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

 

17 April 2007

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK ON TUESDAY, 24TH APRIL 2007 AT 6:00 PM

 

1           Prayer & acknowledgement of local indigenous people

 

Prayer

“Almight God,

We humbly beseech you to bestow your blessings upon this Council and to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of your glory and the true welfare of the people of the City of Randwick and Australia.

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of local indigenous people

“I would like to acknowledge that we are here today on the land of the Bidjigal people of the Dharwahal Nation. The Bidjigal people are the traditional owners and custodians of this land and form part of the wider Aboriginal nations of the Sydney area. On behalf of Randwick City Council I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Elders both past and present.”

 

2           Apologies/Granting of leave of absences

 

3           Confirmation of the Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 27TH MARCH 2007.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addressing of Council by Members of the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

Additional Mayoral minutes (if any) will be issued and listed in a supplementary agenda.

 

7           Urgent Business

 

8           Director City Planning Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 15/2007 - COOGEE PALACE HOTEL, 169-181 DOLPHIN STREET, COOGEE.

2

8.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 16/2007 - 45 MARKET STREET, RANDWICK.

6

8.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 17/2007 - 45-61 MILITARY ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

14

8.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 18/2007 - BARDON PARK, 71R MOUNT STREET & CNR BREAM STREET, COOGEE.

 

52

8.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 19/2007 - 155-157 ARDEN STREET, COOGEE.

79

8.6                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 20/2007 - CITIES FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION MILESTONE 3.

160

 

9           General Manager's Reports

 

9.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 5/2007 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

164

9.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 6/2007 - DRAFT ENFORCEMENT POLICY.

166

9.3                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 7/2007 - AUTHORITY FOR THE MAYOR TO REPRESENT COUNCIL DURING AN UPCOMING VISIT TO TURKEY - AT NO COST TO COUNCIL.

186

9.4                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 8/2007 -   DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2007-11.

189

 

10         Director City Services' Reports

 

10.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 17/2007 - BOOKING/HIRING OF SPORTING FIELDS.

194

10.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 18/2007 - BURNIE PARK COMMUNITY CENTRE – UPGRADE.

199

 

11         Director Governance & Financial Services' Reports

 

11.1                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 21/2007 -   GIFTS AND BENEFITS POLICY.

201

 

12         Petitions

 

13         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

13.1                   

Motion By Councillor Belleli – Paper Recycling Bins for Candidates at Election Campaigns. 

209

13.2

Motion By Councillor Matson – Melbourne Council Zero Emissions Strategy. 

209

13.3

Motion By Councillors Hughes, Matson and Woodsmith – Request under Clause 4 of the Code of Meeting Practice for an item to be brought to a Council meeting.

209

13.4

Motion By Councillors Hughes, Matson and Woodsmith –Arden Street Retaining Walls.

209

13.5

Motion By Councillor Procopiadis – Half Road Closure Resolution for Lenthall Street.

209

 

14         Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

14.1                      

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 9/2007 - DRAFT MANAGEMENT PLAN 2007-11: CONFIDENTIAL FEES AND CHARGES 2007-08

210

14.2

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 21/2007 –

169-181 DOLPHIN STREET, COOGEE - BEACH PALACE HOTEL.

212

 

15         Notices of Rescission Motions

 

…………………………………..

GENERAL MANAGER.


 

Director, City Planning Report 15/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

COOGEE PALACE HOTEL, 169-181 DOLPHIN STREET, COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

10 April, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1140/2003/A & PROP017163

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on the 27 March 2007 resolved that the application to modify of the Development Consent No. 1140/2003 be deferred to clarify the position with respect to any previous approval in relation to consumption of alcohol in the bottom (sports) bar of the hotel. (Resolution: Belleli/Bastic).

 

ISSUES:

 

The “Coogee Palace Hotel” has a long history of development applications. The development application the subject of the modification application (DA/1120/2003) was approved on 9 July 2004 for alterations and additions to the Coogee Palace Hotel. This approval was for relocation of the existing entry on Dolphin Street forward to the front boundary a new entry on Dolphin Street, relocation of the games room from the Dolphin Street frontage to an internal location adjacent to the existing ground floor café, new internal toilets, removal of some internal walls, and the alteration to three windows facing Dolphin Street and one window facing Beach Street from fixed to bi-folding and installation of drinks shelves behind.

 

Council’s resolution seeks clarification as to whether the area of the Hotel that the proposed “sports” bar is located has any previous approval.

 

A search of Council’s records indicates that the plans accompanying Development Application 1120/2003 did incorporate the area to the rear of the ground floor of the subject premises as service area for the Hotel. However, a bar from which alcohol is served was never provided in this area.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

A search of Council’s records has confirmed that there is no approval for a bar in the location indicated as service area to the rear of the ground floor level of the Coogee Palace Hotel.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. DA/1140/2003/A on property 169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the Revision plans numbered 0312-DA-01, dated 27/11/03  and received by Council on 10 December 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plan numbered 0606-896-01, dated 28/06/06 and received by Council on 24 November 2006, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Conditions Nos. 28 to 35 to be added:

 

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:

 

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

 

In this regard, the operation of the premises and plant and equipment shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background (LA90), 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Food Act 2003 and to ensure public health and safety:

 

29.     The premises is to be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004, Australia & New Zealand Food Standards Code and Australian Standard AS 4674-2004, Design, construction and fit-out of food premises and details of compliance are to be included in the documentation for the construction certificate to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

30.     Food safety practices and operation of the food premises must be in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004, Food Standards Code and Food Safety Standards at all times, including the requirements and provisions relating to:

·    Food handling – skills, knowledge and controls.

·    Health and hygiene requirements.

·    Requirements for food handlers and businesses.

·    Cleaning, sanitising and maintenance.

·    Design and construction of food premises, fixtures, fitting and equipment.

 

A failure to comply with the relevant food safety requirements is an offence and may result in legal proceedings, service of notices and/or the issuing of on-the-spot penalty infringement notices.

 

31.     Upon completion of the work and prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the premises must be inspected by Council’s Environmental Health Officer to ascertain compliance with relevant Food Safety Standards and the written approval of Council (being the relevant Food Authority for this food business) must be obtained prior to the operation of the food business.

 

32.     The Proprietor of the food business and all staff carrying out food handling and food storage activities must have appropriate skills and knowledge in food safety and food hygiene matters, as required by the Food Safety Standards.

 

33.     The design and construction of food premises must comply with the following requirements, as applicable:-

·         The floors of food preparation and serving areas and the like are to be constructed of materials which are impervious, non slip and non abrasive.  The floor is to be finished to a smooth even surface, graded and drained to a floor waste connected to the sewer.

·         The intersection of walls with floor and plinths is to be coved, to facilitate cleaning.

·         Walls of the storage, preparation and serving areas and the like are to be of suitable construction finished in a light colour with glazed tiles, stainless steel, laminated plastics or similar approved material adhered directly to the wall adjacent to cooking and food preparation facilities or areas, to provide a smooth even surface.

·         The glazed tiling or other approved material is to extend up to the underside of any mechanical exhaust ventilation hoods and a minimum of 450mm above bench tops or other facilities and equipment.

·         Walls where not tiled are to be cement rendered or be of rigid smooth faced non-absorbent material (i.e. fibrous cement sheeting, plasterboard or other approved material) and finished to a smooth even surface, painted with a washable paint of a light colour or sealed with other approved materials.

·         The ceilings of food preparation areas, storerooms and the like are to be of rigid smooth-faced, non absorbent material i.e., fibrous plaster, plasterboard, fibre cement sheet, cement render or other approved material.

·         All stoves, refrigerators, bain-maries, stock pots, washing machines, hot water heaters, large scales, food mixers, food warmers, cupboards, counters, bars are to be supported on wheels, concrete plinths a minimum 75mm in height, metal legs minimum 150mm in height, brackets or approved metal framework of the like.

·         Cupboards, cabinets, benches and shelving may be glass, metal, plastic, timber sheeting or other approved material.  The use of particleboard or similar material is not permitted unless laminated on all surfaces.

·         Wash hand basins must be provided in convenient positions, with hot and cold water, together with a sufficient supply of soap and clean towels.  Such hot and cold water shall be supplied to the wash hand basins through an approved mixing device.

·         Ceramic tiles or similar being provided to a height of 450mm above bench tops, wash hand basins and similar fittings.

·         A numerically scaled indicating thermometer or recording thermometer, accurate to the nearest degree Celsius being provided to refrigerators, cool rooms, other cooling appliances and bain-maries or other heated food storage/display appliances.  The thermometer is to be located so as to be read easily from the outside of the appliance.

·         All food that is to be kept hot should be heated within one (1) hour from the time when it was prepared or was last kept cold, to a temperature of not less than 60°C and keep this food hot at or above the temperature.  Food that is to be kept cold should be cooled, within four (4) hours from the time when it was prepared or was last kept hot, to a temperature of not more that 5°C and keep this food cold at or below that temperature.

 

34.     Commercial waste materials must not be disposed via council’s domestic garbage service.  All trade/commercial waste materials must be collected by Council’s Trade Waste Service or a waste contractor authorised by the Waste Service of New South Wales and details of the proposed waste collection and disposal service are to be submitted to Council prior to occupation of the building.

35.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of trade/commercial waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

CHAHRAZAD RAHE

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER


  

Director, City Planning Report 16/2007

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

45 MARKET STREET, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

4 April, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/658/2006 & PROP0011425

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING       

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Development Application 658/2006 for a 46-place child care centre at 45 Market Street, Randwick was referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee 13 February 2007. The Committee resolved:

 

RESOLUTION:  (Tracey/Procopiadis) that the application be deferred to allow for an independent traffic consultant to undertake a peer review of the applicant’s traffic and parking study and assess the likely parking impacts generated by the proposed Child Care Centre on the parking capacity of the street network and any potential safety impacts associated with the drop off and pick up of children attending the centre.

 

This report presents the findings of the independent traffic review and recommends that the applicant be given the opportunity to revise the proposal to address the parking-demand scenarios described in the independent traffic review.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

The original development application was referred to the Health, Building & Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Tracey, Procopiadis and Sullivan.

 

The proposal involves the conversion of an existing two-storey residential building to a dedicated child care facility for 46, 0-5 year olds at 45 Market Street, Randwick. The child care centre would operate Monday to Friday from 7am to 6pm. The proposal includes alterations to the existing building, additions to the rear, use of on-street parking, ‘stacked’ off-street parking, acoustic barriers and landscaping.

 

ISSUES:

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution, Graham Pindar of TRAFFIX was engaged to undertake a peer review of the proposal’s traffic and parking impacts.

 

The independent traffic review is attached to this report. The review findings are summarised below:

 

·         In summary, the absence of suitable on-site parking within this locality, which is characterized by high levels of parking utilization, presents grounds to refuse the development application in its present form, which in our view is an overdevelopment of the site. The site nevertheless appears to be appropriate for use as a child care centre and Council is encouraged to consider the following development scenarios which would have a moderate impact during peak periods, but no impacts between these peaks, during the evenings; or on weekends:

 

A.    A centre for 24 children, with 2 stacked on-site spaces for staff, 2 on-street parent/carer spaces within the site frontage to Market Street signposted as 10 minute set-down/pick-up spaces during peak periods; and 2 other on-street spaces; or

 

B.    A centre for 28 children, with 3 stacked (and managed) spaces for staff, 2 on-street parent/carer spaces within the site frontage to Market Street signposted as 10 minute setdown/pick-up spaces during peak periods; and 2 other on-street spaces; or

 

C.    A centre for 46 children, with 6 off-street spaces, 2 on-street parent/carer spaces within the site frontage to Market Street signposted as 10 minute set-down/pick-up spaces; and 2 other on-street spaces.

 

·         All of these options involve a moderate impact in that they rely on up to four on street spaces in circumstances where this will create some local impacts and may involve parents/carers having to walk over 100 metres to find a suitable parking space. However, on balance and having regard for the need for a suitable planning outcome, this is considered acceptable in the circumstances. While some displacement of resident parking will occur on occasions, conditions will revert to ‘normality’ between 9am and 3pm and after 6pm, with no impacts whatsoever during the evenings or on weekends.

 

Comment: The 3 development scenarios presented in the traffic review would require substantial changes to the proposal. The floor and landscaping areas relate, pro-rata, to the number of child-care places provided. Consequently, the site is not likely to be able to accommodate 6 off-street spaces, as in the last scenario. Alternately, reducing the number of child-care places, as in the first 2 scenarios will substantially reduce the floor and landscaped area requirements for the facility. It is possible that the ideal size for the centre, that is one that satisfies the parking requirements demonstrated by the independent traffic report and provides the optimum child care facilities, will be somewhere in between these 3 development scenarios. Therefore, it is recommended that the applicant be given the opportunity to revise the proposal to address the parking-demand scenarios described in the independent traffic review.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4a:          Improved design and sustainability across all development.

Key Action:   Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Development Application 658/2006 for a 46-place child care centre at 45 Market Street, Randwick was deferred by the Health, Building and Planning Committee at its meeting held on the  13 February 2007 to allow an independent review of the proposal’s traffic and parking impacts.

 

The findings of the independent traffic review are presented in this report. This report recommends that the applicant be given the opportunity to revise the proposal to address the parking-demand scenarios described in the independent traffic review.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the applicant be given the opportunity to revise the proposal to address the following parking-demand scenarios described in the independent traffic review.

 

(a)    A centre for 24 children, with 2 stacked on-site spaces for staff, 2 on-street parent/carer spaces within the site frontage to Market Street signposted as 10 minute set-down/pick-up spaces during peak periods; and 2 other on-street spaces; or

 

(b)    A centre for 28 children, with 3 stacked (and managed) spaces for staff, 2 on-street parent/carer spaces within the site frontage to Market Street signposted as 10 minute setdown/pick-up spaces during peak periods; and 2 other on-street spaces; or

 

(c)    A centre for 46 children, with 6 off-street spaces, 2 on-street parent/carer spaces within the site frontage to Market Street signposted as 10 minute set-down/pick-up spaces; and 2 other on-street spaces.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Independent review of traffic and parking matters for Development Application 658/2006, prepared by TRAFFIX traffic consultants, 26 March 2007.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID MOONEY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER






 

Director, City Planning Report 17/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

45-61 MILITARY ROAD, MATRAVILLE

 

 

DATE:

11 April, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/680/2006 & PROP051813 & PROP042452 & PROP019683

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for an application to demolish the existing  kiosk and construct a new building including 3 condolence rooms, café, florist and associated amenities.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the recommendations contained in the attached report.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 15 January 2007.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID MOONEY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

15 January 2007

FILE NO:

DA/680/2006 & PROP051813 & PROP042452 & PROP019683

 

PROPOSAL:

Demolish the existing kiosk and construct a new building including 3 condolence rooms, café, florist and associated amenities.

PROPERTY:

45-61 Military Road, Matraville

WARD:

South Ward

APPLICANT:

Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park

OWNER:

Department of Lands - Crown Lands Division

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The proposal is referred to the Council as the estimated capital value exceeds $2m.

 

The proposal involves the construction of a new single storey building containing 3 condolence rooms, a café, flower shop, kitchen, facilities, and landscaping for the Eastern Suburb Memorial Park. The proposal includes demolition of the small existing kiosk nearby.

 

The proposed building is contemporary in style and uses modern building materials including panel cladding, metal roofing, steel awnings and face block-work.

 

The proposal does not include additional car parking. There is an existing car-park on the site and the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Trust is in separate negotiations with Council about the reconstruction of Military Road and the provision of on-street parking.

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Military Road between Bumborah Point Road and Bunnerong Road in the south of the suburb of Matraville. The Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park is an extensive site of approximately 30 hectares. The proposed building relates to an area of land adjoining Military Road that is approximately 1,200 square metres in area. This site has a gentle westerly aspect and street frontage of 50 meters.

 

The proposed development is permissible as an innominate ancillary use to the cemetery and crematorium and satisfies the objectives of the zone.

 

Council has prepared a Development Control Plan for the site that applies guidelines and controls. The proposal is assessed against these controls in the Development Control Plan section of this report and found to be satisfactory. The recommendation includes a Masterplan waiver for the proposed development.

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies. Comments and recommended consent conditions have been provided.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal involves the construction of a new single storey building containing 3 condolence rooms, a café, flower shop, kitchen, facilities, and landscaping for the Eastern Suburb Memorial Park. The proposal includes demolition of the small existing kiosk nearby. The architect’s design objectives are shown in figure 1.

 

Figure 1 - The Architect’s design objectives

 

The proposed building is contemporary in style and uses modern building materials including panel cladding, metal roofing, steel awnings and face block-work.

 

The proposal does not include additional car parking. There is an existing car-park on the site and the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Trust is in separate negotiations with Council about the reconstruction of Military Road and the provision of on-street parking (as shown in figure 2).

 

A site plan, floor layout and elevation are shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4.

Figure 2 - A site plan showing the location of the new facility

Figure 3 - A floor layout of the proposed development.

Figure 4 - The northern and eastern elevations of the proposed building.



3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Military Road between Bumborah Point Road and Bunnerong Road in the south of the suburb of Matraville. The Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park is an extensive site of approximately 30 hectares. The proposed building relates to an area of land adjoining Military Road that is approximately 1,200 square metres in area. This site has a gentle westerly aspect and street frontage of 50 meters. An aerial photograph can be seen in figure 5. There are 3 Kaffir Plum trees that flank the eastern border of the site. These can be seen in figure 6. The kiosk proposed for demolition is 80 metres to the south-west and also fronts Military Road. The existing kiosk can be seen in figure 7.

 

The subject site is adjacent to the Eastern Suburbs Crematorium which is listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The crematorium is an intact example of an Inter-War Art-Deco building. The site is over the road from the former Bunnerong Power-Station Conservation-Area, which has now been redeveloped as part of the cemetery site.

Figure 5 - An aerial photograph of the subject site showing the existing kiosk.

Figure 6 - Subject site showing Kaffir Plum trees flanking the eastern border

Figure 7 - The existing kiosk (foreground only)

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

The application was lodged 23 August 2006 and subsequently amended 5 December 2006 in response to the following issues raised by Council Officers. This assessment report is based on the amended proposal.

 

·                A Preliminary Site Contamination Investigation must be undertaken and details are to be submitted to and accepted by Council.

 

·                Acid sulphate soils investigation/assessment should be undertaken by a suitably qualified person and details are to be submitted to Council.

 

·                Standard conditions could be included to address access for people with a disability, although compliance will require changes to the design of the building to accommodate a ramp system and sanitary facilities, complying with the BCA and AS1428.

 

·                When the application was referred to Council’s Traffic Management Group for consideration it was recommended to the Development Engineer that the loading bay be deleted from the plans (rather than redesigned) noting the safety concerns associated with vehicles reversing over Council’s footpath as well as the difficulties associated with redesigning the proposal to provide a turning bay for delivery vehicles.

 

·                It was further recommended that a space in the proposed on-street angle parking bays be delineated as a loading bay which may be used by utility vehicles or vans making deliveries to the subject site.

 

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with Council policy. One submission was received from Energy Australia, and is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 - Submission from Energy Australia

There is a consent condition in the recommendation that requires the development to be undertaken in accordance with these requirements.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies. Comments and recommended consent conditions have been provided. Comments are reproduced below and the recommended conditions are included in the recommendation at the end of this report.

 

Engineering Development Assessment

 

An amended application has been received for the construction of a café, flower shop and reception rooms at the above site.

 

General Comments

 

It is recommended that the Planning Officer include a condition in the development consent limiting the use of the reception rooms to events held in conjunction with the existing cemetery facilities; (It is noted that this report has been prepared on the assumption that the rooms are not available for separate hire).

 

Landscape Comments

 

On Council’s Military Road nature strip, beyond the western boundary, near the northern boundary of the site, there is one 4 metre tall Metrosideros excelsa (NZ Xmas Tree), as well as a group of small, insignificant trees at the southwest corner of the site comprising two Cocos Palms, one Norfolk Island Hibiscus and a Bracelet Honey Myrtle, which all appear in poor condition.

 

While Council would not object to their removal, they are not directly affected by the works contained in this application, and it is understood that the applicant has agreed to cover Council’s costs for re-construction of the roadway at a later date, including angled parking bays and associated works, their removal will likely be dealt with at that point in time by Council’s asset officers, with conditions relating to them therefore not included in this report.

 

Outside the eastern boundary of the site, beyond the existing dividing brick wall, there is a row of three large Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plums) of approximately 6-8 metres in height which appear in reasonable condition, and are covered by the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order.

 

The past pruning of lower growing branches from both the western and eastern sides of its canopy has been undertaken previously in order to provide a sufficient clearance off the existing masonry walls, with further pruning likely required in order to avoid conflict with construction of the eastern side of the proposed building, and would not be considered to affect the health of these trees given the resilience of the species.

 

These three trees act as a wind break, provide effective screening and also create a strong sense of enclosure and privacy within the adjacent memorial lawn, which are desirable attributes for such a location and use.

 

At the same time, they could not be considered significant specimens given their common nature, as well as the fact they have not yet reached maturity, with the Architect advised by phone of Council’s knowledge regarding the aggressive and invasive root system of this species, and the fact that removal could actually be supported as Council is actively seeking their removal from nature strips due to the amount of structural damage they were causing.

 

However, the plans have been prepared around the retention of the trees for the reasons outlined above, with excavations associated with the proposed condolence building setback about 3-3.5 metres to their west. Providing the measures described in this report are adhered to during the course of the works, these trees will be able to serve their intended function.

 

It is understood that several traffic/civil concerns were raised by Council in response to the original plans, with amended plans demonstrating compliance with Council’s requirements now received; however, the landscape plan has not been amended to reflect the architectural changes made, and as such, a revised landscape plan is needed.

 

The assessing officer is also advised that the current landscape plan proposes a significant amount of work beyond the western boundary, on Council’s Military Road nature strip and roadway.

 

However, approval for such work will not be forthcoming as part of this application, as detailed plans and specifications, which have been prepared in accordance with Council’s requirements, would need to be submitted following extensive discussions with Council’s Assets and Design staff, with this report requiring that this component be deleted from all plans.

 

Traffic Comments

 

The applicant has submitted a Traffic and Parking Report by TAR Technologies that finds that there are no significant traffic/parking issues resulting from the proposed development that may warrant refusal of the proposal.

 

Parking provisions - The applicant has noted that the proposed café, florist and reception rooms are to be used in associated with the existing crematorium facilities for which 83 car spaces are currently provided on site. The applicant has also proposed angle parking bays along the site frontage to provide additional on-street parking (see also Civil Works Comments below).

 

Loading facilities – The original plans submitted to Council showed the provision of a service/delivery space accessed by a one-way driveway along the southern property boundary. It was previously noted that Council did not support the provision of loading facilities where vehicles cannot enter and exit the site in a forward direction. The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Management Group for consideration and it was recommended that the loading bay be deleted from the plans noting the safety concerns associated with vehicles reversing over Council’s footpath as well as the difficulties associated with redesigning the proposal to provide a turning bay for delivery vehicles. Amended plans have now been submitted showing the deletion of the proposed service vehicle access.

 

The Planning Officer is also advised that the Traffic Management Group further recommended that one space in the proposed on-street angle parking bays be delineated as a loading bay which may be used by utility vehicles or vans making deliveries to the subject site. A condition has been included in the report to address this matter.

 

Civil Works Comments

 

The Planning Officer is advised that the Development Engineer contacted Council’s Manager Technical Services in regard to the civil works proposed along the site frontage. It is understood that the applicant has been liaising with Council in relation to Council’s current plans for various upgrade works to Military Road and that the proposed angle parking bays and associated works shown in the plans submitted with this application reflect these discussions.

