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

6 March 2007

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, 13TH MARCH 2007 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 MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 13TH FEBRUARY, 2007.

 

3           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

4           Addressing of Committee by Members of the Public

 

5           Urgent Business

 

6           Development Applications

 

6.1                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 47-53 DUDLEY STREET, COOGEE.

2

6.2                    

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 26 GROSE STREET LITTLE BAY.

25

6.3                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 2-14 MAROUBRA ROAD, MAROUBRA.

43

6.4                      

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REPORT - 17 CHURCH STREET RANDWICK.

56

 

7           Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

8                      Notice of Rescission Motions

……………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER.


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

13 February, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1120/2006 & PROP020761,69,73 & 817

 

PROPOSAL:

 Construction of a roof-top terrace for unit 12, including internal staircase, balustrades and stairwell structure.

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

 

The development application is referred to Health, Building and Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Tracey, Procopiadis, and Matson.

 

The proposal comprises a 50 square metre roof terrace above the third storey of the approved residential flat building at 47-53 Dudley Street, Coogee. The terrace would have internal stair access from unit 12 only. To address the issue of privacy, there is a deferred commencement condition in the recommendation that reduces the length of the terrace by 2.5 metres.

 

The proposal relates to a regular shaped corner site with frontages to Asher Street and Dudley Street in Coogee. The site has a total site area of approximately 1,231.5m2. An approved 3-storey residential flat building with basement parking is presently under construction.

 

The site has an extensive recent development history. A 4-storey residential flat building was refused consent in November 2004. The 3-storey residential flat building presently under construction was approved in November 2005. Relevant to this proposal, a fourth storey addition to units 11 and 12 was refused consent 28 July 2006 late last year, and then refused consent again under a section 82A review 15 December 2006. The principle issues included bulk, view loss, design quality, and non-compliance. In its last incarnation, the fourth storey addition related to unit 12 only and was refused consent mainly because of view loss from a nearby dwelling at 80 Dudley Street, Coogee.

 

The present application is the subject of many objections from nearby residents, primarily on the basis of view loss, visual impact, visual privacy and noise. On review of those matters, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. The proposal does not include an additional storey as in previous applications.

 

Deferred commencement approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal comprises a 50 square metre roof terrace above the third storey of the approved residential flat building at 47-53 Dudley Street, Coogee. The terrace would have internal stair access from unit 12 only. The stair would have a small enclosure about 1.9 metres high. The terrace would be located generally in the north-eastern part of the roof. There is a deferred commencement condition that reduces the area of the terrace to 36 square metres and another that requires frameless glass balustrades and other compatible materials and colours. This is to address privacy and visual impact as discussed under the ‘Environmental Assessment’ heading of this report.

 

3.    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.

 

The subject site is bound by Dudley Street to the south with a frontage of 36.505m and Asher Street to the 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.

 

An approved 3-storey residential flat building is presently under construction.

 

Figure 1 – Aerial photograph of the subject site.

 


 

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.    SITE HISTORY

 

A chronological outline of the site’s recent development application history follows.

 

4.1      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.

 

4.2      Development Application No. 68/2005 (DA 68/2005) for a three (3) storey multiunit 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 8 November, 2005. This approval related to a site reduced in size by one allotment (45 Dudley Street) from the site relating to the previous refusal (DA 285/2004).

 

4.3      A Section 96 (2) application to modify the consent was approved by Council 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 changes to the fenestration. The approval of the Section 96 application included a condition that removed the enclosure of the front balconies to reduce the floor space ratio to 1.16:1.

 

4.4      Development Application No. 221/2006 for a fourth storey addition to the three-storey residential flat building was refused by Council 28 July 2006. The 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 included internal stair access from Level 3 of each apartment to the new fourth level. Consent was refused because of floor space, bulk, and scale, in-consistency with SEPP 65 design principles and zone objectives, and view loss.

 

4.5      The applicant requested that Council review its decision in respect of DA 221/2006 under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The original proposal was revised for the review and comprised a fourth storey addition for unit 11 only. The proposed internal re-configuration remained the same as the original proposal, but for unit 11 only. While the applicant had resolved inconsistency with the SEPP 65 design principles, Council upheld its previous refusal, principally on view loss, 15 December, 2006.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with Council policy. Submissions were received from the following people:

 

1.   Jennifer Shaw, 3/78A Dudley Street, Coogee

2.   Jane Becker and Harriet Grahame, 80 Dudley Street, Coogee

3.   Judy Bridgman, 45 Dudley Street, Coogee

4.   Peter Greig, 5/78a Dudley Street, Coogee

5.   Michael Richards, 88 Dudley Street, Coogee

6.   Kristin and Anthony Brann, 4/82 Dudley Street, Coogee

 

The issues raised are categorised below for comment.

 

Precedence

Issue: If this proposal was allowed, further applications would follow.

 

Comment: Further development applications would need to be considered on merit.

 

Lighting

Issue: Inappropriate lighting would be an issue.

 

Comment: There is a deferred commencement condition requiring the submission of a plan for lighting. The plan will need to show low-level lighting that does not spill away or direct glare from the site.

 

Privacy

Issue: The terrace would overlook properties in Asher Street

Issue: The terrace would overlook 55 Dudley Street 

 

Comment: The terrace would have a commanding view of the surrounding area. However, the terrace would be sufficiently distant from the balconies, living rooms and private open spaces of nearby dwellings to guard privacy. A privacy analysis is included under the ‘Environmental Assessment’ section of this report.

 

Poor design outcome

Issue: The proposal to add a roof terraces is an afterthought. It will detract from the overall design of the building.

Issue: These ad-hoc additions rarely produce sound urban planning outcomes.

Issue: The top of the building is visible and it will look ugly.

 

Comment: The impact of the proposed addition on the local character is considered under the ‘Environmental Assessment” section of this report. The impact is found to be minimal. There are conditions dealing with building materials and colours.

 

Non-compliance

Issue: The stairwell structure exceeds the 12 metre height limit.

Issue: The development application continues to ignore the prescribed floor space ratio for the building site.

 

Comment: The terrace and stair enclosure do not significantly contribute the overall bulk and scale of the building. The visual impact of the structures are considered, on merit, under the ‘Environmental Assessment’ heading of this report and found to be acceptable.

 

Additional structures

Issue: The terrace would be overlooked by many properties and the occupants would want additional structures for privacy and shade.

 

Comment: There is a condition in the recommendation that prohibits the installation of fixed or partially-fixed sun or wind barriers.

 

 

 

Noise

Issue: Noise from entertainment on the terrace will bounce around Dudley Street due to the natural amphitheatre characteristics of the street.

Issue: There would be no noise barriers to prevent noise and music from parties.

 

Comment: A number of objectors made reference to the existing noise environment and explained that parties and loud music could be heard in the local area. Noise from the roof terrace would not be any worse than it could potentially be from an ordinary balcony. The roof terrace would not contribute to the existing noise environment in an unreasonable way. Specific noise incidents relating to loud music and parties can be resolved under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act by the Police or Council Officers.

 

Views

Issue: Adversely affect views from 5/78a Dudley Street

 

Comment: A view loss analysis is given under the ‘Environmental Assessment; heading of this report. The analysis provides a description of view loss from the worst affected dwelling at 80 Dudley Street and finds that view loss is satisfactory. View loss from 5/78a Dudley Street would be unlikely and in any event, less severe than the view loss that would be sustained at 80 Dudley Street.

 

Bulk and scale

Issue: The proposal will increase the profile of the building that his already too large to blend effectively with surrounding properties.

 

Comment: The increase in the building ‘profile’ would be negligible and not perceptible at all within the curtilage of the site. As discussed under the ‘Environmental Assessment’ heading of this report, the terrace and stair enclosure could be seen from higher and more distant vantage points, but in this case the additions would blend with the visual array of other buildings and roof-tops in the local built environment.

 

Process and Procedure

Issue: We urgently request that the decision to handle this matter by delegated authority be reversed.

 

Comment: The application was ‘called in’ by Councillors Tracey, Matson and Procopiadis.

 

6.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

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

 

a.    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2B Residential 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:-

 

Clause 31 Landscaped Area

The minimum landscaped area for a building other than a dwelling house within Zone 2C is 50% of the total site area.

 

Landscaped area means the part of a site area that is used, or capable of being used, for outdoor recreation or garden areas (such as lawns, gardens, unroofed swimming pools, clothes drying areas, barbecue areas, footpaths and the like) and includes landscaped podium areas and water tanks located at ground level. It does not include areas used for parking, driveways, balconies, rooftop gardens or areas used for garbage or recycling material storage or sorting.

