Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 28 April 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

28 April 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 April 2009

 

 

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, 28 April 2009 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty 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 Randwick and Australia.

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the 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.”

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 24 March 2009

Extraordinary Council Meeting - 7 April 2009

 

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

Address of Council by Members of the Public

 

Mayoral Minutes

MM23/09   Waiving of fees - Brigidine College, Randwick

MM24/09   Waiving of fees - The Castellorizian Ladies' Auxiliary - Hiring of Council's Bus

MM25/09   Waiving of fees - Surfing NSW Womens Surfriders’ Association  

 

Urgent Business

 


Director City Planning Reports

CP15/09    78 Dudley Street, Coogee

CP16/09    71 Boundary Street, Clovelly

CP17/09    33 Boyce Road, Maroubra

CP18/09    309 - 311 Bunnerong Road,  Maroubra

CP19/09    184 Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra

CP20/09    135-139 Alison Road, Randwick

CP21/09    1220 Anzac Parade, Malabar

CP22/09    A framework for assessing applications for use of Contingency Funds

CP23/09    Draft final Heffron Park Plan of Management - Public Exhibition and Submissions Review

 

General Manager's Reports

GM13/09    Draft Randwick City Council Management Plan 2009-13

GM14/09    Alcohol Related Issues and Licensed Premises  - Coogee

GM15/09    Affixing of the Council Seal

GM16/09    Policy - Councillor information sessions with external parties

GM17/09    Cancellation of July Ordinary Council Meeting to Facilitate 150 Year Anniversary Presentations.................................................................................. 219

 

Director City Services Reports

CS7/09      Water Filter Program

CS8/09      Naturestrips

CS9/09      Removal of Parking Meters

CS10/09    Prohibition of Double String Kites on Council's Beaches

CS11/09    Muraborah Reserve Playground

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF17/09    Investment Report - March 2009

GF18/09    Allocation of Commonwealth Stimulus Funding to Vocational Training  

 

Petitions

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM17/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Andrews - Traffic signals at the intersection of Maroubra Road and Mons Avenue, Maroubra

NM18/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Andrews -  Kerb and Guttering Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra.

NM19/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Andrews - Installation of CCTV Cameras at Lexington Place

NM20/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Andrews - Summary of Land and Environment Court decisions

NM21/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Andrews - Legal costs for defending the Garlo's Pies matter

NM22/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Matthews - Long Bay Hospital

NM23/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice by Cr Andrews - Affordable housing at 64-66R Minneapolis Crescent, Maroubra  


Confidential

GM18/09    Draft Randwick City Council Management Plan 2009-13: Confidential Fees and Charges

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business. (In accordance with s404(5) of the Local Government Act 1993, fees and charges for the services provided by this program have not been published as they could confer a commercial advantage to a competitor of Council. )

GF19/09    SSROC Tender for the Supply and Delivery of Industrial Footwear

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2)(c) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

NR2/09      Notice of Rescission Motion by Crs Nash, Seng and Smith - Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and Plan 2008-2009  

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Ordinary Council

28 April 2009

 

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM23/09

 

 

Subject:                  Waiving of fees - Brigidine College, Randwick

Folder No:                   F2004/06257

Author:                   Councillor Notley-Smith, Mayor     

 

Introduction

 

A request has been received from Ms Kate Edmondson, the Principal of Brigidine College Randwick.  Ms Edmondson is seeking the waiving of fees associated with the installation of banners at two (2) sites (the intersection of Arden Street and Malabar Road, South Coogee and Anzac Parade and Beauchamp Road, Maroubra) advertising the school’s Open Day. This is for a two week period.

 

Issues

 

Brigidine College Randwick would like to display their banners to advertise their Open Day and invite members of the community to come and visit the school.

 

Costing as follows:

 

Application fee                                                                        $  135.00

Installation and removal of banner @ $612.00 x 2 banners              $1,224.00

Hire of banner poles @ $515.00 per week x two (2) weeks

X 2 sites                                                                                $2,060.00

Total                                                                                    $3,419.00

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $3,419.00, which will be charged to the 2008-09 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

It is considered that Council should vote to waive the fees associated with the installation and dismantling of the banner and that the funds be allocated from the 2008-09 Contingency Fund.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the fees associated with the installation and dismantling of banners and the hire of Council’s banner poles for Brigidine College Randwick (on the flagpole at the intersection of Arden Street and Malabar Road, South Coogee and Anzac Parade and Beauchamp Road, Maroubra), be waived and $3,419.00 be allocated from the 2008-09 Contingency Fund; and

 

b)     the organiser undertakes to appropriately and prominently  acknowledge and     promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the Open Day.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil


Ordinary Council

28 April 2009

 

 

   

Mayoral Minute No. MM24/09

 

 

Subject:                  Waiving of fees - The Castellorizian Ladies' Auxiliary - Hiring of Council's Bus

Folder No:                   F2004/08381

Author:                   Councillor Notley-Smith, Mayor     

 

Introduction

 

The Castellorizian Ladies Auxiliary has asked Council for their support in fundraising by waiving the fee for the hire of the Council bus over three days, which they use for their Christmas Carols event.

 

Issues

 

The Castellorizian Ladies Auxiliary has written to the Mayor to ask Council to waive the fee of $290.40 for the hire of the Council bus on the 11, 12 and 14 December 2009 for their fundraising Christmas Carol event. The monies raised go towards various charities including the Sydney Children’s Hospital and their Castellorizian Aged Care Facility in Todman Avenue, Kensington.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $290.40 and there are sufficient funds in the 2008-09 Contingency Fund to cover this contribution.

 

Conclusion

 

The Castellorizian Ladies Auxiliary’s fundraising Christmas Carols event is held each year and Council has supported their cause by waiving the fee for the hire of the bus over three days. It is proposed that Council waive the fee of $290.40 again this year.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council waive the fee of $290.40 to be funded from the 2008-09 Contingency Fund for the hire of the Council bus on the 11, 12 and 14 December 2009 to support the Castellorizian Ladies Auxiliary’s fundraising Christmas Carols event.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

28 April 2009

 

 

 

Mayoral Minute No. MM25/09

 

 

Subject:                  Waiving of fees - Surfing NSW Womens Surfriders’ Association

Folder No:                   F2009/08302

Author:                   Councillor Notley-Smith, Mayor     

 

Introduction

 

An application has been received from Ms Carlie Thornton, Surfing NSW on behalf of Maroubra Womens Surfriders Association, to use Maroubra Beach to host their local boardriders competitions. 

 

Issues

 

Ms Thornton explained in her letter that this will be the first womens boardriders club at Maroubra Beach and it gives them the opportunity to enter a competition for women only at an entry level stage.  

 

Maroubra Womens Surfriders Association is a non-profit organisation and Ms Thornton is requesting that due to the nature of these activities that the appropriate fees be waived:

 

        Application Fee:                        $   135.00

        Beach Hire $432.00 x five            $2,160.00

        (only allowed in Winter

1 day in July to November)                        

        Total :                                     $2,295.00

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $2,295.00 which will be charged to the 2008-09 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

It is considered that these events would be very beneficial to the local women in the community.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     fees in the amount of $2,295.00 associated with the Maroubra Womens    Surfriders Association, be waived and funds be charged to the 2008-09        Contingency Fund;

 

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

 

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

 

 


Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

28 April 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP15/09

 

 

Subject:                  78 Dudley Street, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/1052/2007/A

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 application to modify consent to amend Condition No. 3 and delete Condition No. 4 of development consent

 

Ward:                      East Ward

 

Applicant:                Gray Property Investments Pty Ltd

 

Owner:                         Gray Property Investments Pty Ltd

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval.

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 


1.    Executive Summary

 

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

 

The application seeks to modify the approved development by amending Condition No. 3 and deleting Condition No. 4 of development consent, which reduced the depth of the balcony to the western side of the building, and required the installation of a privacy screen to the balcony on the eastern side of the building.

 

The main issue is the impact that approval of these modifications will have upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

Approval was granted to the original application under delegated authority subject to conditions including conditions 3 & 4 which read;

 

3.  The proposed first floor balcony on the western side of the subject building, adjacent to No. 76 Dudley Street is to have a maximum depth of 450mm and be provided with obscure glazed balustrades to maintain the privacy and amenity of the adjoining dwelling. Details of compliance are to be shown on Construction Certificate Plans.

 

4.  The proposed first floor balcony on the eastern side of the subject building is to be provided with obscure glazed balustrades to maintain the privacy and amenity of the adjoining properties. Details of compliance are to be shown on Construction Certificate Plans.

 

The application to modify the consent is on the basis that there is already a degree of overlooking to the adjoining properties, the balconies serve bedrooms, not living areas, and these conditions are not necessary to maintain amenity to the adjoining properties.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is on the southern side of Dudley Street and is presently occupied by an existing two storey residential flat building. The site has a frontage of 8.895m, a depth of 19.475m and an overall site area of 408m². The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of dwellings and multi unit housing development. The properties in this portion of Dudley Street are elevated above street level and garages have been constructed between the buildings and the street alignment.

 

4.    Site History

 

The original development application detailed the replacement of the existing windows within the northern front elevation of the building with bi fold doors, two new first floor timber decks to the front of the building and new tiling and balustrade to the existing terrace above the garage. Approval was granted subject to conditions on 29 August 2008.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

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

5.1 Objections

 

ABC Planning on behalf of the owners of 76 Dudley Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The proposal will result in unreasonable and unjustifiable visual and acoustic privacy impacts and the conditions should be maintained or at least the balconies be reduced in depth with increased screening.

 

The proposed alterations to the building will create potential additional overlooking, however the cumulative manner in which each of the properties on this side of Dudley Street already overlook each other results in less potential loss of amenity if there was already no overlooking at all. In addition it must be acknowledged that an area intended as private open space to the front a property is much more difficult to maintain as private as it is susceptible to overlooking from the public domain.

There are no other balconies that protrude beyond the façade of buildings and the proposal will set an undesirable precedent.

 

Further to the west along Dudley street there are number of other terraced balconies which protrude in front of the building line, this is to take advantage of the coastal view beyond to the north east of the subject site.  Further, the proposed balconies are generally consistent with the average setback of adjoining properties.

The degree of overlooking is severe and upon their primary private open space, as their rear yard area is difficult to access and receives minimal sun with no aspect or views, and this space currently enjoys visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the objector’s rear yard is not practicable for use as private outdoor entertaining space and the front terraced area is currently used as a recreation space, it would be unreasonable to expect that any front yard which faces a public domain and enjoys ocean views will receive absolute privacy.

The proposed balconies are within 2m from their open living space and elevated above their property and overlooking and noise impacts could not be addressed by any screening.

 

The balconies are modest is size and it is not considered that the western balcony closest to the objectors property will significantly compromise the privacy levels of the objectors property given that it is to a bedroom.  Further, privacy impacts can be addressed by the installation of fixed screens to the western side of the proposed upper level balcony, and a condition to this effect is recommended.

The subject site already has a front terrace that can be used for entertaining, that would contribute noise.  However, such activities carried out in a responsible manner would be consistent with the residential use of premises.

An increase in depth to the balcony to the western side of the building transforms the character and usability of the balcony as it allows for more traffic and seating area.

Discussed above.  It is not expected that a balcony to a bedroom will have a significant impact to justify its refusal. Privacy impacts can be addressed by the installation of fixed screens to the western side of the proposed upper level balcony, and a condition to this effect is recommended.

The eastern balcony is within 5m from the adjoining property and the removal of any screening is unjustified.

 

With respect to the eastern side balcony viewing from this balcony is orientated to the north east away from the objector’s property at 76 Dudley Street.  Whilst there is some potential overlooking to the adjoining property at 154 Brook Street it is primarily upon the driveway of that building rather than into any private living areas.

 

Given the position of the balconies to take advantage of the coastal and district views it is realistic that the layout of the units may be reconfigured into living areas.

The application has been assessed on the basis of the existing building floor plan which has bedrooms to the front of the building leading to the proposed balconies.

 

Toomey Pegg Drevikovsky on behalf of the owners of 76 Dudley Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The building is a residential flat building for the purposes of SEPP 65 and the development subject of this application is a substantial refurbishment.

The applicant has not complied with clause 50(1A) of the Regulations of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 which states;

(1  A development application that relates to a residential flat development, and that is made on or after 1 December 2003, must be accompanied by a design verification from a qualified designer, being a statement in which the qualified designer verifies that he or she designed, or directed the design, of the residential flat development, and that the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development are achieved for the residential flat development. Therefore the subject and previous applications are invalid and the determinations void.

 

Council has determined that the scope of works do not represent substantial refurbishment and therefore SEPP 65 does not apply.