 

Council’s Manager Technical Services indicated that Council would be undertaking all civil works along Military Road but that the applicant would be required to meet the cost for the portion of the civil works along the site frontage as shown on the submitted plans. Accordingly, a condition has been included in this report in regard to this matter.

 

Building Services

 

The proposal provides for the construction of condolence rooms and café on the vacant land.

BCA Building Classification

Class   -        9b      (Assembly Building)

 

Background

 

The site is currently vacant and adjoins the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park.

 

Site Management:

 

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

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information would need to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate.

 

Access for people with a disability:

 

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

 

Access for people with a disability is required to be provided to the function rooms, café and comfort room and sanitary facilities for people with a disability are also required to be provided to the development, in accordance with the provisions of the BCA.

 

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

 

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

 

Environmental Health Officer

 

The proposal

 

An application has been submitted for development of condolence rooms and associated café at the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park.

 

Potential acid sulphate soils

 

A request for additional information was made by Councils Environmental Health Unit seeking further information in relation to potential acid sulfate soils (ASS) and contaminated land.

 

The EHU received this additional information on 1 February 2007, in a document titled Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park Stage 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Preliminary Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment 49 Military Road Matraville NSW report number E649.1 AA prepared by Environmental Investigations dated 31 October 2006.

 

This report considers the potential for Acid Sulfate Soils and contaminated land. The report concludes that preparation of an Acid Sulfate Soils management plan is required prior to commencement of the development.

 

Contaminated land issues

 

This report was also prepared to evaluate the potential for contamination and determine if the site is suitable for its intended use. It was identified that the site has formed part of the cemetery since 1886, and was used as a stone masons from 1985-2002. There is minor building rubble on site associated with buried concrete footings from the stone masons building. The report concludes that the site is suitable for its intended use, and EHU accepts the findings of this report, subject to the following conditions:

 

All waste materials should be classified prior to off site disposal to appropriate landfill facilities.

 

Any soils to be imported onto the site for the purpose of backfilling excavated areas will also require validation testing.

 

Food safety requirements

 

The plans do not show a hand wash basin in the servery area. This will be required by conditions of consent.

 

The café is to be fit out in accordance with the requirements of Food Act 2003, Food Regulations 2004 and Food Safety Standards. Standard noise conditions should be applied in this respect.

 

Heritage Officer

 

The subject site is adjacent to the Eastern Suburbs Crematorium which is listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The crematorium is an excellent and largely intact example of an Inter War Art Deco building of its type and is representative of this class of buildings form the period.  The site is on the opposite side of Military Road to the site of the former Bunnerong Power Station Conservation Area which has now been redeveloped as part of the Cemetery site.

 

The application proposes construction of a new single storey building comprising condolence rooms and a cafe.  The new building is to be located adjacent to Military Road, opposite the administration building, around 50m from the Crematorium building.  It is also proposed to provide angle parking off Military Road.

 

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which includes a section addressing Conservation.  The SEE notes that the proposal is consistent with the Master Plan for the site and uses materials which are consistent with the context.  The SEE notes that the subject site is remote from both the conservation area and the heritage item and will not adversely affect their significance. 

 

The new building will be around 50m away from the Crematorium and be sited with the same north-south orientation as the Crematorium and the adjacent memorial gardens to the west.  The new building appears to be accessed from Military Road, rather than from the direction of the Crematorium and memorial gardens.  The new building will require removal of a section of the masonry boundary wall but will apparently retain the existing “Jubilee Wall”, a columbarium containing cremated remains of persons who died in 1952.  The retention of these memorial walls and existing trees will screen the new building from the east and retain the garden setting of the Crematorium and axial relationship between the Crematorium and the landscape elements.  The proposed building will have a fairly simple elevation to the east comprising masonry walls with glazed panels below the skillion roofs.  The scale, bulk, materials and detailing of the new building will ensure that it remains as a secondary element to the Crematorium building.  The proposed building is reasonably separated from the Crematorium, is integrated with boundary wall and will not interrupt the main views of the Crematorium building from the west and south.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The Council may waive the requirement for a master plan if there are adequate guidelines and controls that already apply to the land. Council have prepared a Development Control Plan for the site that applies adequate guidelines and controls. The proposal is assessed against these controls in the Development Control Plan section of this report and found to be satisfactory. The recommendation includes a Masterplan waiver for the proposed development.

 

8.    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 5 Special Uses 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:

 

PART 2 - ZONES

 

Clause 17   Zone No 5 (Special Uses Zone)

 

The objectives of Zone No 5 are to:

 

·         accommodate development by public authorities on publicly owned land,

·         accommodate development for educational, religious, public transport or similar purposes on both publicly and privately owned land,

·         allow appropriate community uses,

·         enable associated and ancillary development,

·         identify and protect land intended to be acquired for special uses,

·         allow for the redevelopment of land no longer required for a special use.

 

The proposed development is permissible as an innominate ancillary use to the cemetery and crematorium and satisfies the objectives of the zone.

 

PART 3 – SPECIAL PROVISIONS

 

Relevant special provisions are considered in table 1

Table 1 - Special provisions assessment

Provision

 

Comment

Clause 22 Services - The Council may consent to the carrying out of development on any land only where it is satisfied that adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal or disposal of sewage and drainage are available to that land.

 

The site is adequately serviced by water, stormwater and sewer infrastructure.

Clause 37A    Development in Special Uses Zone - The Council may grant consent to the development of land within Zone No 5 only if it is satisfied that the proposed development is compatible with the character of the locality and will not adversely affect the amenity of nearby and adjoining development.

 

The proposed building satisfies the requirements of Council’s site specific DCP for the land. The proposed building is considered to be compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality and would not adversely affect the amenity of development and land-uses nearby.

Clause 40A Master plans

See the Master-planning section of this report.

 

Clause 42B Contaminated land

 

The provisions of Clause 42B are similar to the provisions of SEPP 55 and are considered under that section of this report.

 

 

PART 4 – HERITAGE CONSERVATION

 

The subject site is over the road from the former Bunnerong Power Station Conservation Area and nearby by to the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Crematorium. Council must take into consideration the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage items or conservation areas. Council’s Heritage Officer has reviewed the proposal and found the impact to be acceptable. The Heritage Officer’s comments are included in full in a separate section of this report.

 

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

 

The Council must be satisfied that the land is suitable or will be suitable, after remediation for the proposed development. A Preliminary Site Contamination Investigation was carried out by ‘Environmental Investigations’. The investigation methodology and results were reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Unit and found to be acceptable. The Environmental Health Officer’s comments are included in full in a separate section of this report.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan: Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park

 

The purpose of this Development Control Plan is to provide development guidelines for the refurbishment of part of the existing Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park and for extension of the operations of the Memorial Park to part of the old Bunnerong Power Station site.

 

Development on the subject land should maintain the positive elements of the site character and correct the negative elements by:

 

oUnifying the two sites,

oRecognising and, where appropriate, incorporating major elements of the previous use

oThe major existing site axis

oRectangular building forms, solid structural elements in light coloured masonry,

 

Table 2 outlines the design controls for the site and provides comment on the proposed development.

 

Table 2 - DCP Development Controls

Development Controls

 

Comments

DESIGN CONTROLS

Site planning

The subject site is identified by the DCP as suitable for an ancillary commercial use. The proposal provides a coherent site layout that connects well to other site elements. It retains 3 trees to the east and these are important landscape features of the site. Pedestrian access to the site is available from the Crematorium, following paths through memorial gardens and from Military road via stairs and an accessible ramp. Solar access and protection from the wind is excellent.

Conservation

The scale, bulk, materials and detailing ensure that the building will be a secondary element to the nearby Crematorium building and a positive contribution to the landscape.

FACILITIES AND ACCESS

Military Road and access to the site

There is no vehicular access to the site proposed.

Internal Roads and manoeuvring area

There are no internal roads proposed.

Parking

There is no additional parking proposed. There is an existing parking facility on the site that adequately services the crematorium. The proposed facility is an innominate ancillary use and would not generate significant additional parking demand. The proposed development would complement Council’s proposed road and on-street parking work in Military Road.

Barrier-free access

The proposed building will need to satisfy the accessibility requirements of the Building Code of Australia. There is a consent condition in the recommendation on this matter.

SITE MANAGEMENT & SERVICES

Contamination

The proposal was accompanied by a Preliminary site contamination report, prepared by Environmental Investigations. The report finds that the subject site is suitable for the proposed use.

Erosion and sediment control

The development application is accompanied by the requisite erosion and sediment control plan.

Excavation and fill

The proposed building is sympathetic to the topography of the site. Major excavations are not required.

 

b.    Development Control Plan: Car Parking

 

There is no additional parking proposed. There is an existing parking facility on the site that adequately services the crematorium. The proposed facility is an ancillary innominate use and would not generate significant additional parking demand. The proposed development would complement Council’s proposed road and on-street parking work in Military Road.

 

8.2 Council Policies

Rainwater tanks

 

The proposal does not require, but includes a rainwater tank.

 

Asbestos Policy

 

Demolition of the existing kiosk may involve handling and removal of small amounts of asbestos. There are consent conditions in the recommendation dealing with this matter.

 

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 proposal is referred to the Council as the estimated capital value exceeds $2m.

 

The proposal involves the construction of a new single storey building containing 3 condolence rooms, a café, flower shop, kitchen, facilities, and landscaping for the Eastern Suburb Memorial Park. The proposal includes demolition of the small existing kiosk nearby.

 

The proposed development is permissible as an innominate ancillary use to the cemetery and crematorium and satisfies the objectives of the zone.

 

Council has prepared a Development Control Plan for the site that applies guidelines and controls. The proposal is assessed against these controls in the Development Control Plan section of this report and found to be satisfactory. The recommendation includes a Masterplan waiver for the proposed development.

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies. Comments and recommended consent conditions have been provided.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority waive the requirement for masterplan under Clause 40A of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 because adequate guidelines and controls applying to the land are already in place.

 

B.     THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No DA/680/2006 to demolish the existing kiosk and construct a new building including 3 condolence rooms, café, florist and associated amenities at 45-61 Military Road, Matraville 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 DA01 to DA05 Revision C received by Council on 5 December 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.     The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the surrounding heritage listed buildings.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

3.     Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, the applicant must meet the full cost for Council to undertake civil works including, but not limited to:

 

a.  Construction of angle parking bays, concrete kerb and gutter and associated works, together with the installation of landscaping, signposting and linemarking along the site frontage from the southern property boundary to a point approximately 90 metres north.

 

The applicant shall liaise directly with Council’s City Services Department in regard to this matter.

 

Note: One parking space in the proposed on-street angle parking bays shall be delineated as a loading bay to be used by utility vehicles or vans making deliveries to the subject site.

 

4.     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.

 

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

 

5.     The design alignment level for the Military Road property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be obtained in writing from Council’s Coordinator of Assets, (9399 0928), prior to lodgement of a Construction Certificate.

 

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

 

7.     The above alignment levels will be 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 provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

8.     Detailed drainage plans shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The drainage plans shall demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this development approval.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.       Grassed areas

iv.      Garden areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

10.   All stormwater run-offs naturally draining to the site must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

 

11.   All site stormwater from the redeveloped portion of the site must be discharged (by gravity) to either:

 

a.    The kerb and gutter or drainage system at the front of the property; OR

 

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

 

12.   Should stormwater be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, on-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 10 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 100 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by Council. Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

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

 

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

 

13.   Should stormwater be discharged to an infiltration system, the infiltration area shall be sized for all storm events up to the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a.    150mm in uncovered carparking areas (with an isolated maximum depth of 200mm permissible at the low point pit within the detention area)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Notes:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

22.   A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided:-

 

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

 

b.    prior to stormwater discharging into any absorption/infiltration system.

 

23.   The sediment/silt arrester pit shall be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:-

 

a.    The base of the pit located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

 

b.    The pit constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

 

c.    A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

 

d.    A galvanised heavy-duty screen located over the outlet pipe/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

 

e.    The grate being a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

 

f.    A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system provided for the access grate (e.g. spring loaded j-bolts or similar).

 

g.    A sign adjacent to the pit stating:

 

h.    “This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned.”

 

Note:   

    Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit may be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

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

 

Notes:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

b.    Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

 

c.    Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

 

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

 

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

 

f.    Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

 

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

 

26.   Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the conditions of development consent. The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the certifying engineers and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

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

 

27.   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.

 

28.   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:

 

29.   That part of the naturestrip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf or similar. Such works shall be completed at the applicant’s expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

30.   Landscaping at the site shall be installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plan prepared by Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture, drawing number LS01, issue B, dated 23.11.05 and stamped received at Council on 23rd August 2006, subject to the following additional requirements being included on an amended plan, which shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, prior to the issue of a construction certificate:

 

a.  Deletion of all landscape and civil works proposed beyond the western boundary, on Council’s Military Road nature strip and roadway, as any future, separate approval for such work would need to result from detailed discussions with Council’s Asset and Design staff.

 

b.  Notation stating that all paving/hard-surfacing beneath at the eastern end of the site, beneath the western sides of their canopies, shall be porous/permeable in nature, in order to maintain acceptable levels of air and moisture exchange to the rootzone of the three Kaffir Plum trees.

 

c.  Identification of the exact location of species proposed for planting throughout the site.

 

d.  Deletion of Ralphiolepsis umbellata (Indian Hawthorn) from the planting plan and planting schedule as this species is considered an environmental weed given the ability of its berries to be spread by birds and invade areas of native, remnant bushland. A suitable alternative species of similar form and function shall be selected in its place.

 

Tree Management

 

31.   Permission is granted for the selective pruning of only those lower growing branches from the western and eastern sides of the three Harpephylum caffrum (Kaffir Plums), located beyond the eastern boundary, with the adjacent memorial lawn, which specifically need to be removed in order to avoid damage/conflict during the course of the proposed works.

 

32.   All pruning must be undertaken by a qualified Arborist, who is a registered member of a nationally recognized organisation, to the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

·          NOTE: While located outside the site boundary, the applicant may remove the existing insignificant trees on Council’s Military Road nature strip should the need arise during the course of the proposed works.

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

33.   In order to ensure the retention of the three Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plums) located beyond the eastern boundary of the site, within the adjacent memorial lawn in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

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

 

b.    Detailed architectural, building, demolition, engineering (structural, stormwater & drainage, services), and landscape documentation submitted for the construction certificate application shall show no alteration in the existing soil levels for a distance of 3 metres to the west of the existing memorial wall, to their west of their trunks, beneath the western sides of their canopies.

 

c.    All three trees are to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which shall be located a minimum distance of 3 metres to the west of the existing memorial wall, along the full length of the eastern boundary, returning back to the eastern boundary at the northern and southern ends of the site, to completely enclose all three trees.

 

d.    This fencing shall be installed prior to the physical commencement of excavation/construction works, and shall remain in place until the landscape works proposed beneath the western sides of their canopies is being carried out.

 

e.    The words “TREE PROTECTION ZONE", "DO NOT ENTER", shall be permanently attached to the fencing for the duration of the works.

 

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

 

g.    Any excavations beneath the western sides of the canopies of all three trees, for a minimum distance of 3 metres off the existing memorial wall, shall be initially undertaken by hand, with any roots encountered to be cut cleanly by hand, and the affected area backfilled as soon as practically possible.

 

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:

 

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

 

In this regard, the operation of the premises and plant and equipment shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background (LA90), 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

35.   The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance or damage to other premises.

 

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

 

36.   The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health nuisance to the adjoining/nearby premises or environment.

 

37.   There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

38.   Any fill importation to the site is to be monitored and classified by a suitably qualified environmental consultant. Only ‘Virgin Excavated Natural Material’ (VENM) is to be imported to the site, as defined within the NSW EPA ‘Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and management of Liquid and Non-Liquid Wastes. 1999’.

 

39.   An Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan is required prior be developed prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Food Act 2003 and to ensure public health and safety:

 

40.   The premises is to be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004, Australia & New Zealand Food Standards Code and Australian Standard AS 4674-2004, Design, construction and fit-out of food premises and details of compliance are to be included in the documentation for the construction certificate to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

41.   Food safety practices and operation of the food premises must be in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004, Food Standards Code and Food Safety Standards at all times, including the requirements and provisions relating to:

 

a.    Food handling – skills, knowledge and controls.

b.    Health and hygiene requirements.

c.    Requirements for food handlers and businesses.

d.    Cleaning, sanitising and maintenance.

e.    Design and construction of food premises, fixtures, fitting and equipment.

 

A failure to comply with the relevant food safety requirements is an offence and may result in legal proceedings, service of notices and/or the issuing of on-the-spot penalty infringement notices.

 

42.   The food premises must be registered with Council's Environmental Health section and the NSW Food Authority must also be notified of the food business in accordance with the Food Safety Standards, prior to commencement of food business operations.

 

43.   Upon completion of the work and prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the premises must be inspected by Council’s Environmental Health Officer to ascertain compliance with relevant Food Safety Standards and the written approval of Council (being the relevant Food Authority for this food business) must be obtained prior to the operation of the food business.

 

44.   The Proprietor of the food business and all staff carrying out food handling and food storage activities must have appropriate skills and knowledge in food safety and food hygiene matters, as required by the Food Safety Standards.

 

45.   The design and construction of food premises must comply with the following requirements, as applicable:-

 

a.  The floors of kitchens, food preparation areas and the like are to be constructed of materials which are impervious, non slip and non abrasive.  The floor is to be finished to a smooth even surface, graded and drained to a floor waste connected to the sewer.

 

b.  The intersection of walls with floor and plinths is to be coved, to facilitate cleaning.

 

c.  Walls of the kitchen preparation areas and the like are to be of suitable construction finished in a light colour with glazed tiles, stainless steel, laminated plastics or similar approved material adhered directly to the wall adjacent to cooking and food preparation facilities or areas, to provide a smooth even surface.

 

d.  The glazed tiling or other approved material is to extend up to the underside of any mechanical exhaust ventilation hoods and a minimum of 450mm above bench tops or other facilities and equipment.

 

e.  Walls where not tiled are to be cement rendered or be of rigid smooth faced non-absorbent material (i.e. fibrous cement sheeting, plasterboard or other approved material) and finished to a smooth even surface, painted with a washable paint of a light colour or sealed with other approved materials.

 

f.   The ceilings of kitchens, food preparation areas, storerooms and the like are to be of rigid smooth-faced, non absorbent material i.e., fibrous plaster, plasterboard, fibre cement sheet, cement render or other approved material.

 

g.  All stoves, refrigerators, bain-maries, stock pots, washing machines, hot water heaters, large scales, food mixers, food warmers, cupboards, counters, bars are to be supported on wheels, concrete plinths a minimum 75mm in height, metal legs minimum 150mm in height, brackets or approved metal framework of the like.

 

h.  Cupboards, cabinets, benches and shelving may be glass, metal, plastic, timber sheeting or other approved material.  The use of particleboard or similar material is not permitted unless laminated on all surfaces.

 

i.   Adequate fly screens and doors with self-closing devices, (where applicable), are to be provided to all external door and window openings. 

 

j.   Garbage storage enclosures are to be fitted with a hose cock and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste connected to the sewer.

 

k.  A mechanical ventilation exhaust system hood is to be installed where cooking or heating processes are carried out in the kitchen or in food preparation areas, in accordance with the relevant requirements of Clause F4.12 of the BCA and Australian Standard AS 1668 Parts 1 & 2.

 

l.   Wash hand basins must be provided in convenient positions, with hot and cold water, together with a sufficient supply of soap and clean towels.  Such hot and cold water shall be supplied to the wash hand basins through an approved mixing device.

 

m.  Ceramic tiles being provided to a height of 450mm above bench tops, wash hand basins and similar fittings.

 

n.  A numerically scaled indicating thermometer or recording thermometer, accurate to the nearest degree Celsius being provided to refrigerators, cool rooms, other cooling appliances and bain-maries or other heated food storage/display appliances.  The thermometer is to be located so as to be read easily from the outside of the appliance.

 

o.  All food that is to be kept hot should be heated within one (1) hour from the time when it was prepared or was last kept cold, to a temperature of not less than 60°C and keep this food hot at or above the temperature.  Food that is to be kept cold should be cooled, within four (4) hours from the time when it was prepared or was last kept hot, to a temperature of not more that 5°C and keep this food cold at or below that temperature.

 

46.   Details of proposed mechanical ventilation systems, detailing compliance with the relevant requirements of Clause F4.12 of the BCA and Australian Standard AS 1668 Parts 1 & 2 (including exhaust air quantities and discharge location points) are to be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority with the construction certificate and a copy of relevant documentation is to be provided to Council.

 

47.   A certificate or statement must be provided to the certifying authority and the Council, from a suitably qualified person, prior to occupation, which confirms that the mechanical ventilation system satisfies the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards AS 1668 Parts 1 & 2.

 

48.   Liquid trade waste materials are to be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water, Trade Waste Department and details of compliance are to be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of works.

 

49.   Commercial waste materials must not be disposed via council’s domestic garbage service.  All commercial waste materials must be collected by Council’s Trade Waste Service or a waste contractor authorised by the Waste Service of New South Wales and details of the proposed waste collection and disposal service are to be submitted to Council prior to occupation of the building.

 

50.   Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of trade/commercial waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

51.   All works must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the accepted Site Management Plan (SMP) and the Acid Sulphate Soils Management Plan (ASSMP), as applicable.

 

52.   The works shall not give rise to environmental pollution or public nuisance or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act (2000) & Regulations (2001). In this regard, the terms and conditions of the current and relevant NSW EPA License (number 12104) shall be complied with.

 

53.   Hazardous or intractable wastes shall be handled in accordance with the requirements of Work Cover NSW and the Environment Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

56.   All site works shall comply with the occupational health and safety requirements of Work Cover NSW.

 

57.   The installation, storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids and the like must comply with Australian Standards AS 1940:1993 The Storage and Handling of Flammable and Combustible Liquids and must be licensed by Work Cover NSW.  A copy of the compliance certificate and Work Cover NSW Dangerous Goods licence being submitted to Council before occupation of the premises.

 

58.   Any wash bay area and the like are to be covered and bunded to prevent direct entry of rainwater and surface water in accordance with the Sydney Water and Department of Environment & Conservation's Environmental Guidelines and relevant conditions of consent.

 

59.   Open areas (including parking areas) must drain to a storm water treatment device (as applicable) which is capable of removing litter, oil, grease and sediment prior to discharge to the storm water system complying with:

 

a.    Environmental Protection Authority’s Environment Protection Manual for Authorised Officers:  Technical Section (Stormwater First Flush Pollution); and

 

b.    Environmental Protection Authority’s Managing Urban Storm water: treatment techniques;

 

c.    Council’s Storm water Management Policy and conditions of consent.

 

d.    Storm water treatment device(s) must be operated and maintained at all times to NSW EPA and Councils Manager of Regulatory Health and Building Services satisfaction.

 

60.   Pollution control devices shall be installed and maintained to ensure there will be no water borne pollutants discharging or are likely to discharge into any natural water course, stormwater or sewerage drainage systems.

 

Full details of the proposed pollution control devices to be installed are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning in accordance with Section 80 A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

61.   Sign(s) being displayed and maintained adjacent to all stormwater drains on the premises, clearly indicating “Clean Water Only – NO Waste Water or Rubbish”.