 

The proposed terrace is over the existing building footprint and does not affect the approved landscaped area for the site.

 

Clause 32 Floor Space Ratio

The maximum floor space ratio for a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone 2C is 0.9:1. Floor space ratio means the ratio of gross floor area to the site area.

 

The stair enclosure adds 7.3m² to the gross floor area of the approved building, increasing the FSR from 1.16:1 to 1.17:1. The encroachment is the subject of a SEPP 1 objection.

 

SEPP 1 objections must clearly articulate the underlying and stated objectives of the standard, demonstrate there are no adverse environmental impacts, and must be consistent with the local planning objectives for the locality and the objects of the Act.

 

This approach was reinforced by Justice Lloyd in Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council (2001) NSWLEC 46 where he asked the four questions of a SEPP 1 objection. These questions will form the basis of this assessment of the SEPP 1 objection.

 

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

 

Yes, the planning control is a development standard contained within Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

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

 

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

 

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 stair enclosure allows the extra amenity of a roof terrace (with views) for the approved development. The structure is 2.3 metres above the level of the terrace and does not actually enclose any useable floor space. The structure is more like a service enclosure than a room and does not create adverse impacts like overshadowing or significant view loss. Compliance with the standard would prohibit the enclosure (as the approved development already exceeds the maximum FSR for the site) without any discernable achievement for the objects of the EP&A Act.

 

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

 

The increase in gross floor area is exceedingly minor. In the absence of any significant impact, strict compliance is considered to be un-necessary.

 

Fifth, is the objection well founded?

 

The applicant offers the following case for the objection:

    The additional floor space over what has already been approved is just 5.7m². This is considered to be insignificant.

 

    The already approved FSR is 1.16:1. (1,428m²). The addition of 5.7m² does not really change that FSR (it becomes 1.164:1). This equates to 0.39% additional floor space.

 

    The stairwell roof does not create any additional overshadowing except onto the main roof of the subject building.

 

    The stairwell roof does not have any significant impact on views from neighbouring properties. This is illustrated by the view analysis photomontage that was previously submitted to council.

 

    The stairwell roof will not be perceptible from street level.

 

    The main roof height in the location of this stairwell, is well below the 12m height limit and the overall building envelope and height presents as one that is well below the height limit.

 

    The stairwell roof blends in with other elements on the main roof such as skylights and lift overruns.

 

The applicant’s argument is considered to be sound.

 

Clause 33 Building Heights

The maximum height for a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2C is 12 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level. The maximum height for any external wall of a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2C is 10 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.

 

The top of the stair enclosure is approximately 12.3 metres above what would have been natural ground level before construction recently commenced and is the subject of a SEPP 1 objection.

 

SEPP 1 objections must clearly articulate the underlying and stated objectives of the standard, demonstrate there are no adverse environmental impacts, and must be consistent with the local planning objectives for the locality and the objects of the Act.

 

This approach was reinforced by Justice Lloyd in Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council (2001) NSWLEC 46 where he asked the four questions of a SEPP 1 objection. These questions will form the basis of this assessment of the SEPP 1 objection.

 

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

Yes, the planning control is a development standard contained within Council’s Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

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

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.

 

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 stair enclosure allows the extra amenity of a roof terrace (with views) for the approved development. The structure is 2.3 metres above the level of the terrace and does not actually enclose any useable floor space. The structure is more like a service enclosure than a room and does not create adverse impacts like overshadowing or significant view loss. The structure would not be visible from within the immediate curtilage of the approved building. From more distant vantage points, the enclosure would be sympathetic to visual array of roof structures on the approved building and with other buildings in the locality. Compliance with the standard would prohibit the enclosure without any discernable achievement for the objects of the EP&A Act.

 

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

 

The height encroachment is exceedingly minor. In the absence of any significant impact, strict compliance is considered to be un-necessary.

 

Fifth, is the objection well founded?

The applicant offers the following case for the objection:

 

    The portion of roof that exceeds the height limit by between 200 and 300mm, is a part of a small stairwell roof located approximately in the centre of the main building footprint.

 

    The area of stairwell roof that exceeds the height limit is just 8.5m².

 

    The stairwell roof does not create any additional overshadowing except onto the main roof of the subject building.

 

    The stairwell roof does not have any significant impact on views from neighbouring properties. This is illustrated by the view analysis photomontage that was previously submitted to council.

 

    The stairwell roof will not be perceptible from street level.

 

    The main roof height in the location of this stairwell, is well below the 12m height limit and the overall building envelope and height presents as one that is well below the height limit.

 

    The stairwell roof blends in with other elements on the main roof such as skylights and lift overruns.

 

The applicant’s argument is considered to be sound.

 

b.   State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings

The proposed terrace is not considered to be a substantial redevelopment or refurbishment of the approved building and is, therefore, not subject tot eh design quality principles outlined in this document.

 

c.   State Environmental Planning Policy: BASIX

The capital value of the proposed works would not exceed $100k and, therefore, are not subject to BASIX requirements.

 

7.    POLICY CONTROLS

a.    Development Control Plan No. Multi-Unit Housing

It is fair to say that the proposed terrace does not offer a great deal of private amenity to the occupants of unit 12. If relied upon to satisfy the private open space requirements of this DCP, the terrace would fail because of its exposure. However, the open space requirements for the occupants of unit 12 have already been satisfied by existing balcony and communal open space area. The roof terrace would be surplus to those existing provisions and is likely to add the benefit of a view toward the ocean.

 

The proposal otherwise does not compromise the design objectives and preferred solutions of this DCP. Some specific matters are dealt with in this report. Height, floor space ratio and landscaped area are dealt with under the LEP section. View loss, privacy and visual impact are dealt with in more detail in the ‘Environmental Assessment’ section.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended. The proposal is generally considered to satisfy environmental assessment matters for consideration. More detailed discussion on view loss, privacy and streetscape is warranted and provided in this section.

 

View Loss

Figure 4 shows the views available from the balconies of various homes nearby to the subject site. The development site is generally shown surrounded by construction site fencing in each photo. The detailed view-loss assessment below 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 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 Warringah [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 (e.g. views 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, e.g. 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]

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.[2]

 

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 views to Clovelly Headland and the interface between land and water remain intact, and views to the horizon are only slightly interrupted. The additional view loss caused by the proposed stair enclosure is considered to be negligible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7 – Photomontage of the view from 80 Dudley Street with the proposed addition.[3]

 


 

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 impact on views is not considered to be severe enough to warrant consideration of a more skilful design. The proposed staircase is only 300mm above the 12m height limit and a reduction of 300mm would not be perceptible in terms of improving the view to the horizon for No. 80 Dudley Street. It should be noted that this part of the view is already obstructed by an existing building beyond that of the subject site.

 

Visual Privacy

 

The proposed terrace needs to offer visual protection to its occupants, other occupants within the approved development, and to the occupants of other dwellings surrounding the site. This privacy analysis addresses each issue and finds that the proposal adequately protects visual privacy. A reduction in the length of the roof terrace area is required to protect the visual privacy of other occupants within the approved residential flat building.

 

Development Control Plan provisions

  Objective: Ensure new development is designed so that its occupants enjoy visual privacy.

  Objective: Respect the existing level of privacy of adjoining and nearby properties.

  Balconies are located to avoid overlooking of similar windows in adjoining dwelling and areas of private open space.

  Areas of private open space are designed and located to ensure a high level of user privacy.

  Where there is a horizontal separation of less than 10 metres between windows, they should offset.

 

Detailed privacy analysis

 

The proposed terrace is fairly exposed and while amply distant from sources of privacy intrusion (as shown in table 1 below), it would by no means be considered an intimate space for its occupants. Nonetheless, Unit 12 already achieves an adequate level of open space amenity with the existing (approved) balconies and the additional roof terrace is surplus to their privacy and open space needs.

 

There are unfortunate sightlines from northern end of the proposed terrace directly into living and bedrooms at lower levels. The sightlines are direct and within a horizontal distance of 3 and 8 metres respectively. The roof terrace could be reduced in area so that these direct views are not available (installing physical screens on the roof terrace is not appropriate as it may cause view loss) and this is included as a deferred commencement condition. The remaining privacy impact analysis is based on the reduced terrace area.

 

Table 1 below shows that the nearest affected private space is 17 metres to the north-west of the proposed terrace. This space is actually the rear yard of the doctor’s surgery in Asher Street and not particular sensitive to privacy loss. Nonetheless, even for this receiver, the buffer distance is sufficient to adequately protect visual privacy. It is considered that the buffer distances shown are adequate to generally protect the privacy of nearby dwellings and a further specific analysis of individual spaces is not warranted.