 

5.2    Mediation

Attempts where made to organise mediation between the applicant and objectors on three separate occasions, however a suitable date and time for all parties could not be agreed between the parties.

 

6.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 

Section 96(2) Assessment

Under the provisions of Section 96(2) of the EP & A Act (as amended), Council may only agree to amend an existing development consent if the following criteria has been complied with:

 

(a)    It is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all)

 

Comment:  The proposed development is ‘substantially the same’ development. The following matters are of relevance:

 

·           There will be no fundamental change to the use and definition of the approved development.

·           There will be no change to the size or description of the land to which the consent relates.

·           The original consent has not been previously modified pursuant to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).

 

(b)    It has notified the application in accordance with:

 

(i)     the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)    a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent.

 

Comment:  The subject application has been notified in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans.

 

(c)      It has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within any period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

 

The submissions received during the notification period have been considered in Section 5.1 of this report.

 

7.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Privacy

The Preferred Solutions and Performance Requirements for privacy under the Multi-Unit Housing DCP are as follows:

 

Performance Requirements

Preferred Solutions

Visual Privacy

P1 Windows and balconies of main living areas are located to avoid overlooking windows in adjoining dwellings and private open space.

 

P2 Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

 

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

 

Acoustic Privacy

P3 Building layout and design minimises noise transmission of noise. Quiet areas separate noise-generating activities.

 

P4 Building construction transmission of noise.

 

 

S4 Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with Building Code of Aust.

 

 

The DCP 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 proposal is assessed against the Preferred Solutions, and where non-compliance results, assessment is made against the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements. 

 

Western Balcony

The size of the balcony is proposed to be 1.5m in length by 2.5m in width and is situated 1.65m from the adjoining property at 76 Dudley Street.

 

An increase in the area of the western first floor balcony will result in greater use of the front area of the building, the balcony is however modest in size and does not allow for a large group of people that could impact upon the amenity of adjoining residents with respect to overlooking or noise nuisance.  Further, the balcony serves a bedroom, which is not considered to be an area of high use.

 

In addition given the views enjoyed from the front of the site, it is reasonable to expect that the occupants of the subject building will try to maximize the enjoyment of the views to the north east and as such overlooking of front yard area of the property at No. 76 Dudley Street is less likely to occur.

 

To minimise direct overlooking into the adjoining front yard area of No. 76 Dudley Street a condition is included requiring a 1.8m high privacy screen to be provided to the western end of the balcony. Therefore, the proposal will satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of this DCP with respect to privacy.

 

Eastern Balcony

Condition 4 which requires obscure glazed balustrades to the first floor balcony to the eastern side of the building is not considered necessary as the upper level balcony to the eastern side of the building is setback 5m from the adjoining property at 76 Dudley Street and the use is associated with a bedroom.  The degree of separation between the subject balcony and objector’s front terrace area is adequate and it would be unreasonable to restrict views as people sitting on the balcony will be more likely to look to the ocean view to the north east of the site rather than towards the objector’s terrace.

 

Given the modest size of the balcony, likely intensity of use, its location at the front of the building and the degree of overlooking that currently exists, the nature of the privacy impact is not considered to be substantial enough to warrant Condition 4 being retained.

 

Consequently, no objections are raised to Condition No. 4 being deleted, as the proposal achieves the performance requirements of the DCP.

 

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.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications to the approved development have been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines. The proposed modifications are reasonable as it will result in substantially the same development as originally approved. To maintain the amenity of the adjoining properties it is recommended that Condition 3 be modified to delete reference to the reduction in depth of the balcony and that a privacy screen be installed to the western side of the balcony. Condition 4 is also recommended to be deleted as there will not be any significant impact upon the amenity of the building immediately to the east.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/1052/2007 for permission to amend Condition 3 relating to reducing the size of the western balcony; and delete condition 4 relating to the balustrades being of obscured glazing at 78 Dudley Street, Coogee in the following manner:

 

A          Condition No. 1 is amended to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A001 – A003, dated 30/11/2007  and received by Council on 3 December 2007, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered A001 – A003 (Issue A), dated 09/10/08 and received by Council on 14 October 2008, 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:

 

B          Condition No. 3 is replaced with the following condition:

 

3.       A louvered privacy screen with a minimum height of 1.8m is to be provided to the western end of the proposed first floor balcony.  The louvers are to be fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking into the adjoining property to the western side of the subject site, (No. 76 Dudley Street).  This is to maintain the privacy and amenity of the adjoining property. Details of compliance are to be shown on the Construction Certificate Plans.

 

C          Condition No. 4 is deleted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

28 April 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP16/09

 

 

Subject:                71 Boundary Street, Clovelly

Folder No:                 DA/851/2008

Author:                 Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                   Demolition of the rear dwelling, carport and rear section of the front cottage on the site, construction of a 2-storey rear extension with basement garage, swimming pool and associated site works, and change of use from a dual occupancy to a single dwelling (Heritage Item)

Ward:                    North Ward

Applicant:              Brian Meyerson Architects

Owner:                       D J Moses and M S Moses

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.      Executive Summary

 

The subject application is for demolition of the rear dwelling, carport and rear section of the heritage listed cottage on the site; construction of a 2-storey extension attached to the cottage with basement garage; installation of a swimming pool; site works and general landscaping; and change of use from a dual occupancy to a single dwelling.

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Boundary Street, between Keith and Andrew Streets. The site has a frontage width of 9.015m, side boundary depth of 43.89m and overall land area of 398.4m2.

 

The application was advertised and notified from 3 to 17 December 2008 in accordance with Development Control Plan (DCP) – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of two (2) submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised in the submissions are in relation to height and scale, excavation, setbacks, heritage conservation, privacy, noise, light spillage, overshadowing, construction impacts and property devaluation.

 

The site is identified as being within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under RLEP 1998. The proposal is not considered to be consistent with the zoning objectives in that the development has an excessive amount of floor space, with a resultant building bulk that visually dominates the adjoining residential properties and the heritage cottage on site.

 

The existing single-storey weatherboard cottage is listed as a heritage item under the LEP. The proposal involves significant demolition of the side walls and roofing of the cottage without reasonable and convincing justifications, and is contrary to the LEP objective and control provisions relating to heritage conservation.

 

The first floor level of the rear extension is characterised by a rectangular prismatic form, which is partially cantilevered beyond the external walls below. The form and massing of the extension are not considered to follow the natural topography of the land. In this respect, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the built form performance requirements of DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The existing driveway has a width of 2.32m. The construction of the basement garage not only raises the overall height of the extension, but also necessitates the installation of retaining walls along the driveway. The development will effectively reduce the driveway width to less than 2.32m at the narrowest point, and will obstruct vehicular movements. In this respect, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the parking and access performance requirements of DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The proposed development does not satisfy the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The proposal does not satisfy the aims, zoning objectives and heritage conservation provisions of RLEP 1998, and the built form and access performance requirements of the DCP.

 

Therefore, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

 

2.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot A in DP 437878, No. 71 Boundary Street, Clovelly. The site is located on the southern side of Boundary Street, between Keith and Andrew Streets. The land slopes from the street to the rear with a cross fall of approximately 3.14m (from RL 42.79m to RL 39.65m). The dimension and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Allotment boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, street boundary

9.015m

 

Southern, rear boundary

9.295m

 

Eastern, side boundary

43.89m

 

Western, side boundary

43.89m

 

 

 

398.4m2

 

At present, the site is occupied by a detached dual occupancy consisting of a single-storey cottage of weatherboard and metal roof construction in the front, and a double-storey dwelling of brick and metal roof construction in the rear. A carport is provided in the central portion of the site, accessible via a driveway along the eastern boundary.

 

To the east of the site (No. 73 Boundary Street) is a two-storey residential flat building of brick and tiled roof construction. To the west of the site (No. 69 Boundary Street) is a two-storey detached dwelling of timber cladding and metal roof construction. Immediately adjoining the site to the south (No. 2 Andrew Street) is a part one- and part two-storey detached dwelling. The Waverley Cemetery is located on the opposite side of Boundary Street. The locality is characterised by a mixture of detached, semi-detached and multi-unit residential developments.

 

The site is identified as a heritage item and being within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

Figure 1 provides an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding areas. Figures 2-5 show the existing developments on the subject and adjoining sites.

 

Figure 1 Aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2 Street elevation of the existing cottage on site (middle); the adjoining developments at No. 69 and No. 73 Boundary Street are seen in the foreground and background respectively

Figure 3 Existing access driveway; the double-storey dwelling house to the rear of the site is seen in the background

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 Rear elevation of the existing cottage; the carport is seen in the foreground

Figure 5 Adjoining dwelling house at No. 2 Andrew Street, the boundary fence is seen in the foreground

 

3.      The Proposal

 

The proposed development includes the following components:

 

·           Demolition of the existing rear dwelling and carport on site.

·           Demolition of the rear section of the existing cottage on site. The remaining front section will be lifted above the existing ground level by approximately 250mm. The internal walls within the remaining section will be removed. The slab of the front porch will be removed and replaced. The front section of the hipped roof and side walls, as well as the bull-nose verandah will remain.

·           Construction of a 2-storey extension to the rear of the cottage. The proposal will create the following floor space elements:

Basement: garage with 2 x parking spaces, laundry and garbage storage

Ground floor:      rumpus room, living and dining areas, kitchen and amenities

First floor: 2 x ensuite bedrooms, 2 x bedrooms and amenities

·           Installation of an in-ground swimming pool.

·           General landscape works.

 

4.      Site History

 

4.1    Council advice

Council provided written advice on 29 January 2009 in relation to the proposed development. It was considered that the degree of demolition of the external walls and roof of the cottage would adversely impact on its heritage significance. In addition, the height, bulk, scale and form of the rear extension did not relate satisfactorily to the small portion of the heritage cottage proposed for retention. The proposal would detrimentally impact on the character and scale of the heritage item.

 

A meeting between Council’s assessment officers, heritage consultant and the applicant was held on 10 February 2009. A subsequent site meeting between the above parties was held on 19 February 2009.

 

Further written advice was given by Council on 27 February 2009 following the joint site inspection. The issues raised are in relation to the following:

 

·       The basement garage is partially above ground and protrudes above the existing ground level by a maximum of approximately 1.3m. As a result, the storeys above will be elevated further and exacerbate the visual scale and bulk of the rear addition.

 

·       The upper storey of the rear addition is cantilevered over and extended beyond the southern wall of the level below by approximately 2.1m. The built form of the addition is not considered to respect the topography of the site, which slopes from the street to the rear. The design is not considered to be visually subservient in a low profile to the rear of the existing heritage cottage.

 

·       The application is not considered to have provided substantive evidence demonstrating that the external fabric of the cottage has been degraded in a manner, which would justify the degree of demolition sought.

 

It is recommended that the basic roof form and external walls of the cottage, with the exception of any late enclosure of the rear verandah and other additions, be conserved in the development. Any rear addition should be kept in a low profile with a ridge height not significantly exceeding that of the cottage.

 

·       The Statement of Environmental Effects mentioned that the access driveway has a clear width of 2.32m alongside the heritage cottage, with the remaining portion being widened to 3m. However, the drawings indicate the presence of retaining walls along the eastern property boundary, which will effectively reduce the driveway width (adjacent to the heritage item) to less than 2.32m.

 

On 4 March 2009, the applicant submitted additional information that supports the design in its current form. It is noted that the applicant does not intend to submit any revised design.

 

4.2    Previous development consent relating to the site

Development Consent No. 487/1992 was granted by Council on 15 June 1993 for the construction of an additional dwelling on the site to create a dual occupancy.

 

5.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application was advertised and notified from 3 to 17 December 2008 to 21 adjoining and nearby properties in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans.

 

The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

·        69 Boundary Street, Clovelly

·        926 Drummond Street, Carlton South VIC 3054 (on behalf of 73 Boundary Street, Clovelly)

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

The proposed development has an inadequate visual scale due to the excessive external wall height, floor to floor height and floor area.

Agreed. Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

The proposal requires significant excavation in close proximity to the shared boundaries, and may adversely impact on the foundation structures of the adjoining properties.

 

A specific condition can be imposed to require appropriate soil retention measures to be implemented during construction works on site. A further condition can be imposed to require the preparation of a dilapidation report to monitor any potential damage to the adjoining properties. Subject to the above conditions, any potential impacts on the structural stability of the adjoining properties will be minimised.

The proposed rear setback is not consistent with the predominant development pattern in the area.

The proposal complies with the rear setback preferred solution stated in the Development Control Plan (DCP) – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

The proposed side setbacks do not comply with Council’s controls.

The proposal complies with the side setback preferred solutions stated in the DCP.

The floor space ratio calculations provided in the application are incorrect.

The floor space ratio calculations contained in the application have been verified and are considered to be accurate.