 

62.   The work areas, storage bays, wash bays and the like shall be covered, bunded and graded into collection sumps and/or provided with grated drains so that surface effluent generated within the site/area is directed into a dedicated drainage system for treatment, storage and disposal.  If liquid wastes are to be disposed of to the sewer, a Trade Waste Agreement from Sydney Water is to be obtained. 

 

63.   A copy of the Sydney Water Trade Waste licence is to be forwarded to Council as proof of appropriate disposal.  Alternatively, disposal of waste is to be conducted in accordance with the Environmental Protection Authority’s Waste Tracking Guidelines as described in the Environmental Protection Authority’s Waste Regulation under The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) and details of compliance must be provided to Council.

 

64.   Hazardous waste or dangerous goods shall not be stored or processed on the site, without the prior approval from the relevant and appropriate regulatory authority.

 

65.   An Emergency Response Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.  The Plan shall include the following:

a.    list of chemicals and maximum quantities to be stored at the site;

b.    identification of potentially hazardous situations;

c.    procedure for incident reporting;

d.    details of spill stations and signage;

e.    containment and clean-up facilities and procedures; and

f.    the roles of all staff in the Plan and details of staff training.

 

66.   Sufficient supplies of appropriate absorbent materials and/or other appropriate spill clean up equipment shall be kept on site to recover any liquid spillage.  Liquid spills must be cleaned up using dry methods only and shall not give rise to an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW).

 

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:

 

67.   A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council following one month of the occupation certificate being issued for the amended development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s approval (including the conditions on the original approval), to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

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

 

68.   The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health nuisance to the adjoining/nearby premises or environment.

 

69.   There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

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

 

70.   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.

 

71.   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.

 

72.   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.

 

73.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

b.    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

 

c.    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

 

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

 

75.   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.

 

76.   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).

 

77.   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.

 

78.   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.

 

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

 

a.    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)

 

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

 

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

 

80.   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.

 

81.   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.

 

82.   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.

 

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

 

84.   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.

 

85.   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):

 

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

 

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

 

86.   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:

 

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

 

b.    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.

 

87.   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.

 

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

 

88.   Documentary evidence prepared by a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, certifying the suitability and stability of the site for the proposed building and certifying the suitably and adequacy of the proposed design and construction of the building for the site.

 

89.   A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to occupation of the building, certifying the structural adequacy of the building and that the building works satisfy the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

90.   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.

 

91.   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.

 

92.   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.

 

93.   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.

 

94.   If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

 

a.    preserve and protect the building /s on the adjoining land from damage; and

 

b.    if necessary, underpin and support the building and excavation in an approved manner; and

 

c.    at least seven (7) days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land (including a public road or public place), give notice of the intention to do so to the owner of the adjoining land. Particulars of the excavation are to be provided to the owner of the adjoining land and also the owner of the land where the building is being erected or demolished.

 

95.   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.

 

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

 

97.   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.

 

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

 

a.    Prior to construction of the first completed floor/floor slab (prior to pouring of concrete), showing the area of land, building and boundary setbacks and verifying that the building is being construction at the approved levels.

 

b.    On completion of the erection of the building showing the area of the land, the position of the building and boundary setbacks and verifying the building has been constructed at the approved levels.

 

99.   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.

 

100.  Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works.

 

101.  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.

 

102.  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.

 

103.  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.

 

104.  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.

 

105.  A Construction Site Management Plan is to be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

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

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

c.    location of building materials for construction;

d.    provisions for public safety;

e.    dust control measures;

f.    site access location and construction

g.    details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

h.    protective measures for tree preservation;

i.     provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

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

k.    details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

l.     construction noise and vibration management.

 

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

 

107.  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

 

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

 

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

 

110.  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.

 

111.  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.

 

112.  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.

 

113.  A temporary timber, asphalt or concrete crossing is to be provided to the site entrance across the kerb and footway area, with splayed edges, to the satisfaction of Council, unless access is via an existing concrete crossover.

 

114.  The applicant/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $5 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to Council.

 

115.  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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

121.  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.

 

122.  If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or any public place, the written 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.

 

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

 

a.     Install or erect any site fencing, hoardings or site structures

b.     Operate a crane or hoist goods or materials over a footpath or road

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

 

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

 

124.  Access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities must be provided to and within the building in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1, AS4299 and 2890.1 and relevant Council development control plans for the subject development, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.  Details of the proposed access, facilities and car parking for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans / specifications for the construction certificate.

 

 

 

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

A2.   In this regard, the development consent plans do not show compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, including:

 

a.     Part B1                        -   Structural provisions

b.     Part C1                        -   Fire resistance and stability

c.     Part C3                        -   Protection of openings

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

e.     Part D3                        -   Access for people with disabilities

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

g.     Part E1                        -   Fire fighting equipment

h.     Part E2                        -   Smoke Hazard Management

i.      Part E4                        -   Emergency lighting, signs, warning systems

j.      Part F2                        -   Sanitary and other facilities

k.      Section J                     -   Energy efficiency

 

A3.   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.

 

A4.   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.

 

A5.   The applicant/owner is advised that this approval does not guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the applicant should therefore consider their liability under the Act.  In this regard, the applicant is advised that compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standard 1428.1 - Design for Access and Mobility does not necessarily satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

A6.   The applicant/owner is requested to give consideration to providing access and facilities for people with disabilities in accordance with Australian Standard 1428 Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 - Design for Access and Mobility, which may be necessary to satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

A7.   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

DAVID MOONEY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 18/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

BARDON PARK, 71R MOUNT STREET & CNR BREAM STREET, COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

12 April, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/148/2007 & PROP042882

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report relating to Development Application 148/2007 for the construction of sports field lighting for Bardon Park including excavation for light poles foundations, installation of three 18 metre light poles and trench digging for the supply of electricity to the structures.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 11 April 2007.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

STUART HARDING

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

WILLANA ASSOCIATES


 

Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

12 April, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/148/2007 & PROP042882

 

PROPOSAL:

 Excavation to create a suitable base for three (3) light poles; installation of three (3) 18 metre high light towers; excavation and trench digging as required to supply electrical infrastructure to the light towers to facilitate the use of the sports field for organised youth sports training until 7:30pm on Tuesday & Thursday.

PROPERTY:

Bardon Park, 71R Mount Street & corner Bream Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Randwick City Council

OWNER:

Randwick City Council

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The development application is referred to the ordinary meeting of Council as the application involves works in a Council park. As the proposal involves significant work to a Council property the assessment of the development application was referred to an independent planning consultant. The subject application was submitted on the 26 February 2007 and subsequently notified for a 14 day period.

 

The application has been assessed against the relevant heads of consideration prescribed under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.  This process included having regard to relevant provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the Local Government Act 1993.

 

The main issues considered in the assessment are the effects on adjoining properties in terms of light spill and traffic and parking impacts.  The use of the park for "recreation" does not require development consent.  Whilst the application notes the intended use for football training, the development consent (if granted) would only need to apply to the installation of the light structures as recreation uses on their own do not require  development consent under the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

It is expected that existing recreational users (both active and passive) will continue to use the park if lighting is provided.  These uses can also be undertaken during the summer months when lighting is not required. Notwithstanding, the traffic and lighting issues, as presented in this application, have been assessed and are considered satisfactory.

 

The proposed development is in compliance with the controls and objectives of Randwick LEP 1998 and responds to the constraints presented by the site in terms of the amenity of the adjoining residential dwellings. For these reasons it is considered that the proposal, on balance, is satisfactory from an environmental planning perspective.  The recommendation is for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The development application proposes the installation of lights poles at Bardon Park, Coogee, which will enable evening football training sessions for juniors to be conducted. The proposal primarily includes the following:

 

·      Excavation to create a suitable base for the light poles;

·      Installation of three 18 metre high light towers;

·      Excavation and trench digging as required to supply electrical infrastructure to the light towers; and

·      The lights will facilitate the use of the sports field for organised sports training sessions until 7.30pm, on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

 

The area to be lit by the proposed lighting is nominated as the ‘principal playing area’, which is demonstrated within the lighting report prepared by Light Studio 21 Pty Ltd and is contained in Appendix B of the SEE.

 

The principal playing area has been determined as the existing open grassed space bounded by the tree line to the west (14 metres in from the Mount Street fence), the tree line to the east (10 metres in from the fence line), the bottom of the slope to the south (8 metres in from the Bream Street fence) and at a line parallel with the existing Council notification sign to the north (9 metres in from the northern fence line). This gives a total principal playing area of 99 metres by 56 metres.

 

In association with the floodlighting of the park, organised football training is proposed to be undertaken 2 nights a week during the pre-season and season, which is generally February through to September.

 

Training is proposed for Tuesdays and Thursdays between 4.30pm and 7.30pm with any lighting expected to be switched off by 8.00pm. Training sessions will be for the Under 6, 7 and 8s age group between 4.30pm and 6.00pm, whilst training for the Under 9, 10, 11 and 12s age group would be conducted between 6.00pm and 7.30pm. It is expected that, at any one time, up to 21 players (7 players per team, 3 teams), with up to 2 supervisors, will be attending training at any one time. These training sessions will not require the installation of permanent goal posts.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

Bardon Park is located in the Randwick Council Local Government Area (LGA) and is 14,300sqm in area. Bardon Park is located on the corner of Mount Street and Bream Street, Coogee. The park is bounded by Mount Street to the west, Bream Street, to the south, and Hill Lane to the east. Detached residential properties bound the park to the north.

 

Existing park facilities include a cricket pitch and seating, with the park being used as a sportsground, dog's exercise park and for passive recreation.  It is noted that dog exercising is prohibited within the sports field and is limited to the outer edges of the park. The south east section of the park is dedicated to a croquet court and accommodates a croquet club building.

 

The sports field within the park is approximately 100 x 60 metres in dimension and presently does not contain any line markings or goal posts. There is a raised concrete pitch in the middle of this field.

 

The park does not contain any endangered environmental features such as remnant bushland vegetation, rock outcrops or watercourses. The park does not contain prominent trees along the perimeter of the park. A row of mature tree canopy runs along the entire eastern boundary achieving a height of 20-22 metres. Within these trees a concrete pathway connects Leeton Avenue and Bream Street in a north-south direction. A standard concrete street footpath wraps along the southern and western side of the park on Mount Street and Bream Streets.

 

There is no vegetation in the centre of the park where the sports field is located. A concrete cricket pitch is evident in the centre of the field. There are no public toilet facilities or changing rooms on site and there is no lighting in the park. The use of the park for active recreation is currently limited to daylight hours.

 

The surrounding area of the park consists predominantly of residential dwellings in the form of detached houses or residential flat buildings and the principal height and scale of the building form is predominantly 2 – 3 storeys. There are four detached residential dwellings adjoining the northern boundary of the park and three of these dwellings are orientated to front the park. Vehicular access to these dwellings is provided to the rear from an unformed lane off Leeton Avenue. These dwellings are single storey.

 

To the east of the site, Smithfield Avenue is a no-through road and functions as a local road following the boundary of the park. Detached residential dwellings are located along Smithfield Avenue approximately 10 metres from the park boundary. These dwellings are separated from the playing area of the park by a row of mature trees running the entire eastern boundary of Bardon Park, achieving a height of 20 – 22 metres. Unrestricted kerbside parking is permitted on the northern side with additional rear-to-kerb and parallel parking available at the western extent of the road.

 

To the south, Bream Street functions as a two-lane local collector road running east-west. Bream Street is characterised by residential flat buildings, with the exception of tennis courts and a bowling green located opposite the park.  The tennis courts are set approximately 20 – 25 metres from the boundary of the park, and includes floodlighting. Unrestricted kerbside parking is permitted on both sides of the carriageway.

 

To the west, Mount Street functions as a two lane local road and is aligned in the north-south direction. There are a variety of 2 – 3 storey residential flat buildings along Mount Street which are set approximately 10 – 15 metres from the boundary of the park.  Unrestricted kerbside parking is permitted on both sides of Mount Street.

 

The park is in close proximity to Coogee Beach, Coogee Beach commercial centre and the Coogee Oval.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The subject proposal is an amendment to an earlier application to Council which was subsequently withdrawn.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The applicant undertook various consultations prior to lodgement of the development application.  In particular, during the development of the revised lighting design, a community information sheet was letter dropped on 15th January 2007 by SJB Planning (on behalf of the applicant) to the immediately surrounding residents of Bardon Park.

 

This information sheet allowed residents to gain a visual understanding of the proposal and included a detailed description of the proposed lighting towers, a coloured site plan and a photomontage. The community information letter provided residents with a 2 – 3 week opportunity to comment on the proposal.

 

5.1      Submissions

 

Objections

 

In response to the notification, between 14th March and 28th March 2007, there were a number of objections and signatories to petitions.

 

A petition was received from 115 people. Two separate pro-forma objection letters were also received, representing the objections of a further 7 people who had not previously signed petitions.

 

Individual submissions were also received from the following people: -

 

1.    George Galea, PO Box 59, Waverley 2024 (O);

2.    Jane Eden, 84 Mount Street, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

3.    Mrs F Coluzzi, St Charles Football trainer ( Waverley) –coluzzifamily@bigpond.com (S);

4.    Nemo of Email: clovellybay@optusnet.com.au (O)

5.    Cathy Skow, 10 Abbott St., Coogee (O);

6.    Courtney Czisz, local resident, Fraser Clancy Lawyers, Level 14, Suite 2, 227 Elizabeth St., NSW 2000 (c.czisz@fraserclancy.com.au (S);

7.    Brian, Cath, Ruby, Bill & Tom Tyson, 11 Leeton Ave., Coogee (O) (Pro-forma);

8.    Jennifer, Neil, Michael & Elise Newton, 11A Leeton Ave (O) (Pro Forma);

9.    Amelia Dekantios, 1 Rodman Ave., Maroubra, NSW 20345 (S); 2

10.  Christy Kirk, Clovelly (christykirk@hotmail.com) (S);

11.  Jennifer Gregory, 36 Marine Park, Maroubra, NSW 2035 (O); 2 separate objections received

12.  Alice Bailey, 2/22 Judge Street, Randwick (O);

13.  Jenny Thompson, 65a Carrington Road, Randwick, NSW 2031 (O);

14.  Graham Manning, 36 Marine Park, Maroubra Parade, NSW 2035 (O);

15.  Carl Manning, 76 Park Parade, Pagewood, NSW 2035 (O);

16.  Philip & Vicky Roy, 3/25 Melody Street, NSW 2034 (O);

17.  Nicholas Manning, 34 Leeton Avenue & Diana Sutherland & Tim Musgrave, 32 Leeton Avenue c/o Spiegel & Associates Pty Ltd.

18.  Michelle Manning, 34 Leeton Avenue, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

19.  Mariko Manning, 34 Leeton Avenue, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

20.  Michael Doyle, 6/16 Abbott Sreett, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

21.  Danny Jurd, Hon Secretary, Matraville Tigers (S);

22.  R. Moore, Bream St., Coogee (S);

23.  Peter & Patrice Johnson, address (near Brandon Park) Patrice_au@hotmail.com (O);

24.  Joe Vizzone, resident of Phillip Bay c/o VRA Vizzone Ruggero & Assoc Lawyers, 1129 Botany Rd, Mascot, NSW 2020 (S);

25.  Leon Manning, 36 Marine Parade, Maroubra, NSW 2035 (O);

26.  Suzy Lourey, 4 Bellevue Street, Maroubra, NSW 2035 (O);

27.  J.A. Turner, no address on letter (O);

28.  Objection on behalf of ‘concerned residents’ (no names provided) c/o ABC Planning Consultants, Suite 301, 282-290 Oxford St., Bondi Junction, NSW 2022 (O);

29.  Adrian Janschek & Family, 19 Abbott St., Coogee (O);

30.  Dianne & Michael Fitzjames; 20 Smithfield Ave., Coogee (O) - 2 separate objections received;

31.  Virginia Hackney, 29 Oswald St (O)- also signed pro-forma objection 3;

32.  Richard & Julie Ambrogio, 53 Mount St., Coogee (O);

33.  Adrian Janschek & Family, 19 Abbott St., Coogee (O);

34.  Trudy Wiedman, t.wiedeman@unsw.edu.au (O);

35.  Wilson, 58 Brook St., Coogee (O);

36.  Teresa Gallagher, 10 Smithfield Avenue, Coogee (O);

37.  Steven Beeken & Harry Beeken, Unit 2/54A Mount St., Coogee (O);

38.  Isha Henderson, 6/16 Abbott Street, Coogee (O);

39.  Michael Collins, 24 Queen St., Randwick (O);

40.  Warren Arthur, 394 Beauchamp Rd., Maroubra (O);

41.  Jennifer Morgan, 38 Fern St., Clovelly, NSW 2031 (O);

42.  T.Wideman, 36 Leeton Avenue, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

43.  Steve Hardiman, 84 Mount Street, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

44.  D. Beardmore, 17 Leeton Ave., Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

45.  Kerrie Stokes –kerriestokes@bigpond.com (O);

46.  Mark & Elizabeth Fraser, fraser@fraserclancy.com.au (S);

47.  John Langford, 42 Mount Street, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

48.  Melissa Dryden; 25 Powell Street, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

49.  Anne-Marie Lynn, 1 Abbey Street, Randwick, NSW 2031 (S);

50.  Paul Pearse, MP (Paul.Pearse@parliament.nsw.gov.au) re objection from TrevorGraham Jones & Jepke Jones-Goudsmit, (kineticenergygj@iprimus.com.au)(O);

51.  Deb White, Unit 2/91 Brook St., Coogee (O);

52.  Sue Cross, 238 Carington Road, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

53.  Valerie Petty, 252 Carrington Road, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

54.  Karen Horne, 324 Alison Road, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

55.  Anne Milligan Mace, 304 Alison Road, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

56.  Ms. P. Friedman, 56 Arcadia St., Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

57.  Judith Heath, 15 Nathan Street, Coogee, NSW 2034 (O);

58.  Rosi Fernandez of La Prairie Group Australia – Email: rosi.fernandez@laprairie.com;

59.  Maria T Cross & Guy B Marks of 19 Melody Street, Coogee

60.  Mark and Rachel Rainbird of 12 Smithfield Ave, Coogee

61.  Sebastian Bass of 28 Leeton Ave, Coogee

62.  David Eldridge of 6/18 Dutruc St, Randwick

 

The issues raised are summarised below: -

 

1.    Properties are directly affected by the proposal but there was no prior consultation with owners;

2.    Inadequate information provided in the SEE regarding the proposal;

3.    Noise & Disruption;

4.    Traffic Impact;

5.    Parking Impact –parking already at saturation point and residents of older units of Bream and Mount St do not have off-street parking;

6.    Littering;

7.    Residential Amenity Impact -Neighbouring residences will be overlooked. Peaceful aspect enjoyed by adjoining properties will be reduced;

8.    Social Impacts- Will become an area for troublemakers;

9.    Economic Impacts – under-utilisation of the lights at this location – they should be placed somewhere they can be used more frequently and for longer; suitability of the site for this development.

10.  Council paid $80,000 to have a ‘Recreation Needs Survey’ carried out and it is illogical to proceed with this proposal until the findings of this report are known;

11.  Flora and Fauna – night light will disturb fauna e.g. bats;

12.  Conflicts with other park users – football training and passive uses cannot operate simultaneously;

13.  Loss of amenity to the area – park acts as a back yard for apartments in the area – negative impact on quality of life;

14.  Adjoining residences fear risk of injury and damage from football use;

15.  Changing character from a Passive Recreation Park to An Active Recreation Park and need for change in plan of management;

16.  Council is encroaching on park for benefit of a few. Proposal panders to the Rugby/League lobby groups rather than to the interests of the general community;

17.  Light towers will be a visual eyesore;

18.  Residents living close by will experience light spill;

19.  Nightlight will disturb residents and wildlife;

20.  Poles will be unsightly and will be in breach of height limits for structures in this area and the character of the 18m poles is incompatible with the environment of the park;

21.  Lighting will eventually be used more frequently and for longer hours than originally stated as it is otherwise uneconomic to install the lights. Suspect the lighting will not be only used by children;

22.  Importance of park for dog walking (leash free zone) and socializing is reduced. Bardon Park is the only dog exercise park in Coogee north of Coogee Bay Road;

23.  Suggestion of alternative locations such as Coogee Oval. Paul Pearce, MP, suggests the re-negotiation of the use of the Coogee Oval for the Dolphins as a training base as it is unreasonable for Randwick Rugby Club to have exclusivity of use when it does not clash with their requirements; Others suggest the alternative of leasing some of the Golf Course land; Another suggests there are 7 other locations that would be more suitable in terms of non-passive recreation and traffic impact. Heffron Park which is already lit was another suggestion.

24.  Proposed Use is incompatible with existing use. SEE shows that the only ground available to the public while football is in practice is a relatively narrow strip along the northern boundary of the park;

25.  Deterioration of the park from football use – park’s grass is not strong enough to withstand regular football training;

26.  Removal of Trees & as 3 of the northernmost poles rise into the trees, crown pruning of the mature trees along the eastern boundary of Bardon Park will be required.

27.  Restriction of present free access to the park and restriction at prime-time in the evening when working population uses park for recreation;

28.  General loss of passive space which is being taken over by clubs (refers to 2 Articles in the Southern Courier Tuesday 20th March regarding Pioneer’s Park and Coogee Oval);

29.  Inconsistent with Clause 38 of Randwick LEP 1998;

30.  Official notices that were put up to inform public were ripped down;

31.  Unacceptable for the general public to be denied unimpeded access to a public park for 60 days per year and unfair to deny people not in clubs the use of the park and that they will lose use of the park for 2 nights per week;

32.  There are a range of other sports clubs in the area and there are sufficient dedicated areas for sports training e.g. Coogee Oval etc.

 

Responses to the concerns raised are outlined below.

 

Lack of Consultation & Information in the SEE

A comprehensive SEE was prepared on behalf of Randwick Council by SJB Planning Pty Ltd in accordance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulations 2000. The SEE reviewed the appropriate Environmental Planning Instruments and Plan of Management that apply to the proposal and provided an overview of the potential natural and built environmental impacts of the proposal with particular reference to the relevant heads of consideration listed under Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979. Separately commissioned expert consultant reports on lighting impact and traffic and parking impacts were summarised within the SEE and appended to the document.

 

The applicant also undertook consultation with the residents of the immediate adjoining properties of Bardon Park by way of an information sheet.  This information sheet allowed residents to gain a visual understanding of the proposal. It included a detailed description of the proposed lighting towers, a coloured site plan and a photomontage. The community information letter provided residents with a 2 – 3 week opportunity to comment on the proposal.

 

 

Noise & Disruption

The operation of the light poles will not result in any noise emission that would create any adverse noise impacts upon adjoining residents or park users.

The level of noise impact from the youth training is considered compatible with the noise impact associated with a public park and will be forced to cease by 7.30pm (with lights to be switched off at 8.00pm).

Minimal disruption will occur as a result of the proposed lighting installation due to restrictions on the hours of operation. The lighting will not be used past 8.00pm and will only be used twice weekly during the winter months, when the park will be in darkness. During the brighter summer months, the sports fields are free to be used without time limitation. Any noise and disruption experienced will be no greater than what can be experienced without regulation over the summer months.

Some noise and vibration will occur during construction from the use of machinery; however, these works will be restricted to standard construction hours over a limited timeframe. Adjoining properties will not experience any significant impacts due to the minor nature of the works. Environmental management measures will be implemented prior to commencement of construction works to ensure the minimisation of disturbance.