 

Table 1 – Analysis of privacy buffer distances (distances are approximate).

 

Direction

Horizontal distance to nearest space

Glancing angle[4]

Horizontal distance to observable ground

North

12m

-17°

34m

North East

30m

-17°

34m

East

20m

-14°

42m

South East

25m

-11°

55m

South

30m

-9°

65m

South West

30m+

-4°

300m[5]

West

23m

-5°

118m

North West

17m

-90°

0m

 

Visual impact

 

The roof terrace and stair would not be visible from the immediate curtilage of the site. The structures would only become visible with increasing height and distance from the site at vantage points such as the intersection of Dudley and Mount Streets. The perspective drawing in figure 8 shows the relationship of the structures to other roof elements that have already been approved, such as skylights and lift-towers. Figure 7 is in the view analysis section of this report and shows a more realistic perspective of the proposed structures. From this view it appears that the proposed structures would not dominate the approved development, or the visual array of buildings and roof-tops in the surrounds.

 

The impact on the streetscape is considered to be satisfactory. There are deferred commencement conditions in the recommendation that require the terrace to be installed with frameless glass balustrades, and for materials and colours on the stair enclosure to be compatible with the approved development.

 

Figure 8 – Perspective drawing showing proposed terrace and stair.

 

9.    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

 

10. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11. CONCLUSION

The development application is referred to Council at the request of Councillor’s Tracey, Procopiadis, and Matson.

 

The proposal comprises a 50 square metre roof terrace above the third storey of the approved residential flat building at 47-53 Dudley Street, Coogee. The terrace would have internal stair access from unit 12 only. To address the issue of privacy, there is a deferred commencement condition in the recommendation that reduces the length of the terrace by 2.5 metres.

 

The present application is the subject of many objections from nearby residents, primarily on the basis of view loss, visual impact, visual privacy and noise. On review of those matters, the proposal is considered to be acceptable. The proposal does not include an additional storey as in previous applications.

 

Deferred commencement approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.  That Council support the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 32 and 33 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to Floor Space Ratio and Building Height on the grounds that the proposed development satisfies the objectives of the clause, 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 deferred commencement consent under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 1120/2006 for Construction of a roof-top terrace for unit 12, including internal staircase, balustrades and stairwell structure. at 47-53 Dudley Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:-

 

DEFERRED COMMENCEMENT CONDITIONS

 

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

 

1.     The terrace must be reduced in length to eliminate direct sightlines to the northern façade of the approved building. The northern edge of the terrace must be moved at least 2.5 metres south. Design details must be submitted to Council for approval.

 

2.     Lighting (if provided) must be installed below the level of the balustrade and must not spill light or direct glare outside the site. Design details, demonstrating the extent of light-spill and glare must be submitted to Council for approval.

 

3.     The terrace must be installed with frameless clear glass. Glass specifications must be low glare. Design details and specifications must be submitted to Council for approval.

 

4.     The stair enclosure must be coloured and constructed of materials that are compatible with the approved development. A sample board of colours and building materials must be submitted to Council for approval.

 

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

 

REFERENCED PLANS

 

5.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered LEY-01 to LEY 04, dated 21/12/06 and received by Council on 21/12/06, the application form, the plans approved under deferred commencement conditions and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions:

 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL AMENTITY

 

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

 

6.     The installation of fixed or partially fixed shade and/or wind protection devices is prohibited.

 

NOISE EMISSION CONDITIONS

 

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

 

7.     The proposed use of the premises must not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

PRESCRIBED BUILDING & FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS:

 

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

 

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

 

9.     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.

 

10.   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.

 

11.   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.

 

12.   A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans 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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

14.   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.

 

15.   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.

 

16.   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).

 

17.   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.

 

18.   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.

 

19.   A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site, which contains the following details:

 

i.   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),

 

ii.   name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority,

 

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

 

20.   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.

 

21.   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.

 

23.   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.

 

24.   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.

 

25.   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):

 

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

 

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

 

26.   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:

 

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

 

ii.    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.

 

27.   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.

 

CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT:

 

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

 

28.   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.

 

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

 

30.   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:

 

i.   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.

 

31.   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.

 

32.   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.

 

33.   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.

 

34.   A Construction Site Management Plan is to be developed and implemented 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:

 

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

ii.   location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

iii.  location of building materials for construction;

iv.  provisions for public safety;

v.  dust control measures;

vi.  site access location and construction

vii. details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

viii. protective measures for tree preservation;

ix.  provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

x.  location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

xi.  details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

xii. construction noise and vibration management;

xiii. construction traffic management details.

 

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

 

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

 

ADVISORY MATTERS

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID MOONEY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER



 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

14 February, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/730/2006 & PROP039458Nil

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including ground and first floor extension to front of dwelling, enclosure of patio area to rear and construction of a deck area to the western side.

PROPERTY:

 26 Grose Street Little Bay

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 J & T Notaras

OWNER:

J & T Notaras

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, White and Procopiadis.

 

The application details alterations and additions to the dwelling, including a new deck at ground level to the western side of the dwelling and access stairs from the western side of the dwelling to the front yard.

 

The main issue is the impact upon the adjoining property with respect to overlooking.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing two storey dwelling to enclose the eastern side of the balcony at the front of the dwelling at both levels, to provide for an extension of the kitchen at ground level and a sitting room at the first floor level. The existing TV room at the rear of the dwelling will also be enlarged by the enclosure of the upper level overhang. It is also proposed to construct a new timber deck to the western side of the dwelling adjacent to an existing swimming pool, new concrete steps providing access from the new deck to the front yard, a rendered masonry retaining wall with planter box is proposed to part of the western side boundary and a new rendered masonry wall to the edge of the existing entrance steps of the dwelling along the eastern side elevation. The proposed additions to the dwelling will provide for 42m² of additional living area to the dwelling.

 

The application also details various minor cosmetic updating of the dwelling, including the replacement of existing balcony balustrade with glazed panels, new sliding doors to the balcony, and the rendering and painting of the dwelling.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is on the northern side of Grose Street which is directly opposite Botany Bay National Park. The site has a street frontage of 14.03m and a depth of up to 33.8m and overall site area of 578m², the site falls steeply from the rear to front with a difference in levels of up to 7m. The locality, other than the Botany Bay National Park, is entirely residential in nature and contains predominantly two and three storey dwellings which on this side of the street enjoy extensive views to Botany Bay and Bare Island.

 

All of the properties on this side of Grose Street have been excavated from the sandstone outcrop of the hillside to provide a level area for the erection of the dwellings and all of the properties have retaining walls to side and rear boundaries of varying heights.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

Objections

J Wardrop of 24 Grose Street Little Bay

Issue

Comment

There will be a loss of views from the windows in the western side of their dwelling.

See detailed view loss assessment in Section 6.

 

M & I Vlack of 28 Grose Street Little Bay

Issue

Comment

The proposed deck will look directly into their front garden and master bedroom and result in a loss of privacy.

The proposed deck will look directly upon their front garden; however it is already possible to look directly upon this front yard area from the balconies at the front of the dwelling and from the footpath and roadway. The new deck will not remove a level of privacy that already exists. With respect to the bedroom windows at the front of the objector’s property, the outlook from the deck is not directed towards those windows and is orientated towards the view of Botany Bay at the front of the dwelling.

The proposed planter is too small to support planting and will be unsightly.

The proposed planter box is 500mm in width which is adequate to sustain the selected planting.

The property is already overdeveloped and the proposed deck will take away remaining green space and buffer between the properties.

This area of lawn is of poor quality and does not positively contribute to the amenity of the occupants or the appearance of the dwelling.

The proposed stairs to the deck will result in a loss of privacy and security threat to the front of their property.

The proposed stairs provide access to the western side of the dwelling, similar to the stairs on the eastern side of the dwelling. It cannot be argued that these stairs will compromise security to the adjoining property in that property is entirely open and direct pedestrian access to the objector’s property is available from the driveway at the front of the property. Similarly these stairs will not reduce the existing level of privacy to the objector’s property in that it is already possible to look directly upon the front yard of the objector’s property from the front yard of the subject property and the footpath and roadway.

The approval of a deck to the western side of the property will exacerbate structural damage to their property which has resulted from previous development on the site.

A condition of consent is included to require that the site be properly retained during and after building works to ensure the structural stability of the subject and adjoining site.

Overdevelopment of this site and non compliance with standards should not be considered as their development was required to be modified.

In the context of the nature of the surrounding development which includes large two and three storey dwellings the alterations and additions to the dwelling will not represent an overdevelopment of the site.