The proposal will adversely impact on the heritage significance of the existing cottage.

 

Agreed. The proposal is not considered to satisfy Clause 43 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. Refer to the “RLEP 1998” section of this report for details.

The design contains considerable window openings on the side elevations and will result in adverse privacy impacts on the neighbours.

 

The application proposes the installation of external privacy screening devices to minimise overlooking from the side windows. A specific condition can be imposed to specify the design and configuration of the screens to ensure their effectiveness for privacy protection.

The excessive window openings will result in noise transmission to the adjoining properties.

 

 

 

 

The proposed upper level side windows are attached to the bedrooms and bathrooms, which are considered to be low intensity use areas within the dwelling. The design scheme does not include excessive window openings on the ground floor side elevations. It is considered that the development will not result in significant adverse noise impacts on the neighbours.

The siting of the swimming pool in close proximity to the shared boundaries will result in noise impacts on the neighbours.

The proposed swimming pool is located to the rear of the dwelling. Given that only a single dwelling is provided on the site, the swimming pool is not considered to be used by a significant number of persons at any one time. Accordingly, this element of the proposal is not considered to generate significant amount of noise.

It is unclear as to whether air conditioning plants will be installed in the development.

The proposal does not include any air conditioning units.

The proposal includes a secondary side entry. The location and orientation of the above entry will adversely impact on the privacy of No. 69 Boundary Street.

 

The proposed side entry on the eastern elevation is at ground level and is partially screened by standard side fencing. Therefore, this element of the proposal is not considered to result in significant privacy impacts on No. 69 Boundary Street.

The extensive window openings on the side elevations will result in unreasonable light spillage.

 

The application proposes the installation of external privacy screening devices over the side windows. A specific condition can be imposed to specify the design and configuration of the screens to minimise light spillage.

The proposal will result in unreasonable overshadowing on the neighbouring properties.

The proposal complies with the shadowing limits specified in the DCP and is considered satisfactory in this regard.

The development will result in noise and other disturbances during the construction stage.

Appropriate conditions can be imposed to ensure proper construction and traffic management during works on the site.

The proposal will result in devaluation of the adjoining properties.

Fluctuations in property values are not considered to be a valid objection on planning grounds.

 

6.      Technical Officers Comments

 

6.1    Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer

The subject application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineering Section for assessment. The comments provided are extracted below:

 

Landscape Comments

The only vegetation within the site comprises two Schefflera actinophylla (Umbrella Trees), in the front yard, right on the front (northern) boundary, which are recognised as an environmental weed in the Randwick LGA due to the ability of their seeds/berries to be spread by birds and invade areas of native bushland, with conditions in this report requiring that they be removed as part of this application, and are to be replaced by more desirable species as has been shown.

 

There are various small shrubs/hedges growing within adjoining properties to the west and east, right on both common boundaries, being the Murraya’s & Lilly Pillies within 69 Boundary Street, and the Frangipani and Dwarf Umbrella Tree within 73 Boundary Street; however, all are too small to be covered by the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO), and as they should not be affected given the side setback provided, conditions relating to them are not required.

 

Beyond the southwest corner of the site, within the rear yard of 2 Andrew Street, close to the common boundary, there is one small Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) of approximately 5-6 metres in height which has already had several major limbs poorly pruned off its eastern aspect by the neighbour/tree owner in order to avoid interference with their dwelling.

 

The ground level where the tree is growing in 2 Andrew Street is much lower than the subject site, and combined with the fact that a deep soil garden is indicated in this corner, along both the western and southern boundaries, and providing a minimal setback is maintained adjacent this tree, no impact is expected.

 

Traffic Issues

The applicant has stated that the internal driveway has a clearance of 2.32 metres near the heritage dwelling, widening to 3 metres past the dwelling. The plans do not support this statement and it must also be noted that 2.32 metres is only achievable if the fence is perfectly located along the common boundary and all posts are located within 73 Boundary Street.

 

The internal driveway ramps down for the extent of the heritage dwelling and therefore, at some point along this section of the driveway, a retaining wall will be required along the eastern edge of the driveway. Depending on the width of the retaining wall the available clear width for the driveway will be less than the 2.32 metres stated in the SEE and, in a worst case scenario, the internal driveway may be unworkable. The Assessment Planner is requested to obtain from the applicant details on the likely width of the retaining wall along the eastern site boundary. The applicant may be able to get the owner/s of 73 Boundary Street to agree to have the required retaining wall located wholly (or predominantly) within that property, however such agreement is unlikely (and any arrangement would need to be formalised).

 

Drainage Issues

The applicant proposes to use infiltration for drainage of the site and also proposes spoon drains and subsoil drains for those areas constructed below natural ground level. In the Development Engineer’s report of 4/12/08 Condition 6 included the following clause:

 

Prior to the use of infiltration in areas in rear draining lots (where there is no formal overland escape route to Council’s kerb and gutter/street drainage system, a geotechnical investigation will be required to determine whether the ground is suitable for infiltration. Should rock and/or a water table be encountered within two metres of the proposed base of the infiltration pit, or the ground conditions comprise low permeability soils such as clay, infiltration may not be appropriate.

 

The Assessment Planner is advised that the part of this clause referencing the need for a geotechnical report must be highlighted.

 

The basement carpark is substantially below natural ground level and, in the absence of a geotechnical report, it is recommended that the following condition be included:

 

Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant must undertake suitable geotechnical investigation to determine if excavation for the basement carpark is likely to encounter groundwater/seepage flows. The geotechnical report must be submitted to the Certifying Authority and, should it be determined that the above site may encounter groundwater/seepage water within the depth of the basement excavation, the basement carpark or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking & waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority. A copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

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

 

b) Adequate provision is to be made for the ground water to drain around the basement carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site). Seepage water must not be drained from the site.

 

In the report of 4/12/08 a comment was made that the location of the pool and the infiltration system may be reversed, however upon further consideration this is likely to lead to the infiltration system being located too close to the structure within the adjoining property to the south.

 


6.2    Heritage Consultant

The subject application has been referred to Council’s heritage consultant for assessment. The comments provided are extracted under the “RLEP 1998” section of this report.

 

7.      Master Planning Requirements

 

Clause 40A(1) of RLEP 1998 provides that consent may be granted to a development application made in respect of a site consisting of more than 4,000m2 only if: (a) a master plan has been adopted, and (b) the consent authority is satisfied that the development is not inconsistent with the provisions of that master plan. The site has a land area of 398.4m2 and a master plan is not required.

 

8.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

8.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998

 

8.1.1          Clause 2 Aims

The relevant aims of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 are addressed as follows:

 

(e)    To ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage and aesthetic character of the City.

The subject site is listed as a heritage item under the LEP. As will be discussed in the following paragraphs, the proposed development will detrimentally impact on the significance of the heritage cottage due to the extent of its demolition, and the excessive height, bulk and scale of the new rear extension. The extension will visually overwhelm the cottage and adversely affect the curtilage of the item. As such, the proposal is not considered to satisfy aim (e) of the LEP.

 

(g)    To promote, protect and enhance the environmental qualities of the City.

The proposed rear extension has an excessive height, bulk and scale, and does not appropriately relate to the heritage cottage on the site. The design scheme will result in a dominating structure that overwhelms the adjoining residential properties. Therefore, the development is not considered to protect and enhance the environmental qualities of the locality. As such, the proposal is not considered to satisfy aim (g) of the LEP.

 

h)     To recognise the importance of ecological sustainability in the planning and development processes.

The proposal satisfies the performance criteria for solar access stated in Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy aim (h) of the LEP.

 

(l)     To encourage the provision of housing mix and tenure choice, including affordable housing, in the City.

The proposal will convert an existing detached dual occupancy to a single dwelling. The detached dual occupancy represents a non-conforming use under the current 2A zoning. The proposed housing form is considered to be suitable for the 2A land use zoning of the locality. As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy aim (l) of the LEP.

 

8.1.2          Clause 10 Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone)

The site is identified as being within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposed development will convert an existing detached dual occupancy to a single dwelling, and alterations and additions to the front cottage. The proposal is permissible in the subject zone with consent.

 

The relevant objectives of Residential 2A Zone are addressed as follows:

(a)    To maintain the character of established residential areas.

 

The proposed rear extension has an excessive height, bulk and scale, and does not appropriately relate to the heritage cottage on the site. The design scheme will result in a dominating structure that overwhelms the adjoining residential properties. As such, the proposal is not considered to satisfy objective (a).

 

(c)    To enable redevelopment for low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

The proposal will convert an existing detached dual occupancy to a single dwelling, which could potentially improve the relationship of the site with the wider lower density residential area. Notwithstanding, the development entails an excessive amount of floor space, with a resultant building bulk that visually dominates the adjoining residential properties. The development is considered to adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining residences and does not represent a suitable design solution given the presence of a heritage cottage in the front portion of the site. As such, the proposal is not considered to satisfy objective (c).

 

(e)    To enable a mix of housing types to encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposal will convert an existing detached dual occupancy to a single dwelling. The proposed housing form is considered to be suitable for the 2A land use zoning of the locality. As such, the proposal is considered to satisfy objective (e).

 

8.1.3          Clause 29 Foreshore scenic protection area

Clause 29(3) provides that Council may grant consent to a development within a foreshore scenic protection area only after it has considered the probable aesthetic appearance of the building in relation to the foreshore.

 

As will be discussed in the following sections, the built form and scale of the proposed rear extension do not respect the natural fall of the land. The building mass does not incorporate any adequate stepping that follows the site contours. The proposed design is monolithic in character and will dominate the adjoining residential developments and the existing heritage cottage on site. The development does not protect or enhance the visual qualities of the foreshore area and therefore is considered unsatisfactory having regard to Clause 29.

 

8.1.4          Clause 40 Excavation and filling of land

Clause 40(2) provides that when considering an application for excavation and filling of land, Council must have regard to the likely disruption of existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality, and the effects of the works on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land.

 

The proposal involves excavation of up to approximately 2m in order to accommodate a basement garage. The application does not include any geotechnical report. However, specific conditions can be imposed to ensure adequate soil retention and stormwater management measures are incorporated in the development. Therefore, the proposal is considered satisfactory subject to conditions.

 

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

The subject site is listed as a heritage item under RLEP 1998 (Inventory No. 114: weatherboard cottage, c. 1900). The Randwick Heritage Inventory provides the following description of the item:

 

“Third in a row of matching weatherboard cottages, c. 1900. Probably the best preserved. Simple styling. Only one of the three to retain bullnosed verandah roof, casement windows and coloured skylights above. Also, has turned timber posts and original door. Picket fence would transform.”

 

The application has been referred to Council’s heritage consultant for assessment. The comments provided are extracted below.

 

8 January 2009

 

The cottage on the subject allotment was one of a group of four matching modest single storey weatherboard cottages built in the early part of the 20th century on adjoining lots (Nos 67 – 73) to the west of Andrew Street on the southern side of Boundary Street opposite Waverly Cemetery. The subject cottage was identified as item 85 in the Randwick Heritage Study undertaken by heritage consultants Perumal Murphy Pty Ltd for the Council in 1987. The study inventory sheet described it as follows:

 

Third in a row of matching weatherboard cottages, c.1900. Probably the best preserved. Simple styling. Only one of the three to retain bullnose verandah roof, casement windows and coloured skylights above. Also, has turned timber posts and original [front] door. Picket fence would transform.

 

The cottage was subsequently listed as a heritage item in the Randwick Heritage LEP 1993, and is currently listed as such in the Randwick LEP 1998 which superseded it. The front fence has been replaced by a picket fence, which does considerably improve the appearance of the property.

 

The HIS accompanying the DA notes that its research indicates that the four cottages were built sequentially between 1906 and 1914, possibly by a single individual to a common design, with the subject house first occupied in 1914 probably as a rental property. A two storey detached dual occupancy dwelling was erected on the rear of the subject allotment early in the 1990s and is proposed for demolition in the current DA. The DA for this dwelling was approved in 1992, prior to gazettal of the 1993 LEP.

 

The cottage at No 73, a wider allotment on the corner of Andrew Street, was demolished in the post WWII period and a two storey brick residential flat building erected on the lot, reducing the group to the three cottages referred to in the heritage study. The cottage to the west at No 69 was recently demolished and replaced by a modern two storey timber cottage with a steep pitched gable roof, effectively destroying the remaining group of three. The fourth of the group at No 67 has recently been sold and is the subject of a separate DA. This cottage retains much of its original form and detail but has lost its original bullnose verandah roof and is not quite as intact as the subject cottage.

 

The remainder of the block between Andrew Street and Keith Street is developed with conventional single storey brick cottages with hipped terra cotta tiled roofs. Large dormer windows on the pair of semis at Nos 65 and 65A appear to indicate a roof conversion.

 

The land rises sharply opposite the site from Boundary Street to Waverley Cemetery via an elevated pedestrian walkway known as Fig Tree Lane. In addition to the normal street level views, Fig Tree Lane and the cemetery (which is heavily visited) both provide elevated viewpoints permitting elevated views of the cottage and its site from the public domain. The proposed extension will be highly visible from these viewpoints.

 


Summary of proposed development

§ Demolition of detached dual occupancy at rear of site

§ Demolition of approximately 57% of the heritage item below roof level

§ Demolition of approximately 35% of the roof of the heritage item

§ Remaining portion of heritage item raised 220mm

§ Construction of substantial new development comprising two storeys plus basement garage and driveway at rear of remaining portion of the heritage item

§ Construction of pool and garden at rear of site.

 

Submission

The application is accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) prepared by Mr Robert Staas of NBRS&P Heritage. In my opinion the analysis of the cottage and the assessment of its heritage significance in the HIS are sketchy and do not provide an adequate basis to support the substantial demolition and redevelopment of a listed heritage item as proposed in the DA.

 

The HIS claims that ‘A basic assessment of heritage values under the NSW Heritage Office Guidelines would indicate that the property barely reaches any threshold for heritage significance under any of the standard criteria’. However the document does not contain such an assessment to back up and justify this statement. It also claims that the cottage ‘…is representative of early 20th century development in the area but has largely lost its contextual setting and is highly compromised in terms of its original fabric.’ Again, there is no analysis of the cottage’s fabric in the document to justify this statement or the amount of demolition proposed.

 

In fact, the DA documentation does not include either drawings or a description of the existing cottage and its layout with the exception of the internal walls to be demolished within the relatively small portion of the cottage proposed for retention. The HIS makes general reference to substantial modifications to the rear areas of the heritage item (eg bottom of page 4; top of page 5), but does not identify or analyse these. 

 

Assessment

The dual occupancy at the rear of the site is of recent construction and has negligible heritage significance. No objection to its demolition is raised on heritage grounds.

 

The cottage was identified in the heritage study and listed in the LEP as a heritage item because it is one of the few surviving weatherboard ‘workers’ cottages in the area, and retains the ability to demonstrate a past way of life, once common, to present and future generations. To my observation the cottage appears to retain most of its original external form, materials and detail and hence its ability to demonstrate its original design and character.

 

The applicant has not provided substantive evidence demonstrating that the fabric of the external shell of the cottage has been degraded in a manner that would justify the degree of demolition proposed in the DA. In my opinion the degree of demolition of its external walls and roof is not justified and should not be approved. Rather, timber components which have deteriorated due to penetration of damp should be replaced in the normal manner for a timber structure.

 

In my view the height, bulk, scale and form of the new development proposed in the DA would not relate well to the small portion of the heritage item proposed for retention. Rather, it would outscale and dominate it, destroying its ability to demonstrate its former scale and character and therefore the purpose of listing it as a heritage item. The DA is inconsistent with the heritage objectives of the LEP and should not be approved.

 

In my view the existing heritage item should be retained substantially in its present form and conserved. Any additional development should be restricted to a preferably single storey pavilion at the rear of the site well separated from the heritage item. Its roof should be lower that the roof of the heritage item.   

 

23 February 2009

This report has been prepared following the meeting with the Applicants on 10 February and the site inspection with the Applicant on 19 February 2009.

 

At the site inspection the Applicants consultants pointed out that the internal wall linings of the front rooms and corridor of the cottage had been replaced with what appears to be fibrous cement sheeting with aluminium jointing strips. Fibrous cement sheeting was available in Australia at the date of construction of the cottage identified by the consultants historic research, ie prior to 1914, but did not come into common use until after local manufacture commenced a few years later, and aluminium jointing strips were not available until many years later.  Because of this, I support the consultants conclusions on this point. The walls of the rooms behind this and the ceiling linings throughout the cottage appear to  be lined with plasterboard or fibrous plaster, and are also likely to have been relined some time after the cottage s construction.

 

Unlike the Applicants consultants, I do not think a great deal rides on this point. There is no apparent surviving evidence of the cottages original wall and ceiling linings, but timber matchlining is the most common material used in cottages of this standard in the period. While the fabric of the linings may have changed, along with trims such as architraves and skirtings, the internal wall layout appears not to have changed from its original configuration and thus retains the ability to demonstrate the nature of workers cottages of the period and the way of life of their residents.

 

The only other major changes to the cottage appear to be the enclosure of what appears to be an original rear verandah and its use as part of the house, and the replacement of the roof sheeting, a normal maintenance item particularly in a location as close to the coastline as this.

 

Despite the negative views expressed by the Applicants consultants, in all other respects the cottage appears to be remarkably intact including the external weatherboarding (including the vertical boarding at both ends of the front verandah), the turned front verandah posts and all external window joinery except at the rear of the cottage. There is some obvious deterioration of the external weatherboards, but this appears to be small isolated instances of dry rot which appear quite capable of repair by cutting out and replacing small sections of weatherboard.

 

I note that the Applicants consultants did not take the opportunity to point out the deterioration they claim has occurred in more than a general sense.

 

The brick-paved driveway on the western side of the cottage appears to have been constructed at the time the detached dual occupancy was built at the rear of the site. The driveway rises somewhat from the street and then falls more steeply to the rear of the cottage. It appears to have been built up against the weatherboarding of the side wall of the cottage, and is likely to be causing or exacerbating deterioration of timber components in this area by keeping them damp for long periods. It would be prudent to investigate this issue, and if it is confirmed that damage is occurring by this means, to reduce the level of the driveway to prevent more deterioration occurring.

 

Design issues

During the site inspection the Applicants consultants expressed the view that the subject cottage is the odd man out in the locality because it is single storey while its immediate neighbours are both two storey, as are others in the street. I was confirmed in my opinion that Mr Staas tends to consider these sort of issues on an urban design basis, where consistency is considered a virtue, rather than a heritage basis, where consistence is irrelevant unless it is a characteristic of a large development or a conservation area.

 

In this case, Council has elected to list the subject cottage as a heritage item, but not its neighbours. It has also made a conscious decision to permit construction of a two storey house on the adjoining allotment, and in so doing must be presumed to have taken its potential impact on the adjoining heritage item and its setting into account. I can see no compelling reason why the subject cottage cannot coexist with its two storey neighbours and continue to fulfil Councils objectives in listing it as a heritage item.

 

The Applicant is investigating a change to the pitched roof proposed in the DA to a flat roof. I do not think this would solve the problem posed by the application, which is essentially that the new development proposed would, because of its height, bulk, scale  and form, outscale and dominate the cottage and destroy its ability to demonstrate its former scale and character and therefore its purpose in listing it as a heritage item. The change to a flat roof would reduce its overall height, but would remove the roofs relationship to the form of the original roof.

 

Conclusions

There is no objection on heritage grounds to demolition of the dual occupancy at the rear of the site. However the DA proposes demolition of a substantial part of the existing cottage and raising of the remaining portion. In my opinion this proposal is inconsistent with its listing as a heritage item for the reasons set out in my previous report.

 

In my view the application should be refused. I reiterate the conclusion in my previous report:

 

In my view the existing heritage item should be retained substantially in its present form and conserved. Any additional development should be restricted to a preferably single storey pavilion at the rear of the site well separated from the heritage item. Its roof should be lower than the roof of the heritage item.   

 

The demolition of the existing two-storey dwelling to the rear of the site is satisfactory, given that it is a recent construction and does not carry any heritage significance.

 

In summary, it is considered that the rest of the proposal will detrimentally impact on the significance of the heritage cottage on site based on the following reasons:

 

·           Council’s heritage consultant has stated that the subject cottage was listed in the LEP as a heritage item because it is one of the few surviving weatherboard workers’ cottages in the area, which retains the ability to demonstrate the past way of life to present and future generations.

 

·           The existing cottage is generally intact with reasonably preserved built elements, including the external weatherboarding, vertical boarding at both ends of the front verandah, turned verandah posts and external window joinery (except at the rear of the cottage). There is some obvious deterioration of the external weatherboarding. However, this appears to be small isolated instances of dry rot, which could be appropriately repaired by cutting out and replacing with small sections of weatherboard. The cottage appears to retain most of its original form, materials and detailing, and hence its ability to demonstrate the original design and character.

 

·           The existing cottage has a side wall length of approximately 14m. The application proposes removal of 8m of the side walls with only 6m remaining. Additionally, the rear section of the hipped roof will be demolished.

 

Pages 4 and 5 of the submitted Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by NBRS&P Heritage puts forward the following arguments for the demolition work:

 

Is the demolition essential for the heritage item to function?

The areas to be demolished have low amenity and low heritage significance. The proposal is to create a single tenancy for the owner. The current rear areas of the heritage house have been substantially modified previously and are not highly significant.

 

Are important features of the item affected by the demolition?

Most of the areas affected have been previously modified, stripped and relined. There are no significant heritage features within the building. The major change is the truncation of the roof form which will not have a significant impact on the presentation of the cottage to the street.

 

The Statement does not clearly describe the external areas of the cottage where modifications have occurred; nor has it investigated the true nature of the modifications. The application has not provided substantive evidence demonstrating the cottage has been modified to an extent that does not warrant retention of the rear wall sections and roofing. It is also considered that the external fabric of the cottage has not degraded in a manner, which would justify the degree of demolition sought.

 

·           The height and bulk of the proposed extension are considered to dominate over the cottage building, which in conjunction with the shortened side elevations and truncated roof, will destroy its ability to demonstrate its former scale, form and character.

 

Given the depth of the site of over 43m, it is considered that the basic hipped roof form and external walls of the cottage, with the exception of any late enclosure of the rear verandah and other additions, could be conserved in the development. Any rear addition should be kept in a low profile with a ridge height not significantly exceeding that of the cottage. The site has sufficient dimension to allow an alternative, sensitive design for the extension.

 

·           The proposal involves the lifting of the entire remaining cottage by approximately 250mm to provide relief from ground dampness. As explained by the applicant during a meeting, the lifting will be undertaken by mechanical means. Whilst the intention to rectify the waterproofing problems is acknowledged and supported, no information has been submitted as to how the existing cottage structures will be protected during the lifting process.

 

·           The upper level of the proposed extension will be setback approximately 14.4m from the street boundary. The applicant has also agreed to delete the hipped roof feature above the extension as a means of reducing visual prominence. The submitted photomontage shows that the flat roof extension will have a ridge height that is lower than the adjoining double-storey dwelling at No. 69 Boundary Street. Part of the structures will also be obscured by the existing vegetation within No. 73 Boundary Street.

 

However, the significant scale and bulk of the extension will still be clearly visible from the adjoining properties at Nos. 69 and 73 Boundary Street and No. 2 Andrew Street. It should also be noted that elevated views of the subject site is obtainable from Waverley Cemetery, which is a public place forming part of the Bondi to Coogee foreshore walk.

 

The development scheme does not properly conserve the external fabric of the heritage cottage and will create a massive extension that adversely impacts on its curtilage. It is considered that the proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of Clause 43.

 

 

8.2    Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan (DRLEP) 2008

The relevant objectives of the Draft LEP are listed as follows:

 

(d) To ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage and aesthetic character of the City.

(f) To promote, protect and improve the environmental qualities of the City.

(g) To recognise the importance of ecological sustainability in the planning and development processes.

(k) To encourage the provision of housing mix and tenure choice, including affordable housing, in the City.

 

The proposal is not considered to satisfy objectives (d) and (f) for the reasons outlined in the paragraphs above.

 

8.3    State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 55 Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purposes of reducing risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. The subject site has been continuously used for residential purposes for a prolonged period. There is no known previous industrial usage of the site, which would potentially contribute to land contamination. Accordingly, no contamination report is required in this instance.

 

8.4    State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies to the proposed development. The development application is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate numbered A45981. The requirements specified in the above certificate can be imposed by appropriate standard conditions pursuant to Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

9.      Policy Controls

 

9.1    Development Control Plan (DCP) – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

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

 


Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

40% of the total site area (or 159m2) is provided as landscaped area.

A total of 40% of the site or 159m2 is reserved as landscaped areas. Complies.

 

S1

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

The rear private open space has an area of approximately 110.4m2. Complies. 

S1

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

The rear private open space has a moderate terrain and is capable of accommodating a rectangle of 9m x 12m in dimension. Complies.

S1

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

The aforementioned private open space is located to the rear of the dwelling. Complies.

S6

20% of the total site area (or 79.7m2) has permeable treatment.

A total of 30.3% of the site or 120.9m2 is soft landscaped and permeable. Complies.

 

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this size is a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 (or 239.0m2 gross floor area). 

The proposal has a GFA and FSR of 281.8m2 or 0.71:1 respectively. Does not comply, refer to comments below. 

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP in relation to floor space ratio aim to ensure that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale, are compatible with the existing character of the locality, and will minimise adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

The proposal will breach the floor space ratio preferred solution by 0.11:1, which equates to 42.8m2 gross floor area.

 

According to the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects (page 3), the existing dual occupancy on site has a total floor space of approximately 252.4m2 or 0.63:1 FSR. Therefore, the current proposal will exceed the combined floor space of both existing dwellings by 29.4m2 GFA, which equates to 0.08:1 FSR.

 

The above floor space statistics are summarised in the table below:

 

Proposed total gross floor area

281.8m2

Existing total gross floor area (including both dwellings on site)

252.4m2

Permissible gross floor area

239.0m2

Excess gross floor area of proposal

42.8m2

Proposed FSR

0.71:1

Existing FSR (including both dwellings on site)

0.63:1

Permissible FSR

0.6:1

FSR in excess of preferred solution

0.11:1

 

It is considered that the non-compliance with the preferred solution is unsatisfactory for the following reasons:

 

·              The proposed rear extension is monolithic in form when compared to the scale and character of the heritage cottage on site. The provision of louvred side windows and slight indentations of the top floor level are not considered to be effective in minimising or disguising the sheer mass of the structures. The above design measures resemble surface decorations rather than a genuine modelling of the built form to minimise visual impacts on the surrounding developments and the heritage cottage.

 

In addition, a large section of the side walls and hipped roofing to the rear of the cottage will be removed. The development will destroy the cottage’s ability to demonstrate its former scale, form and character.

 

It is noted that the adjoining site at No. 73 is occupied by a residential flat building. The building appears to be constructed in the post-war era and has become a non-conforming use under the present Residential 2A zoning. The adjoining properties to the west from No. 63 to No. 69 are detached or semi-detached dwellings. It is considered that the size and scale of the aforementioned flat building should not be used as a precedent or reason to support the proposed massing of the extension.

 

It is considered that full compliance with the DCP preferred solution would enable a larger part of the cottage to be retained with a reduced footprint for the rear extension.

 

·              The proposed first floor level is characterised by a rectangular prismatic form having a length of 19.5m. The rear end of this level is cantilevered beyond the external wall alignment below by 2.1m, and is above the ground level by 4.2m. On the other hand, the site slopes from the street to the rear with a cross-fall of approximately 3.14m. The form and massing of the extension are not considered to follow the natural topography of the land. Despite the proposed first floor level setbacks of 14.5m from the street alignment, 1.5m to 2.6m from the eastern boundary and 1.5m to 2.25m from the western boundary, the elevated positioning and continuous length of the topmost storey will dominate over the adjoining detached dwellings at No. 69 Boundary Street and No. 2 Andrew Street, as well as other dwelling houses on the downhill side of the site.

 

·              The Dictionary section of the DCP allows the following deduction from gross floor area calculations:

 

c) associated car parking less than 40m2 in area and any internal vehicular or pedestrian access to that parking

 

The development scheme includes a basement garage for 2 vehicles. The car spaces occupy an area of approximately 34.54m2 (less than 40m2). In accordance with the DCP definition, the parking spaces and associated vehicular manoeuvring areas have been excluded from GFA calculations.

 

However, it should be noted that the basement structures are not entirely sub-surface. The enclosing side walls will protrude above the existing ground line for a distance of 23.9m, with a maximum height of 1.3m above ground. In this respect, the basement clearly presents as a raised terrace upon which two storeys of living space will be constructed. Notwithstanding that the garage component is technically excluded from FSR calculations, the basement side walls will constitute, and add to, the overall mass of the extension. The size and dimension of the basement level will exacerbate the visual scale of the development, which will adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

·              Despite the 14.5m setback of the upper level of the extension, the significant scale and bulk of the development will still be clearly visible from the adjoining properties at Nos. 69 and 73 Boundary Street and No. 2 Andrew Street. It should also be noted that elevated views of the subject site are obtainable from Waverley Cemetery, which is a public place forming part of the Bondi to Coogee foreshore walk.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceeding 7m

Maximum 7.9m. Does not comply, refer to comments below.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

The proposal involves excavation of up to approximately 2m in order to accommodate a basement garage. Does not comply, refer to comments below.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

The proposal will require excavation along the eastern side boundary. Does not comply, refer to comments below.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

The proposed swimming pool will require excavation at 0.9m from the rear boundary. Notwithstanding, the in-ground swimming pool does not require the construction of substantial retaining walls. Specific conditions can also be imposed to require appropriate soil retention measures to be implemented during works on the site. Therefore, the proposal is considered satisfactory in this regard, subject to conditions.

S4

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

Not applicable.

S5

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

Not applicable.

 

External wall height and excavation

The Objectives of the DCP in relation to building height aim to ensure developments are not excessive in height and scale, but are compatible with the existing character of the locality. The DCP aims to ensure buildings preserve privacy and natural light access for the neighbouring residents.

 

The proposed development has a maximum external wall height of 7.9m, and will exceed the preferred solution by 0.9m. The proposal requires excavation of approximately 2m in depth, which exceeds the preferred solution by 1m.

 

The proposal is considered to be unsatisfactory based on the following reasons:

 

·           Performance Requirement P1 provides that “the height of buildings relate to those in the surrounding streetscape, with higher buildings located to minimise impacts on neighbours and the streetscape”.

 

The proposed extension has a ridge height of RL 49.78m. The adjoining residential flat building at No. 73 has a ridge height of RL 50.65m, which steps down to 49.66m. The detached dwelling to the west at No. 69 has a ridge height of RL 49.10m. The applicant indicated by letter dated 4 March 2009 that the proposed hipped roof above the extension will be deleted as an attempt to minimise prominence in the streetscape. This will reduce the proposed ridge height to RL 48.50m, being a difference of 1.28m. The upper level of the extension will also be setback 14.5m from the street boundary.

 

Notwithstanding, the significant scale and bulk of the extension will still be clearly visible from the adjoining properties at Nos. 69 and 73 Boundary Street and No. 2 Andrew Street. It should also be noted that elevated views of the subject site is obtainable from Waverley Cemetery, which is a public place forming part of the Bondi to Coogee foreshore walk.

 

The proposed rear extension has an excessive height, bulk and scale, and does not appropriately relate to the heritage cottage on the site. The design scheme will result in a dominating structure that overwhelms the adjoining residential properties.

 

As such, the proposal is not considered to satisfy performance criterion P1.

 

·           Performance Requirement P2 provides that “buildings are designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street”.

 

The proposed first floor level is characterised by a rectangular prismatic form having a length of 19.5m. The rear end of this level is cantilevered beyond the external wall alignment below by 2.1m, and is above the ground level by 4.2m. The site slopes from the street to the rear with a cross-fall of approximately 3.14m. The form and massing of the extension are not considered to respect the natural topography of the land, and are not consistent with the development pattern of the nearby residential properties within the street block.

 

Despite the proposed first level setbacks of 14.5m from the street alignment, 1.5m to 2.6m from the eastern boundary and 1.5m to 2.25m from the western boundary, the elevated positioning and continuous length of the topmost storey will dominate over the adjoining detached dwellings at No. 69 Boundary Street and No. 2 Andrew Street, as well as other dwelling houses on the downhill side of the site.

 

·           Performance Requirement P3 provides that “the location and design of development relate to the topography of the site, with minimal cut and fill”.

 

The proposal requires significant excavation to accommodate a basement garage with associated driveway and manoeuvring areas. The excavation area extends to the eastern shared boundary to maximise space for the turning of exiting vehicles.

 

The basement level is not located entirely below ground. Specifically, the basement enclosing walls will remain above the existing ground line for a distance of 23.9m, with a height of 1.3m above ground at the southern end. The basement is clearly identified as a raised terrace upon which two storeys of living space will be constructed. The height of the extension is further exacerbated by the ground level floor-to-ceiling heights, being 2.8m (kitchen and dining areas) to 3.3m (living and family room).

 

The resultant built form is one which concentrates its highest portion towards the rear where the land is at a lower grade and without appropriate stepping. Given that the site gradient slopes from the street to the rear, the proposal is not considered to follow the natural topography and fails to satisfy Performance Requirement P4.

 

·           Performance Requirement P4 provides that “Buildings are designed to preserve privacy and natural light access for neighbouring residents”.

The privacy and solar access implications of the proposal are discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

As existing, 3.1m from street boundary.

S2

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

8m, complies.

S3

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

Eastern elevation: 0.9m to 3.35m

Western elevation: 0.9m to 1.7m

Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

Eastern elevation: 1.5 to 2.6m

Western elevation: 1.5m to 2.25m

Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Refer to comments below.

 

 

S1

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

Refer to comments below.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

The proposed building works are considered to have incorporated appropriate materials to minimise adverse acoustic impacts on adjoining properties.

 

Visual privacy

The Objective of the DCP is to ensure that new buildings and additions will retain visual and acoustic privacy for the occupants and neighbours. Specifically, the Performance Requirements of the DCP state that overlooking of internal living areas and private open space of residential development is to be minimised through appropriate building layout, location of balconies and windows, separation, screening and landscaping.

 

Ground level

The proposal includes a raised terrace to the rear of the dwelling, which sits above the basement garage. The terrace is attached to the principal living areas and has a dimension of 6.8m (length) x 3.0m (depth), excluding the stairs that lead to the courtyard. The terrace is elevated approximately 1.2m to 1.3m above the existing ground level and is capable of overlooking the adjoining private open spaces. The design proposes the installation of a 1.8m high privacy screen and wall on the eastern and western elevations respectively to minimise privacy impacts.

 

Details of the design and configuration of the privacy screen have not been given in the application. Additionally, on the western elevation, the screen wall plus the basement enclosing wall will create a 3.1m high blank structure adjacent to the shared boundary.

 

It is recommended that a specific condition be imposed to replace the 1.8m wall with a privacy screen on the western elevation of the terrace, in order to minimise visual bulk, should the application be supported. A further condition can be imposed to specify the dimension, tilting and spacing of the vertical slats on the eastern elevation to ensure effectiveness of screening.

 

First level

The eastern façade of the upper level is characterised by a continuous strip of window of 15.7m in length, which is attached to the bedroom and bathroom areas. The above window is capable of overlooking the western side windows of No. 73 Boundary Street.

 

The drawings suggest that horizontal privacy screens will be installed over the above window, but no design details are given. It is considered that a condition can be imposed, should this application be supported, to specify the dimension, tilting and spacing of the horizontal slats to ensure effectiveness of screening.

 

Therefore, the proposal can be made satisfactory in this regard via specific conditions of consent.

 

Safety & Security

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

As existing, the front door of the cottage will remain oriented towards the street. Complies.

S1,3

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

Complies.

S2

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

A specific condition can be imposed to require a suitable number plate to be installed. Complies, subject to condition.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposal includes 4 bedrooms and is required to provide 2 car spaces. A total of 2 spaces are provided within the basement garage. Complies.

S1

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

Complies.

S1

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

The driveway has a width of 2.32m at the street boundary. There is nil setback from the eastern shared boundary. Does not comply, refer to comments below.

S1

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

The driveway has a width of 2.32m at the street boundary. Complies.

S1

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

Council’s Development Engineers raised no objections to the proposed ramp gradient. Satisfactory.

S1

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

Not applicable.

S2

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

The proposed basement garage is setback from the front building line. Complies.

S2

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

The driveway occupies approximately 25.7% of the allotment width. Complies.

 

Access driveway

The Objective of the DCP is to provide convenient and safe car parking and access for dwellings.

 

The Statement of Environmental Effects mentioned that the access driveway has a clear width of 2.32m alongside the heritage cottage, with the remaining portion being widened to 3m. However, the drawings indicate the presence of retaining walls along the eastern property boundary, which will effectively reduce the driveway width (adjacent to the heritage cottage) to less than 2.32m. The accurate width of the retaining walls has not been given.

 

The internal driveway ramps down alongside the heritage building and therefore, at some point along this section of the driveway, a retaining wall will be required at the eastern boundary. Depending on the thickness of the retaining wall, the available clear width for the driveway will be, in any case, less than 2.32m stated in the application. The lack of accurate dimensional information of the retaining wall does not allow thorough assessment.

 

According to Australian Standard 2890.1, the minimum driveway width for a dwelling with 2 car spaces is 3.0m. The existing situation is already 680mm below the required dimension under the Standard. The construction of a basement garage with retaining walls along the currently narrowest section of the driveway is considered to adversely impact on the efficient and safe maneuvering of vehicles into and out of the site, and in the worst case scenario, will render access completely impossible.