 

Traffic & Parking

In response to concerns over traffic and parking, a traffic and parking assessment has been carried out by GTA Consultants Pty Ltd and is contained in the SEE. This report determined that the proposal would generate a parking requirement of between 15 and 28 spaces and that the existing supply of on-street parking spaces directly adjoining the site on Mount Street and Bream Street is capable of accommodating the expected increase in parking demand. The report found that the site is expected to generate up to some 28 additional vehicle movements on Mount Street and Bream Street during the expected peak period of 6.00pm and that there is adequate capacity in the surrounding road network to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development.

The report states that the traffic generated by the proposed development will not compromise the safety or functions of the surrounding road network, or result in any adverse impacts upon adjoining residents.

Bardon Park operates as an area for passive and active public recreation every evening during the brighter summer months. Therefore, the capability of the area in terms of traffic and parking will be equal to that of peak summer use when the sports pitch can be freely used, without time restrictions.

 

Residential Amenity – Litter, Overlooking, Visual Impact

The residential amenity currently experienced by the residents of adjoining properties will experience minimal adverse impact from the proposed light installation. Levels of littering and overlooking will be no greater than in summer months when the park is in peak use. In terms of visual impact, the lighting poles will be sited in close proximity to mature vegetation which is located along the eastern boundary of the site. The proposed poles will be located below the tree canopy enabling the height and scale of the poles to blend with the mass of the tree vegetation. As a result, the visual impacts of the proposal will be diminished.

 

The height and spread of the poles will ensure an even distribution across the principal playing area and will avoid unacceptable light spill impacts upon adjoining residential properties.

 

Light Spill

The design of the light installations is different to that proposed under the previous application for lighting at Bardon Park in a number of ways. Firstly, the number of luminaires has been reduced to lessen the impact but the number of 18 metre columns has been increased to a total of three (3), to allow a more even distribution of light.

The design of the chosen light poles was carefully considered, will a total of five (5) options having been carefully assessed by independent specialist lighting consultants. The chosen best option which is currently proposed comprises an ‘Asymmetrical Reflector’ that allows for a horizontal position of the luminaire which reduces the upward leakage of light. Moreover, it offers visual comfort to those who live or pass by in the vicinity of the area to be lit because there is no direct view on the lamp.

Newly designed asymmetric floodlights known as Philips Optivision 2000 watt Metal Halide floodlights will be used. These are floodlights which prevent uncontrolled stray light and light spillage beyond the sports field so that it will not affect people living in the vicinity.

The addition of the third pole means that the floodlight closest to the northern houses can be aimed away from the houses, reducing glare to these residences but at the same time complying with all other aspects of the Australian Standards (AS). The vertical illuminance towards the northern houses is within AS/NZS 4282 recommendations under the new lighting proposal.

Lighting will be turned off by 8.00pm at the latest on the two days a week during which it will operate, thereby minimising any possible night-time disturbance.

 

Impact on Flora and Fauna – Removal of Trees

There is a mass planting of mature Gum trees along the eastern boundary of the park comprising predominantly Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum), being in the order of approximately 20-25 metres in height. They form a dense and continuous canopy, affording a food and habitat source for native fauna, as well as effective shading and a sense of enclosure for park users.

 

All of these trees are covered by the provisions of Council's Tree Preservation Order given their location on public property. There will be no removal of any trees on site under the current proposal.

 

No adverse impacts upon the natural features that contribute to the park will occur as a result of this proposal. Any minor excavation works associated with the trenching for electricity and erection of poles will not adversely affect the adjacent trees. The minimal nature of the development mitigates against the possibility of impact on flora and fauna and the fact that the affected lands already function as a sports pitch further mitigates against this possibility.

 

Incompatibility of Uses / Loss of Passive Space/ Area for Dog Walking

Currently the park is used for passive and active recreation. A sports pitch is located in the centre of the park with ‘off-leash’ dog walking areas confined to the outer corners of the park. The installation of lighting will allow the sports pitch continued use after hours of darkness in the winter for two days a week until 7.30pm (with lights to be switched off by 8.00pm). In summer months and daylight hours, both park uses operate simultaneously. The light installation will allow both uses to continue into the winter months for two evenings a week. The light installation will also benefit walkers, joggers, dog walkers and other passive recreation users by allowing these activities to be carried out in a safe environment. These activities are otherwise impeded during the darker winter months. It is noted that there are a further four (4) ‘off leash’ parks located in the Coogee area.

 

Alternative Locations

Bardon Park is suitable for the proposed development. There are no significant natural or environmental constraints that would hinder the installation of the light poles or the continued use of the park into the early evening.

 

Inconsistency with Clause 38 of the RLEP 1998 and Plan of Management.

The subject proposal is consistent with Clause 38 of the RLEP 1998 (Section 8.1 of this report discusses this matter). The subject lighting proposal will allow for greater use of the park by a larger section of the community and will provide mutual benefits for both passive and more active recreation users. The lighting proposal will not affect the character of the parkland and will merely extend the uses which are currently permitted in public parks until later in the evening during winter months for 2 days of the week. The ability of Bardon Park to be used for passive recreation will not be altered by the subject proposal and in fact, the ability to use the park for these purposes will be extended during the winter months. The development is also compliant with the Neighbourhood Parks Plan of Management (see Section 8.2 of this report).

 

Deterioration of Park from Football Use

The need for lighting has derived from the need to provide additional football training facilities due to the increase in the popularity of football sports within the eastern suburbs region. Due to the shortage of training facilities in the locality, this has resulted in additional wear and deterioration to the playing surfaces of existing parks, with the effect of poor quality recreational space for football competition matches and other park users. In an aim to lessen the impacts upon existing parks, and to improve the playing surface for park users, Bardon Park was identified as a suitable sporting ground to accommodate football training sessions.

 

Economic Considerations

The development of land in an orderly and economic way is in the public interest. The inclusion of floodlighting enables the park to be used for evening football training sessions and ensures sufficient opportunity to enjoy the public open space is available for other residents and park users.

 

Supporters of the Subject Proposal

 

Petition for the approval of the subject proposal was received from 422 people.

 

Individual submissions in favour of the development were also received from the following people: -

 

1.    Mark & Elizabeth Fraser;

2.    Anne-Marie Lynn Leis of 1 Abbey St, Randwick;

3.    R Moore of Bream St, Coogee;

4.    Danny Jurd – Hon. Secretary of Matraville Tigers;

5.    Christy Kirk of Clovelly;

6.    Amelia Dekantios of 1 Rodman Ave, Maroubra;

7.    Mrs  F. Coluzzi of St Charles Football Trainer (Waverley);

8.    Courtney Czisz c/o Fraser Clancy Lawyers;

9.    Joe Vizzone of Vizzone Ruggero & Associates;

10.  David Morrow of Email: morkeld@bigpond.net.au;

11.  Paul Vanni – Managing Director of Lombard Finance Pty Ltd Level 2, 504 Pacific Hwy St. Leonards;

12.  Paul Kofod, General Manager Commonwealth Private Bank;

13.  Alicia Bennett of Fraser Clancy Lawyers;

14.  Mady Clarke Parent of Coogee Dolphin under 10 player;

15.  Matt Conners of Email mattconnors13@hotmail.com;

16.  Susan Power of Email susieducks@hotmail.com;

17.  Stephen Crowley of Email: Stephen.crowley@virginmobile.com.au;

18.  Em & John Curtin of Email: curtinspark@aol.com;

19.  Patrick Byrne, Director Smarter Clothing;

20.  John Power of Storage Architect Email: johnp@becons.com.au;

21.  Coogee Beach Dolphins Sports Club Association Incorporated;

22.  Vinnie Lavery of Email v.lavery@bigpond.net.au;

23.  Keith McCraw, President/Chairman of the Board, South Sydney District Junior Rugby League.

 

The supporting statements of the people listed above are summarised hereunder:

 

1.    The Coogee Dolphins Players, supporters, sponsors and associates would like the proposal to go ahead as it will provide the Junior Team (Under 6’s, 8’s, 10’s and 12’s) an opportunity to train twice a week in a safe, healthy environment;

2.    It will result in 80 local children being able to utilize the park’s facilities for 6 hours per week;

3.    Due to the lack of parks with lighting in Coogee area, Bardon Park is currently the best option for the children to train on;

4.    There are 5 leash free parks in the Coogee area including Bardon Park. There are few dog owners in the park at any one time and the overall usage by these residents is not proportionate to the amount of space made available to them in the Coogee precinct. For the mostpart, Bardon Park forms a shortcut through to Braeam St.;

5.    This application will only restrict the leash free zoning for 6 hours out of 168 hours available per week, for only half the year. This is less than 2% of the available hours of access of Bardon Park;

6.    Limitations on the use of the floodlights to two nights per week until 8.00pm only is a considerable modification to the earlier D.A. and these limitations are considered to be adequate to keep impacts on surrounding residents within acceptable hours of use;

7.    A Statement of Environmental Effects has already been carried out by the Council, with the conclusion of the independent consultant stating that “the proposal is said to be well justified and complies with the objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and is considered to be consistent with the Council’s relevant open space Plan of Management. It is therefore recommended that the Council approve the development application, subject to any reasonable and relevant conditions of consent”.

8.    There is a rising obesity rate among Australian children and between 1985 and 1995, the level of obesity in children more than doubled. If this level continues, by 2025, half of all young Australians will be obese. At a time when we are urging our youth to exercise for the sake of their long term health, we must provide them with the local facilities they need. Lack of support from a few residents should not hinder the health of our children;

9.    Current lack of lit parks in Coogee area. Lighting is essential for a safe environment in which children can pursue healthy living. This proposal will allow children to train locally in a safe environment. Presently, the players have to travel to Daceyville to train;

10.  Public parks are for the whole community to share;

11.  The football club’s proposal is not to monopolise the park but to share the facility;

12.  The proposed usage is not exhorbitant but will still provide a facility which has more widespread benefit for the children of Randwick;

13.  Dolphins are a fantastic, non-profit club with a focus on fundraising;

14.  The Dolphins are a young club which have grown substantially and do a terrific job for the community;

15.  This will be a community asset and in time could be used by other sporting organizations.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers.  The following comments have been provided:

 

6.1 Landscape Issues

 

Landscape Comments

Bardon Park is included in Council’s Neighbourhood Parks Generic Plan of Management, which identifies the need to ensure a wide range of mostly informal recreational activities are catered for, with the outer limits of this park also nominated as an off leash dog exercise area.

 

The statement submitted with this application details that the height and colour of the poles were specifically selected in order to blend in with, rather than dominate, the canopy of existing trees, with a specialised report on the level of illumination required for training purposes in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard (AS/NZS 2560.2) provided, together with an analysis of how light spill onto adjoining residential properties to the west and north of the site will be minimised as per the requirements of AS/NZS 428 also included.

 

A pole and street light exist about halfway along the pedestrian footpath which runs in a north-south direction along the eastern perimeter of the park, as well as another pole and light at the northeast corner of the site, and it is therefore assumed that power to service the proposed lights would be obtained from one of these locations. 

 

The mass planting of mature Gum trees along the length of the reserve’s eastern boundary comprises predominantly Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum), being in the order of approximately 20-25 metres in height, and could be described as being of significant dimensions either singularly or as a group. They form a dense and continuous canopy, affording a food and habitat source for native fauna, as well as effective shading and a sense of enclosure for park users.

 

All are covered by the provisions of Council's Tree Preservation Order given their location on public property, they appear in good health and condition, providing a positive contribution to the environmental amenity of the reserve, and will need to be protected and retained as part of this proposal.

 

The proposed works have the potential to impact these trees both above and below ground through root damage as a result of excavations for footings and trenching for power, as well as pruning to avoid damage to branches from site machinery during standing/installation of the poles. A significant amount of pruning from the western sides of some trees towards the northern half of the reserve may also be required in order to avoid interference with the light projected from the two most northern poles should they be installed in the locations shown.

 

The possibility of slightly relocating the two most northern poles to a more favourable position further away from these trees was discussed during an on-site meeting with Council’s Parks & Recreation Co-ordinator, who confirmed that this would be feasible as there is flexibility with lighting provided for the purposes of training, when compared to lighting provided for the purpose of playing, which needs to be much more exact and specific.

 

Therefore, conditions in this report require that the two most northern poles be positioned in a final location which is more sympathetic to the preservation of the trees, with the main trench for power to be setback into the playing field area, a minimum distance of 8 metres to the west of the trunks of these trees, which can then be returned back to the individual poles, within any excavations undertaken within 5 metres of the trunks, for either power or footings, to be undertaken by hand to minimise root damage.

 

While this will also ensure the amount of pruning is minimised, a relevant condition has still been included requiring that such work only be performed in the presence of Council’s officer, to ensure both the aesthetic appeal and structure of these trees is maintained. The provision of fencing as an additional protection measure was considered; however, it was not deemed necessary due to the impact this would have on the ability to efficiently carry out the works, with other, more applicable conditions relating to their protection included instead.

 

Further, Council’s Landscape Development Officer considers the provision of a toilet facility at the site a virtual necessity given the increased patronage the park will experience should consent for this proposal be forthcoming, and is strongly recommended for inclusion in a future works program.

 

The landscape officer’s comments regarding the location of the trees have been addressed by a suggested condition of development consent.  This condition (see condition 7) allows some minor flexibility in the final tree location without further impacting upon nearby residents.

 

7.    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

- Local Government Act 1993

- Companion Animals Act 1998.

 

8.    SECTION 79C ASSESSMENT:

 

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

 

8.1  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Zoning and Permissibility

 

The site is zoned 6A Open Space under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent.  There are no statutory standards with which the proposal should comply.  The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Clause 18 (1) - Objectives for 6A Open Space Zone

Clause 38 - Development in Open Space

Part 4 - Heritage;

Part 4A - Natural Heritage Provisions.

 

An assessment pursuant to the requirement of Clause 18(1) which sets out the zone objectives is provided in the following table.

 

Clause 18(1)

Assessment

The objectives of Zone No 6A are:

 

(a) to identify publicly owned land used or capable of being used for public recreational purposes, and

The subject proposal does not seek to alter the use of the land for public recreational purposes but to increase the capability of utilising the public land for this purpose.

(b) to allow development that promotes, or is related to, the use and enjoyment of open space, and

The proposed installation of lighting will enable greater use and enjoyment of the public open space

(c) to identify and protect land intended to be acquired for public open space, and

The subject site is currently nominated for use as public open space.

(d) to identify and protect natural features that contribute to the character of the land, and

Mature vegetation is located along the eastern boundary of the site. The proposed lighting poles will be sited in close proximity to this vegetation. As a result, an assessment of the visual impacts of the proposal has been carried out and is provided as part of the SEE, along with a photomontage of the proposed light poles.

 

The photomontage shows that the proposed poles will be located below the top of the tree canopy. This positioning will enable the height and scale of the poles to blend with the mass of the tree vegetation.

 

The height and spread of the poles will ensure an even distribution across the principal playing area and will avoid unacceptable light spill impacts upon adjoining residential properties.

 

No adverse visual impacts upon the natural features that contribute to the park will occur as a result of this proposal. Any minor excavation works associated with the trenching for electricity and erection of poles will not adversely affect the adjacent trees.

 

The proposed light poles are considered to have a non-intrusive height and mass and will be compatible with the surrounding environment.

(e) to enable the sustainable management of the land.

The proposal enables the sustainable management of the land by satisfying the Action Plan nominated in the ‘Neighbourhood Parks Generic Plan of Management’ document. Compliance with the Plan is outlined in section 8.2 of this report.

 

An assessment pursuant to the requirement of Clause 38 is provided in the following table.

 

Clause 38

Assessment

(1) repealed

No assessment required.

(2) When determining an application for consent to carry out development on land within zone No 6A or 6B, the Council must consider

 

(a) the need for the proposed development on that land, and

The applicant has referenced the community demand for organised football in the area along with the absence of alternative training facilities. The submissions received as part of the exhibition process indicate that the local football community, and some others, are supportive of the proposal.

(b) whether the proposed development promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of open space, and

The proposed development, as well as enabling the use of the park for organised youth training two evenings a week, will also provide light for other park users to enjoy passive recreation such as jogging, walking, dog-walking and informal games. Such use of the park is currently impeded during the winter months.

(c) the impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use and character of the land, and

The subject park is currently used for passive recreation and is also used as a sports field. These uses operate simultaneously during the summer months. The current proposal will merely extend the ability for these uses to operate for two darker winter evenings a week.

(d) the need to retain the land for its existing or likely future use.

The existing use of Bardon Park for social recreation and as a sports field will continue.

(2A) Despite clause 18, the Council may grant consent to the development of land within Zone No 6A for purposes (including business premises) permitted by a plan of management adopted by the Council and prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993 for the land in question, provided it is satisfied that the proposed development is suited to a location in that zone.

The installation of lighting is considered to be ancillary to the use of the land as a public park for social recreation and sports field ground uses.

 

The proposal is assessed against the Plan of Management in Section 8.2 of this report.

(2B) Despite clause 19, the Council may grant consent to the development of land within Zone No 6B for the purpose of business premises, but only if it is satisfied that the proposed development is, having regard to the requirements of subclause (2), suited to a location in that zone.

The subject proposal does not seek to provide a business.

(3) The owner of any land within Zone No 6A, not being Crown land or land owned by the Council, may, by notice in writing, require the Council to acquire the land.

The land is owned by Randwick City Council.

(5) Any land within Zone No 6A which is not under the ownership of the Crown or the Council may (with the consent of the Council) be used for any purpose which is permissible (either with or without development consent) on land adjoining the land in question, prior to that land being acquired by the Council.

The land is owned by Randwick City Council.

 

Part 4 – Heritage

In accordance with Randwick LEP 1998, the subject site is not identified as a Heritage Item and is not located within a conservation area. The site is not situated in the vicinity of a heritage item or a conservation area.

 

Part 4A - Natural Heritage Provisions

This Part relates to land zoned 7 and therefore does not apply to the site and the proposed development.

 

Landscaping

The proposal will have little, if any, impact on the landscaping surrounding the park.  The eastern edge of the park is lined with substantial mature trees which provide a visual screen between nearby properties and the lighting.  These trees will remain unaffected by the proposal.

The proposal is adequate in terms of landscaping.

Height, Form & Materials

The proposed lighting has been designed in accordance with the two (2) Australian Standards governing outdoor lighting systems  including AS/NZS 4282-1997 “Control of Obtrusive Lighting” and AS /NZS 2560.2.3 “Lighting for Football (all codes)”.

The subject design of the light poles is different to that proposed under the previous application for lighting at Bardon Park in that the number of luminaires is reduced but the number of 18 metre columns is increased by one (1) to a total of three (3), to allow more even distribution of light. The addition of the third pole means that the floodlight closest to the northern houses can be aimed away from the houses, reducing glare to those houses but at the same time complying with all other aspects of the Australian Staandards. The vertical illuminance towards the northern houses is within AS/NZS 4282 recommendations under the new lighting proposal.

A photomontage of the proposed light poles adjacent to the existing vegetation along the eastern boundary of the site, demonstrates that they will not be higher than the top of the tree canopy. The positioning of the poles in this location will enable the height and scale of poles to blend with the tree vegetation, thus having a screening effect.

The proposed light poles comprise an ‘Asymmetrical Reflector’ that allows for a horizontal position of the luminaire which reduces the upward leakage of light. Moreover, it offers visual comfort to those who live or pass by in the vicinity of the area to be lit because there is no direct view on the lamp. The otherwise upwardly leaked light is added to the effective part of the beam that lights the area resulting in higher field efficiency.

Newly designed asymmetric floodlights known as Philips Optivision 2000 watt Metal Halide floodlights will be used. These are floodlights which prevent uncontrolled stray light and light spillage beyond the sports field so that it will not affect people living in the vicinity.

The floodlights themselves will comprise non-corrosive, high pressure die cast aluminium housing that is dust proof and jet proof to IP65, thick high reflectivity (94%) of reflector, 4mm thick thermally hardened front glass, stainless steel external hardware, lamps changed via hinged front glass – floodlight aiming not altered and specially designed heat fins for optimal operation of the lamp.

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

The light poles are considered to have a non-intrusive scale and mass and are compatible with the surrounding environment.  The proposal will not have an adverse visual impact on the natural features that contribute to the character of the park and will not result in significant visual impacts upon the locality.

Some noise and vibration will occur during construction from the use of machinery, however, these works will be restricted to standard construction hours over a limited timeframe. Given the minor nature of the works, adjoining properties will not experience any significant impacts. Environmental management measures will be implemented prior to commencement of construction works to ensure the minimisation of disturbance.

The operation of the light poles will not result in any noise emission that would create any adverse noise impacts upon adjoining residents or park users.

The use of the park for football training sessions will result in an increase in noise impacts. However, such noise impacts are considered compatible with the noise impact associated with a public park and these events will cease by 7.30pm on the two nights a week which they will occur. It is noteworthy that football training can occur freely any night of the week during summer months when daylight hours are not impeded. Therefore noise should not be a consideration in planning terms.

Traffic & Parking

The proposed light installation will lead to the increased use of the park during the early evening, for two evenings per week during the winter months. A traffic and parking assessment has been carried out by GTA Consultants Pty Ltd and is contained in the SEE. The following was determined from the investigation:

·            The proposal would generate a parking requirement of between 15 and 28 spaces;

·            The existing supply of on-street parking spaces directly adjoining the site on Mount Street and Bream Street is capable of accommodating the expected increase in parking demand;

·            The site is expected to generate up to some 28 additional vehicle movements on Mount Street and Bream Street during the expected peak period of 6.00pm; and

·            There is adequate capacity in the surrounding road network to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development.

The report concluded that the traffic generated by the proposed development is not considered to compromise the safety or functions of the surrounding road network, or result in any adverse impacts upon adjoining residents.

8.2  Local Government Act 1993

 

Neighbourhood Parks Generic Plan of Management

 

An assessment of the subject proposal against the provisions of the Action Plan contained in the Neighbourhood Parks Generic Plan of Management is provided in the table below: -

 

Action

Assessment

Issue 1

Management Planning

The subject proposal allows for the use of the park by all sectors of the community, including residents, existing recreation and organised recreation.

Issue 2

Recreation

The inclusion of lighting will allow increased recreation capability for all members of the community e.g. joggers, dog-walkers as well as more formalised recreation.

Issue 3

Visitor Management

Visitor Management will not be significantly altered as a result of this proposal.  The use of the park by nominated user groups also allows greater control over the terms of that use.

Issue 4

Communication

Communication and consultation with the public was carried out in compliance with the relevant legislation.  Information provided included an information sheet, including photomontages and invitation to make submissions to Council.

Issue 5

Design and Vegetation

The amount of grass space available for recreation or social activities will not be reduced by the installation of the light poles.

Issue 6

Maintenance, Safety & Risk

There will not be any significant maintenance or safety risks as a result of the lighting installation, in compliance with the Action Plan.

Issue 7

Funding

‘Funding’ is allocated for the floodlighting per Randwick Council’s Capital Works programme.

 

8.3  Companion Animals Act 1998

 

Bardon Park is identified as a public place and dogs are allowed ‘off-leash’ here. However, they are limited to the outer edges of the park around the sports field. Given that dogs are not allowed in the nominated area, the proposed lighting installation and the subsequent use of the park for football training sessions, can operate simultaneously with the recreational space for ‘off-leash’ dogs, without impeding either use.

 

9.    FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

10.  RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:        Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.  

Direction:        A range of cultural, sporting and leisure activities.