 

R, M & I Vlack of 28 Grose Street Little Bay (Further Submission)

Issue

Comment

The retaining wall will be overbearing and will overshadow their property and should be sited a minimum of 900m from the boundary to allow for planting.

The total height of the retaining wall to the western side boundary will be at the most 500mm higher than the existing timber paling fence and will not result in any significant overshadowing to that portion of the objector’s front yard.

The deck will result in a loss of privacy to bedrooms at the front of their dwelling.

The proposed deck will look directly upon their front garden, however it is already possible to look directly upon this front yard area from the balconies at the front of the dwelling and from the footpath and roadway and the new deck will not remove a level of privacy that already exists. With respect to the bedroom windows at the front of the objector’s property, the outlook from the deck is not directed towards those windows and is orientated towards the view of Botany Bay at the front of the dwelling.

The proposed staircase to the deck is unnecessary and destroys a natural rock outcrop in that position and could result in the building being used as a dual occupancy.

The proposed stairs provide access to the western side of the dwelling, similar to the stairs on the eastern side of the dwelling. The provision of an additional access staircase to this side of the dwelling does not facilitate the use of the dwelling as a dual occupancy.

The dwelling is already overdeveloped and exceeds the controls and consideration must be given to retaining planting and natural rock outcrops between properties.

The planting upon which the deck will be placed is of poor quality and does not contribute to the amenity of the occupants and the removal of a portion of the rock at the front of the premises will not detract from the landscape character of the subject site.

 

5.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

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 100sqm. 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 5m x 20m. 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.

10% of the site is permeable. Does not comply – see assessment below.

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

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

This dwelling and those surrounding have been erected upon a rocky outcrop and most of the landscaping is hard surfaces given the difficulty of establishing soft landscaping. The area were the proposed deck is to be erected contains poor quality lawn and the replacement of this lawn with a timber deck will improve the amenity of the occupants and provide a usable area adjacent to the existing swimming pool.  Therefore in this instance there are no major objections to the area of soft landscaping not satisfying the preferred solutions in that the significant landscape planting at the front of the property remains intact and the removal of the lawn and replacement with a timber deck will improve the amenity of the occupants. 

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.51:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.68:1. 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 existing dwelling has a floor space ratio of 0.6:1 which exceeds the preferred solution of the DCP, the proposed additional floor area provided to the dwelling will result in a floor space ratio of 0.68:1. The surrounding locality is characterised by two and three storey dwellings which are of similar bulk and scale as the proposed increased floor area of the dwelling. The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP are therefore in this instance satisfied.  The additional floor area of 42m2 is minimal and does not significantly contribute to the bulk of the building or result in any adverse impacts on adjoining properties.

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 8.2 metres. Does not comply – see assessment below

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Conditions of consent are recommended to require that the site be properly retained during and after the building works associated with this development..

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

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

The new external walls and floor area at the front of the dwelling results from the enclosure of a portion of the existing balcony. The non-compliance with the preferred solution for external wall height arises because of the stepped nature of the site and the external wall height of the dwelling at this position will not exceed the height of the existing walls of the subject dwelling house.  The proposal maintains a consistent scale with that of the adjoining and neighbouring buildings and satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses.

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S3

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

The existing side boundary setbacks of 3.5m to the eastern side boundary and 2.6m from the western side boundary are maintained.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The existing side boundary setbacks of 3.5m to the eastern side boundary and 2.6m from the western side boundary are maintained.

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.

The dwellings on this side of Grose Street overlook the front and side of each others properties to varying degrees due to the topography. The proposed new deck will not increase overlooking across the front yard area of the adjoining property at 28 Grose Street in that it is already possible to look directly upon the open yard area from the balcony at this dwelling and from the footpath and roadway. With respect to the deck at the side of the dwelling this is orientated towards the front of the property to capture the view towards Botany Bay and is similarly sited as an upper level terrace to both of the adjoining dwellings and the proposed new deck will not result in any significant loss of privacy to the adjoining dwelling.

Foreshore Development

 

Performance Requirements

Assessment

P2

Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

A condition of consent is included to require that the schedule of colours and finishes is provided to Council for approval prior to the release of a Construction Certificate.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

The primary view from the front of the adjoining dwellings across to Botany Bay and Bare Island remains unaffected by the proposal.

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.

 

View Loss

 

Under Section 4.3 of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies buildings are required to be designed to allow for a sharing of view loss. This concept of views has recently been defined in the Land and Environment Court by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004).

 

The Commissioner in deciding whether or not view sharing was reasonable adopted a four step assessment as follows.

 

a)    The value of the subject view ie water views are more valued than land views with iconic view such as the Opera House of North Head being more valued than views without icons and whole views are more valuable than partial views.

 

b)    From what part of the property are views obtained, for example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult to maintain than views from front and rear boundaries, and in addition whether or not the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position is also relevant, with sitting views being more difficult to protect. The expectation to retain side and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

c)    Assess the extent of the impact from the property as a whole rather than just for the view affected, the impact on views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms or service areas, then it is useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

d)    The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact and compliance with planning controls, with a development which satisfies planning controls being considered more reasonable than one that does not. 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 upon 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 objector’s property at 24 Grose Street enjoys substantial uninterrupted views towards the south and west from the front balconies to the front of their dwelling which will remain unaffected by the proposed enclosure of a portion of the balcony to the adjoining dwelling. When undertaking an assessment of the view loss and view sharing, a determination must be made as to the extent of view loss and the impact that this will have upon the property which has the benefit of the view. In this instance the view loss is assessed as follows;

 

a)       The view from the front of the subject and adjoining properties across to Botany Bay and Bare Island is a significant iconic view with value during both day and night.

 

b)       The views that are impacted are from the side windows of 24 Grose Street.  The view is to Botany Bay and is across a side boundary.  It is also partially obscured by the existing building at 26 Grose Street.  The significant panoramic view to the south and west from the front of the dwelling at 24 Grose Street is being maintained in full.

 

c)       The extent of view loss in comparison with the remaining substantial views to the south and west is regarded as minor, and access from secondary windows to the side of the property.

 

d)       The overall proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria including the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings. It is considered that amendments to the design are not warranted given the extent of the view loss is minimal and of less value than the iconic views being maintained.  Further the views are across a side boundary and it would be unreasonable to maintain these in there entirely.

 

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 satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and may be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

 

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. DA/730/2006 for permission to carryout alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including ground and first floor extension to front of dwelling, enclosure of patio area to rear and construction of a deck area no the western side of the dwelling at 26 Grose Street, LITTLE BAY 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 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 3001, 3002 & 3003, dated 20/11/2006 and received by Council on the 30 January 2007, 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 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 imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

4        New external timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls and roofs are to be provided with insulation (i.e. bulk insulation and a reflective building membrane/reflective sarking/foil insulation), having a minimum total thermal resistance R–value of 3.0 in roofs and 1.5 in external walls.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturer’s details.

 

Details of compliance with the requirements for insulation are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

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:

 

5        Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

 

Absorption pits must be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed or flow onto any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance.

 

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.

 

6      All building, plumbing and drainage work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

The approved Construction Certificate plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre prior to commencing any building or excavation works, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

If suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped.  For Quick Check agent details please refer to Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au and go to the Building, Developing and Plumbing, then Quick Check or Building and Renovating or telephone 13 20 92.

 

The principal certifying authority is required to ensure that a Quick Check Agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before commencing works.

 

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

 

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

 

Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

8        All new building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), in accordance with Clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

9          Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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

 

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

 

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

                                        

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

 

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

 

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

 

11      The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or another certifying authority if the Principal Certifying Authority agrees), in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

The principal contractor or owner-builder (as applicable) must ensure that the required critical stage and other inspections, as specified in the Principal Certifying Authority’s “Notice of Critical Stage Inspections”, are carried out to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and at least 48 hours notice (excluding weekends and public holidays) is to be given to the Principal Certifying Authority, to carry out the required inspection, before carrying out any further works.

 

12      A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site, which contains the following details:

 

     name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable);

     name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority; and

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

 

13     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.

 

14      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.

 

15     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.

 

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

 

At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

17     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:

 

18      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.

 

19      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.

 

20     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.

 

21     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.

 

22      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.

         

23      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.

 

24      Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions, soil and debris at all times.

 

Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

25      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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

27      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.

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

29      Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a)       Reconstruct/extend the  concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site, if required.

 

30      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.

 

31      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 provisions for future civil works in the road reserve:

 

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

 

33      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.

 

34      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 a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

35      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.

 

36      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.