 

Based on the above, it is considered that the proposed basement garage arrangement is not suitable for the site. The proposal is considered unsatisfactory in relation to vehicular access design.

 

Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

S1

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

The proposal includes 1.2m high fencing along the front boundary. A specific condition can be imposed to specify the design and materials of the fence. Complies, subject to condition.

S1

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

 

Foreshore Development

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

P1

Apart from in-ground swimming pools, buildings do not encroach on the Foreshore Building Line.

Not applicable.

P2

Building form, colours, materials and finishes are sympathetic to surrounding natural forms.

The built form of the proposed extension is not considered to respect the sloping land form and will visually dominate over the heritage cottage on site. Refer to discussion above.

P3

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated to reflect human scale.

The proposed rear extension does not incorporate any stepping to follow the contour of the site. The proposed built form is monolithic and is not considered to reflect the human scale. Refer to discussion above.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow planting and a fair sharing of views.

The proposed side and rear setbacks are considered satisfactory.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Superseded by SEPP: BASIX.

S2

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

A portion of the rear courtyard will receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on the winter solstice. Complies.

S2,8

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

The proposal includes north-facing windows that will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on the winter solstice. Complies.

S9

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

The proposal will not overshadow potential roof-mounted solar collectors on the adjoining properties. Complies.

 

S9

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

The proposal will not reduce solar access to less than 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on the winter solstice on the north-facing windows of adjoining properties.

Complies.

S9

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

The proposal will not reduce solar access to private open space of adjoining properties to less than 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on the winter solstice. Complies.

 

9.2    Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

The Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effectively from 2 July 2007, is applicable to the proposed development. In accordance with the plan, the following monetary levy is required where consent is granted for the development:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost $100,001 - $200,000

------

0.5%

------

Development cost more than $200,000

$638,739

1.0%

$6,387.39

 

10.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Refer to the “Environmental Planning Instruments” section of this report for details.

Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument

The general aims and objectives of the Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008 have been addressed within the body of this report. 

Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

Refer to the “Policy Control” section of this report.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

Clause 7 of the EP&A Regulation 2000 requires the consent authority to consider the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. Appropriate conditions of consent can be imposed should this application be considered suitable for approval.

 

Clause 92 of the Regulation requires the consent authority to consider relevant Australian Standards relating to demolition of structures. A specific condition can be imposed to require compliance with Australian Standard 2601.

 

Clause 93 of the Regulation requires the consent authority to consider the structural capacity and fire safety aspects of a building. Appropriate conditions can be imposed to address the above matters.

Section 79C(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The application is not considered to have provided substantive evidence demonstrating that the heritage listed cottage has been degraded in a manner, which would justify the degree of demolition sought.

 

The proposed rear extension is considered to be of a bulk and scale, which will visually overwhelm the cottage and detrimentally impact on its curtilage. Additionally, the extension is characterised by a monolithic building mass, which does not follow the natural fall of the site.

 

The proposal will reduce the width of the access driveway to less than 2.32m and is considered to adversely affect the safe and efficient manoeuvring of vehicles into and out of the basement garage.

 

Therefore, the development is considered to result in detrimental environmental impacts on the area and is unsatisfactory having regard to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Act. 

Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The site contains a weatherboard cottage, which is listed as a heritage item under RLEP 1998. The proposal entails excessive demolition of the side walls and roofing of the cottage without convincing justifications, and is contrary to the LEP objective to conserve environmental heritage.

 

The first floor level of the extension is characterised by a rectangular prismatic form, which is partially cantilevered beyond the external walls below. The form and massing of the extension are not considered to respect the natural topography of the land.

 

The existing driveway has a width of 2.32m. The construction of the basement garage not only raises the overall height of the extension, but also necessitates the construction of retaining walls along the driveway. The development will effectively reduce the driveway width to less than 2.32m at the narrowest point, and will detrimentally affect vehicular movements.

 

Therefore, the site is not considered to be suitable for the proposed development and fails to satisfy Section 79C(1)(c) of the Act.

Section 79C(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.

Section 79C(1)(e) – The public interest

The proposal is considered to result in detrimental environmental impacts on the locality, and consequently is not considered to be within the public interest.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:   Leadership in sustainability, excellence in urban design and development, integrated transport and land use.

Direction:    Improved design and sustainability across all development, integrating transport and pedestrian links between town centres and key locations.

Key Action:  Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal does not comply with various control provisions contained in Randwick Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The above planning instrument and guidelines aim to facilitate appropriate development by specifying objectives and performance criteria, which the proposal fails to satisfy. The proposal will create an inadequate building mass that is excessive in bulk and scale, and relates poorly to the heritage item on site. The number and extent of the breaches suggest that the proposal is not consistent with the development potential of the site.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council's Coordinator Development Assessment under delegated authority from the General Manager, as the consent authority, refuses Development Application No. 851/2008 for demolition of the rear dwelling, carport and rear section of the front cottage on the site, construction of a 2-storey rear extension with basment garage, swimming pool and associated site works, and change of use from a dual occupancy to a single dwelling, at No. 71 Boundary Street, Clovelly, pursuant to Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, for the following reasons:

 

(i)     The proposal fails to satisfy aim (e) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the development does not conserve the environmental heritage and aesthetic character of the City.

 

(ii)     The proposal fails to satisfy aim (g) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the development does not promote, protect and enhance the environmental qualities of the City.

 

(iii)    The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the development incorporates an excessive amount of floor space, with a resultant building bulk that visually dominates the adjoining residential properties and the heritage cottage on site.

 

(iv)   The proposal fails to satisfy Clause 29 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the development is monolithic in form and does not follow the contours of the site, and therefore will detrimentally impact on the visual qualities of the foreshore areas.

 

(v)    The proposal fails to satisfy Clause 43 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the development involves excessive demolition of the heritage cottage without reasonable justifications, and that the scale and massing of the rear extension will dominate over the heritage item and its curtilage.

 

(vi)    The proposal fails to satisfy the “Floor Area” performance requirements of Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the form and massing of the rear extension do not follow the natural topography of the site and will dominate over the surrounding residential properties and the heritage cottage on site.

 

(vii)   The proposal fails to satisfy the “Height, Form and Materials” performance requirements of Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the form and massing of the rear extension do not respect the natural fall of the land, and are not consistent with the development pattern of the nearby residential properties and the heritage cottage on site.

 

(viii)  The proposal fails to satisfy the “Foreshore Development” performance requirements of Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that the rear extension does not incorporate appropriate stepping to follow the topography of the land, and is of a form and mass that do not respect the human scale.

 

(ix)    The proposal fails to satisfy the “Car Parking” performance requirements of Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in that driveway will be effectively reduced to less than 2.32m at the narrowest points, and will detrimentally impact on vehicular movements.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

28 April 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP17/09

 

 

Subject:                  33 Boyce Road, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/819/2008

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a new two storey dwelling, including garage, new fencing and site works

 

Ward:                      Central Ward

 

Applicant:                Grande Homes

 

Owner:                         Mr D Balanovsky

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application details the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new two storey dwelling comprising at ground level a double garage, living and utility rooms and within the upper level four bedrooms and two bathrooms with a  large rear balcony on an allotment of land that is 349m2. The dwelling will provide for 208m² of habitable floor area.

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the application includes a SEPP 1 Objection to Clause 30(4) of RLEP 1998 which requires a minimum lot size of 450m2. Clause 30(5) of RLEP 1998 does not prohibit the erection of a dwelling house that existed as a separate allotment on the appointed day being the gazettal of RLEP 1998 on 26 June 1998. The subject allotment was created in 1999 and a dwelling house was constructed on the site in the same year. As the lot only came into existence after 26 June 1998, a SEPP1 Objection is required to be submitted with the application.

 

The main issues other than those associated with the size of the allotment are the assessment of any impacts of the development upon the amenity of the adjoining properties and the locality.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application details the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new two storey dwelling comprising at ground level a double garage, living and utility rooms and within the upper level four bedrooms and two bathrooms with a  large rear balcony on an allotment of land that is 349m2. The dwelling will provide for 208m² of habitable floor area.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is on the southern side of Boyce Road adjacent to the corner of Royal Street. The site has a frontage of 10.975m, a depth of 31.25m and an area of 343m². The locality is residential in nature and contains predominantly free standing single and two storey dwellings.

 

4.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Notification. No submissions were received:

 

5.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

- Building Code of Australia

- Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

- Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended

- Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

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

 


Clause 10 Zone 2A

The objectives of the 2A Zone are;

 

(a)    to maintain the character of established residential areas, and

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

(c)    to enable redevelopment for low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development, and

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

(e)    to enable a mix of housing types to encourage housing affordability. 

 

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone as the development will maintain the character of the existing residential area.

 

Clause 30 Minimum allotment size

The controls in Clause 30(4) states that the minimum allotment size for the erection of a dwelling house or for an attached dual occupancy within a 2A zone is 450m² and each allotment must have a frontage of at least 12m. The subject site has an area of 342.9m² and a frontage of 10.975m. A SEPP 1Objection has been lodged by the applicant with respect to non compliance with this control and is discussed in detail below.

 

In assessing the applicants SEPP 1 Objection the following matters are addressed.

 

Whether or not the planning control is a development standard

The minimum allotment size control in question is a development standard contained in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

The purpose of the standard as outlined in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan is;

To establish minimum requirements for the subdivision of land within residential zones in order to protect and enhance the local amenity.

 

The underlying purpose of the clause is to ensure that allotments have sufficient area to accommodate a dwelling house and associated open space that is consistent with the built form controls of Council’s DCP-Dwelling Houses.

 

Consistency of the development with aims of the policy and objects of the Act.

The aims and objectives of SEPP 1 area to provide;

 

“provide flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act”

 

The objectives of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) are:

 

“to encourage:

(i)       The proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purposes of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and better environment;

 

(ii)      The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land”

 

The proposal is consistent with the objects of the Act, in that it will promote the orderly and economic use of the land.

 

Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

It is considered that to require strict compliance with this development standard is both unreasonable and unnecessary as this would restrict the use of the site, which is surrounded by similar residential uses in this 2A zone. The proposed dwelling house complies with the built form controls of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and is consistent with the urban character of the locality. The massing, height, setbacks and landscaping of the proposed development will be consistent with the pattern of development and residential character of the locality.

 

Is the objection well founded?

In support of the SEPP 1 Objection the applicant has argued that;

 

(i)       The area of the site is demonstrated to be adequate to accommodate a dwelling as there is already a dwelling on the site. A single storey dwelling house on this site is considered an under utilisation of the opportunities provided by the site with minimal constraints and a full range of necessary utility services available. The proposed dwelling will allow for additional people to reside on this allotment whilst positively contributing to the built form of the neighbourhood. The dwelling is compatible with the contemporary styles in the immediate surrounds and is of a reasonable size with regards to modern standards. The site is capable of accommodating the proposed dwelling.

 

(ii)      The front, side and rear setbacks are compatible with those of the neighbouring relatively new dwelling to the east. The front setback is sufficient to provide landscaping softening. The rear setback is capable of providing a private open space area which exceeds the minimum requirement under the relevant development controls as well as an undercover al fresco area which improves the functionality of the backyard. The site area is sufficient to accommodate a reasonable curtilage around the dwelling house.

 

(iii)     The proposed dwelling demonstrates that the frontage is adequate to accommodate a double garage door and vehicular access thereto as well as a front door to the living areas which faces the street.

 

(iv)     The proposed dwelling demonstrates that the site has sufficient area and frontage to accommodate landscaping to soften the built form. The existing tree in the Boyce Road nature strip in front of the site is not proposed to be removed and will itself provide additional softening of the built form whilst not significantly reducing streetscape surveillance.

 

The objection is well founded as the applicant has demonstrated that the erection of a new dwelling on this allotment is not inconsistent with the underlying objectives of Clause 30 of the Local Environmental Plan, the area and width of the allotment is similar to the existing established subdivision pattern, and also the new dwelling satisfies the objectives of the 2A zone by maintaining the character of the established residential area.

 

6.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 


Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Clause

Standard

Check

y/n

Landscaping

40 % of site provided as landscaped area

43%

yes

25m² of private open space provided.

49m2 +

Yes

Min. dimensions of 3m x 4m & minor level change

4.5m x 10.9m

Yes

Open space behind the building line.

Yes

20% of the site area is permeable.

30%

Yes

Floor area

(Site area 343 m2) maximum FSR 0.6:1 

0.6:1

Yes

Height, Form & Materials

External wall height maximum 7m

5.8m

Yes

Cut or fill maximum 1m.

Less than 1m

Yes

No excavation within 900 mm of a side boundary.

No

No, see below

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

No

Yes

 

There will be excavation up to the western side boundary for the construction of the new garage. There are no major objections as conditions of consent are included to nominate that excavation is carried out in a manner to ensure that the subject and adjoining sites are properly retained during and after building works.

 

 

Building setbacks

Front setback average of adjoining dwellings or 6m

6.5m

Yes

Rear boundary setback at least 4.5m

4.5m

Yes

Side setbacks be 900mm at ground level.

The dwelling is sited up to the western and 900mm from the eastern side boundary.

No to the western side boundary, see assessment below.

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

900mm to each side boundary

No, see below.

 

There are no objections to the garage portion of the dwelling being sited up to the western side boundary as this setback is to the garage only and will not have a significant impact upon the amenity of the adjoining dwelling in 49 Royal Street as it adjoins an existing awning to that site and therefore will not cast a shadow to that portion of their rear yard. With regards to the upper level setbacks these are consistent with the other nearby and adjoining two storey dwellings and will not restrict access to sunlight and fresh air to the adjoining properties in Royal Street which all have their rear yards perpendicular to the western wall of the dwelling.

 

 

Privacy

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

Windows within the dwelling will not result in any loss of privacy as within the upper level all serve the bedrooms, bathrooms and stairwell. There is a potential for a loss of privacy from the use of the rear upper level balcony and a condition of consent is recommended to require that privacy screens be provided to both sides of this balcony to restrict direct overlooking into the adjoining properties in Boyce Road and Royal Street. The Juliet balcony to the front of the dwelling will overlook the street only.

Safety & Security

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

Yes

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

Master bedroom

Yes

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

Standard condition

Yes

Garages & Driveways

 

 

 

Garages & Driveways

(continued)

1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.

2 spaces

Yes

Parking spaces have a min. dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m.

Combined internal width of 6.2m and depth of 5.8m.

Yes

Driveway minimum width of 3m and side setback 1m

4m in width and 500mm to western side boundary.

No, however there is no objection to side boundary setback as this adjoins an existing hard stand carparking area to the adjoining dwelling

Driveway maximum width of 3m at the boundary.

4m

No, there are no major objections to a driveway of this width as the western side of the driveway incorporates the existing cross over and will not result in a poor streetscape presentation.

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

Almost at grade.

Yes

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

Yes – garage incorporated into dwelling

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

60%

No, however due to the width of the site it would be impossible to provide for a double garage that would comply, and also the garage is an integral part of the building façade and will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling.

Fences

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

1.2m

Yes

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

New dwellings comply with 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

See BASIX

n/a

Private open space receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm on 21 June.

No. However courtyard at front received sunlight

Rear is overshadowed due to the orientation of the site

North-facing living areas receive at least 3 hrs sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June.

Yes

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained 9am - 3pm.

No impact to solar collectors

North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm 21 June, or not further reduced.

No impact to north facing living room windows

Principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am- 3pm 21 June, or not further reduced.

Slightly reduced

Yes

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Excellence in urban design and a healthy environment.

Direction:  New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed new dwelling satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 (SEEP 1) with respect to non-compliance with Clause 30(1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to minimum allotment sizes, on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the objective of the clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B        That Council as the consent authority grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/819/2008 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey dwelling, garage, fencing and associated works at 33 Boyce Road, Maroubra 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-DA08 inclusive, dated 23/01/09 and received by Council on the 10th February 2009, 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 consistent with the colour scheme submitted with the application on the 12th November 2008.

 

3.     There must be no encroachment of the structures or associated articles onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

4.     Details are to be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed works will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

5.     Street and unit numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, in accordance with the Australia Post guidelines and AS/NZS 4819 (2003) to the satisfaction of Council, prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

9.     To maintain a reasonable level of privacy from the rear upper level balcony, privacy screens 1800mm in height above the floor level of the balcony are to be extended across the eastern and western sides of the balcony. The privacy screens are to be of either fixed louvres, fixed timber slats or obscured glazing, and details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate.

 

The following condition is imposed to satisfy the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following condition is applied to meet additional demands for public facilities.

 

11.   In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, the following monetary levy must be paid to Council.

 

Category Cost Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development Cost

More than $200,000 -$360,000

1.0%

$3,600.00

 

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development. The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment.

 

Council’s Section 94A Development Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

      Stormwater management (i.e. rainwater tanks)

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

      Landscaping provisions

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

17.   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.

 

18.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

26.   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.

 

27.   Smoke alarms are required to be installed in each Class 1 building or residential dwelling in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Smoke alarms must comply with AS3786 – Smoke alarms and be connected to the consumer mains electric power supply and provided with a battery back-up.

 

The smoke alarms are to be installed in suitable locations on or near the ceiling, in any storey containing bedrooms; located between each part of the dwelling containing the bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling, or where bedrooms are served by a hallway, the smoke alarms are to be located in that hallway; and smoke alarms are to be installed in any other storey not containing bedrooms, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

Smoke alarms are not to be located in ‘dead-air-spaces’, in the corner junction of walls and ceilings between exposed rafters/joists or at the apex of raked ceilings, as detailed in Part 3.7.2 of the Building Code of Australia – Housing Provisions.

 

Details of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia must be included in the plans / specification for the construction certificate.

 

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

 

28.   The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the following regulations:

      The requirements and Guidelines of Work Cover NSW

      Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

      Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

      The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

      Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

 

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

 

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

 

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

      Details of hazardous materials, including asbestos

      Method/s of demolition and removal of asbestos

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

      Measures to be implemented to minimise any airborne asbestos and dust

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

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

      Date the demolition and removal of any asbestos materials will commence

 

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

 

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

 

30.   Any work involving the demolition, storage and disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a.     Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

 

b.     Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005)

 

c.     A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 10m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation).

 

Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor      that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.

 

d.     On sites involving the removal of asbestos, a sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ and include details of the licensed contractor.

 

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

 

f.      A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (ie an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council and the Principal certifying authority upon completion of the asbestos related works which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant conditions of consent have been satisfied.

 

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

 

31.   All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls, shoring, or piling must be designed and installed in accordance with appropriate professional standards and the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards.  Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring or piling are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority for the development prior to commencing such excavations or works.

 

32.   A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer, accredited building surveyor or other suitably qualified person must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works, in the following cases:

 

      new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to the property boundaries (including additions to a semi-detached dwelling),

      excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are proposed to be located within the zone of influence of the footings of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

      excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are within rock and may result in vibration and or potential damage to any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

      as otherwise required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) is to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon the adjoining premises, which may be affected by the subject works.

 

33.   The adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be     adequately supported at all times.

 

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

 

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

      effectively support  the excavation and building; and

      at least seven (7) days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land (including a public road or public place), give notice of the intention and particulars of the works to the owner of the adjoining land.

 

Notes:

      This consent and condition does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the principal contractor or owner-builder must obtain:

a)     the consent of the owners of such adjoining or supported land to trespass or encroach, or

b)     an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000, or

c)     an easement under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919, or

d)     an easement under section 40 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979, as appropriate.

 

      Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 creates a statutory duty of care in relation to support of land.  Accordingly, a person has a duty of care not to do anything on or in relation to land being developed (the supporting land) that removes the support provided by the supporting land to any other adjoining land (the supported land).

 

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

 

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

 

35.   Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery and pile drivers (or the like) must be minimised by using appropriate plant and equipment and silencers and a construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be implemented during the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

37.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

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

 

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

      location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

      location of building materials for construction;

      provisions for public safety;

      dust control measures;

      site access location and construction

      details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

      protective measures for tree preservation;

      provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

      location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

      details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

      construction noise and vibration management;

      construction traffic management provisions.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

41.   Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works and the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a.     Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or5 other activities 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.

 

b.     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.

 

c.     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.

 

d.     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.

 

e.     Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Health Building and Regulatory Services section.

 

f.      Any part of Council’s road, footway or nature strip which is damaged as a result of the work must be repaired or replaced to Council’s satisfaction   prior    to occupation or finalisation of the development.

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

43.   The air conditioning unit must be located:

      a minimum of 900mm from property boundaries;

      at ground level;

      at the side or rear of the building; and

      away from windows of any existing or proposed habitable rooms on neighbouring properties.

 

The unit shall also be adequately screen if visible from a public place.

 

The plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

44.   The air conditioning plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

      before 8.00am or after 10.00pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday; or

      before 7.00am or after 10.00pm on any other day.

 

45.   The installation of rainwater tanks shall comply with the following noise control requirements:-

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

    before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

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

 

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

 

47.   A demolition and construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be development and implemented for the development, to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the commencement of works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

a)     $1000.00   -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon:

 

-    A satisfactory inspection by Council that no damage has occurred to the Council assets such as roadway, kerb, guttering, drainage pits footway, or verge; and

-    Completion of the civil works as conditioned in this development consent by Council.

 

The applicant is to advise Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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

 

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

 

49.   Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

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

 

Note: The Council driveway is to be constructed a minimum offset of 1.80m est of the western edge of the Council’s Street Tree’s trunk.

 

b)     Remove any damaged concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate         the area to Council's specification.

 

50.   Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate for the proposed new dwelling the plans for the Construction Certificate are to be amended to show the eastern edge of the driveway opening at the sites front boundary not exceeding a distance of 4.15m from the western side boundary.

 

51.   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.

 

52.   The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

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

 

53.   The Council’s Development Engineer has inspected the above site and has determined that the design alignment level at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

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

 

55.   The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $483.00 calculated at $44.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

56.   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.

 

57.   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.

 

58.   A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any public utility service works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road / Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate for the development.

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

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

 

59.   Generally all site stormwater shall be piped to a sediment/silt arrester pit that drains to an infiltration area with a minimum 5 m2 base area. An overflow pipe shall be provided from the silt arrestor pit to drain to Council's kerb and gutter.

 

The location and details of the proposed internal stormwater pipelines, silt arrestor pit and the infiltration area shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the plans shall be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if Council is not the certifying authority.

 

Notes:

 

a.     The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed:-

i.    within the site at or near the street boundary.

ii.   with a child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system (e.g. spring loaded jay-bolt).

iii.   with a minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes (preferably located in the walls of the pit at the floor level) and with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located around the weep holes.

iv.  with the pit floor being a minimum 300mm below the invert level of the outlet pipelines.

v.   with a galvanised heavy duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipes draining to the infiltration pit and the kerb. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

 

b.     The infiltration/rubble pit shall:-

i.    have a minimum 300 mm of soil cover (600 mm where the pit is located under a garden/landscaping area).

ii.   be located a minimum of 3.0 metres from the dwelling or other structure (closer if a structural engineer certifies that the infiltration area will not adversely affect the structure) and 2.1 metres from the adjacent side or rear boundaries.

iii.   be constructed with a minimum 200 mm thick layer of 20 mm basalt/blue metal (or similar) that is wrapped in a suitable geotextile material covering with a high filtration rating (Geofabrics Bidim "A" range of filtration fabrics or equivalent). A suitable means of dispersing the stormwater over the area of infiltration is to be constructed.

Note:       other equivalent methods of infiltration may be adopted.

iv.  have a minimum base area of  5.0 square metres (m2).

 

The outlet from the silt arrestor pit to the infiltration area shall be located at least 50 mm below the outlet from the silt arrestor pit to the kerb and gutter.

 

c.     The requirement for an infiltration/rubble pit will not be enforced should the underground soil conditions preclude the construction of the infiltration pit (eg rock is located within 300 mm of the base of the infiltration area). If the infiltration/rubble pit is not constructed then all site stormwater shall be discharged to the kerb and gutter via a sediment/silt arrestor pit (as detailed in note a. above).

 

All works shall be to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

d.     The overflow pipe/s from the rainwater tank/s shall be directed into the infiltration area.

 

60.   Any stormwater runoff which cannot be directed to the kerb and gutter at the front of the property (via the infiltration area as detailed above) shall be discharged either:

 

a)     Through private drainage easements to Council’s kerb and gutter (or underground drainage system); OR

b)     To a separate suitably sized infiltration area. As a guide, infiltration areas which do not have an overflow to the street shall be sized based on a minimum requirement of 1 m2 of infiltration area (together with 1 m3 of storage volume) for every 20 m2 of roof/impervious area draining to the infiltration area.

 

Prior to the use of infiltration in areas where there is no formal overland escape route to Council’s kerb and gutter/street drainage system, a geotechnical investigation will be required to determine whether the ground is suitable for infiltration. Should rock and/or a water table be encountered within two metres of the proposed base of the infiltration pit, or the ground conditions comprise low permeability soils such as clay, infiltration may not be appropriate.

