Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 22 September 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

22 September 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, 22 September 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 - 25 August 2009

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council by Members of the Public

Mayoral Minutes

Nil 

 

Urgent Business

Director City Planning Reports

CP55/09    65 Melody Street, Coogee

CP56/09    112-124 Anzac Parade, Kensington

CP57/09    686-688 Anzac Parade, Kingsford

CP58/09    162 Brook Street, Coogee

CP59/09    24 Stephen Street, Randwick

CP60/09    59 Holmes Street, Maroubra

CP61/09    Reporting variations to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) from 1 August to 31 August, 2009

CP62/09    Cultural Community Grants Program September 2009 Assessment Round - Recommended Allocations

CP63/09    Options for Council's Australia Day Events 2010 and Options to Curb Alcohol Related Anti-social Behaviour at Australia Day celebrations

 

General Manager's Reports

GM39/09    Affixing of the Council Seal

GM40/09    FECCA 2009 Conference (Strengthening Multiculturalism & Building Social Inclusion)

GM41/09    Randwick Award for Literature

GM42/09    Code of Conduct Complaints

GM43/09    Staff performance review outcomes 2008-2009

 

Director City Services Reports

CS22/09    Des Renford Aquatic Centre Filtration Upgrade

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF39/09    Long Term Financial Plan - 2009-10 to 2028-29

GF40/09    Presentation of 2008-09 Financial Reports

GF41/09    Investment Report - August 2009

GF42/09    Prince Henry Heritage Values - Rating Adjustments

GF43/09    Inaugural Randwick City Economic Leaders' Forum  

 

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM53/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Seng - Investigating the suitability of replacing natural grass with synthetic grass

NM54/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Seng - Public awareness campaign to discourage cyclists from riding on footpaths

NM55/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Smith - Proposed art, craft and fashion show

NM56/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Smith - Proposed footpath on the southern side of King Street

NM57/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Matson - Clarifying definition of Restaurants in LEP 1998

NM58/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Belleli - Future Eco Living Fairs at Prince Henry Community Centre

NM59/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Belleli - Free film festival at Prince Henry Community Centre

NM60/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Belleli - Multicultural (International) Event

NM61/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Belleli - History of Randwick

NM62/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Belleli - History Walk

NM63/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Nash - Chinese New Year Celebrations

NM64/09    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Councillor Nash - Hincks Street footpath  

 

Confidential

MM60/09   General Manager's Performance Review

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (a) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council

22 September 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP55/09

 

 

Subject:                  65 Melody Street, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/360/2009

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

The Planning Committee at its meeting on 8 September 2009 resolved (Matson/Hughes) that:

 

“…this development application be deferred to enable mediation between the applicant and objector with the intention or maximising solar light to the objector’s rear folding door/window structure.”

 

A mediation meeting was held on 9 September 2009 between the applicant and the owner of No. 67 Melody Street, Coogee.

 

Issues

 

At the mediation, the parties in question have reached an agreement as follows:

 

§ The applicant agreed to provide amended plan as attached; (The amended plan has removed the blade wall to the rear upper level.)

§ The applicant agreed to provide planting that will not create significant overshadowing from the planter box;

§ The objector agrees to withdraw his objection subject to Council approval.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction:  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The agreed changes to the design of the proposed development encompassed in the mediation are included in the recommendation.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/360/2009 for the demolition of the rear portion of the existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey addition with upper and lower level decks, new screens to the existing outbuilding and new landscaping works at 65 Melody Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

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

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the following plans:

Plan number                Dated                  Received

·      0913/DA01            June 2009         11 June 2009

·      0913/DA02            June 2009         11 June 2009

·      0913/DA04            June 2009         11 June 2009

·      0913/DA06            June 2009         11 June 2009

·      0913/DA07            June 2009         11 June 2009

·      0913/DA08            June 2009         11 June 2009

·      0913/DA09            June 2009         11 June 2009

·      0913/DA10            June 2009         11 June 2009

·      0913/DA11            June 2009         11 June 2009

·      0913/DA12            June 2009         11 June 2009

·      0913/DA13            June 2009         11 June 2009

·      0918/DA04            Sept 2009         9 September 2009

·      0918/DA19A          August 2009      4 August 2009

·      0918/DA05B          Sept 2009          9 September 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.     A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m is to be provided to northern edge of the ground level rear deck. The total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen. Details of compliance with this condition are to be provided on the construction certificate plans. 

 

3.     The privacy screen shown in the planter along the southern side of the upper level rear balcony is to be relocated along the planters’ northern edge or along the back of the seat. The privacy screen must have an effective height of 1.5m above the floor level of the upper level rear balcony. The total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans. 

 

4.     Only low rise planting must be provided to planter attached to the rear terrace at first floor level, so that it does not significantly overshadow the adjoining property to the south.

 

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

 

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

 

6.     Metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. colourbond) and form part of the colour scheme and external finishes for the development.

 

7.     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.

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

 

8.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

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

 

9.     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.

 

10.   The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

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

 

11.   Stormwater runoff from the redeveloped portion of the site shall be discharged to Melody Lane by gravity (without the use of a charged system).

 

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

 

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

 

Street Tree Management

 

13.   The applicant will be required to ensure retention of the Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum) located on Council’s Melody Street nature strip, towards the northern half of the site, and must ensure that:

 

a.       Any new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar that need to be installed over public property along this frontage, will be done so along the southern site boundary; and

 

b.       There shall be no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble within 2 metres of its trunk.

 

14.   A refundable deposit in the form of cash, credit card or cheque for an amount of $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 in the streetscape.

 

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 the 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, as per the requirements of 80A (6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Tree Management

 

15.   Approval is granted for removal of the following trees, subject to the planting of 1 x 25 litre/300mm (pot size at the time of planting) replacement tree (not a palm) within the rear yard of the site, selecting a species which will attain a minimum height at maturity of between 4-7 metres:

 

a)     One Plumeria acutifolia (Frangipani) in the front yard, should the applicant wish, as it is exempt from the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) due to being located inappropriately close to the southwest corner of the existing dwelling;

 

b)     One Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) in the rear yard, fronting Melody Lane (as has been shown), as it was observed to also be exempt from the TPO due to its inappropriate location close to the northeast corner of the garage/studio, as evidenced by the excessive pruning that has been performed to its southern aspect;

 

c)     One small Mangifera indica (Mango Tree) in the rear yard, along the southern boundary, in a small garden area within the landing of the studio’s stairs, for the same reasons as outlined above;

 

d)     One Plumeria acutifolia (Frangipani) in the rear yard (should the applicant wish), as it too is exempt from the TPO due to growing so close to the eastern edge of the existing dwelling, and may also be damaged during the course of demolition.

 

Tree Pruning

 

16.   Permission is granted for the selective pruning of only those lower growing, lower order branches that overhang the common boundary into the subject site and need to be specifically pruned in order to either avoid damage to the trees during the course of the works; or; to avoid future maintenance/nuisance issues upon completion, and includes:

 

a)     The northern aspect of the Brachychiton acerifolius (Illawarra Flame Tree), which is located in the rear yard of the adjoining property to the south, 67 Melody Street; and

 

b)     The southwest aspect of the Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda), which is located in the rear yard of the adjoining property to the north, 63 Melody Street.

 

17.   This approval does not imply any right of entry onto either neighbouring property, nor does it allow pruning beyond a common boundary; however, where such measures are desirable in the best interests of correct pruning procedures, and ultimately, the ongoing health of these trees, the applicant must negotiate with the neighbours/tree owners for access to perform this work.

 

18.   All pruning must be undertaken by an Arborist who holds a minimum of AQF Level III in Arboriculture, and who is also a registered member of a nationally recognised organisation/association, with all pruning to be performed to Australian Standard AS 4373-1996 'Pruning of Amenity Trees.’

 

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

 

19.   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;

 

20.   In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on a development cost of $500,000 the following monetary levy (1% of cost of works) must be paid to Council: $5,000.00.

 

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.

 

21.   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.

 

22.   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.

 

23.   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)

 

24.   23.   In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue an 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 an 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:

 

25.   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:

 

26.   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.

 

27.   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.

 

28.   In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (Building Code of Australia).

 

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

 

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

 

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

              

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

 

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

 

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

 

30.   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 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).

 

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.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

32.   In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 must be complied with.

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor (and a copy of the relevant Certificate of Insurance) or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council, in writing, prior to commencement of works.

 

33.   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.

 

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

 

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

 

35.   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.

 

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:

 

36.   Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional storey/upper floor addition.

 

37.   Demolition works and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change (formerly EPA) and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·    Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

·    WorkCover NSW Guidelines & Codes of Practice

·    Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·    The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·    Relevant DECC/EPA Guidelines

·    Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005)

 

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

 

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

 

The Demolition 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 (including removal of any asbestos)

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

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

·    Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials

·    Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·    Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must be provided to Council, not less than 2 days before commencing such works.

 

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

 

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

 

·    Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

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

·    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.

·    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.

·    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 2005.

·    A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council and the principal certifying authority immediately 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.

 

40.   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.

 

41.   In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 E of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that the adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times.

 

1)     If the development involves an excavation that extends below the level of the base of the footings of a building on adjoining land, the person having the benefit of the development must, at the person’s own expense:

 

a)     protect and support the adjoining premises from possible damage from the excavation, and

b)     where necessary, underpin the adjoining premises to prevent any such damage.

 

2)     The condition referred to in subclause 1) does not apply if the person having the benefit of the development consent owns the adjoining land or the owner of the adjoining land has given consent in writing to that condition not applying.

 

 

42.   A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer, building surveyor or other suitably qualified independent 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) are required 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.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

43.   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.

 

44.   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, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

A construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified person is to be implemented throughout the works, to the satisfaction of the Council.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of site works.

 

45.   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, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

If 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.

 

46.   A Construction Site Management Plan is to be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any 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 details.

 

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

 

47.   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 Landcom, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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 or Council prior to the commencement of any site works. 

 

48.   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 or 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.   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.

 

c.   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.

 

d.   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.

 

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:

 

49.   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.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1    Demolition, building or excavation work must not be commenced until;

 

·      A Construction Certificate has been obtained from Council or an Accredited Certifier

·      Council or an Accredited Certifier has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority for the development

·      Council and the Principal Certifying Authority have been given at least 2 days notice (in writing) prior to commencing any works.

 

Failure to comply with these important requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $1,500) for each offence.

 

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:-

 

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

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

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

 

A3    Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

A4    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

22 September 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP56/09

 

 

Subject:                  112-124 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Folder No:                   DA/736/2008/A

Author:                   David Mooney, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) application to modify the approved development by reconfiguring retail and residential units, altering unit mix, increasing the total number of residential units from 59 to 62

 

Ward:                      Central Ward

 

Applicant:                Fox Johnston

 

Owner:                         Kenthill Pty Ltd

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This section 96(2) application is referred to Council because the original application was determined by Council.

 

The approved development is for a mixed-use building up to 7 storeys with 410m2 of commercial floor space on the ground floor and up to 6 levels of residential units above. There are 59 units, with 15 studios, 18 x 1-bed units, 25 x 2-bed units and 1 x 3-bedroom unit. There are 2 levels of basement car-parking for 76 cars.

 

The proposed modifications are typical of post-consent architectural detailing and mainly involve minor internal reconfiguration. The proposed modification includes splitting 3 x 2 bedroom units into 6 x 1 bedroom units. This increases the parking demand by half a space and increases the parking space shortfall fall from 3.5 spaces to 4 spaces.

 

The proposed modifications do not materially change the approved development. The height, footprint and general configuration of the development remain substantially the same in compliance with section 96(2).

 

The proposal was notified to the adjoining landowners, advertised in the local press and the site sign-posted in accordance with Council Policy. There were no submissions from the public. Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposed increase in parking shortfall and does not object.

 

The Assessing Officer recommends approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposed modifications are typical of post-consent architectural detailing and mainly involve minor internal reconfiguration. The proposed modification includes splitting 3 x 2 bedroom units into 6 x 1 bedroom units. Table 1 is a full list of the proposed modifications.

 

Table 1 – A full list of the proposed modifications.

Location

Description

Basement 2

·      Revise fire hydrant pump room to add caretakers office and bathroom

·      Revise parking spaces 72-76 for structural pylon and add storage space at the back of each space

·      Add storage space adjacent to the vehicle ramp

·      Add storage space adjacent to the lift

Basement 1

·      Revise garbage room layout and add bin compactor

·      Revise parking spaces 33-36 for structural column

·      Add storage space adjacent to the vehicle ramp

·      Add storage space adjacent to the lift

·      Delete condition 59 for 3 car-wash bays and reallocate space for resident parking^.