 

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

 

37      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 applicants’ expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

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:

23 February, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/205/2005/A & PROP011695

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(2) Place of Public entertainment approval to be extended beyond the trial period of one year

PROPERTY:

 2-14 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Paul Irvin Hotel Group

OWNER:

 P M Irvin Investments Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The proposal seeks to remove the 12 month trial period for the use of the Place of Public Entertainment (POPE) licence area, approved on 3 August 2005, located within the ground floor of the Pagewood Hotel. The proposal involves the deletion of two conditions of consent that place the 12 month restriction on the use of the POPE licence area and require the lodgement of an application prior to the expiration of the trial period to allow the continued use of the POPE area.

 

The application was lodged on 10 November 2006 and was notified to the surrounding properties and advertised in the Southern Courier from 20 November to 4 December 2006. Two objections were received that raised concerns regarding the potential of the development to increase anti-social behaviour, acoustic privacy impacts, amenity issues and reduce on-street car parking availability to the surrounding streets.

 

The applicant was advised to obtain a copy of the objections received via a section 12 application to properly comprehend the nature of objections. It should be noted that a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was not submitted by the applicant. Due to the relatively minor nature of the proposal and no alteration to the operating hours of the Hotel is being sought, the submission of an SIA is not considered necessary.

 

The application was referred to the licensing officer of the Eastern Beaches NSW Police for comment on 9 January 2007 regarding the modification of the approval relating to the POPE licence for the site. A response was received on 13 February 2007 and generally no objection was raised to the continued use of the site for public entertainment however some issues were raised related to disturbances created by patrons of the Hotel leaving the site at night. The issues raised by the Licensing Sergeant are addressed through conditions requiring security patrols and the provision of signage.

 

Council’s Building and Regulatory Services section confirmed that Council had not received any complaints regarding excessive noise generated by the Hotel in the past 12 months of the operation of the POPE area. Council’s Environmental Health officer reviewed the acoustic information and was satisfied the proposed modifications would not adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding area.

 

The proposal will not increase the floor area of the Hotel or increase the number of staff employed on the site. The proposal will also not alter the existing hours of operation or traffic generation of the Hotel. As such the proposed modifications are not considered to result in increased patronage to the site or constitute an intensification of the use of the site. The issues of anti-social behaviour and disturbances created by patrons entering the leaving the site, as raised in the objections received, is the responsibility of the Hotel management. It is considered the conditions on the original consent are adequate in restricting the impact of the POPE area to the surrounding residential properties.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.


 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed development is to remove the 12 month trial period relating to the POPE licensed area and continue the use of the site as a place of public entertainment. The POPE licensed area has been in operation since August 2005 until lodgement of the application on 11 November 2006. The applicant is seeking to delete the following conditions:

 

6.     The use of the premises for public entertainment is limited for a period of 1 year from the date of the commencement of public entertainment to enable the Council to monitor and assess the impact of the development on the public health, safety and amenity of the occupants of the building and residents of the locality. Council must be notified in writing 7 days prior to the commencement of the public entertainment.

 

        A separate application must be made to the Council in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Local Government Act 1993, if it is proposed to use the premises for public entertainment after the 1 year trial period.”

 

32.   This approval is limited for a period of 1 Year only from the date hereon to enable the Council to monitor and assess the impact of the Activity on the public health, safety and amenity of the occupants of the building and residents of the locality.

 

        A separate application must be made to the Council in accordance with Section 68 of the Local Government Act, 1993 if it is proposed to use the premises for public entertainment after the above stated period.

 

The applicant does not propose any further alterations to the current approval.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Maroubra Rd at the western end of Maroubra Junction. The block in which the hotel is located is bounded by Bunnerong Rd, Glanfield St, Royal St and Maroubra Rd. The regularly shaped site has a total area of 2,700sqm with a frontage to Maroubra Rd of 43.27m, a depth of 63m and a frontage to Glanfield St of 43.28m. The northern perimeter of the site adjoins a car park associated with the hotel. 

 

To the north of the subject site adjoining the associated car park are a number of residential dwellings which adjoin Boyce Rd. The rear boundaries of these properties abut the car park. To the south of the subject site on the southern side of Maroubra Rd is a shopping strip incorporating shop-top housing. Many of these commercial uses include refreshment rooms and restaurants. To the west of the subject site are two detached commercial premises incorporating restaurants and associated parking. To the east of the subject site is a multi-storey multi unit development, further along Maroubra Rd east towards the commercial town centre are a number of multi unit developments and retail uses.

 

Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area. Figure 2 is a photograph of the rear parking area off Glanfield Street.

 

Figure 1: The subject site and surrounding area

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

4.1      Application History

 

The original application was lodged on 21 March 2005 and was approved at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 26 July 2005. The hours of operation of the public entertainment were limited to:

 

Friday to Saturday............ 12 noon to 12 midnight

Sundays.......................... 12 noon to 10pm

 

The trading hours of the Hotel as approved by the NSW Liquor Administration Board are:

 

Monday to Saturday.......... 6am to 3am

Sundays.......................... 10am to 12am midnight

 

The application was lodged on 10 November 2006 and was notified to the surrounding properties and advertised in the Southern Courier from 20 November to 4 December 2006. Two objections were received that raised concerns regarding the potential of the development to increase anti-social behaviour, acoustic privacy impacts, amenity issues and reduce on-street car parking availability to the surrounding streets.

 

The applicant was advised to obtain a copy of the objections received via a section 12 application to properly comprehend the nature of objections. It should be noted that a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was not submitted by the applicant. Due to the relatively minor nature of the proposal and no alteration to the operating hours of the Hotel is being sought, the submission of an SIA is not considered necessary.

 

The application was referred on 9 January 2007 to the licensing officer of the Eastern Beaches NSW Police for comment regarding the modification of the approval relating to the POPE licence for the site.

Figure 2: The rear parking area off Glanfield Street

Comments were received from the NSW Police Service on 13 February 2007 and raised concerns regarding the exit of patrons late at night. The Licensing Sergeant requested that additional conditions be included that require prominent signage at all exit points reminding patrons to consider the quiet and good order of the neighbourhood when leaving the premises. The Licensing Sergeant also requested a condition be included that require a security officer to patrol the vicinity of the hotel to ensure patrons leave the premises in a timely and orderly manner between the hour of 11pm till half an hour after the entertainment has ceased or all patrons have left.

 

 

 

4.2      History of Site Usage

 

The hotel was constructed during the 1950s and has operated as a hotel since that time. The first liquor licence was issued in 1958. In 1968 approval was issued for a drive-through bottle shop at the rear of the hotel. In the 1970s the interior of the premises was renovated with the current configuration of the hotel as exists approved. In the late 1980s and early 1990s internal alterations were approved including formal approval of the existing hours of operation which had been approved by the Liquor Board without development consent.  The current layout of the bistro area was approved at this time.

 

The front of the hotel known as the club bar and lounge bar have 24 hour trading Monday to Saturday.  At weekends the public bar and bistro to the rear of the hotel have consent to operate from 10am to 3am.

 

Application 205/05 was lodged on 21 March 2005 and proposed the internal modification of the bistro area into a place of public entertainment area capable of providing a space for live performances and karaoke. The application was determined approved at the Ordinary Council meeting on 26 July 2005 and two conditions were placed on the consent requiring a new application to be submitted to extend the use of the POPE beyond the 1 year trial period.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

Spiros Nicolaou – 28 Glanfield Street, Maroubra

Issue

Comment

The Hotel creates an existing anti-social problem along Glanfield Street which includes patrons swearing.

A number of conditions are included in the development consent requiring Hotel management to monitor control disruptive behaviour. The proposal to extend the use of the POPE area for live entertainment does not alter the conditions relating to management of the Hotel and therefore the Hotel management is required to ensure disruption to surrounding properties is minimised.

The music emanating from the Hotel is loud and adversely impacts the amenity of the street.

The proposal was referred to Council’s Environmental Health officer for comment. The acoustic information provided was reviewed and no objection raised. Council’s Building and Regulatory Services confirmed that there is no evidence of complaints regarding excessive noise.

The Hotel patrons leave excessive rubbish and broken glass around the Hotel and along Glanfield Street.

To address the concerns of the Licensing Sergeant, conditions have been included to have additional security guards to patrol the site to ensure anti-social behaviour is minimised.

DBL Property on behalf of owners of 20 Maroubra Road (SP 48740) and 24-26 Maroubra Road (SP 45272).

 

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal is an intensification of the use of the site and crowds congregating at the front of the site have an adverse impact to the surrounding residents.