Key Action:      Recognise and promote opportunities for residents and visitors to engage in sports and other cultural pursuits.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The development proposed under this application meets the objectives and performance requirements of the Council. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the park and its locality. The proposal may be approved subject to compliance with conditions of consent.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.    That Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 148/2007 for development comprising the excavation to create a suitable base for three (3) light poles; the installation of three (3) 18 metre high light towers; excavation and trench digging as required to supply electrical infrastructure to the light towers; to facilitate the use of the sports field for organised youth sports training sessions until 7.30pm, on Tuesdays and Thursdays at Bardon Park, corner of Bream Street and Mount Street, Coogee, Randwick.

 

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 5279 A-001, revision B and stamped as received by Council on 26 February 2007, the application form and supporting information received with the application including the “Lighting Assessment and Design” report dated 23 November 2006 by Light Studio 21 Pty Ltd and photomontage stamped as received by Council on 22 February 2007.

 

2.   A certificate from a suitably qualified person in outdoor lighting systems shall be submitted to the Director City Planning which certifies that the proposed lighting complies with Australian Standards AS/NZS 4282-2997 Control of Obtrusive Lighting and AS/NZS 2560.2.3 Lighting for Football (all codes) prior to the commencement of the use of the sports fields for training sessions

 

3.   The light towers must only be operated on Tuesday and Thursday between 4:30pm and 8:00pm.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

5.   All new 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.

 

6.   Prior to the commencement of any 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.

 

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

 

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

 

ii)    appoint a principal contractor for the work and notify the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly in writing, and

 

iii)   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 works.

 

8.   The 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 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.

 

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

 

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

·       name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority,

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

 

10. An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority encompassed in this development consent, 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.

 

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

 

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

 

12. 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.

 

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:

 

13. 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 contractors for assessment.

 

14. All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection of the light towers 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.

 

15. Except with the written approval of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services, all site works (including site deliveries) must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive and (except as detailed below) between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays.

 

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

 

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

 

16. Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the light towers 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.

 

17. 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.

 

18. 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.

 

19. 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 work site.  Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing, with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

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

 

The public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or any public place, the written 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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

21. A Certificate prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to the issuing of occupation certificate, which certifies the structural adequacy of the light towers and that the works complies with the relevant structural design requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

22. 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.

 

23. 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 consideration for service authority assets:

 

24. 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:

 

25. Any damage sustained to either Council’s nature strip or reserve as a result of the proposed works shall be repaired by excavating to a depth of 150mm, backfilling with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf or similar. Such works shall be completed at the applicant’s expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

Tree Management

 

26. Prior to the physical commencement of any works at the site, the applicant will be required to contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613, giving at least two working days notice, to arrange for a joint site inspection for the purpose of confirming the most appropriate location for the two most northern poles, in order to minimize any impact on both the canopy and root systems of the existing trees along the eastern side of the reserve.

 

27. The most northern pole and associated footings shall be installed a minimum distance of 5 metres and a maximum distance of 10 metres from the existing footpath.  Any adjustments within this range shall not result in the pole being moved further north than the proposed location.

 

28. Approval is granted for the selective and minimal pruning of those trees along the eastern side of the reserve in order to avoid damage/conflict from the proposed poles, lights and associated site machinery during the course of the works. The level of pruning required shall be determined by Council’s Landscape Development Officer during the joint site inspection.

 

29. All pruning shall be undertaken by Council or Council’s nominated contractor (and only in the presence of Council’s Landscape Development Officer), to the requirements of Australian Standard 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees’.

 

Tree Protection Measures

 

30. In order to ensure the retention of the stand of existing mature trees along the length of the eastern side of the reserve, consisting mainly of Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gums) in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.   All documentation submitted for the construction certificate application will be required to detail, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, the location from which power will be sourced, together with the requirement that the main trench servicing the project will run in a north-south direction, at a minimum distance of 8 metres to the west of the outside edge of the trunks of all of these trees, with individual returns provided back to the east to service each of the three individual poles.

 

b.   Any excavations required for footings or trenching for power within 5 metres of the outside edge of the trunks of any of the trees located along the eastern side of the reserve shall be initially undertaken by hand, to a minimum depth of 600mm and a minimum width of 200mm, in order to identify the size and location of any roots in the affected areas.

 

c.   Prior to the cutting of any roots, construction of footings or laying of cables within the distances specific in point b above, the applicant will be required to contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613, giving at least two working days notice, to arrange for a joint site inspection of these trenches for the purpose of identifying any significant roots.

 

d.   The applicant will be required to comply with the verbal instructions issued by Council’s Landscape Development Officer relating to any roots encountered, with generally any roots having a diameter of 50mm or less to be cut cleanly by hand, and those having a diameter greater than 50mm to be preserved by re-directing the proposed trenches and or footings around them, with these affected areas to be backfilled as soon as practically possible.

 

e.   There is to be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble within the driplines of any of these trees, with all documentation submitted for the construction certificate to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

 

 

 

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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

STUART HARDING

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

willana associates


 

Director, City Planning Report 19/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

155-157 Arden Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

13 April, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/611/2006 & PROP017326 & 333

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING         

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A report recommending approval of Development Application No. 611/2006 for the demolition of two existing semi-detached dwellings and construction of a new three storey multi-unit housing development containing 11 dwellings and basement parking for 18 vehicles was considered at the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 10 April 2007 where it was resolved on the motion of Councillors Notley-Smith and Kenny that:

 

“(a)    this matter be deferred to allow for the applicant to submit amended plans which delete onsite parking and comply with the Floor Space Ratio of the 2c zone; and

 

(b)      Council reconsider its decision not to heritage list the Arden Street Retaining Walls.”

 

ISSUES:

 

1.         Part (a) of Council’s Resolution:

 

Randwick Holdings Pty Ltd acting on behalf of the applicant has advised “that the deletion of on-site parking would not be feasible for the subject site and would only increase the demand for on-street parking and hence exacerbate the existing parking problem in the surrounding streets”.  Randwick Holdings Pty Ltd has also advised that no further amendments to the application are proposed and has requested that the application be determined in its present form.

 

2.         Part (b) of Council’s Resolution:

 

In response to a Motion put by Councillor Matson, Council at its Ordinary meeting held on 12 December 2006 resolved:

 

(Matson/Hughes) “that a community consultation process be commenced in the new year to solicit community feedback on the independent advice currently being sought by Council on the proposal to realign the historic Arden Street sandstone retaining walls to permit off street parking on the proposed 155-157 Arden Street development site.”

 

The independent advice referred to above was being sought by Council as a result of a Statement of Heritage Impact (SHI) prepared by Chris Betteridge of MUSEcape Pty Ltd and submitted to Council on behalf of the “Concerned Residents of Coogee” and a response to the SHI, prepared by Stephen Davies of City Plan Heritage on behalf of the Applicant for Development Application No. 611/2006.

 

In order to ensure an objective and transparent evaluation of these heritage submissions, Council commissioned Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants to review the documentation submitted and to advise on the heritage significance of the Arden Street retaining walls and the impact of the proposed development at Nos.155-157 Arden Street, Coogee on any heritage significance of the retaining walls.

 

A motion pursuant to notice by Councillor Matson was put to the Ordinary Meeting of  Council  held on 27 February 2007  “that  Council continue with it's previous resolution on the matter of the Arden Street retaining walls and the Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultant report of the 16th January 2007 be used as a resource in the consultation process.”

 

In response to this motion Council its Ordinary meeting held on 27 February 2007 resolved (Andrews/Bastic) that a draft LEP not be commenced with the intent of adding the Arden Street retaining walls to Council’s Local Environment Plan (LEP) as listed heritage items.”

 

As as result of part (b) of the resolution made by Council on 10 April 2007, Council must now consider its position in relation to listing the “Arden Street retaining walls” as a draft heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The three reports referred to above are attached for Council’s consideration.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council reconsider its decision not to list the Arden Street retaining walls and determine Development Application No. 611/2006 accordingly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 21 March 2007.

 

Attachments under separate cover -

2.  Statement of Heritage Impact (SHI) prepared by Chris Betteridge of MUSEcape.

3.  Response to the Statement of Heritage Impact, prepared by Stephen Davies of    City Plan Heritage.

4.  Report from Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants.       

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KERRY KYRIACOU

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT


Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

21 March, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/611/2006 & PROP017326 & 333

 

PROPOSAL:

 Demolition of two semi-detached dwellings and construction of a three storey multi-unit housing development comprising of 11 dwellings and a semi-basement carparking for 18 vehicles.

PROPERTY:

 155-157 Arden Street, Coogee

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Buzacottt Webber Pty Ltd

OWNERS:

 Mr M F Newling, Ms M L Melville-Jones and Venice Digital Pty          Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee as the proposed development is valued at $3 million.

 

The initial application that was lodged on 2 August 2006 proposed the demolition of the existing semi-detached dwellings on the site and construction of a new part three and part four multi-unit housing development containing 12 dwellings and a basement parking for 20 vehicles.

 

The application has been reviewed by Design Review Panel on two occasions and Council officers have also undertaken various assessments of the proposal. As a result, the proposal has been the subject of significant amendments.

 

The amended plans which were lodged on 10 October 2006 include the following amendments:

 

·         A reduction of the floor space ratio from 1.074:1 or 1,065.3sqm to 1.046:1 or 1,031.3sqm.

·         Deletion of two car spaces in the basement carpark.

·         Reconfiguration of the basement storage and garbage room.

·         Reducing the extent of the basement excavation towards the front of the site and provide greater deep soil area for the site.

·         Reconfiguration of the layout of Dwelling Nos. 1 and 2 at ground level.

·         Deletion of north and south facing balconies at first and second levels.

·         Deletion of a dwelling at fourth floor level (top level) of western section of the building, reducing the total dwellings from 12 to 11.

·         Provision of an indicative right-of-way access to the rear of adjoining site at No. 159 Arden Street.

 

Further issues were raised by Council Officers regarding the potential traffic and pedestrian safety impacts. As a result, additional information was submitted to Council on 13 November 2006 showing details of a pedestrian footbridge over the proposed driveway and realigning of the existing sandstone retaining wall along a section of Arden Street to allow greater sightlines for vehicles exiting the driveway.   

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Arden Street between Arcadia Street and Bream Street.  The site is elevated above the street with a sandstone block retaining wall around 2.5m high between the lower level roadway and the footpath which is at the same level as the site.  The sandstone retaining walls extend along the eastern and western sides of Arden Street between Arcadia Street and Bream Street where the roadway has been cut into the top of the hill.

 

The initial and amended proposal have been notified and advertised in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A large number of objections were received and most objections raised concerns regarding the excessive bulk & scale, loss of views, pedestrian and traffic safety, heritage significance of sandstone retaining wall, devaluation of surrounding properties and loss of privacy.

 

A submission was received on behalf of residents identified as the Concerned Residents of Coogee in the form of a Statement of Heritage Impact (SHI) prepared by Chris Betteridge of MUSEcape Pty Ltd.  Subsequently, a response to the SHI, prepared by Stephen Davies of City Plan Heritage was submitted by the applicant.

 

In order to ensure an objective and transparent evaluation of these heritage submissions, Council commissioned Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants to review the documentation submitted and to advise on the heritage significance of the Arden Street retaining walls and the impact of the proposed development at Nos. 155-157 Arden Street, Coogee on any heritage significance of the retaining walls. Godden Mackay Logan’s  heritage advice concludes that the sandstone retaining walls to the eastern and western sides of Arden Street, between Arcadia Street and Bream Street, are of local heritage significance and warrant listing as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998. However, Council at its Ordinary meeting held on 27 February 2007 resolved not to list the retaining walls as heritage items.

 

It should be noted that the provision of the right-of-way was supported by residents of No. 159 Arden Street. The letters of support are based on the fact that the right-of-way will potentially overcome concerns about the development proposal, such as loss of on-street parking and other adverse impacts arising from the necessary altered traffic conditions.

 

Despite the support from the neighbouring residents of No. 159 Arden Street, Council’s Officers consider that more specific details relating to existing and proposed levels and grades, and their relationship to existing site features needs to be supplied prior to the consent becoming operative. 

 

The proposal is permissible with consent of Council on the subject site and complies with the development standards for maximum overall height and landscaped area contained in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal however breaches the standards for maximum floor space ratio and wall height. SEPP 1 objections to address the breach of the floor space ratio and wall height standards have been submitted and considered to be acceptable subject to the compliance with the deferred commencement conditions requiring the deletion of the single bedroom dwelling and curved roof at the top of the eastern section of the building. Additional privacy measures are also recommended to minimise privacy impacts on adjoining properties.

 

The amended proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP for Multi-Unit Housing.  Where compliance with relevant preferred solutions has not been achieved (i.e. building setbacks, privacy, view sharing and solar access), the proposal is considered to be acceptable and achieves the relevant objectives and performance requirements provided the deferred commencement conditions are fully implemented. 

 

Having regard to all relevant matters for consideration, the amended proposal subject to the compliance with recommended deferred commencement conditions, will not result in any significant adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

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

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The initial proposal sought consent for the demolition of two semi-detached dwellings and construction of a part three/part four storey multi-unit housing development containing 12 dwellings (i.e. 3 x one bedroom and 9 x two bedrooms) and a semi-basement car parking for 20 vehicles. 

 

The amended proposal now seeks consent for the demolition of two semi-detached dwellings and construction of a three storey multi-unit housing development containing 11 dwellings (i.e. 2 x one bedroom dwellings and 9 x two bedroom dwellings) and a semi-basement car parking for 18 vehicles.

 

The proposed building contains the following uses:

 

Semi-basement Level

    Car parking for 18 vehicles with access from Arden Street

    A bicycle storage area

    Storage areas for each dwelling

    A garbage room

 

Ground Floor Level

    An entry lobby

    1 x one bedroom dwelling

    3 x two bedroom dwellings

 

First Floor Level

    4 x two bedroom dwellings

 

Second Floor Level

    1 x one bedroom dwelling

    2 x two bedroom dwellings

 

The amended proposal also includes the following works:

 

    removal of a section of the sandstone retaining wall to the eastern edge of Arden Street to provide access to the semi-basement car park,

    realigning a considerable section of the existing sandstone retaining wall to the eastern edge of Arden Street to allow greater sightlines for vehicles exiting the driveway,

    construct blister islands and a median strip  on Arden Street,

    construct a pedestrian bridge over the driveway entry, and

    provision of an indicative right-of-way and access to the rear of adjoining property at 159 Arden Street.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site comprises two separate lots, being Nos. 155 and 157 Arden Street, and is located on the eastern side of Arden Street between Arcadia and Bream Streets in Coogee.

 

The site is rectangular in shape and has a combined frontage of 20.12m to Arden Street, a northern side boundary depth of 49.38m, a southern side boundary depth of 49.23m, a combined rear boundary width of 20.12m and a total site area of 986.3sqm (by title).

 

The site falls approximately 5m from west (front) to east (rear) with a cross fall from north-western corner to south-eastern corner of approximately 8m. The site is elevated above Arden Street level with a sandstone block retaining wall around 2.5m high between the lower level roadway and the footpath which is at the same level as the site. The sandstone retaining walls extend along the eastern and western sides of Arden Street between Arcadia Street and Bream Street where the roadway has been cut into the top of the hill.

 

The site is currently occupied by a pair of single storey semi-detached dwelling houses.

 

The locality is characterised by a mixture of dwelling houses and multi-unit housing developments. Immediately to the north are five x part two part three storey multi-unit housing developments fronting Arcadia Street with living areas and rear balconies facing south overlooking the subject site, to the south is a two storey multi-unit development set low into the site and to the east is the rear yard of a multi-unit housing development at 108 Beach Street.

 

4.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A pre-lodgement meeting was held on 25 May 2006 (PL/24/2006) to discuss the proposal for the construction of a new multi-unit housing building containing 16 dwellings and basement car parking for 22 cars. 

 

The subject application was lodged on 2 August 2006 which sought consent for the demolition of the existing semi-detached dwellings on the site and construction of a new part three and part four multi-unit housing development containing 12 dwellings and a basement parking for 20 vehicles.

 

The application has been reviewed by Design Review Panel on two occasions and Council officers have also undertaken various assessments of the proposal. As a result, the proposal has been the subject of significant amendments, in order to address the issues raised by Council officers and the Design Review Panel.

 

The amended plans were lodged on 10 October 2006 which includes the following amendments:

 

·         Deletion of the top floor (i.e. fourth level) of western section of the building, and resulted a reduction of the floor space ratio from 1.074:1 or 1,065.3sqm to 1.046:1 or 1,031.3sqm.

·         Deletion of two car spaces in the basement.

·         Reconfiguration of the basement storage and garbage room.

·         Reducing the extent of the basement excavation towards the front of the site and provide greater deep soil area for the site.

·         Reconfiguration of the layout of Dwelling Nos. 1 and 2 at ground level.

·         Deletion of north and south facing balconies at first and second levels.

·         Provision of an indicative right-of-way access to the rear of adjoining site at No. 159 Arden Street.

 

Further issues were raised by Council Officers regarding the potential traffic and pedestrian safety impacts. As a result, additional information was submitted to Council on 13 November 2006 showing details of a pedestrian footbridge over the proposed driveway and realigning of the existing sandstone retaining wall along a section of Arden Street to allow greater sightlines for vehicle exiting the driveway.

 

Council engaged Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants, to provide heritage advice on the removal of a section of the sandstone retaining wall to the eastern edge of Arden Street.  The Godden Mackay Logan heritage advice concludes that the sandstone retaining walls to the eastern and western sides of Arden Street, between Arcadia Street and Bream Street, are of local heritage significance and warrant listing as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998. The matter was considered at the Council meeting on 27 February 2007 where Council resolved that a draft LEP not be commenced with the intent of adding the Arden Street retaining walls to Council’s Local Environmental Plan as listed heritage items.

 

 

 

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

5.1      Objection

 

The original proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification. The following submissions were received:

1.    Anne & Warwick Thompson, residents of Unit 5, 19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

2.    Karen Gold, owner of Unit 2, 153 Arden Street, Coogee

3.    Christine Hannaford, resident of 158 Arden Street, Coogee

4.    Greg Burgess, owner of Unit 4, 19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

5.    Michael Stephens, resident of Unit 3, 23 Arcadia Street, Coogee

6.    Andrew Tremayne, resident of Unit 5, 23 Arcadia Street, Coogee

7.    Joe Janssen, secretary of owner’s corporation of 166-172 Arden Street, Coogee

8.    Jack & Lyn Hickman, residents of Unit 20, 166 Arden Street, Coogee

9.    Jon Palin, owner of Unit 5, 21 Arcadia Street, Coogee

10.  John, Gina, Paree Tragoustis & Cristina Economy, residents of 25 Arcadia Street, Coogee

11.  Amanda Windley & Daniel Serra, owners of Unit 1, 21 Arcadia Street, Coogee

12.  L J Franklin, resident of Unit 5, 106 Beach Street, Coogee

13.  Michael Kitmiridis Architect, acting on behalf of Karen Gold, owner of Unit 2, 153 Arden Street, Coogee

14.  Richard Moss, owner of Unit 2, 21 Arcadia Street, Coogee

15.  Susan Ryan, resident/owner of Unit 18, 166 Arden Street, Coogee

16.  Lesley Loughnan, owner of Unit 2, 19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

17.  Sian Welch, Secretary of Body Corporate acting on behalf of all owners of 174 Arden Street, Coogee

18.  Kay Ransome & Lisa Osborn, residents of Unit 4, 21 Arcadia Street, Coogee

19.  Christine E Newman, resident of Unit 3, 19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

20.  Elaine Mayer, owner of Unit 3, 23 Arcadia Street, Coogee

21.  Charles Renilson, owner of Unit 8, 108 Beach Street, Coogee

22.  Katty Demeuleneere, owner of Unit 1, 23 Arcadia Street, Coogee

23.  Phil Everingham, owner of Unit 3, 21 Arcadia Street, Coogee

24.  Andrew Green, owner of Unit 1, 19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

25.  Peter Thorburn, resident of Unit 3, 110 Beach Street, Coogee

26.  Rob Barausch & Lisa Podvorec, owners of Unit 2, 23 Arcadia Street, Coogee

27.  Alexander O’Connell, owner of Unit 1, 19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

28.  Carolyn Murray, resident of Unit 5, 169 Arden Street, Coogee

29.  Mary T Rostron, resident of 159 Arden Street, Coogee

30.  Anthony Bowen, owner of Unit 2, 159 Arden Street, Coogee

31.  Sally Smith, owner of Unit 1, 159 Arden Street, Coogee

32.  D E Doyle, N and J Burton and S and U Huxtable, owners of Units 2 & 3, 161 Arden Street, Coogee

33.  Melissa Selby Brown & Thierry Lacoste, resident of 156 Arden Street, Coogee

34.  Sally Smith, owner of Unit 1, 159 Arden Street, Coogee

35.  Marion Riordan, owner of Unit 3, 159 Arden Street, Coogee

36.  Richard Briggs & Vicki Hon, owner of Unit 9, 166-172 Arden Street, Coogee

37.  Paul Comyn & Belinda Smith, owners of 93A Bream Street, Coogee

38.  Allan & Cynthia Norley, concerned residents

39.  Mark England, owner of Unit 4, 138 Beach Street, Coogee

40.  Alexander Jenkins, a petition containing 103 signatures of local residents.

41.  John Tragoustis, a petition containing 26 signatures of local residents.

 

The main issues raised by the above objectors are as follows:

 

·    Loss of privacy.

·    Block natural light to northern adjoining properties.

·    Overshadowing the southern adjoining property.

·    Noise during construction works.

·    Substantial trees on site are to be removed to accommodate the proposed development.

·    Loss of views.

·    The proposed development is excessive and puts a lot of pressure on local services including demand for more on-street parking.

·    Increased traffic and risk of accidents.

·    Traffic and pedestrian safety.

·    Loss of on-street parking spaces. 

·    Impact on pedestrian walkways and streetscape.

·    The proposal does not comply with building setbacks of the DCP for multi-unit housing.

·    The changes to the sandstone retaining wall and common natural strip will affect the appearance of the local area.

·    The curved roof is unacceptable.

·    The cool southerly winds in summer will be completely blocked.

·    The bulk and scale (i.e. FSR) of the proposed development is excessive.

·    Impact on the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

·    The overall height of the development is significantly in excess of the appropriate planning guidelines.

·    Changes in views from the northern adjoining properties.

·    Aesthetics of the proposed building.

·    Significant decrease in property value.