Ground Floor

·      Revise garbage room layout and add hoist

·      Add storage space adjacent to the lift

·      Add entry gates to pedestrian entry off Ascot St and Anzac Pde

·      Revise Ascot St entry, core 2 lobby* and fire-stair and allocate recovered floor area (11m2) to shop

·      Revise core 1 lobby* and fire-stair

·      Add entry stairs to Ascot St shop frontage of shop 4

·      Divide shop 1into 2 shops and add a new entry stair from Anzac Pde for the new shop.

Block 1

·      Revise kitchen, bathroom and laundry configuration in units 4a, 13a and 22a. Also add BBQ to balcony

·      Flip bath and bed in units 1a, 2a, 3a, 10a, 11a and 12a

·      Add BBQ to main balcony of units 19a and 20a

·      Vertically flip 2 level apartment 21a so bedrooms are on entry level with living rooms above

·      Square off roof terrace

Block 2

·      Split 3 x 2 bed units 8a, 17a and 26a into 6 x 1 bed units 8a, 9a, 17a, 18a, 26a and 27a and add BBQs to each main balcony

·      Flip bed and study in units 6a, 7a, 15a, 16a, 24a and 25a and add BBQ to each main balcony

·      Reduce balcony size and add study to units 5a, 14a, 23a, 29a and 32a. Also add BBQ to each main balcony

·      Increase living room area and decrease balcony in units 28a, 30a, 31a, 33a, 34a and 37a. Also add BBQ to each main balcony

·      Re-configure west and north facing windows on top level

·      Add roof services; ducts, aerials and satellite dishes

Block 3

·      Flip study and bedroom in units 5b, 6b, 11b, 12b, 17b, 18b 22b, 23b, 24b and 25b

·      Reconfigure west facing windows on top level

Block 4

·      Revise bathroom, kitchen and laundry configuration in units 1b and 7b

·      Flip bathroom and bedroom in units 2b, 4b, 8b, 10b, 14b, 16b. Also add BBQ to each main balcony

·      Vertically flip unit 19b so that bedrooms are at entry level with living rooms above.

^ These modifications are not recommended for approval

* Core lobby revisions are also reproduced on each level

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

Made-up of 2 Torrens lots, the site has a 40m frontage to Anzac Pde and a 39m frontage to Ascot St. The site is slightly flood-prone and approximately level with a very slight fall to the south-west. Presently on the site there is an assortment of 2 storey buildings, generally with ground level retail stores below residential accommodation.

 

There is a Mobil service station to the north and there are 4 storey walk-up apartments to the north and east. There is a pair of semis to the north-east. The site is within the Kensington town centre.

 

4.    Site History

 

The approved development is for a mixed-use building up to 7 storeys with 410m2 of commercial floor space on the ground floor and up to 6 levels of residential units above. There are 59 units, with 15 studios, 18 x 1-bed units, 25 x 2-bed units and 1 x 3-bedroom unit. There are 2 levels of basement car-parking for 76 cars.

 

A lot-perimeter building, there are 7 storeys facing Anzac Pde, up to 6 storeys facing Ascot St and a 4 storey pavilion building flanking the northern side of a publicly accessible, internal courtyard.

 

The original development application was approved 10 February 2009 by the Planning Committee.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal was notified to the adjoining landowners, advertised in the local press and the site sign-posted in accordance with Council Policy. There were no submissions from the public.

 

6.    Section 96(2) Assessment

 

The application was submitted under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. Council may consent to a 96(2) modification where the modified development is substantially the same as the approved development.

 

The proposed modifications do not materially change the approved development. Though extensive in number the proposed modifications are typical of post-consent architectural detailing. The height, footprint and general configuration of the development remain substantially the same.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has been referred to the Randwick/Waverley Design Review Panel and internally to Council’s Development Engineer for comment.

 

Design Review Panel

·      The applicant has partly amended the plans and partly provided additional information to address the Panel’s comments. This section of the report gives a detailed account of the Panel’s comments, the applicant’s additional case and the Assessing Officer’s recommendation.

 

The Panel comments are reproduced in italics below. The applicant’s supporting case and the Assessing Officer’s assessment follows each of the Panel’s comments.

 

Design Review Panel: Ground Floor - One bed apartments in Block 1 should remain as shown in the approved DA as they provide more flexibility for the occupants and bathrooms can have natural light and ventilation.

 

Applicant: Our recollection from the Panel meeting was that there were varying points of view in relation to the merits of the approved versus the proposed layouts. It is considered that the proposed layouts represent an improvement as it allows for separation of the bedrooms from the living areas, thereby providing for better internal privacy and amenity. It is also considered that the proposed layouts provide for a more formal 1-bedroom layout which is considered to be superior to an open plan studio as such layouts have inferior visual and acoustic impacts as they do not allow for segregated rooms. The bedrooms also have direct access to light and ventilation being adjacent to the exterior breezeways, having highlight windows along their southern elevation, compared with the approved bedrooms which borrow their light and ventilation through the living space.

 

Assessing Officer: The difference between to the 2 layouts is very minor. The approved layout is on the left below and the proposed on the right. The Panel’s verbal discussion at their meeting concluded that both layouts have merit and could be supported. The Panel support exactly the same changes for units in block 4. The Assessing Officer agrees that both layouts have merit and recommends the proposed layout (on the right) be accepted.

 

 

 

Design Review Panel: Level 1 - One bed apartments in Block 4 could benefit from this revised layout as there would be some southerly aspect to be gained from high level windows in the bedrooms.  Some glazing to the wall above the wardrobe would enable the bathroom to gain some natural light.

 

Apartment 9a should extend across to the north face with a northern balcony. This will reduce the size of Apartment 8a. However, 9a is looking into a wall and will have reduced amenity in relation to access to direct sun.not get enough sun and therefore does not meet SEPP 65.

 

Generally - The reduction in the number of apartments that achieve cross ventilation is not supported (ie apartment 9a)

 

Assessing Officer: The plans were amended to reflect the Panel’s recommendation.

 

Design Review Panel: Level 3 - Apartments 19a and 20a could have a screened southern balcony rather than common garden bed which would require maintenance and could cause access, privacy and security issues

 

Applicant: It is agreed that the replacement of the common planter beds with balconies to Apartments 19a and 20a improve amenity to these apartments whilst reducing maintenance and security issues.

 

Assessing Officer: The planter beds adjacent to apartments 19a and 20a are already approved and are not part of the proposed modification. While the applicant may agree with the Panel, no additional plans have been provided and if they were, they would need to be notified to the adjoining owner. The Assessing Officer recommends the common planter beds remain as approved.

 

Design Review Panel: Level 4 - Block 2 - The details for the privacy screens between apartments and the position or amount of the sliding sunshading is not clear on the plans or elevation.   

 

Applicant: It has been advised that the dividing screen on levels 4 and 6 between units 28a/29a and 35a/36a will consist of a 1.5m high timber slatted screen. Such screen will provide suitable security, visual and acoustic privacy whilst also being unobtrusive from the public domain. It is considered that a condition should be imposed to require additional sunshading screens to Units 29a and 31a consistent with the degree of the screening along the western elevation to the other units. It is noted that the full elevation of each west-facing unit are not intended to be screened as the movable screens allow for shading when required and to avoid an adverse streetscape outcome (if the entire façade were screened).

 

Assessing Officer: There are approval conditions in the recommendation resolving these matters.

 

Design Review Panel: Level 5 - Apartments 20b and 21b could have a screened southern balcony rather than common garden bed which would require maintenance and could cause access, privacy and security issues.

 

The kitchen window to 19b could have some weather protection for southerly rain and sun-shading for late afternoon summer sun.

       

Block 2 - The details for the privacy screens between apartments and the position or amount of the sliding sun-shading is not clear on the plans or elevation.

 

Applicant: As with the amendments to Apartments 19a and 20a, it is agreed that balconies to the southern elevation provide a better design solution as it improves the internal amenity of the apartments and also allows for views to Randwick Racecourse along Ascot Street to the east. It is considered that weather protection is not required to the kitchen window of 19b as it would compromise daylight to that window while the inset of the window will provide adequate weather protection. No such requirement was identified to the approved bedroom windows which have a similar orientation and exposure.

 

Assessing Officer: The garden beds adjacent to units 20b and 21b are already approved and not subject to the modification application. While the applicant agrees with the Panel, the plans have not been amended and if they were they would need to be renotified. The kitchen window for unit 19b is also already approved and not subject to the modification application.

 

Design Review Panel: Level 6 - Cross ventilation and natural daylight to internal rooms should be provided to all apartments on the top floor through a well designed roof.

 

East facing glazing should be appropriately shaded from summer morning heat gain.

 

Applicant: The roof along the eastern side overhangs the eastern glazed components of the upper level which provides for suitable shading to the apartments in the morning. The incorporation of louvers in the upper parts of the glazed sections also allows for ventilation to the upper level units.

 

Assessing Officer: The roof and east facing windows are already approved and not subject to the modification application.

 

Development Engineer

The Development Engineer’s comments are reproduced in italics below. Recommend conditions are included in the recommendation to this report.

 

A Section 96 application has been received for deletion of condition 59 in DA consent 736/2008. Other amendments include a revised parking layout, provision of storage areas, garbage room, and various amendments to some of the units. This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

·      Amended architectural plans by Fox Johnston dated 21st November 2008;

·      S96 Statement of Environmental Effects dated June 2009

·      DA consent 736/2008

 

Deletion of Condition 59

Condition 59 in DA consent 736/2008 is as follows:

 

59.   Three covered car washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

The car washing bays must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

The car washing bays must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system.

 

The car washing bays must be signposted with ‘Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

 

The car washing bays must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bays (or equivalent)

 

A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bays.

 

The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects incorrectly states that condition 59 requires two car wash bays be provided.

 

Development Engineering does not support the deletion of Condition 59 although upon review of the reasons outlined in the Statement of Environmental Effects, Development Engineering will accept the deletion of two of the car wash bays while still retaining one car wash bay.

 

This acceptance of an amendment to Condition 59 in no way automatically includes the conversion of the spaces to resident carparking which is an entirely separate issue. The applicant has only addressed this aspect in one sentence of the SEE by stating that the re-allocation of spaces “will improve the non-compliance for resident parking and will provide for a more efficient use of the spaces”.

 

The original proposal was for 59 units including 20 x studio, 13 x 1 bedroom, 25 x 2 bedroom, 1 x 3 bedroom apartment and 410sqm of commercial space resulting in a parking requirement of 79.5 spaces including 14.75 of visitor spaces. The plans indicated 76 spaces resulting in a shortfall of 3.5 spaces.

 

In memo from Development Engineering dated 22nd January relating to the original DA the Development Engineering Coordinator John Flanigan stated in relation to this shortfall that ‘the visitor parking could be reduced to 11 spaces without having a significant effect on on-street parking during the peak commercial/office hours’.

 

The amended application has changed the number of apartments to 62 with the makeup of the apartments along with their required parking requirements now consisting of the following:

 

23 x studio apartments = 23 x 0.5 =11.5 spaces

21 x 1 bedroom apartments = 21 x 1 = 21 spaces

17 x 2 bedroom apartments = 17 x 1.2 = 20.4 spaces

3 x 1 bedroom apartments = 1 x 1.5 = 1.5 spaces

 

Visitor parking = 1 per 4 dwellings = 62/4 = 15.5 spaces

Commercial = 1 per 40m2 = 410/40 = 10.25 spaces

 

TOTAL REQUIRED = 80.15 spaces = say 80 spaces

TOTAL PROVIDED = 76 spaces

DEFICIENCY = 4 spaces

 

The overall parking requirement has only increased marginally and in light of the comments by John Flanigan and other aspects such as proximity to public transport, Development Engineering will not object to the conversion of two of the visitor parking bays to residential parking.

 

The overall parking arrangement shall then be as follows:

 

Residential = 55 spaces

Visitor = 11 spaces

Commercial = 10 spaces

TOTAL = 76 SPACES

 

The parking deficiency of 4 spaces will be totally absorbed within the visitor parking.

 

The Assessing Officer is advised that [a condition of consent is required] to ensure that carspaces be allocated according to Development Engineering requirements.

