Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 26 July 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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, 26 July 2011 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 - 28 June 2011

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council by Members of the Public

Mayoral Minutes

Mayoral Minutes, if any, will be distributed on the night of the meeting.

Urgent Business

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act, the General Manager is required to keep a register of Councilor voting on planning matters. Planning matters are any decisions made in the exercise of a function of a council under the EP&A Act and include decisions relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act. In addition, Randwick City Council has resolved (22 July 2008) that its register of voting include the voting on all tender matters.

CP63/11    11A Chapman Avenue, Maroubra (DA/1118/2010) (deferred)

CP64/11    32 Willis Street, Kingsford (DA/1096/2010)

CP65/11    32 Brook Street, Coogee (DA/275/2011)

CP66/11    165 Arden Street, Coogee (DA/139/2011)

CP67/11    5 Mort Street, Randwick (DA/256/2011)

CP68/11    147 Avoca Street, Randwick (DA/182/2009/B)

CP69/11    Reporting variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for the month of June 2011

CP70/11    Sydney Ports Truck Marshalling Area - 15 Bumborah Point Road, Port Botany

CP71/11    169-181 Dolphin Street, COOGEE (DA/649/2010)

Director City Planning Report (record of voting not required)

CP72/11    Recycling Reward Scheme - Pilot Schedule

General Manager's Reports

GM19/11    Mayoral Aviation Council - 2011 Conference

GM20/11    Local Government - Destination 2036

Director City Services Report

CS12/11    Use of Council Reserves for Commercial Fitness Trainers

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF33/11    Investment Report - June 2011

GF34/11    Affixing of the Council seal

GF35/11    Withdrawal of Caveat and Affixing of the Council Seal

GF36/11    Local Government Association of NSW - 2011 Annual Conference

GF37/11    Conduct of Local Government Election 2012  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM21/11    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Nash - Undergrounding of Power Cables

NM22/11    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr White - Commission Bust of Australian Test Cricket Captain Syd Gregory

NM23/11    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Bowen - Social Inclusion Plan

NM24/11    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Bowen - Proposal for Light Rail in Randwick City  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

CS13/11    T07/11 - Randwick City Council Building Trades and Building Management Services Panel Contract

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

Closed Session (record of voting not required)

GF38/11    Kensington Bowling Club partnership with KikOff Soccer Centres Pty Ltd - 1 Day Lane Kensington

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (g) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil.

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Sima Truuvert

ACTING General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP63/11

 

 

Subject:                  11A Chapman Avenue, Maroubra (DA/1118/2010)

Folder No:                   DA/1118/2010

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Introduction

 

Council at the Planning Committee Meeting held on 14 June 2011, resolved:

 

‘(Andrews/Nash) that:

 

The following item be brought forward for immediate consideration and the matter be deferred to the July Council Meeting;

 

D56/11     11A Chapman Avenue, Maroubra (deferred to enable referral to the Maroubra Bay Floodplain Management Committee).’

 

Issues

 

As detailed in the previous report to Council the main issue in consideration of the proposal is the location of the site within the Draft Maroubra Bay Flood Study area which has indentified sites that are the subject of high hazard flood waters and inundation.

 

The application was originally recommended for refusal.

 

Further consideration of the proposal by Council’s Drainage Engineer has established that it would be reasonable for Council to approve the proposed development on the basis that the construction of a new second storey to the dwelling would improve safety to the residents. Two additional conditions are recommended to be included in any development consent in relation to potential flooding impacts.

 

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

 

Given that advice has been provided from Council’s Drainage Engineer that it is reasonable to grant consent based on the conditions as stated above, it is recommended that development consent be granted.

 

 

 

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/1118/2010 for alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new first floor, hard stand car park space to front of dwelling, swimming pool and fencing to rear, garden shed and covered deck at rear of dwelling at 11A Chapman Avenue, Maroubra subject to the following conditions.

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp, except where amended by Council in red and/or by other conditions of this consent:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

Sheets 1-5

Classic Plans

29/8/2010

21st December 2010

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

A92518

23rd August 2010

21st December 2010

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the issue of a ‘Construction Certificate’ by either Randwick City Council or an Accredited Certifier.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Consent Requirements

2.       The requirements and amendments detailed in the ‘General Conditions’ must be complied with and be included in the construction certificate plans and associated documentation.

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

3.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces are to be consistent with the materials and colour samples schedule submitted with the Development Application on the 21st December 2010.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

4.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $188,100, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council:   $ 1,881.00.

       

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate [or subdivision 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.

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

5.       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).  Details of compliance with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

Structural Adequacy

6.       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), certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional upper floor addition.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

7.       The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, must be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, 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.

 

BASIX Requirements

8.       In accordance with section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements and commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate must be complied with.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate must be included on the construction certificate plans, specifications and associated documentation, 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.

 

Smoke Alarms

9.       Smoke alarms are required to be installed in each Class 1 building or 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 are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

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

 

11.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $135.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

12.     The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment must be at least 150mm below the alignment level as specified for the vehicular access.  This condition has been attached to accommodate future footpath construction at this location.

 

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

 

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

 

14.     Stormwater runoff from the site shall be discharged either:

 

a.       To the kerb and gutter along the site frontage by gravity (without the use of a charged system); OR

 

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

 

c.       To a suitably sized infiltration area. As a guide the infiltration area shall be sized based on a minimum requirement of 1 m2 of infiltration area (together with 1 m3 of storage volume) for every 20 m2 of roof/impervious area on the site.

 

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

 

NOTE: Should the applicant be unable to obtain a private drainage easement over properties to the rear of the development site (to facilitate stormwater discharge in accordance with option b)); and ground conditions preclude the use of infiltration (Option c), consideration may be given to the use of a charged system or a pump out system to drain that portion of the site that cannot be drained by gravity to the kerb and gutter at the front of the property.

 

15.     Should a charged system be required to drain any portion of the site, the charged system must be designed with suitable clear-outs/inspection points at pipe bends and junctions.

 

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

 

The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with Randwick City Council's Stormwater Code.

 

17.     All pumps out water must pass through a stilling pit prior to being discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter.

 

18.     A structural engineer shall certify that the structure can withstand the force of floodwaters, including debris and buoyancy, for the Probable Maximum Flood (ie; 7.3m AHD and 0.4m/s).

 

19.     All electrical and mechanical pool equipment shall be located no lower than the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood plus half a metre freeboard (ie; 6.3m + 0.5m = 6.8m AHD).

 

Street Tree

20.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $1095.25 (including GST), to cover the following costs:

 

a.       For Council to remove, stump grind and dispose of the Hibiscus tiliaceus (Cottonwood) which is located on the Chapman Avenue verge, towards the western site boundary, prior to commencing works associated with the proposed vehicle crossing as shown;

       

b.       For Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre street tree of the same species, just beyond the western site boundary (common with no.11) at the completion of all works;

 

c.       To compensate Council for the loss of amenity caused by the removal of this established public tree for no other reason than to accommodate the development of private property as shown.

 

The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 (quoting the receipt number), and giving at least four working weeks notice to arrange for removal of the street tree prior to the commencement of site works, as well as upon completion, to arrange for planting of the replacement street tree.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the commencement of any works on the site.  The necessary documentation and information must be provided to the Council or the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’, as applicable.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity.

 

Construction Certificate, Principal Certifying Authority & Commencement of Works

 

21.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)       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.

 

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved development consent plans and 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.

 

b)       a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) must be appointed to carry out the necessary building inspections and to issue an occupation certificate; and

 

c)       a principal contractor must be appointed for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, an owner-builder permit may be obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and the PCA and Council are to be notified accordingly; and

 

d)       the principal contractor must be advised of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

 

e)       at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing any 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.

 

Home Building Act 1989

22.     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 Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council, in writing.

 

Dilapidation Reports

23.     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:

 

 

·           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,

·           new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to shared property boundaries (e.g.  additions to a semi-detached dwelling or terraced dwellings),

·           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 may be 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.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

24.     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 requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and NSW DECC Guidelines 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 Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the NSW DECC Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, is to be implemented throughout the works.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

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

 

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

 

Temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or public place, a Local Approval application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services before placing any item or article on the road, footpath or nature strip.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

26.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction 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;

·          provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·          construction noise and vibration management;

·          construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencing site works.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Demolition Work Plan

27.     A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures and relevant environmental/occupational health and safety requirements.

 

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

·          Recycling, reuse and waste disposal of remediation materials

 

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 also be provided to Council not less than 2 days before commencing those works.

Notes

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

§  Refer to the conditions within the “Requirements During Construction & Site Work”, for further details and requirements relating to demolition work, removal of any asbestos and public safety.

 

Sydney Water

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

 

Prior to the commencement of excavation or building works, the approved Construction Certificate plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre, 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 works.

 

Public Utilities

29.     A Public Utility Impact Assessment must be carried out to identify all public utility services located on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the building works.

 

Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been or are able to be satisfied, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any works.

 

The owner/builder must make the necessary arrangements and meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia, Sydney Water and other authorities to adjust, repair or relocate their services as required.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

The following conditions of consent must be complied with during the demolition, excavation and construction of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity during construction.

 

Demolition Work Requirements

30.     The demolition of buildings 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 & Water and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·          Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

·          WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·          WorkCover NSW Guidelines and 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 DECCW/EPA Guidelines

·          Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

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.

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

31.     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

 

·          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.  A copy of the relevant licence must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

·          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.  Details of the landfill site (which must be lawfully able to receive asbestos materials) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

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

 

Site Signage

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

 

 

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

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

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

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

33.     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.  Details are to be included in the Construction Site Management Plan.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

34.     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)    Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any footpath, roadway, nature strip, drainage line or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

c)    Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

d)    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 department.

 

e)    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.

 

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

 

Excavations, Back-filling & Retaining Walls

35.     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 must 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.

 

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.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

36.     Building, demolition and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

All building, demolition and site work, including site deliveries (except as detailed below)

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

An application to vary the abovementioned hours may be submitted to Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services for consideration and approval to vary the specified hours may be granted in exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management or road safety reasons).  Any applications are to be made on the standard application form and include payment of the relevant fees and supporting information.  Applications must be made at least 10 days prior to the date of the proposed work and the prior written approval of Council must be obtained to vary the standard permitted working hours.

 

Inspections During Construction

37.     The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority, 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 following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for future civil works in the road reserve:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

39.     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.

 

40.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Or telephone 13 20 92.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Note:        For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity.

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

BASIX Requirements

43.     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.

 

Occupant Safety

44.     Openable windows to a room, corridor, stairway or the like with a floor level more than 4m above the external ground/surface level, must be designed and constructed to reduce the likelihood of a child accessing and falling through the window opening.

 

Options may include one or more of the following measures:

 

·          The window having a minimum sill height of 1.5m above the internal floor level,

·          Providing a window locking device at least 1.5m above the internal floor level,

·          Fixing or securing the window (e.g. by screws or a window locking device) to restrict or to be able to secure the extent of the opening to a maximum width of 125mm,

·          Installing a fixed heavy-duty gauge metal screen over the opening (e.g. A metal security screen or metal security mesh and frame system, but not standard fly-screen material),

·          Other appropriate effective safety measures or barrier.

 

Swimming Pool Safety

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

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with AS 1926.1 - 2007.

 

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

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

Swimming Pool & Spa Pool Requirements

46.     Swimming pools (and spa pools) are to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the following general requirements:

 

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

 

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

 

c)     Water recirculation and filtrations systems are required to comply with AS 1926.3 – 2003:  Swimming Pool Safety – Water Recirculation and Filtration Systems; and

 

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

 

Notification of Swimming Pools & Spa Pools

47.     Written notification must be provided to Council advising of the installation and completion of the Swimming Pool (or Spa Pool), to satisfy the requirements of the Swimming Pools Act 1992.

 

Council’s “Notification & Registration of a Swimming Pool” form must be completed and forwarded to Council prior to any Occupation Certificate being issued for the pool.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

49.     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.

 

50.     All external civil work to be carried out on Council property (including the installation and repair of roads, footpaths, vehicular crossings, kerb and guttering and drainage works), must be carried out in accordance with Council’s Policy for “Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works” and the following requirements:

 

a)       All work on Council land must be carried out by Council, unless specific  written approval has been obtained from Council to use non-Council contractors.

 

b)       Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Pre-paid Works Application Form, prior to issuing an occupation certificate, together with payment of the relevant fees.

 

c)       If it is proposed to use non-Council contractors to carry out the civil works on Council land, the work must not commence until the written approval has been obtained from Council and the work must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent, Council’s design details and payment of a Council design and supervision fee.

 

d)       The civil works must be completed in accordance with Council’s conditions of consent and approved design and construction documentation, prior to occupation of the development, or as otherwise approved by Council in writing.

 

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

51.     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 completed at the applicant’s expense prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health and environmental amenity.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – Swimming Pools & Spa Pools

52.     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.

 

Pool Plant & Equipment

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

 

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

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

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

·          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 requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $1,500) for each offence.  Council may also issue notices and orders to demolish unauthorised or non-complying building work, or to comply with the requirements of Council’s development consent.

 

·          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.

 

Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team can issue Construction Certificates and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

·          This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

·          A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Approvals & Certification team 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 or any other container or article.

 

For further information please contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

·          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.

 

·          Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

·          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                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP64/11

 

 

Subject:                  32 Willis Street, Kingsford (DA/1096/2010)

Folder No:                   DA/1096/2010

Author:                   GAT & Associates , Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of part of existing building, construction of part 3/part 4 storey boarding house development comprising 18 units, 2 carpark spaces with roof top garden and associated works (SEPP1 objection to height control)

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Cracknell & Lonergan Architects

Owner:                         Epic Development Pty Ltd & Eminence Development Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing structure on site and the construction of a part three, part four-storey boarding house development. The site is known as 32 Willis Street, Kingsford and extends to a rear lane called Willis Lane.

 

The application is reported to Council because it has a SEPP 1 objection exceeding 10% of the development standard.

 

The submitted plans indicate the provision in total of 18 self contained boarding house units of which three (3) will have two (2) bedrooms each. A total of two (2) car parking spaces are provided with four (4) bike racks and five (5) motorcycle spaces.

 

The subject application was advertised and notified in accordance with the Development Control Plan public notification with 9 submissions being received. The issues raised in the submissions relate to the height of the proposal, bulk and scale, streetscape, view loss, overshadowing, parking and social impacts.

 

The subject site is zoned 2B under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposed development exceeds the 9.5m height requirement and 7 metre wall height. The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 Objection to vary the standard.

 

It is considered that the design has not addressed issues of solar access or acoustic privacy to adjoining properties and that the bulk and scale of the development is not in keeping with the character of the area. The proposed bulk and scale directly contributes to the amenity impacts.

 

Accordingly, the proposal does not meet the objective and the purpose of the relevant State and Local Planning Controls and therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application involves the demolition of the existing structures on site and the construction of a part three, part four-storey boarding house. Although the applicant has stated that the existing building will be retained in part, the degree of works proposed constitutes demolition. 

 

In total 18 rooms are being provided of which three (3) will have double bedrooms. Each bedroom contains a double bed which allows up to two (2) persons per room.

 

The proposal involves the following configuration noting that the site has a substantial fall from Willis Street to Willis Lane.

 

 

 

 

Basement Floor Plan off Willis Lane«Type Details of Proposal»

The basement floor is best described as a partial basement level, given This level as viewed from Willis Lane will be read as a storey, which accommodates the bin storage area, bike parking for (4) four spaces, motorcycle parking for five (5) bikes and two (2) car parking spaces. A pump room is also provided to the corner of the building with access to the central core of the building.

 

Level 1

The provision of three (3) self contained rooms which incorporate a shower, bathroom, separate bedroom with a separate living and kitchen arrangement each room has individual balconies. A storage area is proposed having access from the side passage way. Two units are serviced by one stair core while the other is serviced by another stair core. 

 

Level 2

The provision of three (3) self contained rooms with a common area located to the centre of the site. These units are also serviced by the two separate stair cores. The common room has a bathroom and kitchen. The common room also has access to an outside area to the side boundary, given the fall of the land.

 

Level 3 Floor Plan (Willis Street Entry)

This level extents across the whole length of the building and contains in total six (6) dwellings of which one (1) dwelling provides for two (2) bedrooms. The two (2) front dwellings facing Willis Street have been designed to be accessible units. These units are accessible via three separate stair cores. Each stair core services a maxiuimum of two units.

 

Pedestrian access to the building is via Willis Street to the three separate stair cores which link the units together and are located on the southern side of the building.

 

 

Level 4

This level contains two (2) one-bedroom self contained apartments with a third apartment containing two (2) bedrooms with a living area/kitchenette. These three apartments are serviced by two separate stair cores. A roof terrace is available on this level facing Willis Lane. Access to this area is available via two separate stir cores.

 

Level 5

This level also contains two (2) one-bedroom self contained apartments with a third apartment containing two (2) bedrooms with a living area/kitchenette. These three apartments are also serviced by two separate stair cores.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The property is described as Lot B under DP 363519 and is commonly known as 32 Willis Street, Kingsford. The site is located on the western side of Willis Street between Barker and Middle Streets, Kingsford. The site also has frontage to its rear to Willis Lane.

 

The site has a width of 12.19m and a length of 50.29m. The total site area is 613sqm.

 

The site has a substantial fall from Willis Street (RL50.10) to Willis Lane (RL40.02), being a fall in the order of 10m.

 

Presently located on the site is a single storey dwelling that addresses Willis Street with the building having the form of a two-storey element off Willis Lane with a garage beneath creating in total three levels, which has a considerable setback off the Lane.

 

The rear access to the existing building is via Willis Lane and the proposal retains such access. Development surrounding the site is mixed in its form consisting of detached single dwelling houses as well as unit developments.

 

The site to the north contains a townhouse development which is stepped down the site in clusters. To the immediate south stands a single dwelling being No 34 Willis Street.

 

Surrounding development on the eastern side of Willis Street consists of two-storey development of a mixture of architectural style and form with surrounding developments consisting also of two and three-storey unit developments.

 

The subject site is in extreme close proximity to the University of NSW and within comfortable walking distance to the commercial precinct located along Anzac Parade.

 

 

 

4.        State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No.1 Development Standards

 

4.1      Proposed variation to the development standard

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted to Council.

 

Building heights

Clause 20G specifies that the maximum heights for buildings within Zone No. 2B are to be 9.5m. A portion of the upper level exceeds the maximum building height by 3.9m. This represents a variation to the development standard of 41%. In addition, the external wall height is also breached.

 

 

4.2      State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 Development Standards

 

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 Objection, the principles established from the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 have been addressed. The case has established that the upholding of a SEPP 1 objection is a precondition which must be satisfied before a proposed development can be approved by the consent authority:

 

Matter 1

The Court must be satisfied that “the objection is well founded” (clause 7 of SEPP 1). The objection is to be in writing, be an objection “that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case”, and specify “the grounds of that objection” (clause 6 of SEPP 1).

 

The stated purpose of the building height standard is:

 

“To operate together with controls for floor space ratio and landscaped area to limit the size, scale and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area.”

 

The applicant has submitted a written SEPP 1 Objection, which outlines the following key justifications for the variation to the building height standards:

 

In the circumstances of this case, the provision of a strict numerical compliance would be unnecessary and unreasonable on the basis that:

 

1      The underlying objective of the standard is achieved, notwithstanding noncompliance.

2      The height, bulk and scale of the dwelling is not out of character with surrounding developments which include low density residential dwellings, town houses, residential flat building, and high density apartment buildings.

3      The proposal is compatible with the surrounding context, which comprises a mix of scales, densities and types of buildings.

4      The proposal responds appropriately to the drastic drop of 10m across the length of the site while taking into consideration sun light access to the south neighbour, as recommended by the DRP.

5      The proposal generally complies with the building location controls in the LEP and DCP with minor breaches in building height but is in accord with the comments from DRP.

6      The proposal’s impact on the amenity of the adjoining residential property to the south in terms of overshadowing or privacy is inevitable and would be similar with any other types of development.

7      The proposed development generally achieves compliance with the aims and objectives of the LEP and most importantly SEPP Affordable Housing.

8      Additionally, in any event, clause 29(4) of the SEPP Affordable Housing:

 

“A consent authority may consent to development to which this Division applies whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause (1) and (2) allows Council to approve the non-compliance.”

 

It is considered that the variation to the proposed building height is not well founded for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposal does not comply in reference to the provision of car parking and solar access as required under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. Other non compliances such as room sizes and the need for a on site manager will need a complete redesign.

 

·      The proposal is also of a form and character that is in conflict with clause 54A (3) of State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, in particular to its scale and massing.

 

·      The proposed development does not accord with the comments and feedback provided by the Design Panel and the suggestion to break the building into two elements, thus improving solar access to the southern property.

 

·      The breach constitutes a departure to the standard in the order of 41%, which is considered excessive when measured against other breaches.

 

Although the State Environmental Planning Policy State (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 states a consent authority may consent to development whether or not the development complies with the standards set out in subclause 29 (1) or (2), the fact that there are other non compliances and the amenity impacts created due to these non compliances justifies refusal of the proposal. At best, a redesign would result in a completely different development.

 

In addition, which will be detailed further, clause 30(1) (e) in reference to the need to provide for a boarding house manager has not been met. Under subclause (1), the consent authority must not consent to development unless it has satisfied the boarding house standards. This proposal breaches the need for the manager. In addition, three rooms are greater than 25 sqm in size contrary to clause 30(1)(b). 

 

Accordingly, the State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Objection is not considered to be well founded.

 

Matter 2

The Court must be of the opinion that “granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3” (clause 7 of SEPP 1).

 

The aims and objects of SEPP 1 set out in clause 3 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 last mentioned objects in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are to encourage:

 

“(1) 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 purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(2) the promotion and coordination of the orderly and economic use of developed land.”

 

Comments:

The proposed height breaches the standard by a considerable degree being in some instances one storey above that permitted under the control as shown in the previous diagram.

 

It is considered that there is no site constraint that justifies the degree of variation.

 

The non provision results in a number of amenity concerns as documented in this report. Therefore the proposal will be in conflict with the objects of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 embodied in Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) as it will not promote the orderly and economic use of the land and will result in unacceptable impacts to the adjoining properties as well as the poor planning of so many rooms with northern living areas screened by enclosed balconies via louvers which appear on the plans to be fixed and a lack of usable private open space, relying on a roof terrace for up to 42 boarders.

 

Matter 3

The Court must be satisfied that a consideration of the matters in clause 8(a) and (b) of SEPP 1 justifies the upholding of the SEPP 1 objection. The matters in clause 8(a) and (b) are:

 

“(a) whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

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

 

Comments:

Although we note that the proposed variation to the height control does not raise any matters of significance for State or under the regional environmental planning, the degree of variation being proposed is considered to be far too excessive and given the concerns raised in terms of the conflict with the provisions contained within the SEPP in terms of access to solar access to the common areas and the lack of private open space in a communal sense, it is considered that a variation to the standard is not justifiable. In addressing these issues and given there is a lack of parking, overshadowing impacts to the neighbours and the need for a site manager, the development would need to be substantially redesigned.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

Preston C J expressed the view that an objection under SEPP 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in clause 3 of the Policy in a variety of ways:

 

First

The most commonly invoked way is to establish that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. If the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective, strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

Given the concerns raised in terms of amenity it is considered that the breach is too significant to form a view that the objective of the standard is being met. The noncompliance is unreasonable and or unnecessary.

 

Second

A second way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

 

Comments:

Given the concerns raised regarding amenity, compliance is also of utmost importance having regard to the character of the area. Although it is acknowledged that the fall of the land may lead to a non compliance, the degree of variation is too excessive. To overcome the concerns, a number of units would need to be removed and the scale of the development reduced. In addition, concern is also raised to the number of balconies which create a walling effect along the side boundary that needs to be addressed as suggested by the Design Panel. The Panel suggested a central court yard and thus splitting of the building in the middle. This could alleviate the impacts and support the underlying purpose of the control.

 

Third

A third way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

Comments:

A variation could be supported if the degree of variation being sought was not as significant having regard to the consequences of the variation and the environmental issues associated from the design of the development.

 

Fourth

A fourth way is to establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The applicant appears to rely upon the fact that the development is compliant with the floor space ratio control to support a variation and has only made minor changes to the design of the development having regard to the concerns which were raised prior to lodgement by the Design and Review Panel. It is considered that this proposal will be out of character with the area which is a requirement Council must consider under clause 54A(3) of the SEPP. On this basis, it is considered that the variation to the standard would result in the abandonment and disregard of the objective and the purpose of which the standard is prescribed.

 

Fifth

A fifth way is to establish that “the zoning of particular land” was “unreasonable or inappropriate” so that “a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land” and that compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The development standard is appropriated to the site and although multiple level developments exist in the area, the proposal reads significantly greater in terms of its height, scale and massing than other developments in the area. The suggested changes to overcome bulk and scale and amenity issues would overcome the issues of concern.

 

 

5.        Site History

 

Recent development applications relating to the site include:

 


Application Details

32 Willis Street, Kingsford

Property Applications: BA/1252/1975, Alterations

Property Applications: BA/78/1976, Alterations

Property Applications: BA/1466/1975, Sundeck

Property Applications: BA/2367/1913, Cottage

Property Applications: BA/5335/1918, Verandah

Property Applications: PL/55/2010, Pre development application for demolition of existing buildings and construction of a boarding house

Property Applications: SC/33/1948, Land subdivision into 2 lots

 

6.        Community Consultation

 

6.1      Objections

The proposal was advertised and notified for a period of two weeks until 2 February 2011 in accordance with the requirements of the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received:

 

·      29 Willis Street, Kingsford

·      34Willis Street, Kingsford

·      37 Willis Street, Kingsford

·      33 Willis Street, Kingsford

·      27/2 Kennedy Lane, Kingsford

·      35 Willis Street, Kingsford

·      80 Barker Street, Kingsford

·      30 Middle Street, Kingsford (late submission)

·      Body Corporate of 2 Kennedy Lane, Kingsford

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

·      Provision of 2 spaces for 18 units.

 

·      Parking demand for residents are too high given these spaces are also being used by staff and students of UNSW.

 

·      To support this application, we request a parking survey be carried out.

The proposal provides for 2 car parking spaces while the SEPP requires the provision of 4.2 car parking spaces (say 4). Clearly the proposal fails to provide parking in accordance with State Policy. This will be discussed in more detail in this report.

 

The objector acknowledges and noted from the site inspection, that parking demand for residents is very high. See “General Comments”.

·      Non compliance with Council’s height control – Departure of 31% to the standard.

 

·      There have been no discussions with No 34 to purchase this site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·      Overshadowing to No 34.

 

·      The breach is greater than 3% of the length of the wall in terms of height.

 

 

 

·      Design Panel cannot override controls in the LEP.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·      Proposal also breaches maximum external wall height of 7 metres.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·      More than 20 lodgers will be on site and a manger is required on site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·      Setbacks do not meet the requirements of the DCP.

 

 

 

·      Building out of scale and thus amenity concerns raised.

 

·      No 34 will be isolated.

 

 

 

·      Loss of privacy.

 

·      Requires compliance with the landscape control of 50%.

 

·      Parking demand in the street.

 

·      Noise from the number of lodgers.

 

It is acknowledged that the departure to the height control is significant and concern is raised to the request to vary the standard as detailed within this report. The variation is not considered to be well founded and thus, not supported.

 

The owner’s comments that they have not been approached are noted. This is contrary to the applicants’ submission and this will be discussed further in terms of the massing of the development, its impacts and hence the ability to develop No 34 in an orderly or economical manner.

 

The degree of overshadowing being cast to No 34 is extensive and generated by the fact that there is no physical break in the building. This is also compounded by the excessive height proposed. On this basis, the concerns raised by the objector in terms of overshadowing are supported.

 

Although the Design Panel cannot override the controls in an LEP, the Design Panel also provides expertise advice as to the appropriateness of the development. In some instances variations may be deemed to be acceptable providing that the design and the outcomes are also in the public interest. However, the Design Panel have not supported the proposal and therefore the Panel reinforces that this development is an overdevelopment of the site.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposal breaches the external wall height of 7 metres. On this basis, the maximum height is 9.5 metres and the breach varies up to a height of 13.4 metres. Having regard to the considerations of clause 54A (3), regarding the character of the area, it is considered the proposal is not acceptable and therefore needs to be redesigned to address issues of amenity as detailed in this report.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposal will provide for more than 20 lodgers and thus a site manager is required. The applicant has failed to provide a manager contrary to the SEPP.

 

Given the proposal has been designed having regard to the relevant SEPP for boarding houses, the setback provisions under the DCP do not apply. However, it has been acknowledged that the massing and the scale of this development is inappropriate for the site for a number of reasons acknowledging the sites width, the length of the building and the consequent impact to adjoining properties from an amenity perspective.

 

The redesign of this building would therefore need to address those issues and the resultant setbacks would therefore need to be re-evaluated as to whether or not they are appropriate based on the developments interface with adjoining properties and the character of the area.

 

The concern about No 34 being isolated is noted and has been addressed in more detail in the body of this report.

 

The orientation of the building provides for living areas facing the north with the bedrooms and stairwells located to the south. It is considered that there will be no direct privacy impacts to south given these rooms are bedrooms and stairwells. The stairwells can be treated with obscure glass if approval was recommended. Any redesign would still need to ensure privacy is protected.

 

In reference to concerns regarding noise being generated from the number of lodgers, it is noted and of concern, is that the only private/communal open space is in the form of a roof garden. In view of the fact that there could be up to 42 lodgers on the premises relying on a roof terrace raises enormous concern in terms of potential acoustic privacy to adjoining properties.

 

It is considered more appropriate that the communal/private open space should be provided on the ground level, which would in turn resolve the bulk and scale of the building and hence building. A roof terrace as a secondary space with time restrictions would be considered more acceptable. The splitting of the building to the centre of the site was also recommended by the Design Review Panel.

 

The localisation of the outdoor space as one area is not supported given the proposed density/potential number of lodgers. 

·      Loss of view and outlook from living area of No 37 Willis Street.

 

·      Loss of on street parking.

 

·      Privacy impact.

 

·      Roof terrace will increase noise in the area.

 

·      Impact on street ambiance.

 

·      Increase in crime due to the occupants being boarders.

The proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on views as the development is compliant as viewed from Willis Street in terms of height. The breach occurs to the centre of the site and to the rear. Given these properties are on the high side of the street, they will look more so over the site. The view loss is of district view rather than iconic views.

 

Concerns of parking have been addressed in the earlier submission.

 

In terms of privacy, the living areas are orientated to the north and therefore do not directly look out to the private open space areas of the eastern properties.

 

Concern about the increased noise level from the roof terrace has been acknowledged and is of a concern.

 

In terms of streetscape impact, it is generally considered that the scale and form of the development as viewed from Willis Street is not of a concern necessarily. The concern applies more so as one reads the building from the laneway and the fact the building lack articulation along the side boundaries. From a macro perspective, given the elevated topography of this area, the building will be in part a four storey building.

 

The scale and massing of this building, given its elongated form along the side boundaries results in a development which is uncharacteristic for this area and will create an unacceptable impact. 

 

In reference to concern about increased crime in the area it is acknowledged that there is no evidence which would suggest that the occupation by boarders would result in an increase in crime level in the area, however a site manager, which is required, would also go a long way in overcoming any crime concerns.

 

·      Excessive height above Council’s controls.

 

·      Loss of views from No 33 Willis Street.

 

·      Lack of on street parking and inadequate parking on site.

 

·      Loss of privacy to bedrooms and family rooms.

Issues of height and parking have been addressed as part of the above submissions.

 

The view loss impact to No 33 Willis is contextually the same as stated for No 37 above.

 

Given the separation of the properties, being across the street, there are no privacy impacts created by this proposal to No 33.

 

·      Boarding house means no occupiers and high turnover of transients on low income.

 

·      Unaware of management such as time of stay/manager on site.

 

·      Loss of views to the Harbour Bridge.

 

·      Noise generated from the density.

 

·      Lack of parking.

Although it is acknowledged that boarding houses may result in the occupiers being of a high transit nature and of a lower income, this is not in conflict with the objectives of the State Policy and therefore, this concern has no merit from a town planning point perspective.

 

The plan, given the number of potential lodgers, does raise issues in terms of the lack of management as required by the SEPP, ie on site manager. Given that the application is being refused such issues will need to be addressed in terms of details should the applicant elect to re-lodge.

 

The objectors property back onto the eastern properties off Willis Street and thus are too far away to be impacted on views given the building as proposed to the Willis Street frontage is compliant with Council’s height control.

 

Issues of noise and parking have also been addressed as part of these submissions.

·      Loss of views from No 35 given proposed height which is not complaint.

 

·      Traffic congestion due to the number of boarders.

 

·      Increase in rubbish dumping in the street give the occupants already in the area.

 

·      Loss of privacy.

 

·      Increased noise levels due to the removal of another single dwelling.

 

·      Erosion control and impact on the area.

 

·      Scale of the project not in keeping with the area.

The view loss impact to No 35 Willis is contextually the same as stated for the other properties on the eastern side of the Street.

 

Issues of traffic congestion and increased noise and the scale of the project have already been addressed.

 

The concern of increased sidewalk rubbish dumping due to the nature of this development is not a direct planning consideration to this proposal. Dumping of rubbish is a broader issue.

 

Given Willis street separates these two properties there will be no privacy impacts.

 

Although it is acknowledged that the removal of a single dwelling with a development which will be occupied by many more persons will result in potentially increased noise levels in the area it must be acknowledged that the zoning of the land being Residential 2(b) allows multi unit housing and the area is not a low density area. The site’s prime location to the University of NSW will mean that there will be a higher density and occupation to existing services and infrastructure which is a sound planning principle.

 

Concern about erosion control can be dealt with as part of any approval.

·      Overdevelopment of the site – bulk and scale/height.

·      Residents will not be using public transport – impact on street parking.

·      Development will provide for excessive occupancy capacity with at least 36 residents rather than the stated 21.

·      Fire separation would require mechanical ventilation and ongoing noise

·      Loss of views.

·      Non compliance with Council’s height controls.

·      Proposal does not comply with Council’s height control.

·      More than 20 residents could be accommodated in the development – need for a site manager.

·      Impact on the amenity of the area in terms of streetscape.

·      Construction traffic and impact onto the Lane.

·      Excessive density and height.

·      Lack of parking.

The concerns raised by this objector have all been dealt with as part of comments made above.

 

The issue of fire separation had been considered by the Council and has been deemed to be satisfactory.

 

Issues concerning noise have been evaluated and are noted given the location of the roof terrace and the fact that there is only one area being provided.

 

The issue of view loss has been assessed and given the sites location on the corner of Barker and Willis Street, it is not considered there will be a view loss for the same reasons stated in the earlier submissions.

 

·      Lack of parking

 

·      Direct line of sight.

The issue of lack of parking has been addressed and the comments about loss of direct line of sight are not clear other than potential concern about loss of views. This has been considered and is found to be acceptable given this property sits behind the eastern properties off Willis Street and are quite elevated above the site.

 

Additional Comments

To assist in the consideration of the view loss concerns, the subsequent photographs and photomontage as viewed from Willis Street shows the eastern properties are at a level elevated compared to the subject property.

 

Eastern properties along Willis Street are elevated above the street with No 32 Willis Street being lower than the street level.

 

The proposed building is compliant with height to Willis Street.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

Engineering comments:

An application has been received for construction of an 18 unit boarding house at the above site.

 

General Comments

The Development Engineer has been advised that the proposed application has not been supported by the Assessment Planner. Detailed comments and conditions have therefore not been included within this report.

 

Landscape Comments

Standard landscape conditions would be applied if any development consent were to be issued.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

Standard drainage conditions would be applied if any development consent were to be issued.

 

The applicant fails to provide any geotechnical information with the submission and therefore it is difficult to comment on any impact by the development on the groundwater/seepage water regime and conversely by the action of groundwater/seepage water on the development.

 

Traffic & Parking Comments

Using the standards as they existed at the time of lodgement the proposed parking would comply. Using the parking provision currently stipulated the development site is at least 2 spaces deficient. This has been discussed in detail in the Assessment Planner’s report.

 

 

Civil Works Comments

Standard civil works conditions would be applied if any development consent were to be issued.

 

The internal driveway gradient appears excessive however this could be addressed by condition.

 

Recently Council has tended to request that applicants provide a minimum 1.3 metre wide footpath along sites with frontage to laneways. Typically laneways only provide a 0.6 metre wide footpath when kerb and gutter is installed and therefore the applicant would be conditioned to dedicate approximately 0.7 metres of land at ground level along the Willis Lane site frontage. This dedication will need to be considered when redesigning the internal driveway.

 

Building and Environmental Health comments

 

The Proposal

The proposal provides for construction of 18 units with parking and common areas for a boarding house.

 

BCA Building Classification

Class        -      3      (Boarding House)

 

Key Issues

Local Government Act

Compliance is required with the Local Government Act appropriate conditions have been included in this report.

 

Noise

Noise is considered a potential issue as such appropriate conditions have been included in this report including management controls.

 

Conclusion:

Building referral has concluded that there are no objections to the development subject to appropriate conditions of consent.

 

Environmental Health referral has also no objections are raised in relation to the proposed development, subject to the following conditions being included in any development consent.

 

7.1      Design Review Panel

The comments provided by the Design Review Panel are extracted under the “SEPP No. 65” section of this report.

 

7.2      NSW Police - Eastern Beaches Local Area Command 

Comments and recommendations have been provided which can be addressed by way of conditions of approval.

 

8.        Master Planning Requirements

 

The site has a land area of only 613sqm and a master plan is not required.

 

9.        Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 


(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is located within Zone No. 2B (Residential Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). The proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. Although the proposal is consistent with the aims of the LEP and the specific objectives of the Residential 2B Zone, in that the development will deliver affordable accommodation, the proposal will have an impact on the amenity for surrounding development.

 

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

 

Clause

Requirement

Proposal

Compliance

 

20F Floor space ratios

 

Residential 2B – 0.65:1

(Allowable 398.45m2 based on 613m2 site area).

 

0.985:1 or 604.14m2

No. See comments below.

 

20G Building heights

 

Max building height - 9.5metres max external wall height of 7metres.

 

Max proposed height – 13.4 metres, including external wall height.

 

No. See comments below.

 

The non-compliance with the building height standard is examined under the “SEPP 1” section of this report. The non-compliance with the floor space ratio standard is remedied by the more generous allowances under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 as discussed in the following section.

 

(b)      State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

The subject application is made pursuant to the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) and requires assessment under Clause 29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent and Clause 30 Standards for boarding houses. The following tables outline the assessment:

 

Standard

Assessment

The density and scale of the buildings when expressed as a floor space ratio are not more than 0.65:1 (Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998) + 0.5:1 under SEPP = 1.15:1

The proposed floor space ratio is 0.985:1 and thus compliant.

Building height if all proposed buildings comply with the maximum building height under another environmental planning instrument for any building on the land (that is, 9.5m).

The building breaches the height control in four locations. This occurs due to the slope of the land. The height varies in breach from a height of 11.1 metres to 13.4 metres.

 

The applicant has submitted a variation however concern is raised whether this breach is appropriate for the site. – This has been detailed in this report.

Landscape treatment if the front setback area is compatible with the streetscape in which the building is located.

The proposed landscape treatment is compatible.

Where the development provides for one or more communal living rooms, if at least one of those rooms receives a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter.

The communal living area is located on level 2 and faces the northern boundary, being a side boundary. The common room is centrally located within the building.

 

The SEPP requires 3 hours of direct solar access. It is noted that the common room is partly excavated from the existing ground level. [See diagram at end of this table].

 

The building has a side setback of 1.8 metres. Although the applicant stipulates that the building has a setback of 3 metres which is to the external face of the building and does not take into account the balconies which are louvered, which means that the building is closer to the boundary than that documented.

 

Notwithstanding the above comment, the above levels cantilever over the common room, this means that the building slabs to the northern boundary have a setback of 1.8 metres. With the need to erect a fence along the northern boundary and noting the excavation proposed off the common room, the common room will not appear to have 3 hours of solar access.

 

The applicant has not submitted any elevational plans to demonstrate compliance notwithstanding their documentation stipulates that compliance has been achieved.

 

Having a fence at the boundary of 1.5meres to 1.8 metres, which is a standard fence, taking into account the setback of the building at 1.8 metres from the side boundary and taking into account the excavation proposed will mean the common room will offer a poor level of amenity.

If at least the following private open space areas are provided (other than the front setback area):

(i)       one area of at least 20sqm with a minimum dimension of 3 metres is provided for the use of the lodgers;

(ii)      if accommodation is provided on site for a boarding house manager – one area of at least 8sqm with a minimum dimension of 2.5sqm is provided adjacent to the accommodation.

A roof terrace is provided as private open space having an area of 58.89m2 which is above the requirement and a width, of a minimum 3.5 metres. Thus the proposal complies.

 

In reference to an onsite manager it is noted by the applicant that that is not being provided and therefore the additional 8m2 is not required. This is not the case as the site can accommodate more than 20 lodgers.

If not more than:

(i)       one parking space is provided for each 10 boarding rooms or part thereof, and

(ii)      one parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development and who is resident on the site

The controls under the SEPP requires in an accessible area at least 0.2 parking spaces for each boarding room. The application of the new control is detailed further in this report.

 

In total there are 18 units of which three have two boarding rooms within them. Therefore, there are a total of 21 boarding rooms available within the complex. Based on the above the applicant is to provide a total of 4.2 parking spaces.

 

The applicant has submitted two parking spaces and therefore, the proposal is non compliant.

 

There is no manager on site proposed, however one is required. Hence an additional space is required. That is 5.2 spaces, say 5.

 

If each boarding room has a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of at least:

(i)       12 square metres in the case of a boarding room intended to be used by a single lodger, or

(ii)      16 square metres in any other case

In total there are 15 rooms of a similar size containing an area of 20m2 which excludes the kitchen area and bathroom area. Therefore the proposal is compliant with this clause. For the other three units, an area of 36.13m2 is provided which is also compliant.

 

Further comments will be provided however it should be noted that each one bedroom unit contains a double bedroom which therefore means that two people can be accommodated in that room while, the other larger units contain two bedrooms which have the ability to accommodate four people given two double beds have been shown in those units.

A boarding house may have private kitchen or bathroom facilities in each boarding room but is not required to have those facilities in any boarding room.

Provided.

 

Assessment of Clause 30 Standards for boarding houses

 

Standard

Assessment

(a) If a boarding house has 5 or more boarding rooms, at least one communal living room will be provided.

Provided.

(b) No boarding room will have a gross floor area (excluding any area used for the purposes of private kitchen or bathroom facilities) of more than 25 sq metres.

The proposal provides for three units having an area excluding the kitchen and bathroom of 36.13m2 which is beyond the maximum of 25m2. The proposal is non compliant with the standard.

(c) No boarding room will be occupied by more than 2 adult lodgers.

The submitted plans indicate the ability for a double bed in each bedroom which therefore means that for the smaller units which comprise 15 one bedroom units, two boarders are able to be accommodated in the one unit. This is in conformity with the SEPP. However the three larger units accommodate two bedrooms of which double beds are provided resulting in the ability to accommodate up to four adult lodgers.

Therefore these three larger units are not in conformity with the SEPP.

(d) Adequate bathroom and kitchen facilities will be available within the boarding house for the use of each lodger.

Provided.

(e) If the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager.

The applicant provides in total 21 rooms and on the basis that each room has the ability to accommodate up to two people, the building can accommodate up to 42 persons. On this basis, the proposal is required to provide for a manager on site.  The proposal is non compliant in this regard.

(f) If the boarding house is on land within a zone where residential flat buildings are permissible, no new car parking for lodgers will be provided on the site.

 

Provided

(g) If the boarding house is on land zoned primarily for commercial purposes, no part of the ground floor of the boarding house that fronts a street will be used for residential purposes unless another environmental planning instrument permits such a use.

 

Not applicable.

(h) At least one parking space will be provided for a bicycle, and one will be provided for a motorcycle, for every 5 boarding rooms.

As stated a total of 21 rooms are available and on this basis, five spaces are required for a bicycle and five spaces for a motorcycle. The submitted plans show compliance with motorcycle parking however one additional bike rack is required for compliance.

 

General comments:

The Council’s LEP has two height controls. A maxiuimum wall height and a maxiuimum building height, both controls working together to regulate a buildings overall height.

 

Council has consistently applied both standards as these controls regulate the building height on site.

 

The plans below show the siting of the common room in elevation and plan. The white area directly off the common room is a covered area, cantilevered by the building above. The green strip has a width of 1.8 metres to the boundary.

 

 

 

The image above shows the common area as being the clear glazed section. The dotted lines represents the required cut and fill to create a flat platform off the common area. A standard fence along this boundary will create an enclosed environment noting that its width off the boundary is only 1.8 metres. The fence would need to follow the fall of the land which means the far majority of the glazing will be below the fence line, with the fence casting a significant shadow into this space.

 

Considerable concern is raised to the proposed variation to the height control. As the SEPP specifically acknowledges a consent authority must not refuse to grant consent for a development if the proposed development complies with Council’s height controls. However, the standard is being breached and thus can be refused.

 

The applicant has submitted a State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 objection which has been detailed and assessed and in view of the concerns in terms of non compliance with issues of car parking, solar access and massing, it is considered that a variation to the standard should not be given.

 

The development application was lodged prior to the recent amendments and thus under clause 54A (2) of the SEPP, savings and transitional provisions apply which state as follows:

 

“If a development application (an existing application) has been made before the commencement of the amending SEPP in relation to development to which this SEPP applied before that commencement, the application may be determined as if the amending SEPP had not been made.”

 

The application of the earlier provisions contained within the SEPP is subjective given the key word within the clause, “may be determined”.

 

Although it could be argued that there is no requirement to provide parking on site for the boarders, under the previous SEPP, this is clearly not the case under the current policy where it is required to provide at least 0.2 spaces per boarding room.

 

Given the savings provisions states “may”, the application of the current controls is afforded to the Council. Should this not be the case then the word “may” would have been “shall”.

 

Having regard to the site’s location, in close proximity to the UNSW, parking is at a premium, parking should be provided at the current rate. Based on this proposal, at least 4.2 spaces for the boarders are required and one space for the on site manager. This thus requiring 5.2 spaces, say 5 as per the SEPP.

 

The development thus has a shortfall which is considered unacceptable.

 

Furthermore, concern is raised as to the appropriateness of this development having regard to clause 54A (3) which states as follows:

 

If an existing application relates to development to which Division 1 or 3 of Part 2 applied, the consent authority must not consent to the development unless it has taken into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.”

 

The applicant has submitted a character statement that reinforces in their opinion that the proposal meets this outcome.

 

As noted the development seeks a variation to the height control and when one considers the height control in the context of the fall of the land and the relationship of that development to surrounding properties the development is not sympathetic to the character of the area.

 

The predominant building form of unit developments in the area, as viewed from the public domain varies between two to three storeys, which taken into account the fall of the land.

 

As like the development to the immediate north, there are a series of building clusters which are staggered down the site to create separation and to reinforce a scale which is generally two storeys in height. This approach also respects the fall of the land.

The proposed development reads in part as a four storey building and extends from Willis Street all the way to Willis Lane for a considerable length, being in the order of 45 metres at its maximum. The building is only broken once at the centre of site via a step.

 

Contrary to the applicant’s submission, this development is not sympathetic to the character of the area.

 

The building from a macro perspective will be read quite significantly higher than four storeys as there is no split in the built form compounded by its overall length which would mean that one would read the all five levels as one building as viewed from Willis Lane.

 

The building lacks articulation along the side boundaries, particularly the northern boundary which is again compounded with the extensive privacy louvers provided to overcome the interface to the northern property given the living areas have a side boundary orientation.

 

The design simply does not respect the fall of the land or have regard to any amenity impacts to the neighbours.

 

Given other non compliances such as parking, solar access and other amenity concerns, the development is considered an overdevelopment of the site.

 

The sites width of 12 metres does not assist in achieving an appropriate urban outcome.

 

(c)    State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 65 Design Quality of Residential flat Development

SEPP No. 65 applies to the proposed development. The application has been referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) as part of Council’s pre development application process. The current development application has made some amendments, however has not addressed all the concerns raised by the Panel. Accordingly, the application was not send back to the Panel for review. The areas of concerns will follow however the Panel raised the following original concerns:

 

1.      Relationship to the Context of the Proposal 

The proposal is for the demolition and redevelopment of a remnant house / duplex on the eastern slopes overlooking Kingsford shopping centre, near the UNSW. The site falls steeply from Willis Street in the east down to Willis Lane, a drop equivalent to 3 floors.

Apartment buildings are interspersed with houses and town houses in the vicinity of the site. As the zoning anticipates, the site is ideally suited to more urban use. The Affordable Housing SEPP allows further intensification.

The proposal is for a slim-line contemporary boarding house. The proposed building would contain four floors of studio units, although the steep slope results in a building that is up to 6 storeys in height when viewed from the west. The lower ground floor has car parking, motor bike parking, services, a garden, a caretaker and a garden unit.

The Panel supports the thin cross-section and plan proposed, built to the predominant street alignment to Willis Street. However the Panel has concerns about the proposed height and density, and the overshadowing effects on the neighbour to the south (see below).

The Panel requests a broader contextual analysis to support the full DA.

 

2.      The Scale of the Proposal

The Panel supports the following aspects of the built form;

-    The straight-forward type, well suited to the site, and already found in the area.

-    The thin cross-section, which means that every unit has northern orientation and cross ventilation.

-    The clever site access strategy, with a single open gallery, inboard stair cases and access for all to both street and lane.

-    The stepping form is also an appropriate response to the sloped site, as is the 3 storey scale to Willis Street.

-    The incorporation of roof terraces, taking advantage of the panoramic vistas to the west.

-    The extent of deep soil planting, particularly along the northern and eastern boundaries.

The Panel has concerns about the following aspects of the proposal;

-     The overall height is generally a storey higher than the maximum permitted height under the LEP for the 2(b) zone. The proposed 4 storeys is due partly to the over-excavation, partly to too much height

-     The FSR is high, even taking account of the 0.5:1 Affordable Housing bonus.

-     The continuous building form, at the height envisaged, causes unacceptable overshadowing effects on the neighbour to the south. Regardless of whether this narrow property were to be redeveloped or not, this site would be permanently shaded in winter.

-     The extent of shoring and retaining walls along all boundaries needs to be considered and properly shown. The effect of excavation on neighbours’ trees needs to be considered

-     The excavation currently shown is excessive. No unit should have as its sole aspect the rear of a retaining wall.

-     The car parking is awkwardly handled, as it is too small and compromises the caretaker’s garden

-     There appears to be little space for planting on the south side due to the arrangement of stairs, paths and the retaining construction

-     The walkways and entries lack weather protection, and the door swings need to be resolved

-    The Panel believes that the typical unit plan can be improved with further design investigations - reducing circulation space and increasing living space.

-    Overlooking to the north needs to be further considered. Currently the scheme shows 4 stories of continuous glazed louvres facing the neighbours, which is unlikely to be the best solution to privacy for anyone.

-    On the south side privacy for bedroom windows from the walkways and stairs needs to be further considered

The Panel suggests some combination of the following improvements to the scheme should be investigated by the architect;

-     Introducing an opening and step to the centre of the building would improve the scale and relationship to neighbours. Such a revision to the massing could split the upper levels into 2 distinct volumes that step down following fall of the site. The split in the form would allow sunlight and aspect for the property to the south.

-     Alternatively, the point of stepping could be moved eastward by half a module, thereby deleting half the top floor units.

-     The 3 lowest units facing the retaining walls should be deleted. Boundary wall heights and ground RLs should be clearly indicated so that their impact on neighbouring properties can be assessed.

-     The articulation of any additional floor space achieved needs to be well handled. Due to the extreme slope of the site, there is likely to be a minor exceedance of the LEP height as the building steps down the hill. This can be compensated by a central opening / different point of stepping and lower height.

-     The Panel would prefer to see some variety in the unit plans, in terms of configuration, size, internal volume, balcony or the like.

-     The design of all windows, balconies, screens and hoods needs further consideration to improve environmental performance, privacy, amenity and weather protection.

-     A proportion of obscured glass, solid louvres, or similar to the balcony balustrades should be provided for privacy.

-     There is the potential for much more use of the roof, in terms of green roofs, ESD, usable space or better use of the cross section to make better interiors. There is scope for skylights/toplights and roof vents to increase the environmental performance and amenity of the top floor units. Some minor additional height, as long as it does not add to overshadowing, would be acceptable.

-     It would be appropriate for the common areas to be expressed differently in elevation to the apartments around them in response to their different use and relationship with the common outdoor areas.

3.      The Built Form of the Proposal

See above.

4.      The Proposed Density

The Panel understands that the SEPP allows a floor space bonus above the 0.65:1 FSR envisaged in the LEP.

It is the Panel’s opinion that the LEP density plus the SEPP Affordable Housing bonus should be suitable in this relatively urban context, which is well served by public transport and is very convenient to the University, the hospital and a wide range of public places, facilities and shopping.

Implementing the changes suggested above would bring the proposed density closer to the permissible level of 1.15:1.

Any argument for additional density should be supported by design quality, and good amenity for all dwellings. This is the case with this proposal, which has every dwelling facing north and cross-ventilated.

5.      Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

The building has the potential to perform very well;

·   Good cross ventilation to units is provided uniformly by the plan. High level windows to the walkway / breezeway can be provided from the south side of the apartments, while side windows can also be provided for more units.

·   An improved roof design with clerestory windows could be used to capture winter sun and provide added light and ventilation.  Drawings should indicate roof thicknesses for falls and insulation.

·   It would be good to have as many bathrooms and laundries as possible on the external wall, with openable windows.

·   Appropriate windows have been provided to all elevations, considering spandrel separation and sun shading.  The use of sliding/folding doors between the narrow living rooms and the verandas might improve the convenience and utility of these spaces.

·   It is unclear from the drawings where provision has been made for water collection.

·   Ceiling fans should be provided throughout.

·   Cross ventilation should be able to be maintained at night without compromising security. Consideration needs to be given to fanlights, windows or other ventilation options.

·   Clothes lines should be provided, perhaps on the roof terraces

6.      The Proposed Landscape

A qualified landscape architect should prepare the landscape design.

The proposal should endeavour to comply with the required landscape area, which is preferable given the higher density proposed.  Deep soil would be highly beneficial along the northern boundary.  Trees along all boundary frontages increase amenity enormously by providing visual relief, privacy and shading.

The landscape design should include the upgrading of the public frontages, and the planting of additional street trees. The landscape architect should coordinate with Council regarding these public domain improvements.

The ground floor unit to Willis Street should have a planning arrangement that improves the access and usefulness of the courtyard.

7.      The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

See above

Easy access to garbage rooms for all units should be considered.

8.      The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

Generally satisfactory.

BCA advice should be sought with regard to the layout of the stairs for fire egress, spandrel separation, egress and the like. The Panel suggests that specialist advice may be needed regarding separate ascending and descending stairs, from level access to the street and lane.

9.     Social issues

The Panel strongly supports new affordable housing on well-located sites in Randwick. The apartment configuration and small sizes proposed seem to be appropriate to diversify the housing choice available in the area. More variation in plan types and sizes should be provided, such as some suites / doubles that are suitable for couples, or couples with a young child.

10.  The Aesthetics of the Proposal

The architect needs to consider the issues and potential improvements suggested above, without losing the qualities inherent in the scheme. Subject to the changes suggested above being made, the proposed building could be a positive addition to Kingsford

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel looks for to seeing this application at DA stage, when it has developed into a good proposal, with an appropriate level of design resolution that well satisfies SEPP 65 requirements. 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

The applicant has amended the plans from the original comments made by the Design Review Panel and below is his response to each of the issues which were raised.

 

DRP Suggestions

Design Response

1 Relationship to the Context of the Proposal –

 

    The Panel requests a roader contextual analysis to support the full DA.

The DA Architectural Set includes a relatively thorough site analysis to support the full DA.

2 The Scale of the Proposal –

 

·    Introducing an opening and step to the centre of the building would improve the scale and relationship to neighbours. Such a revision to the massing could split the upper levels into 2 distinct volumes that step down following fall of the site. The split in the form would allow sunlight and aspect for the property to the south.

 

·     Alternatively, the point of stepping could be moved eastward by half a module, thereby deleting half the top floor units.

 

·     The 3 lowest units facing the retaining walls should be deleted. Boundary wall heights and ground RLs should be clearly indicated so that their impact on neighbouring properties can be assessed.

 

·     The articulation of any additional floor space achieved needs to be well handled. Due to the extreme slope of the site, there is likely to be a minor exceedence of the LEP height as the building steps down the hill. This can be compensated by a central opening/different point of stepping and lower height.

 

·     The Panel would prefer to see some variety in the unit plans, in terms of configuration, size, internal volume, balcony or the like.

 

 

 

·     The design of all windows, balconies, screens and hoods needs further consideration to improve environmental performance, privacy, amenity and weather protecting.

 

·     A proportion of obscured glass, solid louvres, or similar to the balcony balustrades should be provided for privacy.

 

·     There is the potential for much more use of the roof, in terms of green roofs, ESD, usable space or better use of the cross section to make better interiors. There is scope for skylights/toplights and roof vents to increase the environmental performance and amenity of the top floor units. Some minor additional height, as long as it does not add to overshadowing would be acceptable.

 

·     It would be appropriate for the common areas to be expressed differently in elevation to the apartments around them in response to their different use and relationship with the common outdoor areas.

 

·    The revised scheme comprises of two stepping down volumes following fall of the site. This allows relatively better sunlight and aspect for the property to the south compared to the original scheme.

 

 

 

 

 

·    The revised scheme has the building volume pushed eastward, reducing a full module in total.

 

 

·    The lowest 3 units facing the retaining walls have been deleted in the revised scheme.

 

 

 

 

 

·    The revised scheme proposes a two-volume-step down as oppose to three in the original design. The point of stepping has been moved eastward and while there is still exceedence of the LEP heights, it is considerably less significant compared to the original scheme

 

 

·    The revised scheme has a variety of one bedroom and two bedroom units, and even in the single bed units, the configuration differs slightly in the front and rear facing units compared to the intermediate units.

 

·    The use of louvre screens on the south side of the building improves amenity, privacy as well as design and composition of the proposal.

 

 

·    The architect believes the current use of louver panels on the northern face of the building is appropriate in addressing the possible excessive sun penetration and privacy issues.

 

·    The proposal seeks to operate within the client’s tight budget as well in considering that any extra roof elements will lead to unnecessary dispute in overshadowing the neighbour to the south.

 

 

 

 

 

·    The community area does not have louver panels on the north elevation, in differentiating its function and relationship with other dwelling units.

4 The Proposed Density –

Any argument for additional density should be supported by design quality, and good amenity for all dwellings. This is the case with this proposal, which has every dwelling facing north cross-ventilated.

 

The revised scheme has a FSR of 0.985:1 which is below the allowable 1.15:1 as suggested by the DRP.

5 Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency –

·     It is unclear from the drawings where provisions have been made for water collection.

 

 

·     Ceiling fans should be provided throughout.

 

 

·    While this is still being considered, it is very likely the existing garage (current store room) to be used as a water storage tank area.

 

·    All units in the revised scheme are equipped with ceiling fans.

6 The Proposed Landscape –

·     The proposal should endeavour to comply with the required landscape area, which is preferable given the higher density proposed. Deep soil would be highly beneficial along the northern boundary. Trees along all boundary frontages increase amenity enormously by providing visual relief, privacy and shading.

 

·     The landscape design should include the upgrading of the public frontages, and the planting of additional street trees.

 

 

 

 

·    The landscape area complies as required by the LEP, all the amenity of the boarding house lodgers/residents has been considered.

 

·    Deep soil planting will be provided on the northern boundary.

 

 

·    Trees along the boundary frontages are not possible given the retaining of the existing building and the need to establish a clear accessible path to access the units.

 

·    The design has sought to retain trees where possible and in relation to the street front a fence will be built in order to improve amenity, privacy and afford visual relief.

7 The Amenity of the Proposal for its users –

·     Easy access to garbage rooms for all units should be considered. 

 

 

 

·    All units have easy access to garbage rooms. The developer will install stair lifts for the ease of the physically challenged residents and in the case this is not achievable, the boarding house management will appoint a cleaner/contractor to collect rubbish and recyclables from the accessible units on a scheduled basis.

 

Although the applicant provides a commentary about the amended scheme, the submitted scheme has not addressed the concerns raised by the Panel.

 

The following comments are provided in response.

 

The applicant has not created an opening to the centre of the building. It has simply created a step rather than three under the original scheme. The overall length of the building remains the same, which was a fundamental concern raised by the Design Review Panel.

 

There is little articulation in the building other than the three stair cores which provides an element which helps articulate the southern elevation however the northern elevation consists of a series of louvers which in fact brings the building 1.8 metres to the side boundary and increases the overall massing of the building.

 

Given the proposal has not addressed the fundamental concerns raised by the Panel, the submitted scheme has not been referred back for their consideration.

 

9.1      Policy Controls

 

Development Control Plan Parking

The car parking requirements stipulated in the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) prevail over the DCP controls.

 

9.2      Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$1,400,000

1.0%

$14,000.00

 

10.      Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

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

Not applicable. 

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment that are otherwise not assessed within the body of this report, are addressed below.

 

The proposed development is inconsistent with the built form in the locality. The proposal is considered to result in a detrimental impact on the locality.

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

Although the site has convenient access to local retail services and public transport. The proposal is not appropriate on this site as it is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

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

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

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

The proposal, due to its impacts, will result in a significant environmental impact on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

Additional Considerations:

Concern has been raised to the applicant as to the question of the appropriateness of this development having regard to the Court Planning Principles for small and narrow lots as determined in the matter of CSR Architect vs Randwick Council.

 

Specifically there are no details on how the proposal responds to the last two questions.

 

-    Would (the proposed development) render the reasonable development of neighbouring sites difficult? and

–    can orderly, economic and appropriate development of the subject site as well as neighbouring sites be achieved?

 

The applicant has prepared a response which shows that the site at No 34 could be developed in a manner not dissimilar to the proposal at 32 Willis Street. This is shown below.

There are a number of relevant assumptions that need to be raised. The first is that the applicant has shown that the development at No 34 is of a scale substantially less than the proposed development at No 32. This has occurred due to the impact the proposed development at No 32 will have to No 34, in particular to achieve solar access and the need to provide roof terraces as private open space.

 

The second is the assumption that the layout of the development stepping down the site is acceptable given this is the approach taken for No 32. There are no separations to the centre of the site as implied by the design panel.

 

These concerns reinforces that the proposal at No 32 is an overdevelopment of the site and clearly does impact the ability for No 34 to be developed.

 

It is considered that the building in its length is far too long without the ability to create a physical gap that will provide relief to the building form. This approach is evident in the development to the north where there is a cluster of three building blocks which work themselves down the site respecting the fall of the land. This approach should also be adapted to No 32 reinforced and suggested by the Design Panel.

 

The narrowness of the site and the cost of purchasing the site do not mean that the applicant can develop the site to a potential beyond those stipulated within the controls especially given there are a number of breaches to the standards and poor environmental outcomes.

 

It is also important to acknowledge that the standards within the SEPP are not onerous and the failure to comply with a number of standards reinforces that the development is clearly an overdevelopment of the site.

 

Solar Access

Comments were made as part of the submission in this report regarding solar access within the development.

 

Concern is raised in reference to the solar impact the development will have to the adjoining property to the south to No 34. As the shadow diagrams indicate, the degree of overshadowing is excessive and is a direct result of the design on the development. There will be no sun afforded to this property. It is therefore considered that the proposal has made no attempt in providing any form of solar access to No 34 and as stated, the creation of a central split in the building would be a desirable outcome to address this concern.

 

Internal amenity

It is noted that all the balconies are located along the northern elevation, with the use of what appears to be fixed louvers to overcome privacy concerns. Although the issue of privacy will be resolved the consequent impact will be that the louvers will also minimise the ability to allow direct sunlight into the living areas of the proposed units should they be fixed. The plans are silent as to whether they are fixed however a notation on additional information submitted by the applicant seems to imply they may be fixed. Should they be movable, then the amenity concerns are somewhat resolved, pending which ones are movable.

 

The proposed development has its living spaces orientated to its side boundary. This approach as a general rule is not endorsed as a sound planning principle and reinforces the width of the site and the length of the building is unacceptable. The design (layout) reinforces the development as an overdevelopment of the site.

 

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 is considered unacceptable. The development fails to meet the relevant standards contained within the State policy. The proposal also creates unreasonable impacts to the adjoining property and the form and scale of the proposal is not in keeping with the character of the area as detailed.

Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council does not support the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20G of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to Building Heights, on the grounds that the proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the above clause, and will adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council as the consent authority, refuse its consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to refuse Development Consent No DA/1096/2010 involving the demolition of an existing building, construction of part 3/part 4 storey boarding house development comprising 18 units, 2 car park spaces with a roof top garden and associated works at 32 Willis Street, Kingsford for the following reasons: 

 

1.     The proposal is contrary to Clause 29(2)(a) building height, (c) solar access, (e) parking under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

2.     The proposal is contrary to Clause 30(1)(b) room sizes, (e) on site manager, (h) bicycle parking under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

3.     The proposal is contrary to Clause 54A (3) character of the local area under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009.

 

4.     The proposal is in conflict with Clause 20G building heights under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

5.     The proposed development creates an unreasonable impact to the adjoining property to the south in terms of overshadowing.

 

6.     The proposed development creates an unreasonable impact given its proposed massing and scale as viewed from the public domain.

 

7.     Inadequate private open space is provided on site being located on the roof creating acoustic privacy impacts.

 

8.     The orientation of the living areas to the side boundary are not considered acceptable and reinforce the principles needed to be considered for narrow lots.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP65/11

 

 

Subject:                  32 Brook Street, Coogee (DA/275/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/275/2011

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a new first floor addition

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Jeffrey Beaton

Owner:                         Graham Swan

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

This application is referred to Council for determination, as the proposed development will exceed the prescribed development standards for floor space ratio and building heights by more than 10%.

 

The proposed development will exceed the prescribed development standard for floor space ratio by 50%, relating to Clause 20F of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). The applicant submitted a SEPP1 Objection with the development application.

 

The proposed development will exceed the prescribed development standards for maximum building heights by 8% and for wall heights by 21%, relating to Clause 20G of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). The applicant submitted a SEPP1 Objection with the development application.

 

Whilst the proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio standard by 50% (56.2m2), it should be noted that if the proposal were to be assessed against the preferred solution for floor space ratio under the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, it would represent an excess of 16% (22.7m2) above the preferred solution. Notwithstanding, a SEPP 1 objection has been submitted and appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

The Development Application seeks consent for alterations and additions to an existing semi -detached dwelling including a new first floor addition.

 

The application was notified to the surrounding properties and one objection was received. The objection raised concerns regarding the proposed south-western facing windows to the first floor addition and the perceived impact on visual privacy.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal is for the construction of a first floor additon to include a master bedroom with an ensuite bathroom and shower. The propsoal will result in a 3 bedroom dwelling which is setback behind the existing forward ridgeline.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Brook Street within the Zone No 2A (Residential A Zone). The site has a frontage of 6.9m, a depth of 36.5m and a total area of approximately 223.6m2. The site has an easterly aspect and slopes towards the south-west from the street. A single storey semi-detached dwelling exists on the site. To the north of the site is the adjoining single storey semi-detached dwelling and to the south of the site is located a two storey detached dwelling, including a first floor addition, approved under DA/735/1999.  

 

Figure 1:  The existing semi-detached dwelling on the subject site. The adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 30 Brook Street is largely obscured from view by a tree.

 

4.    Site History

 

Council approved Building Application No. BA/765/1991 for a carspace and fence to the dwelling.

 

5.    State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 Development Standards

 

5.1      SEPP 1 Objection - Floor Space Ratio

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clause 20F  (Floor Space Ratios) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, the maximum floor space ratio for development, other than for the purpose of a dwelling house on land zoned 2A Residential is 0.5:1. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below.

 

It should be noted that Council’s calculations for gross floor area differed from the applicant’s in that Councils’ calculations resulted in a marginally higher gross floor area than that achieved by the applicant.

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

LEP development standard

0.5:1

Proposal

0.75:1 - gross floor area of 168.0m2  (Council’s calculation)

 

Existing FSR: 0.57:1 (128.1m2)

Excess above the LEP standard

56.2m2 above the development standard which equates to a proposed 50% excess.

 

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection, the principles established from the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 have been addressed. The case has established that the upholding of a SEPP 1 objection is a precondition which must be satisfied before a proposed development can be approved by the consent authority:

 


Matter 1

The Court must be satisfied that “the objection is well founded” (clause 7 of SEPP 1). The objection is to be in writing, be an objection “that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case”, and specify “the grounds of that objection” (clause 6 of SEPP 1).

 

·      Comments:

The stated purpose of the FSR standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

To operate together with controls for building height and landscaped area to limit the size, scale and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area.

 

The applicant has submitted a written SEPP 1 objection, which outlines the following justifications for the variation to the standard:

 

-      The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the RLEP as it is compliant with the other development standards which include landscaped area provision and building height;

 

-      The dwelling will be maintain appropriate setbacks which are unchanged;

 

-      The proposal will not result in an overdevelopment of the site and will be in keeping  with the planning objectives for the locality.

 

It is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary based on the following reasons:

 

-      The development standard is intended to limit the size, scale and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area and it is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with this objective. The proposed first floor addition will result in a semi-detached dwelling which is consistent with semi-detached dwellings in the area;

 

-      The proposal would enable a similar style of development to be constructed (in the future) to the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 30 Brook Stre et;

 

-      The proposed development would impose a gross floor area only marginally more than the maximum preferred solution stated within Council’s DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies; and

 

-      As will be discussed in the following sections, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, maximum external wall height, overshadowing or privacy.

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objection has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objection has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. As such, it is considered that the objection is well founded.

 

 

 

Matter 2

The Court must be of the opinion that “granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3” (clause 7 of SEPP 1).

 

The aims and objects of SEPP 1 set out in clause 3 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 last mentioned objects in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are to encourage:

 

“(1) 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 purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(2) the promotion and coordination of the orderly and economic use of developed land.”

 

·      Comments:

The variation from the floor space ratio standard is not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as it would not detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

The proposal is also consistent with the relevant objectives of the Residential 2A Zone in that it will allow development which is consistent with the desired character of the locality and which, will protect the amenity of existing residents.

 

Matter 3

The Court must be satisfied that a consideration of the matters in clause 8(a) and (b) of SEPP 1 justifies the upholding of the SEPP 1 objection. The matters in clause 8(a) and (b) are:

 

“(a) whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

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

 

·      Comment:

The proposed development and variation from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not allow the best economic use of the site and the delivery of a suitably scaled in-fill residential development in an established neighbourhood.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

Preston C J expressed the view that an objection under SEPP 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in clause 3 of the Policy in a variety of ways:

 

First

The most commonly invoked way is to establish that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. If the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective, strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as the proposed first floor addition will achieve the objectives of the development standard.

 

Second

A second way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is relevant to the subject development.

 

Third

A third way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the standards would not be defeated or thwarted as full compliance in this instance is unreasonable.

 

Fourth

A fourth way is to establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The floor space ratio standard has not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

 

Fifth

A fifth way is to establish that “the zoning of particular land” was “unreasonable or inappropriate” so that “a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land” and that “compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The existing Residential A zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

5.2      SEPP 1 Objection – Maximum Building Height

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clause 20G  (Building Heights) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, the maximum building height for a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A is 9.5 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level. Further, the maximum height for any external wall of a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A is 7 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level.

 

The proposed maximum building height is 10.3m and the proposed maximum wall height is 8.5m. The proposed variations are summarized in the table below:

 

 

Building Heights

Proposal

The proposed maximum building height is 10.3m and the proposed maximum wall height is 8.5m.

LEP development standard

Maximum building height for a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A is 9.5 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level; and

 

Maximum height for any external wall of a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A is 7 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level

Excess above the LEP standard

The proposed maximum building height is 0.8m above the development standard which equates to a proposed excess of 8%.

 

The proposed maximum wall height is 1.5m above the development standard which equates to a proposed excess of 21%.

 

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection, the principles established from the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 have been addressed. The case has established that the upholding of a SEPP 1 objection is a precondition which must be satisfied before a proposed development can be approved by the consent authority:

 

Matter 1

The Court must be satisfied that “the objection is well founded” (clause 7 of SEPP 1). The objection is to be in writing, be an objection “that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case”, and specify “the grounds of that objection” (clause 6 of SEPP 1).

 

·      Comments:

The stated purpose of the FSR standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

To operate together with the controls for floor space ratio and landscaped area to limit the size, scale and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area.

 

The applicant has submitted a written SEPP 1 objection, which outlines the following justifications for the variation to the standard:

 

-      The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the RLEP as the height and scale of the development relates to the topography of the site;

 

-      The proposed development is consistent in terms of height and scale with the adjoining dwelling at 34 Brook Street, which includes a first floor addition;

 

-      The proposal will maintain the natural light for neighbouring residences and will ensure that there is minimal impact on views to the locality;  

 

-      The proposed roof form will complement the original character and appearance of the existing semi-detached dwelling; and

 

-      The proposed first floor addition will enhance the predominant neighbourhood and streetscape character.

 

It is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary based on the following reasons:

 

-        The development standard is intended to limit the size, scale and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area. It is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with this objective given that the first floor addition will be in keeping with similar additions to dwellings in the locality and with the adjoining dwelling at 34 Brook Street (see Figures 2 – 5 below);

 

-        As will be discussed in the following sections, the proposal does not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, view loss or privacy;

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objection has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objection has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. As such, it is considered that the objection is well founded.

 

  

 

  

 

Figures 2 - 5:  The proposed first floor addition will be in keeping with similar additions to dwelling in the locality and with the adjoining dwelling at 34 Brook Street.

 

Matter 2

The Court must be of the opinion that “granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3” (clause 7 of SEPP 1).

 

The aims and objects of SEPP 1 set out in clause 3 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 last mentioned objects in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are to encourage:

 

“(1) 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 purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(2) the promotion and coordination of the orderly and economic use of developed land.”

 

·      Comments:

The variation from the building heights standard is not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as it would not detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

The proposal is also consistent with the relevant objectives of the Residential 2A Zone in that it will allow development which is ancillary to the present use of the site as an attached dual occupancy development, which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

Matter 3

The Court must be satisfied that a consideration of the matters in clause 8(a) and (b) of SEPP 1 justifies the upholding of the SEPP 1 objection. The matters in clause 8(a) and (b) are:

 

“(a) whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

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

 

·      Comment:

The proposed development and variation from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not allow the best economic use of the site and the delivery of a suitably scaled in-fill residential development in an established neighbourhood.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

Preston C J expressed the view that an objection under SEPP 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in clause 3 of the Policy in a variety of ways:

 

First

The most commonly invoked way is to establish that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. If the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective, strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as the proposal will achieve the objectives of the development standard.

 

Second

A second way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is relevant to the subject development.

 

Third

A third way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the standards would not be defeated or thwarted as full compliance in this instance is unreasonable.

 

Fourth

A fourth way is to establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The building height standard has not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

 

Fifth

A fifth way is to establish that “the zoning of particular land” was “unreasonable or inappropriate” so that “a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land” and that “compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The existing Residential A zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.

 

6.1      Objections

As a result of this notification, the following submission was received:

 

11 Division Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

Privacy will be impacted as our rear yard would be overlooked from the proposed first floor addition. Topography of the area accentuates the privacy impact as our property is 1-2m lower than the subject semi-detached dwelling.

 

No objection is raised to the proposed height of the dwelling; rather the privacy impact. Privacy could be addressed by including architectural features to the first floor windows such as fixed external louvres or the inclusion of a ‘shelf’ within the window sill to minimise overlooking.

See further discussion below in Section  10.1.

 

6.2      Support

No submissions were received in support of the application. 

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

Parking Comments

The proposed alterations will be increasing the number of bedrooms in the dwelling from two* to three. Council’s DCP-Parking requires that dwellings with three or more bedrooms provide two off-street carspaces.

 

For the subject site only one carspace is currently provided and no additional spaces are proposed. The development will hence result in a parking deficiency for the site of 1 carspace.

In regards to this parking deficiency the following characteristics of the site are noted;

 

§ On street parking was observed to be readily available at time of site inspection.

§ The site is within 200m of bus routes 339 and 353 on Clovelly Road with typical frequencies of 30min during the day with increased frequencies during peak times.

§ Due to the geometric constraints of the site there is no scope to provide additional parking without a substantial redevelopment of the site.

*A third existing room in the residence is labelled as a ‘study’ on the submitted plans but may have been originally approved as a bedroom in which case the parking demand will not change as a result of the proposal.

 

In consideration of the above factors Development Engineering will not object to the parking deficiency of 1 space in this instance.

 

Drainage Comments

The alterations are located within the existing building footprint and there will be no increase in impervious area on the site as a result of this proposal. No modification of the drainage system is required. 

 


Landscape Comments

There are no existing trees, (covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply:

 

8.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The site has a site area less than 10,000sqm and is not subject to the requirements of Clause 40A of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) - Site specific development control plans.

 

9.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

9.1      SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

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

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

 

9.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 2A (Residential A Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) and the proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Clause 10 - Zone No 2A (Residential A Zone)

The site is zoned 2A Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.  The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed built form will maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas and protect the amenity of existing residents.

 

Clause 20E   Landscaped area

Development, otherwise than for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A must provide a minimum of 40% of the total site area as landscaped area. The proposed landscaped area is 56% and the proposal is compliant with the clause.

 

Clause 20F   Floor space ratio

The maximum floor space ratio for a building, other than a building erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within the 2A (Residential A Zone) is 0.5:1 whereas the proposed maximum floor space ratio is 0.75:1. The proposal does not comply with the development standard and the applicant submitted a SEPP 1 Objection with regard to the non-compliance (see further discussion above – Part 5.1).

 

Clause 20G   Building heights

The maximum height for a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A is 9.5 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level and the maximum height for any external wall of a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No 2A is 7 metres measured vertically from any point on ground level. 

The proposed maximum building height is 10.3m and the proposed external maximum wall height is 8.5m. The proposal does not comply with the development standard and the applicant submitted a SEPP 1 Objection with regard to the non-compliance. See further discussion above - Part 5.2.

 

9.3 Policy Controls

9.3.1   Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies:

 

Clause

Standard

Check

y/n

Landscaping

40 % of site provided as landscaped area

55.7%

Yes

25m² of private open space provided.

65.9m2 +

Yes

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

12.2 x 5.4m

Yes

Open space behind the building line.

Yes

20% of the site area is permeable.

47.8%

Yes

Height, Form & Materials

External wall height maximum 7m

8.5m

No – See further discussion above – Part 5.2.

External wall height to the rear maximum 3.5m.

N/A

N/A

Cut or fill maximum 1m.

N/A

N/A

No excavation within 900 mm of a side boundary.

N/A

N/A

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

N/A

N/A

The length of a 2nd storey maximum 12m less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

10.5m

Yes

The 2nd storey addition to a semi respects the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

Yes

See further discussion below – Part 10.2.

Building setbacks

Front setback average of adjoining dwellings or 6m

6.3m – No change from existing

Yes

Rear boundary setback at least 4.5m

12.3 – No change from existing

Yes

Side setbacks be 900mm at ground level.

1.1m -  1.4m – No change from existing

Yes

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

1.1m -  1.4m

See  furtherdiscussion below - Part 10.3.

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

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

Habitable room windows are offset by 45 degrees

Yes

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

Proposed south-facing first floor windows have the capacity to overlook the roof of the dwelling to the south and adjoining rear yards to the south and south –west. Windows include sill heights of 1.5m.

See further discussion below - Part 10.1.

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

Windows have sill heights of 1.5m.

Yes

Safety & Security

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

Yes

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

Bedroom

Yes

Garages & Driveways

 

 

 

 

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

1 space

See further discussion below - Part 10.4.

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

Existing car space has maximum dimensions of 6.5m x 2.7m

No change proposed from existing.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

New dwellings comply with 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

See BASIX

N/A

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

Yes

 

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

See further discussion below -Part 10.5.

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

No impact to solar collectors

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

See further discussion below - Part 10.5.

 

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

Principal outdoor recreation spaces of neighbouring dwellings will receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am- 3pm 21 June.

Yes

 

9.3.2   Section 94A Contribution DCP

The DCP authorises Randwick City Council to impose, as a condition of development consent, a requirement that the applicant pay Council a levy determined in accordance with the following schedule:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable

Levy

S94A Levy

Development Cost

More than $200,000

$211,460

1.0%

$2,114.60

 

 

9.4 Council Policies

No Council policies are relevant to the proposal.

 

10. Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

10.1    Visual Privacy

The Objective of the DCP with regards to visual and acoustic privacy is to ensure that new buildings and additions meet the occupants’ and neighbours’ requirements for visual and acoustic privacy. The Performance Requirements within the DCP include that windows and balconies of main living areas are located to avoid overlooking of similar windows in adjoining dwellings and areas of private open space.

 

The proposed first floor windows face towards the south-east and south-west. The south-east-facing windows will overlook Brook Street and the roof of the dwelling to the south only (34 Brook Street). Consequently, the windows will not impose any unreasonable impact on that dwelling with regard to visual privacy.

 

The south-west-facing windows have the capacity to overlook the rear yard of the neighbouring dwelling at 11 Division Street however include a sill height of 1.5m and service a stair access landing only. Consequently, the windows are not considered to impose an unreasonable impact on that dwelling with regard to visual privacy. 

 

10.2    Visual Bulk, Height Form and Materials

The proposal exceeds Council’s development controls for floor space ratio and maximum building height however the applicant has submitted SEPP1 Objections for which support is recommended (See further discussion above - Parts 5.1 & 5.2). The proposal is in keeping with adjoining development in terms of height and materials and the proposed first floor is setback to retain a substantial portion of the existing ground floor roof line. The proposal respects the symmetry of the semi-detached dwellings on the subject site and on the adjoining property at 30 Brook Street.

 

10.3    Reduced side setback

The DCP preferred solution for side setbacks at first floor level is 1.5m whereas the application proposes a southern side setback ranging from 1.1m to 1.4m and a nil setback to the northern boundary (common wall with adjoining semi-detached dwelling). The non-conformance is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·       No unreasonable impacts will result as a result of visual bulk or overshadowing;

·       Neighbouring properties will retain access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air as a result of the proposed works; and

·       The DCP allows for setbacks to be less than the Preferred Solution where it is proposed to extend an existing semi-detached building along the alignment of the common wall.

 

10.4    Off-street parking

The parking requirement for a dwelling house with 3 or more bedrooms is 2 off-street parking spaces, whereas the proposed 3 bedroom dwelling provides one existing off-street parking space only. Nevertheless, the non-compliance has been assessed against the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements and is supported given that the proposed use will not generate an unreasonably high demand for additional parking in the locality.

 

Further, it is considered that the proposal is not required to provide additional off-street parking for the following reasons:

 

·      There is convenient access to public transport in close proximity to the site;

·      There is on-street parking in the vicinity of the site and on nearby side streets; and

·      Site constraints are such that additional off-street parking cannot be provided in the front setback of the site. 

 

10.5    Solar Access and Overshadowing

The preferred solutions specified by the DCP include:

 

·         That private open space receive at least 3 hours sunlight over at least part of its area between 9am - 3pm on 21 June;

 

·         That North-facing windows to living areas receive at least 3 hrs sunlight over at least part of their surface between 9am - 3pm on 21 June;

 

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

 

·         That North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight over at least part of their surface between 9am - 3pm 21 June, or if less than 3 hours is available under current conditions, that solar access is not further reduced; and

 

·         That Principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am- 3pm 21 June, or if less than 3 hours is available under current conditions, sunlight access is not further reduced.

 

The rear living area for the subject dwelling at ground floor level faces west and is substantially overshadowed by existing vegetative screening on the northern, western and southern property boundaries of the subject site (see Figure 6 below). Nevertheless the non-compliance is supported given that no additional unreasonable shadow impact will result as a result of the proposed works.

 

The existing dwelling at 24 Brook Street has north-facing windows at ground floor level which are already substantially overshadowed by the existing subject dwelling. The proposed first floor addition will cast additional shadow over this area of the adjoining dwelling however will not impose any unreasonable additional shadow impact over that which is already existing.

 

The private open spaces for the neighbouring dwelling at 24 Brook Street face west and south and the west-facing private open space will continue to receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm on 21 June. It is considered that no additional unreasonable shadow impact will result as a result of the proposed works.  Shadow diagrams submitted with the application also show that solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent dwellings will be maintained.

 

Further, the living areas and private open space for the neighbouring dwellings at 9 & 11 Division Street face north and will receive at least 3 hours sunlight 9am - 3pm on 21 June. It is considered that no additional unreasonable shadow impact will result as a result of the proposed works and the proposal is therefore consistent with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regard to solar access and overshadowing.

 

 

Figure 6:  The rear yard of the subject site and vegetative screening on the northern and southern boundaries.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4          Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4A:       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 proposal does not comply with relevant development standards specified by the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) however Council support is recommended for two SEPP 1 Objections relating to Floor Space Ratio and Maximum Building Height. The proposal complies with the objectives and performance requirements of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP. If approved, the proposed development would not result in any unreasonable or significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20F and 20G of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), relating to Floor Space Ratio and Maximum Building Height respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/275/2011 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling including a new first floor addition, at No. 32 Brook Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp, except where amended by Council in red and/or by other conditions of this consent:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

DA06 (Issue C)

Chapman Architecture

11 March 2011

18 April 2011

DA07 (Issue C)

Chapman Architecture

11 March 2011

18 April 2011

DA08 (Issue C)

Chapman Architecture

11 March 2011

18 April 2011

DA09 (Issue C)

Chapman Architecture

11 March 2011

18 April 2011

DA10 (Issue C)

Chapman Architecture

11 March 2011

18 April 2011

DA11 (Issue C)

Chapman Architecture

11 March 2011

18 April 2011

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

A108480

21 March 2011

18 April 2011

 

Civil Works Conditions

 

2.       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.

 

3.       All external civil work to be carried out on Council property (including the installation and repair of roads, footpaths, vehicular crossings, kerb and guttering and drainage works), must be carried out in accordance with Council’s Policy for “Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works” and the following requirements:

 

a)       All work on Council land must be carried out by Council, unless specific written approval has been obtained from Council to use non-Council contractors.

 

b)       Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Pre-paid Works Application Form, prior to issuing an occupation certificate, together with payment of the relevant fees.

 

c)       If it is proposed to use non-Council contractors to carry out the civil works on Council land, the work must not commence until the written approval has been obtained from Council and the work must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent, Council’s design details and payment of a Council design and supervision fee.

 

d)       The civil works must be completed in accordance with Council’s conditions of consent and approved design and construction documentation, prior to occupation of the development, or as otherwise approved by Council in writing.

 

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

 

4.       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.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the issue of a ‘Construction Certificate’ by either Randwick City Council or an Accredited Certifier.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Consent Requirements

5.       The requirements and amendments detailed in the ‘General Conditions’ must be complied with and be included in the construction certificate plans and associated documentation.

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

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

 

External materials, finishes and colours of the building are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building and any metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. Colourbond) to limit the level of reflection and glare.

 

b)    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 the Certifying Authority prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

7.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $211,460, the following monetary levy must be paid to Council: $2,114.60.

       

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.

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

8.       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).  Details of compliance with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

Structural Adequacy

9.       A Certificate of Adequacy must be supplied by a professional engineer, 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. The Certificate of Adequacy shall address the structural adequacy of the existing dwelling to support the additional upper floor addition.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

10.     The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, must be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, 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.

 

BASIX Requirements

11.     In accordance with section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements and commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate must be complied with.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate must be included on the construction certificate plans, specifications and associated documentation, 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.

 

Smoke Alarms

12.     Smoke alarms are required to be installed in each Class 1 building or 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 are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the commencement of any works on the site.  The necessary documentation and information must be provided to the Council or the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’, as applicable.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity.

 

Construction Certificate, Principal Certifying Authority & Commencement of Works

13.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)       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.

 

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved development consent plans and 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.

 

b)       a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) must be appointed to carry out the necessary building inspections and to issue an occupation certificate; and

 

c)       a principal contractor must be appointed for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, an owner-builder permit may be obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and the PCA and Council are to be notified accordingly; and

 

d)       the principal contractor must be advised of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

 

e)       at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing any 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.

 

Home Building Act 1989

14.     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 Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council, in writing.

 

Dilapidation Reports

15.     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:

 

·        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,

 

·        new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to shared property boundaries (e.g.  additions to a semi-detached dwelling or terraced dwellings),

 

·        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 may be 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.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

16.     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 requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and NSW DECC Guidelines 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 Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the NSW DECC Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, is to be implemented throughout the works.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

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

 

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

 

Temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or public place, a Local Approval application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services before placing any item or article on the road, footpath or nature strip.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

18.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction 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;

·          provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·          construction noise and vibration management;

·          construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencing site works.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Demolition Work Plan

19.     A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures and relevant environmental/occupational health and safety requirements.

 

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

·          Recycling, reuse and waste disposal of remediation materials

 

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 also be provided to Council not less than 2 days before commencing those works.

 

Notes

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

§  Refer to the conditions within the “Requirements During Construction & Site Work”, for further details and requirements relating to demolition work, removal of any asbestos and public safety.

 

Sydney Water

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

 

Prior to the commencement of excavation or building works, the approved Construction Certificate plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre, 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 works.

 

Public Utilities

21.     A Public Utility Impact Assessment must be carried out to identify all public utility services located on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the building works.

 

Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been or are able to be satisfied, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any works.

 

The owner/builder must make the necessary arrangements and meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia, Sydney Water and other authorities to adjust, repair or relocate their services as required.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

The following conditions of consent must be complied with during the demolition, excavation and construction of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity during construction.

 

Demolition Work Requirements

22.     The proposed 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 & Water and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·          Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

·          WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·          WorkCover NSW Guidelines and 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 DECCW/EPA Guidelines

·          Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

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.

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

23.     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

 

·          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.  A copy of the relevant licence must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

·          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.  Details of the landfill site (which must be lawfully able to receive asbestos materials) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

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

 

Site Signage

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

 

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

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

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

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

25.     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.  Details are to be included in the Construction Site Management Plan.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

26.     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)     Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any footpath, roadway, nature strip, drainage line or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

c)     Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

d)     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 department.

 

e)     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.

 

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

 

27.     Prior to undertaking any demolition or building work in the following circumstances, a report must be obtained from a professional engineer which details the methods of support for the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·          when undertaking excavation or building work within the zone of influence of the footings of a dwelling or associated structure that is located on the adjoining land;

·          when undertaking demolition work to a wall of a dwelling that is built to a common or shared boundary (eg. semi-detached or terrace dwelling);

·          when constructing a wall to a dwelling or associated structure that is located within 900mm of a dwelling located on the adjoining land.

 

The demolition, excavation and building work and the provision of support to the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, must also be carried out in accordance with the abovementioned report, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

28.     Building, demolition and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

All building, demolition and site work, including site deliveries (except as detailed below)

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers, vibratory rollers/compactors or the like

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

An application to vary the abovementioned hours may be submitted to Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services for consideration and approval to vary the specified hours may be granted in exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management or road safety reasons).  Any applications are to be made on the standard application form and include payment of the relevant fees and supporting information.  Applications must be made at least 10 days prior to the date of the proposed work and the prior written approval of Council must be obtained to vary the standard permitted working hours.

 

Inspections During Construction

29.     The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority, 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).

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Note:        For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity.

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

BASIX Requirements

31.     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.

 

Occupant Safety

32.     Openable windows to a room, corridor, stairway or the like with a floor level more than 4m above the external ground/surface level, must be designed and constructed to reduce the likelihood of a child accessing and falling through the window opening.

 

Options may include one or more of the following measures:

 

·          The window having a minimum sill height of 1.5m above the internal floor level,

·          Providing a window locking device at least 1.5m above the internal floor level,

·          Fixing or securing the window (e.g. by screws or a window locking device) to restrict or to be able to secure the extent of the opening to a maximum width of 125mm,

·          Installing a fixed heavy-duty gauge metal screen over the opening (e.g. A metal security screen or metal security mesh and frame system, but not standard fly-screen material),

·          Other appropriate effective safety measures or barrier.

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health and environmental amenity.

 

Use of premises

33.     The premises must only be used as a single residential dwelling and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

External Lighting

34.     External lighting to the premises must be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – Air Conditioners

35.     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.

 

Air Conditioning & Equipment

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

 

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

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

 

ADVISORY NOTES

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

·          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 requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $1,500) for each offence.  Council may also issue notices and orders to demolish unauthorised or non-complying building work, or to comply with the requirements of Council’s development consent.

 

·          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.

 

Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team can issue Construction Certificates and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

·          This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

·          A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Approvals & Certification team 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 or any other container or article.

 

For further information please contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

·          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.

 

·          Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

·          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                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP66/11

 

 

Subject:                  165 Arden Street, Coogee (DA/139/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/139/2011

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Conversion and use of the existing subfloor area within a multi unit housing development into a separate dwelling

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                P Kambas

Owner:                         P Kambas & K Venson

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application details the proposed use and conversion of the existing subfloor area into an additional dwelling.

 

The application is referred to Council for determination because it includes a SEPP 1 Objection to non compliance with the maximum floor area controls greater than 10%.

 

The main issues are the impact of the development upon the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the established character of the locality.

 

The application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal details the conversion and use of the existing subfloor level into a dwelling containing one bedroom, a bathroom, laundry, store, kitchen and living area with a floor area of 43m.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Arden Street Coogee with a street frontage of 11.43m a depth of 28.04m and site area of 321m. There is a site fall across the site of up to 2m and a fall to the rear of approximately 2.6m. At present on site is a three storey building containing two dwellings within the upper levels and a subfloor level that had until recently been used for a laundry and store.

 

The property is within a predominantly residential area on the edge of the Coogee Beach and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings and multi unit housing development. The site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection area.

 

4.    Site History

 

A previous Development Application, DA/984/2010, was lodged which sought consent to convert the subfloor level into a ‘granny flat’ under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. That application was withdrawn on advice from Council that the proposal was inconsistent with the SEPP in relation to maximum permitted floor area and did not satisfy the definition of a secondary dwelling.

 

An application had also been lodged with Council for a Building Certificate for the subfloor portion of the building that had partially been converted into a habitable use. That application was refused because of lack of information provided in relation to the structural adequacy of the existing building and compliance with the relevant fire protection and health and amenity requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Notification. No response has been received.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has been referred to the Manager Health, Building and Regulatory Services for comment.  It is recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons;

 

No information has been provided in relation to the existing and proposed fire safety measures contained in the building to protect persons using the building, and to facilitate their egress from the   building, in the event of fire, or to restrict the spread of fire from the building to other buildings nearby as may be required in accordance with Clause 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

No information has been provided in relation to Section B of the BCA regarding the existing floor slab and the walls supporting the building above and termite protection to the building.

 

No information has been provided in relation Section C of the BCA regarding fire separation between the proposed sole occupancy unit and the existing building and lack of information as to the means of fire protection for the new south facing door and windows to the proposed sole occupancy unit.

 

No information has been provided in relation to Section E of the BCA regarding existing and proposed services and equipment.

 

No information has been provided in relation to Section F of the BCA regarding the installation of a suitable damp proof course to the underside of the new slab for the proposed sole occupancy unit and the ceiling height of the habitable rooms in the proposed unit do not meet the deemed to satisfy provisions of the BCA.

 

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

 

Clause 20E Landscaped area

Development other than for the purpose of a dwelling house within a 2C zone must provide a minimum of 50% of the total site area as landscaped area. The area of the existing landscaping represents 36% of the site area and is not proposed to be reduced or altered as part of this proposal. 

 

Clause 20F Floor Space Ratios

The maximum floor space ratio for buildings other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house within 2C zones is 0.65:1, where the site area is less than 700m. This proposal has a total floor space ratio of 0.8:1 which exceeds the maximum in the control and a SEPP 1 Objection to this standard has been lodged by the applicant for consideration and is discussed below.

 

Clause 20G Building Heights

The maximum height for a building other than a dwelling house within a 2C zone is 12m from any point on ground level with a maximum external wall height of 10m. The proposal does not seek to alter or increase the overall building or external wall height of the building.

 

7.1    State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 Development Standards

The proposal seeks to vary development standards contained within RLEP 1998. A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clauses 20F of RLEP 1998, the maximum FSR within 2C Zones is 0.65:1 respectively. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio

Proposal

0.8:1 (257m2 )

LEP development standard

0.65:1 (208m2)

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

23% excess (49m2)

 

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection, the principles established from the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 have been addressed. The case has established that the upholding of a SEPP 1 objection is a precondition which must be satisfied before a proposed development can be approved by the consent authority:

 

Matter 1

The Court must be satisfied that “the objection is well founded” (clause 7 of SEPP 1). The objection is to be in writing, be an objection “that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case”, and specify “the grounds of that objection” (clause 6 of SEPP 1).

 

FSR - Clause 20F

The stated purpose of the FSR standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

“To operate together with controls for building height and landscaped area to limit the size and site coverage of a building having regard to the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area”.

 

The applicant has submitted a written SEPP 1 objection, which outlines the following justifications for the variation to the standard:

 

The floor space non compliance is existing, although the use of the space is changing from storage to a habitable residential area the changes will not result in an increase in building envelope. The existing building already exceeds the floor space ratio requirement and the proposal continues this.

 

The technical floor space ratio non compliance will have no streetscape implications. The non complying floor space ratio will not have a negative impact on the streetscape. The proposal comprises internal refurbishments to an already existing lower ground floor storage area, there will be no increase in bulk and scale of the building on the site.

 

There will be no unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties. As discussed above, the building is existing and any potential overlooking of the neighbouring property to the south is mitigated by the dividing fence between the two properties. It is also noted that the main living space for the proposed unit faces to the existing rear yard area.

 

The proposal will be consistent with the objectives of the 20F zone in that there is no change to the overall bulk and scale of the building and there is no proposal to change the existing landscaped area, there will be no negative impacts in terms of environmental amenity and character of the area because the works will essentially not be visible from the street.

 

It is considered that the proposal is unsatisfactory and compliance with the development standard is reasonable and necessary based on the following reasons:

 

Whilst the proposed development exceeds the floor space ratio and will not effectively alter the building envelope, the additional floor area is not justified as it has not been demonstrated the residential use of this area of the existing building is suitable and will comply with the Building Code of Australia.

 

In conclusion, the submitted SEPP 1 objection has not addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objection has not appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. As such, it is considered that the objection is not well founded.

 

Matter 2

The Court must be of the opinion that “granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3” (clause 7 of SEPP 1).

 

The aims and objects of SEPP 1 set out in clause 3 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 last mentioned objects in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are to encourage:

 

“(1) 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 purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(2) the promotion and coordination of the orderly and economic use of developed land.”

 

The variation from FSR standards is inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as they would detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would not promote the orderly use of the land.

 

Matter 3

The Court must be satisfied that a consideration of the matters in clause 8(a) and (b) of SEPP 1 justifies the upholding of the SEPP 1 objection. The matters in clause 8(a) and (b) are:

 

“(a) whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

 

Preston C J expressed the view that an objection under SEPP 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in clause 3 of the Policy in a variety of ways:

 

First

The most commonly invoked way is to establish that compliance with the development standards is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. If the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective, strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standards is reasonable and necessary.

 

Second

A second way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standards is relevant to the subject development.

 

Third

A third way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the standards would be defeated or thwarted as full compliance in this instance is reasonable.

 

Fourth

A fourth way is to establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The FSR development standard has not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

 

Fifth

A fifth way is to establish that “the zoning of particular land” was “unreasonable or inappropriate” so that “a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land” and that “compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The existing Residential zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

7.2      Policy Controls

Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing Development

 

Height

The proposal does not alter or increase the overall building height or external wall height of the building.

 

Building Setbacks

The proposal does not alter the existing setbacks of the building.

 

 

Density

The proposed conversion of the sub floor area will result in the total floor space ratio of the building being 0.8:1 which exceeds the LEP control of 0.65:1. As discussed above the applicant has lodged a SEPP 1 Objection arguing that strict compliance with this control is not necessary and that the resultant floor space ratio will remain consistent with the objectives of the 2C zone. The SEPP 1 Objection is not recommended for support.

 

Landscaped area

The proposed works and use are entirely within the existing building envelope and do not intend to reduce the existing area of landscaping on the site.

 

Privacy

The proposed new dwelling includes the installation of a new door and four windows within the southern elevation of the building. These windows will not look directly into the adjoining property because of the screening provided by the existing dividing fences and the offset of those windows in relation to those within the building opposite. The window within the rear of the dwelling is orientated to the rear yard of the subject property and not towards another property.

 

Solar access and energy efficiency

The proposed works do not alter or reduce the existing levels of solar access to the adjoining properties.

 

Parking

Under the controls of the parking DCP the proposal attracts a requirement of 5 spaces, including 1 visitor parking space. At present due to the existing site constraints there is no vehicular access to the site with parking for the residents being wholly provided on street in Arden Street and the surrounding streets.

 

Given that there is no parking provided on site and no possibility of providing off street parking an assessment must be made as to whether or not the existing levels of on street parking are adequate to serve the parking demand generated by the proposal, or whether the additional on street parking demand generated will result in such an adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties to justify the refusal of the application on the basis of parking shortfall alone.

 

From visual surveys of the site and the immediate locality during different times of the day it is evident that there is a high parking demand in the subject and surrounding streets, which will be especially high during summer months given the close proximity to the beach and adjoining reserve. The parking demand is generated by a combination of both local residents with no off street parking and visitors to the beach and the Coogee area. It would be expected that the parking demand would remain for the whole day and night given that the parking spaces vacated by daytime users would be taken up by residents returning from work or other daytime activities and night time visitors.

 

It is reasonable to conclude that whilst the proposed development will technically result in a shortfall in car parking the parking demand could be accommodated by the availability of on street car parking within a short distance of the site. It is also noted that the property is within the Coogee Residential Parking Scheme which will enable residents to participate in Council’s scheme to provide for un timed residents parking within the surrounding streets.

 

It is noted that the Development Control Plan for Parking recognises the need for flexibility and site specific parking solutions for development. On balance it is considered that the provision of an additional dwelling to this building will not result in any significant additional parking demand within the immediate locality. It can also be argued that the existing street parking is already so saturated during times of peak demand such as during weekend periods that any additional demand as a result of this development would be negligible.

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection area

The existing appearance of the building as viewed from the public domain is not altered.

 

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.

 

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

 

Given that the proposed works do not comply with the Building Code of Australia and that consideration of the proposal has already resulted in the refusal of a Building Certificate the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/139/2011 to convert the existing subfloor area of the building into an additional dwelling at 165 Arden Street, Coogee for the following reasons:

 

1.     No information has been provided in relation to the existing and proposed fire safety measures contained in the building to protect persons using the building and to facilitate their egress from the building in the event or fire, or to restrict the spread of fire from the building to other buildings nearby as may be required in accordance with Clause 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

2.     No information has been provided in relation to Section B of the Building Code of Australia regarding the existing floor slab and walls supporting the building above and termite protection to the building.

 

3.     No information has been provided in relation to Section C of the Building Code of Australia regarding fire separation between the proposed sole occupancy unit and the existing building and lack of information as to the means of fire protection for the new south facing door and windows to the proposed sole occupancy unit.

 

4.     No information has been provided in relation to Section E of the Building Code of Australia regarding existing and proposed services and equipment.

 

5.     No information has been provided in relation to Section F of the Building Code of Australia regarding the installation of a suitable damp proof course to the underside of the new slab for the proposed sole occupancy unit and the ceiling height of the habitable rooms in the proposed unit do not meet the deemed to satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP67/11

 

 

Subject:                  5 Mort Street, Randwick (DA/256/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/256/2011

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of first floor studio above approved garage

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Turpin Burton Architects

Owner:                         Mr J L Stanton

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

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

 

The application details the construction of a first floor studio above the approved garage at the rear of the property.  The proposal also includes renovation works to the existing bathroom on the first floor level to the dwelling.

 

The application was notified to the surrounding properties and three objections were received following the initial notification period. 

 

The main issues raised in the submissions include the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties with regard to bulk and scale, setbacks, building height, visual and acoustic privacy, storm water management and overshadowing.

 

The proposal is not considered to result in any unreasonable adverse impacts and will be in keeping with the existing streetscape in the laneway. The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. Consequently, the subject application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal is for the construction of a first floor studio above the approved garage at the rear of the property.  The proposal also includes renovation works to the existing bathroom on the first floor level to the dwelling.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Mort Street between Govett Street and Govett Lane with rear access off Mort Lane. The site is presently occupied by an existing two storey dwelling house.  The subject site has a frontage width of 9.145, side boundary depths of 45.72m and has an overall site area of 418m².

 

The surrounding area is predominately residential in character and contains a mixture of single and two storey attached and detached dwelling houses.

 

   

Figure 1: Subject dwelling, 5 Mort Street.        Figure 2: Garage/outbuilding structures within Mort Lane.

     

Figure 3: Garage/outbuilding structures             Figure 4: Garage/outbuilding structures

within Mort Lane.                                                 within Mort Lane

 

        

Figure 5: Garage/outbuilding structures             Figure 6: The rear yard of the subject site.

along Mort Lane.

 

      

Figure 7: The northern side of the rear yard      Figure 8: The southern side of the rear yard

of the subject site                                               of the subject site.

 

4.    Site History

 

A previous application (DA/564/2002) for alterations and additions to the dwelling was approved on 4 September 2002.  A subsequent application was submitted for a two storey rear outbuilding and swimming pool to the rear of the property (DA/967/2007). Initially concerns were raised in relation to the excessive scale and bulk of the proposed outbuilding, the roof form not being compatible with the surrounding built forms in the immediate vicinity and the overbearing walls along the southern side boundary which would result in a loss of sunlight. Subsequently, the applicant amended the proposal by deleting the upper level studio and retaining the garage portion and swimming pool to the rear of the property. The application was approved on 14 April 2008.

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification and advertising, three submissions were received, noting the following issues:

 

5.1 Objections

3 Mort Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

The proposal is an over development of the site.  The existing property has a floor space ratio that exceeds the preferred solution with the addition of a studio the FSR will further exceed the preferred solution. Also, the objector is concerned that the FSR is higher than has been calculated as the attic store area has not been included in the calculation.

 

The bulk and scale of the development will contribute to a sense of enclosure to their main living areas and rear yard.

Noted.  However, the development is not considered to be excessive in bulk and scale nor will it detract from the existing character of the streetscape within the laneway.  The overall design, proportioning, scale and form of the development will be compatible with surrounding built forms within the immediate streetscape.  Also, the development is not considered to be intrusive and there is adequate separation between the properties to allow adequate access to fresh area and daylight to the objector’s property.  Further, the development is not altering the scale or bulk of the existing dwelling and the affects of the additional building bulk are limited to the rear of the site.  The development will not become a distracting visual element in the streetscape and therefore, will satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The proposed windows on the western and northern elevation will overlook their master bedroom, bathroom and rear yard.

It is not expected that the proposed window openings to the western and northern elevations will have any unreasonable impact on the objector’s property as window W2 is a highlight window and external louvres are provided to windows W1, W2, W3 & W4 which restricts overlooking into the objectors property.  In addition to the above, to further limit privacy impacts a condition is included which requires the proposed external louvres to windows No.’s W1 to W4 be fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties or alternately the total area of any openings within the privacy louvre are not to exceed 25% of the area of the louvre screen.

 

The proposal will create an adverse precedent which could lead to more over-development that contradicts the aims of the development control and North Randwick heritage conservation area.

The application was referred to Council Heritage officer and it is not considered that the proposed works will have any significant impact upon the character of the heritage conservation area or the heritage items in the vicinity of the subject site.  It should be noted that no objections were raised by the heritage officer subject to a condition of consent being included in relation to the colours, materials and finishes of the external walls of the outbuilding structure.

 

7 Mort Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

History of applications on the site was discussed.

 

Acknowledged.

The proposed development will have a significant impact on solar access, energy efficiency and an adverse impact on amenity to the objector’s primary living areas and private open space.

Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be some additional overshadowing to the objectors property this is not unreasonable and is only limited to the morning. There is adequate separation between the properties and any overshadowing arising from the development is not as a result of an inappropriate building design. Also, adequate access to fresh air and sunlight to the objector’s property will be maintained and the proposal will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Solar Access and Energy Efficiency.

 

The proposed development has well and truly exceeded Council requirements for FSR.  The FSR does not take into account the third floor level and if the proposal is approved the FSR would be more in order of 0.80:1.

Noted.  However, the development is not considered to be excessive in bulk and scale nor will it detract from the existing character of the streetscape within the laneway.  The overall design, proportioning, scale and form of the development will be compatible with surrounding built forms within the immediate streetscape.  Also, the development is not considered to be intrusive and there is adequate separation between the properties to allow adequate access to fresh area and daylight to the objector’s property.  Further, the development is not altering the scale or bulk of the existing dwelling and the affects of the additional building bulk are limited to the rear of the site.  The development will not become a distracting visual element in the streetscape and therefore, will satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The first floor studio has a nil setback from the southern and rear boundaries not complying with Council’s DCP requirement.

The non compliance with the side setback to the outbuilding structure is not considered to contribute to any unreasonable amenity impacts to the streetscape nor will it unreasonably impact on the objectors properties in terms of solar access, visual bulk or privacy.

 

The setback of the outbuilding will relate to other like structures within the surrounding streetscape which are sited closer than the preferred solution requirements of the DCP of 1.5m and the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP are satisfied.  Also, the outbuilding structure is directly adjacent to other outbuilding structures.

 

Whilst is it acknowledged that there will be some additional overshadowing to the neighbouring property rear yard at no. 7 Mort Street, the additional overshadowing is not considered to be unreasonable and part of the rear yard in the late morning and early afternoon will receive some sunlight.

 

Suggested design changes.

The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in its current form and will satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

The addition of windows on the western wall will result in a loss of privacy and amenity.

It is not expected that the proposed window openings to the western elevation will have any unreasonable impact on the objector’s property as window W2 is a highlight window and external louvres are provided for both windows W1 & W2 which restricts overlooking into the objectors property.

 

In addition to the above, to further limit privacy impacts a condition is included which requires the proposed external louvres be fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking or alternately the total area of any openings within the privacy louvre are not to exceed 25% of the area of the louvre screen.

 

Concerns were raised about the proximity of the power line down the western side of Mort lane.

This issue is not considered to be a planning related matter, which can be addressed under Section 79C of the EP&A Act. Any questions in relation to power lines should be directed to the relevant service utility provider.  In any case a condition is included requiring the applicant to meet all costs associated with repairing/replacing services if required as a result of the development.

 

Concerned that the garage appears in this application to be much larger than the approved application which has not yet been rebuilt.

The dimensions of the garage approved in DA/967/2007 are 6.5m x 5.6m.  This proposal is consistent with the approved dimensions. 

The west and east elevations depict a hipped roof with no raking as described in the Statement of Environmental Effects.

Noted.  However, the design of the roof is consistent with other outbuilding structures within the laneway.  Also, it is not considered that the outbuilding structure will unreasonably detract or impact on the character of the laneway or the adjoining properties.

 

Concerned that the entry and exit stairs to the southern side of the garage are not setback sufficiently from the boundary. Question whether the stairs are above the boundary fence line and if so there will be security and privacy concerns as well as Building Code requirements.

The stairs in question are internal and will have no impact on the objector’s property as no windows are proposed to this side of the wall.  Also, appropriate conditions have been included within the consent to ensure that the development complies with the BCA requirements.

The DA does not indicate whether the proposal seeks to preserve the trees to the rear of the site nor does it deal with the environmental impact of their removal.

Any significant trees within the site that are covered by the Tree Preservation Order that may be affected by the proposal are usually referred to Councils Landscape department.  In this practical case the proposal will not be affecting any significant trees as this application is only seeking to provide a new upper level studio to the approved footprint of the rear garage.

 

The proposal does not appear to allow for any permeable surfaces in the principal private open space nor does it address runoff or water management on the site.

The proposal is only seeking to provide a new upper level studio to the approved footprint of the rear garage.  The proposal is not altering the soft or hard landscaped area on the site and therefore, discussion and impacts relating to landscaping requirements are not necessary.  In relation to storm water runoff and water management for the studio appropriate conditions are included within the consent which requires the proposal to comply with the BCA requirements and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate stage.

 

20 Dangar Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

Object to the positioning of windows on both the eastern and western elevations.  Other developments backing onto Dangar Lane have not been allowed to have windows on both sides.  These windows should be 1.5m above the floor level to restrict overlooking.

It is not expected that the proposed window openings to the eastern and western elevations will have any unreasonable impact on the objector’s property as window W2 is a highlight window and external louvres are provided to windows W1, W2, W3 & W4 which restricts overlooking into the objectors property.  In addition to the above, to further limit privacy impacts a condition is included which requires the proposed external louvres to be fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties or alternately the total area of any openings within the privacy louvre are not to exceed 25% of the area of the louvre screen.

 

In addition to the above, it is noted that the objector’s property is located opposite the laneway facing Dangar Street and is two doors down from the subject property.

 

 

5.2 Support

No supporting letters have been received for this application.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

6.1      Heritage Officer

 

The Site

The subject site is within the North Randwick Conservation Area and is occupied by a two storey dwelling having the form of a Victorian terrace, but not being part of a row.  The dwelling has been considerably altered, including extension and enclosure of front verandah and balcony, and was at one time divided into separate flats.  Immediately to the north of the site is a two storey dwelling which appears to have resulted from an upper level addition to a single storey cottage, further to the north is a two storey Interwar flat building.  To the south of the site is a group of Federation style cottages, originally single storey in scale, but with several upper level additions. 

 

Proposal

The application proposes to construct a two storey outbuilding at the rear of the site, accessed off Mort Lane.  The outbuilding is to comprise a ground level garage and upper level studio and bathroom.  It is also proposed to construct a new swimming pool with associated paving and planter boxes.  Internal changes area also proposed to an existing w/c. 

 

Background

A previous application (DA/564/2002) for alterations and additions to the dwelling was approved in September 2002.  A subsequent application was submitted for a two storey rear outbuilding and swimming pool (DA/967/2007).  Concerns were raised in relation to the scale and bulk of the proposed outbuilding.  Amended drawings were submitted for a single storey rear outbuilding and the proposal was approved in April 2008. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which suggests that as the proposed studio adjoins the rear lane and is not visible from the street, that a Heritage Impact Assessment Report is not required. 

 

Comments

In relation to the proposed two storey outbuilding, Council’s Development Control Plan for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies includes a Preferred Solution for Height, Form and Materials that the external wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5m.  The proposed outbuilding will have a wall height to the rear lane of 4.6m and a wall height to the rear garden of around 4m.  Traditional outbuildings in the vicinity are predominantly single storey in scale, but several more recent outbuildings have a bulkier one-and-a-half storey scale.  These range in height from 4.2m – 4.6m.  The bulk and scale of the proposed outbuilding have been minimised by limiting the floor to floor height of the ground level to 2.4m and providing raked ceilings to the upper level with a rafter springing height of 2.1m.  The proposed outbuilding has a low two storey scale, but is considered to be compatible with surrounding outbuildings in the area.  It is considered that the proposed outbuilding is consistent with the controls contained in Council’s DCP and will not set a poor precedent for further inappropriate outbuildings in the heritage conservation area. 

 

In relation to the proposed swimming pool, the proposal will somewhat reduce the area available for soft landscaping on the site, but will apparently not result in the loss of any existing trees.  The pool deck will relate to the adjacent ground levels and will not result in major changes to natural ground levels.  It is considered that the proposed pool will not adversely impact on the landscape setting of the dwelling. 

 

There are no heritage objection to the proposed changes to the existing wc comprise minor internal works only. 

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

No Master Planning Requirements apply to the site.

 

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 (Consolidation)

(a) Clause 10 - No. 2A (Residential A Zone)

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

 

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

 

(b) Part 4 - Heritage Provisions

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

 

Part 4 of the LEP requires that Council take into consideration the likely effect of a proposed development on the heritage significance of any heritage items, or heritage conservation areas.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment; no objections were raised to the proposal as the scale, mass and design of the development is considered to be consistent compared with other outbuilding forms within the locality. The proposal will not affect the appearance of the building as a contributory component of the Mort Street streetscape and is not considered to have any detrimental impact on the heritage significance of the conservation area. The development is to the rear of the site and will not dominate or affect the appearance of the front façade of the dwelling. 

 

Therefore, the outbuilding is generally consistent with other outbuilding structures in the laneway and will satisfy the requirements of Part 4 - Heritage Provisions of the Randwick LEP (Consolidation). 

8.1 Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan No. Dwelling Houses & Attached Dual Occupancies

 

FSR

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale; are compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The proposed development has an FSR of 0.75:1 which exceeds the maximum preferred solution FSR for this site (of 0.6:1) as stipulated in the DCP.  Whilst the degree of non-compliance is not minor with the preferred solution, it is considered that the additional building bulk will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of overshadowing, visual bulk or privacy. The proposed upper level studio to the rear of the approved garage will not result in significant additional building bulk that will dominate the site or detract from the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is deemed to satisfy the performance requirement, namely, that the building bulk is compatible with the surrounding built forms along Mort Lane. The outbuilding will not distract from the visual character of the area and is not considered excessive in respects to bulk and scale. 

 

As such, the proposed FSR of the development is considered acceptable.

 

Height, form & materials

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

 

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

 

Council’s Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies includes a Preferred Solution requirement for external wall height of buildings or additions to the rear to be no more than 3.5m. 

 

The proposed two storey outbuilding will have a wall height to the rear laneway of 4.6m and a wall height to the rear garden of around 4m not complying with the preferred solution requirement of the DCP.  Traditional outbuildings in the vicinity are predominantly single storey in scale, but several more recent outbuildings have a bulkier one-and-a-half storey scale.  These range in height from 4.2m – 4.6m.  The bulk and scale of the proposed outbuilding has been minimised by limiting the floor to ceiling height of the ground level to 2.4m and providing raked ceilings to the upper level with a rafter springing height of 2.1m.  The proposed outbuilding has a low two storey scale and is considered to be compatible with surrounding outbuildings in the immediate area and along Mort Lane.

It is considered that the proposed outbuilding is consistent with the controls contained in Council’s DCP and will not set a poor precedent for further inappropriate outbuildings in the heritage conservation area. 

 

 

Building setback

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours, and with respect to front boundary setbacks that the proposal generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape.

 

The proposed two storey outbuilding structure at the rear of the dwelling is setback less than 1.5m from the southern side boundary not complying with the preferred solutions requirements of the DCP.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the non compliance with the side setback to the outbuilding structure is not considered to contribute to any unreasonable amenity impacts to the streetscape or neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, visual bulk or privacy.

 

The setback of the outbuilding will relate to other like structures within the surrounding streetscape which are sited closer than 1.5m from the side boundaries and the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP are satisfied. Also, the outbuilding structure is directly adjacent to other outbuilding structures.

 

Whilst is it acknowledged that there will be some additional overshadowing to the neighbouring property rear yard at no. 7 Mort Street, the additional overshadowing is not considered to be unreasonable and part of the rear yard in the late morning and early afternoon will receive some sunlight.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

Issues of visual and acoustic privacy arise where there is horizontal separation of less than 9m between proposed windows and balconies of the subject development and windows of adjoining properties.

 

a. Window openings

It is not expected that there will be any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the adjoining properties. Majority of the new openings to the upper level studio are either highlight windows or have external louvres which restricts overlooking into the adjoining properties.  To further limit privacy impacts, it is recommended that the proposed external louvres should be fixed so that they cannot be opened beyond a 45 degree angle or alternately the total area of any openings within the privacy louvre are not to exceed 25% of the area of the louvre screen. A condition to the above effect has been included within the consent conditions.

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Visual & Acoustic Privacy will be satisfied.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

The overall Objectives of the DCP seek to ensure that development promotes and has regard to the concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development. In this respect the objectives promote energy efficiency in design and construction; encourage the use of appropriate resources and passive solar design; and protect solar access enjoyed by the adjoining premises.

 

Whilst is it acknowledged that there will be some additional overshadowing to the neighbouring property rear yard at no. 7 Mort Street, the additional overshadowing is not considered to be unreasonable and part of the rear yard in the late morning and early afternoon will receive some sunlight. Further, the additional overshadowing is unavoidable given the orientation of the site and the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for solar access are satisfied.

 

 

9.      Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

 

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost

$100,001 - $200,000

$143,000

0.5%

$715

 

10.      Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

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

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

 

Not applicable.

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

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

 

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

 

Not applicable.

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

 

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. The proposal is not considered to result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

 

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

The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

 

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

 

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

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4A:     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 development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and Council’s Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.   The proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining dwellings or the character of the locality.

 

Recommendation

 

A.         That Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No DA/363/2011 for construction of first floor studio above approved garage at 5 Mort Street Randwick, subject to the following conditions:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below and endorsed with Council’s approved stamp, except where amended by Council in red and/or by other conditions of this consent:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

07/12 (1C)

Turpin Burton

February 2011

24 February 2011

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

 

A105274

18 February 2011

13 April 2011

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a.   The proposed external louvres to windows (w1, W2, W3 & W4) at the first floor level of the outbuilding shall be designed so that the lourves are fixed at an angle that does not allow overlooking of the adjoining properties or alternatively the total area of any openings within the louvre screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the louvre screen. 

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the issue of a ‘Construction Certificate’ by either Randwick City Council or an Accredited Certifier.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be submitted with the construction certificate application.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Consent Requirements

3.       The requirements and amendments detailed in the ‘General Conditions’ must be complied with and be included in the construction certificate plans and associated documentation.

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

4.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area.  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 City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

5.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $143,000, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $715.

       

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate [or subdivision 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.

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

6.       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).  Details of compliance with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

7.       The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, must be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, 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.

 

Stormwater Drainage

8.       A surface water/stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate:-

 

a)    Surface water/stormwater drainage systems must be provided in accordance with Part 3.1.2 of the Building Code of Australia (Volume 2);

 

b)    The surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or, subject to site suitability, the stormwater may be drained to a suitably designed absorption pit;

 

c)    Any absorption pits or soaker wells should be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance;

 

d)    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;

 

e)    Details of any proposed drainage systems or works to be carried out in the road, footpath or nature strip must be submitted to and approved by Council before commencing these works.

 

9.       A 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 garage structure to support the upper level studio.

 

BASIX Requirements

10.     In accordance with section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements and commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate must be complied with.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate must be included on the construction certificate plans, specifications and associated documentation, 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.

 

Smoke Alarms

11.     Smoke alarms are required to be installed in each Class 1 building or 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 are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the commencement of any works on the site.  The necessary documentation and information must be provided to the Council or the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’, as applicable.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity.

 

Construction Certificate, Principal Certifying Authority & Commencement of Works

12.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)       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.

 

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved development consent plans and 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.

 

b)       a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) must be appointed to carry out the necessary building inspections and to issue an occupation certificate; and

 

c)       a principal contractor must be appointed for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, an owner-builder permit may be obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and the PCA and Council are to be notified accordingly; and

 

d)       the principal contractor must be advised of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

 

e)       at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing any 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.

 

Home Building Act 1989

13.     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 Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council, in writing.

 

Dilapidation Reports

14.     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:

 

·           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,

·           new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to shared property boundaries (e.g.  additions to a semi-detached dwelling or terraced dwellings),

·           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 may be 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.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

15.     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 requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and NSW DECC Guidelines 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 Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the NSW DECC Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, is to be implemented throughout the works.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

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

 

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

 

Temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or public place, a Local Approval application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services before placing any item or article on the road, footpath or nature strip.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

17.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction 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;

·          provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·          construction noise and vibration management;

·          construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencing site works.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Demolition Work Plan

18.     A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures and relevant environmental/occupational health and safety requirements.

 

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

·          Recycling, reuse and waste disposal of remediation materials

 

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 also be provided to Council not less than 2 days before commencing those works.

 

Notes

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

§  Refer to the conditions within the “Requirements During Construction & Site Work”, for further details and requirements relating to demolition work, removal of any asbestos and public safety.

 

Sydney Water

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

 

Prior to the commencement of excavation or building works, the approved Construction Certificate plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre, 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 works.

 

Public Utilities

20.     A Public Utility Impact Assessment must be carried out to identify all public utility services located on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the building works.

 

Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been or are able to be satisfied, must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any works.

 

The owner/builder must make the necessary arrangements and meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia, Sydney Water and other authorities to adjust, repair or relocate their services as required.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

The following conditions of consent must be complied with during the demolition, excavation and construction of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity during construction.

 

Demolition Work Requirements

21.     The demolition of buildings 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 & Water and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·          Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

·          WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·          WorkCover NSW Guidelines and 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 DECCW/EPA Guidelines

·          Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

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.

 

Site Signage

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

 

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

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

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

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

23.     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.  Details are to be included in the Construction Site Management Plan.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

24.     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)  Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any footpath, roadway, nature strip, drainage line or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

c)  Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

d)  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 department.

 

e)  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.

 

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

 

Excavations, Back-filling & Retaining Walls

25.     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 must 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.

 

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.

 

Support of Adjoining Land

26.     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.

 

a)    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:

 

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

 

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

 

b)    The condition referred to in subclause a) 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.

 

27.     Prior to undertaking any demolition, excavation or building work in the following circumstances, a report must be obtained from a professional engineer which details the methods of support for the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·                when undertaking excavation or building work within the zone of influence of the footings of a dwelling or associated structure that is located on the adjoining land;

·          when undertaking demolition work to a wall of a dwelling that is built to a common or shared boundary (e.g. semi-detached or terrace dwelling);

·          when constructing a wall to a dwelling or associated structure that is located within 900mm of a dwelling located on the adjoining land.

 

The demolition, excavation and building work and the provision of support to the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, must also be carried out in accordance with the abovementioned report, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

28.     Building, demolition and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

All building, demolition and site work, including site deliveries (except as detailed below)

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers, vibratory rollers/compactors or the like

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

An application to vary the abovementioned hours may be submitted to Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services for consideration and approval to vary the specified hours may be granted in exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management or road safety reasons).  Any applications are to be made on the standard application form and include payment of the relevant fees and supporting information.  Applications must be made at least 10 days prior to the date of the proposed work and the prior written approval of Council must be obtained to vary the standard permitted working hours.

 

Inspections During Construction

29.     The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority, 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).

 

Building Encroachments

30.     There must be no encroachment of any structures or building work onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Note:        For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity.

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

 

 

BASIX Requirements

33.     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.

 

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

 

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health and environmental amenity.

 

Use of premises

34.     The premises must only be used as a single residential dwelling and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

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

 

External Lighting

36.     External lighting to the premises must be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

·          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 requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $1,500) for each offence.  Council may also issue notices and orders to demolish unauthorised or non-complying building work, or to comply with the requirements of Council’s development consent.

 

·          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.

 

Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team can issue Construction Certificates and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

·          This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

·          A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Approvals & Certification team 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 or any other container or article.

 

For further information please contact Council’s Building Approvals & Certification team on 9399 0944.

 

·          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.

 

·          Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP68/11

 

 

Subject:                  147 Avoca Street, Randwick (DA/182/2009/B)

Folder No:                   DA/182/2009/B

Author:                   Simon  Ip, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification to the approved development by amending Conditions 5, 15 and 50 to enable provision of amplified announcements and entertainment at the ground floor outdoor dining/bistro areas of the Coach and Horses Hotel

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                C Thomas

Owner:                         Argos Investments Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


1.      Executive Summary

 

The subject application is referred to the Ordinary Council Meeting at the request of Councillors Woodsmith, Matson and Hughes.

 

The proposed modification is to amend relevant conditions of Development Consent No. 182/2009 to enable live entertainment and amplified music and announcements within the ground floor outdoor dining/bistro areas of the Coach and Horses Hotel.

 

The proposal was advertised and notified from 16 February to 2 March 2011 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. A total of thirty-seven (37) submissions and one (1) petition with 13 signatures were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised in the submissions are primarily related to noise and amenity impacts, traffic generation, anti-social behaviour and property devaluation.

 

The site is located within Zone No. 3A (General Business Zone) under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposed modification is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the zoning objectives in that it will improve the functioning and operation of the existing hotel, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding residential premises subject to compliance with the recommended conditions.

 

The proposal has noise implications on the surrounding residential uses. Council’s Environmental Health Officer has recommended a specific requirement that all amplified music and announcements and live entertainment are inaudible in any residence at all times. This restriction is more stringent than standard LAB noise control requirements. Where a valid complaint from the neighbouring residents is received, the hotel operation would be in breach of the consent condition and Council would be enabled to undertake enforcement actions.

 

In order to ensure no undue noise impacts would result from the proposal, it is recommended that a 12-month trial period be imposed on the provision of any live entertainment within the ground floor outdoor bistro / dining area. The applicant or hotel owner must obtain a separate approval for continuance of the live entertainment.

 

Additionally, it is recommended that the following restrictions be imposed relating to the provision of live entertainment:

 

·      Prohibiting percussions instruments,

·      Prohibiting the use of amplified speakers for any musical instruments, and

·      Limiting the provision of entertainment to 11:00pm, Monday to Saturday and 9:30pm, Sunday.

 

Subject to the above restrictions and trial period, it is considered that the potential for noise disturbance to the neighbouring residents will be minimised.

 

The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal meets the objectives and performance requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot A in DP 323736, No. 147 Avoca Street, Randwick. The site is located at the south-eastern corner of the intersection of Alison Road and Avoca Street. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a 39m frontage to Alison Road, an 18m frontage to Avoca Street and a land area of 774.3m2.

 

The site accommodates a 3-storey building known as the “Coach and Horses Hotel”, which is listed as an item of local heritage significance under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). The site is located within the Randwick Junction Heritage Conservation Area. No vehicular access or car parking is available to the site.

 

The surrounding developments are as follows:

 

North

Across Alison Road to the north is a 3-storey corner building with retail services at ground level and residential accommodation above (Nos. 139-145 Avoca Street).

 

South

The adjoining development to the south fronting Avoca Street is a 2-storey building containing 3 commercial tenancies at ground level and residential accommodation on the storey above (Nos. 149-153 Avoca Street). Further to the south is a part 3- and part 4-storey mixed commercial and residential development (Nos. 155 – 161 Avoca Street).

 

East

To the east of the site fronting Alison Road is a 3-storey residential flat building (No. 205 Alison Road).

 

West

To the west of the site across Avoca Street is a 3-storey commercial building with retail uses at ground level (Nos. 126-128 Avoca Street). A former post office and a Telstra service building are located at the north-western corner of the intersection (Nos. 122A, 124, 124M and 124T Avoca Street).

 

3.      The Proposal

 

The subject Section 96 modification application seeks to modify the existing consent by:

 

(a)      Amendment of Condition 5

Condition 5 currently reads as follows:

 

5.       Only ambient background music is permitted in the ground floor outdoor dining area and it shall be inaudible in any residential premises at all times.

 

Condition 5 is proposed to be amended in a manner that allows both background music and entertainment, which will read as follows:

 

Ambient background music and entertainment in the ground floor outdoor dining area shall be inaudible in any residential premises at all times.

 

(b)      Amendment of Condition 15

Condition 15 currently reads as follows:

 

15.     There is to be no entertainment or amplified announcements in the ground floor outdoor dining/bistro area at any time.

 

Condition 15 is proposed to be amended in a manner that allows entertainment and amplified announcements (including emergency announcements), which will read as follows:

 

Any entertainment or amplified announcements in the ground floor outdoor dining / bistro must comply with Condition 4 and Condition 5 of this consent.

 

(c)       Amendment of Condition 50

Condition 50 currently reads as follows:

 

50.    Any amplified music played within the hotel shall be inaudible in any residence at all times.

 

Condition 50 is proposed to be amended to make reference to the acoustic control stipulated in Condition 4 of the consent, which will read as follows:

 

Any amplified music played in the hotel must comply with Condition 4 of this consent.

 

4.      Site History

 

Current approval relating to the site:

DA/182/2009

Alterations and additions to an existing hotel, including conversion of part of the bistro area to an outdoor dining courtyard with associated fit-out works and noise attenuation installation.

Approved by Council under delegated authority on 31 July 2009

 

DA/182/2009/A

Section 96(2) modification for amendment of Condition 7 to allow 200 patrons in the beer garden / bistro dining area before midnight and 50 patrons after midnight, and increase in size of outdoor area and associated structures.

Approved by Council under delegated authority on 3 February 2010

 

5.      Section 96 Assessment

 

The subject application is made pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The relevant matters for consideration are addressed as follows:

 

5.1      Substantially the same development

The proposal does not involve any physical alterations to the existing or approved building structures. The provision of amplified announcements or entertainment is consistent with the existing hotel use and is not considered to represent a major change to the original consent. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be substantially the same as the originally approved development.

 

5.2      Notification and consideration of submissions

The subject application was advertised and notified from 16 February to 2 March 2011 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed within the body of this report.

 

5.3      Consultation with other approval bodies or public authorities

No referrals to any external public authorities are required.

 

6.      Community Consultation

 

The subject application was advertised and notified from 16 February to 2 March 2011 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

·      Randwick Precinct Committee

·      Executive Committee of 1 Albert Street, Randwick

·      Managing agent of 2 Albert Street, Randwick

·      112/2 Albert Street, Randwick / 48 Southwell Street, Weetangera ACT

·      113/2 Albert Street, Randwick

·      209/2 Albert Street, Randwick

·      210/2 Albert Street, Randwick / 136 Moverly Road, South Coogee

·      303/2 Albert Street, Randwick

·      305/2 Albert Street, Randwick

·      Managing agent of 205 Alison Road, Randwick

·      5/205 Alison Road, on behalf of owners and occupiers of 205 Alison Road, Randwick

·      3/206B Alison Road, Randwick

·      1/208 Alison Road, Randwick

·      Managing agent of 210 Alison Road, Randwick

·      5/212 Alison Road, Randwick

·      230 Alison Road, Randwick

·      12/134 Avoca Street, Randwick

·      Planning consultant on behalf of 149-153 Avoca Street, Randwick

·      1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 / 155-161 Avoca Street, Randwick

·      2 George Street, Randwick

·      1/4 Victoria Street, Randwick

·      2/4 Victoria Street, Randwick

·      1/6 Victoria Street, Randwick

·      8/6 Victoria Street, Randwick

·      2/12 Victoria Street, Randwick

·      1/15 Victoria Street, Randwick

·      2/15 Victoria Street, Randwick

·      3/15 Victoria Street, Randwick

·      5/15 Victoria Street, Randwick

·      1 x anonymous submission from 2 Albert Street, Randwick

·      1 x anonymous submission from 205 Alison Road, Randwick

·      6 x anonymous submissions with undisclosed addresses

·      1 x petition with 13 signatures

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

The proposal will result in unacceptable noise impacts on the surrounding residences.

The proposed modification is not considered to result in unreasonable noise impacts on the surrounding residences, subject to compliance with the recommended conditions. Refer to the “Environmental Assessment” section of this report for details.

The submitted acoustics reports do not specifically relate to the current modification proposal. 

Noted. Council’s Environmental Health Officer and Assessment Planner have reviewed the application in detail and recommended specific noise attenuation and management measures to minimise adverse impacts on the surrounding residences. These measures have been incorporated in the “Recommendations” section of this report.

The provision of live entertainment will generate increased patronage and exacerbate noise and amenity impacts on the surrounding areas.

The subject proposal does not involve any increase to the floor space of the hotel premises or extension to the approved trading hours.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed modification to allow performance entertainment would encourage patronage; however, subject to the recommended noise attenuation and management measures, the modified development will not result in unreasonable impacts upon the surrounding residences.

The proposal will generate additional vehicular traffic and accentuate the shortage of on-street parking in the area.

The subject proposal does not involve any increase to the floor space of the hotel premises or extension to the approved trading hours. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to result in material increase in traffic and parking generation.

The proposal will exacerbate anti-social behaviour, violence, vandalism and littering associated with the operation of the subject hotel.

A specific condition has been recommended to require a Plan of Management to be prepared with detailed measures for minimising anti-social behaviour and disturbance to the local residents.

 

The patrons leaving the hotel premises at late night hours are creating noise and disturbance to the surrounding residents.

The proposal will reduce values of the surrounding residential properties.

Variation in property values is not considered to be a valid objection on town planning grounds.

The application does not specify the type of entertainment that will be provided within the outdoor bistro / dining area.

The draft plan of management, dated October 2009, prepared by Design Collaborative Pty. Ltd., has specified the type of entertainment that will be provided within the outdoor bistro / dining area.

 

The construction personnel undertaking works relating to the outdoor dining area of the hotel have started work earlier than the permissible hours. Building waste has also been left in the nearby properties.

This matter is not related to the assessment of the subject application.

 

The alleged compliance issue has not been referred to Council’s Building Section in this particular instance as the building works associated with the outdoor dining / bistro area have already been completed. It would not be possible to retrospectively ascertain whether the permissible construction hours have been breached. Additionally, there is no clear evidence that the building wastes are attributed to the hotel in question.

 

 

7.      Technical Officers Comments

 

The subject application has been referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for assessment. The comments provided are extracted under the “Environmental Assessment” section of this report.

 

8.      Master Planning Requirements

 

The site has a land area of only 774.3m2 and a master plan is not required.

 

9.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

9.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The site is located within Zone No. 3A (General Business Zone) under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The proposed modification is permissible with Council’s consent. The modified development is considered to satisfy the zoning objectives listed under the LEP in that the proposal will improve the functioning and operation of the existing hotel, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding residential premises subject to compliance with the recommended conditions.

 

10.    Policy Controls

 

10.1    Randwick Junction Development Control Plan

The Randwick Junction DCP applies to all land within the Randwick Junction Conservation Area and contains controls for site planning, building design, advertising and restaurant seating.

 

The current proposal does not contain any physical alteration to the building structures on the site. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to detract from the objectives and controls of the DCP.

 

10.2  Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

The subject application is made pursuant to Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Section 94A levies are not applicable to the current proposal.

 

11.    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.

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

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

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

Not applicable. 

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

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

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

Not applicable. 

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

The relevant clauses of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 have been addressed by the existing conditions of consent.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed within the body of this report.

 

The proposed modification will improve the functionality and service quality of the existing hotel premises, and is not considered to result in detrimental economic impacts on the locality.

 

The current proposal has implications on the noise and amenity of the surrounding residential uses. However, subject to compliance with the recommended conditions, the proposal would not result in detrimental amenity and social impacts on the locality.  

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

The subject building has been established and used continuously as a hotel for decades. The proposal will enable the premises to meet the changing demands of the local community and legislative requirements. Subject to the recommended conditions relating to noise attenuation and operational management, the proposal will not result in unreasonable noise impacts on the surrounding residents, and the site is considered to be suitable for the modified development.

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

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

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

The proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, subject to the recommended conditions. Therefore, the development is considered to be within public interest.

 

Noise

The subject application has been referred to Council’s Environmental Health Officer for assessment. The comments provided are extracted below:

 

Key Issues

Noise was considered an issue with the original approval DA 182/2009 and an acoustic report has been submitted by Koikas Acoustics with the proposal dated 20th March 2009. The report has established design goal criteria in relation to the premises. It was considered that the report had not provided adequate information on the following: cumulative impact; confirmation that the report has considered sensitive receivers; and confirmation of background noise levels.

 

Noise mitigation measures proposed in section 9 of Acoustic report submitted by Koikas Acoustics include;

 

·          Acoustic baffles extending 3 metres above the finished ceiling height;

·          Acoustic baffles to acoustic consultant’s recommendations;

·          Acoustic absorptive panels required to all permanent walls and ceilings;

·          Ambient music to beer garden shall be limited to 80dB(A) spatially averaged

 

The additional acoustic report titled Addendum Acoustic assessment Coach & Horses Hotel 147 Avoca Street Randwick report dated 14 May 2009 confirmed the following:

 

·          The maximum allowable number of patrons on the ground floor outdoor dining area is 100 before midnight and 50 after midnight;

·          The cumulative impact was assessed to ensure compliance with relevant criteria including predicted noise levels of maximum patrons to achieve established inaudibility criterion;

·          The assessments confirmed the residential receivers; additional noise measurements were conducted on the 8th, 9th May 2009 the background levels were confirmed.

·          Noise from amplified music and permitted entertainment in the ground floor outdoor area shall be ambient background and shall be inaudible in any residential premises.

 

The additional acoustic report has confirmed recommended and required noise criteria can comply with LAB requirements. Compliance acoustic assessments have been required at 1 month after commencement of use, 6 months after commencement of use and 10 months after commencement of use. This should provide a comprehensive compliance assessment structure. Also a trial period of maximum permissible patron numbers has been recommended due to the nature of the proposal and its compliance relies on hotel management implementing protocols and procedures to control noise and limit patron numbers. It is considered that a trial period in terms of patron numbers is an effective and reasonable condition requirement to comprehensively assess the operational measures implemented and their effectiveness.

 

An additional acoustic report advisement was received dated 7th October 2009 in relation to the original DA 182/2009 as a result of meeting on site between Council Senior Environmental Officer, the applicant and the acoustic consultant. The additional advice confirmed the cumulative assessment of all outdoor areas. The advice also confirmed consideration had been taken of the design building requirements.

 

It should also be noted that while no current complaints are being investigated by Council, open areas within Liquor Licensed premises may from time to time cause amenity intrusion. Outdoor areas have been demonstrated to operate without the disturbance to neighbours throughout this Council and Sydney, however the major component to these areas having minimal amenity impact is based on strict hotel management upon commencement. 

 

Further acoustic advice has been received by Koikas Acoustics that recommends provision of sound limits to be fitted to amplification to limit noise levels. The acoustic consultant detailed following recommendations:

 

“The passive noise controls equates to:

 

·      the rms compressor limiter fitted between the amplifier and the speakers

·      the absorption fitted in the subject space and

·      the acoustic design of the roof opening above the subject space

 

The active noise controls include:

 

·      the Hotel management of patron numbers for the two periods, ie pre- and post-midnight and

·      the Hotel management of unruly patrons producing high vocalisation sound levels.”  

 

Also a more restrictive condition requiring inaudibility at neighbouring residences at all times in relation to amplified music, announcements and entertainment throughout the Hotel has been recommended as part of this report.

 

Overall the conditions proposed and existing in previous development consents provide a restrictive framework for the Hotel to operate in the proposed form. The inaudibility noise criteria for announcements, music and permissible entertainment proposed in this report is greater than the noise criteria enforced by the Office of Liquor and Gaming, which permits noise up to a certain level pre midnight and inaudible restriction post midnight.

 

Complaints History

A search of Council’s complaints system, disclosed that no current complaints have been received by Council during the operation of the current outdoor areas at the premises, in respect to noise.

 

Previous complaints generally related to excessive music noise and disturbances from the patrons when leaving the premises and these were received by Council between 2000-2004. There are no current customer service requests relating to complaints about the operation of the premises currently. However, the premises have been subject to Land & Environment Court proceedings in 2005 in response to provision of entertainment at the premises. Currently no approval exists for the provision of entertainment.

 

The premises currently operate outdoor areas on the ground and first floors with no current noise complaints being received by Council.

 

Consideration has been given to this report and based on the number restriction after midnight and the current operation of the hotel and outdoor areas it is considered appropriate hours have been recommended in this report.

 

The comprehensive compliance testing required by the recommendations provides a mechanism to ensure compliance with noise criteria. There is also a requirement to ensure compliance during the trial period with numbers in the outdoor area reducing if it cannot be demonstrated that noise conditions are being complied with.    

 

Discussions with Council Officer, Coordinator Regulatory Projects, confirmed there are no current noise complaints concerning the premises.

 

Plan of Management

An amended plan of Management has been requested incorporating conditions of consent to address the operation of the proposed ground floor outdoor dining area in both passive and active noise control.

 

Having reviewed the comments provided by the Environmental Health Officer, it is considered that the provision of entertainment, background music and amplified announcements within the outdoor dining / bistro area is acceptable, subject to the recommended changes to the consent conditions to include additional noise control measures. The key consideration is summarised below:

 

·      The Environmental Health Officer has recommended a specific requirement that all amplified music and announcements and live entertainment to be inaudible in any residence at all times. This restriction is more stringent than standard LAB noise control requirements. The Office of Liquor and Gaming currently permits noise up to a certain level pre midnight, with inaudibility restriction being imposed post midnight.

 

Where a valid complaint from the neighbouring resident/s is received, the hotel operation would be in breach of the consent condition and Council would be enabled to undertake enforcement actions.

 

·      The modified conditions will continue to establish comprehensive acoustic compliance testing and assessment, including reporting at 1 month, 6 months and 10 months after commencement of the use of the ground floor bistro / dining area, as well as at the specific requests from Council’s Environmental Health Officer from time to time. This mechanism will provide thorough examination of the effectiveness of the operational management measures and offer incentive for the hotel owner to adequately supervise the premises.

 

·      The Environmental Health Officer has advised that no recent noise complaints associated with the ground floor outdoor bistro / dining area have been registered in Council’s database. However, a considerable number of objections raising noise concerns have been received during the public consultation process of the application.

 

The submitted draft Plan of Management, prepared by Design Collaborative, has outlined the type of entertainment activities that are proposed for the hotel. They include:

 

Page 4

“Performers providing background music or other ancillary entertainment

Live or hosted trivia

Live or hosted poker

Two-up on Anzac Day

 

All live entertainment conducted at the premises shall consist of no more than two (2) entertainers / performers at any one time providing entertainment.

 

All entertainment shall cease no later than 11:30pm, Monday to Saturday and shall cease no later than 10:00pm, Sundays.”

 

As a prudent approach, it is recommended that a 12-month trial period be imposed on the provision of any live entertainment within the ground floor outdoor bistro/dining area. The applicant or hotel owner must obtain a separate approval for continuance of the live entertainment.

 

Additionally, it is recommended that the following restrictions be imposed relating to the provision of live entertainment:

 

-      Prohibit percussions and drums music

-      Prohibit the use of amplified speakers for any musical instruments

-      Limit the provision of entertainment to 11:00pm, Monday to Saturday and 9:30pm, Sunday.

 

Subject to the above restrictions and trial period, it is considered that the potential for noise disturbance to the neighbouring residents will be minimised.

 

·      A specific condition is also recommended to require the preparation of a Plan of Management, which inter alia, specifies requirements for managing amplifier equipment.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Leadership in sustainability, excellence in urban design and development, a vibrant and diverse community, a liveable City.

Direction:  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject proposal does not contain any physical alteration to the existing building structures on the site. Subject to the recommended changes to the conditions of consent, the proposal will not result in unreasonable noise and amenity impacts on the surrounding residences. Therefore, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to amended and additional conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/182/2009 by amending Conditions 5, 15 and 50 to enable provision of amplified announcements and entertainment at the ground floor outdoor dining/bistro areas of the Coach and Horses Hotel, at 147 Avoca Street, Randwick in the following manner:

 

·           Amendment of Condition No. 9 to read as follows:

9.       A compliance report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council:

 

a.  1 month after commencement of use of the ground floor outdoor dining/bistro area;

b.  6 months after commencement of use of the ground floor outdoor dining/bistro area;

c.  10 months after commencement of use of the ground floor outdoor dining/bistro area; and

d.  from time to time as requested by Council

 

which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997; NSW Environment Protection Authority Industrial Noise Policy Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance); the recommended criteria and measures detailed in the report entitled “Acoustic Assessment Coach & Horses Hotel 147 Avoca Street Randwick”, dated 20th March 2009, letter entitled “Addendum Acoustic Assessment Coach & Horses Hotel 147 Avoca Street Randwick” dated 14th May 2009, and “Addendum Acoustic Assessment Coach & Horses Hotel 147 Avoca Street, Randwick” dated 7th October 2009, prepared by Koikas Acoustics Pty. Ltd.; and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

·      Amendment of Condition No. 11 to read as follows:

11.     An amended Management Plan in relation to the operation of the hotel premises shall be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of use. The Management Plan shall incorporate the proposed ground floor outdoor dining/bistro area and the following:

 

-        ensure compliance with all relevant conditions of approval,

-        include acoustic consultant verified sound limiter setting for all amplification equipment and speakers,

-        specify a nominated person who is responsible for ensuring the sound limiter is fitted to the required noise limit level,

-        Specify that the sound limiting device/s cannot be altered or adjusted unless for addressing external customer complaint and/or under the supervision of a suitably qualified acoustic consultant,

-        minimise the potential impact of the operation of the premises upon nearby residents,

-        designate staff responsible for supervision in a specific area within the hotel and their duties in that area,

-        effectively minimise and manage anti-social behaviour,

-        minimise noise emissions and associated nuisances,

-        effectively manage and respond to resident complaints, and

-        ensure responsible service of alcohol and harm minimisation.

 

·      Deletion of Conditions Nos 5, 15 and 50.

 

·      Imposition of Condition Nos No. 51 to read as follows:

51.     All amplified background music/announcements played and permissible entertainment carried out within the hotel shall be inaudible in any residence at all times. Details of acoustic compliance shall be submitted with the required compliance acoustic reports in accordance with the provisions of Condition 9 of Development Consent DA/182/2009, as modified.

 

·      Imposition of Condition No. 52 to read as follows:

52.     The provision of any form of live entertainment, including live music, within the ground floor outdoor dining / bistro area shall be subject to a trial period of 12 months, commencing from the date of the approval of this Section 96[B] modification application. In order to continue the provision of live entertainment, a separate application must be submitted to, and approved by, Council.   

 

·      Imposition of Condition No. 53 to read as follows:

53.     The provision of live entertainment at the ground floor outdoor dining / bistro area shall be subject to the following restrictions:

 

(a)      All live entertainment shall cease no later than 11:00PM, Mondays to Saturdays; and no later than 9:30PM, Sundays; and

(b)      All live entertainment conducted at the ground floor outdoor areas shall consist of no more than two (2) entertainers / performers at any one time; and

(c)      Any live music performance SHALL NOT utilise amplified speakers at all times; and

(d)      Any live music performance involving percussion instruments (e.g. drums) are PROHIBITED at all times.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP69/11

 

 

Subject:                  Reporting variation to Development Standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for the month of June 2011

Folder No:                   F2008/00122

Author:                   Roger Quinton, Coordinator 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 to 30 June 2011 eighteen (18) were approved during this period, with two (2) of those under delegation by Council Officer, and sixteen (16) either by Planning Committee or 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:

 

1.View

SEPP 1 Register for June, 2011

 

 

 

 


SEPP 1 Register for June, 2011

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 REGISTER FROM 1 TO 30 JUNE 2011

Council DA reference number

Lot number

DP number

Apart.

/Unit number

Street number

Street name

Suburb/Town

Post

code

Category of development

Environ-mental planning instrument

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concurring authority

Date DA determined
dd/mm/yyyy

Approved by

DA/212/2011

2

567942 SUBJ TO CROSS EA

 

91

Holmes Street,

Maroubra

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

2A Residential

Clause 20(E) Landscaped Area 40%,

Provides adequate areas of open space for mature vegetation, recreation and the reduction of stormwater run off.

Landscaped area is deficient by 3% or 9.4m2,

NSW Dept of Planning

09-Jun-11

Delegated Authority

DA/1009/2010

Lot A & Lot 8

311469 & 10257

 

14-20

Gardeners Road

Kingsford

2032

 5: Residential - New multi unit 20+ dwellings

RLEP 1998

3A (General Business Zone)

Clause 20G(5) maximum building height of 24m

Does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy, views and streetscape.

Maximum building height increased by 2.4m or 10%

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-11

PCM

DA/140/2011

5

129594

 

32

 Hayward Street

Kingsford

2032

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 1998

2A Residential

Clause 22b(3) of the State Environmental Planning Policy – Affordable Rental Housing 2009,

Application to legitimise an existing secondary dwelling (granny flat) at the rear of the site (SEPP1 objection - floor area of second dwelling)

FSR exceeded by 12m2 or 20%,

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-11

PCM

DA/35/2011

20B

403137

 

8

Boomerang Street,

Maroubra

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

2A Residential

Clause 20F - FSR =0.5:1 & Clause 20G(4) Maximum external wall height of 7m.

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.57:1 or 14.6%, maximum external wall height increased by 500mm.

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-11

PCM

DA/248/2011

B

392831

 

63

Loch Maree Street,

Maroubra

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

2A Residential

Clause 20F - FSR =0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.64:1 or 28%.

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-11

PCM

DA/190/2011

A

439460 SUBJ TO CROSS EA

 

16

Clifton Road

Clovelly

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

2A Residential

Clause 20F - FSR =0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.75:1 or 50%.

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-11

PCM

DA/267/2011

D

414798 SUBJECT TO EASEMENT DP 1136390

 

69

Garrett Street

Maroubra

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

2A Residential

Clause 20F - FSR =0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.66:1 or 30%.

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-11

PCM

DA/195/2011

2

303104 SUBJ TO CROSS EA

 

12

 Chatham Street,

Randwick

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

2B Residential

Clause 20(E) Landscaped Area 50%

Provides adequate areas of open space for mature vegetation, recreation and the  reduction of stormwater run off.

Landscaped area is deficient by 12% or 12.6m2.

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-11

PCM

DA/151/2011

A

438640 SUBJ TO VAR EA & ROW, LOT 1 DP 306446 PT OF CROSS WALL

 

36

Burnie Street

Clovelly

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

2B Residential

Clause 20F - FSR =0.65:1 Clause 20(G) (1) & (3) Maximum external wall height of 7m and external building height of 9.5m.

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Existing FSR is 2.015:1 or 210%, FSR decreased to 1:98:1. The external wall height increased by 2.4m and external building height increased by 200mm.

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-11

PCM

DA/90/2011

20B

440095 SUBJ TO CROSS EA

 

34

Oberon Street,

Randwick

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

2A Residential

Clause 20(E) Landscaped Area 40%, Clause 20F - FSR =0.5:1

Provides adequate areas of open space for mature vegetation, recreation and the  reduction of stormwater run off. Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Landscaped area is deficient by 4% or 8.5m2, FSR increased to 0.79:1 or 58%.

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-11

PCM

DA/69/2011

A

311459 SUBJ TO DE

 

301

Alison Road

Coogee

2034

 4: Residential - New multi unit < 20 dwellings

RLEP 1998

2B Residential

Clause 20(E) Landscaped Area 50% & Clause 20(G) (1) Maximum external wall height of 7m.

Provides adequate areas of open space for mature vegetation, recreation and the  reduction of stormwater run off.  Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Landscaped area is deficient by 3% or 28.4m2, External wall height increased by 2.155m due to both the site’s topography and flooding affectation.

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-11

PCM

DA/268/2011

B

419906 SUBJ TO CROSS EA

 

19

Roberts Avenue

Randwick

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

2B Residential

Clause 20F - FSR =0.65:1.

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.71:1 or 9.23%,

NSW Dept of Planning

16-Jun-11

Delegated Authority

DA/118/2011

2

444915 SUBJ TO CROSS EA & ROW

 

27

 Waverley Street

Randwick

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

2C Residential

Clause 20F - FSR =0.65:1.

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.71:1 or 9.23%,

NSW Dept of Planning

28-Jun-11

OCM

DA/1139/2010

1

783505

 

6

Brighton Road,

Coogee

2034

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 1998

2B Residential

Clause 20F - FSR =0.65:1.

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.758:1 or 16.61%,

NSW Dept of Planning

28-Jun-11

OCM

DA/102/2011

2

1050760 (BEING LOTS 1-50 IN SP 70446) SUBJECT TO VARIOUS EASEMENTS & ROW

502

106

Brook Street

Coogee

2034

 7: Residential - Other

RLEP 1998

2C Residential

Clause 20(G) Maximum overall building height of 12 metres

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Overall building height increased by 3m.

NSW Dept of Planning

28-Jun-11

OCM

DA/210/2011

COR LOT 9

9338

 

15

Sully Street

Randwick

2031

14: Other

RLEP 1998

2A Residential

Clause 20B(1) minimum allotment size = 400m2 and minimum frontage width = 12m 

Existing attached dual occupancy dwellings. Consistent with the urban character of the locality and predominant subdivision pattern.

Lot 1, 12m frontage and shortfall of 3.075m or 25%. Lot 2, 12m frontage and shortfall of 4.465m.

NSW Dept of Planning

28-Jun-11

OCM

DA/271/2011

4 & B

6772 & 402592

 

71-73

Denning Street

South Coogee

2034

14: Other

RLEP 1998

2A Residential

Clause 20B(1) minimum allotment size = 400m2 and minimum frontage width = 12m 

Existing attached dual occupancy dwellings. Consistent with the urban character of the locality and predominant subdivision pattern.

Lot 1: 235.8m2 with a frontage of 6.15m or 164.2m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 41% shortfall of 48% of frontage and Lot 2: 395.3m2 with a frontage of 10.615m or 4.7m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 1% shortfall and 11% short of frontage.

NSW Dept of Planning

28-Jun-11

OCM

DA/809/2010

2

973348

 

83

 Bream Street

Coogee

2034

 4: Residential - New multi unit < 20 dwellings

RLEP 1998

2C Residential

Clause 20F - FSR =0.65:1 being less than 700m2 in area & Clause 20(G) (33)  Maximum external wall height of 10m.

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 1.3871:1 or 112.3% & External wall height increased by 1.6m

NSW Dept of Planning

28-Jun-11

OCM

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP70/11

 

 

Subject:                  Sydney Ports Truck Marshalling Area - 15 Bumborah Point Road, Port Botany

Folder No:                   F2004/07975

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

The Sydney Ports Corporation (Sydney Ports), in a letter dated 8 July 2011, has advised Council of its intention to construct and operate a truck marshalling yard on a 13,860 sqm vacant site at 15 Bumborah Point Road, Port Botany. The proposal essentially will provide an area for trucks to wait if they arrive earlier than their allotted time slot at any of the stevedores within the Port Botany Port Precinct so as to minimise congestion on port roads within the Precinct. While no specific figure has been provided by Sydney Ports, the submitted plan indicates 60 truck spaces on-site.

 

Schedule 7(2) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 allows for development for the purpose of a port facility to be undertaken without consent within Sydney Port area. Additionally, Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides for the preparation of a Review of Environmental Factors (REF), which is a document used by relevant authorities to make an assessment of the environmental impact of activities in NSW. Accordingly, Sydney Ports proposes to assess the proposed truck marshalling area through the preparation of an REF under Part 5 of the EP&A Act 1979. In view of this, Sydney Ports, has requested for comments on the proposed development and, in particular, matters that Council would like addressed in the REF.

 

This report notes that this is an important facility to improve traffic management in and around the Port while raising a number of matters that should be addressed, particularly traffic and access arrangements.

 

1.    The Proposal

 

The proposal essentially comprises the following elements:

 

·      Clearing existing vegetation from the site and replacement with new landscaping;

·      Construction of a hardstand surface suitable for the required loads including levelling works;

·      Provision of utilities and services to the site

·      Construction of a security site office and amenities building;

·      Installation of security infrastructure such as fencing and CCTV cameras;

·      Provision of vehicle access and egress points and associated road works including the installation of a roundabout on Randwick Council land at the intersection of Bumborah Point Road, Military Road and Simblist Road.

 

The proposed layout of the truck marshalling area and the new roundabout is shown in Figure 1 below.

 

 

 

Figure 1 : Proposed Truck Marshalling Area

 

 

 

2.      Subject site

 

The subject site is located on north-eastern side of the intersection of Bumborah Point Road, Military Road and Prince of Wales Drive in Port Botany (see Figure 2 below). The subject site has an area of 13,860 sqm and is currently vacant with some vegetation. It is adjoined to the north by a warehouse development at 11A Bumborah Point Road; and by warehouse developments at No. 55 and No. 60 Friendship Road to the west. To the south on the opposite side of Military Road is an open space/reserve forming part of the Yarra Bay Bicentennial Park. To the east is the existing Botany Cemetery grounds. There are no immediate residential uses adjoining the subject site with the nearest residential area some 0.5 km away to the east.

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview50181.png

Figure 2 : Aerial view of the subject site

 

3.      Issues

 

The following issues have been identified for consideration in the REF for the proposed facility:

 

3.1    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments and Policy Controls

The provisions of relevant statutory and policy controls must be considered in any REF for proposed development including, but not limited to, the following:

 

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

(Including Clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 and Sections 5A and 111 of the EP&A Act. Specifically, Clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 details factors which must be taken into account when assessing the impact of an activity on the environment. A table addressing these factors under Section 228 and the applicable environmental management procedures and control measures should be provided).

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

(Notwithstanding that Council is not the consent authority for the proposed development, the objectives, aims and provisions of relevant clauses of the Randwick LEP that otherwise would apply must be considered)

 

Clause 2    Aims

Clause 16  Zone No. 4B (Port Botany)

Clause 22 Services

Clause 37  Development in the Port Botany Industrial Area

Clause 39  Unzoned land

Clause 40  Earthworks

Clause 42B Contaminated Land

Clause 43  Heritage Conservation (relating to the proximity of the heritage listed Botany Cemetery)

 

 

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999

(Including consideration as to whether the proposal will not pose a significant impact on Commonwealth listed migratory species; Commonwealth listed threatened species or endangered community; and Commonwealth marine areas).

 

SEPP (Major Development) 2005

 

SEPP (Infrastructure) 2007

(SEPP Infrastructure 2007 contains consultation requirements within Part 2 of the SEPP, including in this case, industrial neighbours, the local community and through groups such as the Port Botany Neighbourhood Liaison Group).

 

SEPP 33 – Hazardous and Offensive Development

(Specifically considerations of specific matters regarding the possible transportation of ‘potentially hazardous’ or ‘potentially offensive’ goods as defined in the Policy).

 

SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land

(The policy aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purposes of ensuring the subject land is suitable for the intended use and reduced risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment).

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

(The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 aims to protect, restore and enhance the quality of the environment in New South Wales, including legislative requirements for maintaining reasonable levels of amenity and maintaining ecologically sustainable development as administered by the Department of Environment and Climate Change.)

 

Port Botany Land Use Safety Study Overview Report 1996

(The Port Botany Land use Safety Study Overview report and/or any update to this report)

 

Sydney Ports Traffic Management Plan Guidelines 2007

 

3.2    Traffic

Traffic issues that need to be addressed include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

 

·      A traffic and parking assessment shall be undertaken which will address increases in traffic movements and designation of truck routes to relevant destinations.

 

·      Additionally, the proposal should address the issue of sight lines to / from the proposed driveway access to the roundabout which appear to be sub-standard.  The proposal will need to accommodate very large vehicles such as B Doubles (possibly Super B Doubles / B Triples in the future) which will start from a 'stop' position at the driveway and emerging into the roundabout. The sightlines from the proposed driveway egress do not appear adequate for an emerging driver to see far enough along the road to ensure that the slowly emerging large vehicle will not conflict with traffic approaching along Bumborah Point Road.

 

·      The proposed roundabout abuts a Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) road (Bumborah Point Road) such that the proposed development must be referred to the RTA for its comments and conditions.

 

·      The operating hours of the proposed facility in particular the road tanker traffic that would use the facility in the context of the existing volumes of heavy vehicles accessing the area on a daily basis and its impact on the surrounding road network.

 

·      In accordance with the Sydney Ports Traffic Management Plan Guidelines 2007, a Construction Traffic Management Plan for the works is required as well as an Operational Traffic Management Plan for the proposed development.

 

·      Provision of suitable pedestrian and cycling connections to adjoining uses and thoroughfares noting that Council’s Bike Plan has requirements/provisions for cycle paths for this locality.

 

3.3    Safety and Security

A detailed risk assessment associated with any transportation of potentially hazardous or potentially offensive goods should be prepared including considerations of any Preliminary Hazard Analysis, FHA, HAZOP, Fire Safety Study, Transport Study, Construction Safety Study and Port Botany Land Use Safety Study by DUAP in 1996. All actions and recommendations from these studies must be satisfactorily addressed. In summary, the results of any hazard risk assessment must show that the risks associated with the proposed development comply with Department of Planning risk criteria guidelines for intolerable fatality, irritation, propagation and societal risk. Also, transport risk, risks to biophysical environment and the impact on cumulative risk in the Port Botany area from potential hazardous events must be addressed.

 

3.4    Noise

An acoustic assessment will be required addressing:  

 

·      Operational noise impacts

·      Construction noise impacts

·      Sleep disturbance

·      Traffic noise impacts on the surrounding road network and residential areas

·      Noise mitigation measures

 

The acoustic assessment should confirm that:

 

·      Operational noise goals should be met such that no mitigation measures are required, including an assessment as to whether any proposed increase in traffic will have any adverse impact from a acoustic perspective.

 

·      Construction noise impacts are also modelled to be within the specified noise goals within specified general construction hours.

 

·      What noise mitigation measures would be required in the event that the construction, operational and traffic noise goals are not met.

 

3.5    Soil and groundwater

Pursuant to Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999, Council requires copies of any preliminary investigation, detailed investigation, remedial action plan/s and or validation reports for the subject site formation to be submitted to Council when considering any development applications to ensure that the site / land is suitable for the proposed use. These reports are to be in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP 55, Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and relevant NSW EPA Guidelines.

 

A Preliminary Site Contamination Investigation must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the NSW EPA Guidelines and details are to be submitted to and accepted by Council. Should the Preliminary Site Contamination Investigation be unable to justifiably conclude that the site is suitable for the proposed use, a detailed site contamination investigation must be undertaken by an independent appropriately qualified environmental consultant. The report is to be carried out in accordance with Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and relevant NSW EPA Guidelines for Contaminate Sites.  Also, as detailed in the Planning Guidelines to SEPP 55 – Remediation of Land, the report is to assess the nature, extent and degree of contamination upon the land.  The detailed site contamination report must be sufficiently detailed and be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

The subject site is located within an area within which acid sulphate soils occur. Accordingly, the proposal must recognise and plan for any constraints that these soils are likely to pose and, therefore, have regard to relevant statutory assessment advice pertaining to Acid Sulphate Soils and the NSW Acid Sulphate Soil Manual.

 

3.6    Visual impacts

Whilst it is recognised that the visual qualities of the area surrounding the proposed truck marshalling facility is to a large degree compromised by the industrial nature of the existing warehousing, oil tanking and terminal uses in the locality, appropriate consideration should still be given to urban design in the proposal such that the treatment of key edges (in particular the street frontages, entries and exits) and overall visual amenity of the street and locality is enhanced/improved. The location is also adjacent to the heritage listed Botany Cemetery and to the coastal open space and foreshore of Bicentennial Park so that visual impacts on these uses should be minimised.

 

3.7    Landscape

Details of existing vegetation that would be affected by the proposal should be addressed in the REF. Landscaping works to address the visual impact of the proposal and provide a buffer to adjacent uses should also be included in the REF.

 

3.8    Drainage 

Details regarding drainage of the area is required. In particular, what is the proposed method of treating water prior to discharge into the storm-water system (especially should conditions exceed the relevant year flood events) to ensure that contaminated water is not at anytime discharged to the storm-water system. Details may include management procedures for potential spills/leakages. Additionally, stormwater being discharged from the site should be taken through pollutant traps capable of removing gross pollutants, oil, grease, sediments and silts to the satisfaction of Sydney Ports where water drains into the Port zone.  

 

3.9    Facilities

The proposal warrants the provision of facilities/amenities for truck drivers and these should be detailed, suitably located and well-designed so as to ensure minimal visual impact in the streetscape and surrounds.

 

3.10  Consultation

SEPP Infrastructure 2007 contains consultation requirements within Part 2 of the SEPP. Consultation with industrial neighbours and the surrounding local community should be undertaken through the Port Botany Neighbourhood Liaison Group. The proponent should also consider presentations regarding the facility at the Port Botany Neighbourhood Liaison Group meeting.

 

3.11  Mitigation Measures

The REF must detail all necessary mitigation and protection measures to ensure that the environmental impact of the proposed development is minimised. These also should include measures to ensure that any traffic, circulation, water and soil quality impacts are minimised.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 5a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

As the proposed truck marshalling yard is permissible without consent due to the operation of State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007, the environmental assessment will be undertaken under Part 5 of the EP&A Act through the preparation of an REF. Accordingly, the issues listed in Section 4 above should be included in any submission to Sydney Port to be addressed in the REF.

 

As the landowner of the road reserve the Council would require that the proponent liaise closely with the relevant Council officers with regard to the design details proposed for the project.  In due course the proponent must submit fully detailed construction plans of the proposal, showing all proposed infrastructure amendments, including, but not limited to, pavement design, roundabout design (including swept path plans), traffic island design, drainage calculations and alterations, footpath and pedestrian treatments, cyclist facilities proposals, landscaping adjustments, traffic engineering details (lines and signs etc.), street lighting adjustments and STA bus affectation etc..   These submitted plans would need to meet the requirments of the relevant Australian Standards, Austroads Standards and RTA standards and be approved by the Council's Director of City Services, prior to approval being granted.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     raise the issues listed in Section 4 and in the Conclusion above in a submission to the Sydney Ports Corporation for their consideration in the preparation of an REF for the proposed truck marshalling facility at 15 Bumborah Point Road;

 

b)     agree to delegate to the General Manager the granting of land owner’s consent to Sydney Ports to undertake the proposed roundabout works.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Sydney Ports letter dated 8 July 2011

 

 

 

 


Sydney Ports letter dated 8 July 2011

Attachment 1

 

 




Ordinary Council                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP71/11

 

 

Subject:                  169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee (DA/649/2010)

Folder No:                   DA/649/2010

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

On 21 June 2011, the Land & Environment Court handed down its judgement in relation to the appeal against Council’s decision to refuse development consent for a change of use of the second floor (Aquarium level) of the Beach Palace Hotel from restaurant to a hotel. The matter was decided in favour of the applicant. This report provides Council with a summary of the mains issues and the findings of the Court.

 

Issues

 

Council’s evidence in terms of the planning related issues provided for a contestable range of issues at the hearing. Council put to the Court that the impact of the operation of the existing use on residential amenity and the impact of the proposed intensification was unacceptable.

 

The Commissioner considered the concerns of local residents and community groups as well as Council’s planning expert, Stuart McDonald, regarding potential amenity impacts, however regard to

 

·           the use of the second floor ceasing at midnight;

·           additional conditions imposing restrictions on the time and number of patrons on the eastern balcony; and

·           the closing of the doors and windows to the eastern balcony.

 

He found that noise impacts are minimised and have been satisfactorily addressed by the acoustic experts.

 

The Commissioner found that general anti-social behaviour was not a sufficient reason to refuse the application; in the context that hotels are a permissible land use and a degree of impact is unavoidable given the fundamental component of a hotel is the consumption of alcohol.

 

However the Court has imposed conditions that restrict access and patron numbers to the eastern balcony and has also placed a limit on the total number of patrons on this level.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:          Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The total costs of the appeal are yet to be determined.

Conclusion

 

Whilst Council was unsuccessful in these proceedings, the matters raised in the contentions were appropriate and worthy of pursuing in support of refusal of the application.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Land & Environment Court Proceeding No. 10929 of 2010 - Judgement

 

 

 

 


Land & Environment Court Proceeding No. 10929 of 2010 - Judgement

Attachment 1

 

 






























Ordinary Council                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP72/11

 

 

Subject:                  Recycling Reward Scheme - Pilot Schedule

Folder No:                   F2004/07280

Author:                   Talebul Islam, Coordinator Strategic Waste     

 

Introduction

 

At its Environment Committee meeting on 12 April 2011 Council resolved:

 

(Mayor, Cr M Matson/Smith) that Council give in-principle support to the Green Money recycling reward scheme for a period of 12 months, subject to a briefing to Councillors and further details provided by the proponent on the commercial partners involved in this scheme (Mayor, Cr M Matson/Smith).”

 

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the follow up to this in-principle support and seek their approval to commence the Green Money Recycling Rewards Scheme on a trial basis for a 12 month period.

 

Issues

 

Council Briefing

A briefing was provided to Councillors on 5 July 2011 on the Green Money Recycling Reward proposal and its progress in establishing relationships with local businesses to participate in this scheme.

 

Six local businesses have agreed to participate to date with further advice pending from a number of other businesses. Each have indicated they are prepared to actively support this environmental initiative which seeks to establish a ‘loyalty’ card equivalent to reward residents who agree to participate and increase their level of household recycling. Expansion of local business involvement in this resource recovery initiative is expected to continue during this pilot period and from the launch as well as continuous promotion of the initiative using various forms of electronic media.

 

Pilot Schedule

Green Money has developed a detailed work plan for the scheme. Subject to Council’s consent to commence the trial, Green Money will carry out the project as per the following schedule:

 

·      Production of Green money Online Platform and Phone application –from July to  August 2011

·      Detailed analysis of waste management processes - from July to mid-September 2011

·      Marketing and public relation planning and production – from July on-going

·      Reward partner management – from July 2011 ongoing

·      Soft launch of Recycling Reward Scheme (testing systems) – early November

·      Pilot launch – late November 2011

 

Cost of Pilot

During this pilot Green Money will bear the cost of bulk promotion including:

·      Community consultation

·      Design of all marketing material

·      Website development and maintenance

·      Public relations

 

Green Money has proposed Council contribute to the cost of:

 

·      Printing of promotional material

·      Distribution/postage of material to residents

·      Launch event

 

Estimated cost to Council to cover the above items including staff time is about $10,000. It is not intended to provide the Council contribution to Green Money as a lump sum – this is an estimate of in-house costs Council will carry to support the initiative during its trial phase.

 

Relationship to City Plan:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10a:  A healthy environment.       

Direction 10e:  Our community is encouraged to implement waste minimisation strategies.

 

Financial impact statement:

 

Green Money is bearing the major costs of the proposed Green Money Recycling Reward Scheme with Council contributing about $10,000 of in-kind and practical support. This will be funded from the Waste Education budget.

 

Conclusion

 

‘Green Money’ has engaged more than six local businesses in this innovative environmental initiative and will continue increasing involvement of local business during this 12-month trial.

 

Further detail and liaison will be provided with the proponent over the next three months ahead of the testing phase and launch of the Recycling Reward Program for residents in November 2011.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council agrees for Green Money to start all preparatory work for the launch of the Recycling Reward Scheme in November 2011; and

 

b)     Council authorises the General Manager to sign an agreement with ‘Green Money’ for this 12-month pilot.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM19/11

 

 

Subject:                  Mayoral Aviation Council - 2011 Conference

Folder No:                   F2004/07899

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

The 29th Annual Conference of the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council (AMAC) will be held in Hobart from 10 to 12 August 2011. The theme of this year’s conference is ‘So this is now…..than what next?

 

Issues

 

Council has been a member of the AMAC since August 2008. The decision to become a member of AMAC was on the basis that it is the most appropriate forum in which Council can have its say on issues of major regional concern associated with the Sydney international airport.

 

Through this body, Council will continue to challenge the Government’s plans to greatly expand the Airport’s operating capacity, as well as the suitability of retail and commercial development proposals for the Airport site and the potential impacts this form of development will have on the local area and the wider Sydney region.

 

The Australian Mayoral Aviation Council was initiated through consensus by a number of local authorities in December 1982. Membership is open to the Mayor (or an appropriate nominee) of local authorities throughout Australia affected, or potentially affected, by airport operations or aircraft noise.

 

The AMAC convenes a conference on an annual basis to provide delegates with the opportunity to meet and discuss issues, to hear speakers on a wide variety of subjects and to determine the future of the organisation through the forum of an Annual General Meeting.

 

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

Direction 2c:      Strong partnerships between Council, community groups and government agencies in order to champion our community’s needs to other service providers and government agencies to advocate on our community’s behalf.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of attending this conference has been allowed for in the 2011-12 budget.

 

Conclusion

 

Given Council’s membership of the AMAC and the impact of the Sydney international airport on the Randwick City Council area, it is recommended that the Mayor and Acting General Manager be authorised to attend the 2011 AMAC conference.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Mayor and Acting General Manager be authorised to attend the 29th Annual Conference of the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council to be held in Hobart from 10 to 12 August 2011.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM20/11

 

 

Subject:                  Local Government - Destination 2036

Folder No:                   F2004/06564

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

The Chief Executive of the Division of Local Government has written to the Mayor and General Manager with an invitation to attend a workshop of all Mayors and General Managers to discuss and consider options for the future of local government in NSW. The two-day workshop (Local Government – Destination 2036) will be held in Dubbo from 17–18 August 2011.

 

Issues

 

This workshop is being arranged by the Division of Local Government, in conjunction with the Local Government and Shires Associations (LGSA), the Local Government Managers Australia (NSW) (LGMA) and the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government (ACELG). The primary objective of the workshop is to produce a roadmap for an effective and sustainable local government sector through to the year 2036 (ie. a 25 year horizon). Of particular emphasis will be the requirement to develop a shared action plan for local government, with a strong focus on the next four years.

 

The Chief Executive has indicated that the Mayor and General Manager, as leaders in local government, would be attending this workshop in a broader strategic capacity, rather than as a representative of their individual councils.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

Direction 2c:      Strong partnerships between Council, community groups and government agencies in order to champion our community’s needs to other service providers and government agencies to advocate on our community’s behalf.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of attending this workshop will be funded from the 2011-12 Conferences and Seminars budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The Chief Executive of Local Government has indicated that, in order to achieve the best outcome form the workshop, it will be necessary for all councils to be represented and for all participants to commit to the full two days.

 

It is proposed that the Mayor and Manager Administrative Service (as the General Manager’s representative) will attend this workshop.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the Mayor and Manager Administrative Services (representing the General Manager) be authorised to attend the two-day workshop (Local Government – Destination 2036) in Dubbo from 17-18 August 2011.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS12/11

 

 

Subject:                  Use of Council Reserves for Commercial Fitness Trainers

Folder No:                   F2010/00079

Author:                   Kerry Colquhoun, Coordinator, Open Space Assets     

 

Introduction

 

Council at its Works Committee Meeting held on the 7 December 2010, resolved:

 

“(Mayor, Cr Matson/Woodsmith) that Council:

 

a)    adopt the revised Policy on the Use of Council Reserves by Commercial Fitness Groups and Personal Trainers, with the inclusion of the following information:

 

(i)     Little Bay and areas of Frenchmans and Yarra Bay to be exclusion zones.

 

(ii)    Goldstein Reserve to be excluded from commercial fitness activity on the weekend.

 

(iii)   A key consideration in renewing 12 month temporary licences will be in compliance with the policy.

 

(iv)   commercial fitness classes are to commence no earlier than 6am and finish no later than 7.30pm everyday

 

(v)    gym sessions (with or without weights, fitballs, skipping ropes and/or individual personal gym equipment) (under No. 5 Permissible fitness activities under the policy)

 

(vi)   erection of any temporary structures (under no. 6 Excluded activities).

 

 b)   issue a 6 month temporary licence to one trainer per group of up to ten (10) participants for preference one times and locations nominated in the Expression of Interest submissions, and in accordance with the Policy on the Use of Council Reserves by Commercial Fitness Groups and Personal Trainers.

 

c)    notify the Original Bootcamp Aust and Fitness First Outdoor to discuss available sites as an alternative to Grant Reserve.

 

d)    the policy be subject to a 6-month trial period and that the review include (but not be limited to) the fees charged under the policy, the start times for commercial fitness activities and any community submissions.”

 

There has now been a six month trial period of the policy implementation. This report details the review of Council’s commercial fitness policy and makes recommendations in response to input from the community, trainers and Council’s regulatory services.

 

Background

 

In the past, the use of Council’s parks by commercial fitness trainers resulted in numerous complaints about inappropriate behaviour, noise and dominance of areas by these groups. To assist in controlling this issue, Council decided to regulate activities by commercial trainers by adopting the “Policy on the Use of Council Reserves by Commercial Groups and Personal Trainers - 7 December 2010”.

 

In the managing of the commercial fitness trainers, Council is mindful that the 

fitness industry contributes to improving the health of the local community. Improvements in community health result in reduced obesity and health care costs with enhanced well being. Further, the licensees are small businesses many of which are locally based.

 

Issues

 

Currently there are 27 fitness training licences in place held by 13 companies.  All licensed training currently occurs in designated areas of Coogee and Maroubra Beach. 

 

The main characteristics, issues and outcomes of the trial period are detailed in the following:

 

·           Council rangers have carefully monitored the compliance of both licensed and unlicensed trainers. This has required significant resources from Council’s Regulatory Services.

 

·           The number of complaints about commercial training to Council from residents has decreased compared to the period before licensing.

 

·           There have been consistent and ongoing complaints about certain issues, as detailed in table below.

         

·           Improved communication between Council and Trainers has occurred in the trial period. Council officers have actively worked with “Fitness Australia”, the industry body, to discuss and resolve issues.  As part of the trial/review process, Council officers held a workshop with “Fitness Australia” and interested commercial fitness trainers on 31 May 2011.

 

Council and Community Issues

 

Issue

Recommended Action

 

Grant Reserve: many complaints from nearby residents about non compliance (larger than licensed groups), high level of noise. Further Council has concerns about the suitability and small size of the Grant reserve designated area for fitness training.

Entire area of Grant Reserve to become an exclusion zone under the revised policy.  Existing licensees will need to be allocated new areas.

 

Coogee Beach: some complaints about aggressive behaviour particularly at northern end.

Licensee in this area has been advised of this complaint. Licensee will be notified when complaints about aggressive behaviour have been received. Ongoing complaints will impact on renewal of licence.

Complaints from licensed trainers advising of unlicensed groups

Rangers will continue to monitor this issue. Additional signage will be required for licensed trainers in an attempt to identify non licensed trainers.

Non commercial groups complain if approached by Rangers. Some of these groups are commercial but are not being honest.  Others are private group

Council will continue to educate, promote and regulate licensing of fitness trainers in an attempt to control unlicensed trainers

Inequity in fees for less frequent users

New fee structure considers frequency of use has been recommended in the 2011-2012 Fees and Charges.

Council’s Regulatory Services advises that current policy requires greater clarification of requirements for the Local Approval process.

This recommendation has been included by additional clauses being included in the revised policy (June 2011).

Commercial Fitness Training in Randwick City inland parks has not resulted in complaints from the community.

If the exclusion zone as it currently exists in the policy (100 m from neighbouring residents) is to apply to inland parks most of these areas will be excluded for use due to their size and residences on all four sides. This will severely restrict the community’s ability to access fitness training.

 

That the “Policy on the Use Of Council Reserves by Commercial Fitness Groups and Personal Trainers” is amended to read:

 “6. Excluded Zones

·      In coastal parks 100 metres from any neighbouring residential property due to their proximity and intensity of use

·      For inland parks distance from neighbouring residential property will be at the discretion of Manager, Technical Service;”

 

Commercial Fitness Trainer Issues

 

Issue

Recommended Action

 

Request to allow for more flexibility for one on one training i.e. roaming one on one training occurs by a number of trainers.  This will assist in minimising non compliance.

The revised policy (Attachment 2) has included provision for a roaming one on one licence.

Significant objection to the maximum number per group being 10 under Council’s current policy. Fitness Australia recommends 18 participants for Insurance purposes.

 

Council officers have carefully considered this and recommend that 10 participants are appropriate. An increase in group size would result in greater environmental impact and also further limit the availability of licences.

Training groups would like feedback on their compliance with the policy and know if there have been complaints by the community.

 

Within available resources Council officers will attempt to keep trainers aware of incoming complaints. Trainers have been advised that non compliance may result in non renewal of licence.

Trainers advised that a small sign on site outlining session’s time, group size and company name would be more effective than the current carrying of tags for identification.

This recommendation will be included in the revised policy.  Details of the type of temporary sign will be determined with the trainers.  Licence tags will still remain.

 

The recommended actions above are implemented by amendments to the policy (June 2011). This amended policy is provided as Attachment 2. Further changes to the operation of the policy have been undertaken by changes to the Schedule of Fees and Charges 2011-2012.

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

Direction 5b:      A range of cultural, sporting and leisure activities.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact as a result of the proposed amendments to the operation and policy for Commercial Fitness Trainers using Council’s Parks and Reserves.

 

Conclusion

 

Randwick City Council has undertaken a six month trial period for the implementation of the Commercial Fitness Policy. This review has resulted in issues being addressed through amendments to the Policy (as per Attachment 2)

 

Recommendation

 

That the revised “Policy on the Use of Council Reserves by Commercial Fitness Groups and Personal Trainers (Amendment 15 June 2011)” be adopted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Policy for the Use of Council Parks and Reserves by Commercial Fitness Trainers - Amendment 15 June 2011

 

 

 

 


Policy for the Use of Council Parks and Reserves by Commercial Fitness Trainers - Amendment 15 June 2011

Attachment 1

 

 








 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                      26 July 2011

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF33/11

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - June 2011

Folder No:                   F2004/06527

Author:                   Greg Byrne, Manager Financial Operations     

 

Introduction

 

The Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Responsible Accounting Officer provide a written report to the ordinary meeting of the Council giving details of all monies invested and a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Issues

 

Council is authorised by s625 of the Local Government Act to invest its surplus funds. Funds may only be invested in the form of investment notified by Order of the Minister dated 12 January 2011. The Local Government (General) Regulation prescribes the records that must be maintained in relation to Council’s investments.

                         

The table in this report titled “Investment Register – June 2011” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of June 2011. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council's Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

The size of the investment portfolio may vary significantly from month to month as a result of cash flows for the period. Cash outflows (expenditure) are typically relatively stable from one month to another. Cash inflows (income) are cyclical and are largely dependent on the rates instalment due dates and the timing of grant payments including receipt of the Financial Assistance Grant.

 

Expenditure during the period was incurred for capital works, payroll and miscellaneous expenses. Main income sources were rates income, grants and miscellaneous fees and charges.

 

The investment portfolio decreased by $2.549 million during June 2011. The decrease is representative of negative cash flow for the month as expenditure exceeded income. There was an unrealised capital gain on investments for June of $44,040.58.