 

The amended proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the Development Control Plan for Public Notification. The following submissions were received:

 

1.  Susan Ryan, resident/owner of Unit 18, 166 Arden Street, Coogee

2.  Judy & Joe Janssen, residents at 166-172 Arden Street, Coogee

3.  Jack & Lyn Hickman, residents of Unit 20, 166 Arden Street, Coogee

4.  Anne & Warwick Thompson, residents of Unit 5, 19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

5.  John Buchanan, resident of 83 Beach Street, Coogee

6.  Juliet Burton, Secretary on behalf of owners of 161 Arden Street, Coogee

7.  Sian Welch, Secretary on behalf of owners of 174 Arden Street, Coogee

8.  Marion Riordan, owner of Unit 3, 159 Arden Street, Coogee

9.  Rob Barausch, owner of Unit 2, 23 Arcadia Street, Coogee

10. Lesley Hourigan, owner of 162 Arden Street, Coogee

11. Kay Ransome, owner of Unit 4, 21 Arcadia Street, Coogee

12. Andrew Green, owner of Unit 1, 19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

13. Michael Kitmiridis Architect, acting on behalf of Karen Gold, owner of Unit 2, 153 Arden Street, Coogee

14. Daniel & Amanda Serra, concerned residents

15. Christine E Newman, resident of Unit 3, 19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

16. Katty Demeuleneere, owner of Unit 1, 23 Arcadia Street, Coogee

17. Paul Comyn & Belinda Smith, owners of 93A Bream Street, Coogee

18. Amanda Windley & Daniel Serra, concerned residents

19. Vicky Mayer & Michael Stephens, owners of Unit 3, 23 Arcadia Street, Coogee

20. Jenni Campbell-Watt – Randwick Council resident and ratepayer

21. Elaine Mayer, owner of Unit 3, 23 Arcadia Street, Coogee

22. Richard Moss, owner of Unit 2, 21 Arcadia Street, Coogee

23. Lesley Loughnan, owner of Unit 2, 19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

24. John, Gina, Paree & Nicholas Tragoustis and Cristina Economy, residents of 25 Arcadia Street, Coogee

25. Lisa Osborn & Kay Ransome, owners of Unit 4, 21 Arcadia Street, Coogee

26. A petition letter signed by 36 local residents.

27. Adey Planning, acting on behalf of surrounding residents

28. MUSEcape Pty Ltd, acting on behalf of surrounding residents

29. Coogee Precinct Committee

30. John Morgan – resident in Hamilton Street, Coogee

 

The main issues raised by the above objectors are as follows:

 

 

The above issues have been addressed in Section 9 of this report.

 

5.2      Support

 

As noted previously, the amended proposal includes the provision of an indicative right-of-way access to the rear of southern adjoining property at 159 Arden Street. As a result, the following owners of 159 Arden Street have withdrawn their previous objections and lodged letters of support for the right-of-way access:

 

1.       Mary Therese Rostron, owner of Unit 4, 159 Arden Street, Coogee

2.       Marion Riordan, owner of Unit 3, 159 Arden Street, Coogee

3.       Anthony Bowen, owner of Unit 2, 159 Arden Street, Coogee

4.       Sally Smith, owner of Unit 1, 159 Arden Street, Coogee

 

The letters of support for the right-of-way are based on the fact that the right-of-way potentially overcomes concerns about the development proposal, such as loss of on-street parking and other adverse impacts arising from the necessary altered traffic conditions.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1 Development Engineer

 

Council’s Development Engineer has provided the following comments in relation to the amended proposal:

 

“An application has been received for the construction of a residential flat building at the above site containing 11 units with basement carparking for 18 vehicles.

 

It is understood that the planning officer is recommending that the number of units be reduced to 10; consequently, the conditions contained in this report are based on 10 units being constructed.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

·         Statement of Environmental Effects by Buzacott Webber dated July 2006;

·         Traffic Engineering Assessment by TEF Consulting dated 31 July 2006;

·         Basement Plan, Sheet 030 (issue F) by Buzacott Webber dated 28.11.2006;

·         Level 1 Plan, Sheet 031 (issue E) by Buzacott Webber dated 07.11.06 2006;

·         Sandstone Wall Reinstatement Diagram, Sheet 013 (issue A) by Buzacott Webber dated 12.11.06 2006;

·         Ramp Sections, Sheet 070 (issue A) by Buzacott Webber dated 28.11.06 2006

·         Proposed Landscape Plan, Dwg DA.02 (issue 2) by Environmental Partnership dated November 2006; and

·         Proposed Tree Retention/Removal Plan Dwg DA01 (issue 2) by Environmental Partnership dated November 2006.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There is a large amount of existing vegetation on the site of varying sizes and quality, the majority comprising Gum Trees and Palms, which will be affected by this proposal.

 

While the contribution they provide to the site and surrounding properties is acknowledged, the site assessment revealed that most of these specimens are in a poor state of health or condition, and should be removed irrespective of the proposed works.

 

At the same time, it is considered that the loss of some of these trees should be adequately compensated for through the implementation of the proposed landscape scheme which contains a suitable and acceptable mix of both hard and soft works.

 

On Council’s Arden Street nature strip in front of the subject site, between the back of the existing sandstone wall and pedestrian footpath, there are two Banksia serrata (Saw Toothed Banksias), comprising one in front of 155 Arden Street, towards the northern boundary, and one in front of 157 Arden Street.

 

Both are in the order of 3-4 metres in height, are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) given they are located on public property, and despite exhibiting a lean to the north as a result of their exposure to strong southerly directed winds, appear in reasonable condition, and are seen to provide a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

While Council would obviously prefer their retention, this will not be possible given the extent of works proposed in this area. Council is willing to concede their removal (at the applicant’s cost) to accommodate construction of the vehicle crossing and associated retaining walls, paths and steps as shown. Replacements are not feasible given a lack of space available for planting.

 

While the other street tree beyond the southern boundary of 157 Arden Street will need to be retained, it should remain unaffected, with conditions relating to it not included in this report.

 

Within the front yard of 155, against the southwest corner of the existing dwelling, there is one Eucalyptus ficifolia (Flowering Gum) of about 5 metres in height which is located in close proximity to the existing dwelling. It has been heavily pruned from its eastern side previously in order to achieve a suitable clearance away from the structure, resulting in the canopy being weighted almost entirely to its western side.

 

It is not considered a worthwhile specimen, and as such, approval is granted for its removal on the basis that replacement landscape treatment is provided in this area of the site.

 

All remaining vegetation within the front yard of both existing dwellings is deemed insignificant, and shall also be replaced as part of the new landscape scheme for the development.

 

The Cocos Palms in the southwest corner of the adjoining unit block to the north, 17 Arcadia Street, will remain unaffected, with conditions not required.

 

Further to the east, in the rear yard of 19 Arcadia Street, there is one Gum tree about 5 metres tall which appears in poor condition due to previous topping of its crown and the resulting sucker growth, with English Ivy smothering its trunk, and will need to be removed in the near future, irrespective of the works proposed within the subject site, in order to protect person and property from failure.

 

While the existing differences in level between the two sites and the setback from its trunk to any excavations associated with the basement level should ensure it is not impacted, demolition of the existing dwelling at 155 Arden Street will expose this tree to strong southerly directed winds and destabilisation.

 

As stated, it should not be affected, with protection measures not required; however, removal is still recommended, written approval from the tree/property owner could be obtained in order to remove this tree as part of site works, with no objection from Council.

 

In the rear yard of 155 Arden Street, close to the northeast corner of the existing dwelling, there are two Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany), with the most western tree being the larger of the two at about 12 metres, and already leaning to the north, with the smaller, eastern tree about 8 metres tall, leaning to the south.

 

While providing a visual and acoustic screen between this site and adjoining properties to the north, Council’s TPO has an exempt clause which allows the removal of trees growing in such close proximity to structures, and as they appear in only average-reasonable condition due to past poor maintenance practices, Council requires that they be removed as it would not be physically possible to retain them and still reasonably develop the property. The replacement plantings proposed along this boundary will ensure that screening and privacy is maintained into the future.

 

Along the eastern edge of the existing dwelling at 155 Arden, there are two Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palms) varying in height between 3-5 metres, which are not considered significant specimens, and as such, approval for their removal to accommodate the proposed works as shown has been included in this report.

Still in this rear yard, along the northern boundary, further to the west, there is one Umbrella Tree which although providing partial screening, is insignificant and should be removed with more substantial specimens.

 

To its east, there is one Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm) of 4 metres in height, one Washington robusta (Washington Palm) 3-4 metres tall and one Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm) of 6 metres in height.

 

While visually appealing, none could be described as significant specimens due to their common nature and relatively small size, and given that they would be heavily impacted during the course of the proposed works, conditions in this report require that they be removed in lieu of replacement screen planting which is required along the length of this boundary to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity between the subject site and adjoining properties to the north.

 

In the northeast corner of the site, there is another Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm) of about 6 metres in height, and to its southeast, one large and significant Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) of about 18 metres in height, both of which are covered by the TPO.

 

The protection measures included in this report will be sufficient to ensure the Bangalow Palm is retained given the resilience of the species to root disturbance.

 

The Norfolk Island Pine Tree is identified as the most established and desirable landscape element at the site, and also appears in good health and condition.

 

It is regarded as a significant specimen, and one which provides a positive contribution to environmental amenity for both this site and surrounding properties given its size, age and prominence as a landscape element.

 

As detailed in the pre-lodgement application, Council requires its retention through the provision of a setback between its trunk and any site works/excavations to adequately preserve its root system, as well as maintenance of existing contours/ground levels.

 

The plans show the basement level located a distance of 3.8 metres to the west of its trunk at its closest point, with the retaining walls along the eastern edge of ground level unit 3 at such a distance that no impact should be sustained. Notation on the plans confirms that existing soil levels will be maintained, however, a specific condition relating to this requirement has been included as it regarded as one of the priorities in ensuring its preservation.

 

The elevations indicate that minor under-pruning/canopy lifting from the western side of its canopy may be necessary in order to avoid conflict during construction, and is deemed feasible, with a relevant condition included in this report.

 

In order to ensure a high level of control over the protection measures prescribed in this report, Council requires that an Arborist be engaged to be present on site during the course of the proposed works to supervise those components which have the potential to impact the trees to be retained.

 

The dead NZ Xmas Trees and Canary Island Date Palm about halfway along the southern boundary of 155 Arden Street, shall be removed to accommodate site works as shown.

 

In the rear yard of 157 Arden Street, along the eastern edge of the existing dwelling, there is from north to south, one Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) of around 10 metres in height which has a pronounced lean to the northeast, one Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm) about 4 metres in height and one Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm) around 6 metres tall. It would not be physically possible to any of these specimens, and as they are not deemed worthy of retention, approval has been granted for their removal.

 

To the south, along the southern boundary, there is from west to east, one Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm) about 4 metres tall and another Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) of 10 metres in height.

 

While covered by the TPO, neither are deemed particularly worthy of retention, with a redesign to accommodate their retention not warranted, and as such, approval is granted for their removal.

 

Near the northeast corner of 157 Arden Street, along the eastern boundary, there is one Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) and Lagunaria patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus), both of around 8-10 metres in height, which appear in average-reasonable condition and are covered by the provisions of Council’s TPO.

 

Both provide effective screening and privacy between this site and the adjoining unit blocks to the east, which will be a desirable quality upon completion, and therefore, retention will be required as it will allow the new screen planting to establish to a reasonable size which will complement the existing screening these two trees provide.

 

As the basement level is set back a distance of around 3-4 metres of the western sides of their trunks, they should not be affected; however, specific protection measures have been included in this report.

 

In the southeast corner of the site, there is one Cocos Palm and Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) which appears in poor condition due to past pruning, and is deemed to have no long term prospects, especially considering the additional stress it will be placed under during the course of the works. As such, permission to remove both trees has been included in this report, subject to suitable replacements being provided in this area of the site.

 

Drainage Comments

 

On-site stormwater detention is not required for this development however stormwater discharge from the site is not to exceed 25 litres per second for the 1 in 20 year storm.

 

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

 

Civil Works Comments:

 

Construction of the proposed basement carpark will necessitate excavation through Council’s retaining wall along the Arden Street site frontage.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans on the 13 November 2006 showing:

 

·         A 7.7 metre wide opening being cut into the retaining wall to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian access;

·         The section of the retaining wall to the north (approximately 55 metres) being splayed back from the new crossing to improve sightlines for vehicles exiting the driveway;

·         A pedestrian footbridge being constructed over the top of the driveway along the alignment of the existing footpath; and

·         New stairs being constructed immediately to the south of the proposed crossing to facilitate pedestrian access from street level up to the footpath.

 

Referral Comments

 

Comments from Council’s Assets Coordinator

 

The application was referred to Council Assets Coordinator and it was advised that no objections are raised to the works being undertaken in general accordance with the submitted drawing ‘Sandstone wall re-instatement diagram’, Sheet 013 (issue A) dated 12/11/2006 subject to:

 

·            The wall to the south of the vehicular crossing being reconstructed to a point determined by a suitably qualified structural engineer but not less than 5 metres south of the southern property boundary.

·            Concrete secant piling or similar being installed behind the existing wall prior to any wall demolition works.

·            The new retaining wall being constructed with a sandstone blockwork face.

·            The new retaining walls being structurally independent of the proposed footpath bridge.

·            Stainless steel guard rails being installed adjacent to the new retaining wall, stairs, footbridge, and at any other potentially dangerous locations.

·            Detailed plans and specifications of the proposed works being submitted to and approved by the Director of City Services prior to commencing any works within the road reserve/public place.

·            The new wall and footbridge being designed by a suitably qualified structural engineer.

·            A 600mm wide footpath being provided at provided at the base of the retaining wall to the north of the vehicular crossing.

·            The applicant submitting a bond or unconditional bank guarantee for the amount of $60,000 as a security deposit to ensure the stability and structural integrity of the retaining wall in the vicinity of the subject development site for a period of 12 months from the date of issue of an occupation certificate.

·            The applicant being responsible for ongoing maintenance of the footbridge (including supports) and the portion of the wall immediately adjacent to the new driveway.

·            The applicant to hold full public liability in relation to any injuries to people using the footbridge or the area beneath the footbridge.

 

All of the above points have been incorporated into the conditions contained in this report.

 

Comments from Council’s Traffic Committee

 

The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Committee and the following comments were received:

 

Council has received an application for the development of the 155-157 Arden Street site in Coogee.  As part of this application, it is proposed to construct an underground car park which would be accessed from Arden Street.  This will require the partial demolition of the sandstone retaining wall to enable the construction of a driveway access.  Council’s Integrated Transport Group (ITG) reviewed the initial proposal, and raised concerns in relation to the sightlines for vehicles exiting the proposed access onto Arden Street, and for right turn movements into and out of the proposed car park. 

 

To address these issues, the applicant is proposing to realign the sandstone wall and construct blister islands to enable a clear line of sight to vehicles on Arden Street, A 1.0m wide median in Arden Street is also proposed to preclude vehicles from turning right into and out of the site.  The carriageway width of this section of Arden Street is approximately 8.6m, comprising of a 2.6m wide parking lane and two 3m wide travel lanes.  By realigning the wall, the carriageway width is increased to allow for the introduction of the median island.  The travel lane and parking lane widths remained unchanged at 3.0m and 2.6m respectively.  Only four on-street parking spaces would be removed to accommodate the driveway access and blister islands.  A copy of the concept plan prepared by the traffic consultant for the development is included for the Committee to review.

 

It should be noted that the Traffic Committee consideration of this proposal is limited solely to the traffic engineering adjustments associated with the development. Approval of this Development Application is still subject to the determination of Council. 

 

Traffic Committee Recommendation

 

That it be noted that the Traffic Committee has no objection to the proposal for the widening of the carriageway and the construction of a 1.0m wide median island and two blister islands in Arden Street, Coogee, as per the attached diagram provided that;

 

1.     Council’s condition of consent relating to the Traffic Control Plan (TCP) be framed such that interference with the STA bus operations along Arden Street not be permitted.  This will allow Council officers to issue fines to the contractor if STA experiences non-acceptable interference with its services, and

 

2.     Particular attention be paid to the setting out of all warning signage and construction area delineation due to the steep incline at this location.

 

Council’s traffic engineer has advised that inclusion of the following condition in the approval will satisfactorily address the requirements of the Traffic Committee:

 

Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, the applicant shall submit for approval and have approved by Council's Transport Management Group a detailed construction traffic management plan. The plan shall demonstrate:

 

a.   How construction and delivery vehicles will access the development site during the demolition and construction phase of the development;

b.   How traffic flows (including all STA bus operations) on Arden Street will be managed during demolition of the old retaining wall and construction of the new wall; and

c.   How pedestrian traffic in Arden Street will be managed during construction.

 

Note: Generic traffic control plans for lane occupancies or roads closures will not be accepted. Separate application will need to be made for approval of any traffic control plans.

 

Traffic Comments

 

As detailed above, the Randwick Traffic Committee do not objected to the proposal on traffic grounds.

 

It is noted that the proposal will result in the existing stairs to the north of the subject property being relocated to the southern side of the proposed vehicular crossing. Council’s Asset’s Coordinator has advised that provided a 600mm wide footpath is provided at the base of the retaining wall, no objections are raised to the stairs being relocated.

 

The access driveway ramps and internal carpark layout shall comply with the requirements of AS 2890.1 (2004).

 

Service Authority Comments

 

The applicant shall liaise directly with all service utility authorities regarding any services that may be affected by the proposed works. Should development consent be granted, the applicant will be required to meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required. 

 

It particular the applicant would be required to liaise directly with Sydney Water in regard to building over the existing sewer line.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Given that the cost of works has been estimated to be $3 million, the applicant shall be required to meet the full cost for undergrounding cables in the vicinity of the development site. A condition regarding this matter has been included in this report.

 

Waste Comment

 

At a meeting with the applicant on the 1 November 2006, concerns were raised regarding access to the storage area and garbage room within the basement carpark immediately to the north or the vehicular entrance. It was noted that the driveway ramp extended in front of the doorway.

 

To address this concern, the applicant submitted an amended basement plan which shows the doorway set back into the storage area (Basement Plan, Sheet 030 (issue F)). The development engineer does not consider that the amended plan adequately addresses the issue, and a condition has been included in this report requiring the door to be moved approximately 0.5 metres north so that it is clear of the driveway ramp.

The garbage storage area shall be sized to contain a total of 10 x 240 litre bins (5 x 240 litre garbage bins and 5 x 240 litre recycling bins).

 

The applicant has indicated that bins will be moved to the kerb for collection using the lift. The planning officer should ensure that Council’s environmental health unit do not object to this proposal.”

 

Further to the above comments, Council’s Landscape Development Officer has provided the following additional comments regarding the right-of-way access at the rear of the site:

 

“Landscape comments and conditions provided for the final engineering report dated 1st December 2006, stated that Council’s Landscape Development Officer could not support the proposed Right of Way in the location shown, due to the quantity of trees in declining health and condition that would already be removed from this area of the site in order to accommodate the proposed works, and the resulting impact this would have on the environmental amenity of both the subject site and surrounding properties, with any further removals of those remaining trees in this area considered an unacceptable outcome.

 

At the request of the applicant, an one hour long site inspection on 28th February 2007 was attended by Boris Meck, his colleague Alex and I, for the purpose of plotting the exact location and width required for the proposed right of way, and to assess the subsequent impact this would have on any relevant landscape/tree issues.

 

It was confirmed that construction of a 3.6 metre wide right of way (4.2 metre external width) in an area previously reserved for deep soil/common open space, would impact the western sides of the root systems of the only two remaining trees in this area of the site, being a 10 metre tall Swamp Mahogany and a Norfolk Island Hibiscus of similar dimensions, which had been listed for protection and preservation.

 

Both were conditioned for retention not for their significance, but for the fact they provided effective screening and privacy between this site and the adjoining high rise unit block to the east, and as all works would be setback a reasonable distance off their trunks, they could be incorporated as existing landscape elements into the overall landscape scheme to be applied at the site, which would be to the benefit of future occupants as well as neighbours.

 

Maintaining an uninterrupted deep soil zone along the eastern boundary would also facilitate new and/or replacement screen planting in this area to ensure the potential for overlooking between these two properties is minimised.

 

The applicant acknowledged the importance of retaining these two remaining trees for the reasons outlined above, and stated they were willing to design the right of way in such a manner so as to achieve the maximum setback possible off both of their trunks/root systems, together with the use of sympathetic construction methods and materials, so as to minimise any negative impacts on their health and stability.

 

From a purely landscape/tree preservation position, this proposal is seen to impact both the size and useability of the common open space area, as well as the health and stability of existing trees which have been listed for retention.

 

It appears there is scope to proceed with such a proposal and still retain the two trees only if slight amendments are made; however, the level of information provided at this point in time is insufficient in order to allow a proper assessment, with more specific details relating to existing and proposed levels and grades, and their relationship to existing site features needing to be supplied prior to a determination being made on the merits of such a proposal.

 

Should approval for this ROW be granted, Council’s Landscape Development Officer would request that the setback from any construction to the eastern boundary and the subject trees be maximised, with clarification also sought on whether this proposal would affect compliance with Council’s numerical controls relating to the provision of landscaped area, and whether the common open space would need to be adjusted or reconfigured as a result of this proposal.”

 

Comment:

 

A deferred commencement condition is included in the recommendation requiring the above details to be provided prior to the development consent becoming operative.

 

6.2 Manager of Health, Building and Regulatory Services

 

The following comments are provided by the Manager of Health, Building and Regulatory Services:

 

“Health and Building Services comments

 

The Proposal

 

The proposal provides for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new three (3) storey Multi Unit Housing residential development with basement car parking.

 

BCA Building Classification

 

Class   -        2        (Residential Units)

Class   -        7a      (Carpark)

 

Background

 

The existing building on site is a post war brick cottage bounded by other two (2) storey dwellings and residential flat buildings.

 

Key Issues

 

Site Management:

 

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

 

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

 

Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information is required to be incorporated in the documentation for a construction certificate.

 

Conclusion:

 

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

 

 

 

6.4 Heritage Planner

 

Concerns were raised regarding the proposed changes to the possible heritage significance of the sandstone retaining wall to Arden Street. Council’s Heritage Planner has been requested to investigate the issue and the following comments are provided:

 

The Site

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Arden Street between Arcadia Street and Bream Street.  The site is elevated above the street with a sandstone block retaining wall around 2.5m high between the lower level roadway and the footpath which is at the same level as the site.  Sandstone retaining walls extend along the eastern and western sides of Arden Street between Arcadia Street and Bream Street, where the roadway has been cut into the top of the hill. 

 

The Proposal

 

The application proposes demolition of the existing Spanish Mission style semi-detached pair and construction of a residential flat building comprising three levels over semi-basement carparking.  In order to allow vehicular access to the site, the application proposes to remove a 6m section of the sandstone block retaining wall and to alter the level of footpath (introducing an additional set of steps) in order to provide sufficient height for the vehicular access.  A pedestrian entrance to the building is proposed not from the level of the existing footpath, but at the level of the roadway.  This entry would be inconvenient for residents and visitors having to descend steps from the level of the footpath, and dangerous for any visitors parking in the street and having to walk along the edge of the roadway, in order to gain access to the building.  The application proposes rebuilding of the retaining wall from close to the corner of Arcadia Street, to the proposed driveway, widening the roadway and narrowing the footpath, in order to improve the safety of vehicular access to the site.  Although the street elevation indicates that the public stairway to the north of the site which provides access between footpath and street level is to be retained, in practice it will need to be removed due to insufficient footpath width.  Persons parking vehicles in this section of Arden Street will need to walk along the roadway either north to the corner of Arcadia Street, or south to the subject site in order to gain access the footpath.

 

Heritage status

 

It is noted that the site is not located within a heritage conservation area and that the sandstone wall is not listed as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998.  Submissions received from surrounding residents in relation to the application however, have raised the issue of the possible heritage significance of the retaining wall. 

 

Randwick Heritage and Visual Character Study Stage 1

 

The Randwick Heritage and Visual Character Study was carried out for Council by consultants Godden Mackay Logan working in association with UDAS (the Urban Design Advisory Service of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning).  The Stage 1 Report for the Study completed in June 2001 identified Elements of Visual Character and Built and Landscape Heritage which contributed to the physical identity of particular precincts.  The mapping for Coogee indicates a Potential Landscape Item in the section of Arden Street between Arcadia and Dolphin Streets, and a photograph caption notes that the large sandstone block retaining walls are the most substantial examples of this type of construction in the LGA.  The list of Special Character Elements and the contributors to the Visual Character of Coogee refer to landscape elements, such as split streets with sandstone retaining walls, footpath steps on steep slopes etc.  No specific recommendations are provided in relation to such retaining walls, however.  It was intended that Stage 2 of the Study would involve detailed assessment to confirm heritage and visual character values and determine whether they require specific statutory or non-statutory management.  Stage 1 of the Heritage and Visual Character formed the basis of the Stage 2 investigation of potential heritage conservation areas, completed by Godden Mackay Logan in July 2003.  Council has not resolved however to commission further detailed investigation of landscape and visual character elements and areas by a specialist consultant, and has not resolved to adopt Stage 1 of the Heritage and Visual Character Study, as a management and development control document. 

