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.”

 

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

 

The approved development already does not comply with the development standard and the incremental addition of floor space as shown in the proposal is considered to be unreasonable in the circumstances, given the adverse impact on view sharing and the SEPP 1 objection is not supported.

 

5. Whether the objection is well founded.

 

The applicant provides the following grounds justifying the variation sought to the floor space standard:

 

·          The proposal promotes the orderly use of the land, through its acceptable design and also that it will not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residents. 

·          The proposal is superior to the approved scheme as it provides a variation to unit types and more accommodation on the site without significant impact.

·          The new floor will have minimal impact on the significance of the streetscape, although slightly visible from the opposite side of Dudley Street.

·          A view analysis reveals only No. 80 Dudley  Street will be affected by the proposal, with distant headland views from the balcony reduced, however these are not considered to be important or significant vistas, with view of the ocean retained.

·          Privacy of each unit and that of the neighbours are retained by the proposal.

·          The proposal has been designed to achieve compliance with BASIX due to appropriate orientation of living and bedroom areas and water saving features.

·          Although the wall height of the additional storey exceeds the required level, the additional height will have no impact in terms of overshadowing or privacy.

 

The objection relies heavily on the claims that the proposed addition would have only minimal impact on surrounding properties and the streetscape. These claims are not considered to be well founded as detailed under the “Environmental Assessment” heading of this report. This matter is given determinative weight and is included as a reason for refusal in the recommendation.

 

9.33     Building Heights

 

Clause 33 (2) of the LEP requires that the maximum building height for a  building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2C, be no more than 12m, measured at any point on ground level.  While the proposed development does not exceed this maximum overall height plane, it does exceed the maximum external wall height of 10m applicable under Clause 33 (4), as the proposed fourth storey facing Dudley Street (south elevation) has an external wall height varying between 11.5m and 11.8m approximately. 

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1) in respect to the non-compliance with the maximum external wall height requirement and has argued that strict compliance with Clause 33 (4) of the LEP is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.  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 external wall height control is a development standard as contained in Clause 33 (4) of the LEP.

 

2. The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

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

 

“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”.

 

3.   Consistency of the development with the aims of the policy and the objects of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act

 

The approved development achieves a [re]development potential that already exceeds other development restrictions such as floor space ratio. The proposed addition is entirely outside the maximum floor space control for the site and almost entirely above the maximum external wall height control. Therefore, the proposed additional height cannot be said to be consistent with the re-development potential of the land.

 

The approved development achieves a reasonable level of (re)development and is already some 300m2 in excess of the prescribed floor space. The proposed addition would create building height (and therefore, economic return) that is mostly outside the prescribed external wall height limit for the site, at the cost of the views enjoyed by residents to the south. A comprehensive view loss analysis is included under the “Environmental Assessment” heading in this report.

 

The proposed addition is considered to be in conflict with the stated underlying purpose of the standard because it seeks greater than reasonable development potential and creates adverse impacts on the amenity of surrounding areas.

 

The proposed addition is also considered to be in conflict with the objects of the Act because realising greater than reasonable development potential at the expense of the amenity of nearby residents is not considered to be “the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land.”

 

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

 

The additional external wall height proposed to the approved development is considered unreasonable in the circumstances, due to the significant impacts on nearby properties in terms of the potential view loss. As such, it is considered reasonable to enforce the external wall height standard and the SEPP 1 objection is not supported.

 

5. Whether the objection is well founded.

 

The applicant argues in their SEPP 1 objection that the compliance with the building heights standard in this instance is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:-

 

·          The design of the proposed new addition achieves an appropriate and reasonable built form with acceptable amenity impacts. 

·          The proposed design is considered meritorious and of high quality, with proposed setbacks and open space provision resulting in the built form being an attractive addition to the streetscape.

·          The additional height is not responsible for any adverse amenity impacts to surrounding neighbours in regard to overshadowing or loss of privacy.

·          The proposal is acceptable, on balance, in relation view impacts, although distant headland views from the balcony of No. 80 Dudley Street will be reduced.

·          The additional height will only be partially visible from the opposite side of Dudley Street and while visible from further up Dudley Street towards Brook Street will not be responsible for any adverse or major view loss to neighbouring properties as the site is located in the lowest section of Dudley Street, which results in the height being unobtrusive.

 

The objection relies heavily on the claims that the proposed addition would have only minimal impact on surrounding properties. These claims are not considered to be well founded as detailed under the “Environmental Assessment” heading of this report. This matter is given determinative weight and is included as a reason for refusal in the recommendation.

 

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

 

The Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Application of Development Standards) 2004 (Draft SEPP 2004) 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 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act,1979, as amended, Clause 14 of the draft document includes savings provisions that any development application made and not determined when the Draft SEPP 2004 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 2004 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 2004 is therefore not required. However, it is considered that the proposal does not result in a better environmental outcome on the site than the already approved and does not exhibit exceptional design quality, in particular with regards to the potential impact on neighbouring property.  A thorough assessment of the proposal against the existing provisions of SEPP No. 1 and against Council’s statutory control and its objectives has been made elsewhere in this report.

 

9.5       Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

 

The proposal does not alter the originally approved development in relation to the requirements of Development Control Plan - Multi-Unit Housing (DCP-Multi-Unit Housing) with respect to the preferred solutions, performance requirements and objectives for: site planning; fences; landscaping and private open space; safety and security; parking; driveways and manoeuvring areas; storage; barrier free access; utilities/site facilities; and waste minimisation and management.  Key aspects of the proposal in relation to height, view sharing and density have been discussed in the report and have been found unsatisfactory.  Further issues of compliance with the DCP-Multi-Unit Housing and as raised by objectors in regard to shadowing, privacy and noise have also been discussed in this report.

 

9.6 Council Policies

Council’s Asbestos and Rainwater Tank policies do not make any provisions that affect the proposed addition.

 

9.7       Randwick Section 94 Contributions Plan

The additional bedroom would ordinarily be levied for Section 94 Contributions.

 

10.       ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

View Loss

 

Figure 4 shows the views available from the balconies of various objectors’ homes. The development site is generally shown in the foreground, surrounded by construction site fencing. The detailed view-loss assessment concentrates on view-loss from 80 Dudley Street, Coogee. This property would suffer the most significant view-loss as a result of the proposed addition. Other properties are either higher and not as vulnerable (notwithstanding the impact of the addition on the ‘outlook’ from these properties) or lower and will generally have their views mostly or entirely dominated by the already approved development.

 

Figure 4 – Views available from various objectors’ homes.

3/82 Dudley Street – View to Gordon’s Bay and Clovelly headland from balcony at standing height.

1/82 Dudley Street – View toward the Clovelly headland from balcony at standing height.

3/78A Dudley Street – View to Gordon’s Bay and Clovelly headland from balcony at standing height.

2/137 Brook Street – View to Gordon’s Bay and Clovelly Headland from balcony at standing height.

 

Detailed View Loss Assessment

 

Development Control Plan provisions

 

Council’s Multi-unit Housing Development Control Plan makes the following provisions about view sharing:

 

·    Objective: To minimise the obstruction of views by new development from adjoining buildings and public places.

·    The design and location of buildings takes existing topography, vegetation and surrounding development into account as a basis for assessing effect on view.

·    Development minimises effects on views and demonstrates steps that have been taken to mitigate view loss, in particular view loss of significant features such as the ocean, coastline, nearby open space areas and significant landmarks or buildings.

·    Buildings and dwellings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

Land and Environment Court Planning Principles

 

Senior Commissioner Roseth established planning principles for view-sharing in Tenacity Consulting v Waringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. Roseth SC considered that the notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment and established a four step assessment as follows:

 

Step One

 

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

Figure 5 shows the current view available at standing height (1.7m) from the front balcony at 80 Dudley Street. The view is of the Pacific Ocean, Gordon’s Bay and the Clovelly Headland. The headland is considered to be moderately iconic and the interface between the headland and water is clearly visible.

 

Figure 5 – Current view from standing height (1.7m) on the front balcony at 80 Dudley Street[1].

 

 

 

GO TO THE TOP OF PAGE 31 TO

SEE FIGURE 5

 

Figure 6 is a photomontage of the view from 80 Dudley Street with the already approved development in place. The Pacific Ocean, Clovelly Headland and interface between land and water, while slightly diminished, are still clearly visible.

 

Figure 6 – Photomontage of the view from 80 Dudley Street with the already approved development.

 

Step Two

 

The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

The view is available seated and standing from the front balcony and living room of the dwelling. The view is at a slightly oblique angle to the alignment of the dwelling, but nevertheless it is over the front boundary.

 

Step Three

 

The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

Figure 7 shows a photomontage of the view from 80 Dudley Street with the proposed addition. The figure shows that the views to the Pacific Ocean would be retained, but the views to Clovelly Headland and the interface between land and water are completely obscured. The view loss would be considered moderate to severe.

 

Figure 7 – Photomontage of the view from 80 Dudley Street with the proposed addition.

 

[1] The applicant provided this photo and photomontage.

 

Step Four

 

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

The proposed addition is entirely outside the maximum floor space ratio and almost entirely above the maximum external wall height control. These non-compliances are directly responsible for the view loss. In light of this impact, the proposed addition is considered to be unreasonable.

 

This matter is given determinative weight and is included as a reason for refusal in the recommendation.

 

8    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Direction 5a and associated key action – Improved design and sustainability

 

9    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10  CONCLUSION

 

This is a request to review Council’s previous refusal of consent for a fourth-storey addition. The applicant submitted revised plans with the request showing a reduction in floor area by approximately half and revised building style and form. While the form and style of the proposed addition now has the tacit approval of the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel, the impact of view loss is considered to be significant for surrounding residents, particularly the residents at 80 Dudley Street. The proposed addition is wholly outside the prescribed floor space ratio for the site and almost wholly outside the prescribed external wall height. These non-compliances would be directly responsible for the view loss and are considered to be unreasonable. The proposed addition is considered to fail the objectives and development standards of Council’s Local Environmental Plan and Multi-unit Housing Development Control Plan. The applicant’s objection (under SEPP 1) to the prescribed development standards is not considered to be well founded. Moreover, the revised proposal was not accompanied by the requisite BASIX certificate. Accordingly, the proposed addition is recommended for refusal.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        That the reasons for refusal in Council’s original determination of Development Application No. DA/221/2006 dated 25 July 2005 for the additional external and internal alterations to the already approved development consisting of a new 4th storey for units 10 and 11 containing living, dining and kitchen area, with their floor below modified to include an additional 3rd bedroom at 47-53 Dudley Street, COOGEE  NSW  2034, be replaced with the following reasons for refusal.

 

1.       The amended proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio for the site prescribed in Clause 32(1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the floor space has an adverse impact on the amenity enjoyed by nearby residents and the objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 is not well founded.

 

2.       The amended proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height of 10 metres prescribed in Clause 33(4) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the height has an adverse impact on the amenity enjoyed by nearby residents and the objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 is not well founded.

 

3.       The amended proposal does not achieve the objectives of the 2C Residential Zone in that the proposed building form, height, scale and density will compromise the amenity of the surrounding residential area.

 

4.       The amended proposal is inconsistent with the view sharing performance requirements and objectives of the Randwick Development Control Plan – Multi-unit Housing in that it results in the loss of views and outlook to properties on the southern side of Dudley Street, Coogee.

 

5.       The amended proposal was not accompanied by a BASIX certificate as required by Clause 50 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. Therefore the application was not properly made and cannot be approved.

 

6.       The amended proposal is not accompanied by the detail resolution of handrails, screens and sun-shading and Council are unable to determine the success of the addition as recommended by the Design Review Panel constituted under State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID MOONEY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

23 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA/1032/2002/C & PROP040511

 

PROPOSAL:

 Modification of the approved fence height by increasing the height on northern, eastern and southern boundaries.

PROPERTY:

 23 Hannan Street, Maroubra

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr L Z Liao and Ms Y Ng

OWNER:

 Mr L Z Liao and Ms Y Ng

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Committee meeting as the original application was determined by Council.

 

The original application proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new fences to the front, sides and rear of the property and landscaping. The fencing as part of this application proposed a maximum height of 2.7m. The application was approved by Council subject to a condition requiring that the maximum height of the rear boundary fence be 2.3m.

 

This application proposes the modification of the previously approved fence height by increasing the height on the northern and southern side boundaries and the height of the eastern rear boundary fence. The new fencing height is proposed at a maximum height of 2.4m.

 

The proposed rear fence located on the eastern boundary has been constructed to a height of 2.4m which exceeds that stipulated under the current development consent. The applicant has subsequently lodged a Section 96 modification of Development Consent seeking retrospective approval. This application also proposes to increase the fence height of the northern and southern boundary fences to a maximum height of 2.4m.

 

An objection has been received which details a variety of concerns. The main concerns raised are that the proposed fence will have adverse impacts on visual amenity, natural light and ventilation.

 

It is considered that increasing the height of the rear fence further is not appropriate given the significant impact it would have in terms of visual bulk and scale to the neighbouring property. As stated above, the previous application was determined at a Council meeting which considered that the maximum height of fencing surrounding the property should be limited to a maximum height of 2.3m.

 

It is recommended that the height of the rear wall remain at 2.3m and that the side boundary fencing be increased to a maximum of 2.3m to achieve consistency in the design and height of the fences.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

This application proposes the modification of the previously approved fence height by increasing the height on the northern, eastern and southern boundaries. The new fence height is proposed at a maximum height of 2.4m. The eastern boundary fence is proposed to be raised by 100mm, the southern fence by 300mm for a length of 25.87m towards the rear, and the northern fence by 300mm for a length of 8.5m from the rear boundary and tapering towards the front. The fence will have a cement render finish. It should be noted that the rear boundary fence has already been constructed.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Hannan Street between Storey Street and Runic Lane in Maroubra and is presently occupied by an existing two storey dwelling. The site has a frontage width of 10.97m, a side boundary depth of 31.4m and has an overall site area of approx. 344m². Neighbouring the property to the north is a single storey dwelling, to the south is a two storey dwelling and to the rear is a two storey dwelling. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of single storey dwellings with a small number of two storey dwellings.  

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A number of relevant applications are present on Council’s records:

 

DA/1032/2002

Proposed changes to the existing dwelling house including new fences to the front, side and rear of the property and landscaping.

Approved by Council meeting.

DA/1032/2002/A

Section 96(1A) Modification proposing changes to the eastern boundary fence.

Approved.

DA/1032/2002/B

Section 96(1A) corrected the conditions for the rear fence along the eastern boundary. Solid brick rear fence to have a maximum height of 2.3m

Approved.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification. One submission was received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

One (1) objection for this application has been received:

 

Angela Capaldo on behalf of Mr and Mrs G & A Rosiello

90 Storey Street, Maroubra NSW

 

Issue

Comment

Issue already brought to a Council meeting and determined

Noted.

That the mistake was not genuine and the objector has a witness who was present when informed that the fence was being built to 2.4m in height, not the 2.3m approved.

The increase in the height of the fence is recommended to remain at the previously approved height of a maximum of 2.3m.

Refute statement that there will be no detrimental effects to their property and that loss of light and ventilation will be minimal.  The airflow and natural light has already been affected.

The fence height at 2.4m is considered to have adverse impacts in relation to visual amenity and on the solar access of adjacent properties.

The fence will not be uniform as stated in the Statement of Environmental Effects as the fence will be 2.4m in some places and 2.1m in others.

It is acknowledged that the proposed fencing is not uniform in terms of height and is 2.4m along the rear boundary and at some points 2.1m along the side boundaries. The fence will also taper down towards the front of the property.

Aesthetic and privacy benefits stated in the Statement of Environmental Effects are disputed as the existing dwelling at 23 Hannan Street is a two storey dwelling which overlooks all surrounding properties which a fence of 2.4m in height will not screen.

The “grey block” used in the wall is not considered to be aesthetically pleasing to the owners of 90 Storey Street.

The “grey block” is not the finished product for the fence and a cement render is proposed.

 

Owners at 90 Storey Street respected the decision of Council even though they did not agree to the height of 2.3m and expect the owner of 23 Hannan Street to do the same.

Understands that originally Council informed 23 Hannan Street that if the fence was not built to the specified height they would be instructed to reduce the height. 

An application for a section 96 modification of a Development Consent can be lodged where changes can be considered to be substantially the same as the original application. This section 96 modification will be assessed to determine whether or not the proposed changes are acceptable.

The owner of 23 Hannan Street was given the chance to amend plans when the fence was found to exceed the approved height.

Strongly object to the proposal and ask that Council enforce the decision that was determined at the meeting.

This report recommends that the rear fence remain at the approved height.

The original fence stood at the height of 1.8m then was modified to the height of 2.3m and now is proposed to be 2.4m. The change to the fence height is therefore not considered to be minimal and is a change of 600mm as opposed to 100mm.

The change to the height of the fence has been noted. The fence is considered to be excessive in height but is considered to be acceptable with a reduction in the height of the fence to 2.3m, as previously approved.

 

5.2  Support

 

No supporting letters for this application have been received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application does not require referral for technical comment.

 

6.1   BCA Classification

 

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

Non-habitable building/ structure – Class 10b.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

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

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

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

 

8.1  Substantially the same

 

The proposal will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the works will result in an application that is substantially the same as that for which consent was originally granted.

 

8.2   Consideration of submissions

 

Submissions have been considered under Section 5.1 of this report.

 

9.    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;

 

9.1 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.

 

10.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

10.1 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 assessment below assesses the proposal against the preferred solutions, and where non-compliance results, assessment is made against the relevant objectives and performance requirements.

 

Fences

The height of the fence has already been considered by Council in 2003 where approval was granted consent for the rear fence to have a maximum height of 2.3m. The DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies does not contain any preferred solutions in relation to the maximum height for side and rear fencing between properties.

The proposed fencing at a height of 2.4m is not considered to be compatible with the fencing of surrounding properties and has a negative impact on the amenity of adjoining dwellings. The proposed increase in the height of the fences along the side boundaries should also have a maximum height of 2.3m to maintain consistency in terms of the fence height and the established fence form, particularly as it will be visible from the streetscape. 

The fencing is to be consistent and therefore the maximum height of 2.3m for all boundaries is considered to be acceptable for the subject site.

Photo 1: Viewed onto the subject property from 90 Storey Street showing the existing 1.8m high timber fence and the proposed brick boundary fencing. 

 

Amenity Impact

 

The increased height of the fences would adversely impact on adjoining neighbours and is inconsistent with fencing on surrounding sites. The proposed fences would be visually obtrusive when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

An objection letter has been received from the rear property at 90 Storey Street. As the proposal is abutting the windows of the property, the fence at 2.4m height is considered to have negative impacts in terms of visual bulk and scale and access to daylight, sunlight and fresh air for the occupants of 90 Storey Street.