 

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

 

61.   Landscaping shall be provided to the site to enhance its amenity and reduce the impact of the development upon both the streetscape and neighbouring properties. A landscape plan prepared by a qualified professional in the Landscape/Horticulture industry shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, prior to the issue of a construction certificate, and must include the following requirements:

 

a)     A planting plan and planting schedule which details all proposed species, their   location, quantity, and pot size at the time of planting throughout the whole of the site;

b)     A predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions;

 

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

 

 

63.   The nature-strip upon Council's footway shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu Turf or similar. Such works shall be installed prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

Street Tree Management

 

64.   The applicant will be responsible for covering all costs for Council or Council’s authorised contractors to prune back to the main trunk, the one major, lower growing structural limb leading to the west from the large street tree within Council’s Boyce Road nature strip, Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leafed Paperbark), as part of this application, in order to both avoid damage to this public tree during the course of works, as well as to improve the line of sight of approaching pedestrians and vehicles when exiting the property (with a similar example of such pruning found in front of 37 Boyce Road).

 

65.   The applicant must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 at least 4 weeks prior to the commencement of any site works (including demolition) to arrange for the approved pruning works to be performed.

 

66.   Once completed, the applicant will be advised of the cost of this pruning work, with the specified amount to be received by Council into Tree Amenity Income account no 4001.768401 at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

67.   Approval is also granted for the removal of all existing vegetation from within the site due to a combination of their insignificance, as well as to accommodate the proposed works as shown, subject to full implementation of the approved landscape plan.

 

Tree Protection Measures

68.   In order to ensure retention of the Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leafed Paperbark), located within Council’s Boyce Road nature strip, to the east of the existing/proposed vehicle crossing 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 MUST show its retention, with the position of its trunk and full diameter of its canopy clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.     All construction certificate plans must show that a minimum setback of 1800mm will be maintained between any excavations associated with the eastern edge of the proposed vehicle crossing, and the outside edge of its trunk (measured at ground level), with any services, stormwater pipes or similar that need to be installed over public property to be located along the eastern site boundary only, so as to minimise the amount of root damage/disturbance to this street tree.

 

c.     Prior to commencing any external works, the applicant will be required to hand dig, to a minimum depth of 250mm, along the eastern edge of the proposed crossing, between the back of the kerb and northern edge of the existing pedestrian footpath, being careful to preserve any roots encountered.

 

d.     Following this, and prior to the installation of any formwork, steel etc, Council’s Landscape Development Officer shall then be contacted on 9399-0613 to arrange an inspection of the trench, with any roots encountered to be cut cleanly by hand, and the affected area backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

 

e.     This tree is to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing which shall be located along the back of the kerb to its north, 2 metres to its east (measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level), along the edge of the footpath to its south, and 1.5 metres to its west, in order to completely enclose this tree for the duration of the works.

 

f.      This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed, to which signage containing the following words shall be clearly displayed and permanently attached: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE, DO NOT ENTER".

 

g.     The applicant is not authorised to perform any physical works to this street tree, and shall contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 should further pruning or any similar such work be necessary, with the applicant required to cover all associated costs with such work, to Council’s satisfaction, prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate.

 

h.     Within the zone specified in point ‘e’ above, 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.

 

i.      A refundable deposit in the form of cash, cheque or bank guarantee (with no expiry date) for an amount of $1,500.00 (no GST) shall be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, in order to ensure compliance with the conditions listed in this consent, and ultimately, preservation of this street tree.

 

The refundable deposit will be eligible for refund following the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate, subject to completion and submission of Council’s ‘Security Deposit Refund Application Form’, and pending a satisfactory inspection by Council’s Landscape Development Officer (9399-0613).

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to this tree at any time during the course of the works, or prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate, may result in Council claiming all or part of the lodged security in order to perform any rectification works necessary.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

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

 

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

 

A2.   A local approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Services section prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

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 or any other container or article.

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

Nil


Ordinary Council

28 April 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP18/09

 

 

Subject:                  309 - 311 Bunnerong Road,  Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/827/2008

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing building and construction of a 4 storey mixed use development comprising 2 shops, 10 residential units and basement carparking for 13 vehicles (SEPP1 objection to maximum FSR and height control).

 

Ward:                      Central Ward          

 

Applicant:                Edifice Design Pty Limited

 

Owner:                         Mrs V Koutras

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $4,458,507.

 

The proposal is for demolition of the existing building and construction of a 4 storey mixed use development comprising 2 shops, 10 residential units and basement carparking for 13 vehicles.

 

Following concerns raised with the applicant regarding the bulk and scale of the proposal and advice provided by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel in relation to  façade treatment, landscaping and configuration of balconies, amended plans were submitted on 31 March 2009 to address these issues. The amended plans which are the subject of this report, are considered to be satisfactory, showing an improved proposal addressing concerns raised. Specifically, the amended plans show the deletion of one dwelling unit on the top floor to reduce the height, bulk and scale of the building at the interface of the site to the adjoining Residential 2A land.

 

The proposal originally had a non-complying FSR of 1.89:1 compared with the maximum 1:1 FSR standard applicable under the Randwick LEP 1998. The amended proposal has an FSR of 1.75:1 and is accompanied by a State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) objection.

 

The amended proposal has resulted in an increase in height by 880mm only over the lift overrun and stair area giving a maximum building height of 15.12m in this area which does not comply with the maximum building height standard of 9m under the LEP. The general height of the proposed building is 12.77m which remains unchanged from the original proposal. A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted in support of the variation from the height standard. 

 

An assessment of the SEPP 1 objections indicates that strict compliance with the controls would be unreasonable and unnecessary as indicated in Section 10.1 of this report.

 

The proposal also does not comply with the numerical car parking requirement of the DCP – Carparking having a shortfall of 4 car spaces. The variation has been assessed in relevant sections of the report and are considered justified in the circumstances.

 

The proposal would be suitable for the site and would have acceptable impacts on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The proposal

 

The current proposal is essentially an amended proposal to that originally submitted following the incorporation of changes recommended by Council and the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel.

 

Specifically, the proposed development comprises the following :

 

2 x retail/commercial units and 1 x one-bedroom unit on ground level

3 x one-bedroom unit and 1 x two bedroom units on each floor of Levels 1 to 2

1 x three bedroom unit on Level 4 with private roof terrace area.

 

A common rooftop garden/terrace area is proposed on Level 3.

 

The proposal also provides a central courtyard in a section of the southern wall measuring 4.25m deep and 10m long which has the effect of extending the adjoining internal courtyard of the approved development in the adjoining southern site at No 313 Bunnerong Road thus ensuring solar access is maintained to the adjoining development while enhancing the amenity of the subject development.

 

The external finishes of the proposed building will be a combination of rendered and painted and tiled brick-work elements.

 

Car parking for the development would be accommodated within a basement carparking area containing a total of 13 car spaces.

 

3.    The subject site and surrounding area

 

The site consists of two allotments (Lot 2084 in DP 752015 being 309 Bunnerong Road and Lot 2085 in DP 655935 being 311 Bunnerong Road), with a western frontage to Bunnerong Road of 15.67m and northern and southern side boundaries of 32.44m and 41.52m respectively. The rear (eastern) boundary of the site addresses Wild Lane and measures 20.795m. The total area of the site is 581 sqm. The site is generally level with a gentle fall southwards.

 

Figure 1 : Aerial view of subject site

 

The site currently contains a single storey brick building containing a restaurant at No. 309 Bunnerong Road and a TAB at No 311 Bunnerong Road. A single storey dwelling is located to the rear of the site with access from Wild Lane.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by a mix of residential and commercial uses and a variety of architectural styles and construction eras. To the north of the subject site is an existing service station comprising a single storey building and occupying a corner site to Maroubra Road. To the east across Wild Lane are single storey freestanding and semi-detached dwellings fronting Wild Street. To the west across Bunnerong Road is a large industrial site occupied by British American Tobacco. To the south is a vacant allotment at No 313 Bunnerong Road following demolition of the existing building in preparation for an approved new mixed use 3-4 storey development under DA 493/2003.

 

4.    Site/Application History

 

A pre-lodgement application was lodged for the proposal and a prelodgement meeting was held on 3 September 2008.

 

The current application was lodged with Council on 17 November 2008. A preliminary assessment of the application raised significant issues relating to bulk and scale, and the amenity and the streetscape impact of the proposal including issues raised by the Design Review Panel.

 

In response the applicant submitted amendments on 31 March 2009 reducing the number of units from 11 to 10 thereby also the overall FSR and making other internal changes. The amended proposal has necessitated an increase in the height of the lift overrun and staircase enclosure. These plans are the subject of this assessment.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The original proposal was notified and advertised from 5 November 2008 to 19 November 2008 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. The amended proposal was not considered necessary to be notified and advertised as the  amendments, especially the deletion of one dwelling unit, served to improve the overall bulk, scale and impact of the proposed building in the locality. 

 

In response to the notification of the original proposal, four submissions and a petition with 14 signatures were received raising the following relevant issues:

 

·      Increased traffic congestion/pollution especially on Wild Lane

 

Comment: The applicant’s Traffic Report estimates that the proposal will generate traffic at a rate of 9 vehicle trips per hour in the peak AM and PM periods which further reduces to 4 vehicle trips per hour when the traffic generation of the existing uses on site is taken into account. Accordingly, the Traffic Report advises that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development is “…relatively minor (4vtph) which will not have any noticeable or unacceptable effect on the road network serving the site in terms of road network capacity or traffic-related environmental effect”. Council’s Development Engineer raises no concerns in relation to traffic impacts from the proposal and in particular, it is considered that the low increase in traffic of 4 vehicle trips per hour can be accommodated in Wild Lane without disrupting existing traffic using the lane subject to conditions requiring traffic calming in the lane.

 

·      Cumulative traffic impact of redevelopment of 313 and 315 Bunnerong Road

 

The traffic generation of the approved development on 313 Bunnerong Road has already been assessed under DA 439/2003 which would generate a low net traffic rate of 4 peak hour vehicular trips. The combined net traffic generation of the approved development at No. 313 Bunnerong Road and the proposed development on the subject site will be approximately 8 vehicle trips per hour peak period which is still a low rate which can be accommodated in Wild Lane without disrupting existing traffic using the lane. No DA for the redevelopment of No 315 Bunnerong Road has been lodged or approved to date so that any claim  regarding the future cumulative impact of traffic from this site would be tenuous/questionable.

 

·      Wild Lane should be one-way

 

Any traffic plan to convert Wild Lane into a one-way lane is a policy matter for the Randwick Traffic Committee to implement and a matter that is entirely separate from the assessment and determination of the subject DA. When this one-way traffic plan was raised in the assessment and determination of the DA (439/2003) for the adjoining approved development at 313 Bunnerong Road in November 2003, Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Services (AIS) engineer advised as follows:

 

“It is noted that converting Wild Lane to one-way will reduce the vehicular conflicts currently experienced in the laneway. It must be noted however, that the conversion is still subject to approval from the RTA.

 

The AIS Department does not consider that development approval should be subject to the RTA concurring with Council’s recommendation to make Wild Lane one way. It is understood that the problems in Wild Lane are due largely to tight blind bends and narrow carriageway widths, rather than high traffic volumes alone. Given that the traffic generation rate for the proposed development during the morning and afternoon peaks is anticipated to be only some 5-6 vehicles per hour, it is considered appropriate for the problems in Wild Lane to be addressed separately to the development application.

 

It should be noted, however, that whilst the AIS Department does not recommend that the application be refused due to the problems in Wild Lane, measures should be undertaken to ensure safe access to and from the site”

 

This advice is still applicable to the subject DA for the subject site. Accordingly, the plan to convert Wild Lane into a one-way lane is a policy matter for the Randwick Traffic Committee and one that has no bearing on the assessment and determination of the subject DA. Notwithstanding this, the traffic concerns raised in this current DA will be referred to the Randwick Traffic Committee. As addressed in the previous points of concerns above, on merit, the net increase in traffic of 4 vtph can be accommodated in Wild Lane and as a safeguard, conditions requiring traffic calming in the lane way will be applied should approval be granted for the subject DA.  

 

·      Loading dock should be provided with access on Bunnerong Road

 

The applicant advises that the provision of a loading dock is not warranted as the existing uses on-site being the TAB and restaurant do not require the use of a loading dock and the proposed development will be tenanted by light commercial uses such as the existing ones that are suitable for the local centre. Light deliveries to these uses are currently provided at the front street parking area on Bunnerong Road which is adequate and has minimal environmental impacts to date.

 

The applicant’s advice is considered reasonable and acceptable especially considering that the subject site is physically constrained by its narrow width and splayed frontage to Wild Lane which necessitates a curved ramp into the carpark and, in turn, makes it impractical for delivery vehicles to use. The provision of access to a loading dock from Bunnerong Road is not possible as the RTA generally prohibits the creation of new accessways for new developments on