 

Two heritage reports have now been submitted in relation to the retaining wall, as follows:

 

·       Statement of Heritage Impact (SHI) prepared by Chris Betteridge of MUSEcape Pty Ltd for the Concerned Residents of Coogee

 

·       Response to SHI prepared by Stephen Davies of City Plan Heritage for the applicant. 

 

MUSEscape Statement of Heritage Impact

 

The SHI includes a range of historic photographs as documentary evidence to narrow down the date of construction of the retaining walls to the mid 1920s.  The SHI provides a Statement of Significance for the sandstone retaining walls which considers it to be “an item of environmental heritage with historical, aesthetic, social technical, rarity and representative value for Coogee and Randwick City area.  It is an important landscape element, signifying the “gateway” to Coogee from the north and emphasising the importance of Arden Street as a major north-south thoroughfare.  The wall, together wit hits associated arris rail fencing and street tree plantings, make positive contributions to the streetscape of Arden Street ant the townscape of Coogee generally.”

 

The SHI also includes a comparative analysis which notes that other sandstone retaining walls are listed as items of landscape heritage in the Local Environmental Plans of other Sydney and regional LGAs, including North Sydney, Waverley and Woollahra.

 

The SHI concludes that the proposal will negatively impact on the heritage significance of the walls and aesthetic value of the streetscape and that the development application should be refused on this basis. 

 

City Plan Response

 

The City Plan response disputes the Statement of Significance put forward in the SHI- that such retaining walls are utilitarian structures and not designed for their aesthetic effect, that such elements of the road network do not have meet historical criteria for listing, and the example is representative but not rare.  The City Plan response considers that the significance of the wall does not warrant preventing any change to the wall, provided it is carried out carefully and sensitively.  The City plan response suggests that a balance needs to be struck between no change and the ability to realise development potential. 

 

 

 

Comments

 

The Heritage Schedule of Randwick LEP 1998 is predominantly comprised of buildings with few landscape heritage items (the sandstone retaining wall at Coogee Beach is listed as a heritage item).  It is noted however that landscape features such as trees, stone cuttings and retaining walls make an important contribution to the character and identity of to Randwick City and to particular precincts.  A number of areas within Randwick City are characterised by steep topography, including parts of Kensington, Coogee and Maroubra.  Retaining walls such as the one in Arden Street are civil engineering responses to the steep topography in the early development of these areas.  Council has recently commissioned the preparation of a Register of Significant Trees to seek professional assessment and community response of the value of these important landscape elements. 

 

It is considered that the proposed vehicular and pedestrian access through the sandstone retaining wall will significantly impact on its aesthetic value.  The existing continuity of the wall surface will be interrupted by the openings, and the sweep of the top of the wall which follows the slope of the hill will be broken by the change to footpath levels to provide the required height for the access.  The parallel nature of the walls on either side of Arden Street will be disrupted by the proposed roadway realignment.  The simplicity and drama of the existing wall will be eroded by the required works.  It is considered that only minor mitigative measures are possible to ameliorate the impact of the proposed openings and footpath realignment.  It is noted that there are currently no openings within the retaining walls on the eastern and western sides of Arden Street.  It is likely that subsequent developments will lead to further penetrations through the retaining walls. 

 

Recommendations

 

It is considered that there is sufficient information in the submission from Chris Betteridge of MUSEcape to warrant Council consideration for adding the sandstone retaining walls in Arden Street to the heritage schedule of Randwick LEP 1998.  It is suggested that an extended assessment process be undertaken to identify other examples of similar retaining walls throughout Randwick City, and consider any structural issues related to the walls.  Given that the Heritage and Visual Character Study Stage 1, including identification of potential landscape heritage items, has been carried out by Godden Mackay Logan, it is recommended that they be engaged by Council to complete a full assessment process.  The outcome of this detailed heritage assessment process would make recommendations on a future LEP amendment.”

 

Comment:

 

In order to ensure an objective and transparent evaluation of these heritage submissions, Council commissioned Godden Mackay Logan Heritage Consultants to review the documentation submitted and to advise on the heritage significance of the Arden Street retaining walls and the impact of the proposed development at Nos. 155-157 Arden Street, Coogee on any heritage significance of the retaining walls. Godden Mackay Logan’s heritage advice concludes that the sandstone retaining walls to the eastern and western sides of Arden Street, between Arcadia Street and Bream Street, are of local heritage significance and warrant listing as a heritage item under Randwick LEP 1998. However, Council at its Ordinary meeting held on 27 February 2007 resolved not to list the retaining walls as heritage items.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The subject site has a site area of less than 4,000sqm and as such, a masterplan is not required.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

·         Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended)

·         State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1)

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

·         State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65)

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

·         Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

·         Development Control Plan – Multi unit housing

·         Development Control Plan – Parking

·         Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1      Statutory Planning Instruments

 

9.1.1   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

 

The site is zoned Residential 2C and is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the RLEP apply to the proposal:-

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31(2) - Landscape Area

Minimum 50% of the total site area

57.4% or 566.1sqm (excluding the indicative right-of-way access)

50% (including the indicative right-of-way access)

Yes

31(3) – Landscaped area over podium or excavated basement areas

Must not exceed 50% of the landscaped area

44% or 249.5sqm

Yes

32 - FSR

Maximum 0.9:1

1.046:1 or 1,031.3sqm (including basement and areas below existing ground levels)

No – SEPP 1 objection submitted.

33(2) - Building Height

Maximum 12m

Maximum 12m (through centre of the building)

Yes

33(4) – External Wall Height

Maximum 10m

Maximum 12m

(eastern external wall – measured to the top of the proposed curved roof)

No – SEPP 1 objection submitted.

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

21 - Subdivision

Council consent required for subdivision

No strata subdivision proposed.

Not applicable. 

29 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes – subject to condition requiring the deletion of the dwelling at the top of the eastern section of the building and the associated curved roof.

In order to minimise the visual impact of the proposed development upon the shoreline and ensure building form is generally in sympathy with the scenic qualities and topography of the shoreline, it is recommended that the dwelling at the top of eastern section of the building and the associated curved roof should be deleted.

40 - Excavation and filling of land

Provision for undertaking of excavation and filling of land

Yes

The proposal will require earthworks to be undertaken to construct the building and basement car parking. As indicated in the applicant’s SEE that all excavation works will be designed and supervised by an appropriate qualified engineer. Notwithstanding, appropriate conditions have been recommended to ensure compliance with relevant professional standards.

 

9.1.2   State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 – Development Standards (SEPP1)

 

a)      Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

 

The amended proposal has a total gross floor area of 1,031.3 sqm including:

 

 

A FSR of 0.9:1 or 887.67m2 is applicable to the subject site pursuant to Clause 32(1) of the RLEP. The amended proposal has a FSR of 1.046:1 or 1,031.3m2 which exceeds the maximum FSR control by 0.146:1 or 143.63m2.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 32(1) of RLEP is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

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

 

The FSR control in question is a development standard contained in the RLEP.

 

2.      The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

The stated purpose of the standard, as outlined in RLEP, is:

 

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

 

3.      Consistency of the development with the aims of SEPP 1, the local planning objectives for the locality and objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended)

 

The amended proposal, subject to further amendments as discussed below (i.e. deletion of the top floor of the eastern section of the building including the curved roof), would be consistent with the aims of the SEPP No. 1, and the objects of the Act in providing for the orderly and economic development of the land. The proposal is also consistent with the planning objectives for the locality in that it will promote the redevelopment of the site for a medium density residential development while maintaining a reasonable level of amenity to the adjoining properties.

 

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

 

The amended proposal exceeds the maximum FSR standard by 143.63sqm. Approximately 50sqm of this area is located within the semi-basement level which will not be visible from the street, nor result in adverse impacts to adjoining properties and approximately 97sqm of the total gross floor area is below the existing ground levels which will also not be highly visible from the adjoining properties. Whilst it could be argued that the amended proposal has similar bulk and scale as a fully complying development (i.e. excluding areas in the semi-basement level and below existing ground levels), the eastern section of the building does contain a curved roof ridge that is intended to “soften the ridge line where it meets the sky”, however does little more than provide accommodation for an additional single bedroom dwelling (i.e. Dwelling No. 11) within the roof space. The proposed roof form not only adds additional bulk and height to the development, its appearance is also not seen anywhere within the immediate area of the subject site and is inappropriate when compared to the most recent contemporary buildings or the older buildings of several decades ago. In order to maintain a reasonable level of amenity to the adjoining properties, it is recommended that the additional dwelling should be deleted to reduce the overshadowing impact on the southern adjoining properties and minimises the effects on views from the northern adjoining properties. The deletion of the additional dwelling also represents a further reduction of approximately 60sqm of total gross floor area, which will reduce the FSR to 0.98:1 and makes the bulk and scale of the development more in keeping with the existing developments in the immediate locality and minimises the visual impact upon the foreshore area and ensuring the building form is in sympathy with the scenic qualities and topography of the foreshore area. 

 

For the above reasons, it is considered that strict compliance with the development standard is unnecessary in the circumstances of the case as the proposal meets the stated and underlying objectives of Clause 32, subject to the single bedroom dwelling and the curved roof at the top of the eastern section of the building being deleted.

 

5.       Whether the objection is well founded.

 

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

 

·       Demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts subject to deletion of the single bedroom dwelling and the curved roof at the top of the eastern section of the building.

 

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

 

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

 

-     the proposal promotes the orderly use of the land. The daily operation of the building will not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residents or the character of the area;

-    The subject proposal is a better development as it provides a variation of unit types, more accommodation on the site without significant impact.

-    The proposed design has taken into account the site constraints and opportunities.

-     The proposed design ensures that the upper floors, the third floor to front section and fourth floor to rear section (if carpark included) will have minimal impact on the significance of the streetscape;

-     The design of the proposed development has ensured the privacy of each unit and that of surrounding neighbours by orienting living spaces to the eat and west away from the Arcadia Street neighbours with mainly bedrooms oriented north and south;

-    The proposed additional floor space will not be responsible for any additional overshadowing impacts on neighbouring properties due to the existing landform and the space being located within the roof form as attic space;

-    The proposal has been designed to ensure its sustainability; and

-     The additional storey will not impact on site coverage due to any additional car spaces required as additional car spaces will be blow ground to the western end of the site or below the building to the eastern end of the site.

 

Despite the above justification for the variation of the FSR standard, the amended proposal is considered to be unacceptable in its current form, however, as noted previously, the amenity of the adjoining properties could be improved provided the Dwelling No. 11 and the curved roof over eastern section of the building are deleted. As such, the SEPP 1 objection can only be supported subject to the compliance with the deferred commencement conditions.

 

b) Maximum Wall Height

 

The maximum wall height applicable to the subject site pursuant to Clause 33 (4) of RLEP is 10 metres. The amended proposal has a maximum wall height of 12m, which fails to comply with the RLEP standard. The wall height has been measured in accordance with the RELP definition:

 

“Wall height means the vertical distance from the highest point on an external wall to the ground level of the site. Each external wall height measurement must include gable ends and attic walls with an area over 6sqm and dormer windows that protrude horizontally from the roof more than 2.5 metres.”

 

It should be noted that the eastern end of the proposed curved roof has an area of 11.5sqm. As such, the maximum wall height of the building is to be measured vertically from the highest point of the curved roof to the ground level of the site. As a result, the eastern section of the building exceeds the maximum wall height standard and has a maximum height of approximately 12 metres.

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 33 (4) of RLEP is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP No. 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

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

 

The maximum wall height control in question is a development standard contained in the RLEP.

 

2.      The underlying object or purpose of the standard

 

The stated purpose of the standard, as outlined in RLEP, is:

 

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

 

3.      Consistency of the development with the aims of SEPP 1, the local planning objectives for the locality and objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended)

 

The amended proposal, subject to the deletion of the upper level of the eastern section of the building, would be consistent with the aims of the SEPP No. 1 and objects of the Act, as it would promote the orderly use and development of the subject land without causing significant adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential development. The proposal is also consistent with the objectives of the zone providing for a medium density residential development while maintaining a reasonable level of amenity for neighbouring residents

 

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

 

It is considered that a development compliant with the prescribed maximum wall height control is necessary in the circumstances of the case as the additional height on the eastern section of the building has the potential to block the existing view corridor from the northern adjoining properties and cast additional shadows to the southern adjoining and nearby properties. It will also restrict outlook from properties to the east and south. The recommendation for the deletion of the single bedroom dwelling and the associated curved roof at the top of eastern section of the building should be supported in order to minimise the adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties and the aesthetic quality of the foreshore scenic area. Subject to this amendment the proposal would meet the purpose of the standard.

 

5.         Whether the objection is well founded.

 

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

 

·       Demonstrated that there are no adverse environmental impacts arising from the proposed development in terms of view loss, loss of privacy, overshadowing and general overbearing impacts subject to deletion of the single bedroom dwelling and the curved roof at the top of the eastern section of the building.

 

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

 

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

 

-    the proposal promotes the orderly use of the land. The daily operation of the building will not adversely affect the amenity of surrounding residents or the character of the area

-    The subject proposal is a better development as it provides a variety of roof form and better living conditions to the future occupants of Unit 11. The proposed gable is in fact made up of three elements totalling 11.5sqm. The central element of 3.2sqm is setback from the two side elements which are 3.4sqm and 4.9sqm which are also setback 2m from the eastern face of the building at the line of the balconies.

-    The proposed design has taken into account the site constraints and opportunities. It is considered that this has been successfully achieved without any adverse impact to the character or significance of the area. The roof form is a contemporary variation on traditional forms with a 35º pitch which is within the height constraints to the north and south and within Council’s Development Control Plan and will have little impact if any on overshadowing of eastern neighbours due to the heavy tree cover at the eastern end of the site. The gable will have minimal impact on view sharing while providing a more interesting roof form within the urban context of the site;

-     The proposed design ensures that the third floor to rear section (fourth if car park included) will have minimal impact on the rear neighbours and is within the character of the precinct of pitched roof buildings;

-     the existing development is a single storey semi-detached house with a hipped roof to the street alignment also has an extensive vegetation at the rear with tree canopy restricting existing views across the site from lower levels of neighbouring walk-up flats to the north. Those flats currently do not have “water view” as defined in Tenacity v Ku-rin-gai Council 2006 NSWLEC 148. The gable in question cannot cause a view loss to the above flats. Upper flats in these buildings will retain distant views to the ocean, surrounding ridges and the sky over the top of the tree canopy. The proposed development is within the controls outlined in the Randwick Multi-Unit Design Code (MUDC) both for wall height of 10 m and ridge height of 12 m along the longer northern and southern elevations of the building facing a majority of neighbours. Adjacent upper level flats will still have distant views to the surrounding ridges and the sky across the roof of the proposed development. There is a considerable distance and height separation between the rear of existing development along Beach Street and the eastern of the proposed development. A substantial side boundary planting as indicated on landscape drawings will preserve a “leafy “feel to the rear of the property. The proposed additional 5.5m2 of gable will have not impact on views and vistas;

-    The gable will have no impact on privacy;

-    the overshadowing diagrams indicate that the proposed additional gable will not be responsible for any additional shadowing impacts on neighbouring properties due to the existing landform and the space being located within the roof form as attic space. The gable will have no impact on the eastern neighbours due to the landform and extensive existing tree cover at this end of the site;

-    The gable will have no impact on sustainability; and

-     The gable is marginally larger than the 6m2 control above the 10m wall height line at 11.5m2, or a total of 5.5m2 larger. Note also that the gable is set back 2m from the face of the building which is set 6m from the rear boundary. The gable is further articulated into three sections. The additional area has minimal impact on existing view corridors.

 

Despite the above justification for the variation with the maximum wall height standard, the amended proposal is considered to be unacceptable in its current form, however, as noted previously, the amenity of the adjoining properties could be improved provided the Dwelling No. 11 and the curved roof over eastern section of the building are deleted.

 

9.1.3   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

 

The site has not been identified as including any contaminated land or having sustained any previous uses which may have resulted in contamination.

 

9.1.4   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings (SEPP 65)

 

The application was referred to the Design Review Panel convened under SEPP 65. The design has been considered by the Panel twice, the latest Panel comments in relation to the design quality principles for residential flat buildings, as set out in Part 2 of SEPP 65, from its meeting on 6 November 2006, are set out below:-

 

1)        Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

Previous Panel comments have been addressed to some degree however the impact on views should be further clarified.

 

The proposed new break in the sandstone wall to Arden Street is still of concern, as it will make a significant change to the character of this approach to Coogee Beach.  The Panel invites discussion from the Council’s Heritage and Traffic officers.

 

If it means a significant change to the simple asphalt road outside the subject site to accommodate the development and the safe passage of cars into it. The Panel would find it hard to support.

 

A bridge solution for pedestrians to pass over the entry should be the same width as the raised walkway and nature strip as they currently exist ie +- 3000mm. It should be of solid masonry construction and feel like it was always intended rather than an unsympathetic addition.

 

Comment:

 

The above issues have been addressed in this report. The amended proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Planner and Traffic Engineer for comments. The comments are provided in Section 6 above and relevant conditions have been included in the recommendation of this report should the approval be granted. 

 

2)        The Scale of the Proposal

 

The massing of the proposal has been improved however the pitched roof to the east should be reduced to reflect the occupied space only.  This will improve views and reduce bulk.

 

Comment:

 

As noted previously, the dwelling at the top of the eastern section of the building is recommended to be deleted as it breaches the statutory wall height standard and also adds additional bulk to the development. 

 

3)        The Built Form of the Proposal

 

Improvements have been made to the built form however, as previously stated a reduced roof area should be achieved.

 

It would be preferable if the form could remain consistent through the project whereby unit 11 would fill the full width of the plan below. The pitched roof with curved ridge is inconsistent with the other forms in the proposal.

 

It may be possible to step the units down at the lift and stair to overcome envelope issues at the rear of the development and to break the form in the middle to assist scale.

 

 

 

Comment:

 

As noted previously, the upper level dwelling at the rear section of the building including its associated curved roof is to be deleted to further reduce the bulk and scale of the development and improve the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

4)        The Proposed Density

 

Given the many difficulties of the site it is the Panel’s view that the allowable FSR should not be exceeded.

 

Comment:

 

As noted previously, the deletion of the upper level dwelling at the eastern section of the building (i.e. Dwelling No. 11) will further reduce the floor space ratio of the proposed development and minimise the potential impact on the amenity of the adjoining and nearby properties. 

 

5)        Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Cross ventilation and orientation can be improved.

 

Ceiling fans to bedrooms are recommended. 

The top-light windows shown as part of the standard window assembly are supported, however the vast areas of fixed glass are considered inappropriate.  Window design should optimise air flow opportunities in the areas that will be occupied, not only at high level. The movement of air across the skin creates comfort, and reduces or eliminates the need for air conditioning in hot and humid weather.

 

The amount of louvres in the stair could be reconsidered to optimise air movement without creating maintenance issues.

 

The amount of internal bathrooms requiring mechanical ventilation and artificial lighting is high considering the amount of external wall.  The top floor apartments should be provided with ventilating highlight windows.

 

Comment:

 

An appropriate condition is to be included in the recommendation of this report requiring the standard windows on all elevations to be operable to optimise natural ventilation to the dwellings. It should be noted that ceiling fans are included as part of the BASIX commitments.

 

6)        The Proposed Landscape

 

Existing trees should be retained where possible and the easement design to the eastern boundary should reflect this.  An area of deep soil could be created north of the lift shaft and this would assist in providing sustainable landscape to this elevation.

 

A landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect should be submitted to the Panel.

 

 

 

 

Comment:

An amended landscaped plan prepared by Environmental Partnership was submitted to Council on 20 November 2006 and has been referred to Council’s Landscape Officer for comments and no issues were raised.

 

7)        The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

Many comments from the Panel’s previous report have been satisfactorily addressed however the Panel recommends alternate planning arrangements creating north/south apartments be investigated.

 

8)        The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

The Panel remains concerned about the pedestrian and vehicular safety in Arden St.

 

Comment:

As noted previously, a condition requiring the provision of a 600mm wide footpath at the base of the retaining wall on Arden Street will improve the pedestrian and vehicular safety in Arden Street.

 

9)        Social issues 

 

The proposal to alter the sandstone walls which create the character and a memorable gateway to Coogee Beach is of concern to the Panel.

 

Comment:

 

The issue in relation to the significance of the heritage walls on Arden Street has been addressed in Section 6.4 of this report.

 

10)      The Aesthetics of the Proposal 

 

The current roof form is not supported by the Panel – see comments above.

 

If the alterations to the sandstone walls to Arden Street are considered acceptable by the Council the Panel suggests that the design be improved by the corner detail matching that of the existing stair penetrations, and that the proposed vertical steel palisade fence be reconsidered to match the existing balustrading. The width of the bridge should also be increased as discussed above.

 

Comment:

 

As noted previously, the proposed curved roof on the top of the eastern section of the building is recommended to be deleted to improve the amenity of the adjoining dwelling and the qualities of the foreshore area.

 

It appears that no alternative access to the site is possible except to create an opening in the sandstone retaining wall on Arden Street. If the opening is not allowed, then no on-site carparking can be provided. Given the retaining wall is not listed as heritage item and no objections were raised by Council’s Development Engineers, Assets Coordinator and Traffic Committee (subject to compliance with relevant conditions), the proposed alterations to the existing sandstone retaining wall is therefore considered appropriate. As such, a deferred commencement condition is included in the recommendation of this report requiring the details of the proposed design, materials, colours and finishes to the proposed retaining wall, pedestrian bridge, fence and associated balustrades are to be submitted to and approved by Council to ensure the design of the proposed works are compatible with the remaining section of the existing retaining wall on Arden Street.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 

The Panel will not need to review this application again if the issues contained in this report are satisfactorily addressed.

 

9.1.5   State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

9.2      Draft Statutory Planning Instruments

 

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

 

This Draft SEPP seeks to replace the provisions of SEPP 1 and has been publicly exhibited (concluding on 18 June 2004). The new SEPP will introduce additional objectives (such as requiring non-compliances to result in better environmental planning outcomes than a complying development) when assessing whether flexibility of a planning standard is acceptable or not.

 

Legal advice was provided by Deacons Solicitors on 27 October 2004 with respect to the weight that should be given the Draft SEPP. Deacons have advised that contact made with the Department of Planning indicates that the Draft SEPP 1 will be implemented over a three and five year period subject to re-exhibition. It is noted in Deacons advice that the Land and Environment Court adheres to the principle of “imminence and certainty” with respect to the weight given to a draft instrument. Deacons conclude that the draft SEPP 1 should not be given any significant weight, but should be considered as part of Council’s general Section 79C consideration.

 

The additional objectives proposed under Draft SEPP 1 include whether the proposal will result in a better environmental outcome than a complying development, design quality and whether the development meets the objectives of the standards. As noted previously, it is considered that the deletion of the single bedroom dwelling and the curved roof at the top of the eastern section of the building would result in a better environmental outcome than a complying development and therefore the development would be considered appropriate and consistent with the draft SEPP subject to the deferred commencement conditions.