 

Photo 2: Photo showing the height of the proposed fencing in relation to the rear neighbour’s window of 90 Storey Street Maroubra.

 

Photo 3: Photo taken from the living room of 90 Storey Street Maroubra showing outlook from the neighbour’s window and height of the proposed fence (Please note: shutters located at the top of the window).

 

11. 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.

 

12.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is permissible with consent in the Residential 2A zone but does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The increase in height results in adverse impacts to adjoining properties and the character of the locality.

 

The rear portion of the fencing at a height of 2.4m has already been constructed. The height of the fencing however was previously approved at 2.3m and this is considered to be acceptable and appropriate for the site to ensure amenity for both occupants and neighbours and consistency with the established fence form. No objection is raised to the increase in maximum height of the side fencing to 2.3m to allow for consistency in the height of side and rear boundary fencing.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.    THAT Council, as the consent authority, grant consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No. 1032/2002/C of 23 Hannan Street, Maroubra in the following manner:-

 

1.       Condition No. 2 shall remain unamended;

 

2.       Amend Condition No. 17 to read:

 

17.   The increased height of the northern and southern side boundary fencing as highlighted on the plans numbered 044/06 Sheets 1 – 3 dated 16/10/06 and received by Council on 19 October 2006 shall not exceed a maximum height of 2.3m measured vertically from any point above the existing ground level and located wholly within the site boundaries, to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the adjoining properties. Details required by this condition are to be shown on the Construction Certificate application.

 


 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SACHA KALESS

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

STUDENT PLANNER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

21 November, 2006

FILE NO:

720/2006 & PROP030016

 

PROPOSAL:

 Upgrading of Department of Housing site including installing lift shafts, entries, landscaping, new internal laundries and various ancillary works.

PROPERTY:

 255-259 Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra NSW 2035

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 RESITECH

OWNERS:

NSW DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as it is valued at $5.39m.

 

The development application falls within the terms of Section 116C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended. This means that Council may not refuse the application without the consent of the Minister nor may it impose conditions, without the consent of the applicant or the Minister.

 

The proposed development is part of a concerted effort by the Department of Housing to upgrade and improve the amenity of residents. The proposed development mainly incorporates upgrading and improvement of entries and accessibility for its residents.

 

The proposal exceeds the Height limit provisions within the RLEP 1998. As a result the applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 Objection to Clause 33 of RLEP 1998 relating to Height limits in a 2B residential zone for buildings other than dwelling houses. The SEPP objection is considered to be well founded given the existing buildings on the site are 600mm higher than the proposed lift shafts, there is minor increase in bulk, no reduction in landscaping and the purpose of development is to improve amenity of the residents.

 

The recommendation is for approval and the applicant has agreed to the conditions of approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to carryout the following works:

·      entry canopies up to 2.5m in height,

·      new smaller and relocated bin enclosures, mail boxes located on various frontages and will reach a maximum external height of 1.4m

·      upgrade of common areas, carparking, landscaping and clothes drying courts

·      demolition of various single level structures on site and removal of old large entrance ramps and replace with disabled access entries

·      installation of 7 new lift shafts

·      upgrade bathrooms to include laundry facilities for each unit

·      New metal fencing to the boundary interspersed with solid fencing to a maximum height of 2m.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject sites involve 9 separately titled lots known as Lot 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 21 22 in DP 36217 and Lot 7B in DP 364484 and currently contain four 4 and 5 storey multi-unit housing buildings which provide 50 x 1 bedroom units and 90 x 2 bedroom units. The subject sites incorporate frontages along Fitzgerald Avenue, Malabar Road and Yorktown Parade.

 

The surrounding area contains a mixture of single dwellings, multi unit housing and other multi unit housing owned and managed by the Department of Housing.

 

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

No relevant history exists for the site except that the buildings were likely to have been constructed in 1958.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified, advertised accordance with the DCP for Public Notification. No submissions were received.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Building and Construction Issues

 

Building Services comments

 

The proposal provides for the installation of lifts and internal and external works to the existing residential flat buildings.

 

The proposal is a Crown development and is not subject to construction certificate application or Principal Certifying Authority process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class   -           2          (Residential)

 

Background

 

The existing buildings on site are four (4) blocks of multi storey multi unit housing  bounded by buildings of a similar nature.

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

 

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

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information would need to be incorporated in the documentation required to be determined by the Certifier for the development.

 

Access for people with a disability:

 

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

 

Access for people with a disability is required to be provided to each level of the building served by a passenger lift.

 

Standard conditions are included to address these requirements, although compliance may require changes to the design of the building to accommodate a lift complying with the BCA and AS1428.

 

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

 

Conclusion:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

Should the approval be granted to the application, Conditions Nos 4 to 29 should be included in the development consent.

 

6.2  Engineering Issues

 

An application has been received for the installation of seven lift shafts as well as ancillary works including landscaping and waste storage for the residential flat buildings at the above site.

 

Landscape Comments

 

NOTE: GIVEN THE SHEER QUANTITY OF TREES AFFECTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED AT THIS SITE, THE APPLICANT MAY WISH TO CONTACT COUNCIL’S LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ON 9399-0613 SHOULD CLARIFICATION BE SOUGHT FOR ANY CONDITIONS IMPOSED IN THIS REPORT.

 

There are numerous trees and shrubs of various size and condition throughout the site, predominately around the perimeter of the existing unit blocks, with the larger of these specimens serving an important function by providing screening and shading as well as a visual/acoustic buffer between these existing large buildings and surrounding streets/residential areas.

 

While the plans have shown virtually all existing vegetation being removed to accommodate the proposed works, Council’s Landscape Development Officer does not support this approach in its entirety as large scale removals will result in a major loss of amenity which will have a negative impact on the immediate and surrounding area, with any replacement planting provided as part of this proposal likely to take up to 20 years to reach any substantial dimensions.

 

Therefore, in order to more effectively manage/minimise the loss of amenity that would result from large scale tree removals at the site, particularly as it will be feasible to retain some of them while still proceeding with the proposed works as shown, it is recommended that consent be granted for the removal of both the minor and inappropriately located specimens, on the proviso that some of the larger, more established trees be retained, with the intention being that any new plantings will have time to establish to a reasonable size around these existing trees.

 

For ease of reference, the trees are discussed in groups relating to their location along either one of the three street frontages, as follows.

 

Fitzgerald Avenue

 

Block A

There are two small Hibiscus tiliaceus (Cottonwoods) on the nature strip to the west of the most western garbage/entry area which appear in reasonable condition and have been installed as part of a planting strategy in this section of the street. Minimal protection measures will be required to ensure they are retained in the streetscape.

 

The shrubs along the western boundary, flanking Block A are insignificant, and can be removed as shown, without the permission of Council as they are too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

 

Beyond the southwest corner of the existing Block A, in the rear yard of 104 Yorktown Parade, close to the common boundary, there is one large and established Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) of about 20 metres in height which partially overhangs the common boundary into the subject site. As no works are proposed in this area, no impact on this tree is expected, with conditions relating to it therefore not required, and not included.

 

In the northwest corner of the site, close to existing Block A, growing within small and narrow raised planters, there are two Allocasurina glauca (Swamp She-Oaks) of approximately 15 metres in height which despite being covered by the TPO and appearing in reasonable condition, are located inappropriately close to the existing block and are growing in an area which is deemed insufficient to accommodate their size both above and below ground. While established specimens, permission has been granted for their removal in this report.

 

Block B

There are a total of six Hibiscus tiliaceus (Cottonwoods) on Council’s nature strip between both garbage storage/entry areas in front of this building which will need to be protected and retained to ensure they fulfil their intended roles in the streetscape.

 

The variety of shrubs close to the northern (front) boundary can be removed as they are all too small to be covered by the TPO.

 

In front of the western half of this building, close to its northern edge, there is one mature Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) of approximately 15 metres in height which is covered by the TPO but appears in poor condition due to dieback and a significant of storm damage sustained throughout its canopy. Approval is granted for its removal to accommodate the proposed works and associated re-planting which has been indicated for this area of the site.  

 

In front of the eastern half of this building, also close to its northern edge, there is another Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) of around 15 metres in height which also appears in poor condition with a large amount of deadwood throughout its canopy, and appears to have little prospect of recovery. Given its close proximity to this building as well as the fact it will be impacted during the works, permission is granted for its removal, together with the 8 metre tall Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) immediately to its north due to its relative insignificance.

 

Right at the front (northern) boundary, there are two Allocasurina glauca (Swamp She-Oaks) of approximately 13 metres in height which are covered by the TPO. They comprise one just behind (south) of the existing garbage storage area and one within a small, narrow raised planter fronting onto Fitzgerald Avenue, with numerous roots evident throughout the nature strip area beyond the existing pedestrian footpath. It would not be physically possible to retain either tree and proceed with construction of the reconfigured entry ramp and garbage storage area in the location shown, and as such, approval is granted for their removal subject to replacement planting which will attain similar dimensions being provided in this area of the site.

 

There are a further four Hibiscus tiliaceus (Cottonwoods) on the nature strip between the garbage storage/entry area and the intersection of Malabar Road which will need to be protected with fencing during the proposed works.

 

Malabar Road

There are a total of five Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) along this frontage, all of about 2-3 metres in height, comprising two to the north of the existing bus stop/shelter, and three to the south. While needing to be retained in the streetscape, protective fencing is not recommended due to their close proximity to the kerb and buses.

 

Block C

About halfway along the eastern boundary, with the existing front brick fence and internal concrete path to the east and west of their trunks respectively, there are three Allocasurina glauca (She-Oaks) of around 18-20 metres in height which appear in reasonable condition, are covered by the TPO and provide effective screening of the building elevation along this frontage.

 

While the two smaller trees in this group could be removed to accommodate the proposed works, for the reasons outlined at the start of this report, Council requires that the largest, most significant tree in this group be protected and retained, with conditions in this report provided to that effect.

 

Right in the southwest corner of the internal carpark, there is one large and visually dominant Platanus x hybrida (Plane Tree) of approximately 20 metres in height which appears in good condition, despite its inability to develop the southern side of its canopy given the presence of the existing unit block. This tree will remain unaffected given that no works are proposed near it, and while it needs to be retained as an existing landscape element, conditions relating to it are not required.

 

Yorktown Parade

The three Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s) on Council’s widened nature strip at the corner of Malabar Road and Yorktown Parade, as well as the one Metrosideros excelsa (NZ Xmas Tree) on the Yorktown Parade nature strip, will all need to be protected and retained during the course of the proposed works, with conditions provided in this report to ensure this.

 

Block D

Near the southeast corner of this existing building, there are three Allocasurina glauca (She-Oaks) of around 12-15 metres in height surrounding the existing garbage storage area. While they appear in reasonable condition and are covered by Council’s TPO, they are some of the smaller examples of this species at the site, and as they would be heavily impacted by the reconfigured garbage area proposed for this area of the site, their removal is acceptable on this occasion, subject to the retention of larger, more established specimens throughout the site as described elsewhere in this report, together with the provision of replacement planting in this area as has been shown on the plans.

 

Still within the site, further to the southwest, fronting the intersection of Malabar Road and Yorktown Parade, there are four Callistemon viminalis (Bottlebrush) of around 4 metres in height and another Allocasurina glauca (She-Oak) of approximately 12 metres in height. Retention of other, more significant trees is deemed a higher priority in this area of the site, as replacement planting would attain similar dimensions to these existing specimens within a relatively short period of time, and as such, approval has been granted for the removal of these five trees in this report.

 

Along the Yorktown Parade frontage, between the southern boundary and southern edge of Block D, there is a stand of six large Allocasurina glauca (She-Oaks) of approximately 15 metres in height which as a group, provide highly effective visual and acoustic screening of this elevation from the street. Removal of all six trees as shown cannot be supported for the same reasons as outlined earlier in this report, in that selective retention rather than complete removal of trees around the perimeter will be required in order to maintain acceptable levels of environmental amenity.

 

As such, permission is granted for the removal of the two She-Oaks at the western edge of this group, as well as the two most eastern trees; however, Council requires that the two larger trees in the centre of his group be protected and retained, with conditions in this report provided on that basis.

 

Further to the west, there are numerous insignificant shrubs against the southern boundary, which can all be removed as they are too small to be covered by the TPO.

 

Towards the western boundary, behind the existing garbage storage area, close to the southwest corner of the existing building, there is one 6 metre tall Gum Tree, and one Allocasurina glauca (She-Oak) of around 12 metres in height. Neither are deemed particularly significant, with approval for their removal included in this report as replacement planting will adequately compensate for their loss.

 

6.3  Environmental Health Issues

 

Environmental Health comments

 

The proposal

 

Proposal provides for installation of lifts and internal and external works to the existing residential flat buildings.

 

Key Issues

Potential Asbestos Contamination

 

Additional information was requested from the applicant on this issue however, the applicant (Department of Housing) advised that any asbestos detected would be handled in accordance with regulatory requirements and it was requested applicable conditions be put onto the consent.

 

Given the age of the buildings, it is considered that appropriate conditions be incorporated to address potential asbestos contamination.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

Should the approval be granted to the application, the following Conditions Nos 48 to 52 should be included in the development consent.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

Although the subject sites total approximately 5,700m2, a master plan is technically not required given that the area is spread over 9 lots. Notwithstanding this technicality, it is considered the master plan requirement would be waived given the minor scale of proposed works.

 

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- Parking

-    Development Control Plan– Multi Unit Housing.

 

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     Randwick Local Environmental Plan

 

Clause 11   Zone No 2B (Residential B Zone)

The site is zoned No. 2B (Residential B Zone) 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

33 - Building Height

9.5m

16.6m

No see (b) below

 

Clause 33 of RLEP 1998 - Height

Clause 33 of LEP 1998 states that a maximum building height for land zoned No. 2B (Residential Zone B) is 9.5m. The proposal includes lift shafts that extend to a height of 16.6m and therefore doesn’t comply. The applicant has lodged a SEPP 1 Objection regarding this non compliance with the standard

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Clause 33 of RLEP 1998 - Height

The applicant has lodged a SEPP 1 objection arguing that strict compliance with the Height restriction is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances. In considering a SEPP 1 objection the following questions should be considered:

 

First, is the planning control in question a development standard?

The planning controls of Clause 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as amended, is a development standard.

 

Second, what is the underlying object or purpose of the standard?

 

The purpose of the clause is to set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in this zone given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas

 

Third, is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular does compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act?

 

The proposed development would be consistent with the aims of the Policy, and would not hinder the attainment of the objects as specified in the EP&A Act for orderly and economic use of the land or maintaining a better environment.

 

Fourth, is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

In the circumstances compliance with the standard would be unreasonable given the following:

 

·      The proposed lift shafts will improve the amenity of the occupants (especially for older residents) by improving accessibility to units,

·      they are constructed predominately within the existing building envelopes,  in terms of scale, the lift shafts are compatible with the height of the existing buildings,

·      the lift shafts will not result in any additional overshadowing to neighbouring properties,

·      the lift shafts provide visual expression and architectural relief to the buildings and represent a more pleasing aesthetic element than the existing elevated access ramps which are to be demolished.

 

Compliance with the height standard is therefore unnecessary and unreasonable in the circumstances of the case.

 

Fifth, is the objection well founded?

In assessing the abovementioned points of objection, Council must refer to the underlying objectives of the development standard and it is considered that the proposal and the argument of the applicant is reasonable and will still satisfy the objectives of the relevant clauses of the LEP.

 

For instance the applicant states the DA is simply for upgrading works to the four existing residential blocks built in 1958. The non-compliance will not result in any appreciable increases in the footprint of the existing buildings and therefore will not dominate the existing buildings bulk, height or scale. It is therefore considered the SEPP 1 objection to the height requirement is well founded and is recommended for support.

 

Draft SEPP 2004 (Application of Development Standards)

The Draft SEPP 2004 (Application of Development Standards) seeks to replace the provisions of SEPP 1 and has been publicly exhibited (concluding on 18th 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 that a complying development, design quality and whether the development meets the objectives of the controls. Notwithstanding, that the SEPP is a 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 is 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 is a better environmental outcome on the site than that which could have been achieved had the standards been complied with due to it ensuring a more adequate level of amenity to the residents of the unit blocks, and its scale and form within the streetscape will be substantially improved. A thorough assessment of the proposal against the existing provisions of SEPP No.1 and against Council’s statutory control and its objectives has been made in Section 8b of this report.

 


9.2     Development Control Plans and Council Policies

 

a.    Development Control Plan No. Multi-Unit Housing DCP

 

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

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets  Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1  Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

Complies

Height

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

 

Doesn’t Comply – see assessment in Section 8b and SEPP 1 objection to the development standard.

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

 

The lift shafts are contained partly within the bulk of the existing building therefore creating visual interest and minimising their bulk and amenity impacts on the streetscape.

Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

The porticos are open structures creating focal points of entry and where they are connected with garbage bays the height of solid structures are limited to heights of 1.5m. Landscaping is conditioned to be retained, and or installed adjacent to and behind these structures. See Engineering and landscaping issues in Section 6.1.

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

§ solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 6 metres.

No part closer than 4.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

 

The new lift shaft to Block A is setback 2.2m. Doesn’t comply, however given the lift shaft is limited to 2.6m in width and protrudes only 1.6m beyond the external face of the existing building, and the negligible overshadowing impacts considered the proposal meets the relevant performance requirements and objectives of the Multi unit housing DCP.

 

Density

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

 

The proposed development represents no increase in the gross floor area given the floor space of the lift shafts are excluded from calculations of the gross floor area under RLEP 1998. Nevertheless, it is considered the proposed lift shaft will not result in any adverse impacts on the surrounding built forms, open spaces, or the streetscape.

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 proposed metal palisade fences reach a maximum height of 1.6m. Complies. The porticos are connected with garbage bays and mail boxes at 1.5m. Doesn’t comply; however, given the non compliances are of limited lengths, the need to adequately shield garbage areas from the public kerb and the contribution to a

 

 

highlighted entrance to the site, it is considered the proposed variation will continue to meet the relevant performance requirements and objectives of the multi-unit housing DCP.

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.

Existing.

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

 

Complies.

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

The proposed landscape works seek to provide suitable areas of private open space to ground floor occupants. These ground floor private courtyards are  located directly in front of the respective units living rooms. Complies.

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

 

Complies.

P6  Flats and apartments

Each dwelling has direct access to an area of private open space.

S6  Minimum of 8 m2 and minimum dimension of 2 metres.

Existing and upgraded on ground level.


 

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.

New windows are located to stairwells and as a result there wont be any privacy impacts.

P2  Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Existing layout.

P4  Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

Conditioned to comply

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

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

Safety and Security

P1  Design allows surveillance.

 

The proposed landscaping works, porticos, garbage bin areas and fencing provide separation of the Housing from the street access therefore improving safety and security. The open design of the fencing and porticos, and the provision of lighting to these porticos allow for casual surveillance of the street. Complies

P2  Approaches and entries are visible.

 

P3  High walls and structures avoided.

 

P4  Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

P5  Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

P6  Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

Conditioned to comply

P7  Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

P8  External lighting does create a nuisance.

 

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1  Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

Complies

P2  Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

Complies

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

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

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 be at least 1 metre from any side or rear fence.

Complies

P5  Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

Complies

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

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

Complies

Barrier-Free Access

P1  Design must provide access for people with special access needs as required (foyer parking open space).

S1  Publicly accessible areas comply with the Building Code of Australia for access and mobility.

Complies.

P4  Passenger lifts provide access for people with a disability to common and parking areas.

 

Complies

Utilities/Site Facilities

P1  Mailboxes provided in accordance with Australia Post.

 

Complies

P7  Internal laundry to each dwelling, communal clothes drying made available and screened from the street.

 

The proposal includes demolition of communal laundry facilities and refurbishment of bathrooms and incorporation of laundries within units. Complies

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1  Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

The waste bin areas are located adjacent to the entry porticos on various frontages in a decentralised position. Doesn’t comply. It is considered that given the focus of this development application is to provide a more socially acceptable level of existing affordable housing whereby upgrading of facilities will provide a greater amenity to each individual block it is considered this approach to waste collection is reasonable and appropriate to the site. Council waste section has indicated no concern with the proposal in terms of ease of collection and as such it is considered the proposed complies with the objectives of the DCP.

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

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

 

9.3     Landscaping/Open Space

 

Given the large scale of existing buildings on the subject site and the unlikely development of similarly sized buildings within this zoning, it is considered the proposed widespread removal of trees is unreasonable as it will result in a visual dominance to the streetscape which is currently being softened by the existing vegetation. With the retention of certain trees and vegetation on site it is considered the adverse impacts on the public domain will be minimised and therefore represents a more reasonable development.

 

10.  RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:              Encourage diverse, adaptable and affordable housing and an ageing population

 

Direction:               Provide for enhanced adaptability and accessibility of housing; Expand our partnership with the department of Housing to enhance public housing and achieve better integration with neighbourhoods.

 

11.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the zone and the SEPP 1 Objection satisfactorily addresses the issues of non-compliance with Clause No.33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposed non-complying lift shaft heights will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality and ensure a reasonable level of amenity to the residents access to their units.  In particular, the installation of lifts is considered necessary to provide for a reasonable level of amenity to the occupants of the units.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      That Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to building heights on the grounds that the proposed use complies with the objective of the Clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality, and that Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B..     That Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 720/2006 for upgrading of Department of Housing site including installing lift shafts, entries, landscaping, new internal laundries and various ancillary works. at 255-259 Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra NSW 2035 subject to the following conditions:-

 

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

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered L 01 issue A, project number 1843a dated 08/06/06 and stamped received by Council 30th October 2006, plans numbered sheet 01 of 10 to sheet 10 of 10 inclusive, dated May 06 and received by Council on the 5th September 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

5.         All new building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

6.         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;

·          name, address and telephone number of the Project Manager,

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

 

7.         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 commencement of work, 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.

 

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:

 

8.         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 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.

 

9.         A copy of the approved construction drawings, 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.

 

10.       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 (except as detailed below) between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays.

 

All building, demolition and associated site works are strictly prohibited on Sundays, Public Holidays and also on Saturdays adjacent to a Public Holiday.

 

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.

 

11.       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.

 

12.       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.

 

13.       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.

 

14.       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.

 

Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

15.       A Construction Site Management Plan is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person (and a copy is t be forwarded to Council) 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.

 

16.       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.

 

17.       Details of the proposed sediment control measures are to be detailed in a site water management plan and must be prepared 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.

 

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.

 

18.       A temporary timber, asphalt or concrete 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.

 

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.

 

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 any part of the footpath, nature strip or any public place, the written approval 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.

 

19.       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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

21.       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 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.

 

22.       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.

 

23.       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.

 

24.       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.

 

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

 

25.       Access and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided to and within the building in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1 and 2890.1 and relevant Council development control plans for the subject development.  Details of the proposed access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications.

 

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions

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

 

30.       Prior to the completion of the works the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a          Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

31.       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.

 

32.       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.

 

Alignment Level Conditions

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

 

33.       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, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

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

 

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

 

35.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $121.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid to Council prior to commencement of works on site.

 

Service Authority Conditions

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

36.       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.

 

37.       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.

 

Waste Management Conditions

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

 

38.       The waste storage areas are to be covered, provided with a tap and hose and the floors to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

39.       The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

Landscape Conditions

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

 

40.       Landscaping at the site shall be installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Sketch Plan, prepared by Ray Fuggle & Associates Pty Ltd, Landscape Architects, drawing number L 01, issue A, project number 1843a, dated 08/06/06 and stamped received at Council on 30th October 2006.

 

41.       That part of the naturestrip upon either of Council's footways which are damaged during the construction of the proposed works 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.

 

Tree Management

 

42.       Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees in order to accommodate the proposed works as shown, subject to the implementation of landscaping at the site in accordance with the Landscape Sketch Plan, prepared by Ray Fuggle & Associates Pty Ltd, Landscape Architects Pty Ltd, drawing number L 01, issue A, project number 1843a, dated 8/06/06 and stamped received at Council on 30th October 2006, and will include a sufficient amount of replacement tree species which will attain similar dimensions to those existing trees which are to be removed:

 

BLOCK A

a.       Two Allocasurina glauca (She-Oaks) at the northwest corner of the site given their close proximity to the existing building as well as to accommodate the proposed works as shown.

 

BLOCK B

b.       One Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) in front of the western half of the existing building due to poor health and condition, together with the various shrubs along the northern boundary in this area of the site as they are all too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

c.       Another Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) in front of the eastern half of this building, as well as the small Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) immediately to its northwest.

d.       Two Allocasurina glauca (She-Oaks) immediately on the northern and southern sides of the existing garbage storage area, beyond the northeast corner of the existing building, against the northern boundary.

 

BLOCK C

e.       Two of the smaller Allocasurina glauca (She-Oaks) in the group of three trees about halfway along the eastern boundary to accommodate the proposed works as shown.

 

BLOCK D

f.        The three Allocasurina glauca (She-Oaks) beyond the eastern edge of the existing building, fronting onto Malabar Road, surrounding the existing garbage storage area to accommodate the proposed as shown.

g.       The four Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) and one Allocasurina glauca (She-Oak) beyond the southeast corner of the existing building, close to the southern boundary to accommodate the proposed works as shown.

h.       Four of the six Allocasurina glauca (She-Oaks) located about halfway along the southern edge of this existing building, comprising the two most western trees and two most eastern trees, with the two centrally located, larger specimens to be retained.

i.        The one Eucalyptus species (Gum Tree) and one Allocasurina glauca (She-Oak) behind the existing garbage storage area along the southern boundary, near the southwest corner of this existing building, as well as the various shrubs in this immediate vicinity.

 

NOTE: THE APPLICANT MAY WISH TO CONTACT COUNCIL’S LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ON 9399-0613 SHOULD CORRECT IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE TREES TO BE PROTECTED & RETAINED, AND THOSE WHICH HAVE BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION FOR REMOVAL BE REQUIRED.

 

43.       In order to avoid damage to those trees which are to be retained at the site, as well as to accommodate site/machinery access during the course of the proposed works, permission is granted for the selective and minimal pruning of only those branches which need to be removed to accommodate the proposed works. This amount o pruning shall not significantly alter the form, structure or appearance of these trees.

 

44.       All pruning must be undertaken by a qualified Arborist, with suitable qualifications in Arboriculture and to Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

45.       In order to ensure the retention of the total of twelve (12) Hibiscus tiliaceus (Cottonwoods) along Council’s the length of Council’s Fitzgerald Avenue nature strip, as well as the three Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s) and one Metrosideros excelsa (NZ Xmas Tree) on Council’s Yorktown Parade nature strip in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       These trees are to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which shall be located a minimum distance of 1 metre from the outside edge of the trunks to completely enclose the street trees, and can be provided either singularly or as a group.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

NOTE: WHILE THE five Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) along thE MALABAR ROAD frontage, comprising two to the north of the existing bus stop/shelter, and three to the south, WILL need to be retained in the streetscape, THE PROVISION OF protective fencing TO ENSURE THEIR RETENTION is not FEASIBLE ON THIS OCCASION GIVEN theIR close proximity to the kerb, AS WELL AS THE PRESENCE OF THE BUS STOP and FREQUENCY OF buses IN THIS AREA.

 

46.       In order to minimise the loss of environmental amenity that would result from large scale removals of all significant trees at the site as has been proposed, the following measures shall be implemented to ensure retention of the one larger Allocasurina glauca (She-Oak) in the group of three trees about halfway along the eastern boundary, beyond the eastern edge of Block C, as well as the two larger, centrally located Allocasurina glauca (She-Oaks) in the group of six trees beyond the southern edge of Block D in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.         The trees are to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing which shall be located a minimum distance of 1 metre from the outside edge of their trunks to completely enclose the trees.

 

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

 

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

 

c.         Any excavations required beneath the driplines of any of these trees shall be initially performed by hand, with any roots encountered to be cut cleanly by hand in the presence of a suitably qualified Arborist, and the affected area backfilled as soon as practically possible.

 

d.         Any landscaping, pedestrian footpaths, retaining walls and any other associated works shall be redesigned/relocated around these trees, to the satisfaction of a suitably qualified site Arborist.  

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

49.       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 any asbestos removal/remediation works, 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.

 

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:

 

50.       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).

 

51.       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:

 

52.       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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1       The applicant is advised that the construction 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 E3 -           Lift Installations

 

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

 

You are advised to ensure that the development is not inconsistent with Council's consent and if necessary consult with your certifier prior to preparing your construction plans to enable these matters to be addressed accordingly.

 

A2       You are advised that this approval does not guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and you should therefore consider your liability under the Act.  In this regard, you are 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.

 

You are 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.

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ELIAS COOREY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

20 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA 783/06  & PROP016609

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a new two storey dwelling and in ground swimming pool

PROPERTY:

 46 Dolphin Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 J Spiteri

OWNERS:

Mr A B Raeside & Mrs C T Raeside

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The application details the demolition of the existing building and erection of a new two storey dwelling and in ground swimming pool.

 

The main issues are compliance with the DCP – Dwellings Houses in terms of floor space ratio, setbacks and impacts upon the adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new two storey dwelling with first floor balcony and inground swimming pool within the rear yard. The dwelling will comprise a double garage, living and utility rooms at ground level, four bedrooms, two bathrooms and retreat with a balcony to the front at the upper level. The dwelling will provide for 293m² of floor area. To the rear yard it is proposed to excavate and retain to provide for a level area adjacent to the proposed swimming pool and also landscape the front yard area. A new 1m high masonry solid front fence is proposed to replace the existing front fence.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Dolphin Street Randwick between Carrington Road and St Lukes Street and is presently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling.  The site has a frontage width of 11.58m, a side boundary depth of 39.575m and has an overall site area of 458m², the site falls from the rear towards the street frontage with a difference in levels of up to 2m. The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of free standing dwellings and multi unit housing development.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP - Notification. The following submission has been received:

 

Mrs H Grover of 232A Carrington Road Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application are insufficient to allow for assessment of the application.

Additional shadow diagrams have been prepared and made available to Mrs Grover, which indicates the position of her property and confirms the proposed amount of additional overshadowing.

 

The floor space ratio exceeds the preferred FSR of 0.59:1.

The proposal does not comply with the preferred solution of the DCP with respect to floor space ratio, however the resultant bulk and scale of the building is not inconsistent with the existing character of the area and therefore the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP are satisfied.

 

The proposal will completely overshadow their garden.

There will be a degree of additional overshadowing to the objector’s property; however, the proposal complies with the minimum requirement as detailed in the DCP - Dwelling Houses.

The proposed upper level setback does not comply with the preferred solution of 1500mm.

The plans have been amended to site the upper level in part 1500mm from the eastern side boundary, adjoining Mrs Grover’s property.

 

5.    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.

 

5.1       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The proposal is consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

5.2       State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

The proposal is for a new dwelling and the applicant has provided a BASIX certificate in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP. The provision of a certificate indicates that compliance with the current targets set for energy and water conservation have been met by the development. The certificate also identifies the measures to be shown on Development Application plans to ensure these targets are maintained through to construction.

 

The plans have been checked and they are consistent with the requirements indicated on the submitted BASIX certificate for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP:BASIX have been included in the recommendation section of this report.

 

5.3       Development Control Plans

 

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.

47% 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 36sqm (excluding swimming pool). 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.

The above area has dimensions of 6m x 6m. 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.

20% 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 0.59:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.64:1. 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 proposed new dwelling is in a 2B zone that would allow a variety of building types including multi-unit housing. The immediate locality contains a variety of single dwellings and two and three level multi unit housing developments including next door to the subject property, and it is considered that the new two storey dwelling will not be inconsistent with the established bulk and scale of the locality which satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

In terms of amenity impacts, the proposal complies with the maximum height preferred solutions and will have acceptable impacts in relation to privacy and overshadowing.

 

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 6.4 metres. Complies.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Complies.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

There will be excavation for the swimming pool 1.8m from the rear boundary, conditions of consent are included relating to proper excavation and retaining of the site during excavation for the swimming pool.

 

Building Setbacks

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The proposed dwelling is set back 5 metres from the front boundary and is generally consistent with the setbacks of adjoining dwellings. Complies.

S2

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

The proposed dwelling is 6 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

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

The dwelling is sited 1500mm from the western side boundary and complies, the setback to the eastern boundary is for the most part 1000mm, however the portion containing the garage is sited up to 500mm from the eastern side boundary. There are no objections in this instance in that the setback is to the side of the adjoining multi unit housing development which contains only windows to bathrooms in that side of the building and will not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of that adjoining building.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back between 1.5 m and 2.5m from the western side boundary, complies, and is sited between 1m and 2m to the eastern side boundary. There are no objections to this setback being in part up to 1m in that there will not be any significant impact upon the adjoining property at 48 Dolphin Street, and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in this regard remains satisfied.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

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

 

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

 

There will not be any significant impact upon privacy to the adjoining properties in that the upper level windows within the side of the dwelling are primarily of high light style and obscured glass is proposed to be installed to the stairwell. The balcony to the front of the dwelling will overlook the front yard areas of adjoining properties and the street and not into private living areas of adjoining dwellings.

 

Safety & Security

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

The proposed front door faces the street. Complies.

S1,3

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

The proposed dwelling has windows that overlook the street. Complies.

S2

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

Suitable condition included.

 

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.

The proposed dwelling has parking for 2 cars. Complies.

S1

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

The proposed driveway is 4 metres wide and is set back at least 1 metre from the side boundary. Complies.

S1

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

The proposed driveway is 4 metres at the front boundary. A condition of consent is recommended to reduce the width of the driveway to 3m at the property boundary.

S1

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

The proposed driveway gradient is less than 1 in 8. Complies.

S2

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

The proposed garage is located behind the building line. Complies.

 

Fences

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposed new front fence is 1000mm in height, complies.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S2

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

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

S2,8

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

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

S9

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

The proposal will not overshadow solar collectors on adjoining properties. Complies.

S9

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

The proposal will not reduce solar access to less than 3 hours on north-facing windows. Complies.

S9

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

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

 

6.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome: Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

7.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.783/06 for permission to demolish the existing dwelling and construction of new two storey dwelling with first floor balcony and inground swimming pool to rear at 46 Dolphin Street, RANDWICK subject to the following conditions: -

 

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

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 06.155A, dated August 2006 and received by Council on the 6th November 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:

 

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

 

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

 

3          There must be no encroachment of the structures onto any adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place, unless permission has been obtained from the owners of the adjoining land accordingly.

 

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

 

5          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 approved paving or the like on the ground) without the written consent of Council.

 

 

6          Lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents.

 

7          No cooking facilities or sanitary fittings other than those indicated on the approved plans are to be installed in the premises without the prior written consent of the Council.

 

8          The width of the driveway at the property boundary is to be reduced to a maximum of 3m to reduce the impact of hard surfaces to the front of the property, the driveway may be splayed to the garage entrance.

 

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

 

9          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.

 

10        In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a relevant BASIX Certificate and associated documentation must be submitted to the Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate application for this development.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate are to be included on the plans, specifications and associated documentation for the proposed development, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The design of the building must not be inconsistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the BASIX commitments may necessitate a new development consent or amendment to the existing consent to be obtained, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

11        The following provisions are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant BASIX Certificate and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate 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)

 

12        In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue a final Occupation Certificate for 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.

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate drainage is provided from the premises and to maintain adequate levels of health and amenity in the locality:

 

13        Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

 

Where the land slopes up to the street gutter and it is not practicable to connect to the street gutter, stormwater may be discharged to a suitably designed absorption pit to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and subject to the absorption pit minimum, and being designed and located so as to nothaving a base area of 5m result in the flow of stormwater to any adjacent land.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of works.

 

14        External paths and ground surfaces are to be constructed at appropriate levels and be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in the entry of water into the building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises.

 

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

 

15        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.

 

16        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.

 

17        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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

19        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.

 

20        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”.

 

21        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.

 

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

 

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

 

23        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.

 

24        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.

 

25        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:

 

26        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.

 

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

 

28        All 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.

 

30        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.

 

31        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.

 

32        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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

34        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.

 

35        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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

If it is proposed to locate any 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.

 

36        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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

38        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.

 

39        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.

 

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.

 

40        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.

 

41        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.

 

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

 

42        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.

 

43        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.

 

44        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.

 

45        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.

 

46        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.

 

47        A Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (ie 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.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that adequate provisions are made for the management of waste from the development:

 

48        Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage and removal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council and details are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

49        A demolition and construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be development and implemented for the development, to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

The Waste Management Plan must provide details of the type and quantities of demolition and construction waste materials, proposed re-use and recycling of materials, methods of disposal and details of recycling outlets and land fill sites.

 

Where practicable waste materials must be re-used or recycled, rather than disposed and further details of Council's requirements including relevant guidelines and pro-forma WMP forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre or by telephoning Council on 9399 0999.

 

Details and receipts verifying the recycling and disposal of materials must be kept on site at all times and presented to Council officers upon request.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and to maintain public safety and amenity:

 

50        Swimming pools are to be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and regulations.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with AS 1926-1986.

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

Temporary pool safety fencing is to be provided pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

A sign shall be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the document entitled “Policy Statement No.9.4.1: Guidelines for the Preparation of Posters on Resuscitation”, published in 1985 by the Australian Resuscitation Council and the sign must bear a notice that contains the words “YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD BE SUPERVISED WHEN USING THIS SWIMMING POOL”, together with details of resuscitation techniques (for adults, children and infants) set out in accordance with the document entitled “Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation” published by the Australian Resuscitation Council.

 

51        Swimming pools are to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the following general requirements:-

 

·        Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

·        All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises.

 

52        Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

The operation of swimming pool/spa pool pump and equipment is restricted, if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, the equipment shall not be operated during the following hours, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

·        before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on any Sunday or public holiday; or

·        before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

 

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

 

53        Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate, the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a)   Reconstruct the concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

54        The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's roadway, 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.

 

55        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.

 

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

 

56        The Council’s Development Engineer has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be:

 

·    60mm above the Council footpath level at all points opposite the footpath, along the full site frontage.

 

57        The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

58        The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $121.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

59        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.

 

60        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.

 

61        The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre to determine whether the development will affect any Sydney Water asset’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easement, and if further requirements need to be met. Plans will be appropriately stamped.

 

Please refer to the web site www.sydneywater.com.au for:

·    Quick Check agent details – see Building Developing and Plumbing then Quick Check; and

·    Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets – see Building Developing and Plumbing then Building and renovating; Or

      Telephone 13 20 92.

 

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

 

62        That part of the naturestrip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works 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 completed at the applicant’s expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

63        The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be maintained by the applicant in accordance with Council guidelines. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, watering, mowing, fertilising, and the removal of weeds.

 

 

 

Tree Management

 

64        Approval is granted for the removal of the following trees:

1 x   Tee Tree located at the southeast corner of the site.

1 x Bangalow Palm located towards the rear of the site on the western side boundary.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

Failure to obtain a Construction Certificate and appoint a PCA before commencing works is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

9 November 2006

FILE NO:

DA/575/2006 & PROP015577

 

PROPOSAL:

 Proposed use of existing premises at 1605 Anzac Parade, La Perouse, as a tavern/restaurant operating under hotelier's licence.

PROPERTY:

 1605 Anzac Parade, La Perouse

WARD:

 South Ward

APPLICANT:

 Danny's Seafood Restaurant

OWNER:

Tirami Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Anthony Andrews, Chris Bastic, Dominic Sullivan, Allan White & John Procopiadis.

 

The subject site is located within a 3B Local Business Zone, on the north-eastern corner of Anzac Parade and Endeavour Avenue at La Perouse.  The site is presently occupied by an existing three (3) storey building containing “Danny’s Seafood Restaurant” at the first floor level, with a café and takeaway component at the ground floor level and three (3) residential dwellings located on the top level.  The restaurant is required to cease trading under the current Development Consent No. 57/199 at 12 midnight.

 

The application proposes to change the use of the premises to a “tavern/restaurant” operating under an Hotelier’s Licence, with operating hours proposed as:

 

·    Monday to Saturday                 10.00am to 1.00am the following day

·    Sunday                         10.00am to 10.00pm

 

Three (3) submissions have been received in regard to the proposal, including one (1) on behalf of the La Perouse Precinct Committee.  The objections raise issues in regard to the public interest, including anti-social behaviour as a result of the sale of and access to alcohol, violence, vandalism and as security concerns in the area, as well as other behavioural problems.  Other objections include lack of parking, noise and overdevelopment of the site.  It is also put forward that the proposal is contrary to the 3B Local Business Zone Objectives.

 

The proposal is for a change in use to a “hotel” as defined in the LEP, being defined as “a building or place specified in an hotelier’s licence”, notwithstanding the applicant’s description as a “tavern/restaurant” (refer to Section 6.1 of the report for further discussion).  This encompasses a range of functions normally associated with a “pub” or hotel, including bar, restaurant, games room, etc. 

 

It should be noted that the existing restaurant has a restriction (by condition of consent) to a capacity of 150 patrons, with the total seating capacity of premises, including the footpath seating, limited to 208 people.  The plans submitted for the change in use to a hotel show seating for 314 people.  The Statement of Environmental Effects appears to contain inconsistencies in regard to existing seating numbers (up to 330 seats) and only seeks by a “suggested” condition to contain the operational capacity by requiring “seating available for a minimum of 200 persons at tables suitable for dining”.  This is not a maximum number of people using the premises at any one time, either seated or standing.  Accordingly, not only does it appear that the proposal would allow for a fundamental change in use, quite different to the existing use but also includes an intensification of the use of the premises both by numbers and later closing times.

 

An Acoustic Report, which considers the potential impact on surrounding residential amenity, has not been submitted as part of the proposal.  Furthermore, the number of parking spaces on site appears to be reduced to 13 from the currently approved 20 car spaces (refer Section 9.2.1 of the report).  The proposed change in use results in a deficit of over 70 on-site car parking spaces.  The applicant has not provided sufficient or satisfactory justification for the shortfall, as a parking study has not been submitted demonstrating that the increased parking demand can been taken up within the surrounding street system.  As well, given the proposed increase in patron numbers between the existing and proposed use and the extended trading hours, noise impacts and the potential for anti-social behaviour are likely to arise as patrons make their way back to cars parked on the surrounding streets or seek other forms of transport.

 

The applicant has submitted a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) which is considered not to adequately examine the social impacts of the proposal or describe a net community benefit (refer Sections 6.3 and 9.3 of the report).

 

It appears that the application is predicated on the basis that a hotelier’s licence will provide the owner of the premises greater flexibility in the sale of alcohol and that the dominant use of the premises will remain a restaurant.  The stated intention within the SEE that it is not intended to demolish or modify the premises but “operate the business in the same premises” and “retain the seafood dining focus” and offers within the SEE “a series of Conditions of Consent which are designed to ensure that the premises will continue to operate in a similar way to the existing restaurant use”.  These conditions are not considered to be sufficient to adequately minimise the substantial adverse impacts that may potentially arise to the local neighbourhood as a result of a hotel use of the premises, in particular noise impacts and anti-social behaviour of departing patrons.

 

The proposal relies on strict compliance with and enforcement of a plan of management and proposed conditions of consent. The conditions are generally broad and would normally apply to any hotel use and as such would not necessarily ensure the minimisation of anti-social behaviour or that anti-social behaviour can be properly managed.  Furthermore, the condition proposing no poker machines on the premises, is not a condition that can be legally imposed on the consent as Section 209 of the Gaming Machines Act, 2001 restricts Council, as the consent authority, from imposing such a condition on a hotel or registered club (refer Section 6.1 of the report).

 

It is considered that there is an inherent conflict between the operational characteristics of a hotel, including noise and anti-social behaviour of patrons and the amenity of surrounding residents, particularly given the location of the premises, the potential to attract large numbers of people and the late trading hours. 

 

Given the substantial impacts to both the community and surrounding residents, it is not considered appropriate or in the public interest to seek to control these impacts by conditions of consent, which may not be able to cover all of the potential outcomes or be observed in their entirety, especially given the absence of satisfactory analysis within the SIA and the lack of necessary detail within the application.

 

The difficulty that Council faces is that should a future owner of the premises decide to operate the premises primarily as an “Hotel”, the conditions that Council could reasonably impose on this consent would not prevent this from occurring. Therefore it is considered that Council should take a precautionary approach and the recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application is for the proposed use of the existing premises at 1605 Anzac Parade, La Perouse, as a “tavern/restaurant” operating under an hotelier’s licence.  It is stated in the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) that the first floor level is proposed to be used as a restaurant and bar, while the area on the ground floor is proposed to be refurbished and used as a bistro.  Both levels feature outdoor terrace areas.  Total seating capacity is configured on the submitted plans as 330 people (including 32 seats located on the footpath).  The proposed hours of operation are stated as follows:

 

·    Monday to Saturday                 10.00am to 1.00am the following day

·    Sunday                         10.00am to 10.00pm

 

It is also stated in the SEE that the proposal is not to include a bottle shop, with take-away liquor sales are to be limited to “over the bar” sales, with no take away sales at all permitted after 7.00pm.  A Plan of Management and suggested conditions of consent are included as Appendices to the SEE.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

 

Figure 1: site and locality

 

The subject site is located within a Local Business Zone (Zone 3B), on the north-eastern corner of Anzac Parade and Endeavour Avenue at La Perouse.  The site is identified as Lot 1057 in DP 752015, with an overall site area of approximately 828.3m².  The site is irregular in shape and has frontages of approximately 15.06m to Anzac Parade and 36.6m to Endeavour Avenue.  Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Directly opposite to the south is a reserve forming part of Botany Bay National Park and immediately adjoining to the north is a vacant reserve, connecting Endeavour Avenue with Goorawahl Avenue to the rear of the site.  To the west on the opposite side of Endeavour Avenue is the Yarra Bay foreshore.

 

The site is presently occupied by an existing three (3) storey building containing a seafood restaurant, takeaway and café (Danny’s) at the ground and first floor level with three (3) residential dwellings located on the top level.  Parking for 13 cars is shown to be provided at the ground floor level at the rear of the takeaway and café, with access from Endeavour Avenue.

 

1

Figure 2: subject site fronting Anzac Parade (top)

 and Endeavour Avenue (bottom)

 

Neighbouring the property to the east is an existing two storey building (No. 1603 Anzac Parade – refer Figure 3) containing a restaurant at the Anzac Parade frontage and two dwellings above.  This site is the subject of a current development application (DA 520/2006) for an additional storey containing an additional dwelling.

 

Figure 3: No. 1603 Anzac Parade to the east

 

To the north of the adjoining reserve in Endeavour Avenue is a two storey mixed commercial/residential building (No. 51-53 Endeavour Avenue) containing the Paris Seafood Restaurant.  This site is the subject of a current development application (DA 418/2006) for an additional residential level.  Also forming part of the 3B Local Business Zone are two detached dwelling houses in Goorawahl Avenue (Nos. 26 and 28 Goorawahl Avenue).  Adjacent to the north of the 3B Local Business Zone containing the subject site is a 2A Residential Zone, containing detached dwelling houses in Goorawahl and Endeavour Avenues.

 

Figure 4: No. 51-53 Endeavour Avenue to the north

 

4.    HISTORY

 

Consent to Development Application No. (DA) 206/79 for the restaurant was given in 1979 (refer Figure 5 below).  A further consent in 1982 to DA 178/82 was given for a ground floor level takeaway food shop on the site, with the approved plan denoting 26 indoor dining seats and 12 dining seats on the outdoor terrace. 

In 1997, DA 571/1997 granted consent to operate outdoor footpath seating for the café.  The plans illustrate 10 tables with seating for 20 patrons.  DA 268/1997 gave approval to construct an awning over the existing first floor terrace area, with a condition limiting the total number of restaurant seats to 100 in accordance with the previous consent under DA 206/79. 

 

In 1999, approval was given by consent to DA 57/1999 to expand the seating capacity of the restaurant from 100 to 150 patrons which included the first floor terrace area.  Condition No. 2 restricts the hours of operation of the restaurant to 9.00am to 12 midnight.  On 10 September, 2003, development consent was granted to DA 692/2003 to enlarge the existing ground floor outdoor dining terrace by 15m2.  The work approved by this DA has not yet been commenced, however, the consent is still current.  Condition No. 17 of the consent restricts the hours of operation of the ground floor terrace area to 10.00am to 8.00pm, Monday to Sunday.

 

On 28 June, 2004, an application was lodged with the Licensing Court of New South Wales for an Hotelier’s Licence, however, Council objected on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest, as development consent had not been granted to operate the premises as an hotel.  The application did not proceed and has been ‘stood out’ of the Court’s list.

 

Figure 5: Approval history

DA No.

Application type

Date of consent

1081/1973

Three (3) storey commercial building and shops

27 November, 1973

60/1974

Erect commercial building for restaurant

31 May, 1974

206/1979

Two (2) shops, restaurant and caretaker’s flat.

4 December, 1974

178/1982

Use two (2) shops in the recently constructed commercial/residential building for the sale of take-away foods.

18 August, 1982

268/1997

Construct an awning over the existing terrace area adjacent to the restaurant.

2 September, 1997

571/1997

Operate outdoor seating in conjunction with existing cafe

14 January, 1998

57/1999

Increase seating capacity of Danny’s restaurant from 100 to 150 persons.

1 June, 1999

26/2002

Alterations and additions to existing commercial/ residential building including the demolition of the existing top floor dwelling and erection of three new dwellings.

29 May, 2002

26/2002/A

Modify approved dwelling to provide new timber decking to terraces provision of spa pool internal layout changes to bathrooms and kitchens deletion of shade sail and replacement with roof and other minor design changes.

18 June, 2004

692/2003

Enlarge existing outdoor dining area

10 September, 2003

692/2003/A

Original proposal to increase the terrace and porch area to the existing cafe at the ground floor

4 June, 2004

The subject application was lodged on 17 July, 2006 and was notified and advertised until 16 August, 2006.  A preliminary assessment of the application resulted in a request to the applicant on 2 August, 2006, for a Traffic and Parking Report and also a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) prepared in accordance with Council’s Social Impact Assessment Guidelines for Assessing Development Applications.  The SIA was received on 6 October, 2006 and contained within it a section entitled “Traffic and Parking Assessment”.  The matter was also referred to the Eastern Suburbs Area Command for comment in accordance with the Protocol for the Review of Development Applications established with the NSW Police Force and Randwick City Council, however, to date, no response has been received.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was notified and advertised in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans, until 16 August, 2006.  As a result, three (3) submissions were received from the following:

 

·          Professor J Ratcliffe and I Ratcliffe (owners of 28 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse) of 14 Bellbird Close, Cooranbong.

·          C and C Abela (on behalf of the La Perouse Precinct Committee and others) of 1587 Anzac Parade, La Perouse.

·          Professor S Kjelleberg and Associate Professor P Conway of 22 Goorawahl Avenue, La Perouse.

 

5.1     Objections

 

The following issues were raised in the submissions to the proposal and are addressed in the main body of the report in Section 9.

 

·          Public interest

 

It would not be in the best interest of the area and the public to allow the licence, especially as the hours of operation are excessive.  There are risks to residents and visitors and noise generation would be excessive.

 

The La Perouse Committee notes strong concern being expressed by Elders, representatives from and members of the Aboriginal community to the ready access to alcohol and consequent abuse.

 

Behavioural issues, such as obscene language from drunks, harassment of passers by, urinating in public, begging, violence and vandalism, etc, arising from the sale of alcohol and hotel use raises security concerns and will require an increased police presence in the area, requiring extra resources and costs to the public.  Any bad behaviour in the streets and surrounds would significantly degrade the international important heritage values of the area.

 

There is no way that the owners of the premises can guarantee that law and order will not be disturbed.

 

Anti-social behaviour from inebriated restaurant patrons and from alcohol abuse by groups of visitors to the area is already causing a problem for local residents and more availability of alcohol in the vicinity of No. 28 Goorawahl Avenue is not wanted.

 

The applicant's willingness to self impose conditions and hire security personnel is a tacit admission that the neighbourhood is significantly sensitive and will be adversely affected.  There is no guarantee that the present owner or any future owner will not seek, even through the courts, to have the conditions relaxed.

 

Planning Comment

 

The application seeks to control the potential adverse impacts arising from the proposed change to a hotel use by a Management Plan and suggested conditions of consent.  A Social Impact Assessment has been prepared by the applicant and an assessment of this is contained within Section 6.3 of the report.  A discussion of the likely impacts arising from the proposal is contained within Section 9.4 of the report and the public interest in Section 9.6 of the report. 

 

·          Zoning

 

The proposal runs contrary to the objectives of the zoning to provide local amenity.  The number of proposed seats is obviously aimed at a much wider clientele than the local community and is at a regional level.

 

Planning Comment

 

An assessment of the proposal in regards to the zone objectives is contained within Section 9.1.1 of the report.

 

·          Overdevelopment of the site

 

The FSR for the site is already significantly exceeded and the proposal to use the approved open verandahs as a permanently enclosed area would significantly and unacceptably add to the FSR.

 

Planning Comment

 

The proposal does not include the enclosure of the first floor terrace area.  This area has previously been approved under DA 57/199 for the use of outdoor seating for the restaurant.  As such the proposal does not introduce any additional floor space to that already existing, however, it appears that the current proposal increases substantially the number of patrons capable of using the site at any one time.  Discussion of the intensification of the use of the site is contained within Sections 6.1 and 9 of the report.

 

·          Parking

 

The original approvals were for 25 parking spaces and as the proposal is now for 13 spaces, leaving a shortfall of 12 spaces which are now used as operational space, which should be added to the FSR.  The lack of space for a future cellar as required for the storage of kegs, etc and needed to provided for the number of patrons proposed could also eliminate further parking.

 

To suggest that 13 parking spaces are enough for over 450 patrons is ludicrous.  The additional demand for parking under a hotel situation will increase parking problems in the area.

 

The La Perouse Precinct Committee requests that where parking is being used for uses other than parking such as storage, food freezers or processing areas, it should be included in the floor space ratio calculations.

 

The balcony at Danny’s cannot be permitted to be fully enclosed, given its proximity to No. 28 Goorawahl Avenue.

 

Planning Comment

 

Discussion of the parking issues pertinent to this application is contained within Sections 6.2 and 9.2of the report.

 

Noise

 

Any commercial noise engendering activity beyond 11pm on any night of the week should not be permitted due to the proximity to the residential area, in particular No. 28 Goorawahl Avenue.  Noise from the current use often exceeds the permitted time limits.

 

The use as a hotel would increase the amount of glass recycling noise as part of early morning rubbish removal.

 

Conditions put on the consent in regard to noise, will in reality be unenforceable, with residents’ amenity being adversely affected.

 

Planning Comment

 

An Acoustic Report, which considers the potential impact of the proposed change in use and intensification in numbers of people on the premises has not been provided and the application is considered deficient in this regard.

 

La Perouse Plan of Management

 

The La Perouse Plan of Management approved by Council after consultation with the community and non compliance with this Plan would affect the public interest.

 

The Historic La Perouse Management Plan was prepared for Randwick City Council and the National Parks and Wildlife Services.  It applies only to non-residential areas of the La Perouse headland, including Community Lands, Crown Reserves under the care and control of Randwick City Council, areas of Botany Bay National Park and roadways.  It is not a planning control document but a conservation orientated management plan. 

 

There is no visible change proposed to the existing built form of the building on the site and therefore no change to its relationship with existing heritage items and conservation area, other than the potential increase in parking in the surrounding street system, potential anti-social behaviour of departing patrons and the potential for increase in crime and vandalism (refer to comments on the Social Impact Assessment in Section 6.3 of the report.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1     Environmental Health and Building

 

Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services has advised that the following are key issues in relation to the proposal:

 

Regulatory Building and Development Control

 

Introduction

 

Development Application No. DA/575/2006 has been referred for comment by the Manager – Health, Building & Regulatory Services.

 

This Memorandum has been prepared by Council’s Senior Planning & Environment Compliance Officer to provide information for consideration with respect to the proposed development.

 

However, the comments provided in this Memorandum are confined to matters relating to operational/liquor licensing considerations and do not contain comment in respect to compliance with the Building Code of Australia, Disabled Access, Environmental Health or the relevant noise criteria.

 

Preliminary

 

Development Application No. DA/575/2006 seeks consent to a change of use of the existing restaurant premises situated at 1605 Anzac Parade, La Perouse known as Danny’s Seafood Restaurant to that of a Tavern/Restaurant operating under an Hotelier’s Licence.

 

The subject premises is situated on land zoned 3B (Local Business Zone) pursuant to Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP). The proposed use of the premises as a Tavern/Restaurant operating under an Hotelier’s Licence is permissible with the prior development consent of Council.

 

A search of Council records has disclosed that on the 11 December 1979 Council granted Development Consent No. DA/206/1979 “to erect a mixed development containing two shops, restaurant and caretakers residence”. The existing premises have operated at the site as a restaurant since the early 1980s. Subsequently, a number of Development Consents have been granted for the premises. A consent history is also outlined in this Memorandum.

 

Current Licensing Court Application

 

The premises currently operate with the benefit of an On-Licence (Restaurant) which accords with the approved use of the premises for the purpose of a restaurant. The current On-Licence (Restaurant) was granted in January 1984.

 

On the 28 June 2004, Danny Steven Meares made application to the Licensing Court of New South Wales pursuant to the Liquor Act 1982 for the grant of an Hotelier’s Licence for the subject restaurant premises. The particulars of the Licensing Court application are:

 

a)      an hotelier’s licence for premises situated at 1605 Anzac Parade, La Perouse; and

 

b)      dispensation of accommodation pursuant to Section 49 (1) of the Liquor Act 1982; and

 

c)       authorised area pursuant to Section 112 of the Liquor Act 1982.

 

Council filed and served a Notice of Objection to the grant of the application on the 25 August 2004. The grounds of objection to the grant of the application are:

 

“That it would not be in the public interest to grant the application for the following reason:

 

a.           that development consent within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, has not been obtained from Council to operate the premises for the purpose of a hotel.”

 

The Application did not proceed in 2004 and has been ‘stood out’ of the Court’s list, generally. It is the application to the Licensing Court in 2004, indeed Council’s objection to it, which has been the impetus for the making of the Development Application currently being assessed. It would follow, should Development Application No. DA/575/2006 be approved, Council’s objection would be withdrawn.

 

The Proposal

 

In considering the Development Application it is first necessary to ascertain the true nature of what is proposed. This task is discharged, to a large degree, by inquiring as to what is sought by the application. In this regard, that application seeks consent for the “proposed use of existing premises [a restaurant] as a tavern/restaurant operating under an hotelier’s licence”. The terms restaurant and hotel are defined by RLEP to mean:

 

restaurant means a building or place used for the provision of food or drink (or both), whether or not for consumption on the premises or for takeaway.”

 

hotel means a building or place specified in a hotelier’s licence granted under the Liquor Act 1982.”

 

The term ‘tavern’ is not defined within RLEP as such one is entitled to rely on the definition contained within the Macquarie Dictionary. In the Macquarie Dictionary ‘tavern’ is defined to mean: “1. premises where food and alcoholic drink are served, but where no accommodation is provided. 2. Chiefly Brit a hotel; inn.”

 

Regard must also be given to the information and plans accompanying the application. It is important to note that the application does not seek to make any physical changes to the existing premises. The plans submitted with the application depict a table and seating configuration of the premises commensurate with that of a restaurant (as apposed to a hotel). However, in the ‘Statement of Environmental Effects’, the Applicant states:

 

“The current licensing arrangements restrict the ability of Danny’s to service the public already in the La Perouse area, in particular the day trippers and tourists who are attracted to the area by the multitude of recreational experiences there. Danny’s is currently unable to offer those people a drink without purchasing a meal. The proposal to operate the premises under an hotelier’s licence as a tavern/restaurant will provide Danny’s with the flexibility it needs to continue to operate the existing restaurant on the premises, but also to provide drinks without meals for day trippers and visitors to La Perouse, and to limited take-away liquor service.

 

It is the potential difference in the use of a restaurant which operates under an Hotelier’s Licence from that of a restaurant operating under an On-licence (Restaurant) which changes its use from that of a restaurant to a hotel as defined by RLEP, notwithstanding that in this particular instance there will be no physical change the existing premises.

 

To elaborate, a premises operating with the benefit of an hotelier’s licence, pursuant to the Liquor Act 1982, authorises the licensee to sell liquor by retail on the licensed premises, whether or not for consumption on those premises.  Importantly, although a premises to which an hotelier’s licence relates is required to have food available, at least a light meal, the primary purpose of such premises is the retail sale of alcohol whether for consumption on the premises or to take-away.

 

In contrast, a premises operating with the benefit of an On-Licence (Restaurant) authorises the licensee to sell liquor on the licensed premises, but only for consumption on those premises. Under the Liquor Act 1982 where the licensed premises to which an On-Licence relates is a restaurant, the primary purpose of the premises is to be a ‘restaurant’. As such, the provision of alcohol at a restaurant is ancillary to its primary purpose and accordingly the premises must at all times be operated consistently with this primary purpose.

 

Another important aspect to consider is the potential for gaming at a hotel. Notwithstanding that the Applicant has offered conditions which restrict the types of activities at the premises (see condition 18 of Appendix A of SEE - No TAB or pub TAB facilities, No amusement machines, No juke box, No pool tables, No poker or car[d] machines) Section 209 of the Gaming Machines Act 2001, states:

209    Relationship with Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

(1)        An environmental planning instrument (whether made before or after the commencement of this section) under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 cannot prohibit or require development consent for, or otherwise regulate or restrict, the installation, keeping or operation of approved gaming machines in hotels, registered clubs or any other premises.

 

(2)        If an environmental planning instrument contains any provision in contravention of subsection (1), the provision is taken to have no effect.

 

(3)        A consent authority (within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) cannot:

 

(a)  as a condition of any development consent under that Act, prohibit or otherwise regulate or restrict the installation, keeping or operation of approved gaming machines in a hotel, registered club or any other premises, or

 

(b)  refuse to grant any such development consent to a hotel or registered club for any reason that relates to the installation, keeping or operation of approved gaming machines in a hotel or registered club.

 

(4)       The installation, keeping or operation of an approved gaming machine in a hotel or registered club is not an activity for the purposes of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

(5)       Any approval or authorisation under this Act to keep an approved gaming machine in a hotel or registered club is not an approval for the purposes of Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.”

 

Having regard to the above, in my opinion, any conditions of Development Consent which regulate or restrict the installation, keeping or operation of approved gaming machines in a hotel would be ultra vires.

 

Particulars

 

The particulars of the proposed development are contained at Part 3.0 of the ‘Statement of Environmental Effects’ prepared by John Coady Consulting Pty Ltd in association with Mike George Planning Pty Ltd dated 11 July 2006 – Ref 04440-C.

 

The plans accompanying the application (dated 6 July 2006 – Titled ‘Dannys Seafoods’ Job No. 0601 Drawing No. A-01 – Existing Ground floorplan and Drawing No. A-02 – Upperfloorplan and received by Council on 17 July 2006) provide for seating at tables in the following areas of the premises:

 

First Floor:

 

78 seats at tables (indoor).

 

158 seats at tables (outdoor terrace).

 

Total patron seating of 236.

 

This exceeds the current approved capacity of this area of the premises (150 persons) by 86 persons.

 

Development Consent No. DA/57/1999 (determined on 1 June 1999 - HBPC) to ‘increase overall seating capacacity [sic] of Danny’s Seafood Restaurant from 100 to 150 persons’ is the applicable consent which limits the current number of patrons and hours of operation of the premises. Relevantly, condition No. 2 with respect to hours of operation, states:

 

“2.       The hours of operation of the restaurant being restricted to between 9.00am and 12.00 midnight.”

 

In respect to seating capacity, condition No. 3, states:

 

“3        The total number of occupied seats within the restaurant (including on the terrace area) shall not exceed 150 persons.”

 

As previously mentioned, the current proposal equates to an increase of 86 patron seating on what is currently permitted at the first floor area of the premises.

 

The application also seeks trading hours of 10.00am to 1.00am the following day, Monday to Saturday and 10.00am to 10.00pm, Sundays.

 

Ground Floor:

 

24 seats at tables (indoor).

 

22 seats at tables (outdoor terrace).

 

Total patron seating of 46.

 

On the 18 August 1982, Development Consent No. DA/178/1982 was granted ‘to use the two shops within the recently constructed commercial/residential building for the sale of take-away foods on property 1605 Anzac Parade, La Perouse.’

 

The approved plan denotes 26 seats at tables (indoor) and 12 seats at tables on the outdoor terrace area.

 

On the 10 September 2003, Development Consent No. DA/692/2003 was granted to ‘enlarge existing outdoor dining terrace’ (by 15m2). Building work in respect to this extension is yet to take place. As such, the proposed extension to the ground floor terrace area is not yet operational.

 

Nevertheless, Condition No. 17 of DA/692/2003 (once operational) restricts the hours of operation of the ground floor terrace area to 10.00am to 8.00pm, Monday to Sunday. In addition, the approved plan or conditions of Development Consent do not depict a proposed table layout or reference the number of additional patrons permitted in this area. However, logic dictates that should this area become operational an increase of approximately 12 to 15 seats for patrons would be contemplated (based on 1m2 per seated patron). 

 

Footway Dining Area:

 

The plans submitted with the current Development Application denote 32 seats at tables in the existing footway dining area at the premises.

 

On the 14 January 1998, Development Consent No. DA/571/1997 was granted ‘to operate outdoor seating in association with an existing café.’

 

The approved plans for Development Consent No. DA/571/1997 illustrates 10 tables with two (2) seats at each table and notes the seating number of 20 seats. As such the footway dining area is limited to 20 seats under the current Development Consent.

 

Furthermore, Condition No. 2 of DA/571/1997 restricts the hours of operation of the footway restaurant to 10.00am to 8.00pm, 7 days a week.

 

Proposed Overall Patron Capacity

 

The proposed capacity of all areas of the premises, including footway dining, totals 314 patrons. The approved capacity of the premises under the existing Development Consents, including footway dining, is 208 patrons. This does not include the permissible increase to the ground floor terrace dining area (see DA/692/2003).

 

Conclusion

 

Development Application No. DA/575/2006 seeks consent to a change of use of the existing restaurant premises situated at 1605 Anzac Parade, La Perouse known as Danny’s Seafood Restaurant to that of a Tavern/Restaurant operating under an Hotelier’s Licence.

 

When the comparison is made between that which is permitted under the current consents for the premises and what is proposed in the current application, the current proposal not only constitutes a change of use of the premises, but also an intensification of the use by way of increased patron numbers and hours of operation.

 

It follows, in my opinion, that a premises which operates with the benefit of an Hotelier’s Licence has the potential to increase the impact upon the locality in which it is situated that requires greater control.

 

These potential impacts have been recognised by the Applicant who has offered a set of ‘suggested Conditions of Consent’ (see Appendix A of the SEE) which generally relate to the responsible service of alcohol, harm minimisation, provision of security staff, restrictions on take-away alcohol sales and gaming and the installation of video surveillance with the intent to control the greater potential for intoxication, anti-social behaviour and disturbances to the quiet and good order of the neighbourhood.

 

In this regard, should the application be approved, sufficient conditions must be imposed to reduce/minimise potential adverse impacts to the locality.

 

Building Services comments

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the change of use of the existing premises containing a café and carpark at ground level and a restaurant at 1st floor level to a hotel. No physical changes are proposed in this application.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class   -           6          (Hotel)

 

Background

 

The existing building on site is a post war brick and concrete commercial building bounded by buildings of a similar nature and residential premises.

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

 

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

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate. Further, all existing handrails and balustrades must comply with the BCA

 

Access for people with a disability:

 

The proposal does not demonstrate compliance with the BCA requirements and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) objectives, in relation to access and facilities for people with a disability. Although the premises is existing and no alterations are proposed, it is considered that the change of use to a hotel will intensify the usage and, therefore, suitable access, car parking and sanitary facilities should be provided to facilitate people with disabilities.

 

Access for people with a disability is required to be provided to the basement car park the ground floor café, the 1st floor hotel and, sanitary facilities for people with a disability are also required to be provided to the development, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the BCA.

 

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

 

6.2     Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development Engineer Co-ordinator has provided the following comments in relation to the proposal:

 

Traffic Comments

 

There are currently thirteen car parking spaces on the subject site which (based on the parking requirements for restaurants in Council’s DCP – Parking) represents a shortfall of some 10 spaces. It is also understood that as part of development approval 26/2002 three of these car spaces were to be for resident parking, bringing the total number of car spaces available for use by the restaurant to 10 spaces, and hence an existing shortfall of 13 spaces.

 

However the DCP - Parking also notes that when the development comprises only a modification or extension to an existing development, additional parking is only required to be provided to cater for the additional demands arising from increases in floor space or changes in use.

 

Accordingly, the additional parking required to be provided in conjunction with this development application would be calculated by the following figures:

 

·    1 space per 6m2 bar, lounge, entertainment venues, restaurant, dining room, etc;

·    plus 1 space per 3 employees;

·    plus 1 space per manager/caretaker.

 

Noting that the applicant does not propose to provide any additional parking facilities, the applicant was previously advised that the proposal would result in a substantial parking deficit being in excess of 70 spaces, and would not be supported by the Development Engineer.

 

However, the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects suggests that the above rates overstate the requirement and instead references the RTA Guide to Traffic Generating Developments and their research on parking demand rates. This Guide recommends that proposed hotel developments be compared to similar existing developments noting the supply of, and demand for parking in the area, and of the peak parking periods of individual facilities within the hotel; however the applicant submitted no such comparative data in the original application.

 

Accordingly it was previously recommended that the applicant be required to submit a traffic and parking assessment prepared by a suitably qualified traffic engineer incorporating a comparative analysis (as per the RTA Guide to Traffic generating Developments) of several similar existing hotel developments within the Randwick local government area and the resulting number of car parking spaces required for the proposed development.

 

The applicant has since submitted a Social Impact Assessment incorporating a Traffic & Parking Assessment however this does not adequately address the outstanding concerns relating to the lack of parking facilities.

 

In response to the request for a comparative analysis the applicant has stated that the existing restaurant will be most similar to the proposed hotel. This is not an appropriate assumption as the two uses have vastly different characteristics and hence it provides no useful information to justify the change in use.

 

Further, in regard to the limited data that the report provided for other hotel facilities, the sites chosen are located in very different areas and have been licensed hotel facilities for an extended period of time, prior to the current intensity of the surrounding developments. It is noted that the limited information provided does not encompass the necessary data suggested by the RTA, nor is it considered to meet the RTA’s intent for such a comparative assessment.

 

In addition, the report goes on to state that any excess parking demand will be accommodated on-street. Council does not support the use of on-street parking on Council’s public roads for private use; nonetheless, should consideration be given to such a proposal, Council’s DCP – Parking  would suggest this could be in excess of 70 car spaces. Council’s Traffic Engineer noted that the applicant’s submission is deficient in that no parking study been submitted to show available on-street parking during peak times in the vicinity of the development site. Further, it is considered highly unlikely that such a large number of spaces would be found to be available within a satisfactory walking distance to the subject site during peak periods.

 

Council’s Traffic Engineer also noted that the DCP – Parking states that Coach/Taxi Drop off/Pick up Points are to be provided on site for hotel facilities, however this issue was not addressed in the applicant’s submission.

 

It is recommended that the application be refused. Should the Planning Officer consider approving the application in its current form, the application shall be referred back to the Development Engineer for full comments and conditions to be provided.

 

6.3     Strategic Planning

 

Council’s Senior Strategic Planner (Social) has provided the following comments in relation to the social impact of the proposal as addressed by the applicant’s submitted Social Impact Assessment (SIA).

 

The development application (DA) proposes the use of the existing Danny’s seafood restaurant as a hotel. The applicant’s social impact assessment (SIA) does not adequately examine the social impacts or describe a net community benefit for the proposed. The SIA relies on strict compliance with, and enforcement of, a plan of management and “proposed consent conditions”.

 

The proposed hotel is likely to result in a range of negative impacts on the local residential community including anti-social behaviour, property damage, sleep disturbance, physical intimidation and drink driving.

 

Approval of the DA would not result in a favourable outcome for, or empower the local residential community. Accordingly, it is recommended that the DA be refused.  

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The DA is accompanied by an SIA prepared by John Coady Consulting Pty Ltd and dated 6th October, 2006.

 

This memo contains comments on the proposal and the SIA in the light of Council’s statutory controls, and policy and other considerations, as well as community concerns.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Demographics (2001 Census)

 

La Perouse is one of the smallest suburbs in Randwick City with a population of 422. This represents 0.3% of the Randwick City population.

 

La Perouse has a higher proportion of 0-19 and 60-74 year olds when compared with Randwick City and the Sydney SD. Indigenous people comprise 35% of the suburb compared with 1.1% of Randwick City.

 

La Perouse has a higher proportion of family and larger households (3-6+ people). This probably reflects the higher proportion of indigenous people. Of the 7236 visitors counted in Randwick City, only 0.4% was visiting La Perouse.

 

La Perouse also has the following demographics:

 

·     Higher unemployment rate (almost double).

·      Higher proportion of people on lower income levels.

·     Lower proportion with tertiary education.

·     Higher car use and lower public transport use for journey to work.

·     Higher multiple car ownership.

·     Higher proportion of separate houses and public housing.

·     Lower rate of population growth with only very minor growth forecast.

 

The above demographics for employment, income, tertiary education and public housing, indicate a lower socio economic and relatively disadvantaged demographic for La Perouse.

 

Statutory controls:

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP), 1998

 

The relevant objectives of the LEP at clause 2 include:

 

“          j) to enhance individual and community economic well-being and safeguard the welfare of future generations, and

 

k) to encourage consideration of social consequences when decisions are made in the implementation of this plan.”  

 

The site is zoned 3B (Local Business) under the LEP.

 

The objectives of the 3B zone at clause 14 include, inter alia:

 

“          a) to provide opportunities for local retail and business development…

…….

d) to minimise the impact of development on adjoining and nearby residential zones.”

 

The LEP defines a hotel as “a building or place specified in an hotelier’s licence granted under the Liquor Act 1982”. A hotel is permissible in the zone with development consent.

 

Clause 46 of the LEP relates to development in the vicinity of heritage items. It requires Council to consider the likely effect of proposed development on the heritage significance of a heritage item and on its setting.

 

Policy controls:

 

The Randwick City Plan, 27 June 2006

 

One of the key outcomes of the plan will be leadership in sustainability. A sustainable city is “one that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own environmental, economic and social needs” (my emphasis).

 

The plan refers to ‘community’ as including those people who choose to live, work, shop, interact, play or study within the Randwick City area and the places and events they associate with.

 

The relationship of the proposal to the plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:                    A liveable city.

 

Direction 6b:               Our town centres, beaches, public places and streets are safe, inviting, clean, and support a recognisable image of our city.

 

Direction 6c:               The safety of our community is paramount and is acknowledged through proactive policies, programmes and strategies.

 

Direction 6b:               Our heritage is recognised, protected and celebrated.

 

Key priorities for the Southern Coastal area (which includes La Perouse) include enhancing the coastal walkway, and providing and upgrading community facilities. The plan identifies the key features of the area: coastal slopes, headlands and small beaches; key Aboriginal significance and communities; a significant National Park; and a predominantly residential area.

 

Historic La Perouse Management Plan, March 2000

 

The plan sets out policies and strategies for management of La Perouse to allow its significance to be retained, enhanced and interpreted. The study area of the plan borders the subject site, and comprises Bare Island, and the non-residential areas of the La Perouse headland, including the Anzac Parade gateway.

 

The plan recognises La Perouse as a place of national heritage importance with natural values and cultural significance to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians, and visitors to the country.

 

The plan recommends that commercial activities such as food and beverage outlets be located in such a way that does not detract from the heritage significance of the place.

 

Section 6.2 of the plan relates to access, traffic and parking. It acknowledges these as a major management issue for La Perouse. Further, it notes that “…parked cars detract from the visual appeal of the site.”

 

Section 6.8.2 of the plan relates to adjoining land uses and development. The policy objective requires Council to consider the possible impact of DAs on adjoining sites on the heritage significance of La Perouse. This is expressed as Action 8.2 of the plan.

 

Randwick Social Impact Assessment Guidelines for Assessing Development Applications, 30 June, 2006

 

The guidelines recommend that an SIA be prepared for new licensed premises. They set out a range of matters to address, information to be included and factors to consider when assessing a DA.

 

In ‘How to assess a development application’, the guidelines set out the factors to consider. Scoping is required to identify the type of social impacts likely to be expected and to clarify the relevant issues. 1

 

The guidelines require that an SIA investigate mitigation measures as part of impact management. These measures should mitigate impacts and maximise the potential benefits by identifying the elements that can be modified. 2

 

Alcohol consumption

 

The Australian Alcohol Guidelines 3 note that certain patterns of drinking cause health problems and social consequences that affect many members of the community. These range from minor acts of vandalism or offensive behaviour to far more serious anti-social behaviour which can result in affront, violence or injury to others including bystanders. It also notes that even the most minor of these can cause a considerable public nuisance.

 

Research quoted in the guidelines shows men employed as building tradesmen, waiters and bar staff, construction and mining labourers, and food tradesmen to be the heaviest drinkers.

 

The guidelines cite other research which indicates that 30% of the population rate excessive drinking as a cause for community concern. Drinking among young people and young adults is the area of greatest concern.

 

In relation to Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, the guidelines quote research which showed that 82% of those who drank were more likely to drink at high or very high risk levels compared with 28% of drinkers in the general urban population. It also found that a high percentage of non-drinkers were ex-drinkers.

 

Concentration of licensed premises

 

Research published by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 4 concludes that the more licensed premises there are in an area, the more likely people are to encounter problems of drunkenness and property damage.

 

It also found that this is more of a problem for people who live closer (within 500 metres) to licensed premises than those who live some distance away. The research strongly suggests limiting the number of licensed premises in an area as an effective way of limiting these problems.

 

There are 10 licensed premises in the vicinity of the subject site. These comprise 6 clubs, 1 hotel, 2 off-licence retail, and 1 restaurant. They are spread across the suburbs of La Perouse, Little Bay, Phillip Bay and Matraville. 

 

Boating and alcohol

 

The NSW Waterways Authority regularly puts out media releases cautioning against alcohol consumption for the boating community. It quotes research that shows alcohol is a factor in 38% of boating accidents 5. Legal alcohol limits apply for boat operators and their passengers. The SIA states that the proposal’s take away liquor facility will be attractive to “boaties.”

 

Assessment of Issues

 

Local business & community identity

 

The SIA argues for the proposal in order “to provide a wider range of services in La Perouse for residents and visitors”, while arguing that visitation is not expected to increase significantly. It notes (p52) that a “proportion of patronage will be drawn from local residents” while noting the small local population.

 

The low visitation rate to La Perouse (referred to above in Demographics) contrasts with the SIA which emphasises day trippers and visitors as the major component of the restaurant’s patronage.  At section 3 it describes the area as “…a popular destination for day trippers from the Sydney Metropolitan Area, and for intrastate, interstate and international tourist.”

The existing (70,000 per year for the first floor restaurant) and likely future patronage conflict with the objective of the 3B zoning to accommodate retail and business development of a local nature.

 

The SIA emphasises the “recreational” nature of the area while ignoring its historic and indigenous significance and values, as well as its predominantly single residential character (to the north of the subject site). It confuses “community identity” (which should include an analysis of the demographic profile) with the area’s recreational features. It uses this as a basis to conclude that the proposed use will “not change or otherwise affect this identity.”

 

Socio-economic profile

 

The lower socio-economic profile for La Perouse is important in the context of the link between men in relatively lower paid employment and heavy rates of drinking.6 The higher rates of young people in La Perouse and the concern over drinking rates for young people and young adults are also of concern. The socio-economic profile of La Perouse suggests that targeting the local community as patrons (the likely market for weekdays), is undesirable.

 

Impacts, alternatives & mitigation measures

 

The SIA focuses on the “benefits” of the proposal: provision of a “facility” for residents and visitors to enable them to drink without the need to dine, and a limited take-away liquor service. 

 

It does not address positive and adverse impacts or key issues of concern. It does not adequately address the two separate elements proposed (drinking without dining, and take away liquor sales).

 

In addition, the proposal does not examine comparative impact: by examining the proposal in relation to available alternatives, including the “do nothing” option, and their social impacts. Instead the SIA simply states that the “existing restaurant is a successful business…” and refers to the current ‘drink and dine’ authority as “the existing problem”.

 

Despite the absence of analysis, the SIA acknowledges the need for unique and restrictive conditions of “consent”. The SIA states that the “proposed conditions of consent” will be supplemented by the applicant’s plan of management. 7 

 

This underscores the potential extensive impacts of the proposal. The comprehensiveness of the “proposed conditions of consent” is a tacit admission of the scope of the potential impact on adjoining and nearby areas.

 

“Proposed conditions of consent” & plan of management

 

Reliance on the “proposed conditions of consent” and the plan of management would place considerable onus on the operator’s vigilance to ensure that adverse impacts “do not occur”. In addition, the SIA lists other responsible enforcement authorities: the Police, the Licensing Court and the Department of Gaming and Racing. This approach relies on Council’s continuing ability to monitor compliance, and on residents’ inclination to report breaches.

 

Implicit in this approach, is the future costs to the community of monitoring and enforcement; which are not addressed by the SIA. The SIA’s suggested regulatory regime conflicts with its scant examination of possible social impacts, description of the overall net community benefit, and whether the “mitigation measures” adequately address community concern.

 

The SIA concludes that “no additional mitigation measures are required to minimise any potential adverse impact.”    It ignores coping strategies 8 which may be required by the local community for impacts which cannot be mitigated. 

The SIA explains the rationale behind the “proposed conditions of consent”:

 

1.   Discourage patronage by a different and unwelcome clientele;

2.   Reduce the potential for anti-social behaviour;

3.   Minimise the potential to create area of risk or increased community concern regarding public safety.

 

In relation to point 1, the SIA does not define different and unwelcome clientele, or how they would be discouraged. Without this information, it is difficult to argue the efficacy of the “proposed conditions of consent”.

 

In relation to point 2, the SIA dismisses the potential for anti-social behaviour in relation to purchases of take-away liquor without examining the impacts of purchases before 7pm and the presence of other licensed premises in the locality. It ignores the fact that impacts are unacceptable regardless of what time they occur.9

 

In relation to point 3, the SIA does not adequately identify or examine areas of risk and community concern. Nor does it offer alternatives to the proposal.

 

Some of the “proposed conditions of consent” may be unrealistic. 10 One must consider the likelihood of these measures successfully addressing any adverse impacts on nearby residents.11  Examples of potentially unrealistic conditions in the applicant’s plan of management include (my emphasis):

 

4. At all times the licensee…shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that adverse impacts of the surrounding area do not occur.

 

6. The hotel shall be conducted in such a manner as not to interfere with, or materially affect, the amenity of the neighbourhood by reasons of noise...or otherwise.

 

13. All activities…are not to be carried out external to the building.

 

Proposed condition 13 is contrary to the SIA which states that the footpath seating area will be used as part of the proposed hotel.

 

It is unclear whether the plan of management is applied to the existing use. The SIA does not contain information relating to the adverse impacts of the existing use. Hence, one is unable to assess the DA against the principles set out in Vinson v Randwick City Council.12

 

The Vinson principles comprise five broad questions to be asked in circumstances of changes to licensed premises:

 

·     the adverse impacts of the existing use;

·     the measures in place to address those impacts;

·     how those measures are documented;

·     whether those measures have been successful; and

·     what additional measures are proposed by the applicant or might otherwise be required.

 

The plan of management proposes closed circuit television (CCTV). The SIA does not mention whether CCTV is currently used on the premises. If it is not, this will be a significant privacy and ethical issue for the community; the impacts of which have not been addressed in the SIA.

 

Public transport, traffic and parking

 

La Perouse is relatively poorly served by public transport, being relatively isolated and “at the end of the line”. There are two hourly bus services (routes 391 and 394) which connect to Central and the City.  The service to Central ceases at 5:11pm on weekdays and 4:11pm on weekends. The service to the City ceases at 12:12am on weekdays and weekends.

 

It is likely that a significant number of patrons will be unable to use taxis and private vehicles and, therefore, a large number will need to depart the premises on foot. 13This is likely to involve traversing through the residential area to the north of the subject premises. As stated in Pschorr, “at least some of those leaving on foot are likely to act in an antisocial fashion in the surrounding residential areas.”  

 

The SIA states that current car parking provision is adequate. It argues on the grounds of:

 

·     similarities with hotels in Coogee and Clovelly;

·     capacity will not change;

·     patrons will be drawn from people already in the area and from residents;

·     take away liquor sales will be “over the bar” and cease after 7p.m.

 

Hotels in Coogee and Clovelly are not useful comparisons. They are located in more densely populated areas with nearby public car parks and more frequent public transport services, including the Pumpkin Bus. 

 

Use as a hotel will not restrict patrons to consuming alcohol while seated. Hence, potential capacity is likely to exceed the stated 330 seats. In addition, the plan of management does not refer to a maximum number of patrons to be admitted to the premises.

With the additional attraction, it is likely the premises will attract patrons not already in the area. Likewise, a take away liquor facility is likely to be an exclusive attraction in itself.

 

Community consultation

 

The SIA refers to a community meeting requested by Council. It briefly summarises the concerns of residents: parking, traffic, and anti social behaviour and public safety. The SIA does not contain the minutes of the meeting.

 

The SIA does not address the range of issues expressed by residents as contained in the four submissions received by Council. These include:

 

·     Not in the public interest;

·     Objectives of the zoning/inappropriateness of a hotel;

·     Overdevelopment of the site;

·     Insufficient parking;

·     Noise nuisance

·     Anti-social behaviour & vandalism;

·     Unsafe boating;

·     Aboriginal elders’ concerns re. broken families and purchase of alcohol on behalf of minors;

·     Capacity is more than population of La Perouse;

·     Car hoons;

·     Heritage values;

·     Community costs in extra policing;

·     Impracticality of enforcement measures; and

·     Hours of operation inappropriate in residential area.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The SIA does not adequately examine the likely areas of impact of the proposal, nor does it describe an overall net community benefit (apart from solving “the existing problem”.) The SIA does not contain an assessment of alternatives including the “do nothing” option.

 

The SIA relies on “comprehensive and unique proposed conditions of consent” and a hotel plan of management as mitigation measures. This approach is inadequate and will place considerable onus on Council, other regulatory authorities and local residents. It will require ongoing reporting, monitoring and enforcement.

 

The proposal is at odds with the Indigenous and national heritage values of the locality; as well as the key priorities identified in the City Plan.

 

The socio-economic profile of the community places it at a higher risk from an increased concentration of liquor outlets.  The proposal is not in the public interest and should be recommended for refusal.

 

References

 

1.         ‘Social Impact Assessment Bibliography’, Frank Vanclay, Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research, University of Tasmania. Cited on International Association for Impact Assessment website 3 August, 2006.

2.         Vanclay, op. cit.

3.         Australian Alcohol Guidelines: Health Risks and Benefits. 2001. Cited on National Health and Medical Research Council website, 24 Oct, 2006.

4.         Liquor outlet concentrations and alcohol-related neighbourhood problems. Neil Donnelly, Suzanne Poynton, Don Weatherburn, Errol Bamford and Justin Nottage, Alcohol Studies Bulletin No. 8, April 2006. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research

5.         NSW Waterways Authority, media release, 16 Dec, 2003. Cited on website 25 Oct 2006.

6.         Australian Alcohol Guidelines, op.cit.

7.         Plan of Management for the Operation of Danny’s Seafood Hotel, May, 2005.

8.         Australian Alcohol Guidelines, op.cit.

9.         Pschorr Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Sydney [2006] NSWLEC 609.

10.       ibid.

11.       ibid.

12.       Vinson v Randwick City Council [2005] NSWLEC 142 referred to in Pschorr.

13.       Pschorr, op. cit.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area 828.3m2) is less than required for the submission of a master plan (4000m2).

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The site is zoned 3B Local Business 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

·          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·          Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking

·          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:-

 

9.1     Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Environmental Planning Instruments

 

9.1.1  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The following clauses of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan, 1998 (LEP) apply to the proposal:-

 

Figure 8: LEP Compliance Table


 

Commercial

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 - FSR

1.1:1

No change to existing

No change to existing

33 - Building Height

9m

No change to existing

No change to existing

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

43

Heritage Item and/or Conservation Area

No

 

46

Vicinity of Heritage Item/Conservation Area

Yes in the vicinity of the Botany Bay National Park Conservation Area containing a number of heritage items.  As well, to the rear of the site, No. 27 Goorawahl Avenue is also a listed heritage item.

There is no change proposed to the existing built form and therefore no change to its relationship with existing heritage items and conservation area.

 

Zone Objectives

 

The objectives for Zone No. 3B (Local Business Zone) are:

 

a)         to provide opportunities for local retail and business development in the City of Randwick, and

b)         to provide opportunities for associated development such as car parking, service industries and the like, and

c)         to provide opportunities for residential accommodation in the local business centres where it does not interfere with the primary business function of the zone, and

d)         to minimise the impact of development on adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

The 3B Local Business Zone within La Perouse is a small area consisting of only six (6) properties, four fronting Anzac Parade and two (2) fronting Goorawahl Avenue.  The Goorawahl properties only contain dwelling houses.  Of the properties fronting Anzac Parade, one property (Nos. 1599-1601 Anzac Parade) has a building currently under construction, which is for a mixed use development containing shops at the ground floor level fronting Anzac Parade with dwellings above and to the rear, fronting Goorawahl Avenue.  The remaining three (3) properties fronting Anzac Parade (including the subject site), all contain existing dwellings on their upper level.  The two neighbouring properties to the site have development applications for additional new dwelling/s currently being considered by Council.  In addition, the subject site is in close proximity to the surrounding Residential 2A Zone in Endeavour and Goorawahl Avenues.  The residential use of surrounding lands and the residential use within the 3B Local Business Zone must be given significant weight with regard to the probable impacts to residential amenity, which given the nature of the use proposed and increased operating hours proposed are substantial and significant. 

 

A hotel use, particularly one that attracts large numbers of people and has late trading hours has the potential to disturb the area unless it is carefully managed, monitored and regulated for compliance.  It is considered that the proposal does not contain adequate and/or sufficient safeguards to be self-regulating to curtail these impacts to an acceptable level.  As such, the proposal is in conflict with the Local Business Zone Objectives “d” as cited above.

 

The proposal is for a change in use to a “hotel” as defined in the LEP, being defined as “a building or place specified in an hotelier’s licence”, notwithstanding the applicant’s description as a “tavern/restaurant” (refer to Section 6.1 of the report for further discussion).  This encompasses a range of functions normally associated with a ‘pub” or hotel, including bar, restaurant, games room, etc.  Although, the stated intention within the SEE that it is not intended to demolish or modify the premises but “operate the business in the same premises” and “retain the seafood dining focus” and offers within the SEE “a series of Conditions of Consent which are designed to ensure that the premises will continue to operate in a similar way to the existing restaurant use”.  These conditions are not considered to be sufficient to adequately minimise the substantial adverse impacts that may potentially arise to the local neighbourhood as a result of a hotel use of the premises, in particular noise impacts and anti-social behaviour of departing patrons.

 

The conditions are generally broad and would normally apply to any hotel use and as such would not necessarily ensure the minimisation of anti-social behaviour or that anti-social behaviour can be properly managed.  Furthermore, the condition proposing no poker machines on the premises, is not a condition that can be legally imposed on the consent as Section 209 of the Gaming Machines Act, 2001 restricts Council, as the consent authority, from imposing such a condition on a hotel or registered club (refer Section 6.1 of the report).

 

The proposal allows a significant increase in the numbers of patronage to the premises from that allowed by the current approvals or the restaurant and café.  The restaurant (including the terrace area) is limited by Condition No 3 of the consent to DA 57/99 to 150 people, while the existing café (including the terrace area) is constrained by the plans approved with DA 178/82 to 38 seated people, giving a total seating capacity on the site for 188 people.  In addition, footpath seating for 20 people has been given by consent to DA 571/1997, giving a total seating capacity of 208 patrons.  The plans submitted with the subject hotel application show restaurant seating for 236 people (including the terrace area), café seating for 46 people giving total seating proposed as 282.  In addition, footpath seating has been shown to be increased by 12 to seating for 32 people.  As such there is shown to be an increase of 106 in the seating capacity of the premises.

 

The SEE presents an apparent inconsistency with both the approved seating and that shown on the plans by stating that the existing seating capacity of the premises as up to 330 people, with the restaurant containing up to 250 seats.  Further, the only restriction on numbers using the premises, whether seated or standing, is to be controlled by the suggested condition of consent requiring that seating be available “for a minimum of 200 persons at tables suitable for dining”.  Please note, this condition only sets a minimum number of seats and not a total maximum number of people using the premises at any one time nor does it ensure that a substantial meal is served to patrons.  Also, seating is not proposed as fixed seating and the capacity for numbers of people using the premises as a hotel, under the Building Code of Australia which sets a floor area of 1m2 per person (subject to compliance with other egress requirements), may be in the order of 499 people calculated on existing floor area.  This is consistent with the applicant’s Traffic and Parking Assessment contained with the Social Impact Assessment which cites “a capacity to accommodate less than 500 persons”.

 

An acoustic report has not been submitted as part of the application, which is cognisant of the apparent increase in number of people frequenting the premises as a consequence of the proposed change of use to a hotel.  The application is thus deficient in failing to take into account the potential noise increase from increased numbers. 

 

Further, the approved hours of operation are proposed to be increased to “1am the following day” (Monday to Saturday) from the approved hour of 12 midnight for the existing restaurant (Condition 2 of consent to DA 57/199).  It should also be noted that  once the consent for the ground floor extension to the café is taken up, the closing time for the café would be restricted to 8pm under DA 692/2003.  The current proposal seeks to extend the hours for all parts of the premises to 1am.  Therefore there would be more patrons departing the premises at a later hour under the proposed change to a hotel use, thus increasing the likelihood of increased of antisocial behaviour in the area and thus giving rise to unacceptable amenity impacts to surrounding streets as patrons make their way back to their cars parked on the street or seek a taxi as a result of the substantial and significant lack of parking on the premises (refer to Section 9.2.1 of the report below).

 

9.2     79C(1)(a)(iii) Development Control Plans

9.2.1  Randwick Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The proposal for the change of use to a hotel generates a substantial requirement for on-site parking resulting in a deficit in excess of 70 car parking spaces (refer Development Engineer’s comments).  Please note, the applicant has also not advised within the application, the total number of additional staff required to operate the changed premises, with its increased capacity and extended operating hours and this would be an extra impost also for on-site parking, which has not been included within the calculation. 

 

No additional parking is proposed, instead the proposal shows a configuration for 13 on-site car parking spaces, which is a reduction in three (3) spaces from that approved under the consent to DA 26/2002.  This consent was for three dwellings on the top level of the building and which have now been constructed.  The approved carpark under this consent is configured with 20 car parking spaces and which should be should be currently operational, however a site visit by Council Officers indicates that the existing carpark is not configured with the approved parking layout and also a number of spaces were being used for storage purposes.  Council’s Compliance Officers are currently investigating these matters. 

 

It should also be noted that under the approved car parking plan for the premises, Car Space Nos. 19 and 20 are conditioned to be clearly line marked and signposted as ‘Staff Parking Small Car Only’.  As well three (3) of the spaces within the carpark are required to be resident spaces, two of which are to be secured.  These requirements were not observed on site at the time of inspection.

 

Although, the most recent consent for the premises, under DA 692/2003, involving the expansion of the ground floor terrace serving the take-away café, removes two (2) of the approved car spaces, Car Space Nos. 19 and 20, which are designated for staff parking (resulting in a carpark configuration with 19 car spaces), this consent has not yet been taken up.

 

It is not considered that the applicant has provided a satisfactory justification that the increased parking demand can be taken up within the surrounding street system, as no parking study has been submitted to demonstrate that there is spare capacity in peak periods, within a reasonable walking distance from the premises. 

 

Instead, the applicant’s consultant states that the operational characteristics as a hotel will be similar to that of the existing restaurant.  This is not considered to be a satisfactory argument, as it ignores the additional seating capacity between the approved restaurant and that configured on the proposed seating layout and potential increase in numbers of people that the hotel that may frequent the premises and which is unrestricted. 

 

The applicant’s consultant also compares the proposed hotel with the existing Beach Palace Hotel, Coogee Bay Hotel and Clovelly Hotel.  These are long established hotels and any recent intensification of their use has been assessed taking into account appropriate parking studies.  Furthermore, the Coogee Bay and Beach Palace Hotels are well served by public transport, taxi services and the Pumpkin Bus Service, whereas the subject site is located in a relatively isolated position, in terms of accessibility. 

 

9.3     79C(1)(b) - Likely impacts of the development

 

Under Section 79C(1)(b) of the EP& A Act, Council is obliged to take into consideration the likely impacts of the development, including the environmental impacts on both the natural and built environment and the social and economic impacts in the locality. 

 

The potential impacts arising from the change in use to a hotel, intensification of use of the premises through increased patron numbers and extended hours of operation include noise from within the premises, noise and anti-social behaviour from departing patrons, including violence, vandalism, public urination and drink driving, with consequent impacts on residential amenity.

 

The applicant has submitted a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) which has been assessed by Council’s Senior Strategic Planner (refer Section 6.3 of the report).  In summary, Council’s Senior Strategic Planner has found that the applicant’s SIA not to adequately examine the social impacts or describe a net community benefit resulting from the proposal.  It relies on strict compliance with and enforcement of a plan of management and proposed conditions of consent.  Reliance on the proposed conditions of consent and plan of management places considerable onus on the operator’s vigilance, residents reporting of complaints and Council monitoring. 

 

Furthermore given the potential substantial impacts to both the community and surrounding residences, it is not considered appropriate to seek to control these impacts by conditions of consent (which may not be able to cover all of the potential outcomes or be observed in their entirety).  It is also not considered appropriate to condition the consent in order to ameliorate impacts given the absence of satisfactory analysis within the SIA, the lack of necessary detail within the application, such as staff numbers, lack of supporting documentation, such as a Parking Study, Acoustic Report, patron surveys, etc and the ambiguous nature of the proposal in relation to patron numbers and its existing operation and future operation as an hotel. 

 

Safety and security is of paramount importance to the local community and surrounding residents.  The hotel use has the ability to attract large numbers of people and has the potential to disturb the area.  This can be only achieved through the careful management of its activities.  As there is no additional on site parking provided to cater for the increase in numbers of patrons and the extended hours, it also means that the behaviour of patrons leaving the site and making their way to cars or seeking other means of transport is also of concern, particularly late at night and early in the morning after consuming alcohol.

 

The suggested conditions of consent provided by the applicant provide for only two security officers and these to be only on duty on a Friday and Saturday from 8pm until “the last patron has left the vicinity of the licensed premises”.  As well, it is suggested that the licensee “install and maintain digital video surveillance cameras and records to monitor and record all entrances to the Hotel, all bar areas used by patrons, whilst the premises are open for business, and the immediate environs of the front of the premises”.  Unless someone is constantly monitoring the cameras it is only of benefit as a record after an incident has happened and it is unclear from the information how incidents will be managed. 

 

Further, the plan of management states that ‘the licensee will take all reasonable measures to ensure that the behaviour of staff and patrons when entering or leaving the premises does not detrimentally affect the amenity of the neighbourhood.  The “reasonable measures” are not stated other than the “management shall be vigilant” and shall erect signs “requesting patrons to leave quietly” and “staff shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that there is no loitering by persons”.  It is considered that the language used is vague and imprecise and in effect may be unrealistic and unachievable.

 

While the present owner may seek to ensure the responsible operation of the premises, this may not always be the case, especially under any future ownership.  In the circumstances, it is considered a precautionary approach is necessary to the level of uncertainty contained within the current proposal and as such the proposal warrants refusal.

 

9.4     79C(1)(c) - The suitability of the site for the development

 

While the 3B Local Business Zone allows for development for the purpose of an hotel subject to development consent, the site is constrained by its proximity to the surrounding 2A Residential Zone, as well as its proximity to residential dwellings adjacent and nearby within the 3B Local Business Zone and also on the upper level of the subject premises.  The operation of any hotel in close proximity to residential properties has inherent with it, characteristic behavioural and amenity impacts associated with the consumption of alcohol, including noise and anti-social behaviour.  The building has been purpose built as a restaurant, shops and caretaker’s residence and has been adapted and modified over time to incorporate a take-away café and three residential dwellings.  It has not been purpose built as a hotel and does not appear to provide any design features to mitigate or control the transmission of noise to surrounding residential premises, especially given its substantial terrace areas and proximity to residential dwellings.

 

There is an existing shortfall in parking for the restaurant, café and dwelling uses, with the number of parking spaces provided on the site eroded over time, under subsequent approvals.  The proposed change of use to a hotel, results in a substantial shortfall in required number of spaces for such a use.  A survey of the existing parking supply in the surrounding street system at peak periods (weekends during summer for instance) has not been undertaken by the applicant to establish the elasticity of parking supply to support the statement made in the Traffic and Parking Assessment (contained within the Social Impact Assessment) that “any excess parking demand will be accommodated on-street. 

 

Furthermore it is considered that the configuration and capacity of the proposal is at odds with a small scale operation serving the local area.  A patron survey of existing customers has not been undertaken to establish its existing and future role in the local community in which it is assumed to serve.  While it may be, as the Traffic and Parking Assessment states, that the proposed hotel “can be expected to attract a significant proportion of its patronage from visitors already in the area”, it will also be likely to be an exclusive attraction in itself.  As such, the area is relatively poorly served by public transport and relatively isolated by way of taxi services, with reliance on motor vehicle use, and inadequate parking provision provided on the site.  Accordingly the site is considered not suitable for the proposed development in terms of parking and potential amenity impacts on the neighbourhood, including noise, anti-social behaviour and safety and security as discussed above. 

 

9.5     79C(1)(d) - Submissions

 

The issues raised in the submissions received as a result of the notification and advertising of the proposal are listed in Section 5 of the report and discussed there and in Sections 6 and 9 of the report.  The submissions raise issues regarding the inherent conflict of the proposal with the 3B Local Business Zone Objectives, shortfall in the amount of parking provided on the site, potential noise impacts and the potential for anti-social behaviour, the heritage nature of the area, and the public interest.  In the main, the objections are supported and given the potential impacts from the changed use, as well as the increase in intensity of the use of the premises, the apparent inconsistencies in the application and the lack of substantive detail as outlined within the report, it is considered that refusal is warranted.

 

9.6     79C(1)(e) - The public interest

 

The applicant argues that the proposed change of use to a “tavern/restaurant” will provide “flexibility it needs to continue to operate the existing restaurant on the premises, but also to provide drinks without meals for day trippers and visitors to La Perouse, and to provide limited take-away service”.  As previously discussed in the report (refer Section 6.1), by granting a consent to operate under a hotelier’s licence, the dominant and primary purpose becomes the retail sale of alcohol, whether for consumption on the premises or to take-away, that is a “hotel” under the meaning of the LEP and the Liquor Act.  The restaurant and bistro uses become ancillary to the primary purpose.  It has been not been made clear in the application what numbers, that the hotel is going to cater for other than by describing the existing restaurant capacity (which is in excess of that it is limited to under its current consents) and by suggesting a condition which only sets a minimum number of 200 people at tables. 

 

The conditions suggested by the applicant to control the operation of the hotel are generally broad and some even unenforceable (such as the prohibition on poker machines).  It is not considered appropriate or desirable to try and anticipate all the negative impacts, such as noise, associated with the change in use and intensification proposed and then control the operation of the premises by conditions of consent, especially given the lack of clarity and apparent inconsistencies contained in the application. 

 

It is therefore not in the public interest to allow such an open-ended hotel use, particularly one that has the potential to attract large numbers of people to a particularly sensitive local business area and with its potential to disturb the surrounding residential dwellings.  It is considered that the proposal does not contain adequate or sufficient measures to be self-regulating, relying at a public cost to the community and Council to regulate and enforce by condition its on-going operation, as there is an inherent conflict between the activity, hours of operation and surrounding residential areas.

 

10.  RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:                  A Liveable City.

Direction 6b:                 Our town centres, beaches, public places and streets are safe, inviting, clean and support a recognisable image of our city.

Direction 6c:                 The safety of our community is paramount and is acknowledged and supported through proactive policies, programmes and strategies.

 

Outcome 7:                  Heritage that is protected and celebrated.

Direction7a.                  Our heritage is recognised, protected and celebrated.

 

11.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12.  CONCLUSION

 

The application proposes a change in use from a restaurant to a hotel with a substantial increase in patron numbers, relying on strict compliance with and enforcement of Plan of Management and with “suggested” conditions of consent, to minimise the adverse impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood and the community.  The level of analysis and detail provided with the application is considered deficient.  A hotel use, particularly one that has the potential to attract large numbers of people and has the potential to disturb the area, requires careful management of its activities.  Given the lack of appropriate analysis and lack of supporting documentation and detail, it is considered inappropriate in the circumstances to seek to control the operation of the proposed hotel by conditions of consent.  Therefore a precautionary approach is warranted by Council and refusal of the application is recommended.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No DA 575/2006 for the proposed use from existing premises at 1605 Anzac Parade, La Perouse to a tavern/restaurant operating under a hotelier's licence at 1605 Anzac Parade for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed development is inconsistent with the Aims and the Objectives “j” and “k” of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

2.     The proposed development is inconsistent with the Objective (d) for Zone No. 3B (Local Business Zone) as contained within the Randwick LEP.

 

3.     The proposed development fails to provide sufficient parking on-site in accordance with the Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking in order to cater for the additional demand arising from the change in use and increased hours.

 

4.     The proposed development will be a more intensive use and will adversely affect the character and amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties and the locality in terms of increased traffic, noise, safety and security, and hours of operation. 

 

5.     The proposed development is not in the public interest.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID PIRIE

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

17 November, 2006

FILE NO:

DA 856/06 & PROP008831

 

PROPOSAL:

 Hard stand carspace to the dwelling

PROPERTY:

 25 Coogee Street , Randwick

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 B Neowhouse

OWNER:

B J Neowhouse & J M Neowhouse

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Notley-Smith, Nash and Procopiadis.

 

The application details the installation of a hardstand carspace to the front of the dwelling.

 

The main issue is the impact of the proposed development upon the streetscape and non compliance with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes the removal of most of the existing front fence and the excavation of the front yard area to allow for the installation of a concrete carspace to the front of the dwelling having dimensions of 4.8m deep x 6m wide.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is on the northern side of Coogee Street and has a frontage of 10.058m a depth of 41.150m and an area of 414m². At present there is a free standing single storey dwelling on this site. The surrounding area is residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings, and multi unit housing development.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Notification.  No response has been received.

 

5.    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

 

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

 

6.    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.

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.

50% 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 150m2. 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.

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. 

40% of the site is permeable. Complies.

Whilst the proposal complies with the preferred solutions in relation to landscaped area, the majority of the soft landscaping at the front of the dwelling will be replaced with hard surfaces, significantly impacting on the aesthetic qualities of the site and its contribution to streetscape character.

Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The dimensions of the parking spaces are 4.8m x 6m. Does not comply – see assessment below

S1

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

The proposed driveway is 3 metres wide and is set back 1.5 metre from the side boundary. Complies.

S1

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

The proposed driveway is 6 metres at the front boundary. Does not comply see assessment below.

S2

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

The proposed garage is located behind the building line. Does not comply – see assessment below

S2

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

The proposed carspace occupies 60% of the width of the site frontage. Does not comply - see assessment below.

 

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.

It is considered that the proposed new carspace to the front of the property will not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in that the carspace will be visually obtrusive and will detract from both the appearance of the dwelling and local streetscape. There is an existing front garden situated behind a sandstone and timber picket front fence, which collectively make a positive contribution to the value of the local streetscape and the removal of almost all of this garden, and front fence will severely degrade the streetscape in this section of Coogee Street.

 

7.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome: Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

8.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposal does not comply with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will result in an adverse impact upon the appearance of the dwelling and the local street scape and the character of the locality.

 

For these reasons the application for the installation of the carspace cannot be supported and is recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.549/06 for permission to install a new hard stand carspace at 25 Coogee Street Randwick for the following reasons;

 

1.       The proposed carspace does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that siting of the proposed carspace to the front of the dwelling and up to the front boundary will detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the local streetscape.

 

2.       The proposed carspace does not comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the carspace will occupy more than 35% of the width of the site, eroding the existing soft landscaping at the front of the site, and the minimum depth of 5.5m is not provided which may lead to vehicles overhanging the street boundary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS: 

 

Nil

 

 

 

…………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR , CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

 

Director, City Planning Report 106/2006

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

COMPREHENSIVE LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN (LEP) and DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN (DCP) UPDATE AND CONSULTATION STRATEGY

 

 

DATE:

24 October, 2006

FILE NO:

F2006/00611

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING       

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

This report provides an update on the preparation of the Comprehensive LEP/DCP and sets out the proposed Consultation Strategy for the project. 

 

The preparation of the Comprehensive LEP/DCP requires extensive resources over the next 3-4 years.  The attached Project Framework and Consultation Strategy outlines the key tasks of the project, the timeframe and the consultation to be undertaken.   Work on the comprehensive LEP and DCP has recently commenced and will be reported to Council regularly.  Consultation will be tailored to provide extensive opportunity for community and stakeholder involvement and comment throughout the process.

 

The development of the Comprehensive LEP/DCP is a legislative requirement under the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Standard Template Order, to be completed no later than March 2011.  However, given a number of current planning provisions require updating, it is proposed to complete the plans within an earlier timeframe.  The plans will be guided by the Randwick City Plan, and the State Government’s Greater Metropolitan Strategy and the, soon to be released, East Sub-region Draft Strategy.

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Council meeting of 27 June 2006 a report was provided to Council on the preparation of the comprehensive LEP/DCP, including a preliminary table of tasks and broad timeframes.

 

This table of tasks and timeframes has been further refined and linked to a consultation strategy for the project.  The Project Framework and Consultation Strategy, in attachment 1, sets out the proposed timeframe for completion of the Comprehensive LEP/DCP by the end of 2009 and key tasks and consultation to be used.  The proposed timeframe will enable Council to address planning provisions which require review as part of the Comprehensive process and leaves an additional 14 months for a second exhibition/

review should it be required. 

It is noted that the comprehensive LEP/DCP is a legislative requirement under the Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Standard Template Order, gazetted March 2006.  Council has been advised that Randwick City has five years, until March 2011, in which to prepare the Comprehensive LEP/DCP in line with the template.  Should plans not be completed and gazetted by this deadline, the State may intervene and complete the plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

Guiding framework

The development of the Comprehensive LEP/DCP will be guided by the directions of the Randwick City Plan, the Greater Metropolitan Strategy (GMS) and the, soon to be released, East Sub-Region draft Strategy, which provides detail to the GMS and comprises Randwick City Council, Waverley Council, Woollahra Council and Botany Bay City Council.  The East draft strategy will include objectives and considerations for future growth within the region based on a similar format to the GMS.  The sub-regional draft Strategy will include housing and employment targets for the East region, developed by the Department of Planning, in consultation with local Councils. 

 

The Metropolitan Strategy, released December 2005, forecasts that the East region will accommodate an extra (approximately) 19,000 dwellings over the next 25 years, by 2031, distributed throughout the four Council areas and largely located within established centres.  It is noted that much of Randwick’s capacity for new dwellings is in large redevelopment sites such as Prince Henry and Bundock Street and within the larger town centres, such as Maroubra Junction.  Preliminary assessment indicates that Randwick City’s target of 8,000 dwellings over the next 25 years, as the largest local government area in the sub-region, will be able to be accommodated without significant zoning alterations, i.e. capacity exists within the existing zoning provisions or areas identified within the City Plan, though further analysis will be required when the sub-regional Strategy is released.

 

The employment targets within the Metropolitan Strategy for the East region forecast growth of 17,000 jobs distributed across the four Council areas by 2031.  For Randwick City much of this growth is likely to be within the Specialised University and Hospitals Precinct, town centres and the industrial area/Port Botany.  A planning and design study for the Specialised University and Hospitals Precinct is to commence in 2007 and will provide key input into the Comprehensive LEP/DCP in terms of future development and employment opportunities.

 

It is anticipated the East Sub-region draft Strategy will be released for public exhibition and submissions in the coming months.  Regular updates, including exhibition dates and submissions, will be reported to Council.

 

Project Framework and reporting

An Administrative LEP is currently being prepared to make minor clarifications and corrections and which will consolidate all Randwick LEP amendments.  As preparation of the Comprehensive LEP/DCP requires review of all current environmental planning instruments and DCPs, updating and consolidating the current Randwick LEP will facilitate and simplify preparation and consultation on the comprehensive LEP. 

 

It is proposed to review current planning and land use and report progressively to Council. This will enable reporting of manageable components of information.  Following the reviews, all issues will be included in the draft comprehensive LEP/DCP for reporting and consultation. 

 

The review process will be as follows:

·    Industrial

·    Commercial/town centres

·    UNSW/Hospitals precinct

·    Residential, and

·    Other, including open space, special uses etc.

 

The issues papers for each land use will address the translation of the current LEP provisions into the appropriate Standard Template provisions and format.  The issues paper will also review the applicable DCP controls and make recommendations for controls to be included in the comprehensive DCP. 

 

Each review is expected to require approximately 6 months, with the exception of the residential review which will require approximately 12 months work.  The first issue being reviewed is industrial land, currently being completed and to be reported to Council early in the new-year. 

 

Principles and assumptions

The following principles and assumptions underlie the preparation of the plans and consultations:

 

·    City Plan directions will be uses as a key basis for any changes

·    One LEP as required by the legislation

·    One DCP as required by the legislation

Note:  This LEP/DCP preparation and timing should take precedence over other LEP/DCP changes over the next 4 years.

 

State Government Planning Direction No 21 – Residential Zones applies when Council prepares a draft LEP which creates, alters or removes a residential zone boundary or provision.  Under this direction Council may not reduce the permissible residential density on any land to which the plan applies, and as practicable with the environmental quality of the area should provide for a variety of housing forms (such as dual occupancy) and increase the residential density on the land.  Any inconsistency with this direction is to be well supported by an environmental study and/or consistent with an approved local or regional Strategy, considered of minor significance and is to be approved by the Director General.

 

Consultation

A range of communication methods and consultation is to be undertaken over the term of the project.   The comprehensive LEP / DCP apply to the entire local government area.  The consultation strategy has been developed to provide extensive opportunity for community and stakeholder involvement and comment throughout the process.

 

 

The range of consultation to be used at key stages will include:

 

·    Randwick City website – ongoing updates

·    Dedicated email address for the comprehensive plans

·    Newspaper advertising and Mayoral columns

·    Direct written notification to a database of interested persons/groups

·    Newsletters/pamphlets/surveys

·    Councillor briefings by way of update reports and briefing meetings

·    Combined and individual Precinct group, Combined and individual Chamber of Commerce briefings

·    Community briefings

·    Static and roving information displays

·    Peer review of draft planning changes

·    Statutory public exhibition/s – 2 formal exhibitions anticipated.

 

The consultation strategy is to be reviewed at key stages to ensure that consultation is sufficient and suitable throughout the process.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 3:      An informed and engaged community

Direction 3a:     Effective communication methods and technology are used to share information and provide services.

 

Outcome 6:      A liveable city

Direction 6d:    Strategic land use framework provides for our lifestyle changes and for a continuing, yet low rate of growth across the City.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The preparation of the comprehensive LEP/DCP has been identified in the 2006/07 budget, with $80,000 allocated to undertake relevant research, including peer review of the industrial audit and commercial/industrial trends, commencement of the UNSW and Hospitals Precinct review, consultations and  purchase of demographic and other statistical data and mapping.  It is noted that this project will be ongoing over the next four years, require ongoing funding commitment and a team of 4 - 5 staff in strategic planning averaging 1- 2 days input per week as well as GIS and communications resources at key stages.

 

Council has submitted an application to the Department of Planning’s Planning Reform Funding Program 2006-07 seeking funding to assist with the preparation of the Comprehensive LEP/DCP over the four year period for peer reviews, consultation and mapping GIS support.  Successful applications are to be announced by the Department in the coming months. 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The attached Project Framework and Consultation Strategy outlines the key tasks of the project, the timeframe and the consultation strategy to be used for each component.  This will be the main project for the strategic planning team over the next 2 years intensively during research and review stages, then for the following 2 years during the exhibition and finalisation of the plan. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council note and endorse the process for preparing the issues based staging of the background work for input into the Comprehensive LEP/DCP.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Proposed Consultation Strategy

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ROBYN EISERMANN

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

COORDINATOR STRATEGIC PLANNING

 

 


                        ATTACHMENT 1 – COMPREHENISVE LEP / DCP PROJECT FRAMEWORK AND CONSULTATION STRATEGY

 

Target timeframe

Key

milestones

Key tasks

Ý

Ongoing preparation up to this point

Consultation / Task objectives

 

Range of potential consultation to be used

Early / Mid 2007

 

Preliminary

Pre consultation /

Agency consultation

Preliminary preparation and consultation for issue reviews anticipated to require approximately 6 months

Ongoing consultation methods

 

ongoing

Commence awareness communications and continue these throughout the process

·    To raise the awareness within the general community of the process and timeframes

·    To invite submissions for consideration early  in the development of the LEP / DCP

·    To develop consultation database of interested parties / stakeholders

·    To provide ongoing updates and information on preparation of the plans

·   Randwick website

·   Mayoral Columns

·   Newsletter / pamphlet / postcard in rates notices

·   Newspaper advertising

·   Dedicated email address for early comment

·   Councillor Briefing sessions (either prior to Council meetings 3-6 monthly or meeting with individuals and/or update reports)

·   Quarterly update to Combined Precinct Committees

·   Quarterly updates to Combined Chambers of Commerce

·   Library and administrative building displays

·   Database updates at key points eg reports to council

·   Dedicated email address

 

 

ongoing

Develop databases

·   Consolidation of a database for use during consultation phases

Arising from above

 

 

Section 62  / Section 63 consultation

 

Statutory

·    To advise agencies of the Comprehensive LEP / DCP, and to seek their comments for consideration  in the plan preparation

Direct letters to relevant agencies / meetings

 

 

 

 

Section 34A consultation

Statutory

·    Seek National Parks and Wildlife comments for consideration  in the plan preparation

 

Direct letter / meetings

 

 

Department of Planning liaison

·     Regularly meet with DoP on State planning issues and progress

meetings

Ongoing through 2007 and 2008

 

 

Issues reviews

 

In addition to the above ongoing consultations

 

Issue reviews – approx 6 months work each

Ý

Complete and report to council

·     Industrial land review

·     Commercial / town centres review

·     UNSW / Hospitals Precinct

·     Other – including open space, environmental and special uses

 

Ý

Complete and report to council

·     Residential review

This review is anticipated to be reported in stages – North, Central and South

 

·   Research and identify needs and issues

·   Invite submissions / comments and focus on key stakeholders for different issues

 

·    Direct letter to industrial land owners advising of the project, seeking feedback (survey),

·    Develop stakeholder /  interested parties database

·    Undertake relevant surveys of interest groups

·    Roving and static displays

·    Report to Council seeking endorsement  of  issues / review for inclusion draft plans for exhibition

·    Direct notification of Council meeting to stakeholders

Ongoing through late 2008, 2009

 

LEP / DCP Preparation and formal consultation

It is anticipated the draft plans will require 2 formal exhibitions during preparation to allow for feedback to be included into the draft plans. 

A public hearing may be held during the second exhibition if required (ie reclassification requests)

In addition to the above ongoing consultations

 

Preparation of the draft plans

Ý

Complete preparation of draft LEP

Internal preparation based on issues reviews

·   Peer review

·   Internal w/shops

·   Councillor briefings / updates

 

 

Section 54 report

(Statutory)

·    Advice to DoP of Council’s intention to prepare the draft Plan

Letter

 

 

Referral to LEP review panel

(Statutory)

·    Legislative requirement 

Standard submission format

 

 

Referral to Parliamentary Counsel

(Statutory)

·    Legislative requirement

Letter

 

 

Review draft plans following DoP feedback

Prepare for exhibition

Internal preparation

 

·  Posters / Advertising

·  Shopfronts if required

·  Statutory requirements folders

 

 

S64/65/66 Report to Council for approval to exhibit draft plans

Internal preparation

·   Direct notification of Council meeting to stakeholders

 

Exhibition of plans (s66)

Exhibition of draft plans

(Statutory)

·   Invite submissions and comments for their consideration in the finalisation of the plans

 

·    Rates notices

·    Regarding Randwick / newspaper advertising

·    Invite submissions

·    Briefing / forums with Precinct Groups

·    Briefing / forums with Chambers of commerce

·    Briefing / forums stakeholders

 

 

Review and report to council

Review submissions and amend draft plans as required

 

2009 /10

 

Re - exhibition

Re-exhibition of plans and public hearings if required

·  As per first exhibition

 

Finalise and print

Finalisation and reporting of draft plans

 

(Statutory)

Legislative requirement

·   Website information

·   Direct notification of Council meeting to stakeholders

2010

 

Further time if additional exhibitions / reporting is required by March  2011

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 107/2006

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS - RECEIPT OF OWNERSHIP

 

 

DATE:

23 November, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07952

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received ownership titles to four (4) affordable dwelling units.  These dwellings will shortly be tenanted under Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Program. 

 

The dwellings were negotiated from developers using a voluntary agreement process developed by Council officers in 2003.  Council’s LEP provisions, requiring the preparation of a master plan for sites over 4,000 square metres or for development proposing 400 dwellings or more, provided the legislative backing. Through this process, a total of 15 dwellings have been negotiated since 2002.

 

Council has received ownership titles to the following dwellings:

 

§ Unit 2.04, Building 3, 717-745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction

§ Unit 2.05, Building 3, 717-745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction

§ Unit 2.06, Building 2, 717-745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction

§ Unit 1.1.03 Building 1, 88-98 King Street Randwick.

 

ISSUES:

 

At its meeting of 27 August 2002, Council resolved to amend its Local Environmental Plan to encourage the retention and provision of affordable housing in Randwick City Council.  Shortly thereafter, Council officers developed a voluntary agreement process which includes negotiating with developers of major sites to provide 1% of approved dwelling units to Council for affordable housing purposes.

 

In March 2006, Council endorsed an affordable rental housing management program.  This was followed by the establishment of program guidelines and policies, adopted by Council at its meeting held in June 2007. 

 

A Housing Association, St George Community Housing (SGCH), was recently appointed to manage Council’s affordable housing properties, following a competitive selection process.

 

A Deed of Management Agreement between Council and SGCH, setting out the housing manager’s responsibility and role, is close to being finalised.  SGCH will shortly be advertising for potential tenants in the Southern Courier, as well as targeting major service employment nodes such as educational establishments, hospitals, and bus depots. 

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:      A liveable City

Direction 6e:     Housing diversity, accessibility and adaptability to support our diverse                            community is enhanced.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The transfer of these affordable housing units to Council’s ownership is a significant milestone.  This achievement stands as testimony to Council’s commitment and effectiveness of processes, in realising its affordable housing objectives.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

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

SIMA TRUUVERT

TERESA MOK

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

COORDINATOR COMMUNITY PLANNING

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 108/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CONSIDER LISTING RANDWICK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH ON THE STATE HERITAGE REGISTER

 

 

DATE:

16 November, 2006

FILE NO:

F2006/00204

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING     

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

This report provides comment on a proposal by the NSW Heritage Office to list the Randwick Presbyterian Church on the State Heritage Register.  This report considers the heritage merit of the proposal and recommends that Council endorse the proposed listing and write to the NSW Heritage Office and advise accordingly.

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The NSW Heritage Office has issued a notice on intention to consider listing Randwick Presbyterian Church on the State Heritage Register, in acknowledgement of its heritage significance to the people of New South Wales.  The Heritage Office has invited comment on the proposed listing.

 

ISSUES:

 

Randwick Presbyterian Church, at 12 Abbey Street, Randwick, on the corner of Alison Road and Cook Street, is already listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The site is also occupied by Coogee Boys’ Preparatory School, a two storey building connected to the rear elevation of the church, and by a Federation style Manse completed in 1900. 

 

The attached draft Statement of Significance prepared by the NSW Heritage Office details the significance of the building and determines the level of significance using State heritage Register (SHR) Criteria, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SHR Criteria a)

[Historical Significance]

The church is of local significance for its ability to demonstrate: the establishment of the Presbyterian Church in Randwick from 1884; the spread of Presbyterianism in Sydney’s suburbs; and the architectural presence deemed appropriate by the church during this period in NSW.

SHR Criteria b)

[Associative Significance]

The Randwick Presbyterian Church is of State significance for its association with the influential English-born architect Sir John Sulman (1849-1934).  The church designed by Sulman in the Victorian Academic Classical style represents a rare departure from the Gothic Revival and Romanesque Revival style churches that prevailed in nineteenth century NSW.  In addition, the church is considered to be the first designed by Sulman in NSW.

SHR Criteria c)

[Aesthetic Significance]

The Randwick Presbyterian Church is of State significance as an aesthetically distinctive and highly intact example of the Victorian Academic Classical style church in NSW, and the only church of this style designed by Sulman and Power.  The church interior, designed in the form of a Greek theatre, is considered to be John Sulman’s finest non-Gothic church interior, and on of the best non-Gothic church interiors in NSW. 

SHR Criteria d)

[Social Significance]

The church is of local significance to the Presbyterian church community of Randwick municipality and to past students of Coogee Boys Preparatory School.

SHR Criteria e)

[Research Significance]

The Randwick Presbyterian Church is of State significance as an important reference site demonstrating the adaptation of European ecclesiastical architecture to the climate of the Southern Hemisphere.

SHR Criteria f)

[Rarity]

The Randwick Presbyterian Church is of State significance as one of only a very small group of Victorian Academic Classical styled churches in NSW and the only example by Sulman and Power.  The church was originally conceived in 1886, revised in 1888, and considered to be the first church designed by Sulman in his Australian practice.

SHR Criteria g)

[Representativeness]

The church is representative of the architecturally impressive churches built by the Presbyterian Church in the late nineteenth century in the suburbs of Sydney.

 

John Sulman, already an experienced architect, arrived with his family from England in 1885 and later formed a highly successful partnership with Joseph Porter Power (1889-1908).  Sulman became an influential figure in NSW in matters of architecture and town planning, giving evidence to Royal Commissions, advising NSW Government Ministers, and writing at length on town planning, with many of his proposal evident in Sydney today.  Sulman lectured in architecture (1887-1912) and town planning (1919-1926) at the University of Sydney, was president of the Town Planning Association of New South Wales (1913-1925) and chairman of the Town Planning Advisory Board to the Department of Local Government  in 1918.  He was a trustee of the National Art Gallery of New South Wales and established the annual Sir John Sulman award for architectural merit in NSW. 

Sulman designed churches in a number of styles including English Gothic (Springwood) and Romanesque (Manly and Woollahra).  The Victorian Academic Classical style is not commonly used in church buildings, and although Randwick Presbyterian Church is incomplete (two proposed towers were never built) it is a highly distinctive building, both externally and internally, in its form and detailing. 

 

Randwick Presbyterian Church has recently undergone conservation works funded by the NSW Heritage Office Conservation Incentives Program comprising repair and replacement of damaged and missing sandstone decorative elements.  These works, carried out by a skilled and experienced stonemason under the supervision of a heritage/conservation architect, have enhanced the heritage significance of the building.  Funding is generally offered only the places of State significance.

 

As part of the Conservation Incentives funding agreement, the church, in accepting the funding, agree to certain conditions, including that they will support and raise no objection to State listing.  The Heritage Office has written to both the church and the school to notify them of the proposed listing.  Any submissions received from the church or the school will be considered, with particular attention to how minor works on the site can be exempted from Heritage Office consent. 

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:         Outcome 7: Heritage that is protected and celebrated

Direction:          Direction 7a: Our heritage is recognised, protected and celebrated.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The building is already recognised in Council’s LEP for its heritage significant at a local level.  The building has high rarity value, aesthetic significance, and associative significance with architect and town planner Sir John Sulman.  The intention of the NSW Heritage Office to list Randwick Presbyterian Church on the State Heritage Register, in recognition of its State Heritage Significance, should therefore be supported. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)       Council endorse the Notice of Intention from the NSW Heritage Office to consider listing the Randwick Presbyterian Church on the State Heritage Register.

 

b)      Council write to the NSW Heritage Office advising of Council’s full support for the nomination and listing of the Randwick Presbyterian Church on the State Heritage Register.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Draft Statement of Significance - Under Separate Cover

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

LORRAINE SIMPSON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER HERITAGE

 

 

 


 



This photograph was taken by Council’s Assessment Officer 21st of November 2006. The photograph was taken at standing height (1.7m) with a digital snapshot camera with the optical zoom fixed at a focal length of 50mm. This focal length is generally considered to depict the most accurate perspective in a 35mm-format photograph. A wider focal length (say 28mm) emphasis the foreground and diminish the background. A longer focal length (say 100mm) does the opposite. However, it is always prudent to note that 35mm-format snapshot photography does not capture a true sense of perspective and distance.