 

Amendment to parking arrangements

The Section 96 application seeks to slightly revise the parking layout. Spaces 72-76 on Basement level 2 and spaces 33-36 on Basement Level 1 will be shifted slightly. Storage areas will also be added to the rear of some of the spaces.  The amendments do not adversely affect car maneuverability, aisle widths and car space dimensions and thereby maintain full compliance with Australian Standard 2890.1:2004. There is no objection from Development Engineering on these amendments.

 

Ground floor amendment

The layout of the bin room has been revised to accommodate a platform hoist to enable the transfer of bins from the garbage room to the street level above. This is an improvement on the original plans and there is no objection from Development Engineering on this amendment. The bin rooms will also accommodate the Council required number of bins.

 

There are no other areas of concern or additional conditions required from Development Engineering.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The proposed modifications are not affected by the Kensington Town Centre development standards for maximum number of storeys, maximum height, minimum lot frontage, and minimum lot size. The modified proposal would also continue to satisfy the 3A General Business zone objectives.

 

Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2009

The Draft Plan carries over the Town Centre provisions of the existing Plan.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65.

The modification application was accompanied by the requisite Design Verification Statement. The application was also referred to the Randwick/Waverley Design Review Panel and their comments are assessed later in this report.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy: BASIX

The proposed modification was accompanied by the requisite BASIX certificate.

 

Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan

The proposed modifications are not affected by the building envelope or block by block controls. The proposal is assessed against the relevant provisions of the Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan in table 2.

 


 

Table 2 – Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan

Clause and objective

Assessment

4.5.2 On-site parking

Comply with Randwick City Council Development Control Plan Parking

The proposed parking arrangements have been assessed by the Development Engineer and are satisfactory.

4.6.3 – Building entrances

Create entrance which provide identifiable, desirable residential amenity and to orient visitors

Reconfiguration of building entry and circulation is minor and continues to satisfy the performance requirements.

4.6.11 – Solar Access

Minimise overshadowing and optimise solar access to habitable rooms

New 1 bedroom units 9a, 18a and 27 would receive adequate sunlight.

4.6.13 – Visual Privacy

To minimise direct overlooking and ensure adequate visual privacy.

No change to overlooking conditions. The Design Review Panel recommends some additional screening for units on levels 4 and 6 and the applicant has agreed to consent conditions for this matter.

4.7.2 – Apartment Layout

Apartment layouts are efficient and have high standards of amenity for residents.

All apartments are efficiently laid out and have suitably high standards of amenity.

4.7.3 – Apartment Mix

A mix of apartment types and size to accommodate a range of household types.

The new unit mix includes 42% studio and 1 bed units, 48% 2 bed and 1 bed + study units and 10% 3 bed and 2 bed + study units. This unit mix satisfies the performance requirements.

4.7.4 – Apartment Size

A high quality living environment; adequate room size consistent with the Residential Flat Design Code

The new 1 bed units satisfy the performance requirements.

4.7.9 – Stairs, lifts, Corridors

Adequate, safe and pleasant circulation space in which people can easily circulate.

Reconfiguration of building entry and circulation is minor and continues to satisfy the performance requirements.

4.7.10 – Storage

Storage for everyday household items.

The additional basement storage is acceptable.

4.8.4 – Natural Ventilation

Habitable rooms have sufficient airflow through them

New 1 bedroom units 9a, 18a and 27a have dual aspect.

4.9.3 – Private Open Space

To ensure that every apartment has a private, useable and functional open space directly off main internal living areas.

The balconies for new units 9a, 18a and 27a are adequately sized.

4.10 – Safety and Security

To ensure the development is safe; to encourage transparency; and maximise casual surveillance.

The new entry gates off Anzac Pde and Ascot St affect the safety and security of the development. Design details are lacking on the plans. The recommendation includes a condition detailing the appropriate design parameters for the gates

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:               Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Key Action:               Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The approved development is for a mixed-use building up to 7 storeys with 410m2 of commercial floor space on the ground floor and up to 6 levels of residential units above. There are 59 units, with 15 studios, 18 x 1-bed units, 25 x 2-bed units and 1 x 3-bedroom unit. There are 2 levels of basement car-parking for 76 cars.

 

The proposed modifications are typical of post-consent architectural detailing and mainly involve minor internal reconfiguration. The proposed modification includes splitting 3 x 2 bedroom units into 6 x 1 bedroom units. This increases the parking demand by half a space and increases the parking space shortfall fall from 3.5 spaces to 4 spaces.

 

The proposed modifications do not materially change the approved development. The height, footprint and general configuration of the development remain substantially the same in compliance with section 96(2).

 

The proposal was notified to the adjoining landowners, advertised in the local press and the site sign-posted in accordance with Council Policy. There were no submissions from the public. Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposed increase in parking shortfall and does not object.

 

The Assessing Officer recommends approval subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the responsible Consent Authority grant consent under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/736/2008 by reconfiguring retail and residential units, altering unit mix, increasing the total number of residential units from 59 to 62 in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No 1 to read:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA08B to DA24B, received by Council on 27 January 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 and as modified by plans numbered DA08C to DA10C and DA19C received by Council 22 June 2009, and DA20C to DA22C received by Council 2 July 2009 and DA11D to DA13D received by Council 28 August 2009, and DA16, DA17, DA23 and DA24 received by Council 3 September 2009 only to the extent outlined on the plans and described in the application, except;

 

·      re-allocation of the car wash bays and visitor parking for residential use is not permitted by the section 96’A’ approval. The Construction Certificate plans must show the previously approved parking allocation, as modified by the amendments to condition 59 specified in the section 96’A’ approval.

 

Amend Condition No. 59 to read:

 

59.   One covered car wash bay shall be provided for this development.

 

The car wash bay must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

The car wash bay must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system.

 

The car wash bay must be signposted with ‘Exclusive Carwash Bay Use Sat 2:00pm – 5:00pm and Sunday 10:00am – 2:00pm, Visitor parking at other times’

 

The car wash bay must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bays (or equivalent)

 

A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car wash bay.

 

Insert the following Conditions after Condition No. 132:

 

133.    The entry door to the garbage room on basement level 1 must be relocated so that it does not open directly onto the adjacent parking space (car space no. 36). Design details must be shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

 

134.    Design details for the new metal entry gates on the ground floor must be submitted to Council for approval before a Construction Certificate is issued. The design must incorporate evenly spaced openings for at least 50% of the surface area of the gates (with some allowance for style). The design must also allow the gates to open the full width of the entry-way. The approved design must be shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

 

135.    The entry gates on the ground floor must be locked fully open between 7am and sunset every day.

 

136.    Design details for privacy screens between units 28a/29a and 35a/36a, and sun-shading screens for units 29a and 31a must be submitted to Council’s Director of City Planning for approval before a Construction Certificate is issued. The approved design must be shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

 

137.    Plans submitted for the construction certificate must reflect the following parking allocation for the development.

 

·      66 spaces for the residential component of the development including a minimum of 11 spaces for visitor parking.

 

·      10 spaces for the commercial component of the development.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

22 September 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP57/09

 

 

Subject:                  686-688 Anzac Parade, Kingsford

Folder No:                   DA/1103/2007/A

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 (1A) application to delete condition 4 of consent

 

Ward:                      West Ward

 

Applicant:                Zacvest Pty Ltd

 

Owner:                         Greek Orthodox Parish of South Sydney

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The Section 96(1A) application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Procopiadis, Tracey and Bowen.

 

The application seeks to delete condition 4 of development consent which required the colour scheme of the building to be approved by Council.

 

The main issue is the impact upon the surrounding environment as a result of the painted external colour of the building.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The original approval DA/1103/2007 was granted subject to conditions including condition 4 which stated;

 

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

 

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

 

A sample of the proposed external building colour was submitted to Council on the 5th February 2009 which nominated the external colour as Dulux ‘Blue Pointer’.

 

The nominated colour was refused by Council on the basis that the proposed colour was not consistent with the established development pattern and character of the locality which is predominantly of dwellings finished with face brickwork, painted rendered brickwork or weatherboard cladding in earth, sandstone or terracotta colours.

 

The advice from Council was that a new colour scheme be submitted for consideration.

 

A revised colour scheme was not submitted and the building has been painted the previously nominated ‘Blue Pointer’

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is on the south western corner of Anzac Parade and Bass Street and is occupied by an existing two storey building comprising a retail area at ground level, and three commercial uses and two residential dwellings within the upper level.

 

The retail space at ground level is currently operated as a liquor store.

 

Immediately surrounding the site is residential development comprising of a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings.

 

4.    Site History

 

Approval was granted on the 20th March 2008 for alterations to the existing bottleshop including a new entry courtyard off Bass Street, the replacement of the existing lean to structure on the northern wing of the building, new advertising signs and external building colour. That approval also detailed minor internal changes to the commercial and residential uses within the first floor level.

 

5.      Section 96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 96(1A) of the EP & A Act (as amended), Council may only agree to amend an existing development consent if the following criteria have been complied with:

 

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.

 

The proposed development is substantially the same development as there will be no fundamental change to the overall scope and nature of the approved use.

 

6.      Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance the DCP – notification. No responses have been received.

 

7.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The proposal is consistent with the general aims of the RLEP 1998 and the proposed development is considered to be relatively consistent with the context of the existing development. The site is zoned Residential 2A under the RLEP 1998 and the assessment of the original application determined that the site benefits from existing use rights under the provisions of Section 106 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

8.      Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

The subject building is the only mixed use within the immediate locality which contains residential uses with a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings all of which are characterised by having external colours and finishes of earth coloured muted tones. The painting of the building a colour that is so out of character with the established residential buildings results in this building being visually prominent and obtrusive and will detract from the local streetscape.

              

The applicant has stated in separate correspondence that this colour is necessary to differentiate and advertise his business particularly as there is a very large liquor store on the opposite side of Anzac Parade.

 

It is considered that the painting of the building a more sympathetic colour in keeping with the nearby and adjoining buildings, in conjunction with the existing approved advertising signs to this building would not impact upon this business as the building is already very prominent in the locality given that it is erected right up to the Anzac Parade frontage and it would be almost impossible to drive towards this building and not be aware that it is a liquor store.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 8:       A strong local economy.

Direction8a:       The proposal will contribute positively to the diversity of business opportunities and the survival of small businesses in the City of Randwick.

 

Conclusion

 

The deletion of condition 4 of consent which required the approval of the external colour scheme and permit the colour of the building to remain as painted without Council approval will result in an adverse impact upon the locality and the application is recommended for refusal.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to Development Application 1103/07/A for permission to modify development consent and delete condition 4 for the following reason:

 

1.         The building is within an established residential area and is characterised by dwellings which predominantly are finished with face brickwork, painted cement render and timber cladding which are of muted earth, sandstone or terracotta colours. The approval of the external colour scheme is necessary to ensure that the colours used will not detract from the established character of the locality.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

22 September 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP58/09

 

 

Subject:                  162 Brook Street, Coogee

Folder No:                   DA/496/2009

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to existing multi unit residential building including glazed enclosures across entrance landings on 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels and over courtyard and entrance to unit 3

 

Ward:                      East Ward

 

Applicant:                Strata Plan 73053 The Owners Corporation

 

Owner:                         Strata Seal 73053

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The proposed development is for the installation of glass enclosures to landings along the southern elevation of the existing residential flat building over levels 2, 3 and 4. The total area of these enclosures amounts to approximately 15sqm. The proposal also includes the installation of a glass awning structure over the entrance of unit 3 located at the rear south western corner of the building. The proposed development is set away from street level. The current floor space ratio (FSR) of the residential flat building on site is 0.994:1 and the proposed development results in an FSR of 1.01:1 which does not comply with the standard for maximum FSR (0.9:1) for residential flat buildings located on 2C zoned land under Clause 32(1) of the Randwick Local Environment Plan 1998 (RLEP).

 

The proposed FSR has a 12.2% variation to the standard and the Department of Planning requires applications with greater than 10% variations to development standards to be referred to Council for determination.  The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 32(1) of RLEP is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

The proposed development will present a uniform approach along the southern elevation, the works are limited to the southern side elevation across a limited portion of the flat building which is set well away from street level, the works do not protrude beyond the conceptual envelope of the existing building, it does not enclose any areas of private open space for any of the dwellings on site and therefore would not result in any appreciable adverse amenity impacts on the nearby premises or streetscape.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposed development is for the installation of glass enclosures to landings along the southern elevation of the existing residential flat building over levels 2, 3 and 4. The total area of these enclosures amounts to approximately 15sqm. The proposal also includes the installation of a glass awning structure over the entrance of unit 3 located at the rear south western corner of the building.

 

Aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area

3.    Site History

 

DA/555/2001:  Demolition of the existing dwelling house, construct and strata subdivide a multi-unit housing development comprising 5 dwelling units and basement car parking for 14 cars.

 

DA/555/2001/A: Section 96 modification deleting conditions no.11 & 19, and various other minor alterations.

 

CC/272/2002: Erection of 5 residential units with basement parking.

 

SC/48/2003: Boundary adjustment of land as requested by Land Titles prior to strata subdivision.

 

SC/129/2004: Strata Subdivision of the RFB into 5 lots.

 

4.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received.

 

5.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

Building Services comments

 

Alterations to the existing 5 storey residential flat building to provide additional aluminium framed glazed weatherproofing to the southern side of the building.

 

BCA Building Classification

Class 2 – Residential units

Class 7a- Carpark

 

Description of the Building

In summary, the building incorporates:

 

§ A ‘rise in storeys’ of 5

§ Masonry walls, tiled roof and concrete floors

§ One external exit stairway, of concrete construction

§ A total of 5 sole occupancy units

§ External balconies

§ Side boundary building setbacks of up to approximately 2500mm.

 

Key Issues

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

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

 

Site Management:

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

 

6.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Brook Street. The site is presently occupied by strata titled multi-storey residential flat building containing 5 units. The site is rectangular, and the site rises steeply over the Brook Street footpath level which means the most visible section of the development along the footpath is limited to the entry stairs and garage entrance. The whole site has a frontage width of 18.29 metres, side boundaries measuring 39.725 metres and 39.765 metres and an overall site area of 729.3m². The site has a similar configuration and topography of other properties along this stretch of Brook Street.

 

Neighbouring the property to the south is a residential flat building (in a dilapidated state). Adjoining the site to the north is a multi dwelling unit with consent to develop the property for the purposes of a residential flat building. The surrounding area is residential in character and contains a mixture of dwelling houses and small to large scale multi unit residential developments. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

7.    State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

 

The proposed development results in a floor space ratio of 1.01:1 which is above the standard of 0.9:1 for buildings other than dwellings located within 2C zoned land under Clause 32(1) of the Randwick Local Environment Plan 1998 (RLEP). The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with clause 32(1) of RLEP is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection the following matters are addressed:

 

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

The floor space ratio control in question is a development standard contained in RLEP.

 

2.      The purpose of the standard, as outlined in RLEP, is:

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

 

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

The aims and objectives of SEPP No.1 are to:

 

“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 objects 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 variation from the floor space ratio control is not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP No.1 and would not detract from the objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii), specifically, in that the resultant development would maintain and promote the orderly and economic development of the subject land.

 

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

It is considered that the proposed development achieves the purpose of the standard in that:

 

·      The proposal maintains the existing front elevation features and merely provides protection from the elements to patio entry landings along the southern elevation.  

 

·      The bulk of the development is set well away from street level and located behind existing stairs and will not be immediately evident from the street level or result in a dominating influence in respect to neighbouring properties.

 

·      Although the additional bulk will be noticeable from the southern adjoining property there would be no adverse amenity impacts in respect to solar access or amenity in that the glass enclosures are set behind existing stairs access to these units and will not protrude beyond the existing building line along the southern elevation.

 

·      There would be no public benefit in ensuring compliance with the development standard in this particular instance given the proposed development merely seeks to improve functionality through design without resulting in significant increase in bulk which would result in any appreciable increase in adverse amenity impacts.

In view of the above it is considered that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

5.      Whether the objection is well founded

The applicant has submitted the following arguments in support of the SEPP No. 1 objection:

 

·      There is no loss of light or natural air for residents or for surrounding properties

·      The increase in enclosed floor area is 15 sqm, which is on the current common property

·      The proposed development is essential for preventing window-driven rain from entering the individual lots, and for preventing the entrance doors from warping (which has already happened)

·      The proposed development is not visible form the street and is only partly visible from properties on the southern boundary

·      There is no environmental effect which would create additional adverse impact on surrounding properties

·      The proposed development does not add to the already enclosed envelope of the building and it merely provides for an improvement of the use of the existing floor area and therefore the application of the standard is unnecessary in this case.

 

The applicant’s SEPP 1 objection is considered well-founded for the following reasons:

 

·      The footprint of the building is relatively unchanged by the proposal as the additional floor space occurs in an area that is partly covered; it is located away from street level and the adjoining southern property. It would therefore not result in any appreciable increase in adverse impact on nearby and adjoining developments in terms of reduced solar access or obtrusive elements.

 

·      The building as originally building was approved and built with an FSR of 0.998:1 and the additional floor space of 15m² is largely insignificant in that it does not result in a significant increase to the building bulk.

 

·      The additional FSR does not result in an intensification of use and the proposed development meets the purpose of the development standard which states development “…should provide for reasonable levels of development.” In this case, the use of enclosed patio space and provision of an awning over the entrance to unit 3 provides improved amenity without creating any adverse impacts.

 

On basis of the above, it is considered that the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection to the maximum floor space ratio of 0.9:1 is well founded as the proposed development satisfies the purpose of the standard and that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.

 

8.    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 – Multi Unit Housing

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned No. 2C (Residential C Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Clause 12 2C zone

The proposal is consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will not detract from the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

Clause 32 Floor Space Ratio

Clause 32 (1) sets out minimum standards for the Floor Space Ratio of developments other than dwelling houses on land zoned 2C. This clause relates to multi unit housing and is therefore applicable. The maximum floor space ratio for development is this type within the 2C zone on a site area greater than 700m2 is 0.9:1. In this respect the proposed development for the enclosure of the patio stair landings at levels 2, 3 & 4 measuring approximately 15m2 increases the floor space ratio from 0.994:1 up to 1.01:1 and does not comply as shown in the table below. The standard is exceeded by 12%, however this relates to the FSR of the existing building on the site, and the proposal will only result in a further variance of only 1.6%.

 

 


 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 (1)– Maximum Floor Space Ratio  Zone 2C

The maximum floor space ratio for anything other than a dwelling within the 2C zone is 0.9:1.

Floor space ratio of 1.01:1

No1

 

1Objection under SEPP No. 1 provided in support of non-compliance – see above.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plan No. Multi unit housing

 

Building Design

The increased density to the site merely proposes an improvement to the functional use of the individual units. Further, the glass enclosures and awning provided to unit 3 will not pose any privacy concerns and the setbacks observed to the front, rear and side boundaries will be not contravene or protrude beyond the existing predominant building lines observed along the street and the existing side and rear boundary setbacks. Further still, the increase in enclosed areas does not reduce areas of open recreational spaces afforded to each individual unit. This means that there is no effective change to the levels of landscaping in terms of private open space and levels of permeable landscaping to the site, no change to the external wall heights, no additional privacy impacts, and the proposed development will maintain safety and security principles as existing rooms overlook the street.

 

Overall, the proposed development is considered to comply with the performance requirements and objectives of the Multi unit housing DCP.

 

8.2 Council Policies

 

Section 94A Development Contributions for all applications lodged from 2 July 2007:

This application is EXEMPT from a levy under Council’s s94A Development Contributions Plan as it falls into the category of works with a cost of development less than $100,000.

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

9.1      The provisions of the Regulations - S79C (1) (a)

The application has been processed in accordance with the relevant matters pertaining to the provisions of the EP&A Regulations 2000.

 

9.2      Likely impact of the development - S79C (1) (b)

The proposal is for the enclosure of small patio areas and an awning structure located away from street level and substantially contained within the building envelope. The additional built form will not result in any significant impact in terms of overshadowing, overlooking or loss of views. Subject to compliance with the proposed conditions there should be no significant adverse impact on items of natural, environmental or physical structures on site or surrounding developments.

 

9.3      The suitability of the site for the development – S79C (1) (c) 

The proposed development is considered suitable for the site having regard to relevant planning matters such as the aims and objectives of the 2C zone, the non-compliance with the maximum floor space ratio standard and the scale of developments within the immediate locality. The proposed development is also suitable having regard to building design requirements contained in Councils’ Development Control Plan for Multi Unit Housing. The existing flat building will continue to present a bulk and scale that is compatible with those on surrounding allotments.

 

9.4      Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations - S79C (1) (d)

Not relevant.

 

9.5      The public interest – S79C (1) (e)

The proposed development of the site to accommodate additional floor area merely involves work improving the functionality of the units and does not alter its appearance or use from the public domain.

 

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 purpose of the floor space ratio standard is to ensure the bulk and scale of the development is compatible with the surrounding development. Given the proposal will be located within the building envelope and will not be immediately noticeable from the street level and will not significantly alter the bulk and scale of the existing building, the deviation from the standard in this instance is considered to be acceptable. In other words, the development will not become a distracting or prominent structure on the streetscape or from the adjoining properties.

 

Overall, the proposed FSR is considered acceptable and recommended for approval on the basis of the following:

 

·      The proposal predominately maintains the existing front elevational features maintaining similar visual interest.

 

·      The bulk of the development is set well above street level and will not be immediately evident from the street or dominate the existing or surrounding developments.

 

·      The additional bulk will only be noticeable from the southern adjoining property however it should be noted that this site contains a dilapidated building and were it not, the proposed development is set well away from the side boundary that it would not result in any appreciable adverse amenity impact on the adjoining properties.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

A      That Council support the objections under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clause 32(1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1988, relating to Floor Space Ratio, 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/496/2009Alterations and Additions to existing multi-unit residential building including glazed enclosure over entrance landings on 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors and over courtyard and entrance to unit 3for at 162 Brook Street, Coogee subject to the schedule of conditions outlined in this report:

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered S-96 03, S-96 04, S-96 05, S-96 09, S-96 10; all received by Council on 22 July 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:

 

the following conditions are recommended to be applied to satisfy relevant legislative requirements and to provide reasonable levels of health, safety and amenity:

 

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

 

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

 

3.     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.

 

4.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

5.     Prior to the commencement of any building or ‘fit-out’ 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 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

 

6.     Prior to the commencement of any building or ‘fit-out’ 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.

 

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

 

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

 

9.     Any 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.

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

 

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

 

In addition, the use of any rock excavation machinery or the like is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum) on Monday to Friday only.

 

11.   Public health, safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition and building works and the following requirements must be complied with at all times:

 

a)     A sign must be provided and maintained in a prominent position, 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”.

 

b)     The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, trip hazards, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

c)     Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other materials or articles 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.

 

d)     Bulk bins, waste containers or other articles 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 or other articles in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

e)     During demolition and construction, 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 Landcom, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

f)     Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to any demolition and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted. If necessary, a temporary safety fence or hoarding is to be provided to protect the public. 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.

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or items upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or any public place, a Local Approval application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services department beforehand. Details and plans are to be submitted with the application, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted Pricing Policy.

 

g)     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.

 

The requirements and practices contained in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant DECC Construction Noise and Vibration Guidelines are to be satisfied and a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan is to be developed and implemented throughout the works to the satisfaction of Council.

 

ADVISORY

 

A1      The assessment of this development application does not include an assessment of the proposed building work under the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

All new building work must comply with the BCA and relevant Australian Standards and details of compliance must be provided in the Construction Certificate application.

 

Building owners, applicants and builders are advised to speak to the appointed Certifying Authority prior to lodgement of the Construction Certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

22 September 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP59/09

 

 

Subject:                  24 Stephen Street, Randwick

Folder No:                   DA/485/2005/E

Author:                   Matthew Choi, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) Modification of approved development to replace the screening on the deck of the eastern side of the dwelling from timber to opaque glazing and to delete condition 10 relating to privacy.

 

Ward:                      North Ward

 

Applicant:                JPH Architectural Drafting

 

Owner:                         Mrs S G Harvey and Mr M D Harvey

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination as the original application was determined by Council.

 

The proposal seeks to modify the approved development consent by replacing the screening on the deck of the eastern side of the dwelling from timber to opaque glazing and to delete Condition 10 which details the installation of translucent or frosted glass on the relocated window of bedroom No.2.  

 

No objections have been received as a result of notification of the proposed modifications.

 

It has been demonstrated in this report that the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCPs for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies have been satisfied. It is considered that the proposed modification will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the character of the locality.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

This application seeks to make a design modification, along with the deletion of a condition of consent. The proposed modifications are outlined as follows:-

 

·              Delete Condition No. 10 regarding the installation of translucent or frosted glass on the relocated window of bedroom No.2 which reads as follows: -

 

To increase visual privacy to the adjacent dwellings, the “relocated” ground floor windows on the eastern elevation, nearest to bedroom No. 2, shall be of frosted or translucent glass on the lower half of the window. The lower half of the ground floor bathroom windows are to be fitted with frosted or translucent glass”.

 

The proposed modifications to replace the existing privacy screen on the eastern side of the dwelling with opaque glazing and to delete condition 10 relating to a relocated window at ground floor level in bedroom No.2 will not substantially alter the form of the dwelling as viewed from neighbouring properties and is considered suitable development for the site.  

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is known as No. 24 Stephen Street, Randwick. The site is located on the eastern side of Stephen Street and Monmouth Street intersection. The site is Lot no. 2, in Deposited Plan 506197.

 

The northern boundary of the site fronts Stephen Street and has a length of 6.35 metres. The eastern and western boundaries have lengths of 49.2 metres.

 

The overall site is rectangular in shape and has a total area of 259.3 metres².

 

The site slopes gently from the northern boundary rising up to the southern boundary, with a difference in height of approximately 4 metres over the length of the site. It is relatively flat from the eastern to the western boundary.

 

The site currently accommodates a two storey semi-detached dwelling and is part of a pair comprising nos. 22 and 24. The pair is part of a cohesive group of single storey semi-detached cottages including nos. 18-28 Stephen Street. Each of the cottages within the group is set well back and elevated above the street, with a sandstone retaining wall to the front boundary. The cottage retains much of its original character including timber and ironwork façade.

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of residential flat buildings and semi-detached and free standing dwellings of varied ages and architectural styles.

 

Neighbouring the property to the west at No. 22 Stephen Street is the adjoining semi-detached dwelling, to the east is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling house and to the rear is a single storey dwelling house. All properties are part of North Randwick’s heritage conservation area.

 

The site is located in close proximity to a number of Heritage Items; to the west nos. 10, 12 and 14 Stephen Street are a pair of late Victorian terraces and Edwardian style corner houses on the corner of Stephen Street and Monmouth Street, to the east on 18-20 Stanley Street is the former little sisters of the Poor Chapel, Novitiate and “Aston Lodge” and to the North on nos. 55, 57, 59 and 61 Earl Street is a pair of Timber Cottages constructed in 1910.

 

4.    Site History

 

The following Development Applications have been lodged for this site:

 

DA/485/2005

The current approval detailed alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including a new first floor addition, a new eastern side entrance and works to the rear private area and front yard fence. 

 

DA/485/2005/A

Approval was granted for the modification of the previously approved development to remove the south-western rear chimney flue along the shared boundary wall of No.22 Stephen Street. Condition No.11 of the current consent as part of DA/485/2005 was also amended to indicate only frosted or translucent glass to be erected along the stair/hall windows and not the northern facing windows of the first floor rear study.

 

DA/485/2005/B

Approval was granted for the modification of the previously approved development to construct a recessed balcony on the northern elevation and the relocation of the rear retaining walls.  

 

DA/485/2005/C

Approval was granted for the modification of the previously approved development to vary the type of material used to shade the light at the front of the dwelling from “Artex” Aluminium louvres to a Terracotta coloured “Solits”.

 

DA/485/2005/D

Approval was granted for the modification of the previously approved development to change the location of the garbage bin storage area and to change the colour of the front façade.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification from the period of the 28th of July 2009 to the 11th of August 2009. As a result of this notification no submissions were received.  

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has been referred to Council’s consultant heritage planner for comment and there are no objections to the proposed privacy screen which will give no impact on the streetscape of the conservation area.

 

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 259.3m² and a master plan is not proposed for this type of development.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

8.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

Clause 10 – Zone no 2A (Residential A Zone)

The proposed amendments will continue to meet the objectives of the Residential 2A Zone, which include ‘maintaining the character of established residential areas’ and ‘not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas’. The proposed modifications will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

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

The subject site is located within the North Randwick Conservation Area. 

 

Under Clause 43 of the RLEP, Council must consider the likely effect of the proposal upon the significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area. This requires Council to take into consideration the extent of the proposed development with respect to pitch and roof form, style, size, proportion of any window and/or door openings and texture of any materials to be used on the exterior of the building.

 

Having regard to these matters, there are no objections to the proposed additions.

 

8.2      Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008

 

The Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008 had been placed on public exhibition. The proposal is not inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the draft RLEP 2000

 

8.3 Council Policies

 

8.3.1   Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

Visual privacy

The proposal includes a change to the window openings on the eastern elevation.

 

The proposed window to bedroom No.2 will not significantly alter existing privacy levels and as such is not expected to result in a major privacy impact on neighbouring dwellings. The window is associated with a lower use room and is off-set to avoid any significant viewing into the adjacent property.

 

8.4      Section 96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the proposed works are substantially the same development.

The proposed works will not significantly alter the proposal and therefore can be assessed pursuant to Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

a)      The Provisions of the Regulations – S79C(1)(a)

The application has been processed in accordance with the relevant matters pertaining to the provisions of the EP&A Regulations 2000.

 

b)      Likely impact of the Development – S79C(1)(b)

Given that the relocated window situated in bedroom 2 on the eastern side of the dwelling is offset from the neighbouring windows and is to a low-use room’ Condition No. 10 is recommended for deletion. Council’s heritage planner also commented that there were no objections to the proposed privacy screen as it is not visible from the streetscape given the subject site is located within the North Randwick Conservation Area.

 

c)      The Suitability of the site for the development – S79(1)(c)

The site has been assessed as being suitable for dwelling housing purposes in the original development consent granted by Council. The current proposal does not involve any changes to the floor space, built form or landscaped area provision of the approved development. The modified development will not result in any detrimental environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, and is considered to be within the public interest.

 

d) Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations

No objections have been received by neighbours or the immediate adjoining residents of No. 22 Stephen Street in regard to the relocated window or replacing the privacy screening on the eastern ground level deck from timber to opaque glazing.

 

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 proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and objectives and performance requirements of the Dwelling and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP. The proposed modification to the original development consent satisfies Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, in that it will constitute substantially the same development. Approval of the modification will not result in any significant additional impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape. It is therefore considered that the modification to the original development consent is reasonable.

 

 

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/485/2005 to replace the screening on the deck of the eastern side of the dwelling from timber to opaque glazing and to delete condition 10 relating to privacy for 24 Stephen Street, Randwick in the following manner:

 

A          Amend Condition  No. 1 to read:

 

The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 01, 02, 03, 04 & 05, dated 6th of September 2005 and received by council on the 5th of September 2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the:

 

·      Section 96 ‘A’ plans dated 25th October 2005 and received by Council on the 26th October 2005, and,

·      Section 96 ‘B’ plans dated 17th July 2006 and received by Council on the 21st of July 2006, and,

·      Section 96 ‘C’ plans dated 17th of July 2006 and received by Council on the 29th of January 2007, and,

·      Section 96D plans numbered Drawing 1, dated 28th of July 2008 and received by Council on the 31st of July 2008, and,

·      Section 96E plans numbered Drawing 1 and Drawing 2, dated 22nd of July 2009 and received by Council on the 23rd of July 2009   

 

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       Delete Condition No. 10

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

22 September 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP60/09

 

 

Subject:                  59 Holmes Street, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/795/2008/A

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) - Modification to the approved development consent by raising the height of the front and side boundary fencing and altering the front car port

 

Ward:                      East Ward

 

Applicant:                Mrs S Berman

 

Owner:                         Mr I F Carroll

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.      Executive Summary

 

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

 

The subject Section 96 “A” application was lodged on 22 July 2009 and seeks to modify the original determination made under delegated authority on 22 January 2009. The original determination included approval for a front fence that was 1.2m high.

 

The modifications sought under this Section 96(2) application relative to the original determination include the following:

 

·           Modification of the front fence from a 1.2m high fence to a 1.65m high fence comprising a solid brick component at the lower portion and a horizontal timber slated component (retaining 50% openings) above. The applicant has since accepted an amended fence form having regard to the issues outlined below.

·           Modification of the carport design by increasing the profile of the roof and posts.

 

The main issue is that the combined modifications to the carport and front fence will increase the bulk and scale of the development and its presentation in the streetscape.

 

Fence

In respect to the fence, a number of objections have been received regarding the proposed modifications and it is noted the objectors immediately adjoining the subject site have raised no objection to a 1.5m high open designed fence. The applicant however is only willing to compromise by reducing the height to 1.55m (with the upper section being 50% open designed vertical timber slats) with the piers being 1.65m. It is considered there is no real difference between the objectors and the applicants accepted heights, and an argument could not be sustained to limit the height of the fence to 1.5m as opposed to 1.55m particularly given there are examples of more recent front fences attaining heights of 1.55m and the proposed mostly open design to the upper portion will ensure that the fence does not compromise the streetscape. As a result, the amended fence design, (1.55m high fence with the upper 750mm portion being 50% open, and brick piers to a height of 1.65m), is supportable taking into account the relatively new fences constructed along Holmes Street and its compliance with Councils DCP solutions.

 

Carport

In respect to the carport however, the proposed modifications would dominate the dwelling and the streetscape as it is forward of the building line and takes up a large portion of the sites frontage. These existing non compliances were only considered acceptable and approved in the original application on the basis that the carport had a light profile and there were some examples of recent light profile carports within the street. However, the proposed modifications seek to increase the profile of the carport’s roof and posts which would unnecessarily exacerbate the streetscape issues of bulk and scale.

 

Overall, it is recommended that the only changes to the carport should be the provision of front gates; and that a suitable condition be included restricting the fence to a maximum height of 1.55m with the upper section being 50% open with allowance for the  brick piers to have a height of 1.65m.

 

1.      The Proposal

The modifications sought under this Section 96(2) application relative to the original determination include the following:

 

·           Modification of the front fence from a 1.2m high fence to a 1.65m high fence comprising a solid brick component at the lower portion (800mm) and a timber slated component above (retaining a 50% void). Note: The applicant has agreed to an amended design whereby the brick piers retain a height of 1.65m, the lower 800mm portion is solid and the upper remaining portion reaches a maximum height of 1.55m above the lowest ground level and is 50% open.

·           Modification of the carport design by increasing the profile of the roof and posts. Note: The applicant has accepted the deletion of the carport from the application subject to the front gates being approved.

 

2.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Holmes Street between Garden and Cooper Streets and is presently occupied by an existing single storey semi-detached dwelling. The site has a frontage width of 9.233m. The subject site has a side boundary 30.836m. The overall site area is 285.68m².

 

Neighbouring the property to the west is the adjoining semi detached dwelling and to the east is a semi detached dwelling. The surrounding area is predominately residential in character and consists of a mixture of semi’s, single and two storey free standing dwellings.

 

3.      Site History

 

Maintained as a residential property.

 

4.      Community Consultation

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

 

Owner/resident of 61 Holmes Street (2 letters)

Issue

Comment

Will the signatures obtained by the applicants influence the Councils decision to approve or reject the subject application

Whilst the signatures from nearby residents have been considered in the assessment of the application, they do not significantly influence the recommendations made as the recommendation is largely made on the basis of the proposals compliance with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies involving.

 

Can the letters be used as evidence to support the case for the application.

These letters of support have been addressed in the relevant sections of this report and given sufficient weight. In respect to the Council meeting, the report may be tabled to this meeting if it is called up by at least three Councillors whereby one representative supporting the application and one representative objecting to the application is able speak for 3 minutes to present their views.

 

Raising the height of the fence will reduce visibility when reversing from our driveway.

Whilst it is acknowledged the fence is rising to a height above sight lines adjacent to driveways, it is considered that provided the upper portion is at least 50% open (as conditioned in this report), the proposal affords reasonable sightlines having regard to the fact the property is within a residential area exhibiting for the most part low traffic and pedestrian volumes, and care should always be exercised when entering and leaving a driveway.

 

Holmes Street is characterised by low open front fences and yards and the proposed fence would detract from that character and represent significant bulk.

Whilst it is acknowledged the proposed amended 1.55m high fence would not match the low lying fences on the immediately adjoining sites, it is considered that the amended fence design conditioned in this report (with the panelling being 50% open) will not compromise the amenity of the overall streetscape in Holmes Street, and will be consistent with other fences in the area such as Nos 1 31, 35, 40, 42, 43, 46, 60, 66, 68, 72, and 76 Holmes Street.

 

The proposal fails to locate private open space behind the building line

The proposed amended 1.55m open designed fence maintains casual surveillance between the street and dwelling. Further, the open design means that private open space is not relied upon to the front yard.

 

 

Owner/resident of 57 Holmes Street

Issue

Comment

Proposed fence is out of keeping with many fences in the street which are around 1.2m.

Whilst it is acknowledged the proposed amended 1.55m high fence would not match the low lying fences on the immediately adjoining sites, it is considered that the amended fence design conditioned in this report (with the panelling being 50% open) will not compromise the amenity of the overall streetscape in Holmes Street, and will be consistent with other fences in the area such as Nos 1 31, 35, 40, 42, 43, 46, 60, 66, 68, 72, and 76 Holmes Street.

 

The proposed fence would impact on views from the front

The objectors sill height rises to approximately 1.2m, it is not considered the amended fence to a height of  1.55m which is relatively open would affect any direct views but rather indirect side views.

 

Does not reinforcing the common design or the symmetry between the semis

It is acknowledged there are some examples where the symmetry between semi detached dwellings exists along Holmes Street. However, it is not considered that allowing for the fence to be increased in height by 350mm will significantly compromise the appearance of the semis. There are already various differences between the subject semi and the neighbours semi such as the carport approved to be sited in front of the building line. It is unreasonable to require the proposed/amended front fence to be low lying particularly where the proposed fence is fairly similar to recent fences built in front of semi detached and single dwellings on Holmes Street.

Moreover, other semis within Holmes Street exhibit differences and variations such as treatments to their facades and openings at street level which tends to signify that the area does not necessarily have a rich tradition for maintaining the symmetry of semi detached dwellings.

 

Increased fence would reduce morning light

There are no significant concerns that the increased height of the fence by 350mm would result in any significant loss of light to the objectors premises.

 

Examples of fences attaining a height of between 940mm and 1320mm

Whilst it is acknowledged these examples exist within the street, it is considered that similar examples of fences between 1.5m and 1.6m could also be found. On balance, it is considered that the proposed amended 1.55m high fence is acceptable on the basis that the majority of newer fences within the locality are at the higher end of the scale and the design is consistent with the DCP building design guidelines for fences.

 

 

Owner/resident of 63 Holmes Street

Issue

Comment

Complaint regarding the  request to sign a letter of support

Whilst approaching neighbours regarding a proposed development is encouraged particularly before a development application is lodged, it is considered the extent of influence from neighbours letters of support or non objection are overstated. Whilst they do form part of the assessment process they do not override the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The main reason is that neighbours and owners may change in the short term and the development or structure proposed has the potential for impact long after neighbours or adjoining owners move away.

 

The proposed fence will detract form the open character of the neighbourhood.

Please see comments under previous objectors concern the proposed fence would detract from the character of the locality.

 

 


5.2 Support

 

Owner/resident of 59 Holmes Street (the applicant),

Issue

Comment

Holmes Street is characterised by high front fences

It is not considered that Holmes Street is characterised by High front fences but rather where new developments or renovations have occurred there are examples of high front fences.

 

Ensure safety for children as it is intended to use the front and rear for recreational open spaces, whereby the north facing front yard will be able to be used through the year.

Whilst it is acknowledged the northern aspect of the front yard may be usable throughout the year, the fact that it is not behind the building line contravenes several performance requirements and objectives of the DCP. In particular, the DCP states that private open space should be behind the building line, which is where rear yards are generally able to provide both privacy and security. Further, by seeking private open space in the front yard by virtue of a 1.65m high fence, it would also contravene the intent of ensuring front yards are mostly open so that there is a view to and from street level. Further, where high structures are located along the front boundaries, it tends to reduce the level of casual surveillance and security to and from the street. For example, if anyone were to jump over the fence it would mean that they would be shielded from street view. Similarly, where a potential crime is to be committed at street level, it is more likely to occur in front of a property with a high fence where a casual view of the street is not afforded.

In communicating the abovementioned issues to the applicant they raise no objection to the following amendment to the fence form:

“timber panelling replaced with 50% open vertical slats (which are more difficult for children to climb over) and brick piers to 1.65m”.

It is considered this suitably addresses the relevant performance requirements and objectives under Section 4.8 of the Dwelling Houses and attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

 

Strangers will be able to watch the children in the front yard and in the front rooms. Closing blinds would increase the cost of electric lighting.

As indicated above, there are inherent difficulties with locating private open space at the front yard particularly as it conflicts with building design and crime prevention objectives. In respect to getting dressed or undressed, shielding ourselves from the public realm is a given and the period of time required for a light to be switched on while getting dressed is unlikely to result in any significant increase in electricity costs.

 

Development at the army base metres away will attract an increase in pedestrian traffic and undesirables

A separate DCP is applicable to the Bundock Street Defence site and the density of development within the site has been the subject of widespread discussion with various stakeholders. Any increase in pedestrian traffic is unlikely to result in any significant adverse amenity impact on the surrounding streets such as Holmes Street. In respect to undesirable persons, it is not considered that they can be linked in any reasonable way with the development of the Bundock Street site.

 

 

Increase in height of fence to keep the children from climbing over the fence onto the street.

To address these concerns, the applicant has indicated that they would prefer vertical slats. No objections are raised to this modification and conditions have been included to support this amendment.

 

The proposed fence fits in with Councils preferred solutions

Given the narrowness of the subject site and the fact that a carport is approved to be located forward of the building line, it is considered the proposed 1.65m high fence would exacerbate issues of bulk and dominance along the street. Whilst the agreed 1.55m height represents only a 10cm reduction in the height of the fence, it is considered to be in line with the more recent fences built in closer proximity to the subject site and it would represent less dominance.

 

 

Pro forma letter signed by the following residents in Holmes Street:

·      43 Holmes Street

·      45 Holmes Street

·      47 Holmes Street

·      51 Holmes Street

·      67 Holmes Street

·      69 Holmes Street

·      71 Holmes Street

·      100 Holmes Street

·      102 Holmes Street

·      104 Holmes Street

·      108 Holmes Street

·      110 Holmes Street

 

Issue

Comment

Pro forma letter indicating no objection to proposed 1.65m high fence    

Whilst it is acknowledged there are a number of letters received from residents in the locality, it is considered that the originally proposed 1.65m fence is excessive in terms of height. Based on discussions with the applicant there are no objections to an amended fence form where it is restricted to a maximum height of 1.55m, designed so that the slats are 50% open, brick piers allowed to 1.65m and an open style gate to the carport.

 

 

Owner/resident of 59 Holmes Street, Maroubra

Issue

Comment

Front yard should have a 1.65m high fence to protect us and restrict climbing over.

See comments above under Owners letter of support

 

High fence will keep noise away from neighbours

The fact the fence is mostly open is not considered to provide any reasonable buffer of noise. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that noise associated with a residential use is not a significant concern.

 

 

High fence will protect from a kidnapping

A 1.65m high fence is unlikely to restrict an adult from kidnapping a child.

 

 

5.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

-      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

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

-      Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP 1998) and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Clause 10 Residential 2A zone

The proposed modifications to the carport are not considered to be consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed built form will adversely impact the amenity of the area in respect to bulk and scale. In respect to the front fence, it is considered that a condition limiting the height to 1.55m (where the upper 750mm is 50% open) is acceptable having regard to the objectives of the RLEP 1998.

 

5.1 Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and attached dual occupancies

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

 


Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

The proposal seeks to provide private open space in the front yard. Does not comply – see assessment below.

 

The Objectives of the DCP with regard to landscaping are dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation space. The Performance Requirements are that the size and dimensions of landscaping suit the needs of the occupants; location and design of open space takes advantage of aspect for year round use; planting does not obstruct or interfere with entries; and unpaved areas are maximised to allow stormwater infiltration.

 

The proposed modification seeks to provide private open space to the front yard which is at the northern side of the site and allows for year round use, however given this area is located forward of the building line it would contravene the preference for locating private open space behind the main building line.

 

The main issue is that the properties rear yard can easily accommodate a functional area of private open space for year round use and the originally proposed fence would detract from and dominate the existing dwelling and the streetscape. In addition, a fence of this height would not satisfy the safety and security objectives and the principles of crime prevention, whereby properties should afford casual surveillance of the street.

 

In response to the above-mentioned issues, the applicant has agreed to amend the fence design to a maximum height of 1.55m with the upper 750mm being 50% open and where only the brick piers are allowed to 1.65m in height. It is considered this amended design represents more appropriate integration with Councils, performance requirements and objectives under the DCP having regard to landscaping, private open space, safety and security and fencing.

Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

A 1.65m high fence was originally proposed for the reasons outlined above. The acceptance of a reduction in height to 1.55m and a 50% open design to the panelling (upper 750mm) integrates with more recent fences built along Holmes street and therefore complies with the objectives under the DCP.

In respect to integration, whilst it is acknowledged that the amended fence form remains higher than the low lying fences on adjoining properties, it is not considered that Council could sustain an argument that the proposed fence should be restricted to these low lying fence forms mainly on the basis that the amended fence is relatively similar to more recent fences erected along Holmes Street. Complies with performance requirements and objectives.

S1

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

 

Generally, the Objectives and Performance Requirements for fences in the DCP are to ensure that front fencing is integrated with the streetscape and is compatible with the appearance of the dwelling and any established local fence form and material.

The originally proposed fence to 1.65m presented a bulk and scale that was not in keeping with the scale of the dwelling or the established fence form and is mostly higher than recent fences along Holmes Street. In this respect, the original proposal was excessive in height and combined with the modifications to the carport would not integrate with the existing and desired presentation along Holmes Street and would therefore result in non compliance with the objectives and performance requirements under the under the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP.

The applicant agreed to an amended design whereby the height is reduced to 1.55m, the solid component is restricted to 800mm in height and the upper portion is made up of vertical timber slats that are 50% open. It is considered this amended form complies with the design solution objectives and performance requirements in that it is similar to the more recent fences built along Holmes Street and does not significantly exacerbate the bulk and scale of the original carport located forward of the building line.

With regard to the extension of the front fences along the side boundaries, it is considered that the amended design (detailed above) complies with Councils preferred solutions; it does not represent excessive bulk or result in any significant impacts on the neighbours in terms of sight lines having regard to the low density residential properties that prevail within Holmes Street or result in any significant overshadowing or significant adverse impacts on neighbours and the subject dwellings outlook to and from the street.

Overall, it is considered the proposed fence form (as conditioned) meets the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP’s for Dwelling Houses and attached Dual Occupancies.

Carport

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S2

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

The approved carport is located in front of the building line. Considered acceptable having regard to light profile.

S2

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

The approved carport occupies about 43.3 % of the width of the site frontage. Considered acceptable having regarded the light profile of the carport.

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

The proposed modifications to the profile of the carports roof and posts are considered unacceptable having regard to the combined modifications proposed to the fence and its appearance along the streetscape.

It is therefore recommended that the proposed modifications to the carport be deleted from the recommendation as it is not considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP regarding Carports. No objections are raised to an open form gate consistent with the front fencing being provided at the driveway entrance for security purposes.

 


5.2 Council Policies

 

Section 96 Assessment

 

Substantially the same

Council may only approve an application under section 96(2) of the Act if “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) under this section”.

 

The proposed modifications remain within the scope of the original application.

 

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.

 

6.1      The provisions of the Regulations - S79C (1) (a)

The proposed section 96 application has followed the relevant regulations pertaining to the provisions of the EP&A Regulations 2000.

 

6.2      Likely impact of the development - S79C (1) (b)

The proposal for the modification to the fence will not result in any significant built form which would have any unreasonable or significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties or the majority of the streetscape having regard to sight lines and more recent developments along Holmes Street. In particular, there will not be any immediate impact in terms of overshadowing, or loss of views from the proposed modifications to the development. Subject to compliance with the proposed conditions there should be no significant adverse impact on adjoining properties in relation to natural, environmental or physical structures on site or surrounding developments. The proposed amendments to the carport will result in an unnecessarily bulky structure in the streetscape and are not recommended for approval.

 

6.3      The suitability of the site for the development – S79C (1) (c) 

The site is zoned residential 2A and is suitable for the proposed development.

 

6.4      Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations - S79C (1) (d)

The owners of the adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. The submissions received as a result of this notification have been considered under Section 5 - Community Consultation

 

6.5      The public interest – S79C (1) (e)

The proposed modifications to the development to accommodate a higher fence form will be relatively consistent with fences on more recently developed sites within Holmes Street.  Whilst it is noted there is a significant number of letters supporting the original development for a 1.65m high fence, it is considered these do not take into consideration the developments appearance within the streetscape, crime prevention principles and appropriateness of locating private open space in the front yard. In respect to the objections received from the adjoining owners, it is considered that their acceptance of a 1.5m high open designed fence does not significantly differ from the applicant’s acceptance of a 1.55m high open designed fence and an argument for recommending refusal based on the existing low lying fences on adjoining sites cannot be reasonably sustained for the reasons outline in the body of this report.

 

Overall, it is considered the amended fence form represents suitable integration with more recently built fences along Holmes Street.

 

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

 

Whilst it is acknowledged there are low lying fences along Holmes Street, the proposed amended design reducing the overall height to 1.55m with the upper portion remaining 50% open is considered acceptable having regard to examples of more recent fences constructed with Holmes Street. The proposed amendments to the carport however are considered to contribute to unnecessary bulk and are not supported.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

 

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/795/2008 for permission to modify the approved development consent by modifying the front and side boundary fencing and providing a gate to the front carport at 59 Holmes Street, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plan numbered 4913.1 (Issue B), dated 1/12/08 and received by Council on 3 December 2008, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 “A” plan numbered 4913.1, Issue F, dated 21/7/09 and received by Council on 22 July 2009, only in so far as it relates 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:

 

Add the following conditions:

 

46.     The proposed amendments to the front carport (excluding the provision of front entry gates) shall be deleted from the approved plans. This condition has been included as the proposed modifications to the carport are inconsistent with the aims of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and do not satisfy the relevant objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions of Part 4.7 Garages, Carports and Driveways of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies. The increased profile of the carport roof and posts would exacerbate the siting of the carport forward of the building line, dominate the dwelling behind and adversely impact the streetscape.

 

47.     The proposed carport gates shall be constructed from vertical slats which are at least 50% open. Details of the proposed gates (including materials and colours) shall be submitted to and approved by Councils Director of City Planning prior to the gates being installed.

 

48.     The proposed fencing located on the front and side boundaries forward of the building line shall be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·      The fence shall be a maximum height of 1.55 metres, excluding the brick piers shown on the submitted plans which may be up to 1.65m high as proposed; and

·      The horizontal timber slats shall be replaced with vertical slats which are at least 50% open. (Note: The solid brick portion of the fence must not exceed the bottom 800mm).

 

Amended plans demonstrating compliance with this condition and providing the colours and materials of the proposed fence shall be submitted to and approved by Councils Director of City Planning prior to construction of the fence.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

22 September 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP61/09

 

 

Subject:                  Reporting variations to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) from 1 August to 31 August, 2009

Folder No:                   F2004/06768

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in November 2008 advising Councils to adopt additional procedures in relation to the administration of SEPP No.1. The additional measures are largely in response to the ICAC inquiry into Wollongong City Council. Those additional measures are:

 

1)     Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP 1;

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP 1 to be determined by full council (rather than the general manager or nominated staff member);

3)     Providing a report to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP 1;

4)     Making the register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP 1 available to the public on council’s website.

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all SEPP 1s approved in the period from 1 August to 31 August 2009.  Two (2) SEPP 1s were approved during this period both was determined at Planning Committee and Ordinary Council meetings. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b:      New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP 1 objections. This report is in response to one of those requirements whereby a report is provided to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP 1. 


 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

22 September 2009

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP62/09

 

 

Subject:                  Cultural Community Grants Program September 2009 Assessment Round - Recommended Allocations

Folder No:                   F2009/00182

Author:                   David  Briant, Senior Social Planner      

 

Executive Summary

 

Council at its meeting on 28 April 2009 endorsed the establishment of the Cultural Community Grants Program, together with Guidelines for administering it. This new program was designed to replace community requests for in-kind and cash grants distributed under the Councillor Contingency Funds. The purpose of the Cultural Community Grants Program is to support creative arts and cultural projects that encourage community participation and/or promote a vibrant City. The Program is also linked to actions and strategies identified within Council’s Cultural Plan, A Cultural Randwick City 2008-2018.

 

In total, 31 applications seeking a total of $188,747.90, (in-kind and cash) were received for this September assessment round.  The inaugural Cultural Community Grants Program 2009/10 has been allocated a budget of $105,000, to cover the two funding rounds. Applications recommended for funding are listed in Attachment 1 of this report. Applications not recommended for funding are listed in Attachment 2.

 

This report recommends that 16 organisations receive funding totalling $67,993 comprising $27,220 in cash and $40,773 in-kind (fee waiver), leaving a balance of $37,000 left to be allocated in March 2010. As summer months are usually the busiest period for organised community events and activities, the amount of the proposed allocation is not an unreasonable split (65:35 approx) between the two assessment rounds. All applicants will be advised about the outcomes of their application whether they are successful or not. Upon request, feedback will be provided to unsuccessful organisations and they will be encouraged to apply next year, if appropriate.

 

Background

 

Policy Context: Role of the Cultural Community Grants Program

 

Randwick City Council provides an extensive range of community and social welfare services to its residents, in keeping with the Department of Local Government’s social planning requirements. In addition to its advocacy, community development and information provision functions, Council provides financial assistance to community organisations to improve their capacity to deliver much needed services to residents in need. Council provides financial assistance in a number of ways, through its:

 

1.     Community Partnerships Funding Program which has an annual budget of about $143,000. (Attachment 3)

2.     Rental Subsidy Program, currently valued at nearly $950,000 per year, whereby service providers renting Council’s premises pay substantially discounted market rents. The value of the rental discounts enable savings to be directed towards the provision of core services.(Attachment 4)

3.     Annual Donations to Surf Clubs and Off-Shore Boat Rescue $150,000.

4.     Cultural Community Grants Program, the subject of this report, will see the allocation of about $105,000 annually (2 assessment rounds per year). The aim of this program is to assist residents and not for profit organisations to implement a range of cultural activities and events that encourage participation and/or promote social inclusion.

 

The total value of Council’s annual social/community development programs expenditure described above is $1.363 million.

 

Council also administer and manage the Randwick Community Development and Support Expenditure (CDSE) Scheme, on behalf of the Scheme’s Executive Committee.  Every year, the Scheme allocates in excess of $300,000 to local not-for-profit community organisations.  This year, a total of $313,267 was distributed to over 50 organisations. (Attachment 5).

 

Cultural Community Grants Program 2009/2010 – September Assessment Round

 

The inaugural Cultural Community Grants Program 2009/2010 commenced on 16th June 2009. The Program was promoted in the local media, on Council’s website and through local community networks. Previous recipients of the Councillor Contingency Funds were sent letters advising them of the new funding framework. In addition, council officers held an information session for community organisations to explain the new funding framework. There is no maximum amount of funding available per project. The onus is on the applicant seeking assistance to provide the necessary information when filling out their application form.

 

The Cultural Community Grants Program has two assessment rounds per annum, in March and September. (Applications received up to 31 August will be assessed in September; applications received after 31 August and up to the last day of February will be assessed in March). Funding is awarded to not-for-profit organisations or community groups. The resulting activities or events must be based in Randwick City. Applicants may seek grants from Council as an in-kind contribution only (waiver of Council fees and charges), cash contribution only or a combination of in-kind and cash contribution.

 

The Program requires and expects a high level of accountability from funding recipients. As part of the funding acquittal process, all recipients who have received cash grants will be required to provide evidence that the activity or event was held as per the funding application, including provision of receipts accounting for the expenditure of funds. This is a major change from the Councillor Contingency Funds which required no form of acquittal to be completed by recipients.

 

Assessment of Grant Applications

 

The assessment process was undertaken by a panel of council officers with expertise in community services, governance and grants administration. Two Council Officers from adjoining councils (Waverley and Woollahra) also participated on the panel. Both officers have expertise in community/ cultural development and grants administration, and offered important insights into a number of the applications from organisations based outside of Randwick City e.g. they were able to identify some applications that have already received funding from their councils. The panel met over one full day to assess the applications and to determine which applications should receive full, partial or no funding.

 

All applications were assessed for compliance with the program’s funding priorities and guidelines, and the organisation’s capacity to deliver the program outcomes. Each application was accompanied by a completed assessment sheet and assigned a numerical score and a priority ranking of A, B or C based upon the recommendations of the panel. A copy of the assessment form is contained in Attachment 6.  Priority levels are detailed below:

 

·           Priority A: High priority for funding. The project is consistent with program funding priorities and has special weighting and compares well with other applicants.

·           Priority B: Possibly if sufficient funds. Application meets eligibility criteria however the project proposal may lack adequate detail or be poorly targeted.

·           Priority C: Does not meet the eligibility criteria.

 

Through this assessment process, a total of 16 organisations are recommended to receive funding totalling $67,993, comprising of $27,220 in cash and $40,773 in-kind (fee waiver) for the September assessment round.  This leaves a balance of $37,000 for allocation under the March 2010 assessment round. As summer months are usually the busiest period for organised community events and activities, the amount suggested here represents a reasonable split (65:35 approx) between the two assessment rounds. All applicants will be advised of the outcomes of their application whether they are successful or not. Upon request, feedback will be provided to unsuccessful organisations and they will be encouraged to apply next year, if appropriate.

 

Proposed transitional arrangements

 

Council has recently received a number of requests from community groups shortly after the September assessment round, seeking in-kind contribution (waiver of scheduled fees) of values less than $500.00 to hold community events in Council parks or reserves. These community groups have not previously sought assistance from Council, and may not have been aware of the new cultural community grants framework. The activities they propose to hold over the next few months are consistent with the grants guidelines. However, since they have missed the September assessment round, these community groups are somewhat at a disadvantage. To resolve this issue, Council could put in place temporary arrangements whereby requests from community organisations for fee waiver could be accommodated, without the need to prepare reports to Council, until the end of the calendar year. As timing in decision making is critical, it would be prudent to assign authority to the Mayor and General Manager to approve all written requests that meet the following circumstances:

 

·      Applies only to in-kind contribution (waiver of council fees) not exceeding the value of $500.00

·      Proposed activities would otherwise meet the program’s funding guidelines

·      Activities must take place before the end of March 2010

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

Direction 2b:      A range of cultural, sporting and leisure activities.

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

Increase public art, performance spaces and opportunities for creative

expression across our City.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no additional financial impact as the recommended applications are within the approved annual budget of $105,000. In relation to the funding of requests processed under the transitional arrangement, this will be accommodated in a separate budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The Cultural Community Grants Program plays an important role in providing cultural events and activities that contribute towards vibrancy and social cohesion within Randwick City. Following a rigorous assessment process of applications against program criteria and guidelines, the panel has recommended 16 organisations to receive funding totalling $67,993 in the September round. The proposed transitional arrangements take into account that this is the inaugural funding round and some organisations are still adjusting to the new funding framework.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     Approve funds totalling $67,993 to be allocated to the organisations listed in the table in attachment 1;

b)     Endorse the transitional arrangement described in this report to take effect immediately until 31 December 2009; that delegated authority be given to the Mayor and General Manager to grant approval to requests that meet the following circumstances;

i)    Applies only to in-kind contribution (waiver of council fees) not exceeding the value of $500.00

ii)   Proposed activities would otherwise meet the program’s guidelines.

iii)   Activities must take place before the end of March 2010, and

iv)  Requests for assistance must be in writing.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Cultural Community Grants September 2009 - Applications Recommended for Funding

 

 

2.View

Cultural Community Grants September 2009 - Applications not Recommended for Funding

 

 

3.View

Community Partnerships Funding Program 2009/10

 

 

4.View

Rental Subsidy Program

 

 

5.View

Randwick CDSE Scheme - Successful Applications 2009

 

 

6.View

Cultural Community Grants Assessment Form - Template September 2009

 

 

 

 

 


Cultural Community Grants September 2009 - Applications Recommended for Funding

Attachment 1

 

 

2009/2010 CULTURAL COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project & Description

Amount

Requested

  Cash        In kind

Score

Rank

Cash Recommended

In kind

Recommended

1

Alexandra Harrison

Dark, not too dark

Waiver of fees to use Malabar Community Hall as rehearsal space for 6 hours per week (approx) for up to 12 months to develop a solo dance piece in exchange for work-in-progress showings for the community, developing relationships with local high schools and providing artist talks.

 

$0

$18,720

13

A

$0

$6,000

2

2 Women Dreaming

Mugadung Dreaming

Grant to showcase urban Aboriginal contemporary Art at Prince Henry Community Centre which would help to generate a greater connection between Randwick City and Aboriginal members of La Perouse and the local surrounding areas.

 

$1,100

$0

12

A

$1,100

$0

4

Australia Day Botany Bay Regatta Committee

Australia Day activities on Botany Bay

Grant for cost of prizes for the Australia Day Regatta. This is an annual contribution by Council which should more appropriately be funded through the Councillor Contingency funds.

 

$750

$0

13

A

$750

$0

5

Australian Centre for Photography

The Shack Photography Workshop

Grant to hold a 12 week digital photography workshop targeting disengaged youths.

 

$13,692

$0

13

A

$10,000

$0

7

Coogee Chamber of Commerce

Coogee Family Fun Day 2009

Waiver of fees to hire Goldstein Memorial Reserve; stage for performers; and to supply and erect a street banner.

 

$5,000

$14,681

13

A

$0

$14,681

8

Coogee Surf Life Saving Club

Express Glass Island Challenge

Waiver of fees to hire Coogee beach on 29 November 2009 to hold the 10th annual Express Glass Island Challenge which is the first ocean swim of the season. The event attracts a large number of competitors and spectators to the area.

 

$0

$2,630

14

A

$0

$2,630

9

Coogee Surf Life Saving Club

Coogee Carnival

Waiver of fees to hire Coogee beach to hold Coogee surf lifesaving carnival on 6 February 2010. The carnival includes surf boat, board and swim events which are a part of the culture of Randwick City.

 

$0

$1,810

14

A

$0

$1,810

12

Junction House Inc

International Day of People with a Disability (IDPWD) Dance Party

Waiver of fees to hire auditorium at Prince Henry Community Centre or other appropriate venue to hold a dance party for people with disabilities.

 

$870

$1,290

11

A

$870

$1,290

13

Kingsford Chamber of Commerce

Sir Charles Kingsford Smith mosaic portrait

Grant for artist’s fees to construct a mosaic mural on the theme of Sir Charles Kingsford Smith. The mural will add to the amenity of the local area and also help to prevent graffiti and other antisocial behaviour.

$10,000

$0

14

A

$5,000

$0

15

Maroubra Bodyboarders

Hire of Maroubra Beach

Waiver of fees to hire Maroubra beach to hold nine body boarding events between March and November 2010.

 

$0

$4,050

12

A

$0

$4,050

18

Radio Eastern Sydney Cooperative Limited

 

Straighten Up & Fly Right

Grant to hire a jazz band, stage, sound and lighting, and waiver of fees to hire Arthur Byrne Reserve on 6 December 2009. As part of the day Kite Magic will also have a kite display and kites available for children to purchase.

 

$5,000.00

$1,000

14

A

$2,000

$0

22

Southend Boardriders

Hire of Maroubra Beach

Waiver of fees to hire Maroubra beach for winter competitions each month from March to October 2010. The organisation caters for families and young people in the community and promotes a safe, active and healthy lifestyle.

 

$0

$3,745

14

A

$0

$3,745

24

St Mark’s Anglican Church Malabar

Carols by candlelight 2009

Grant to hire a generator, sound, stage and lighting, and waiver of Council fees including garbage bins, toilets and administration.

 

$7,095

$2,000

9

B

$2,000

$1,000

25

St Paul’s Anglican Church

Carols by the sea 2009

Waiver of hire fees for Grant Reserve Rotunda and grounds. This is a combined church and community event with all other expenses met by the church or through other funding sources.

 

$0

$1,300

11

A

$0

$1,300

30

UNSW Community Development Project

South Coogee Art Project

Grant for artist’s fees to work with 20 young people from the South Coogee Housing Estate on a mural project. This project will provide art instruction to young people on how to express themselves creatively in a positive way and provide an alternative to anti social behaviour.

 

$7,878

$0

14

A

$5,500

$0

31

Waverley Randwick Philharmonic Society Inc

 

WRPS 2009/2010 Season

Waiver of fees to use auditorium at Prince Henry Community Centre or other suitable venue for rehearsals in exchange for performances for the community. 

 

$4,000

$6,400

14

A

$0

$4,267

 

Total Recommended for funding

 

 

$27,220

 

$40,773

 

 


Cultural Community Grants September 2009 - Applications not Recommended for Funding

Attachment 2

 

 

2009/2010 CULTURAL COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

 Cash        In kind

Score

Rank

Cash Recommended

In kind

Recommended

3

Academic Department for Old Age Psychiatry Prince of Wales Hospital

 

Public Seminar “Brain Plasticity – its never too late to change your brain” – Council does not provide funding to State Government departments.

 

$1,000

$0

C – project does not meet funding guidelines

$0

$0

6

Coogee Care Centre Inc

 

Digital Media Project targeting children 5-12 years – Funding request to purchase digital camera equipment does meet funding guidelines.

 

$5,000

$0

C – project does not meet funding guidelines

 

$0

$0

10

Guriwal Aboriginal Corporation

 

Community Christmas Party for disadvantaged Aboriginal children in La Perouse

 

$8,200

$0

8

B

$0

$0

11

Guriwal Aboriginal Corporation

 

La Perouse Native Plant & Nursery – working with community members to plant bush tucker garden - The project targets a high need area within the local community but requires additional work to identify and secure project partners. Council’s Community Project officer (Aboriginal) will be working with Guriwal Aboriginal Corporation to refine this project, with potential links to employment program.

$20,000

$0

C – project does not meet funding guidelines

$0

$0

14

Kingsford Legal Centre

 

An Aboriginal Art Competition – This project aims to increase ATSI interest in the law and accessing legal services.

 

$1,000

$0

7

B

$0

$0

16

Maroubra Communicators

 

Hold monthly meetings of Maroubra Communicators, a public speaking club providing coaching in public speaking skills

 

$900

$0

4

B

$0

$0

17

Prince Henry Hospital Trained Nurses Association Inc

 

Back to Prince Henry – An Open Day at the museum, to help with the cost of activities - There was insufficient time for Council to process the Back to Prince Henry application before the event was due to be held i.e. projects will not be funded retrospectively.

 

$1,500

$0

C – project does not meet funding guidelines

NA

NA

19

Randwick and District Art Society

 

Grant to pay for incorporation of Randwick and District Art Society

 

$1,000

$0

4

B

$0

$0

20

Randwick College of TAFE

 

Video documentation by TAFE students of The Shack Photographic Competition

 

 

$4,620

$0

4

B

$0

$0

21

South East Neighbourhood Centre

 

Urban Aboriginals – Aboriginal Family focused project and Christmas party. The assessment panel was unclear about the aims and objectives of the organisation.

 

 

 

$4,460

$0

4

B

$0

$0

23

St Andrew’s Catholic Church

 

Pere Receveur Mass – Grant to hire marquee as part of annual Pere Receveur Mass at La Perouse. The assessment panel was of the view that the Pere Receveur Mass should not be recommended for funding because it did not meet the program’s funding guidelines i.e. funding will not be provided for festivals or cultural activities held specifically for and participated by a single ethnic/interest group. The Mass is a religious prayer event for Catholics.

 

$2,678

$0

C – project does not meet funding guidelines

 

$0

$0

26

Surfing NSW

Surfing in Spirit – a surfing and art combined event to bring together Indigenous, non Indigenous and Islander groups to Maroubra beach for a surfing session, art demonstration and lunch. Suring NSW received funding for a similar project through the CDSE grants program in 2009.

 

$0

$4,600

7

B

$0

$0


27

Sydney Multicultural Community Service

 

Learning Through Diversity – Homework Support and Parenting for CALD Families – Project does not meet funding guidelines and the organisation received significant CDSE grant funding in 2009.

 

$9,900

$0

C – project does not meet funding guidelines

$0

$0

28

The Little Bay Coast Centre for Seniors Inc

 

Coast Centre for Seniors Open Day 2009 to attract disadvantaged groups from outside the Prince Henry development to join the organisation - The assessment panel was of the view that the Coast Centre for Seniors should partner with Council’s Community Project Officers to identify disadvantaged groups within the community and work together on strategies to bring them into the organisation rather than hold a one off day.

 

$4,000

$0

10

B

$0

$0

29

The Shack Youth Services Inc

 

Randwick Drama Project - Although the Randwick Drama Project scored highly, the panel considered that the Shack will already benefit by being a partner in the Shack Photography Workshop Project, which has been recommended for $10,000 funding. The Shack has also received substantial CDSE funding in 2009, in addition to other grant funding it already receives from Council.

 

$6,878

$0

11

B

$0

$0

 

 


Community Partnerships Funding Program 2009/10

Attachment 3

 

 

2009/2010 COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS FUNDING PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project & Description

Amount Requested

Recommended Amount

Years of Funding

1

Bondi Beach Cottage Inc

Smart Start

Playgroup sessions for children aged 0 to 2 years and a newborn group for babies 0 to 6 months based in the Randwick City Council Town Hall.

$5,000

$5,000

1 year

2

Bondi Community Street Project (BOP Bondi Outreach Project)

Tackling Antisocial Behaviour in Randwick

After school activity service to operate in the summer months between 4-6pm in Coogee, Randwick and Maroubra focusing on reducing anti social behaviour.

$4,990

$5,000

1 year

4

Eastern Respite and Recreation, Maroubra

Peer Support and Adults with a Disability

Aims to enhance community participation, develop social networks and skills, and reduce social isolation experienced by people living with a disability.

$9,500

$9,500

1 year

12

Learning Links, Kingsford

Reading for Life

Primary school children who struggle significantly with reading will receive training & mentoring from high school students and/or community volunteers.

$19,734

$13,200

1 year

 

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project & Description

Amount Requested

Recommended Amount

Years of Funding

19

Red Cross, Randwick

Healthy Relationships and Positive Parenting Group

Provides accommodation, support and education programs for young women who are pregnant/ have a child, homeless and require intensive support.

$57,750

$11,000

3 year

21

St Vincent de Paul – Malabar Conference

People Helping People

Program provides Coles food vouchers to disadvantaged people in southern suburbs of Randwick LGA.

$8,000

$8,000

1 year

22

Sydney Multicultural Community Services, Daceyville

Learning through diversity – homework support and parenting for CALD families

Targets women from CALD backgrounds at risk of family breakdown. Children will receive have access to tutoring programs once a week at a local primary school.

$9,300

$9,300

1 year

24

The Deli Women and Children’s Centre, Eastlakes

Parenting Program – Magic 1-2-3, Tips

This program is a child protection service for women coming out of DV situations to re-learn parenting strategies.

$19,839

$4,000

1 year

26

UNSW Community Development Project, Kensington

Namatjira Community and Native Garden

Establish a community garden at Namatjira, Chifley, involving residents in the whole process and with ongoing care.

$5,000

$5,000

1 year

 

APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

3

Coogee Care Centre

Digital Media Project

$5,000

5

Bondi Youth Accommodation

Green Light

$39,511.07

6

Eastern Suburbs Multicultural Access Project

Social support groups Optimists Maroubra

$13,679.00

7

Guriwal Aboriginal Corporation

Lawn mowing service for frail, aged and disabled Indigenous and non-Indigenous residents

$40,000.00

8

Holdsworth Community Centre and Services

Relationships and Private Stuff

$5,000.00

9

Holdsworth Community Centre and Services

Berry Camp

$5,000.00

10

Jewish Care

Opening closed doors Domestic Violence Project

$60,000.00

11

Junction House Inc

Literacy/Numeracy Pilot Program

$2,800.00

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

13

Learning Links

Increasing resilience in at risk kids

$20,000.00

14

Little Bay Coast Centre for Seniors

Coast Centre Periodical

$51,033.00

15

Moving Forward Together Association Inc

Harmony Day Poster Competition

$2,500.00

16

Multiple Sclerosis Limited

Support Services for People with MS

$60,000.00

17

Radio Eastern Sydney Cooperative Ltd

Straighten Up and Fly Right

$5,000.00

18

Randwick City Vision Impaired Group

Transport for sight impaired

$1,200.00

20

South Coogee Learning Centre & OOSH

Addition of a preschool room

$20,000.00

23

Sydney Multicultural Community Services

Love Bites Community Campaign – 16 Days of Activism

$1,750.00

25

The Junction Neighbourhood Centre Inc.

Randwick Casework Partnership Project

$60,000.00

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

27

UNSW Community Development Project

South Coogee Art Project

$7,378.40

28

WAYS Youth Service

WAYS Youth Services Education Support Program

$19,909.00

 

 


Rental Subsidy Program

Attachment 4