The proposed development does not increase the floor area of the Hotel, increase staff numbers or increase the hours of operation of the site. It is considered the proposed modifications do not constitute an intensification of the use of the site.

The proposal will create a significant disruption to the traffic flow around the subject site. There has also been a significant reduction parking availability in the last 12 months.

See comments above.

 

The proposal will continue the loud noise and often anti-social behaviour of patrons leaving the Hotel after functions including vehicle ‘burn outs’ upon departing the premises.

To address the concerns of the Licensing Sergeant, conditions have been included to have additional security guards to patrol the site to ensure anti-social behaviour is minimised.

There has been continued activity of anti-social behaviour as a result of the operation of the Hotel including empty bottles thrown into front yards and physical altercations.

See comments above.

 

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 Services

 

The application has been referred to the Environmental Health Services for review and comment. The following comments were received:

 

Acoustics

 

An acoustic report has been received in relation to potential or exiting noise sources, which may impact on the proposed development or the existing amenity of the surrounding environment. However, a statement/advice from an acoustic consultant is required detailing compliance with Section 3.2.2.1 confirming a suitable sound limiter has been installed.

 

Recommendation

 

The following information is required to be submitted to Council prior to a determination of the development application.

 

1.     A written statement/advice is to be submitted to and accepted by Council.

 

The written statement/advice is to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics and the report and assessment is to be completed in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Guidelines, namely the Industrial Noise Policy and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance) and the relevant Australian Standards.

 

The statement is to include confirmation that the sound limiter has been installed in accordance with acoustic report dated 20 December 2005 prepared by Acoustic Logic.

 

Note: Joe Irvine of the hotel has been contacted and advised of the above and confirmed he will provide the information. 

 

Further correspondence was received on 28 November 2006 from William Chan of Acoustic Logic confirming that a suitable sound limiting device was installed at the subject premises in relation to the use and operation for karaoke. This information was forwarded to Council’s Environmental Officer for comment.

 

As a result Council’s Environmental Health officer raised no objection to the proposal.

 

6.2      Health, Building and Regulatory Services

 

The application has been referred to the Building and Development Control Services for review and comment. The following comments were received:

 

The Proposal

 

The subject development relates to the provision of public entertainment within the subject premises. Condition 6 of DA/205/2005 was imposed to limit the approval to a period of 1 year so Council could monitor the effects of the development on nearby premises. Condition 6 reads as follows:

 

“The use of the premises for public entertainment is limited for a period of 1 year from the date of the commencement of public entertainment to enable the Council to monitor and assess the impact of the development on the public health, safety and amenity of the occupants of the building and residents of the locality. Council must be notified in writing 7 days prior to the commencement of the public entertainment.

 

A separate application must be made to the Council in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Local Government Act 1993, if it is proposed to use the premises for public entertainment after the 1 year trial period.”

 

The Section 96 amendment proposes to delete condition 6 from the original consent to allow renewal of the place of public entertainment under S68 of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Comments:

 

Condition number 6 was originally imposed on the consent to allow Council to monitor the effects on the surrounding residential premises.

 

There is no evidence of any complaints relating to noise problems emanating from the premises while the hotel is providing public entertainment.

 

Further to the above, other conditions have been imposed on the original consent to ensure the management and use of the premises does not cause nuisance to neighbouring premises.

 

In this regard no objection is raised to the proposed section 96 application.

 

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.

 

6.3    Referral to NSW Police Service – Licensing Sergeant

 

The application was referred to Eastern Beaches Local Area Command and the following comments were received:

 

In relation to the above application Police have an objection to the hours applied for in the DA.  Police have concerns that the Quiet and Good order of the neighbourhood would be disturbed if the application is granted. Police would support the application if the hours were restricted to midnight.  Further requests would be conditions to be imposed that require prominent signage at all exit points reminding patrons to consider the Quiet and good order of the neighbourhood when leaving the premises.  Further that a security officer patrol the vicinity of the hotel to ensure patrons leave the premises in a timely and orderly manner between the hour of 11.oo pm till half an hour after the entertainment has ceased or  all patrons have left.

 

I feel these conditions need to be endorsed as formal complaint has been served on council and Police from local residents re: patrons leaving the hotel after Karaoke nights.

 

 

The comments above refer to the original application while the following comments relate to the current proposal:

 

Since the start of the trial period to the present time I am unaware of any complaint in regards to the Quiet and Good Order of the neighbourhood emanating from the Pagewood Hotel. I fully support that the conditions requested by both Police and Council remain.  On these terms there would be no Police objection to the granting of a Permanent Place of Public Entertainment Authority for the hotel.

 

The concerns raised by the Licensing Sergeant including the provision of signage at the exit points of the site and increased security guards patrolling the Hotel, 1 hour prior and 30 minutes after the public entertainment being offered on the site has ceased were included in the conditions of consent of the original application. The existing conditions have been modified to further address the specific issues raised by the Licensing Sergeant.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The subject site has a site area of approximately 2700sqm and as such is not subject to the Master Planning requirements of the LEP.

 

8.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1      Substantially the same

The proposal involves the modification of the original consent regarding the POPE licensed area and does not alter the physical appearance of the building, the existing operating hours or the floor area of the POPE area or other areas within the Hotel site. It is considered that the proposed modifications satisfy conditions 6 and 32 of the development consent.

 

It is considered the proposed modifications will result in a development that is substantially the same.

 

9.2      Consideration of submissions

 

Two objections were received during the notification and advertising period and a site inspection was undertaken during the assessment of the application. The submissions relating to the proposal reiterate similar issues raised in the original application and proper consideration has been undertaken of any new issues raised. 

 

10. RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

10.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 3B (Local Business Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

10.2    Development Control Plan – Parking

 

Under the DCP Parking, the rate of parking spaces generated by a Hotel development is one space per 6sqm. This rate is consistent for bistro or entertainment uses within licensed premises. It is noted that the proposal does not alter the floor area of the site or increase the number of staff employed and as such the proposal does not require further consideration against the requirements of the DCP.

 

10.3    Impact to adjoining properties

 

10.3.1 Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Guidelines

 

The SIA guidelines were made effective on 30 June 2006 and provide applicants with a framework to produce a SIA report that should be submitted with a development application for certain development to sites that may have an impact to the surrounding community. The guidelines provide a list of potential social impacts that a development may have and specify the types of development that require a SIA to be completed.

 

It should be noted that a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was not submitted by the applicant. Due to the relatively minor nature of the proposal and no alteration to the operating hours of the Hotel is being sought, the submission of an SIA is not considered necessary.

 

10.3.2 Parking and Traffic

 

The proposed modifications to the current approval do not alter or increase the floor area of the Hotel or increase the number of staff employed on the site. As such it is envisaged that the traffic impact of the proposal will unlikely alter the existing traffic entering the leaving the site.

 

The assessment of the original application considered the potential traffic impact of the proposal. It was determined that the additional demand for parking spaces would be higher for public entertainment use than that of the bistro area however patrons attending the site for karaoke would less likely to drive than those patrons attending the site for a meal at the bistro. As such it was considered patrons would likely arrive at the site via public transport, walking or taxi and therefore the actual increase in drivers to the site would be balanced resulting in the current parking availability being sufficient.

 

The proposed modifications do not alter the configuration of the POPE area nor increase the hours of operation for the Hotel. As such it is considered the proposal will not result in an increase in parking demand and the current parking spaces available are sufficient.

 

10.3.3 Noise

 

The proposal will not alter the use of the POPE area or increase the hours that entertainment may occur on the site. Council’s Environmental Health officer received confirmation from the applicant’s acoustic consultant that the revised sound information provided with the application was generated in accordance with the acoustic report submitted with the original application. The original application required the installation of suitable sound limiting devices to ensure entertainment uses such as live shows or karaoke would not have an adverse impact to the surrounding residential area.

 

As the proposal does not intend to intensify the use of the site or increase the area allocated to public entertainment it is considered the proposal will not adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding area or negatively affect the residential locality.

 

10.3.4 Anti-social behaviour

 

The issue of anti-social behaviour has been encountered in Land and Environment Court proceedings in relation to licensed premises. In Kevin Snell Pty Ltd v Manly Council his Chief Justice McClellan found that whilst anti-social behaviour can be recognised within a locality, it was not necessarily an argument for refusal of an application. The judgment further detailed that adequate amenity focused conditions, such as reduced hours of operation and closed circuit television surveillance systems, can overcome anti-social behaviour and to adequately control the potential for noise to emanate from a premises.

 

Commissioner Moore noted in reference to anti-social behaviour in Vinson v Randwick City Council (Coach and Horses Hotel, Randwick) that the role of “management is to minimise such behaviour and to ensure that any incidents are isolated and, if possible, dealt with promptly by the staff or contractors of the premises”.

 

The Licensing Sergeant did not object to the continued use of the site as a place of public entertainment provided that the approved hours of operation are not extended. To address the concerns raised by the Licensing Sergeant conditions have been included in the consent requiring the erection of signs that will be viewed from departing patrons from the rear and Glanfield Street car parks reminding the patrons to be mindful of the amenity the nearby residents. Also condition 7 of the consent will be modified to address the Licensing Sergeant’s comments relating to a security guard patrolling the site 1 hour before and until 30 minutes after the conclusion of public entertainment on the site. It is considered the inclusion of obvious signage at the exits of the site and patrolling security guards at the rear of the site will encourage quiet and responsible departure from the Hotel.

 

It should be noted that the proposal does not seek to extend the approved hours of operation of the Hotel or increase the floor area of the POPE area. It is therefore considered that the proposed modifications will not significantly increase anti-social behaviour or adverse impact the amenity of the residential area. As such the proposal is recommended for approval.

 

11. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 8: A strong local economy

The proposal will continue the use of the Pagewood Hotel by increasing the variety of facilities provided and the removal of the trial period condition relating to the POPE licensed area will facilitate the continued financial viability of the Hotel into the future.

 

Direction 8a & associated action:

Vibrant business, commercial and industrial sectors that provide ongoing and diverse employment opportunities.

 

The proposal, in providing a permanent POPE licensed area, will facilitate the provision of services to the community as well as the growth of local businesses thus contributing to the creation of a vibrant town centre.

 

12. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

13. CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification to the original consent to removal the 1 year trial period restriction to the approved POPE licensed area to continue the use of the area for public entertainment is consistent with the objectives of the local business zone and will not result in any additional traffic or parking impacts to the locality. The proposal will not alter the appearance of the building, the existing operating hours, the approved POPE licensed hours or the floor area of the Hotel. The proposal to allow un-trialled use of the site for public entertainment is not considered to constitute an intensification of the use of the site.

 

Subject to compliance with noise criteria, the conditions relating to the erection of signage and specific patrols of security guards and effective management of the premises, the continued use of the approved POPE will not detrimentally impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring residents. 

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No.205/2005 on property 2-14 Maroubra Road, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition 2 to read as follows:

 

2.       Prominent signage is to be erected at the exit points of the rear car park adjoining the site and the car park off Glanfield Street reminding patrons to be mindful of noise disturbance and considerate of nearby residential dwellings. A site plan showing the location of the signs and elevation diagrams indicating final design and wording of the signs is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Delete Condition 6.

 

Amend Condition 7 to read as follows:

 

7.       When entertainment is provided at the premises not less than two security guards must be provided, identified as such by uniform, to take all reasonable steps to prevent noisy and unruly behaviour of patrons leaving the premises. These security guards should be based to the rear of the site and patrol the car park as well as the front of the hotel to ensure patrons leave the premises in a timely and orderly manner between:

 

Friday to Saturday:   The hour of 11.00pm till half an hour after the entertainment has ceased or all patrons have left.

 

Sunday to Thursday: The hour of 9.00 pm till half an hour after the entertainment has ceased or all patrons have left.

 

Delete Condition 32.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PATRICK LEBON

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

14 February, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1007/2006 & PROP003171Nil

 

PROPOSAL:

 New attic addition to an approved multi-unit housing building

PROPERTY:

 17 Church Street Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 J Spiteri

OWNER:

A & Y Gilsenan

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

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

 

The application proposes the construction of an attic within the roof space of the two dwellings within an approved multi-unit housing building.

 

The main issue is the impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties with respect to loss of privacy.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The building at present is a multi-unit building containing 2 dwellings under construction and nearing completion. The application details the construction of an attic within the roof space of each dwelling with dormer windows to the northern and southern sides of the roof. It is also proposed to delete approved juliette balconies to the front of the building, install windows to the en suite bathrooms at first floor level, enlarge the window to the kitchens at ground level and replace a single window to the living rooms with two vertical glazed panels.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Church Street and has a street frontage of 13.87m, side boundary of 24.385m and an overall site area of 338m². The site falls from the rear towards the street with a difference in level of up to 1m, and also falls across the site from the south towards the north with a difference in level of up to 1.25m. The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings and two and three storey multi unit housing development.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

There is a previous development application, DA 258/04, which detailed the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a two storey multi-unit housing building containing two dwellings. Approval was granted to that application on the 30th June 2004.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

M & S Tanti of 15 Church Street Randwick

Issue

Comment

The application increases the approved floor area of the building.

The application details the construction of attics within the roof space of the building, the additional floor area to the building is addressed in Section 7.

The proposed attic will result in a loss of privacy to their property.

The position of the dormer window within the northern side of the roof will look directly across the roof of the adjoining dwelling and not into any private outdoor living area or windows to that dwelling.

 

D & S Rosenfeld of 5/19 Church Street Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The additional height to the building will result in a lower amount of sunlight to their dwelling and the roof pitch should be lowered.

A comparison with the approved development reveals that the north facing windows will not suffer any additional loss of sunlight because of the increased height of the building.

There will be a serious loss of privacy to the north facing units of their building.

A condition is recommended to require that the sill height of the dormer window to the southern side of the building be a minimum of 1500mm which will maintain privacy to the adjoining building.

The discrepancy of the actual height of the building needs to be clarified.

The proposed overall height of the building is indicated at RL18.75 which is 500mm higher than the building as originally approved.

A full assessment of the impact upon the residents of 19 Church Street needs to be made.

An assessment of the impact of the proposed development upon the amenity of adjoining residents is included in Section 7.

 

H Cooper of 6/19 Church Street Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The additional height to the building will result in a lower amount of sunlight to their dwelling and the roof pitch should be lowered.

A comparison with the approved development reveals that the north facing windows will not suffer any additional loss of sunlight because of the increased height of the building.

 

The discrepancy of the actual height of the building needs to be clarified.

The proposed overall height of the building is indicated at RL18.75 which is 500mm higher than the building as originally approved.

 

There will be a serious loss of privacy to the north facing units of their building.

A condition is recommended to require that the sill height of the dormer window to the southern side of the building be a minimum of 1500mm which will maintain privacy to the adjoining building.

 

Shadow diagrams should be provided for mid summer as well as mid winter.

Shadow diagrams are generally required for the winter solstice when the shadows cast are the longest and the impacts greatest on adjoining properties. Shadow diagrams for mid summer would indicate lesser shadow impacts.

The proposed pitch of the roof should be flattened to reduce impacts upon sunlight.

A comparison with the approved development reveals that the north facing windows will not suffer any additional loss of sunlight because of the increased height of the building.

 

P Morahan 8/19 Church Street Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

There will be a serious loss of privacy to the north facing units of their building.

A condition is recommended to require that the sill height of the dormer window to the southern side of the building be a minimum of 1500mm which will maintain privacy to the adjoining building.

 

The proposal will result in a loss of view from their dwelling.

See loss assessment in Section 7.

The raising of the roof of the building will add considerable bulk to the building.

The proposal

The roof pitch should be reduced and the attic and dormer only provided to the northern side of the building.

The building as approved is symmetrical and if consent is granted dormer windows should be provided to both sides of the building to maintain the symmetry of the building.

 

P de Permentier of 9/19 Church Street Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The discrepancy of the actual height of the building needs to be clarified.

The proposed overall height of the building is indicated at RL18.75 which is 500mm higher than the building as originally approved.

The additional height of the building will result in a loss of sunlight which will not comply with Council regulations.

A comparison with the approved development reveals that the north facing windows will not suffer any additional loss of sunlight because of the increased height of the building.

Shadow diagrams should be provided for mid summer as well as mid winter.

Shadow diagrams are generally required for the winter solstice when the shadows cast are the longest and the impacts greatest on adjoining properties. Shadow diagrams for mid summer would indicate lesser shadow impacts.

 

 

D Roye 10/19 Church Street Randwick

Issue

Comment

The development will result in a possible economic loss to the owners of units on the northern side of the building.

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

There will be a serious loss of privacy to the north facing units of their building.

A condition is recommended to require that the sill height of the dormer window to the southern side of the building be a minimum of 1500mm which will maintain privacy to the adjoining building.

 

GK Strata Management Pty Ltd on behalf of the owners of 19 Church Street Randwick

Issue

Comment

The discrepancy of the actual height of the building needs to be clarified.

The proposed overall height of the building is indicated at RL18.75 which is 500mm higher than the building as originally approved.

The additional height of the building will result in a loss of sunlight which will not comply with Council regulations.

A comparison with the approved development reveals that the north facing windows will not suffer any additional loss of sunlight because of the increased height of the building.

The concluding statement of the submitted report does not allow for the re-assessment of impacts upon the residents of the adjoining building.

An assessment of the impact of the proposed development upon the amenity of adjoining residents is included in Section 7.

Shadow diagrams should be provided for mid summer as well as mid winter.

Shadow diagrams are generally required for the winter solstice when the shadows cast are the longest and the impacts greatest on adjoining properties. Shadow diagrams for mid summer would indicate lesser shadow impacts.

The roof pitch of the building should be lowered to reduce loss of sunlight to the adjoining residents.

A comparison with the approved development reveals that the north facing windows will not suffer any additional loss of sunlight because of the increased height of the building.

 

6.    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 residential 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The following clauses of LEP 1998 are relevant to the proposed development:

a)    FSR

Clause 32 of LEP 1998 states that a maximum floor space ratio for land zoned 2B is 0.65:1 and land zoned 2C is 0.9:1.  However, if the site is located on land zoned 2C and has less than a total site area of 700 m2, the floor space ratio is 0.65:1.

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.84:1 and does not comply, a SEPP 1 Objection has been lodged by the applicant, see discussion below.

c)    Height

Clause 33 of LEP 1998 imposes a maximum overall building height of 9.5 metres for buildings on land zoned 2B and 12 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C.  It also imposes a maximum external wall height of 7 metres for buildings on land zoned 2B and 10 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C. 

The proposed development has a maximum overall height of 9.2 metres and an external wall height of 6 metres and therefore complies.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

The proposal seeks to vary the development standard in the Randwick LEP with respect to the floor space ratio standard in clause 32(2), which states a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 and an objection under SEPP 1 has been lodged to support the non-compliance with this standard.

 

The applicant has argued that strict compliance with clause 32 of Randwick LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

a)  The additional floor area will be contained wholly within the roof space and does not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss or privacy, overshadowing and visual impact.

 

b)  The additional bulk (i.e. dormer windows) will not be visually intrusive when viewed from the neighbouring properties or result in any significant adverse impact upon the character of the streetscape.

 

c)  The proposal will provide a high quality contemporary design that is sympathetic to the desired future character of the area.

 

d)  The overall bulk and scale of the development is consistent with surrounding development.

 

Clause 8 of SEPP No. 1 sets out the matters, which shall be considered in deciding whether concurrence should be granted, stating that:

 

“The matters that shall be taken into consideration in deciding whether concurrence should be granted are –

 

a.    Whether non-compliance with the development application raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning; and

 

b.    the public benefit of maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument.”

 

The variation on balance is relatively small and is unlikely to impact on any matters of significance in either state or regional planning. Allowing the variation will not affect the public benefit sought as part of the objectives for this development standard within Clause 32 Floor Space Ratio of RLEP 1998.

 

Justice Lloyd in Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46 in assessing a SEPP 1 objection asked the following questions:

 

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

 

Yes, Clause 32 is contained within an LEP and is expressed as a development standard not a prohibition.

 

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

 

The purpose of the standard is to achieve reasonable upper limits of floor area for redevelopments without compromising the amenity of adjoining developments.

 

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 the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act?

 

Varying the development standard will not hinder the attainment of the objectives of the LEP, sections 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the SEPP and the EP&A Act.

 

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

 

It is considered that within the context of the streetscape and immediate locality the objection can be supported. The development achieves the objectives of the clause, and strict compliance with the standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary. The resultant bulk is consistent with the character and density of the streetscape particularly the adjoining multi unit housing development and the variation has no significant bearing on the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties.

 

Fifth, is the objection well founded? In relation to the fourth question, it seems to me that one must also look to see whether a development which complies with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, as noted by Cripps J in the Hooker Corporation case.

 

It is considered that there is an established density within the locality well above that proposed by the current scheme and the overall bulk and scale of the building will remain consistent with the streetscape and bulk of neighbouring properties.

 

Pursuant to Clause 7 of SEPP No. 1, it is considered that the objection is well founded and the granting of consent is consistent with the aims of the Policy. It is recommended that the SEPP 1 objection be supported.

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

7.1   Development Control Plans

Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

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

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Height

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

Maximum 10m – wall height

8.6m. Complies.


 

Building Setbacks

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

       Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

       Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces

 

       Landscaping and private open space provided

S2  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 4 metres.

No part closer than 2.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

The side setbacks of the dormer windows are approximately 3m from the boundary. Does not  comply.

 

The proposed dormers would not be visually obtrusive in the streetscape and would not detrimentally impact on solar access to the multi-unit housing building to the south given the generous setback

       Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

between the respective properties.  In relation to privacy, a suitable condition is included requiring a sill height of 1.5m for the dormer windows.

Density

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

 

The application exceeds the LEP controls and a SEPP 1 Objection has been lodged and assessed in Section 6.

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.

There will not be any impacts upon the privacy of the adjoining dwelling at 15 Church Street in that viewing from the dormer window will be across the roof of that dwelling. Notwithstanding a condition is included requiring a 1.5m sill height to protect the privacy of dwellings within the adjoining multi-unit building


 

View Sharing

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

 

The building to the north of the subject property enjoys an outlook across the adjoining properties and includes large trees within both the street frontages and rear yards of adjoining

 

 

properties. The increased height of the building will in part obscure this outlook, however the quality of the view cannot be regarded as significant and the loss of part of the district outlook does not justify the refusal of the application.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

S1.  Solar access to existing solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained between 9am and 3pm each day, throughout the year.

S2  Living areas of neighbouring dwellings do not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year.

S3  At least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings does not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year.

 

The increased height of the development will not result in any significant loss of sunlight to the north facing windows of the adjoining building at 19 Church Street in comparison with the already approved development. Further the proposal is well within the maximum permissible height limit.

 

8.    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.

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed alterations to the multi-unit housing building satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP-Multi-Unit Housing. 

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

 

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. DA/1007/2006 for permission to carryout alterations to the existing attached dual occupancy to include an attic within the roof space and alter windows to the rear ground level of the building and install windows to the en suite bathroom to the upper level at 17 Church 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 04.116A, dated April 2004 and received by Council on the 22nd 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 external materials, colours and finishes of the building are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building.

 

3        Metal roof sheeting is to be painted or colour bonded to minimise reflection and to be sympathetic and compatible with the building and surrounding environment.

 

4        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.

 

5        To maintain a reasonable level of privacy to the adjoining properties the dormer windows shall have a minimum sill height of 1500mm as measured from floor level.  Details shall be provided on the plans accompanying the Construction Certificate application.

 

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

 

6        New external timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls and roofs are to be provided with insulation (i.e. bulk insulation and a reflective building membrane/reflective sarking/foil insulation), having a minimum total thermal resistance R–value of 3.0 in roofs and 1.5 in external walls.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturer’s details.

 

Details of compliance with the requirements for insulation are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

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:

 

7        Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

 

Absorption pits must be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed or flow onto any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

9        All new building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), in accordance with Clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

10        Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

                                        

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

 

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

 

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

 

12      The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or another certifying authority if the Principal Certifying Authority agrees), in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

The principal contractor or owner-builder (as applicable) must ensure that the required critical stage and other inspections, as specified in the Principal Certifying Authority’s “Notice of Critical Stage Inspections”, are carried out to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and at least 48 hours notice (excluding weekends and public holidays) is to be given to the Principal Certifying Authority, to carry out the required inspection, before carrying out any further works.

 

13      A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site for the duration of the works, which contains the following details:

 

     name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable);

     name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority; and

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

16     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.

 

17     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.

 

18     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:

 

19      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.

 

20      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.

         

21      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.

 

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.

 

22      Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions, soil and debris at all times.

 

Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

23      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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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 detail 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.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING 

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER


Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

Notice of Rescission Motions

 



[1] 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 35mmformat photograph. A wider focal length (say 28mm) emphasises the foreground and diminishes the background. A longer focal length (say 100mm) does the opposite. However, it is prudent to be aware that 35mm-format snap-shot photography does not capture a true sense of perspective and distance.

[2] The applicant provided this photo and photomontage.

[3] The applicant provided this photo and photomontage.

[4] Opposite of the ‘angle of incidence’, the glancing angle is the difference between horizontal and the available line of sight. In this case the glancing angle is negative (downward) and determined by the distance from the proposed terrace to the parapet of the approved building.

 

[5] The ground rises in the west and south west, considerably shortening these distances. However, they would be in excess of 30 metres.