 

9.2.2   Relevant Development Control Plans and Policies

 

9.2.2.1           Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

 

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

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets  Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Site Planning

P1  Development applications accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

Site analysis plan provided. Complies.

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

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

The combined site frontage width is 20.12m. Complies.

P3  Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

Not applicable. 

Height

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

 

The eastern wall of the building exceeds the maximum wall height standard. It is recommended that the single bedroom dwelling and the curved roof at the top of the eastern section of the building are to be deleted. 

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

 

The deletion of the upper level dwelling and the curved roof would improve the amenity of the adjoining properties.


Building Setbacks

P1  Front boundary setbacks

The front setback consistent with streetscape /adjoining dwelling.

 

The proposed front boundary setback is consistent with the adjoining dwellings. Complies.

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

·       Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

·       Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

·       Landscaping and private open space provided.

·       Streetscape amenity is maintained.

S2  Zone 2C

 

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

 

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

 

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

Partly complies.

 

North:

Minimum average

Ground – 4.34m (No)

First – 4.3m (No)

Second – 5.4m (Yes)

 

Minimum – Yes

Ground –  3.5m

First – 3.5m

Second – 3.5m

 

Unarticulated wall length

Ground – 10.3m (No)

First – 8.3m/8.4m (Yes)

Second – 11.9m (No)

 

Minimum step – No

Ground – 1.9m

First – 1.9m

Second – 1.9m

 

South:

Minimum average

Ground – 4.14m (No)

First – 4.3m (No)

Second – 5.4m (Yes)

 

Minimum – Yes

Ground – 3.5m

First – 3.5m

Second – 3.5m

 

Unarticulated wall length – Yes/No

Ground –  8.3m (Yes)

First – 8.3m/8.4m (Yes)

Second – 11.9m (No)

 

Minimum step – No

Ground – 1.9m

First – 1.9m

Second – 1.9m

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

·       solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

·       Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

·       Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

 

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

 

 

 

No part closer than 6 metres.

 

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

 

 

Does not comply. Building including balconies – average 6m. Excluding balconies – average 8m.

 

 

Complies.

 

Maximum length of wall is 10m. Complies.

Density

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

 

The building bulk would be compatible with surrounding built forms provided the upper level dwelling and curved roof at the eastern section of the building are deleted.

Fences

P1  Fences to be/have:

·       consistent with streetscape;

·       Entrances highlighted; and

·       Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

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

 

The proposed fence on Arden Street frontage is 1.8m in height and the upper 800mm is at least 50% open.

 

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1  Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

Landscaped areas to the rear and front of the proposal will have dimensions greater than 2 sqm. Complies.

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

 

The rear of the proposed site is provided as communal open space. Complies.

P3  Private Open Space

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

 

Complies.

P6  Flats and apartments

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

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

Complies.

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

Refer planning comments below and conditions as contained within the Recommendation.

P2  Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

Refer planning comments below and conditions as contained within the Recommendation.

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Generally complies.

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Aust.

Conditioned to comply.

View Sharing

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

 

The proposal would result in the loss of views from the properties in Arcadia Street. The extent of the impact has been addressed in this report.

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

 

As noted previously, the deletion of the additional dwelling will minimise the effects on views from the northern adjoining properties. It will also improve the outlook from properties to the east and south.

P3  Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

As noted above, the impact of the development has been addressed in the following section of this report.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

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

 

Due to the orientation of the site, there will be a degree of additional overshadowing to the southern adjoining property. 

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

 

Does not comply. See assessment below.

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

 

Does not comply. See assessment below.

P4  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

·       Living areas are orientated to the north.

·       Larger windows are located on the north.

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

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

Not applicable as the proposed development is subject to the BASIX requirements.

P5  Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

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

Complies.

Safety and Security

P1  Design allows surveillance.

 

Front windows and balconies facing the street. Complies.

P2  Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Front entries defined by gates and basement car park entrance. Complies.

P3  High walls and structures avoided.

 

Complies.

P4  Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

A garage door is proposed to the basement carpark entry. However, it is considered that the location of the garage door is inappropriate and should be located further from the front boundary to provide sufficient space for a vehicle entering the carpark. 

P5  Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

Conditioned to comply.

Parking

Required On-site Parking

1 bedroom dwelling

1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

1.5 spaces per dwelling

Visitor parking is 1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

Complies. See Section 9.2.2.2 below.

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

 

Complies.

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

 

Not required.

P3  Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

A bicycle storage area is provided in the basement. Complies.

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1  Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

Complies.

P2  Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

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

Complies.

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

S3  Long driveways provide passing bays.

Not applicable.

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

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

Complies.

P5  Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5  Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

Conditioned to comply. 

P6  Driveway gradients safe.

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

Complies.

 

Storage

P1  Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

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

Majority of the storage spaces are within each dwelling and additional storage areas are provided in basement.

Barrier-Free Access

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

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

Conditioned to comply with BCA.

P2  Dwelling requirements:

  0 – 14 dwellings    0

15 – 29 dwellings    1

30 – 44 dwellings    2

45 – 60 dwellings    3 so on…

The requirements of AS1428.1 and AS 4299 are to be considered.

 

Not required.

P3  Dwellings for people with a disability have corresponding parking space.

 

Not required.

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

 

Not required.

Utilities/Site Facilities

P1  Mailboxes provided in accordance with Australia Post.

 

Conditioned to comply.

P2  Provisions for a single common TV and radio reception device.

 

Conditioned to comply.

P3 – P6 Utilities requirements.

 

Conditioned to comply.

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

 

Complies.

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1  Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

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

Complies.

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

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

Complies.

Foreshore Scenic Protection Areas

P1  Building form is sympathetic in appearance with surroundings buildings, and buildings on stepped sites are articulated so that massing and scale respects the slope.

 

The proposed development subject to the condition requiring the deletion of dwelling No. 11 and the curved roof over the eastern section of the building, will not adversely affect or detract from the visual qualities of the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

P2  Extent of hard surface is minimised to reduce water run-off

 

 

Conditioned to comply.

P3  Ancillary structures do not dominate and detract visually. 

 

Ancillary structures will not dominate and detract visual quality of the foreshore area.

 

Assessment of non-compliances with the preferred solutions of the DCP:

 

a) Building Setbacks

 

The performance requirements for side and rear boundary setbacks requires the buildings to be setback from boundaries so that  adequate levels of solar access to the buildings are maintained and the extent of overshadowing and overlooking impacts is minimised and opportunities for landscaping and private open space are provided. The proposed setbacks from side and rear boundaries are considered to be adequate and would allow reasonable levels of solar access to the buildings and provide opportunities for landscaping and private open space. Whilst concerns were raised regarding overlooking of adjoining properties, it is considered that the impact can be mitigated by appropriate conditions of consent (i.e. installation of screening devices). It is considered that the amended proposal, subject to the compliance with conditions of consent, will satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in regards to building setbacks.

 

 

b) Loss of Views

 

Distant ocean, headland, district views are enjoyed to the south, southwest and southeast over the subject site from the top floor balconies of dwellings at 153 Arden Street and 19 to 23 Arcadia Street. The middle level of these dwellings currently enjoy filtered water and district views through the existing vegetation on the subject site and the dwellings at ground level have no views to the water but views to the existing vegetation and the northern wall of the existing dwelling.

 

       Views from the top floor level of the northern adjoining properties.

 

The existing views from the top floor rear balconies of northern adjoining dwellings are illustrated by the photographs below:

 

Above: Panoramic view looking south to southeast from the upper level balcony of 153 Arden Street across the subject site.

 

Above: view looking south to southeast from the rear balcony of Unit 1, 19 Arcadia Street across the subject site. (NB. This unit is located on the top floor of the building)

 

Above: Panoramic view looking south to southeast from the rear balcony of Unit 2, 19 Arcadia Street across the subject site. (NB. This unit is located on the top floor of the building)

Above: Panoramic view looking south to southeast from the rear balcony of Unit 3, 21 Arcadia Street across the subject site. (NB. This unit is located on the top floor of the building)

 

Above: view looking southeast from the rear balcony of Unit 3, 23 Arcadia Street across the subject site. (NB. This unit is located on the top floor of the building)

·         Views from the middle floor level of the northern adjoining properties.

 

The existing views from the rear balconies of northern adjoining dwellings at middle level are illustrated by the photographs below:

Above: view looking southeast from the rear balcony of Unit 3, 19 Arcadia Street across the subject site. (NB. This unit is located on the middle floor of the building)

 

Above: view looking southeast from the rear balcony of Unit 4, 19 Arcadia Street across the subject site. (NB. This unit is located on the middle floor of the building)

 

Above: view looking southeast from the rear balcony of Unit 1, 21 Arcadia Street across the subject site. (NB. This unit is located on the middle floor of the building)

 

Above: view looking south from the rear balcony of Unit 2, 21 Arcadia Street across the subject site. (NB. This unit is located on the middle floor of the building)

 

Above: view looking southeast from the rear balcony of Unit 1, 23 Arcadia Street across the subject site. (NB. This unit is located on the middle floor of the building)

 

       Views from the ground floor level of the northern adjoining properties

 

The existing views from the rear balconies of northern adjoining dwellings at ground level are illustrated by the photographs below:

 

Above: view looking south from the rear balcony of Unit 5, 19 Arcadia Street across the subject site. (NB. This unit is located on the ground floor of the building)

 

Above: view looking south from the rear balcony of Unit 5, 21 Arcadia Street across the subject site. (NB. This unit is located on the ground floor of the building)

 

Above: view looking south from the ground floor rear balcony of 25 Arcadia Street across the subject site.

 

Performance Requirements under section 4.3 View Sharing of the Development Control Plan for multi-unit housing requires that:

 

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

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

·    Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

The concept of ‘view sharing’ was further defined in the Land and Environment Court by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004) proceedings. The Senior Commissioners discussion of the notion of view sharing is provided below as background:

 

“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. (Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.) To decide whether or not view sharing is reasonable, I have adopted a four-step assessment.

 

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

 

As indicated by the photographs above, it is considered that the existing views from the top level balconies of the northern adjoining properties would not be affected by the amended proposal as the finished levels of these balconies are higher than the ridge level of the proposed roof. The amended proposal will have some impact on the outlook from the balconies at ground and first floor levels as these balconies currently enjoys filtered district and water views through the existing trees and a pleasant ‘oasis’ view to the subject site and the majority of the views would be blocked by the proposed development.

 

2)    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 views are obtained from the living rooms, kitchens and balconies of the northern adjoining properties. The views are available from the rear of these properties. As noted previously, the views from the top floor balconies will not be affected by the proposal and the views can be enjoyed from seated and standing positions. 

 

3)    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.

 

As noted previously, the extent of the impact from the top floor balconies of the northern adjoining dwellings is negligible as the ridge level of the proposed roof will be lower than the finished levels of the top floor balconies of the northern adjoining properties. The development will affect views from the balconies at middle and ground floor levels as these balconies will be looking into a curved roof and the external wall of the building whereas these balconies currently enjoys a pleasant view to the existing vegetation on the subject site (see photomontages below showing the before and after images).

 

Above: Existing views from the rear balcony of Unit 1, 23 Arcadia Street across the subject site.

 

Above: Proposed views from the rear balcony of Unit 1, 23 Arcadia Street across the subject site.

 

Above: Existing views from the rear balcony of Unit 1, 21 Arcadia Street across the subject site.

Above: Proposed views from the rear balcony of Unit 1, 21 Arcadia Street across the subject site.

 

4)   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.

 

Whist it is acknowledged that the amended proposal complies with the overall building height standard, it does fail to meet the maximum FSR & wall height standards identified in the RLEP and some DCP controls. As illustrated in the photomontages above, it is clear that the views from the middle level balconies of the northern adjoining properties will be greatly affected and it is considered that the deletion of the upper level dwelling at the eastern section of the building including the roof will improve the amenity of the adjoining properties (i.e. more views to the balconies at first floor level of northern adjoining properties and less overshadowing impact to the southern properties).

 

c) Privacy

 

The amended proposal provides balconies to living areas facing east & west and windows to living areas facing north and south. Concerns were raised regarding the potential overlooking from the east and west facing balconies and windows on the northern and southern elevations. It is noted that the majority of the northern adjoining properties have a horizontal separation of more than 10 metres between windows except the building at No. 153 Arden Street where the separation is approximately 9m. The proposed windows on the northern elevation of the dwellings at the first and second floor levels of the building have the potential to overlook into the rear communal open spaces of the northern adjoining properties. The proposed dwellings at ground floor level of the building are lower than the ground levels of the northern adjoining properties and do not create privacy concerns. It is considered that the overlooking impacts from the first and second floor levels of the building are negligible as the neighbouring communal open spaces are already overlooked by the existing balconies at the rear of the northern adjoining properties. For this reason, it is not considered that the additional requirement for privacy screening is necessary in the circumstances of the case. In addition, the proposal includes a range of trees and shrubs along the northern boundary which will help to minimise the overlooking impact.

 

Similarly, the privacy of the southern adjoining building at No. 159 Arden Street would be affected by the proposed development as there are windows and terraces that have the potential to overlook the windows of No. 159 Arden Street. In order to maintain a reasonable level of privacy between the occupants of subject and southern adjoining buildings, it is recommended that the southern terrace wall to Dwelling 4 should be increased to a minimum of 1.5m, measured from the finished terrace level, and the windows on the southern elevation of Dwellings 6 and 8 are to be provided with additional privacy measures (i.e. external louvres or fixed obscured glazing). It should be noted that the dwelling on top level (i.e. dwelling 10) does not create significant privacy concern as this dwelling will overlook the roof of No. 159 Arden Street

 

d) Overshadowing

 

It is noted that the southern adjoining property at No. 159 Arden Street would be significantly overshadowed by the proposed development. However, No. 159 is set well below the subject site and is already overshadowed by the existing single storey dwelling which is setback only 1m from the southern side boundary. It is also considered that a degree of overshadowing to the southern adjoining properties is unavoidable due to the orientation of allotment in this part of Arden Street. Notwithstanding, the condition requiring the deletion of the single bedroom dwelling and curved roof on the top of the eastern section of the building will reduce the overshadowing impact on the adjoining and nearby properties, and results in the proposal being compliant in relation to its height.

 

9.2.2.2           Development Control Plan – Parking

 

The DCP provides the following car parking provisions for multi-unit housing development:

 

 

Rate

Requirement

Proposed

Complies

Studio

1 per two dwellings

-

-

-

1 Bedroom

1 per 1 bed or bedsit over 40m2

2

2

 

2 Bedroom

1.2 per dwelling

10.8 (11)

13

 

3 + Bedroom

1.5 per dwelling

-

-

-

Visitor

1 per 4 dwellings

2.75 (3)

3

Yes

Total

 

16

18

2 additional parking spaces are provided

Bicycle

1 per 3 dwellings and 1 visitor per 10 dwellings

 

3.6 (4)

1

A bicycle storage area proposed in the semi-basement car park.

Conditioned to ensure at least 5 spaces are provided within the proposed bicycle storage area.

Carwash bay

1 per 12 dwellings

1

Conditioned to comply.

Conditioned to comply.

 

The proposal complies with parking requirements for multi unit housing.

 

9.2.2.3           Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

Under Council’s Section 94 contributions plan the following contributions have been levied:

 

 

 

Open Space

Community Facilities

Total

Proposed (A)

1 x 1 bedroom

$1,195.25 (1 x $1,195.25)

$528.5 (1 x $528.50)

$1,723.75

9 x 2 bedroom

$16,135.92 (9 x $1,792.88)

$7,134.48 (9 x $792.72)

$23,270.40

Existing (B)

2 x 3+ bedroom dwellings

$5,464 (2 x $2,732)

$2,416 (2 x 1,208)

$7,880

Total (A - B)

 

$11,867.17

$5,246.98

$17,114.15

 

It should be noted that the above calculation incorporates the deletion of the single bedroom dwelling at the top of the rear section of the building.

 

9.2.2.4           Council’s Asbestos Policy 2005

 

In accordance with Council’s Asbestos Policy, a number of conditions of consent have been imposed accordingly to maintain appropriate levels of public health and safety.

 

9.3      Issues raised in submissions not already addressed in the report

 

a)        Devaluation of surrounding properties

 

Property valuation is considered a complex issue because there are numerous factors that potentially can affect the monetary value of a property. These may range from the overall state of the property market and the policy of financial institutions to the physical and locational conditions of a particular property and how these are shaped by personal perceptions and preferences of potential buyers and sellers in the market. As such, it is considered that, strictly speaking, the issue of property valuation is a matter that goes beyond the scope of matters of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979, as any claim that the subject proposal would affect the value of adjoining and surrounding properties will be tenuous and a matter of speculation.

 

b)        Pedestrian and vehicular safety

 

As noted previously, the proposal involves the relocation of the existing stairs from the northern side of the subject site to the southern side of the proposed vehicular crossing. Concerns were raised that this could cause potential conflict between pedestrian and vehicles on Arden Street. Council’s Asset’s Coordinator has advised that provided a 600mm wide footpath is provided at the base of the proposed retaining wall, the safety of the pedestrian and vehicle would not be greatly affected. As such, appropriate conditions are recommended for inclusion in the consent should the approval be granted.

 

In addition, the proposal also includes the construction of a pedestrian bridge over the proposed driveway, which will allow the continuance of the pedestrian access along the eastern side of Arden Street footpath.

 

c)        Traffic Implications

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed development consisting of 11 residential dwellings will be in the range of 44 to 55 vehicle movements per day. The proposed development is expected to generate a peak flow volume of approximately 5.5 vehicles per hour, which is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Arden Street as a result of this development. In addition, the proposal complies with Council’s DCP – Parking with regard to the number of car spaces required and therefore should not increase the demand for on-street parking spaces in the vicinity.  

 

d)        Noise during construction

 

There are provisions under the Protection of the Environment Operation Act 1997 that protect the amenity of residents in relation to noise and vibration issues. Accordingly, appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation of this report should the approval be granted, to ensure the noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works are carried out within the permitted hours and must not result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents. 

 

10. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:     Leadership in sustainability and excellence in urban design and development  

Direction:     Improved design and sustainability across all development

Key Action:   Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability

 

11. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

12. CONCLUSION

 

The proposal is permissible with consent of Council on the subject site and generally complies with the development standards contained in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 with the exception of the requirement for maximum floor space ratio and wall height. SEPP 1 objections to address the breach of the floor space ratio and wall height standards have been submitted and considered to be acceptable subject to the compliance with the deferred commencement conditions requiring the deletion of the single bedroom dwelling and curved roof at the top of the eastern section of the building and additional privacy measures are implemented to minimise privacy impact on adjoining properties.

 

The amended proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of the DCP for Multi-Unit Housing.  Where compliance with relevant preferred solutions has not been achieved (i.e. building setbacks, privacy, view sharing and solar access), the proposal is considered to be acceptable and achieves the relevant objectives and performance requirements provided the deferred commencement conditions are fully implemented. 

 

Having regard to all relevant matters for consideration, the amended proposal subject to the compliance with the recommended conditions, will not result in any significant adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 in respect to non-compliances with Clauses 32(1) and 33(4) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (relating to maximum floor space ratio and wall height) on the grounds that the proposed development complies with 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 its development consent as a “Deferred Commencement” under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 611/2006 for demolition of the existing dwellings and construction of a three storey multi-unit development comprising 11 dwelling and a semi-basement level car parking for 18 vehicles at 155-157 Arden Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:-

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions:

 

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

 

1.     The proposed one bedroom dwelling (Dwelling No. 11) at the top level of eastern section of the building and the associated curved roof shall be deleted to comply with the external wall height standard under Clause 33(4) of the RLEP and to ensure the bulk and scale of the development are in sympathy with the scenic qualities and topography of the foreshore area and to improve the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

2.     Details of the proposed design, colours, materials and finishes to the proposed sandstone retaining wall to Arden Street, pedestrian bridge and associated balustrades.

 

3.     Details of all proposed fencing on site boundaries.

 

4.     Details of the proposed colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board).

 

5.     The sill height of the windows on the southern elevation of Dwelling Nos. 6 and 8 are to be fixed and provided with obscured glazing below 1.5m above floor level or alternatively, the widows are to be provided with fixed louvres to minimise privacy impacts on southern adjoining property at No. 159 Arden Street.  

 

6.     A privacy screen having a minimum height of 1.5m, measured from the finished terrace level, is to be provided to the southern side of the terrace area for Dwelling 4 and the screen shall be constructed of obscured glazing to minimise overlooking impact on southern adjoining property at No. 159 Arden Street.

 

7.     Privacy screens are to be provided to the northern and southern sides of the balconies for Dwelling Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 to minimise overlooking into the living areas and private open spaces of the adjoining and nearby properties to the north and south.

 

8.     The storage room at the semi-basement level shall be reconfigured to provide a total of 10 separate storage spaces. Evidence of compliance with the minimum storage area per dwelling under Part 5.3 Storage of Development Control Plan for Multi-Unit Housing is to be submitted to Council. 

 

9.     The bicycle storage area shall be suitably sized to accommodate 5 bicycles.

 

10.   Details of the proposed levels, grades and siting of the proposed right-of-way, its impact on the useability of the communal open space area, and an arborist report assessing the likely impact of the right-of-way on the Swamp Mahogany and Norfolk Island Hibiscus trees.  The proposed right-of-way shall not reduce the minimum landscaped area of the proposed development to less than 50% of the site area in accordance with clause 31 of RLEP 1998.

 

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

 

Development Consent Conditions

 

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

 

Referenced Plans:

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the following amended plans:

·                numbered 013, Issue A, dated 12 November 2006 and received by Council on 13 November 2006,

·                numbered 030, Issue F, dated 28 November 2006 and received by Council on 28 November 2006,

·                numbered 031, Issue E, dated 7 November 2006 and received by Council on 13 November 2006,

·                numbered 032, 040 and 052, Issue D, dated 5 November 2006 and received by Council on 13 November 2006,

·                numbered 033 and 034, Issue C, dated 14 October 2006 and received by Council on 16 October 2006,

·                numbered 041, Issue D, dated 23 November 2006 and received by Council on 28 November 2006,

·                numbered 042, Issue C, dated 28 November 2006 and received by Council on 28 November 2006,

·                numbered 050 and 051, Issue C, dated 14 October 2006 and received by Council on 16 October 2006,

 

the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the details/amendments approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and the following conditions as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.     A separate development application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council for any proposed works to facilitate access to the adjoining property at No. 159 Arden Street, Coogee.

 

3.     Subject to compliance with Deferred Commencement Condition No. 10, a Right of Way over 155-157 Arden Street in favour of Units 1 to 5 inclusive of SP 77817, (159 Arden Street, Coogee), shall be created prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate. All costs associated with the survey and registration of the Right of Way are to be met by the owner of the subject site at 155-157 Arden Street, Coogee.

 

The terms of the right of way shall include the following:

 

 

4.     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.

 

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

 

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

         

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following condition is applied to satisfy the increased demand for public amenities and public services:

 

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

 

a)     for the provision or improvement of open space                 $11,867.17

b)     for the provision or improvement of community facilities        $5,246.98

c)     Administration fee..................................                          $425.00

 

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

 

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

 

16.    The consolidation of the separate lots into a single lot must take place, prior to the use or the occupation of the development.  Details of the consolidation of lots are to be provided to Council prior to occupation of the development.

 

17.    A separate Development Application is required to be submitted to and approved by Council with regard to the strata subdivision of the building.

 

The following conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustain