Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 28 August 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  28 August 2012

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick, on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 at 6pm.

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

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

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 24 July 2012

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.

CP56/12    1 Dampier Street, Chifley (DA/175/2012)

CP57/12    80 Alison Road, Randwick (DA/611/2011)

CP58/12    JRPP Report - 12 Military Road, Matraville (DA/221/2012)


Director City Planning Report (record of voting NOT required)

CP59/12    Reporting variation to development standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for the month of July, 2012  

General Manager's Reports

GM20/12    Meeting schedule for September/ October 2012

GM21/12    Review of the 2011-12 Annual Operational Plan - June Quarterly Report

GM22/12    Randwick City Council End of Term Report 2008-12

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF38/12    Investment Report - July 2012

GF39/12    Constitutional Recognition of Local Government - progress report

GF40/12    Affixing the Seal - KU Children's Services

GF41/12    One Association to represent Local Government in NSW  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM48/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Matthews - Provision of Specialist Neonatal Intensive Care Humidicribs

NM49/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Belleli - History of Chinese Market Gardens

NM50/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Stevenson - Coastal Environmental Ambassadors

NM51/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Stevenson - Creative Parks Prize

NM52/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Stevenson - Pollution at Maroubra Beach

NM53/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Belleli - Honouring Community Workers in Randwick City area

NM54/12    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Procopiadis - Proposed Traffic Lights at St Spyridon Colllege - Anzac Parade, Maroubra   

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  28 August 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP56/12

 

 

Subject:                  1 Dampier Street, Chifley (DA/175/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/175/2012

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Development Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two (2) storey attached dual occupancy with lower ground level garage and associated works

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Mr John Spiteri

Owner:                         A Dudek

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application is reported to Council on the basis of a SEPP 1 Objection. The proposal exceeds the external wall height development standard of Clause 20G, by approximately 21%.

 

Consent is sought for the demolition of the existing single dwelling and construction of two (2) storey attached dual occupancy. Each unit comprises three (3) bedrooms. The proposal also seeks to provide an excavated garage at lower ground floor level, along with associated site works.

 

The site is a corner block, located on the southern side of the intersection of Dampier and Wassell Streets. Immediately opposite the site across Wassell Street is the Chinese Market Garden site. The general vicinity is characterised by one (1) and two (2) storey freestanding dwellings.

 

The application was notified and advertised between 23 March and 10 April 2012. Two (2) submissions were received in response to the notification. Primary issues raised included bulk, privacy and shadowing.

 

The Wassell Street elevation of the proposed building features an external wall height ranging between 7.4 metres up to 8.5 metres. This maximum measurement is achieved to a limited portion of the façade, where the design seeks to provide modulation to the building through inclusion of composite skillion roof forms.

 

The proposed external wall height is in excess of the standard of Clause 20G (3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), outlining a maximum external wall height of seven (7) metres on the site. A SEPP 1 Objection was lodged in relation to proposed variation and is discussed further within the below assessment.

 

The application is recommended for approval.  

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application outlines the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling and construction of a two (2) storey attached dual occupancy at 1 Dampier Street, Chifley.

 

The application proposes the following:


Unit 1:

Ground floor level

At ground floor level provision is made for living, kitchen, dining, laundry and foyer areas. A single garage is also proposed, attached to the north eastern-corner of the building and with vehicular access from Dampier Street. A balcony is proposed to the north-western elevation overlooking Wassell Street, ancillary to the living areas and measuring approximately 23 square metres in area.

 

First floor level

At first floor level the application proposes to contain a master bedroom with ensuite, walk-in-wardrobe and balcony of approximately seven (7) square metres in area overlooking the Wassell Street frontage. An additional two (2) bedrooms and a bathroom are also contained at first floor level.

 


Unit 1A:

Basement level

The application proposes to excavate toward the southern end of the site for the purpose of a basement garage for use of Unit 1A. The basement is shown to be approximately 61 square metres in area and will accommodate two (2) vehicles.

 

Ground floor level

At ground floor level provision is made for living, kitchen, dining, laundry and foyer areas. A balcony is proposed to the north-western elevation overlooking Wassell Street, ancillary to the proposed living room and of approximately 5.6 square metres in area. A wrap-around balcony is proposed ancillary to the dining area and attached to the north-west and south-west elevations of the unit, measuring 22.6 square metres in area.

 

First floor level

At first floor level the application proposes to contain a master bedroom with ensuite, walk-in-wardrobe and balcony of approximately six (6) square metres in area overlooking the Wassell Street frontage. An additional two (2) bedrooms and a bathroom are also contained at first floor level. Bedroom two (2) also features an ancillary balcony overlooking Wassell Street, measuring approximately five (5) square metres in area.

 

External works

Landscaping works are detailed across the site, providing for driveways, paths, deep soil landscaping and private open space. 

 

Figure 1: The site as viewed from Dampier Street

Figure 2: The site, as viewed from Wassell Street.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 4832 DP 752015 and known as 1 Dampier Street, Chifley. The site occupies the southern corner of the intersection of Dampier and Wassell Streets. The site is generally rectangular with a north-east to south-west orientation and total area of 556.4 square metres. A splay of 4.3 metres addresses the intersection of Dampier and Wassell Streets.

 

Boundary

Length

Allotment area

North- east, Dampier Street boundary

14.02m

556.4m²

North- west, Wassell Street boundary

29.87m

South- west, side boundary

17.07m

South- east, side boundary

32.92m

 

The site is presently occupied by an aging single storey dwelling, with detached single garage accessed from Wassell Street.

The site is located within an established low density residential context. Single dwellings of varying size line Dampier and Wassell Streets. Immediately to the north-west of the subject site, across Wassell Street is the Chinese Market Garden site. To the north, across Wassell Street is a medium density townhouse development at 22- 24 Wassell Street, containing 120 townhouses, each of two (2) storeys in scale.

 

4.    Site History

 

DA/135/2010- 1 Dampier Street, Chifley

Proposed demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new part two (2), part three (3) storey attached dual occupancy (SEPP 1 Objection to Floor Space Ratio).

 

The application proposed a floor space ratio of 0.51:1. Substantial concern was raised over the bulk of the development, setback from Wassell Street, in addition to provision of two (2) double garages to the Wassell Street frontage of the site, and the associated width of the site the garages occupied. 

 

The application was withdrawn on 19 August 2010 at the advice of Council.

 

PL/75/2011- 1 Dampier Street, Chifley

Formal pre-lodgement advice was sought from Council in regards to the subject development at 1 Dampier Street and provided under PL/75/2011, on 10 January 2012. The advice provided acknowledged substantial improvement in the design of the proposal since the withdrawal of DA/135/2010. The following was noted within the written advice:

 

The revised design presented preferable design aspects from that previously proposed, including reduction in garage dominance, increased façade articulation and recessing, along with reduced bulk and scale.

The design of the development may be improved with further refinement. Elements to increase visual interest from the street should be investigated, particularly openings to street frontages.

The proposal does not meet the DCP preferred solutions for rear setbacks. This component has potential to introduce overshadowing concern to 3 Dampier Street.

 

5.    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1- Development Standards

 

The application seeks variation of the development standard 20G (3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), relating to external wall height. A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted to the standard and is addressed as follows. 

 

Building height – Clause 20G (3)

Clause 20G (3) of RLEP 1998, stipulates a maximum external wall height to buildings within the 2A zone, other than for the purpose of a dwelling house, as seven (7) metres from any point on ground level.

 

The application seeks consent for an attached dual occupancy and proposes a maximum external wall height of 8.5 metres, representing a variation of approximately 21% of the external wall height development standard of clause 20G (3).

 

5.1.1   SEPP 1 Objection Assessment

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 Objection, the principles established within 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 standards as outlined in the LEP 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 to the above clause, which outlines the following key justifications for the variation to the external wall height standard:

 

Justification: Building height – Clause 20G (3)

“It is considered that strict compliance with the maximum wall height standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of the case for the following reasons:

 

The height, bulk and scale of the proposed development are consistent with other two / three storey dwelling houses in the immediate vicinity of the site.

The proposed development is up to one (1) metre higher than the maximum wall height limit and only relates to the common wall between the two (2) dwellings (i.e the middle section of the dwellings). The variation is considered to be minor and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy and views, or visual bulk and scale.

The external walls on the side elevations of the dwellings comply with the 7m wall height limit.

The proposal provides a high quality contemporary residential development that is sympathetic to the existing and desired future character of the locality.”

 

It is considered that the proposed development and variation from the building height standard is satisfactory, and further the submitted SEPP 1 Objection is well founded for the following reasons:

 

·      The greatest extent of external wall height proposed at 8.5 metres, is achieved to a limited portion of the Wassell Street façade, where the design seeks to provide modulation through the inclusion of composite skillion roof forms. The remaining elevations of the proposed building are generally complaint with the external wall height standard. The building remains well below the overall height control of 9.5 metres;

·      The building envelope and dual occupancy nature of the proposal do not facilitate an unreasonable residential intensification, such that the development would be out of character with the low density residential zone. The building envelope remains within the scope of the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for a freestanding single dwelling on the site;

·      The building is generally reflective of surrounding built form; notably a number of large, freestanding dwellings front Wassell Street, to the south-west. The non-compliant component of the proposal will not directly compromise amenity to neighbouring sites to the south-east and south-west;

·      The proposal occupies a corner site, where a stronger built element is considered appropriate in providing definition to the intersection and informing ongoing development within the increasingly transitional area;

·      The applicant has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the purpose of Clause 20G will be achieved, and that given the above circumstances, the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary.  

 

Given the above, the extent of variation to the development standard of clause 20G (3) is considered reasonable and appropriate in the context of the residential zone.

 

The proposal is generally reflective of the prevailing character of the low density residential area. The development will maintain consistency with the underlying and stated purposes of the subject standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The SEPP 1 objections have adequately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard 20G (3) is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case. As such, it is considered that the objections to RLEP clause 20G (3), 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 proposed variation of the building height standard is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 and will not detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the development works are considered to promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts on the area.

 

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:

The proposed development and variation from the building height standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or Regional environmental planning.

 

The strict adherence to the numerical external wall height standard in this instance is not considered necessary, given the degree of variation proposed. The development maintains a sympathetic scale, reflective of existing development and the transitional character of the vicinity and the low density residential zone.

 

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 and established by the submitted SEPP 1 objection, strict compliance with the development standard 20G (3) is unreasonable and unnecessary as the current design scheme 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 building height development standard is relevant to the subject proposal.

 

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 building height standards would not be defeated or thwarted, as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is unreasonable, given the justification discussed above.

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 development standard in question has not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council. There has been no precedent established by Council’s assessment decisions, which in effect would abandon the development standards prescribed in the LEP.

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 site is proposed to be zoned R2: Low Density Residential, under the Draft RLEP 2012. The objectives of the R2 zone correlate to those for the existing Residential 2A zone under the current LEP. The existing 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 between 23 March 2012 and 10 April 2012, in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, two (2) submissions were received.    

3 Dampier Street, Chifley.

Issue

Comment

Request conditions in relation to asbestos, requiring treatment by a suitably qualified professional, with reporting to be at the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

Suitable conditions have been recommended in relation to the possibility of asbestos on the site and required treatment.

Request the first floor windows to the southern elevation, corresponding to a bedroom and bathroom, be raised or obscured to 1700mm.

The subject windows have been recommended to be obscured in accordance with the DCP, up to a height of 1500mm. This height is considered reasonable in providing privacy to neighbouring sites. 

 

Request overall building height be reduced 500mm.

The overall height of the building complies with the building height development standard of 9.5 metres and does not impose any significant detrimental impacts upon sites adjoining. The height proposed is considered acceptable.

57 Wassell Street, Chifley

Issue

Comment

Solar access:

Shadow diagrams illustrate complete obstruction of sunlight between 9 am and 3pm, of which does not meet the requirements of the DCP.

 

As a result of the subdivision pattern, shadowing of 57 Wassell Street does occur throughout the morning and into the afternoon, primarily upon the side elevation. The open space and primary north facing windows of this site will not be prevented form achieving the required three (3) hours solar access. It is considered any reasonable two (2) storey development on the site would pose similar shadowing impacts.

Privacy:

The south-west elevation features many windows and a deck of which are of privacy concern. The privacy impact is unacceptable in relation to the provisions of the DCP. Request obscuring or eliminating windows.

 

The first floor windows have been recommended to be obscured in accordance with the DCP, up to a height of 1500mm, along with the first floor balcony.

The ground floor balcony, given it’s elevation, has also been recommended to have a privacy screen included.  

Setbacks:

The secondary boundary setback is out of line with existing development of Wassell Street and will block views of the street.

 

The building is considered to have been sited appropriately in relation to Wassell Street. The building is located closer to the corner to reinforce the intersection, then stepping back to increase alignment with 57 Wassell Street. Reduced views of the street are not considered to necessitate reduction in required setback of the proposal. 

 

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:-

 

7.1      Development Engineer:

Despite being the only established vegetation within this property, Council does not object to removal of the five (5) metre tall Eriobotrya japonica (Loquat), located along the northern boundary, fronting Wassell Street, in order to accommodate the proposed works as shown, and while this application complies with Council’s numerical controls for landscaped area and deep soil for a development of this type in this zone, no landscape plan has been submitted.

 

In recognition of the potential impact developments of this size and scale may have on the streetscape and neighbouring properties, conditions require that a detailed landscape plan be prepared and implemented as part of this proposal, with the provision of street trees along both frontages to assist in this regard also.

 

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

SEPP: BASIX applies to the proposed development. The development application is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate, pursuant to Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. Should the proposal be supported, these commitments could be required through conditions of consent.

 

8.        Section 79C 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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

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.

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

The provisions of Randwick Draft LEP 2012 have been considered in the assessment of the application and are generally satisfied by the proposed development.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the preferred solutions in the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, except where discussed in the key issues section of this report.

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

Not applicable.

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

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 is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. 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.

 

 

 

9.        Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

 

The proposal is consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

9.1      Clause 10 – Zone No 2A (Residential 2A Zone)

The site is zoned Residential 2A under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). Attached dual occupancies are permissible in the zone.

The proposal will maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area, while positively contributing to the variety of housing types available. With the exception of the external wall height control, the proposal generally meets the requirements of the planning controls and as such, is not considered to introduce any unsympathetic elements to the area.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory with regard to the relevant zone objectives.

 

9.2      Principal development standards & Miscellaneous provisions

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

20E Landscaped area

(1) Minimum 40% of the site area (222.6m2)

 

42%

Complies. 

20F

Floor space ratio

0.5:1 for sites within residential 2A zones

0.49:1

Complies.

20G

Building height

(1) Overall height: 9.5m

 

(3) External wall height: 7m

Overall height 8.7 metres.

 

External wall height 8.5 metres.

Complies.

 

 

Does not comply.

22 Services

Adequate facilities for supply of water, disposal of sewage and drainage are required to support a proposed development

 

The site has existing access to adequate utility services.

Complies.

 

9.3      Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Draft LEP)

Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 is a matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

 

The following table considers the proposed development having regard to the zoning provisions and development standards contained in draft LEP that are of relevance to the subject development application:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

 

Zoning:

 

The site is zoned Low Density Residential R2.

Yes.

Permissible under the proposed zoning?

Yes

Floor Space Ratio (Max)

0.65:1

0.49:1

Yes.

Height of Building (Max)

9.5m

8.7m

 

Yes.

 

Lot Size (Min)

No subdivision proposed.

556.4 m2

N/A

 

10.      Dwelling houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP

 

The proposed dwelling has been assessed against the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP. In order to gain Council approval, proposed developments must demonstrate that they have fulfilled the relevant objectives for each topic. The performance requirements of the DCP provide the means by which a development will achieve the objectives for each topic. Preferred Solutions are ‘deemed to comply’ standards, not compulsory standards, illustrating how a development may achieve the performance requirement. 

 

The application has been assessed against, and is consistent with, the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. The development will not result in significant impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The issues elaborated upon within Section 7 have been raised as concerns during the assessment of the application or where the ‘deemed to satisfy’ provisions have not been met.

 

11.      Key Issues and Areas of Non Compliance:

          

11.1  Height, Form and Materials

Section 4.3 of the DCP further outlines several objectives and performance requirements for height, form and materials, specifically as follows:

 

§  To ensure the height and scale of development relates to the topography with minimal cut and fill.

§  To ensure developments are not excessive in height and scale but are compatible with the existing character of the locality.

§  To ensure buildings preserve privacy and natural light access for neighbouring residents and allow a sharing of views.

§  To ensure buildings enhance the predominant neighbourhood and street character.

 

P1           The height of buildings relate to those in the surrounding streetscape, with higher buildings located to minimise impacts on neighbours and the streetscape.

 

P2           Buildings are designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting, where relevant, existing characteristics of:

§ Mass and proportion;

§ Materials, patterns, textures, colours and decorative elements;

§ Roof from and pitch;

§ Façade articulation;

§ Window and door location and proportions,

§ Verandahs, eaves and parapets.

 

P3           The location and design of development relates to the topography of the site, with minimal cut and fill.

 

P4           Buildings are designed to preserve privacy and natural light access for neighbouring residents.

 

The submitted plans illustrate the proposed dwelling will achieve a maximum external wall height of up to 8.5 metres to the Wassell Street elevation. This figure is contrary to the preferred solution within Section 4.3 of the DCP below, detailing a maximum wall height of seven (7) metres. Further, the extent of excavation required will exceed the above preferred solution detailing a maximum of one (1) metre.

 

11.1.1 External wall height

The maximum extent of external wall height proposed exists to the Wassell Street elevation. This component sees three (3) stories achieved for the purpose of an excavated garage. A greater wall height is presented in this location largely in the response to the topography of the site. With the exception of the Wassell Street elevation, the proposal generally sees a wall height of seven (7) metres or less, in accordance with the above preferred solution and the development standard of Clause 20G (3).

7.9m

 

8.5m

 

7.4m

 

 

Figure 5: The Wassell Street elevation, where the proposed external wall height variation exists.

 

The maximum wall height measurement of 8.5 metres is achieved to a isolated portion of the Wassell Street façade, where the design seeks to provide modulation through the inclusion of composite skillion roof forms. The inclusion of this design feature not only serves to provide a strong built form to the corner site, but also provides visual interest to the elevation. The remainder of the Wassell Street elevation scales down from this maximum, to reach a minimum wall height of 7.4 metres. The subject 8.5 metre wall height component is located centrally within the elevation, in effect minimising shadow and bulk and scale implications upon adjoining sites.

 

The proposed building is reflective of existing elements within surrounding built form, most notably a number of large, freestanding dwellings fronting Wassell Street to the south-west. The design of the proposed building has been appropriately modulated and articulated in offsetting the wall height variation, while minimising the potential for significant impacts upon the immediate neighbours to the south-east and south-west. Given the above, the proposed external wall height is considered acceptable with regard to the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP and is supported by this assessment.

 

11.1.2 Cut and fill

The application proposes excavation for the purpose of a basement garage and alteration of levels to achieve the new building platform. The accumulation of these aspects will involve cut and fill in excess of one (1) cubic metre, specified as a maximum within the preferred solution of Section 4.3.

 

While the extent of cut and fill exceeds the preferred solution, the proposal is considered justified in the need to obtain a level foundation for the building and enables the garage structure to substantially setback from Wassell Street. The extent of varied land levels is not excessive or inconsistent with the surrounding sites which have all been altered to varying degrees to accommodate residential developments of varying size.

 

11.2  Setbacks

Section 4.4 of the DCP outlines several objectives and performance requirements in regards to setbacks:

 

·      To integrate new development with the established setbacks of the street and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape.

 To ensure dwellings have adequate access to natural light daylight and fresh air.

·      To maintain and enhance established trees and vegetation.

 

Front setback

P1       Front building setback generally conforms with the setback of adjoining development or the dominant setback along the street.

 

Rear setback

P2       Building forms and setbacks allow neighbours adequate access to natural light and a share of views and preserve established tress and vegetation and be generally consistent with the setback of adjoining properties.

 

Side setback

P3       Building forms and setbacks allow occupants and neighbours adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air. Side setbacks adjoining a street frontage, regarding corner allotments, must integrate with the established setbacks of the side street and maintain the environmental amenity of the streetscape.

 

The proposal occupies a corner site at the intersection of Dampier and Wassell Streets. For the purpose of the DCP, the site has been assessed as having two (2) side boundaries to the south-east and south–west and two (2) front setbacks to each street frontage. The proposed setbacks to the building are summarised as follows:

 

Boundary

Proposed setback

Preferred Solution

Dampier Street setback

Min 6120mm;

Max 8320mm.

Average of adjoining sites, if not 6 metres.

Wassell Street setback

Min 3000mm;

Max 5000mm.

South-west side setback, shared w/ 57 Wassell Street.

990mm, ground floor;

4470mm, first floor.

900mm, ground floor;

1500mm, first floor.

South-east side setback, shared w/ 3 Dampier Street

1500mm, ground floor

1500mm, first floor.

In relation to placement on the site, the proposal generally achieves the layout envisioned within the DCP, as below. A lesser setback is provided to the side boundaries.

 

Figure 4: Extract from the DCP, illustrating ideal layout of an attached dual occupancy on a corner site.

Figure 5: Approximate footprint proposed.

 

Wassell Street setbacks

The proposed Wassell Street setbacks are noted to be closer to the frontage than that specified within the preferred solution. The building has been designed to reinforce the built form of the corner block, stepping back along the Wassell Street boundary to achieve approximate alignment with the dwellings located to the north-west.

 

In relation to neighbouring setbacks, the Wassell Street setbacks are forward of that established at 57 or 59 Wassell Street. Existing development on these sites is not considered to represent the extent of development envisioned within the current controls. Given this and the nature of development within the vicinity, the immediate area is considered transitional and is such that the setbacks established to Wassell Street are overly generous and not a reasonable imposition upon the subject development.

 

Dampier Street setbacks

To the Dampier Street elevation, the proposal achieves the preferred six (6) metre setback to the building as a minimum. It is noted that even with this setback provided, the façade is still set forward of the dwelling at 3 Dampier Street. The dwelling at 3 Dampier Street is aged and does not reflect the extent of development allowable under the current controls. The setback to Dampier Street complies with the preferred solution and as such, is deemed to be suitable.

 

11.3  Visual and Acoustic Privacy

Section 4.5 of the DCP outlines several objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions for visual and acoustic privacy, specifically as follows:

 

·                 To ensure that new buildings and additions meet occupants and neighbours requirements fro visual and acoustic privacy.

 

P1       Overlooking of internal living areas and private open spaces of residential development is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and, where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

 

P2       Balconies are designed to provide adequate privacy for occupants of the building when viewed from other private open spaces, public spaces or the street.

 

South-east and south-west elevation openings:

The application details a number of openings with obscuring treatment applied. A number of openings proposed remain of concern to maintaining the privacy of neighbouring sites, specifically:

 

South-east elevation openings:

First floor ensuite window of Unit 1, featuring a sill height of 900mm and oriented to toward the neighbouring site at 3 Dampier Street;

First floor window to bedroom three (3) of Unit 1, featuring sill height of 900mm and oriented toward the neighbouring site at 3 Dampier Street;

First floor ensuite window of Unit 1A, featuring a sill height of 900mm and oriented to toward the neighbouring site at 3 Dampier Street;

 

South-west elevation openings:

First floor window to bedroom three (3) of Unit 1A, featuring a sill height of 900mm and oriented toward the neighbouring site at 57 Wassell Street;

First floor balcony to Unit 1A, with potential to overlook the adjoining site at 57 Wassell Street;

Ground floor balcony to Unit 1A, elevated above ground level and with potential to overlook the adjoining site at 57 Wassell Street.

 

The above aspects of the proposal are considered to allow overlooking of adjoining sites and as such, are recommended for obscuring treatment in accordance with the provisions of the DCP. Conditions have been recommended for windows to be raised or obscured to 1500mm and elevated balconies to have privacy screens provided, up to a height of 1500mm.

 

11.4    Solar access and overshadowing

Section 3.1 of the DCP outlines the following in regards to overshadowing:

 

·       To protect solar access enjoyed by neighbours

 

P2     Buildings are sited and designed to maximise solar access to north-facing living areas and areas of open space.

 

P9     The design and siting of new buildings, alterations and additions to existing buildings and landscaping minimises loss of solar access to neighbouring properties. Solar access is to be maximised to the north facing windows of living areas and the principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings.

 

The site is oriented roughly north-east to south-west. The submitted shadow diagrams illustrate the proposal will overshadow adjacent sites at both 57 Wassell Street and 3 Dampier Street.

57 Wassell Street:

The proposal is shown to reduce solar access to the adjoining site at 57 Wassell Street, from 9am to approximately 1pm. The site contains a single storey dwelling, with primary openings facing south-east to Wassell Street and north-west toward the site’s rear open space. Given this, the north-western side elevation upon which solar access is most significantly reduced, is not the primary north facing elevation.

As a result of the subdivision pattern, any complying two (2) storey development on the subject site is considered to impose a similar solar access obstruction to this neighbour. Minimal solar reduction is shown to be incurred to this site’s private open space. The reduction in solar access to this site does not arise through bad design and generally meets the requirements of the DCP, ensuring three (3) hours sunlight is retained to a majority of the site. Consequently, the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to this section of the DCP.

 

3 Dampier Street:

Solar access to the south-eastern neighbour is unaffected up to 12 noon. Beyond this, overshadowing of the north-west elevation of this site increases throughout the afternoon. The submitted shadow diagrams illustrate the site at 3 Dampier Street will achieve the required three (3) hours sunlight to both the principle private open spaces and the primary north facing windows of the dwelling. Given this, the application meets the preferred solution of the DCP.

 

11.5    Garages, Carports an Driveways

Section 4.7 of the DCP outlines several objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions in regards to Garages, Carports and Driveways:

 

·      To ensure onsite car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of dwellings or the local streetscape.

 

·      To provide convenient and safe car parking and access. 

 

Car parking areas are designed to:

P1            Conveniently and safely serve users;

 

Enable the efficient use of car paces and access ways, including adequate maneuverability for vehicles between the site and the street.

 

P2          Not dominate or detract from the appearance of the development and the local streetscape;

 

Be compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

The application proposes vehicular access via both Dampier and Wassell Streets, where the existing situation provides a single garage at the rear of the site, accessed via Wassell Street. The proposed arrangement is considered preferable to the use of a single frontage for both garages, where the structure would likely have a dominating effect upon the streetscape.

 

The parking arrangement to Unit 1 comprises a single garage occupying approximately 28% of the width of the site, located 2200mm forward of the building line. Sufficient space is located within the front setback to accommodate an additional vehicle space and hence two (2) parking spaces will be provided for Unit 1. A three (3) metre wide crossing is proposed, providing access from Dampier Street.

 

The parking arrangement to Unit 1A comprises an excavated basement garage at lower ground level. The garage proposed is capable of accommodating two (2) vehicles and associated storage for the dwelling. The garage occupies approximately 13% of the width of the site and is accessed via a four (4) metre wide crossing from Wassell Street.

 

·      Garage forward of the building line:

The garage proposed to Unit 1 is located 2200mm forward of the bulk of the proposed building, fronting Dampier Street. It is noted that the garage is setback 6.1 metres behind the Dampier Street boundary of the site. This setback allows the structure to appear generally aligned with the building bulk from the street and offsets potential for any dominating effect the structure may pose to the streetscape.

 

·      Driveway crossing width:

A driveway width of four (4) metres is proposed to Unit 1A, in order to facilitate effective access to the basement garage. The width of the garage, while in excess of the preferred solution, will not serve to dominate the streetscape or detract from the appearance of the building or neighbouring sites. The driveway is not unreasonably wide and is considered to be in the interest of enabling convenient and safe parking access to the site.

 

With the application of conditions recommended by Council’s Development Engineer, the driveway and parking situation proposed is considered practical and safe. As such, the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to Section 4.7 of the DCP.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in Urban Design and Development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

The submitted SEPP 1 Objection provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate the purpose of clause 20G will be achieved and further, compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.  The proposal remains within the bounds of the objectives and performance requirements of the dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies DCP.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to the below recommended conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20G (3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to external wall height, 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/175/2012 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a two (2) storey attached dual occupancy with lower ground level garage and associated works, at No. 1 Dampier Street, Chifley, 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 by Council

A-01- Site Plan

John Spiteri Design & Drafting

15 November 2011

16 March 2012

A-02- Floor plans

A-03- Floor plans

A-04- Floor plans

A-05- Elevations

A-06- Elevations

A-07- Section

A-08- Street Elevations

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Multi Dwelling

414668M

9 February 2012

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The following privacy measures shall be incorporated into the development:

 

a.     South-east elevation:

·           Privacy measures shall be provided in the accordance with the detail provided on the approved plans;

·           The first floor openings corresponding to bedroom no. 3 of both units and the ensuite of Unit 1, shall be raised or obscured to a minimum 1500mm above finished floor level, as indicated in red on the approved plans.

 

b.     South-west elevation:

·           Privacy measures shall be provided in the accordance with the detail provided on the approved plans;

·           The first floor opening corresponding to bedroom no. 3 of Unit 1A, shall be raised or obscured to a minimum 1500mm above finished floor level, as indicated in red on the approved plans;

·           A privacy screen of minimum 1500mm above finished floor level shall be installed to the first floor balcony corresponding to bedroom no. 2 of Unit 1A, as indicated in red on the approved plans;

·           A privacy screen of minimum 1500mm above finished floor level shall be applied to the south-west elevation of the ground floor deck of Unit 1A, as indicated in red on the approved plans. 

 

 

Further to the above privacy measures of conditions 2a) and 2b), louvres or opaque/frosted glass may be used at the preference of the applicant. Where louvres are being used for obscuring treatment, a minimum of 75% of the required obscured area shall remain obstructed at all times through spacing and fixing of the louvres.

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

The following conditions of consent must be complied with before a ‘Construction Certificate’ is issued by either Randwick City Council or an Accredited Certifier.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be included in the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

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 adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate 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 $704,122.00, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $7041.22.

       

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.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

6.       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.

 

 

Security Deposit

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

 

·           $3000.00    -      Damage/Civil Works Security Deposit

 

The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash, cheque or credit card payment and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council upon the completion of the civil works which confirms that there has been no damage to Council's infrastructure.

 

The owner/builder is also requested 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.

 

To obtain a refund of relevant deposits, a Security Deposit Refund Form is to be forwarded to Council’s Director of City Services upon issuing of an occupation certificate or completion of the civil works.

 

Design Alignment levels

8.       The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be as follows

 

·           Dampier Street Frontage – Match the existing council footpath levels.

 

·           Wassell Street Frontage –         Driveway Entrance RL 20.20 AHD.

   Pedestrian Entrance RL 20.35 AHD

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as 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.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0923.

 

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

 

10.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $844.00 calculated at $46.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

         

Sydney Water

11.     A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation. 

 

 

Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Co-ordinator. For details, please refer to the “Your Business” section of Sydney Water’s web site www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Following the application, a “Notice of Requirements” will be provided, detailing water and sewer extensions to be built and charges to be paid.  Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

The Section 73 Compliance Certificate is required to be obtained before an occupation certificate is issued.

 

12.     Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate 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 and Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets.

 

Stormwater Drainage

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.       Grassed areas

iv.      Garden areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

14.     The site stormwater drainage system is to be provided in accordance with the following requirements;

 

a)     The stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the conditions of this consent, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

b)     The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either:

 

i.     Directly to the kerb and gutter or drainage system located at the front of the subject site in either Wassell St or Dampier St; or

 

ii.    To a suitably designed infiltration system (subject to confirmation in a geotechnical investigation that the ground conditions are suitable for the infiltration system)

 

c)     Should stormwater be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, an on-site stormwater detention system must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the site does not exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 10 year storm of one hour duration for existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the street drainage system, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

An overland escape route or overflow system (to Council’s street drainage system) must be provided for storms having an average recurrence interval of 100 years (1 in 100 year storm), or, alternatively the stormwater detention system is to be provided to accommodate the 1 in 100 year storm.

 

d)     Should stormwater be discharged to an infiltration system, the infiltration area shall be  sized for all storm events up to the 1 in 20 year storm event with provision for a formal overland flow path to Council’s Street drainage system.

 

Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the 1 in 20 design storm, the infiltration system shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

e)     Determination of the required cumulative storage (in the on-site detention and/or infiltration system) must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible any detention tanks should have an open base to infiltrate stormwater into the ground. Infiltration should not be used if ground water and/or any rock stratum is within 2.0 metres of the base of the tank.

 

 

f)     If connecting to Council’s underground drainage system, a reflux valve shall be provided (within the site) over the pipeline discharging from the site to ensure that stormwater from Council drainage system does not surcharge back into the site stormwater system.

 

g)     Any new kerb inlet pits (constructed within Council’s road reserve) are to be constructed generally in accordance with Council’s standard detail for the design of kerb inlet pits (drawing number SD6 which is available from Council).

 

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

 

i)      A sediment/silt arrestor pit must be provided within the site near the street boundary prior to discharge of the stormwater to Council’s drainage system and prior to discharging the stormwater to any absorption/infiltration system.

 

Sediment/silt arrestor pits are to be constructed generally in accordance with the following requirements:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

·         Provision of a sign adjacent to the pit stating, “This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned”.

 

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

 

j)     The floor level of all habitable, retail, commercial and storage areas located adjacent to any detention and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be provided.

 

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

 

k)     Infiltration systems/Absorption Trenches must be designed and constructed generally in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" of Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

v.    Above ground stormwater detention areas must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

Note: Above ground storage of stormwater is not permitted within basement car parks or store rooms.

 

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

 

n)     A ‘V’ drain (or equally effective provisions) are to be provided to the perimeter of the property, where necessary, to direct all stormwater to the detention/infiltration area.

 

o)     The site stormwater system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it operates as required by the design.

 

p)     Mulch or bark is not to be used in on-site detention areas.

 

q)     Seepage waters are required to be drained and disposed of within the site and are not to be drained into Council’s stormwater drainage system.

 

r)     Site discharge pipelines shall cross the verge at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the kerb line.

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The requirements contained in the following conditions of consent must be complied with and details of compliance must be included in the construction certificate for the development.

 

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

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

15.     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.

 

Smoke Alarms

16.     Smoke alarms are required to be installed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia (volume 2) and smoke alarms must comply with AS3786.  Smoke alarms must 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.

 

BASIX Requirements

17.     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.

 

Driveway Design

18.     The gradient of the internal access driveway must be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the levels of the driveway must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council). Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

The height of the building must not be increased to satisfy the required driveway gradients.

 

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

19.     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.

 

Home Building Act 1989

20.     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.

 

Dilapidation Reports

21.     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.  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

22.     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant 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, to the satisfaction of the Council.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works on site.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

23.     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 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, amenities or articles upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or public place at any time, 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

24.     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

25.     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 (including asbestos)

·           Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·           Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must 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

26.     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.

 

Demolition & Construction Waste

27.     A Demolition and Construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be development and implemented for the development, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Public Utilities

28.     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.

 

Landscaping

29.     A landscape plan prepared by a qualified professional in the Landscape/Horticultural industry (must be a registered member of either AILDM or AILA) shall be submitted to, and be approved by the PCA, prior to the commencement of works and must detail the following:

 

a)   A Planting Plan & Plant Schedule which includes proposed species, botanic and common names, pot size at the time of planting, quantity, location, dimensions at maturity, maintenance practices (hedging, shaping etc), as well as any other landscape details to describe the proposed works;

a)   A predominance of species with low water requirements that can withstand poor quality sandy soils;

 

b)   A total number of 3 x 25 litre (pot size at the time of planting) trees within the site, (pot size at the time of planting) trees within the site, comprising one each in the southwest corner, southeast corner and northeast corner, selecting those species which will attain a minimum height of between 4-7 metres at maturity;

 

Tree Management,

30.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $214.50 (including GST) to cover the cost for Council to supply and plant 2 x 25 litre street trees, Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo), being one on the Dampier Street frontage, towards the southern site boundary, as well as one on the Wassell Street frontage, to the west of the most western vehicle crossing at the completion of all works.

 

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 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.

 

Inspections During Construction

31.     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).

 

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”.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

33.     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.

 

Demolition Work Requirements

34.     All work and activities must be carried out in accordance with the relevant regulatory requirements and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·           Work Health and Safety Act 2011

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001

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

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

·           Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·           Relevant Office of Environment & Heritage / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines.

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

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

35.     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.

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

36.     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 must be shown in a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, including; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment, methods of sediment control, details of drainage systems and details of existing and proposed vegetation.

 

A copy of the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

·          Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other articles must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time.

 

·          The road, footpath, vehicular crossing and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe, clean condition and free from any excavations, obstructions, trip hazards, goods, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway, vehicular crossing, nature strip or any public place must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

·          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.

 

·          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.

 

·          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.

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

38.     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.

 

39.     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.

 

40.     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 (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.

 

Survey Requirements

41.     A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or other suitable documentation must be obtained at the following stage/s of construction to demonstrate compliance with the approved setbacks, levels, layout and height of the building to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·            prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of the footings or first completed floor slab,

·            upon completion of the building, prior to issuing an occupation certificate,

·            as otherwise may be required by the PCA.

 

The survey documentation must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority for the development.  

 

Building Encroachments

42.     There must be no encroachment of any structures or building work onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

Site Amenities

43.     Temporary toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site throughout the course of demolition and construction, to the satisfaction of WorkCover NSW and the toilet facilities must be connected to a public sewer or other sewage management facility approved by Council.

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

44.     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.

           

            Drainage

45.     Adequate provisions must be made to collect and discharge stormwater drainage during construction of the building to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority.

 

The prior written approval of Council must be obtained to connect or discharge site stormwater to Council’s stormwater drainage system or street gutter.

 

Tree Management

46.     Approval is granted for removal of the Eriobotrya japonica (Loquat), located along the northern site boundary, fronting Wassell Street, in order to accommodate the proposed works as shown, subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping.

 

47.     As the above site may encounter groundwater/seepage water, the basement garage or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and/or waterproofed. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify the tanking &/or waterproofing has been carried out to an acceptable standard, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority. A copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:

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

 

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

 

48.     Any seepage water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. Seepage water must not be drained from the site.

 

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

49.     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

50.     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

51.     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.

 

The relevant measures must be implemented prior to issue of an occupation certificate.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

52.     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 crossings and laybacks at kerb opposite the vehicular entrances to the site in Wassell Street.

 

b)  Remove the redundant concrete layback in Wassell St and to reinstate the area with integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

 

c)  Remove the existing Council footpath in Wassell St including the Council footpath located at the splay corner and construct a new Council footpath along the full Wassell St site frontage as shown on the submitted DA plans (Project No 11-166, Drwg No A-01 (Site Plan) drawn by J Spiteri dated 15/11/11) to Council's specification

 

53.     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.

 

54.     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.

 

a)  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.

 

b)  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.

 

c)  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.

 

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

 

Service Authorities

56.     The Section 73 Compliance Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate (whichever the sooner).

 

Stormwater Drainage

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

Notes:

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

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

 

58.     Upon completion of the works and prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced hydraulic consultant/engineer must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council. The works-as-executed plan must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·      The location of any detention basin/s with finished surface levels;

·      Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

·      Volume of storage available in any detention areas;

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

·      The orifice size/s (if applicable);

·      Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

59.     Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer, which confirms that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standard AS3500.3:2003 (Plumbing & Drainage- Stormwater Drainage) and conditions of this development consent. 

 

The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the Hydraulic Engineers to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

Landscaping

60.     The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications prior to occupation of the development and the landscaping must be maintained in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

 

Certification is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) prior to the occupation of the development, which confirms that the landscaping works have been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

 

Waste Management

61.     Prior to the occupation of the development, the owner or applicant is required to contact Council’s City Services department, to make the necessary arrangements for the provision of waste services for the additional premises.

 

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.

 

External Lighting

62.     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.

 

Street Numbering

63.     Street numbering must be provided to the front of the premises in a prominent position, in accordance with the Australia Post guidelines and AS/NZS 4819 (2003) to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Waste Management

64.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage and removal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – Air Conditioners

65.     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

66.     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.

 

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 – Rainwater Tanks

67.     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.

 

Rainwater Tank Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

ADVISORY 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.

 

 

A1      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.

 

A2      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.

 

A3      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.

 

A4      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.

 

A5      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.

 

A6      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.

 

A7      This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

A8      The finished ground levels external to the building must be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised, other than for the provision of approved paving or the like on the ground.

 

A9      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.

 

A10     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.

 

A11     Further information and details on Council's requirements for trees on development sites can be obtained from the recently adopted Tree Technical Manual, which can be downloaded from Council’s website at the following link, http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au - Looking after our environment – Trees – Tree Management Technical Manual; which aims to achieve consistency of approach and compliance with appropriate standards and best practice guidelines.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  28 August 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP57/12

 

 

Subject:                  80 Alison Road, Randwick (DA/611/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/611/2011

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Section 82A review of Council's refusal of consent for alterations and additions to an approved multi-unit residential building resulting in a 3 storey building with 6 units, basement parking for 8 vehicles and strata subdivision including a reduction in floor space, increased landscaping and setbacks, alteration to windows, internal changes and modification to driveway (SEPP1 objections to floor space ratio, maximum and wall height controls)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Mr V Mitnoveski

Owner:                         Mr G M Johnston & Ms M Kennedy

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

This Section 82A Review application is referred to Council for determination.  The original Development Application No. 611/2011 for alterations and additions to an approved residential flat building including provision of a new unit at top level of the rear section of the building, addition of a sunroom to top level of the front section of the building for Unit 5, internal reconfiguration and associated works was referred to the Planning Committee Meeting held on 27 March 2012 where Council resolved to refuse the application.

 

The applicant has amended the proposal and now seeks development consent from Council.  The primary amendments, as advised by the applicant, include

 

§ Reduction in FSR from 0.95:1 to 0.88:1.

§ Increase in setback of unit 6 (the additional unit) from the southern boundary by 600mm. 

§ Localised reduction in front building parapet height by 400m

§ Redesign of the 4th floor sunroom to integrate with the main building.

 

Other amendments include modification to internal reconfiguration of units including reduction in circulation space; some reconfiguration to fenestrations, and redesigned driveway. SEPP 1 Objections have been lodged in relation to non-compliances with the 0.65:1 FSR standard  for sites 700 sqm and less in Residential 2C zone (proposal has FSR of 0.88:1) and maximum 10m wall and 12m building height standards (the proposal has maximum wall and building heights of 12.6m and 12.8m respectively).

 

Following a review of the Section 82A proposal by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel on 2 July 2012, further amended plans were lodged on 5 July 2012 containing additional changes including extension of pergola around sunroom; provision of shading to all windows; modification to rear elevation; deletion of cover over stair from basement; addition of roof over main entry door; relocation of hydrant booster to driveway; construction of front fence from recycled sandstone in existing fence and changes to sections to match changes on plan.

 

The community was consulted regarding the amended application by means of notification and advertising. Two submissions were received and the objections raised are addressed in Section 6 below. In particular, adjoining residents concern’s regarding overbearing bulk and scale, loss of sunlight, excessive FSR and height, and non-compliance with statutory and DCP controls, remain valid.

 

Following an assessment of the Section 82A proposal, the proposal is not considered a significant improvement over the original application to warrant approval essentially for the following reasons:

 

·      The applicant has not made a valid case in the SEPP No.1 Objections submitted in relation to the non-compliances in FSR and building and external wall heights to indicate why compliance with the development standards is unreasonable and unnecessary. Specifically, the proposal will:

 

§ be an overdevelopment of the subject site and will be excessive and intrusive in height, bulk and scale such as to detract from the existing predominant 3-4 storey character of the immediate vicinity; the Alison Road streetscape.

 

§ be inconsistent with the planning objectives for the locality as expressed in the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the DCP - Multi-unit Housing.

 

§ generate additional height, bulk and density in breach of the relevant FSR and height standards resulting in detrimental impacts to surrounding uses in terms of  overshadowing, privacy, loss of views, and overbearing bulk and scale

 

§ be inconsistent with the purpose of the standards in that both the proposed FSR and building heights fail to operate together to limit the size, scale and site coverage of the proposed building which will have a detrimental impact upon the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area. 

 

·      Despite the applicant’s claim that the Section 82A proposal has a reduced FSR of 0.88:1 compared with the refused FSR of 0.95:1, this new FSR is made up of the total floor area of individual units and excludes the central stairwell and lobby section that links the front and rear portions of the proposed building. This central stairwell and lobby section amounts to a total area of 38sqm and is enclosed by louvres and windows such that it forms a solid interconnecting built form between the front and rear portions. It comprises gross floor area for the purposes of calculating FSR. When the total floor area of the stairwell and lobby section (approximately 38 sqm) is included, the FSR of the proposal is 0.95:1 which is the same FSR as that proposed in the refused DA. As such, the claim that the Section 82A proposal has less density and bulk and scale is incorrect and misleading.

 

·      The proposal remains similar in height, density, visual bulk and scale to that originally refused. Minor changes have been made involving very localised increased setback from the southern boundary (max 600mm), and localised reduction in parapet wall height at the front (by max 400m). However, the Section 82 application fails to conclusively show that these changes have resulted in improvements in amenity impacts and visual bulk and scale.

 

·      The applicant’s claim that the additional bulk is not responsible for any increased overshadowing on the adjoining southern neighbour beyond that approved under DA/9/2010 is not supported by adequate data. The accuracy of elevational shadow diagrams submitted is questionable especially in relation to the use of the approved shadow impact under DA/9/2010 as benchmarks to show reduced impacts.

 

·      A number of issues raised by the SEPP 65 DRP relating to built form, density, landscaping and aesthetics remain outstanding. Accordingly, the proposal fails to satisfy the Design Quality Principles contained within State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

 

·      The additional height and bulk created in the form of the 4th floor sunroom and the 3rd floor dwelling unit addition will result in overshadowing, overlooking and view loss impacts on adjoining properties.

 

·      The applicant claims that landscaping has been increased along the southern side setback presumably as a result of the increase in the southern setback. However, no amended landscape plans have been provided to show the increase in landscaping. Furthermore, there will also be a reduction in landscape area along part of the northern setback as a result of the external stairs to the basement where landscaping is already limited by narrow setbacks on this northern side.

 

·      The reasons for refusal remain valid notwithstanding the amendments contained in the Section 82A proposal. No detailed assessment and rebuttal of each of the reasons for refusal has been provided in support of the Section 82A proposal.

 

Overall the amendments are not considered substantial and significant to warrant approval of the proposed development. Accordingly, the recommendation is for refusal of the Section 82A review.

 

2.      The Proposal

 

The original refused development was for alterations and additions to an approved, but as yet unconstructed, multi-unit housing development previously approved under DA/9/2010 involving the demolition of existing structures on the site and construction of a part 4- and part 2-storey residential flat building consisting of 5 x 2-bedroom dwellings and a semi-basement car park with 8 spaces. The original proposed development application sought to amend this approved development by:

 

·      The addition of a third level containing 1 x one-bedroom unit to the rear of the building.

·      The addition of a sun room with balcony at fourth level to the front of the building.

·      Enlargement of basement level, reduced setback at basement level from northern side boundary, internal alterations.

·      Internal alterations at ground, first and second floor level.

·      Increase size of balconies off living areas.

·      Addition of a lift and reconfiguration of fire stair.

·      Reconfiguration of windows on northern and southern elevation; new awnings and weather shading elements; new privacy screening.

 

The development proposed under this Section 82A Review submission differs from the original refused development in the following respects:

 

·      A claimed reduction in FSR from 0.95:1 to 0.88:1.

·      Increased setback in:

 

§ the south elevation of Unit 5 on the second floor by 600mm from the southern boundary

 

§ the south elevation of the front half of the proposed building containing proposed units 1, 3 and 5 by 465mm (from 1935mm to 2400mm) from the southern boundary.

 

§ the north elevation of the front half of the proposed building containing proposed units 1, 3 and 5 by 10 mm (from 2330mm to 2340mm) from the northern boundary.

 

·      Reduction in parapet height in the front building by 400mm

·      Internal reconfiguration of units including reduction in circulation space.

·      Modify fenestration

·      Modify driveway design.

·      Integrate sunroom with overall design of the building

·      Extend pergola around sunroom.

·      Provide shading to all windows.

·      Reconfiguration of rear elevation.

·      Delete cover over stair from basement.

·      Add roof over main entry door.

·      Relocate hydrant booster to driveway.

·      Construct front fence from recycled sandstone in existing fence.

·      Associated changes to sections to match changes

The applicant now seeks reconsideration of the following reasons for refusal to the original development application:

 

1.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards Objection to Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 Clause 20F Floor Space Ratio is not considered to be well founded.

 

2.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards Objection to Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 Clause 20G Building Height is not considered to be well founded.

 

3.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Design Quality Principles contained within State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

 

4.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy Clause 12 Zone No. 2C (Residential C Zone) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 in that the proposal is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the 2C Zone due to impacts on the streetscape and environmental amenity.

 

5.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy Clause 20F Gross Floor Area of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 in that the proposal fails to provide adequate deep soil landscaping and does not satisfy the purpose of the control due to impacts on the environmental amenity of adjoining sites.

 

6.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 3.2 Height as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that additional building height is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the site’s context and will not result in visual bulk issues in relation to adjoining development or the streetscape.

 

7.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 3.3 Setbacks as inadequate setback is provided from the northern side boundary and the proposed third level addition to the rear, which may result in visual bulk issues and a sense of enclosure in relation to adjoining development.

 

8.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 3.4 Density as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that additional building bulk is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the area and the additional building bulk will exacerbate impacts (overshadowing) on adjoining development.

 

9.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 4.3 View Sharing, as potential view loss has not been adequately qualified by the applicant and any potential impacts would arise from a development that is not considered to satisfy DCP objectives in relation to building height.

 

10.     Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 4.4 Solar Access as the increase in building bulk is not considered to allow for reasonable levels of solar access to adjoining development to the south.

 

11.     Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 5.2 Driveways and Manoeuvring areas as amendments to the driveway width and grades are required to ensure that safe and efficient access is provided to the basement parking areas.

 

12.     The proposal does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the impacts of the proposed development on the streetscape and surrounding residents are considered to be unreasonable.

 

13.     The proposal does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

Notwithstanding this, no assessment of each reason for refusal in support of the Section 82A review has been provided.

 

3.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 6 in DP 11300, No. 80 Alison Road, Randwick. The site is located on the eastern side of Alison Road to the south of its intersection with Cowper Street. The land slopes from the rear to the street with a fall of approximately 4m. The land area and dimensions of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern side boundary

41.53m

547.4m2

Southern side boundary

40.74m

Western, Alison Road boundary

15.24m

Eastern, rear boundary

12.08m

 

At present, the site accommodates a single-storey detached dwelling of brick and tiled roof construction. An outbuilding is located at the south-eastern corner of the site. A single hardstand car space is located in the front setback areas. A reciprocal right of carriageway with the adjoining property at No. 82 Alison Road previously existed along the southern boundary of the site. This right of carriageway has already been extinguished.

 

The adjoining properties to the north (No. 78 Alison Road) and south (No. 82 Alison Road) are both 3-storey residential flat buildings constructed in the inter-war period. The rear boundary of the site adjoins a modern residential flat building fronting Cowper Street (No. 2 Cowper Street). The locality is predominantly characterised by multi-unit residential developments interspersed with detached houses.

 

Figure 1 : Aerial view of subject site.

 

Property:

78 Alison Road

 

Location:

Southern corner of Alison Road and Cowper Street, immediately north of the subject site

 

Building type:

residential flat building

 

Height:

3 storeys

 

Property:

82 Alison Road

 

Location:

Eastern side of Alison Road, immediately south of the subject site

 

Building type

Residential flat building

 

Height:

Maximum 3 storeys

 

 

Property:

84 Alison Road

 

Location:

Eastern side of Alison Road, to the south of the subject site

 

Building type:

Residential flat building

 

Height:

Maximum 2.5 storeys

 

 

Property:

86 Alison Road

 

Location:

Eastern side of Alison Road, to the south of the subject site

 

Building type:

Residential flat building

 

Height:

Maximum 4 storeys

 

Property:

88 and 90 Alison Road

 

Location:

Eastern side of Alison Road, to the south of the subject site

 

Building type:

Residential dwelling

 

Height:

Maximum 2 storeys

 

 

Property:

94-96 Alison Road

 

Location:

Eastern side of Alison Road, to the south of the subject site

 

Building type:

Residential flat building

 

Height:

8 storeys plus 2 levels of car park

Figure 2: Adjoining and surrounding properties

 

4.      Site History

 

The following Development Applications have been lodged in respect of the subject site:

 

DA/939/2008         Demolition of existing structures on site and construction of a part 4- and part 2-storey residential flat building comprising 5 dwelling units and 7 parking spaces. The application was withdrawn on 6 April 2009.

 

DA/9/2010            Demolition of existing structures on the site. Construction of a part 4- and part 2-storey residential flat building consisting of 5 x 2-bedroom dwellings and a semi-basement car park with 8 spaces. SEPP 1 objections to FSR and external wall height development standards. This application was approved on 14 September 2010.

 

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

 

The proposal seeks to vary development standards contained within Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation). SEPP 1 objections have been submitted in support of non-compliance with floor space ratio and building and wall height standards. In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 Objection, the following matters are addressed:

 

SEPP 1 Objection: 20F Floor Space Ratios

Pursuant to Clause 20F, the maximum FSR within the Residential 2C zone for sites under 700sqm is 0.65:1. The FSR for the subject proposal has been calculated based on the site area of 547.4sqm as stated on the survey plan. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor space ratio

Approved (DA/9/2010)

0.88:1 or 483.7m2

Refused Original DA

0.95:1 or 523.2m2

Proposed Section 82A (excluding stair/lobby area)

0.88:1 or 484.16m2

LEP development standard

0.65:1 or 355.8m2

Section 82A Excess above or less than the LEP standard

0.23:1 or 128.36m2 (36%)

 

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 objectives of the Clause 20F Floor Space Ratio of the Randwick LEP is stated as being:

 

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

 

As such, the appropriate test in this instance is to establish whether the excess floor space area results in a development that is of a size and scale that is compatible with the established neighbourhood character and does not detract from residential amenity as defined by the objectives of the Residential 2C Zone.

 

The arguments provided by the applicant in respect of Matter 1 considerations have been summarised below:

 

 

The justifications for the SEPP 1 objection provided by the applicant are not considered to be well founded. In particular:

 

·      The applicant claims that the FSR has been reduced to 0.88:1 from the original refused FSR of 0.95:1. This new FSR is based only on the total floor area of individual units and excludes the central stairwell and lobby section that links the front and rear portions of the proposed building. It is contended that this central stairwell and lobby section is enclosed by louvres and windows and visually presents as a solid interconnecting built form (see Figure 3 below) such that it comprises gross floor area for the purposes of calculating FSR. When the total floor area of the stairwell and lobby section (approximately 38 sqm) is included, the FSR of the proposal is 0.95:1 which is the same FSR as that proposed in the refused DA. As such, the claim that the Section 82A proposal has less density and bulk and scale is incorrect.

 

 


 

Figure 3: North and south elevation showing central enclosed stairwell and lobby area (red arrows) that have not been included in FSR calculation which when included results in an FSR of 0.95:1 (same FSR as original refused DA).

 

·      The applicant’s claim that the reduced FSR is now “consistent with numerous other flat developments in the 2C zone on sites below 700 sqm” is not supported by any data or analysis. In any event, this claim is tenuous as the FSR and building height, and the resulting built form, of the Section 82A proposal remains essentially the same as that contained in the refused DA. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed floor space ratio is comparable to those of buildings adjoining and surrounding the subject site especially when the correct FSR for the Section 82A proposal is 0.95:1 which not only exceeds the max FSR of 0.65:1 for 700 sqm sites but also the 0.9 :1 standard for sites greater than 700 sqm as well as the future 0.9:1 standard proposed under the Draft Randwick LEP 2012. Rather, development surrounding the site on Alison Road and nearby streets is varied in relation to bulk and scale, which is considered to be a reflection of different times at which these developments were approved under different zoning regimes applicable at different times. Furthermore, Council records appear to indicate that development on immediately adjoining sites fronting Alison Road were approved and constructed prior to the implementation of the Randwick LEP (Consolidation) 1998 and do not necessarily represent the planning outcome desired for the area and anticipated by the objective of both thee current development standard.

 

·      The SEPP 1 objection provided by the applicant states that the additional bulk is not responsible for any increased overshadowing on the adjoining southern neighbour to that approved under DA/9/2010 (that is, the amended Section 82A proposal results in an improved shadow outcome to the adjoining southern neighbour compared with that generated under the approved DA/9/2010). However, the elevational shadow diagrams submitted with the Section 82A proposal are not supported by adequate data to verify this claim nor the overall accuracy of the shadow diagrams. Among other things, the following issues are raised:

 

§ The term “as approved/proposed shadow” is used as a primary benchmark in the elevational shadow diagrams yet the depiction of this shadow in the Section 82A application is inconsistent with that assessed and approved under DA/9/2010.

 

§ The reference to “reduced shadow” is undefined and not backed by any reliable data relating the reduced shadow to specific sections of the proposed building and at regular specific hours of the day. In this regard, there is no reliable data to specifically show that the breach in FSR and wall and building height in the 4th floor sunroom, and the breach in FSR on the 3rd floor addition, does not result in any overshadowing the southern property at all times during the winter solstice day.

 

In the absence of any clear and reliable detail to show the degree of improvement in overshadowing over that generated by the refused proposal and over that generated by the approved development under DA/9/2010, the SEPP 1 objection to the standard in this regard is not warranted and not supportable. 

 

·      The SEPP 1 objection provided by the applicant contends that “the proposed increased density results in a 3 storey flat building with a minor 4th storey component”. It is contended that the bulk of the fourth floor addition (sunroom) is not minor but presents as a visible isolated protrusion that not only significantly contributes to the visual bulk of the building especially viewed from adjoining sites and from the western side of Alison Road but also distorts the symmetry of the building as it presents to Alison Road. The applicant’s claim in the SEE accompanying the Section 82A request that the 4th floor sunroom as being is contradicted by the applicant’s photomontage of the building to Alison Road (reproduced in Figure 4 below) which clearly shows the 4th floor sunroom as visible from Alison Road. Accordingly, the applicant’s claim has not been adequately substantiated and it is expected that the fourth floor sunroom has the potential to contribute to the bulk of the building when viewed from Alison Road.

 

Figure 4: Photomontage accompanying the Section 82A application showing the 4th floor sun room (red arrow) visible from Alison Road. The sun room presents as a pop-up element that distorts the symmetry of the proposed building and stands out of character with the pitched roof elements of the adjoining strata titled RFBs. 

 

·      Council’s original assessment of the SEPP 1 Objection to FSR for the refused DA indicated concerns that the footprint of the building and the distribution of bulk across the entire depth of the site results in a building three storeys in height and approximately 27m in depth that creates a sense of enclosure in relation to immediately adjoining sites (No. 78 an No. 82 Alison Road). This assessment remains valid for the Section 82A proposal notwithstanding the modifications to the proposed building. In particular, the increased setback from side boundaries are minor and localised to:

 

§ the south elevation of Unit 5 on the second floor by 600mm

 

§ the south elevation of the front half of the proposed building containing proposed units 1, 3 and 5 by 465mm (from 1935mm to 2400mm).

 

§ the north elevation of the front half of the proposed building containing proposed units 1, 3 and 5 by 10 mm (from 2330mm to 2340mm).

 

The increased setbacks are considered to be minor as to be imperceptible in terms of improvements to the visual bulk and scale of the proposed building.

 

·      The additional bulk created in the form of the 4th floor sunroom is linked to an elevated terrace that will be open and unscreened on the northern side resulting in overlooking of the adjoining property at No 78 Alison Road.

 

It is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is not well founded and further non- compliance with the development standard in this instance is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

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 objectives 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 standard is inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as further non-compliance with the development standard is not considered necessary in this instance to achieve the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the applicant has not demonstrated that the additional floor area proposed is required to achieve development that would promote the orderly and economic use of the land and to achieve a form of development that would not result in adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

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 however, the additional floor area proposed is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

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, the applicant has not demonstrated that further non-compliance with the development is reasonable and necessary or that the proposal will achieve the objectives of the development standard. In this instance the additional floor area proposed is expected to result in issues associated with visual bulk, overshadowing, privacy and view loss. 

 

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 standard would not be defeated or thwarted if compliance was achieved.

 

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 2C zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

5.2    SEPP 1 Objection: 20G Building Heights

 

Pursuant to Clauses 20G of RLEP 1998, the maximum building height within a 2C Zone is 12m and the maximum external wall height for a building is 10m. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

20G 2) Building Height

Approved

10.8m

Refused Original DA

12.98m

Proposed Section 82A 

12.8m

LEP development standard

12m

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

0.8m (6%)

 

 

20G 4) Wall Height

Approved

10.8m

Refused Original DA

12.78m

Proposed Section 82A 

12.6m

LEP development standard

10m

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

2.6m (26%)

 

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 objective of Clause 20G Building Heights of the Randwick LEP is stated as being:

 

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

 

As such, the appropriate test in this instance is to establish whether the excess building height and external wall height results in a development that is of a size and scale that is compatible with the established neighbourhood character and does not detract from residential amenity as defined by the objectives of the Residential 2C Zone.

 

The applicant has provided the following argument in respect of Matter 1 considerations:

 

Overall, the justifications for the SEPP 1 objection provided by the applicant are not considered to be well founded. In particular:

 

·      The additional building height occurs over the fourth floor sunroom addition. The applicant contends that “the height variation is limited to the sunroom at the front of the site in a recessed manner”, and “is consistent with the potential height and bulk of a building comprising 3 storeys with a pitched roof”. This assessment is erroneous as the sunroom has proper walls enclosing it on four fronts making it an outright additional storey and not a built-in roof space enclosed by angled or pitched roof structures. The four outright walls of the sunroom sit above the maximum wall height which is already breached by the main building below. More significantly, contrary to the applicant’s claim, the fourth floor sunroom addition will not be “undetectable” from the Alison Road street front but will be visible as an intrusive element inconsistent with the proposed building and the surrounding development, when viewed from the streetscape and immediately adjoining sites (see Figure 4 above).

 

·      While the maximum wall height of the development associated with the fourth floor sunroom is similar to the maximum overall height of adjoining dwellings, it is noted that all immediately adjoining developments have pitched roofs; are of a different architectural style, and their development and construction pre-dates the implementation of the Randwick LEP (Consolidation) 1998. As such, comparing the additional sunroom storey with the architecturally and historically different roof forms on these adjoining sites results in an inappropriate and unreliable comparison.  Furthermore, the design of the existing buildings in adjoining and surrounding sites do not necessarily represent the planning outcome desired for the area and anticipated by the objective of the development standard or Residential 2C zoning.

 

·      The SEPP 1 objection provided by the applicant states that the additional height is not responsible for any increased overshadowing on the adjoining southern neighbour to that approved under DA/9/2010 (that is, the amended Section 82A proposal results in an improved shadow outcome to the adjoining southern neighbour compared with that generated under the approved DA/9/2010). However, the elevational shadow diagrams submitted with the Section 82A proposal are not supported by adequate data to verify their accuracy as discussed in the assessment of the SEPP 1 objection to FSR above. Among other things, the following issues are raised:

 

§ The claimed “as approved/proposed shadow” (under the DA/9/2010) is used as a benchmark yet the depiction of this shadow in the Section 82A application is inconsistent with that assessed and approved under DA/9/2010.

 

§ The reference to “reduced shadow” is undefined and not backed by any reliable details relating the reduced shadow to specific sections of the proposed building and at regular specific hours of the day. In this regard, there is no reliable data to show that the breach in wall and building height in the 4th floor sunroom, and the breach in wall height on the 3rd floor, does result in any overshadowing the southern property at all times during the winter solstice day.

 

In the absence of any reliable detail to show the degree of improvement in overshadowing over that generated by the refused proposal, and over that generated by the approved development under DA/9/2010, the SEPP 1 objection to the standard in this regard is not warranted and not supportable. 

 

·      The 4th floor sunroom which breaches the maximum wall and building height is linked to an elevated terrace that will be open and unscreened on the northern side resulting in overlooking of the adjoining property at No 78 Alison Road

 

·      The original DA assessment raised concerns that the additional height would potentially result in the loss of significant district views including the Randwick Racecourse from adjoining properties. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the additional height of the building will not result in unreasonable view loss from residential units located to the east of the subject site.

 

It is considered that the SEPP 1 objection is not well founded and further non- compliance with the development standard in this instance is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

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 the building/wall height standard is inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as further non-compliance with the development standard is not considered necessary in this instance to achieve the objectives of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the applicant has not demonstrated that the additional height proposed is required to achieve a development that would promote the orderly and economic use of the land and to achieve a form of development that would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

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 however, the additional building height proposed is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

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, the applicant has not demonstrated that further non-compliance with the development standard is reasonable and necessary or that the proposal will achieve the objectives of the development standard. In this instance the additional height proposed may result in issues associated with overshadowing, visual bulk and potential view loss. 

 

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 standard would not be defeated or thwarted if compliance was achieved.

 

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 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 2C zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

6.     Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the Section 82A proposal in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification between 2 May 2012 and 16 May 2012.  The application was also advertised in the local newspaper on 2 May 2012.  As a result of this notification the following submissions were received:

 

Antonys Lawyers, on behalf of The Owners – Strata Plan 18810 – 82 Alison Road.

Objection

Comment

Inconsistency between information shown on the deposited plan and information shown on the survey plan. Site area should not include extinguished ROW. 

A Survey Plan prepared by a registered land surveyor was submitted with the original DA application. Assessment of the Section 82A proposal relies upon the site dimensions and land area data provided on this Survey Plan, which is considered to be adequate. No ROW is shown on the survey plan provided.

Colour scheme is inappropriate

No schedule of finishes has been lodged with the Section 82A proposal. The SEPP 65 Design Review Panel has raised as an issue regarding the lack of detailing in relation to the aesthetics of the proposal. Accordingly, the Section 82A proposal fails to satisfy this aspect of design consideration under SEPP 65.  

Non-compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20F FSR does not satisfy the aims and objectives of SEPP 1 or the planning principle established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC827. Increase in bulk has unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development.

 

See SEPP 1 assessment, above.

Non-compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20G Building Height does not satisfy the aims and objectives of SEPP 1 or the planning principle established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC827. Increase in height has unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development associated with overshadowing and visual bulk

 

See SEPP 1 assessment, above.

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – building height. The proposal will have an adverse impact on adjoining sites and the streetscape.

 

The Section 82A proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi Unit housing within the body of this report. As detailed below, the proposal is considered deficient in relation to height, density, view sharing, solar access and efficiency, privacy and internal driveway and manoeuvring areas.

 

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – front, rear and side setback. The proposal will have an adverse impact on adjoining sites and the streetscape.

 

The front setback of the main building from Ground floor to Second floor remains unchanged under the Section 82A proposal. Accordingly, the original assessment in relation to front setback (that is, that the front setback is an acceptable average between existing adjoining properties, and that the front balconies in the front setback improve articulation of the building to the streetscape) remains valid. In relation to fourth floor sunroom addition, while the sunroom has been recessed by a maximum 12m from the front boundary, it will still be visible from the Anzac Parade street front as an intrusive element in the streetscape and adds to the visual bulk and scale of the building.   

 

In relation to side setbacks, while there has been an increase in select sections of the southern and northern side setbacks, the Section 82A proposal still fails to satisfy the side setback preferred solutions of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing. Furthermore, the proposal also fails to meet the corresponding performance requirement of the setback control in that the proposal fails to show that overshadowing has been minimised upon the objectors property and fails to maintain streetscape amenity exacerbated by the overbearing bulk and scale of the proposal. Proposed side setbacks are not considered to be satisfactory.

 

The basement level including the external staircase fails to satisfy the  side setback preferred solution and is located closer to the northern boundary than that approved under DA/9/2010. The proposal also fails to meet performance requirements of the control in that it has limited the opportunity for an effective landscape treatment along the northern side boundary.

 

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – density.

 

The applicant has not adequately demonstrated in the Section 82A proposal that the additional density and building bulk is compatible with surrounding built forms and will not result in adverse impacts on adjoining neighbours or the streetscape, as discussed in the SEPP 1 objection above.

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – solar access and energy efficiency. The proposal will have an adverse impact on adjoining sites in relation to overshadowing.

 

The Section 82A proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing within the body of this report and the proposal fails to show conclusively that overshadowing, particularly as a result of the third level addition at the rear and the fourth level sunroom is reasonable and acceptable. 

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – landscaping and private open space.

No landscaping plan has been submitted with the Section 82A proposal particularly given that the applicant claims that there is increased landscaping along the southern boundary notwithstanding that the proposal complies with the minimum landscape area and minimum landscape area over podium standards.

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – privacy. The proposal will have an adverse impact on adjoining sites in relation to acoustic and visual privacy as a result of vehicular access, window design/placement, balconies and the fourth floor sun room.

The Section 82A proposal has elevated north-facing living room windows to Units 2, 4 and 6 that will overlook the rear yard of the adjoining northern property at No 78 Alison Road against the provisions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing.

 

The 4th floor sunroom is linked to an elevated terrace that will be open and unscreened on the northern side resulting in overlooking of the adjoining property at No 78 Alison Road.

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – parking. Inadequate provision of parking.

 

While the shortfall of one parking space was considered to be acceptable in the assessment of the previous refused DA given the context of the site, the shortfall arises as a result of the additional demand created by the one bedroom dwelling unit addition (Unit 6).

The proposal does not satisfy SEPP 65.

 

Agreed, see SEPP 65 assessment, below.

 

The proposal compromises the stability of land and buildings on adjoining sites and existing vegetation.

 

Provided that appropriate construction methodologies are followed, as would be required by standard conditions, adjoining buildings and lands can be adequately protected from risk and damage by the proposed excavation and construction of the proposed building including the  basement level parking.

The proposed development, if linked to DA/9/2010, is in breach of deferred commencement conditions and will exacerbate the objections upheld by Council in relation to DA/9/2011.

 

As noted in the original assessment of the refused DA, the deferred commencement conditions relating to DA/9/2010 have been satisfied and  this development application is now fully operable. The original development application and this subsequent request for Section 82A Review has been lodged independently and, if approved, would not be in breach of deferred commencement conditions.

 

Non-compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20E Landscaped Area does not satisfy the aims and objectives of SEPP 1 or the planning principle established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC827.

 

The Section 82A proposal complies with the minimum landscaped area and minimum landscaped area over podium standards of the RLEP and, therefore, no SEPP 1 Objection is required.

Non-compliance with Clause 20E Landscaped Area due to the threats associated with essential services (water, sewer, gas and power)

Whilst this is not a consideration in determining compliance with development standard, a standard condition is recommended to ensure all construction works comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. Subject to compliance with the above condition and the standard construction management conditions, the proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable impacts on the existing structures and services of the adjoining properties.

Non-compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20E Landscaped Area due to increased overshadowing from landscaping and inappropriate tree species.

This is not a consideration in determining compliance with the development standard and Council is not able to restrict the height of vegetation that may be planted within a site.

 

Proposed landscaping may cause injury to neighbouring residents due to falling palm fronds.

No landscape plan has been submitted with the Section 82A review especially given the applicant’s claim that landscaped area and landscaping improvements are proposed under the Section 82A proposal.

 

 

1/82 Alison Road.

Objection

Comment

Proposal does not satisfy preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives of Randwick DCP Multi-Unit Housing – front, rear and side setback.

 

The front setback of the main building from Ground floor to Second floor remains unchanged under the Section 82A proposal. Accordingly, the original assessment in relation to front setback (that is, that the front setback is an acceptable average between existing adjoining properties, and that the front balconies in the front setback improve articulation of the building to the streetscape) remains valid. In relation to fourth floor sunroom addition, while the sunroom has been recessed by a maximum 12m from the front boundary, it will still be visible from the Anzac Parade street front as an intrusive element in the streetscape and adds to the visual bulk and scale of the building.   

 

In relation to side setbacks, while there has been an increase in select sections of the southern and northern side setbacks, the Section 82A proposal still fails to satisfy the side setback preferred solutions of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing. Furthermore, the proposal also fails to meet the corresponding performance requirement of the setback control in that the proposal fails to show that overshadowing has been minimised upon the objectors property and fails to maintain streetscape amenity exacerbated by the overbearing bulk and scale of the proposal. Proposed side setbacks are not considered to be satisfactory.

 

The basement level including the external stair case fails to satisfy the  side setback preferred solution and is located closer to the northern boundary than that approved under DA/9/2010. The proposal also fails to meet performance requirements of et control in that it has limited the opportunity for an effective landscape treatment along the northern side boundary.

Non-compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20F FSR.

 

See SEPP 1 assessment, above.

No compliance with Randwick LEP Clause 20G Building Heights.

 

See SEPP 1 assessment, above.

The proposal will result in unreasonable overshadowing of No. 82 Alison Road.

 

The Section 82A proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing within the body of this report and it is agreed that potential overshadowing, particularly as a result of the third level addition at the rear, is unreasonable. 

 

Reduced privacy.

 

The Section 82A proposal contains no living room windows in the south elevation that would face directly towards the objector’s property. Living room openings are predominantly orientated west to the street and east to the rear yard.

Threats associated with essential services (water, sewer, gas and power)

A standard condition is recommended to ensure all construction works comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. Subject to compliance with the above condition and the standard construction management conditions, the proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable impacts on the existing structures and services of the adjoining properties.

 

7.      Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

7.1    Development Engineering

The development engineer has assessed the Section 82A proposal and no objections relating to development engineering are raised subject to conditions.

 

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

·      State Environmental Planning Policy 1 (Development Standards), see above.

·      State Environmental Planning Policy 65 (Design Quality of Residential Flat Development)

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

 

8.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998

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

 

Clause 12: Zone No 2C (Residential Zone)

Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development on land only after it has considered the extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone within which the development is proposed.

 

(1) The relevant objectives of the 2C zone are:

 

(a)     to provide for a medium density residential environment, and

(b)     to maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas, and

(c)     to protect the amenity of existing residents, and

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

(e)     to encourage housing affordability, and

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

 

The proposed development is not considered to meet objectives (1)(b) and (1)(c) for the reasons outlined below:

 

·      The maximum wall height of the development associated with the fourth floor sunroom is similar to the maximum overall height of adjoining dwellings and it is noted that immediately adjoining developments have pitched rooves and are of a different architectural style to that proposed. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the additional height of the building will not result in visual bulk issues, inconsistent with the scale of surrounding development, when viewed from the streetscape and immediately adjoining sites.

 

·      The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the proposed floor space ratio is comparable to development on adjoining sites. There is potential that the bulk of the development at the rear may create a sense of enclosure in relation to immediately adjoining sites (No. 78 and No. 82 Alison Road).

 

 

·      The shadow diagrams provided by the applicant show that the proposed amendments to the approved building will increase the overshadowing of north facing windows associated with No. 82 Alison Road, to the south.

 

Principle Development Standards

The proposal has been assessed against the principle development standards relevant to the Residential 2C Zone, below. The proposal exceeds the LEP development standards in relation to floor space ratio, building heights and external wall height. State Environmental Planning Policy 1 objections are detailed in preceding sections of this report.

 

Development Standard

Proposed

20B Minimum Allotment Size

325sqm

No change (547.4m2)

20C Site Specific Controls

Not Applicable

 

20D Traffic and Transport

Not Applicable

 

20E Landscaped Area

50%

50.6% or 277.1m2

20E Landscaped Area Over Basement

50% maximum

47.1% or 130.6m2

20F Floor Space Ratio

0.65:1 or 355m2

0.88:1 (484.16 m2)as claimed by the applicant. However, when stairwell and lobby is included the FSR is

0.95:1 or 522.16m2 (See SEPP1 objection, above)

20G Building Height (building)

12m

12.8m (See SEPP1 objection, above)

20G Building Height (external wall)

10m

12.6m (See SEPP1 objection, above)

 

Clause 40: Earthworks

When determining an application for consent to carry out earthworks, the consent authority must consider the likely disruption of, or detrimental effect on, existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality, and the effect of the proposed works on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land.

 

The proposal requires excavation of up to approximately 3m in depth to accommodate a semi-basement car park. The proposal is not considered to adversely impact on the drainage pattern and use of the land, subject to the recommended construction management and engineering conditions. The proposal is considered to satisfy Clause 40 of the Randwick LEP as the topography of the site is relatively flat and the proposal is unlikely to disrupt existing drainage patterns. Standard conditions could be attached to any approval that would address soil stability and the stability of adjoining sites.

 

8.2         Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Under the Draft LEP, the subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential in which the proposal is permissible. The controls applicable over the subject site under the Draft LEP are:

 

Max FSR – 0.9:1

Max Building Height – 12m

 

8.3      State Environmental Planning Policy 65 (Design Quality of Residential Flat Development)

In accordance with the provisions of SEPP 65, the Section 92A proposal was referred to the Design Review Panel and reviewed on 2nd  July 2012. In its review,  the Panel was not satisfied that the Section 82A amendments had satisfied SEPP 65 design principles (especially given the Panel’s last review of the proposal under the original refused DA in October 2011) as indicated in the following conclusion:

 

“Although some improvements have been made, the Panel does not consider that many of the concerns previously raised about this proposal have been satisfactorily addressed. The Panel recommends that the Applicant seeks specialist design advice to resolve the above issues to the satisfaction of the Council. The Panel does not wish to review this proposal again.”

 

The Panel found the proposal deficient in relation to the following SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles.

 

Built Form:

·   Although the front balconies appear to have been unified in their design, it is very unclear what is really proposed and a cross-section indicating their construction details needs to be provided.

·   The car park should be setback from the southern boundary of the site to allow for some deep soil to be left for good landscape treatment.  There would appear to be an opportunity for this. The method of construction of the walls on the side boundaries may require them to be wider. This needs to be confirmed.  The driveway and garage door seem to be overly wide for the small number of cars (8) accommodated in the car park.

·   The retaining wall, fence and landscape design to both side boundaries is unclear and needs to be fully described with the objective of improving conditions on both sides of the boundary line.

·   The roof over the external stair to the car park should be removed with the stair either open or integrated into the building.  This would allow external access along the northern side of the site and reduce impacts on the neighbouring site.

·   It would be best if the east balconies were slightly set in from the boundaries and the north wall.  This would visibly reduce length and scale of the wall and coordinate the balcony design with the western elevation.

·   The bathroom over the stair to the unit 5 sun-room will create the need for a dropped ceiling.  It should be relocated.

·   The stair/lobby is poorly designed and will have many difficult detail design issues such as the awkward balustrade and stair structure, the louvre wall and stair landings, FIP, access to the southern pathway, shelter to the entry door and cranked roof structure to name a few.

 

Density

As previously stated, the Panel “considers that an FSR of in the order of 0.9:1 would be appropriate on this urban site, notwithstanding the site area being less than the LEP area. However the design needs to be of high quality and well considered in terms of SEPP 65 compliance, before the Panel could support the proposal.“   It is not quite there yet.

 

Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

The following issues still need to be addressed:

 

·     Sunshading appropriate to orientation needs to be considered – the sunshades and weather protection elements shown on the drawings are too high above most of the windows to be effective.

·     Although all units have the potential for good cross ventilation, it could be improved with operable windows in bathrooms.

·     Roof venting (cooling by stack effect) should be incorporated into the roof design.

·     Ceiling fans should be provided in all bedrooms and clearly marked on the plans.

·     Appropriate roof insulation (and construction thicknesses) should be indicated on the drawings – including the concrete roof that should have polystyrene insulation and pebble ballast.

 

 

 

The Proposed Landscape

A landscape plan was not included for this review.  The Panel’s comments on the previous submission were that the design was inadequate and that common areas and private areas should be clearly indicated.  As previously noted it is considered that:

 

·     Existing trees to be retained should be indicated and cross sections should be provided to indicate soil depths allowed for planting.

·     The design should clearly distinguish common and private garden spaces.

·     The existing sandstone street fence and trees should be retained or reconstructed where possible. 

·     A fire hydrant booster if required should be placed discretely along the driveway.

 

Amenity

Noise reduction design principles and elements should be considered for the Alison Road façade and noted on drawings.

 

The common door to the south of the lobby conflicts with the privacy of Unit 1’s bedroom 2 window.  A reversal of the stair direction and relocation of the door would resolve this problem.

 

The upper balcony to Unit 6 should have some roof-top weather protection.

 

Safety and Security

Generally acceptable, however the BCA report suggested by the Panel to confirm compliances has not been sighted.

 “The method for protecting windows that are less than 3m from the boundary should be described on the drawings.  This includes clerestory windows. No information has been provided on this, which is unsatisfactory.

 

“As the units have a disproportional amount of internal circulation space the planning could be tightened and indents created in the facades to allow for opening 3m+ from the boundary therefore avoiding the need for fire protection.

 

“The Panel reiterates that BCA advice and structural input be sought before resubmitting the drawings.

 

“These issues have not been addressed.

 

Aesthetics

Currently the aesthetics are not acceptable for reasons that include the poor or non-existent resolution of details such as roof edges, downpipe positions, handrails, retaining walls that should be designed and indicated in large scale wall sections as part of the DA submission. 

 

As presently documented a builder would be granted far too much freedom to cut corners.

 

The amended plans submitted by the applicant on 5 July 2012 have again failed to address the Panel’s issues. In particular, no specialist design advice has been provided with these amended plans to resolve the Panel’s issues. 

 

In conclusion, with reference to advice received by the Panel in accordance with Clause 30(2)(a) of SEPP 65, the proposed Section 82A proposal is not considered to satisfy the Design Quality Principles contained within Part 2 of SEPP 65 and is subsequently recommended for refusal.

 

9.      Policy Controls:

 

DCP: Multi Unit Housing

 

Performance Requirements

Preferred Solution

Comment

Site Planning

P1: Development applications must be accompanied by Site Analysis Plan.

 

No Site Analysis Plan has been provided with the Section 82A proposal.

P2: Development sites have appropriate areas/dimensions to allow for satisfactory siting of buildings.

S2 Sites are of regular shape with frontages of at least 20m.

No change in site area and dimensions as applicable to the refused proposal..

P3: Development on corner sites responds to both street frontages.

 

Not applicable.

Height

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

 

The Section 82A proposal includes minor reductions in parapet height in very localised sections of the proposed building. As such, the building remains similar in height (Refused DA: 12.98m / S82A proposal 12.8m), density (both Refused DA and 82A proposal have FSR of 0.95:1), and visual bulk and scale as that refused. Accordingly, the original refused DA assessment, that “the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the additional height (above the max height standards) of the building will not result in visual bulk issues, inconsistent with surrounding development, when viewed from the streetscape” and immediately adjoining sites, remains valid.

 

P2: Variations in massing and height create visual interest, distribute the bulk of the building and minimise amenity impacts on the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

Remains unsatisfactory as indicated in relevant assessment sections of this report,  and , see above and SEPP 65 comments in relation to built form and aesthetics. 

Building Setbacks

P1:  Front boundary setbacks

 

The front setback should be consistent with streetscape and adjoining dwellings.

 

Front balconies:

4.8m to 5.9

Front walls:

6.1m to 9.4m

 

The front setback of the main building from Ground floor to Second floor remains unchanged under the Section 82A proposal. Accordingly, the original assessment in relation to front setback (that is, that the front setback is an acceptable average between existing adjoining properties, and that the front balconies in the front setback improve articulation of the building to the streetscape) remains valid. In relation to fourth floor sunroom addition, while the sunroom has been recessed by a maximum 12m from the front boundary, it will still be visible from the Anzac Parade street front as an intrusive element in the streetscape and adds to the visual bulk and scale of the building.  

 

P2:  Side boundary setbacks

 

Side setbacks to ensure:

a) Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimized.

b) Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

c) Landscaping and private open space provided.

d) Streetscape amenity is maintained.

S2  Zone 2c

·   No part closer than 3.5 metres.

·   Minimum average setback 5 metres.

·   Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

·   Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

Northern setback:

Basement: nil to 910mm

G/F – 2/F: 1.2m to 5.2m

2/F addition: 1.2m

Maximum wall length: 11.5m

 

Southern setback:

Basement: 0m

G/F – 2/F: 2.4m to 4.545m

2/F addition: 2.4m to 6.17m

Maximum wall length: 12m

 

While there has been increases in “select” sections of the southern and northern side setbacks, the Section 82A proposal still fails to satisfy the side setback preferred solutions of the DCP – Multi-unit Housing. Furthermore, the proposal also fails to meet the corresponding performance requirement of the setback control in that the proposal fails to show that overshadowing has been minimised upon the objectors property and fails to maintain streetscape amenity exacerbated by the overbearing bulk and scale of the proposal. Proposed side setbacks are not considered to be satisfactory.

 

The basement level fails to satisfy the side setback preferred solution and is located closer to the northern boundary than that approved under DA/9/2010. The proposal also fails to meet performance requirements of the control in that it has limited the opportunity for an effective landscape treatment along the northern side boundary.

 

Overall, the increased side setbacks are considered to be minor and selective and do not achieve the preferred solutions and performance requirements of the setback control, Furthermore, the increases are ineffective in mitigating the visual bulk and scale of the proposed building which remains similar in height and density to that refused. In this regard, the original refused DA assessment that “…the separation between the proposed third level (2/F) and the northern boundary is considered to be inadequate and would contribute to visual bulk issues and a sense of enclosure in relation to No. 78 Alison Road, which would detract from the environmental amenity of this site” remains valid.

 

P3:  Rear Boundary Setbacks

 

Rear setbacks should ensure that:

e) Solar access and overshadowing are minimized.

f)  Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

g) Landscaping, communal recreation facilities and outdoor clothes drying spaces provided.

h) Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2c

·   Minimum average setback 8 metres.

·   No part closer than 6 metres.

·   Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres, minimum step 3m.

 

5.6m to 8m

Maximum wall length: 4.95m

 

Rear setbacks under the Section 82A proposal remains unchanged to that refused.  While these align with those approved under DA/9/2010, they do not satisfy the preferred solution requirements of 8m. Additionally, the Section 82A proposal does not meet the corresponding performance requirement of the control in that the proposed building has an upper floor addition at the rear that will exacerbate the visual bulk and scale at the rear making the proposal dominant and overbearing to adjoining properties.

 

P4:  General

Eaves, window hoods and other sun-shading or weather protection pose no significant adverse impact on adjoining properties.

S4 No device may encroach more than 25% of the Preferred Solution.

Satisfactory.

 

 

Density

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

 

See SEPP 1 objection (FSR), above. As with the assessment in the original refused DA, the applicant has not adequately demonstrated in the current Section 82A proposal that the additional building bulk is compatible with surrounding built forms and will not result adverse impacts on adjoining neighbours or the streetscape. Overshadowing, overlooking, loss of views and over bearing bulk and scale on adjoining properties  remain unresolved under the Section 82A proposal. 

 

Fences

P1:  Fences to be/have:

·      consistent with streetscape;

·      Entrances highlighted; and

·      Planting used to soften and provide privacy.

S1 Solid front fences no higher than 1.2 metres. May increase to 1.8 metres when 50 % transparent.

 

Satisfactory.

 

 

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1: Areas are sufficient size and allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

S1 Minimum dimension for landscaped area 2 metres.

The rear yard provides for a landscaped area in excess of 2 metres dimensions.

 

P2: Areas around multi-unit buildings are communal open space and not divided up for allocation to individual units.

 

 The applicant claims that landscaping has been increased along the southern side setback presumably as a result of the increase in the southern setback. No amended landscape plans have been provided to show the increase in landscaping. Furthermore, there will also be a reduction in landscape area along part of the northern setback as a result of the external stairs to the basement where landscaping is already limited by narrow setbacks on this northern side.

P3: Private open space provides privacy for its users, is readily accessible, and provides opportunities for outdoor recreation / living.

 

The proposal has included enlarged private balconies that are directly accessible from the living areas of the dwelling units.

P4: Private open space in front of the building only where setback and fence design sympathetic.

 

The front balconies are  setback from the street boundary.

 

P5:  Townhouses: each dwelling is provided with an area of useable private open space or courtyard area at ground or podium level.

S5 Minimum area of 25m2 and a minimum dimension of 3 x 4 metres.

Not applicable.

P6:  Flats and Apartments: Each dwelling has direct access to an area of private open space.

S6 Minimum of 8 m2 and minimum dimension of 2 metres.

Front apartments:

Living room balcony: 10m2

Bedroom balcony: 6m2

 

Rear apartments:

Living room balcony: 8m2

 

Privacy

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

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

The Section 82A proposal has elevated north-facing living room windows to Units 2, 4 and 6 that will overlook the rear yard of the adjoining northern property at No 78 Alison Road which does not satisfy the preferred solution as well as the performance requirement of the privacy control.

 

The 4th floor sunroom is linked to a front terrace which will be open and unscreened along its northern edge which will allow overlooking of habitable room windows on the south elevation of the adjoining RFB at No 78 Alison Road which does not satisfy the preferred solution as well as the performance requirement of the privacy control. 

 

P2: Private open space design and location ensure privacy.

 

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

 

P4: Building construction transmission of noise.

 

S4  Wall / floor insulation & sound consistent with

Building Code of Australia (BCA).

Satisfactory.

 

BCA compliance would be required through condition of consent. 

View Sharing

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

 

As with the original assessment of the refused DA, the proposed fourth floor addition may further impact significant district views, including the Randwick Racecourse  currently enjoyed from west facing balconies of the upper level of No. 2 Cowper Street, in addition to those impacts that are expected to arise from the development approved under DA/9/2010. The impact of the development in relation to view loss has not been adequately assessed and established in the Section 82A proposal despite this issue being a reason for refusal of the original DA.

P2: Development minimises effects on views and shows how view loss is minimised.

 

As above.

P3: Buildings are aligned to maximise view corridors between buildings.

 

As above.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1: Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties: Design, orientation, sitting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

 

The applicant has submitted shadow diagrams in support of the Section 82A proposal that appear to indicate that the increased setback of the proposed third floor addition to the rear and the decrease in parapet height to along the south elevation of the Alison Road building reduces overshadowing on the southern neighbour. However, the elevational shadow diagrams submitted with the Section 82A proposal are not supported by adequate data to verify their accuracy. Among other things, the following issues are raised:

 

§ The claimed “as approved / proposed shadow” (under the DA/9/2010) is used as a benchmark yet the depiction of this shadow in the Section 82A application is inconsistent with that assessed and approved under DA/9/2010.

 

§ The reference to “reduced shadow” is undefined and not backed by any solid data relating the reduced shadow to specific sections of the proposed building and at regular specific hours of the day. In this regard, there is no reliable data to show that the breach in FSR and wall and building height in the 4th floor sunroom, and the breach in FSR and wall height on the 3rd floor, does result in any overshadowing the southern property at all times during the winter solstice day.

 

 

As with the original DA assessment, while a similar level of overshadowing could be expected as a result of complying development (due to compliance with building height and external wall height at this point), the level of overshadowing under the Section 82 A Review is not considered acceptable as it is in part associated with excessive gross floor area.

P1.1:  Solar access to existing solar collectors maintained between 9am and 3pm.

 

Satisfactory.

P1.2: Living areas of neighbours’ dwellings receive 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface throughout the year. If less currently available, the amount is not reduced.

 

As above.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s inadequate shadow diagrams, the proposed 3rd floor addition at the rear will result in even further reduction in sunlight to middle floor windows that do not achieved the minimum 3 hours under the approved DA/9/2010.

P1.3: Neighbour’s principal private outdoor open space receives 3 hours of sunlight over at least 50% of its area throughout the year. If less currently available, the amount is not reduced.

 

No information with the Section 82A proposal has been provided regarding overshadowing of adjoining open space.

P4:  Building Layout, Design and Construction

Protect from prevailing strong winds and adverse weather.

·      Living areas are orientated to the north.

·      Larger windows are located on the north.

S4 75% of dwellings achieve 3.5star Nat HERS rating or equivalent.

No dwelling achieves less than 3 stars. The Anthers rating for each dwelling (on a typical unit basis) is provided with the application.

No amended BASIX provided.

P5: Buildings have roofs with pitch suitable for solar collectors.

S5  Adequate area of roof between 45 degrees east and 45 degrees west or north, and a slope between 15 and 55 degrees to the horizontal for installation of solar collectors.

Flat with minimum  pitch roof proposed.

Safety and Security

P1: Design allows surveillance.

 

There will be living areas facing the Alison Road.

P2: Approaches and entries are visible.

 

Visible entry points provided.

P3: High walls and structures avoided.

 

Low front fence provided.

P4: Resident car parking has security grilles or doors.

 

Satisfactory.

P5: Visitor parking spaces clearly identifiable.

 

Possible to address through consent conditions.

P6: Adequate lighting for personal safety and security provided.

 

Possible to address through consent conditions.

P7: Adequate lighting is provided in common areas.

 

Possible to address through consent conditions.

P8: External lighting does create a nuisance.

 

Possible to address through consent conditions.

Parking

Required On-site Parking

 

1 bedroom dwelling

·      1 space per  dwelling

2 bedroom dwelling

·      1.2 spaces per dwelling

3 or more bedroom   

·      1.5 spaces per dwelling

 

Visitor parking

·      1 space per 4 dwellings.

 

The proposed parking provision has been assessed by Councils Development Engineer. Councils DCP requires that 9 parking spaces are provided for visitors and residents and 8 spaces have been provided. While the shortfall of one parking space was considered to be acceptable in the assessment of the previous refused DA given the context of the site, the shortfall arises as a result of the additional demand created by the one bedroom dwelling unit addition (Unit 6).  

P1: Garages and parking structures do not dominate the street frontage.

 

Basement carpark provided.

P2: Parking spaces for people with a disability provided as required (refer to dwelling number requirements in P1 and P2 Barrier Free Access)

 

Not applicable.

P3: Secure storage for bicycles is provided.

 

Satisfactory.

Adequate area for bicycle storage available at basement level.

Driveways and Manoeuvring Areas

P1: Areas of driveways and manoeuvring are minimised.

 

Satisfactory.

P2: Vehicles enter/ leave in a forward direction.

S2 Vehicles enter with a single turn and leave in no more than 2 turns.

Satisfactory.

P3: Driveways and access roads avoid a ‘gun barrel’ effect.

S3 Long driveways provide passing bays.

Satisfactory.

P4: Space between boundaries and driveways, access ways and parking spaces enables landscaping and planting.

S4 Driveways have a minimum width of 3 metres and is at least 1 metre from any side or rear fence.

Satisfactory.

P5: Materials and finishes are consistent.

S5 Large expanses of uncoloured concrete avoided.

No schedule of finishes provided with Section 82A proposal.

P6: Driveway gradients safe.

S6  Driveway gradients do not exceed 1 in 6 or 1 in 5 for ramps over 20m.

 

Proposed driveway grades are not considered satisfactory, as detailed by Councils development engineer in the comments provided. 

Storage

P1: Accessible and separate storage for each dwelling.

S1 10m2 of storage space is provided for each dwelling. Minimum clearance height of 2.1m. At least 50% of storage space is within dwelling and is readily accessible from either the hallway or main living area. Storage facilities may be in basement areas, or attached to garages.

 

Satisfactory.

Barrier-free access

Access for people with a disability is provided to and within one dwelling at the following rate:

0-14 dwellings     0

15-29 dwellings   1

30-44 dwellings   2

45-60 dwellings   3

and so on.

 

 Satisfactory.

Utilities/Site Facilities: subject to  appropriate conditions of consent

Waste Minimisation and Management

P1: Waste collection and separation facilities for each dwelling.

S1 Each kitchen has a waste cupboard for separation of recycling materials, with adequate storage for one day’s waste.

Satisfactory.

P2: Waste storage to be provided in a centralised position that has easy access for moving bins to the street for collection.

 

Satisfactory. 

P3: The location and design of waste facilities does not visually detract from the development or the streetscape.

S3 Waste facilities not to be located between the front building alignment and the road.

Satisfactory.

 

Overall, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of the Multi-Unit Housing DCP for the following reasons:

 

·      The Section 82A proposal does not satisfy objectives of the DCP contained within 3.2 Height as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that additional building height is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the site’s context and will not result in visual bulk issues in relation to adjoining development or the streetscape.

 

·      The Section 82A proposal does not satisfy objectives of the DCP contained within 3.4 Density as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that additional building bulk is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the area and the additional building bulk will exacerbate impacts (overshadowing, visual bulk, sense of enclosure) on adjoining development.

 

·      The Section 82A proposal does not demonstrate compliance with the objectives of the DCP contained within 4.3 View Sharing, as potential view loss has not been adequately qualified by the applicant and any potential impacts would arise from a development that is not considered to satisfy DCP objectives in relation to building height.

 

·      The Section 82A proposal does not demonstrate compliance with the objectives of the DCP contained within 4.4 Solar Access as the increase in building bulk will reduce levels of solar access to adjoining development to the south. Inadequate shadow impact analysis has been provided with the Section 82A proposal to claim otherwise.

 

·      The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the DCP contained within 5.2 Driveways and Manoeuvring areas as amendments to the driveway width and grades are required to ensure that safe and efficient access is provided to the basement parking areas.

 

      DCP: Parking

 

Requirement (DCP – Parking)

Proposed Units

Parking Required

Parking proposed

1 space per one bedroom dwelling

1 x one bedroom dwellings

1

7

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling

5 x two bedroom dwellings

6

Disabled Space

1 per accessible unit in accordance with MUH DCP.

0 accessible unit required

0

0

Visitor:

1 space per 4 units

Total dwellings = 9

1.75

1

Total.

 

9 (8.75)

8

 

The proposed provision of parking has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer. While the shortfall of one parking space was considered to be acceptable in the assessment of the previous refused DA given the context of the site, the shortfall arises as a result of the additional demand created by the one bedroom dwelling unit addition (Unit 6).

 

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

The site is zoned Residential 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of SEPP 1 and objections to principle development standards are not supported, as detailed within this report.

The proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions off SEPP 65, as detailed within this report.

The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the Residential 2C zone, as detailed within this report.

 

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

Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Under the Draft LEP, the subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential in which the proposal is permissible. The controls applicable over the subject site under the Draft LEP are:

 

Max FSR – 0.9:1

Max Building Height – 12m

 

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

The proposal does not satisfy the preferred solutions of the DCP Multi-Unit Housing as detailed within this report.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

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 proposal does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) in that the impacts of the proposed development on the streetscape and surrounding residents are considered to be unreasonable as detailed in this report.

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

The site is considered suitable for the use of multi-unit housing.

 

 

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

 

Submissions received have been addressed within the body of this report.  

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

The proposed development is not in the public interest because it will result in an excessively high, bulky and intrusive development that will detract from the visual character of the streetscape and locality.

 

Section 82A – Substantially the same development

The primary amendments from the original application is primarily for variations in setback, external and internal design, and associated adjustments to the elevations and sections. The proposal’s scale, density and character remain substantially the same as the original application, evidenced particularly by the use of the same building footprint.  Accordingly, the proposal’s unsatisfactory impact on the built environment also remains.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 12:     Excellence in urban design and development – The proposal does not satisfy SEPP 65 in relation to contextual appropriateness, scale, built form, passive solar design, landscape, amenity or aesthetics.

Direction 4a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development – The proposal is not considered to achieve good design.

Key Action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The S82A application to review the Council's decision to refuse the application has been accompanied by some minor amendments to the proposal.  These amendments are not significant enough to have addressed the major concerns relating to the buildings overall FSR and building and wall height.  The scheme still proposes a design outcome where excess floor space is intensively located in positions on the site that would result in overshadowing, privacy, view loss and visual bulk and scale.

 

The building results in a visual bulk and scale relationship that is inconsistent with the stated development standards and will be inconsistent with the development that represents the desired future character for the locality.  In particular, the applicant’s material does not support the case for a decrease in overshadowing to the adjoining property.

 

The application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C and 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended. It is not considered to satisfy the all the relevant heads of consideration under Section 79C. The proposed Section 82A request for review is recommended for refusal.

 

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the responsible authority confirm its original decision under Section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to refuse development consent to Development Application No. 611/2011 for alterations and additions to an approved residential flat building including provision of a new level to rear with 1 bedroom unit, new sunroom at third floor level off unit 5, internal reconfiguration and associated works at 80 Alison Road, Randwick, for the following reasons:

 

1.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards Objection to Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 Clause 20F Floor Space Ratio is not considered to be well founded.

 

2.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy 1 – Development Standards Objection to Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 Clause 20G Building Height is not considered to be well founded.

 

3.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Design Quality Principles contained within State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

 

4.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy Clause 12 Zone No. 2C (Residential C Zone) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 in that the proposal is not considered to satisfy the objectives of the 2C Zone due to impacts on the streetscape and environmental amenity.

 

5.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy Clause 20F Gross Floor Area of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 in that the proposal creates additional building height and bulk that will not be compatible with the existing and desired future character of the site’s context and will result in overshadowing, overlooking, view loss and visual bulk issues in relation to adjoining development.

 

6.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 3.2 Height as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that additional building height is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the site’s context and will not result in overshadowing and visual bulk issues in relation to adjoining development or the streetscape.

 

7.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 3.3 Setbacks as inadequate setback is provided from the northern side boundary and the proposed third level addition to the rear, which may result in visual bulk issues and a sense of enclosure in relation to adjoining development.

 

8.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 3.4 Density as the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that additional building bulk is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the area and the additional building bulk will exacerbate impacts (overshadowing) on adjoining development.

 

9.      Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 4.3 View Sharing, as potential view loss has not been adequately qualified by the applicant and any potential impacts would arise from a development that is not considered to satisfy DCP objectives in relation to building height.

 

10.     Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 4.4 Solar Access as the increase in building bulk is not considered to allow for reasonable levels of solar access to adjoining development to the south.

 

11.     Failure to satisfy Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the proposal fails to satisfy the Randwick Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing part 5.2 Driveways and Manoeuvring areas as amendments to the driveway width and grades are required to ensure that safe and efficient access is provided to the basement parking areas.

 

12.     The proposal does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the impacts of the proposed development on the streetscape and surrounding residents are considered to be unreasonable.

 

13.     The proposal does not satisfy Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in the proposed development is unacceptable and should be refused in so far as it will set an undesirable precedent for similar inappropriate development in the area and in that regard is not in the public interest.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  28 August 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP58/12

 

 

Subject:                  JRPP Report - 12 Military Road, Matraville (DA/221/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/221/2012

Author:                   Alex Van Son, Senior Environmental Planner     

 

Introduction

 

Council is in receipt of a development application involving the construction of an Asian interment area within the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park, Lot 101 in DP 805244, No. 12 Military Road, Matraville. Associated works involve extensive landscaping across the site including changes to existing water features, the construction of retaining walls; stormwater infrastructure and the installation of a water retention tank; the installation of a chapel and columbarium, and the installation of structures relating to various denominations. 

 

The application is referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination, pursuant to Schedule 4A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979: the Crown is the applicant and the estimated capital investment value exceeds five million dollars ($13,120,299.00).  The proposed development cannot be refused without the concurrence of the Minister of Planning.

 

The land parcel has a total area of 51,180m2 and is located on the north-western side of Military Road, near the intersection with Bumborah Point Road. The site was previously occupied by the former Bunnerong Power Station. The site forms part of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park (ESMP), which primarily accommodates cemetery and crematorium uses. The proposed development will occur within the southern section of the site known as the “Asian Sector”. To the east and south of the site on the opposite side of Military Road is the existing ESMP Cemetery and Crematorium facility. Adjoining the site to the west are industrial and port uses.

 

The site is located within Zone No. 5 (Special Uses Zone) under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation). The site is identified as being affected by acid sulphate soils type 4 and is located within the Former Bunnerong Power Station (Heritage) Conservation Area.

 

The subject application was advertised and notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 26 April 2012 to 10 May 2012 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

The proposal will have minimal adverse impacts on surrounding properties and the streetscape. The non-compliances with policy controls will not give rise to any adverse environmental or amenity impacts.

 

The application is considered suitable for approval subject to recommended conditions, which have been reviewed and agreed to by the Applicant.

 

 

 

 

 

1.            Issues

 

Soil Contamination

As the site is noted as being potentially contaminated (Acid Sulphate Soil Category 4), the application has been referred to Council’s Environmental Health Department for assessment. The issue of Acid Sulphate Soils has been addressed by the environmental consultant and it has been determined that a management plan is not required. Appropriate conditions are to be recommended to be imposed so as to address remediation and validation of the site.

 

Heritage

The subject site is located on the northern side of Military Road and is part of the Bunnerong Power Station Conservation Area.  The application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment. Council’s heritage planner is satisfied that, while the scope of proposed works will result in significant changes to the site, the final form of development will be consistent with the character of the locality.  Conditions are to be recommended to be imposed so as to address heritage conservation issues.

 

Site Suitability

The site forms part of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park, which is primarily characterised by cemetery and crematorium uses. The proposal will deliver a significant upgrade to the visual appearance of the site by providing new landscaping, and improve the functioning of the ESMP by introducing additional burial and cremation plot areas.

 

The site is also considered to carry contamination potential. Specific conditions are recommended to require adequate site remediation measures to be undertaken during the construction phase. Subject to the recommended conditions, the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Outcome 7:       Heritage that is protected and celebrated.

Direction 7A:     Our heritage is recognised, protected and celebrated.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site and generally complies with the aims and objectives contained in the RLEP and the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park DCP.

 

The proposal will have minimal adverse impacts on surrounding properties and the streetscape. The non-compliances with policy controls will not give rise to any adverse environmental or amenity impacts. The application is considered suitable for approval subject to conditions

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council receive and note the attached assessment report for the Joint Regional Planning Panel.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

JRPP REPORT 12 Military Road, Matraville

 

 

 

 


JRPP REPORT 12 Military Road, Matraville

Attachment 1

 

 

Joint Regional Planning Panel

(Sydney East Region)

 

JRPP No.

2012SYE073

DA No.:

DA/221/2012 – Construction of Asian interment area at Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park including retaining walls, water retention tank, landscaping structures, Buddhist shrine, landscaping, drainage, circulation paths, chapel and columbarium (Heritage Conservation Area)

Applicant:

Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park

Report By:

Development Assessment Officer– Randwick City Council

 

1.        Executive Summary

 

Council is in receipt of a development application involving the construction of an Asian interment area within the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park, Lot 101 in DP 805244, No. 12 Military Road, Matraville. Associated works involve extensive landscaping across the site including changes to existing water features, the construction of retaining walls; stormwater infrastructure and the installation of a water retention tank; the installation of a chapel and columbarium, and the installation of structures relating to various denominations. 

 

The land parcel has a total area of 51,180m2 and is located on the north-western side of Military Road, near the intersection with Bumborah Point Road. The site was previously occupied by the former Bunnerong Power Station. The site forms part of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park (ESMP), which primarily accommodates cemetery and crematorium uses. The proposed development will occur within the southern section of the site known as the “Asian Sector”. To the east and south of the site on the opposite side of Military Road is the existing ESMP Cemetery and Crematorium facility. Adjoining the site to the west are industrial and port uses.

 

The site is located within Zone No. 5 (Special Uses Zone) under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation). The site is identified as being affected by acid sulphate soils type 4 and is located within the Former Bunnerong Power Station (Heritage) Conservation Area.

 

The subject application was advertised and notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 26 April 2012 to 10 May 2012 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s development engineer, building officer, environmental health officer and heritage planner. Comments received have been included in this report and conditions have been included in the Recommendation of this report.

 

The application is referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination, pursuant to Schedule 4A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979: the Crown is the applicant and the estimated capital investment value exceeds five million dollars ($13,120,299.00)

 

 

 

2.        Description of locality and site:

 

The subject site is described as Lot 101 in DP 805244, No. 12 Military Road, Matraville. The land parcel has a total area of 51,180m2 and is located on the north-western side of Military Road, near the intersection with Bumborah Point Road. The site was previously occupied by the former Bunnerong Power Station.

 

The site forms part of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park (ESMP), which primarily accommodates cemetery and crematorium uses. The proposed development will occur within the southern section of the site known as the “Asian Sector”. The southern section is separated from its northern counterpart by a recently completed administration building. There is an existing loop road providing access from Military Road to the southern sector. Remnant lily ponds and landscaping associated with the former power station garden are located within the subject development zone. The western part of the site falls significantly in a series of steps and terraces.

 

To the east and south of the site on the opposite side of Military Road is the existing ESMP Cemetery and Crematorium facility. Adjoining the site to the west are industrial and port uses.

 

The site is identified as being affected by acid sulphate soils type 4 and is located within the Former Bunnerong Power Station (Heritage) Conservation Area.

 

E

 

A

 

B

 

C

 

D

 

Subject Site, aerial photograph 2011.

 

Photograph A: Existing water features.

 

Photograph B: View east to Administration Building.

 

 

Photograph C: View to the north, existing retaining wall and terraced area.

Photograph D: View to north of western site boundary.

Photograph E: View to west of Military Road and south east corner of the site.

3.        Relevant History

 

3.1      Previous development approvals relating to the site: 

 

There are a number of development applications that have been approved in relation to the subject site. DA/201/2009 and DA/770/2010 are considered particularly relevant as these approvals relate to works that are similar to the subject application, albeit slightly more limited in scope.

 

Application Number

Description of Works

DA/1175/1998

Change of use to a cemetery and construction of an administration building.

Approved 17 August 1999

 

DA/242/2000

Provision of new burial areas and construction of landscape works and vehicular and pedestrian access.

Approved 8 September 2000, and subject to a number of Section 96 modifications

DA/1177/2003

Construction of an amenities block and a store room.

Approved 16 March 2004, and subject to a Section 96 modification

DA/201/2009

Provision of new burial and cremation plot areas within the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park, including construction of toilet facilities, retaining and feature walls, footpaths, water ponds, landscape planting and associated site works.

Approved 21 October 2009, and subject to a Section 96 modification

DA/675/2010

Construction of memorial chapel and rotunda at Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park (Heritage Conservation Area).

Approved 24 September 2010.

DA/770/2010

Stormwater management works and associated landscaping in Southern (Asian) Sector of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park.

Approved 22 December 2010.

 

4.        Proposed Works

 

In summary, the subject application is for the provision of a new burial and cremation plot areas and associated landscape works in the Southern (Asian) Sector of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park (“memorial area”). The proposed works that form part of the application relate to landscaping, retaining walls and earthworks; the construction of buildings and associated structures; and infrastructure works.

 

The applicant has provided a plan showing existing structures (retaining walls and pathways) that will be retained and incorporated into the proposed memorial area (refer: DD-A-107). Existing unapproved structures do not form part of the recommended approval.

 

Component

Description of Works

Landscaping, retaining walls and earthworks

·      Relatively minor cut and fill earthworks within the site to create level terraces for burial plots, new walkways and landscape features.

·      Fill earthworks along the western boundary of the site that will be an average of 1.9m in height, with a maximum height of approximately 3.3m, to create the Niche Wall Garden.

·      Excavation to a depth of approximately 3m to construct the stormwater retention tank below the columbarium.

·      Modifications to the permitter of existing water features.

·      The removal of existing vegetation and a comprehensive planting schedule.

Construction of buildings and associated structures

·      Columbarium: Single storey open structure located in the south-west corner of the development site. The proposed stormwater retention tank is to be located below at sub ground level (See further detail, below).

Building height: 7.5m (RL15.010)

Building footprint: 405m2 

·      Chapel: A single storey chapel with capacity for 100 people, bathrooms and food serveries - no food preparation (see further detail below). 

Maximum height: 6m (RL15.010)

Building footprint: 237m2 

·      Amitabah, Quan Ying and Di Zhang Wang Shrine: Located to the south of the existing water features in the north east of the site.

·      Public bathrooms: Accessible male and female bathrooms located on the eastern boundary of the site.

·      Niche wall garden structure: decorative wall and adjoining walkway located along the western boundary of the site.

·      Various statues and ornaments that form part of the memorial area’s themes.

·      New walkways and retaining walls.

Infrastructure works

·      Installation of stormwater infrastructure across the site to drain new impervious surfaces and surface flow including intakes, pipes and associated components.

·      Construction of a stormwater detention tank below the Columbarium.

 

4.1      Columbarium and chapel

The proposal involves the construction of a single story columbarium in the south western corner of the site that will provide 2304 niches. The proposed structure is located against the western side boundary of the site at the southern end of the Niche Wall structure that runs along the western boundary. The columbarium has a height from ground level of approximately 7.5m (to RL15.010) and a building footprint of 405m2. The columbarium against the western boundary site and 1m of the southern (Military Road) boundary of the site. The proposed stormwater detention tank is located beneath the floor of the columbarium.

 

Attached to the columbarium, tho the east, is a single storey chapel with capacity for 100 people, bathrooms and facilities for the service of food. No food preparation facilities are provided. The proposed chapel has a floor area of 237m2 and a maximum height from ground level of approximately 6m (to RL 15.010).

 

Pedestrian access to the columbarium and chapel complex is provided from via the network of pedestrian walkways through the site. Accessible access is provided via the walkway off the existing loop road, the entrance tow which is located in proximity to the children’s memorial area extension.

 

Proposed columbarium and chapel complex, viewed from the north east.

 

5.        Referrals:

 

5.1      Environmental Health

As the site is noted as being potentially contaminated (Acid Sulphate Soil Category 4), the application has been referred to Council’s Environmental Health Department for assessment. Appropriate conditions are to be recommended to be imposed so as to address remediation and validation of the site. The comments provided are extracted and provided below.

 

Background

The site was subject to a previous approval under DA/201/2009 for similar works over essentially the same area of land. Extensive reporting was undertaken as part of that application and as such reports such as contamination have been simply updated to reflect the new scheme. The scheme differs in that it provides more fully for an Asian theme including a shrine, chapel and columbarium being facilities designed to service existing and future users.” Page 1, Paragraph 5 of SEE dated march 2012 prepared by Andrew Martin Planning Pty Ltd. 

 

A letter from the environmental consultant confirms the original investigations and reports are applicable and apply to the current application.  The issue of Acid Sulphate Soils has been addressed by the environmental consultant and it has been determined that a management plan is not required.

 

The following referral (as copied below) was originally completed in 10 June 2009. As the circumstances and the relevant legislation and guidelines have not changed, it is considered to be most appropriate to reuse the same conditions. 

 

 

 

Proposal

The proposal is for the development of additional cremation plots, walled area of burial plots in the lawn area and landscaping works.

 

Key Issues: Land contamination

EIS have prepared an environmental site assessment for the proposed works titled “ Report to Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park on Environmental Site Assessment & Remedial Action Plan for Proposed extensions to Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park at 12 Military Rd Matraville NSW” dated February 2009 Ref: E22026K-RPT4.

 

In summary, the subject land is within the eastern suburbs memorial park, downstream of the cemetery and was formerly part of the former Bunnerong power station. Soil contamination has been identified including asbestos contamination. Three remedial options are listed in the environmental report. The SEE proposes to follow remediation option 3, i.e. to remove the impacted soils from the site.  The groundwater is also contaminated with heavy metals. “heavy metal concentrations encountered in the groundwater at the site are considered to be the result of regional groundwater conditions rather than a site specific issue” 3 reasons are listed. In addition, “elevated nitrate concentrations encountered in groundwater sample BH8 could potentially be attributed to the buried   No remediation of the groundwater is proposed.

 

Additional information dated 24.06.09 was submitted by the environmental consultant assessing the public and environmental health implications of the groundwater contamination on the site. Please refer to D00806805. This  explains that the groundwater contamination may remain untreated without any adverse implications to the surrounding environment or public health.

 

Appropriate conditions are to be recommended to be imposed so as to address remediation and validation of the site.

 

5.2      Heritage Planner

The application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for assessment. The comments provided are extracted and provided below. Overall, council’s heritage planner is satisfied that, while the scope of proposed works will result in significant changes to the site, the final form of development will be consistent with the character of the locality. 

 

The Site

The subject site is located on the northern side of Military Road and is part of the Bunnerong Power Station Conservation Area.  The conservation area comprises two sectors roughly triangular in shape with the Administration Building at their junction.  The southern sector is accessed by a loop road parallel to Military Road. 

 

Background

The original application for the former Power Station site proposed provision of new burial areas, landscaping works, access roads and vehicular and pedestrian entries to the site (Stage 1 of Master Plan).  Subsequent modifications have been made to vehicular access, stormwater design, landscaping and distribution of burial and cremation plots.  The first works on the site comprised streetscape works to Military Road and the burial ground for stillborns and neo-natals, with the Administration Building completed in 2001. 

 

The Proposal

The current application proposes changes to the Master Plan proposal for landscaping and distribution of burial and cremation plots in the southern (Asian) sector site.  The proposed changes affect the area generally on the western side of the loop road.  Landscaping works include construction of retaining walls along and parallel to the western boundary and along the southern (Military Road) boundary.  Fill behind new and existing retaining walls will create level terraces for landscaping and future burials.  The proposal includes a range of grave site types, niche walls (along the western boundary), columbaria, associated landscape elements including steps, pathways, terraces and lawns, and associated buildings including a chapel, columbaria, shrine, pavilion and several gateway structures. 

 

Works will occur in three separate zones.  The northern zone will include the Dragon Garden graves, shrine, sculpture lawn and landscaping around the heritage ponds.  The central zone will include the Moon Garden graves, three traditional Chinese graves and an area of lawn graves.  The southern zone will include the chapel and columbarium, pavilion, an area of lawn graves, and an extension to the children’s memorial area. 

 

Submission

The application has been accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Rappoport Pty Ltd.  In terms of historical development, the SHI notes that Bunnerong Power Station was constructed between 1926 and 1929 and was for 30 years the largest electricity provider in the southern hemisphere, making an important contribution to the development of NSW.  Bunnerong Power Station was decommissioned in the 1970s, and demolition works occurred between 1979 and 1986, although the Switching House and Mess Building remained until 1996.  The SHI notes that evidence of the former Power Station remain within the Former Bunnerong Power Station heritage conservation area including the outflow canal and concrete boundary retaining walls, as well as stone walls and terraces which were part of the Switching Station and its gardens, maintained and enjoyed by the power station workers.  The SHI considers that the site has aesthetic, social and technical/research significance for its association with the Power Station and its current use as a Memorial Park/Cemetery.  In terms of aesthetic significance, the site is an open landscape with considerable visual appeal and includes a number of mature trees and landscape elements with concrete retaining walls as a major element in long distance views from the west.  In terms of social significance, the formal entry, lily ponds and terraced gardens represent the employees’ involvement and pride in their workplace, while the paperbark grove is significant as the site of the workers recreation area. 

 

In terms of heritage impact the SHI notes that the gardens and ponds created by the power station workers are to be retained as well as low stone, brick and concrete walls of this period.  While some walls will be covered in order to accommodate stormwater drainage and changes to ground levels, they will be retained intact below new fill.  The SHI notes that the proposed layout respects the remnant footprint of the demolished Mess Building, and that the view of the concrete retaining wall from the west will be retained, although the wall will be increased in height.  The SHI suggests that the openness of the landscape will be retained with the exception of a few ceremonial structures and higher walls.  The SHI notes that the proposal will retain the trees between the loop road and Military Road and will make use of natural sandstone and granite to respect existing landscape elements.  The SHI concludes that the proposal is a respectful development of the site and that suitable interpretation material could be used to assist in keeping alive the memory of power station workers who established and maintained the gardens, and the impact the power station had on the development of NSW.  The SHI recommends relation to archival recording, interpretation and potential archaeological deposits. 

 

Controls

The Statement of Significance for the conservation area included in the Development Control Plan Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park notes that the site has aesthetic significance as an open landscape with considerable visual appeal, as well as having historic, social and technical/research significance.  The DCP includes specific objectives and development controls/performance criteria in relation to conservation, requiring the conservation of particular landscape elements which contribute to the significance of the conservation area. 

 

Comments

The southern sector of the site was formerly occupied by the power station Switch House and retains a number of landscape elements established in conjunction with the power station including the lily ponds, terraced gardens, picnic area and paperbark plantings.  The site for the proposed works is on the opposite side of the access drive from the paper barks, but includes the lily and fish ponds and the terraced gardens.  The ponds in the northern corner of the site are to be retained, although a more formal landscape treatment is proposed, following the lines of the existing sandstone retaining walls, pathways, stairways and planting beds.  An appropriate consent condition should be included in relation to repair and maintenance of existing elements.  The footprint of the former Switch House and is to be generally retained in the Dragon Garden Graves area.  New retaining walls are generally to be constructed in stone faced masonry.  Existing ground levels will generally be retained except at the most westerly edge of the site.  The drawings which have been submitted indicate that a number of trees in the northern corner of the site are to be removed.  Council’s historic aerial photographs indicate however that these trees were not part of the early gardens plantings on the site.  Although the proposed development will considerably change the character of the site, the provision of burial and cremation plots will retain a degree of openness as well as the significant pond and garden area in the northern corner of the site. 

 

A previous SEE for the site noted that consultation was carried out with the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council to determine if the site was likely to be a place of Aboriginal heritage significance.  The proposed excavation was to be monitored by a representative of the Land Council.  The SEE refers to a letter of support for the proposal from the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council, but a copy of this letter could not be located.  An appropriate consent condition should be included. 

 

Recommendation

·      That the suggested  conditions are included with any consent.

 

5.3      Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer

 

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

 

An application has been received for the provision of new burial and cremation plot areas and associated landscape works in the Southern (Asian) Sector of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park (“memorial area”). The proposed works that form part of the application relate to landscaping, retaining walls and earthworks; the construction of buildings and associated structures; and infrastructure works.

 

Drainage Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for this development.

 

The Planning Officer is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the Development Engineer has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required to submit detailed drainage plans to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Traffic Comments

The subject proposal includes a chapel with seating for 100 (building footprint of 237m2) people and the proposal will provide for additional cremation and burial plots. In accordance with DCP requirements, an additional 12 parking spaces should be provided.

 

An Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications, prepared by TAR Technologies, has been provided in support of the proposed development that confirms that no additional parking is required as a result of the proposed development. 

 

The existing kerb side parking spaces along Military Road and parking within the wider ESMP site are considered to be adequate to support the proposed development. The proposed chapel is not considered a major traffic generator as such because the people attending a service within the chapel would be the same people attending the burial service. The chapel therefore adds to the services offered by the cemetery trust however it does not increase the numbers of people attending burial services at the cemetery.

 

Service Authority Comments

At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2005, it was resolved on the motion of Councillors Nash and Belelli that:

 

(a)    the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million;

 

(b)    the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with Aerial Bundled Cables in the vicinity of the development site, when the cost of works on the site exceeds $1 million up to $2 million; and

 

(c)    the Director, City Planning investigate the feasibility of funding the undergrounding of existing overhead cables for new development under the new options provided for in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (Developer Contributions) Act 2005.

 

Given that the proposed works will be in excess of $2 million the applicant will be required to meet all costs associated with replacing the overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site.

 

Landscape Comments

 

Public trees & entry/exit road trees

Growing on the Military Road verge, just to the east of the existing exit, there is a large and mature Washingtonia robusta (Washington Palm) of around 15 metres in height which is covered by the TPO, and as it is part of a row of six (6) Heritage Listed palms of this species along this frontage (items 46 g-l), so will need to be protected, as will the 8m x 10m Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Fig), just to the northwest of the palm described above, within the site, in a garden bed that surrounds the western and southern sides of the existing ESMP administration building.

 

The recently planted Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pines) and Lomandra longifolia (Mat Rush) within the garden ‘blisters’ along the northern side of Military Road, as well as the closely planted rows of Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo’s) on either side of the existing footpath, will all need to be maintained due to their location on public property and the contribution they provide to this previously stark streetscape, and while there are no external works, given the large scope of this project, and the fact they are located adjacent the main vehicle entry and exit points, precautionary conditions will need to be imposed.

 

A similar situation also applies to the parallel planted, north-south rows of mature and Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leafed Paperbarks) and Ficus macrocarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Figs) within the central median of the internal road, Morrison Way, which should also not be affected given an absence of any works in this immediate area, but given their significance to the site, protection measures will be needed.

 

Landscape Plan 301

With the exception of the four Washingtonia robusta (Washingtonia Palms, T28, 30, 31 & 32), of between 8-10 metres in height, as well as the Syzygium paniculatum (Brush Cherry, T29) to the west of the proposed Shrine Temple, no objections would be raised to removing the remaining vegetation in this zone, due to a combination of their small size, minimal environmental or amenity contribution, direct conflict with the proposed works, and to accommodate the new plantings that are more suited to the specific landscape theme that is being proposed.

 

These include various Cupressus sempervirens (Italian Cypress), Cupressus macrocarpa (Monterey Cypress), Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo), Acmena smithii (Lilly Pilly) and Platanus x hybrida (London Plane Trees).  

 

Landscape Plan 302

Continuing west, roughly centrally across the width of the site, the Dracaena draco (Dragon Tree, T20) and two Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pines, T17 & 19) must be retained as existing site features as has been shown, with the single specimen Tuckeroo, Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm, T25) and closely planted row of three (3) Hibiscus patersonii (Norfolk Island Hibiscus, T21-23) able to be removed.

The smaller Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine, T16) and mature Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plum, T14) just to the north of the existing Children’s Memorial Area can be removed as shown, as several other trees in this same area will be retained so as to maintain acceptable levels of amenity.

 

Tree 18, a mature Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) that was previously growing to the south of the proposed Moon Garden Graves has already been removed.

 

Landscape Plan 303

Beyond the western edge of the existing Children’s Memorial Area, the ground level falls steeply away, with several sandstone walls creating separate terraces, which are largely inaccessible due to overgrown vegetation, and is where a dense grove of the most established trees within this part of the site have been planted.  

 

These trees form a structural element for the grounds, assist with visual screening of the unsightly industry associated with the port, and also perform as a wind-break, all of which create a sense of enclosure and a tranquil setting for this highly sensitive area.

 

The plans show that two of the larger and more dominant trees in this area and one lesser tree will be removed, being Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plums, T12, 12B & 14), which can be supported on the basis that the two larger trees both have several inclusions or fused major branches, with two of the suppressed and more upright Kaffir Plums (T13 & 15) to be retained in this same area, which should flourish once competition is eliminated.

 

All other vegetation in these terraces, to the south of those trees described above, being T88-12B can be removed as shown, as can the other group to the west of the proposed Childrens Memorial Area Extension, being T12A-T11.

 

There is a row of native trees around the southeast corner of the site, that follows the arc of Military Road, being T1-10, comprising mostly 6-10m tall Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany’s), with T1-2 at the western end of this group able to be removed as shown due to their poor form ad to accommodate works associated with the proposed Columbarium & Chapel.

 

The retention of T4-10 is supported as they would maintain a buffer between the site and busy roadway, and due to being endemic species, would also maintain a food and habitat source for native fauna in the notoriously windy and barren area.

 

Arborists Report & ESBS

While this site is located in an area where a legislated endangered ecological community may exist, given the high levels of disturbance and weed infestations, the findings of the Arborists Report are supported, in that; no species which are representative of ESBS were found, and therefore, this issue should not pose a constraint to the development in anyway.

 

Landscaping & Planting Comments

The undulating topography of this site and the resulting need for level changes and terraces to maximise the usable area, as well as facilitate access throughout, may affect the ability to successfully retain some of the trees that have been nominated for preservation, particularly given the close placement of new retaining walls and buildings, with a site specific Tree Protection Plan needing to be provided to clearly illustrate how these trees will be successfully incorporated into the works.

 

While the landscaping will drastically improve those currently vacant and unused areas, concerns are held for the exotic plant selection associated with the ‘Asian’ theme of this sector, as despite being highly decorative and ornamental, they may not be able to withstand the harsh and persistent coastal winds from nearby Botany Bay.

 

This factor and its effect on these foreign species may be minimised by the incorporation of strategically selected and located native coastal trees into the planting palette to act as a windbreak.

 

6.        Notification and submissions:

 

The subject application was advertised and notified to the adjoining and nearby properties from 26 April 2012 to 10 May 2012 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

7.        Zoning and Statutory Controls:

 

The subject site is located within Zone No. 5 (Special Uses Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

The following planning legislation, instruments and guidelines are applicable to the proposed development:

 

·      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended

·      Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, as amended

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

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998

·      Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan (DRLEP) 2008

·      Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park

 

8.        Section 79C Assessment:

 

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

SEPP 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment.

 

The site was previously occupied by the Bunnerong Power Station and is considered to carry contamination potential. A report prepared by Environmental Investigation Services (EIS) has been submitted along with an Environmental Management Plan (EMP), which is to be implemented during and following completion of the site works. The EMP identifies areas of the site where on-going management of the site contamination risks are required and documents appropriate actions for these areas. Measures are also included in the event that future works are necessary within these sections of the site. It is recommended that any requirements contained within the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which forms part of the Validation Report, forms part of this consent and must be implemented accordingly.

An “Acid Sulphate Addendum Letter” prepared by EIS, dated 5 April, has also been submitted that addresses the risk of encountering acid sulphate soils and the need to prepare an acid sulphate soil management plan. EIS concludes that, following investigations, the risk of encountering acid sulphate soil in the proposed development area is low and an acid sulphate soil plan is not considered necessary.

 

The report has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. The site is considered to be suitable for the proposed use, subject to specific remediation conditions.

 

8.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998

The site is located within Zone No. 5 (Special Uses Zone) under Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation). Cemetery development is permissible with Council’s consent. The site forms part of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park, which is primarily characterised by cemetery and crematorium uses. The proposal will deliver a significant upgrade to the visual appearance of the site by providing new landscaping, and improve the functioning of the ESMP by introducing additional burial and cremation plot areas. All proposed buildings and structures are considered ancillary to the dominant use of the site. As such, the development is considered to satisfy the zoning objectives stipulated under Clause 17(1).

 

·      Clause 20F Floor space ratios

Clause 20F(5) specifies the maximum FSR for any boarding house, dwellings or multi-unit housing provided on land within Special Uses Zones. The proposed development does not include any residential elements.

 

·      Clause 22 Services

Clause 22 requires the provision of water supply and sewage and drainage connection to support a development. Standard conditions are recommended to require appropriate civil services to be provided to the site.

 

·      Clause 37A Development in Special Uses Zone

Clause 37A requires new development within Special Uses Zone to be compatible with the character of the locality and not adversely affect the amenity of nearby and adjoining development. The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this regard for the following reasons:

 

-   The proposed land use on the site is consistent with the surrounding cemetery establishments in the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park.

 

-   The proposed landscaping will significantly upgrade the visual appearance of the site and is suitable to its intended cemetery function.

 

-   There are no residential uses in the vicinity to the site.

 

·                      Clause 40 Excavation and filling of land

Clause 40 requires Council to consider the likely effects on existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality as a result of any proposed earthworks. The proposal involves modifications to the landform of the site mainly by backfilling to achieve additional soil depth. Council’s Development Engineer has assessed the proposal and raised no objections on drainage grounds, subject to conditions. These conditions have been included in the “Recommendation” section of this report.

·      Clause 40A Master plans

Clause 40A requires the preparation and submission of a master plan for developments on site with a land area of more than 10,000m2. Notwithstanding, sub-clause (4) stipulates circumstances where the master planning requirements may be waived:

 

(a) that the proposed development is of a minor nature only or is ancillary to the current use of the land, or

 

Comment: The proposal will intensify the operation of the ESMP with significant landscape works and the proposed works are consistent with the existing use of the site.

 

(b) that adequate guidelines and controls applying to the land are already in place.

 

Comment: There is no master plan currently adopted for the subject site. However, the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park DCP specifies detailed development controls and guidelines that are applicable to the site. Therefore, a master plan is not required in this instance.

 

·      Clause 42B Contaminated land

Clause 42B provides that Council must not grant consent to the development of contaminated land unless the land will, after being remediated, be suitable for the purpose for which development is proposed to be carried out. The site is considered to be suitable for the proposed cemetery use, subject to conditions. Refer to the “SEPP 55” section of this report for details.

 

·      Clause 43 Heritage conservation

The site is located within the Former Bunnerong Power Station Conservation Area.  In accordance with Clause 43(2) the proposed works require development consent from Council. In accordance with clause 43(4), prior to granting consent, Council must consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area concerned.  

 

A heritage impact assessment (SHI) has been prepared by Rappoport Pty Ltd (March 2012) and provided in support of the proposed works. The report concludes that “the proposed development would result in a respectful development of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park… The proposed works have been designed with [the remnant retaining walls, paths and ponds] in mind and the final plans involve retaining these features after the completion of the earthworks, drainage and landscaping.” Furthermore, the SHI states that “the proposed design respects the remnant footprint of the demolished ancillary buildings from the power station era.” See aerial photograph c 1955, below.

 

The application has been referred to the Heritage Planner for assessment who is satisfied that, while the scope of proposed works will result in significant changes to the site, the final form of development will be consistent with the character of the locality (see the above section for detailed comments).

 

The proposal is not listed in Schedule 4 of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) as a known or potential archaeological site. Notwithstanding, conditions have been included in the recommendation of this report should any Aboriginal objects be found.

 

Aerial photograph of the site (c. 1955) showing location of Mess Hall

 

8.3      Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2008

 

The Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 is a matter for consideration in the assessment of the subject development application under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended).

 

The following table considers the proposed development having regard to the zoning provisions and development standards contained in draft LEP that are of particular relevance to the subject development application:

 

Description

LEP Standard

Proposed

Compliance

Zoning: Infrastructure SP2 Cemetery.

 

Is development permitted under zoning?

 

Permitted with consent: The purpose shown on the Land Zoning Map including any development that is ordinarily incidental or ancillary to that purpose.

Expansion of existing ESMP Cemetery.

Yes.

Heritage:

·    Draft Heritage Item

·    Draft Heritage Conservation Area

·    In vicinity of draft item or area

 

5.10 Heritage conservation, (1) Objectives; (2) Requirement for consent; (4) Effect of proposed development on heritage significance; (5) Heritage assessment. 

The proposal would require consent in accordance with 5.10(2)(b) and (e) as it involves altering structures (retaining walls and ponds) and erecting new buildings with a heritage conservation area.

 

The consent authority must, before granting consent under this clause in respect of a heritage item, consider the effect  of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item concerned.

Yes.

 

See Clause 43 of the RLEP 1998, above.

Acid sulphate soils.

·    Class 2

·    Class 4

·    Class 5

6.5 Acid sulphate soils (1) objectives, (2) requirement for consent (Class 2, 4, 5), (3) Acid Sulphate Soil Management plan must be submitted.

The proposed development involves cut and fill earthworks exceeding 2m in depth.

Yes.

 

See Clause 40 of the RLEP 1998, above.

Development Control Plan

6.11(1) preparation of a site specific development control plan. (2)(a) site area of 10,000m2 or greater. 

The subject site exceeds 10,000m2 in area.

A site specific DCP has been developed for the site: DCP – Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park.

 

8.4      Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park

The Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park DCP applies to the proposed development. The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed as follows:

 

Control

Requirements

Comments

Site planning

Development must be generally consistent with the master plan prepared by Pittendrigh Shinkfield & Bruce as shown in Figure 3

The subject proposal will not alter the existing loop road that provides access from Military Road to the southern section of the site.

 

It is noted that the current design scheme contains numerous variations to the layout shown in Figure 3 of the DCP. The DCP nominates areas to the north-west of the loop road for mausoleum burial units and the placement of neo-natal burial areas to the south of the loop road. The western boundary of the site is shown as being heavily planted with Norfolk pine trees and no development/structures are shown at the southern end of the site where the columbarium and chapel are to be located.

 

The variations to the DCP requirements are justified for the following reasons:

·      Notwithstanding variations to the master plan contained in schedule 3, the proposed development is considered to achieve a coherent and attractive site layout while ensuring that the proposal responds to the specific cultural requirements of the intended demographic. 

·      The topography and configuration of the site present suitable conditions for the proposed alternative memorial solutions. The SHI notes that the proposed layout respects the remnant footprint of the demolished Mess Building.

·      The proposed landscape design will generally follow the existing topography of the site without unreasonable amounts of cut or fill.

·      The design will maintain a sense of openness over the development site.

·      The children’s memorial area located to the south of the loop road and shown on the master plan will be maintained and extended.

 

Overall, the proposal is considered to respect the local site conditions and provide a pleasant and attractive landscape ambience to the cemetery. The development is considered to satisfy the objectives for site planning stipulated in the DCP.

 

Building, streetscape and landscape design must relate appropriately to the topography, built and landscape character of the locality

The proposed development zone is separated from the Military Road frontage by the existing loop road. The existing twin row of mature paper bark trees adjacent to the street frontage will be retained. The visual bulk of proposed buildings located in the south western corner of the site (columbarium and chapel) will be softened by new landscaping and extensive landscaping works are proposed around the southern perimeter of the site. Accordingly, no adverse impacts on the Military Road streetscape are expected.

 

The proposal represents a substantial improvement to the current state of the site and will deliver a suitable landscape ambience to the cemetery memorial. The proposed works generally respect the existing topography of the site without significant additional excavation.

 

The development must include a safe and legible pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation system.

The application includes a Circulation Diagram, which demonstrates the provision of a combination of main circulation pathways and informal meandering garden paths throughout the development site. The circulation design is highly permeable and legible for visitors. Where possible, given the topographical constraints of the site, accessible access is provided.

 

The site layout must take into account, retain and integrate any item or natural feature of identified conservation value

The proposal will reinstate and upgrade the existing lily ponds and terraced gardens associated with the former power station switch house as appropriate. The proposed design respects the remnant footprint of the demolished ancillary buildings from the power station era. The impact of the proposed works on the historical significance of the site are considered acceptable, as discussed within the relevant section of this report.

 

The siting and building layout must maximise solar access and ventilating breezes

Proposed buildings and landscaped areas will receive good levels of solar access throughout the day and will be well ventilated. 

 

Conservation

Conserve those items of significance to the character of the Heritage Conservation Area

The proposal will reinstate and upgrade the existing lily ponds and parts of the terraced gardens associated with the former power station switch house.

 

The proposed design respects the remnant footprint of the demolished ancillary buildings from the power station era.

 

Specific conditions are recommended to ensure adequate tree protection measures are undertaken to retain the significant vegetation within and in the vicinity to the development site.

 

The impact of the proposed works on the historical significance of the site are considered acceptable, as discussed within the relevant section of this report.

 

Be sited to minimise disruption to existing elements of conservation value

The proposal will not detrimentally disrupt elements of heritage values. The impact of the proposed works on the historical significance of the site are considered acceptable, as discussed within the relevant section of this report.

 

Limit building height to 2 storeys

All proposed structures are limited to single storey scale.

 

Any major excavation must be monitored by the Aboriginal Land Council.

Correspondence from the La Perouse Local Aboriginal Land Council has been provided and no objection has been raised subject to appropriate conditions being attached to any development approval.

 

Internal roads and manoeuvring areas

Internal roads must be designed to allow for car parking in designated adjoining areas and at the kerb side where the road width is not less than 5m

No changes to the alignment of the existing internal loop road are proposed.

Parking

Parking rates for restaurant, crematorium and chapel and community facilities are stipulated in the DCP

The subject proposal includes a chapel with seating for 100 (building footprint of 237m2) people and the proposal will provide for additional cremation and burial plots. In accordance with DCP requirements, an additional 12 parking spaces should be provided.

 

An Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications, prepared by TAR Technologies, has been provided in support of the proposed development that confirms that no additional parking is required as a result of the proposed development. 

 

The existing kerb side parking spaces along Military Road and parking within the wider ESMP site are considered to be adequate to support the proposed development. . The proposed chapel is not considered a major traffic generator as such because the people attending a service within the chapel would be the same people attending the burial service. The chapel therefore adds to the services offered by the cemetery trust however it does not increase the numbers of people attending burial services at the cemetery.

 

Barrier free access

Details of allowance for access in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and AS1428.1 – Design for Access and Mobility must be incorporated in the development application

Given the sloping topography of the site, some of the circulation routes have steps and are not readily accessible by people with disabilities.

 

Notwithstanding, a accessible pathway is provided from the south eastern entry point  through to the columbarium, chapel and niche wall along the western boundary of the site.   A large amount of plot areas will be accessible.

 

An Access Review has been carried out by Morris-Goding Accessibility Consulting (March 2012) and recommendations made to ensure adequate access can be provide throughout the site. Recommended conditions require that access and facilities for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia, Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010, relevant Australian Standards

 

The design is considered to have maximised equitable access for people with disabilities and is satisfactory in this regard.

 

Site management and services

If any fill materials are unearthed during landscaping works they should be buried and not left on the surface

 

The proposed development has been reviewed by Council’s environmental health officer and specific conditions are recommended to ensure proper remediation of the site and the management of potentially contaminated soil. Refer to above comments in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 55 Remediation of Land

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed landscape works will not result in untreated soil surfaces and the proposal is not considered to involve “major earthworks” or have significant adverse impacts on the groundwater rock stratum.

Any imported fill should either be tested for a range of organic and inorganic contaminants to confirm its suitability for on-site use or be accompanied by a certificate stating it is of virgin excavated origin.

 

Major earthworks design should be developed in a manner that minimises the potential for groundwater expressions arising in the site’s final developed form.

 

Erosion and sedimentation control

Submission of an erosion and sediment control plan with the development application

Concept soil erosion and sediment plans have been provided and specific conditions are recommended to ensure adequate erosion and sediment controls are implemented during works on the site.

 

Excavation and fill

Development applications involving building construction or significant earthworks must be accompanied by geotechnical assessment, assessment of the likely impacts on existing trees on or adjacent to site and details of the amount of cut and fill.

Landscaping works associated with the proposed development are not considered to involve “significant earthwork” however the construction of a number of buildings is proposed. The proposed works have been reviewed by Council’s development engineer and building officer and appropriate conditions in relation to site stability and the preparation of geotechnical investigations have been included in the recommendation of this report.

 

Adequate tree protection conditions will be imposed in any consent granted by Council.

 

 

8.5      Development Control Plan: Parking

 

The subject proposal includes a chapel with seating for 100 (building footprint of 237m2) people and the proposal will provide for additional cremation and burial plots. In accordance with DCP requirements, an additional 12 parking spaces should be provided.

 

An Assessment of Traffic and Parking Implications, prepared by TAR Technologies, has been provided in support of the proposed development that confirms that no additional parking is required as a result of the proposed development. 

 

In accordance with comments received from Council’s development engineer, the existing kerb side parking spaces along Military Road and parking within the wider ESMP site are considered to be adequate to support the proposed development. The proposed chapel is not considered a major traffic generator as such because the people attending a service within the chapel would be the same people attending the burial service. The chapel therefore adds to the services offered by the cemetery trust however it does not increase the numbers of people attending burial services at the cemetery.

 

8.6      Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan  

 

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development Cost

More than $200,000

$13,120,299

 

1.0%

$130,120.00

 

8.7      Site Suitability

The site forms part of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park, which is primarily characterised by cemetery and crematorium uses. The proposal will deliver a significant upgrade to the visual appearance of the site by providing new landscaping, and improve the functioning of the ESMP by introducing additional burial and cremation plot areas.

 

The site is identified to be affected by acid sulphate soils type 4. Council’s Acid Sulphate Soils policy stipulates the following requirements:

 

Type 4:    

Further investigation is required to determine acid sulphate soils impacts for the following works:

Works beyond 2m below natural ground surface.

Works by which the water table is likely to be lowered beyond 2m below natural ground surface.

 

The site was previously occupied by the switch house of the former Bunnerong Power Station. The site has been subjected to some prior earth modifications. Notwithstanding, the submitted section drawings show that the proposal will not require significant excavation. The main earth works relate to backfilling with clean soil however some excavation is proposed, particularly in order to construct the OSD tank below the columbarium.

 

An “Acid Sulphate Addendum Letter” prepared by EIS, dated 5 April, has also been submitted that addresses the risk of encountering acid sulphate soils and the need to prepare an acid sulphate soil management plan. EIS concludes that, following investigations, the risk of encountering acid sulphate soil in the proposed development area is low and an acid sulphate soil plan is not considered necessary.

 

The site is also considered to carry contamination potential. Specific conditions are recommended to require adequate site remediation measures to be undertaken during the construction phase. Subject to the recommended conditions, the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development.

 

8.8      Section 79C Environmental Assessment Summary

 

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.

 

Matters for Consideration

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

The site is zoned Special Uses Zone None No. 5 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 forms are ancillary to the existing use of the site and will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

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

Refer to table above

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives of the DCP Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park and the provisions of  other policy documents relevant relvant to the development.

 

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 character in the locality and the existing and anticipated use of the site. 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 is located in proximity to existing services and the public road network. Appropriate conditions have been provided to address the potential need for remedial works. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, subject to recommended conditions, 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 subject application was advertised and notified in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

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. The proposed development is considered to achieve a coherent and attractive site layout while ensuring that the proposal responds to the specific cultural requirements of the intended demographic. 

Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

9.        Conclusion

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site and generally complies with the aims and objectives contained in the RLEP and the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park DCP.

 

The proposal will have minimal adverse impacts on surrounding properties and the streetscape. The non-compliances with policy controls will not give rise to any adverse environmental or amenity impacts. The application is considered suitable for approval subject to conditions

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

A.       That the Joint Regional Planning Panel as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No DA/221/2012 for the construction of Asian interment area at Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park including retaining walls, water retention tank, landscaping structures, Buddhist shrine, landscaping, drainage, circulation paths, chapel and columbarium within the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park, Lot 101 in DP 805244, No. 12 Military Road, Matraville


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:

 

Stormwater Management Works Plans

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

C100.01

Q

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

C100.02

B

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

C100.03

B

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

C100.04

C

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

C100.05

C

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

 

Western Boundary (Niche Wall) Cross Sections

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

C101.01

L

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

C101.02

K

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

 

 

 

 

 

Western Boundary Longitudinal Section

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

101.04

H

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

 

Stormwater Detention Tank Details

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

102.01

P

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

 

Military Road Site Plan And Long Sections

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

C110.01

K

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

 

Erosion and Sediment Control Plans/Details

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

C120.01

G

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

C120.02

B

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

C120.03

A

Acor Consultants Pty Ltd

5 April 2012

 

Precinct plans (layout, finishes and sections)

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

DD-A-101

6

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-102

6

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-103

5

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-104

4

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-105

7

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-108

3

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-201

2

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-202

3

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

 

Existing Structures and survey

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

DD-A-107

3

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

73761 1/1

 

Rygate and Company Pty. Ltd.

5 April 2012

72747 1/7

 

Rygate and Company Pty. Ltd.

5 April 2012

72747 2/7

 

Rygate and Company Pty. Ltd.

5 April 2012

72747 3/7

 

Rygate and Company Pty. Ltd.

5 April 2012

72747 4/7

 

Rygate and Company Pty. Ltd.

5 April 2012

 

Columbarium and Chapel Plans

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

DD-A-09

1

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-312

2

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-313

2

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-314

2

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-315

2

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

 

Structures

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

DD-A-401

3

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-402

4

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-403

3

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-404

3

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-303

1

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-304

1

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-305

1

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-306

1

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-307

1

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-308

1

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-309

2

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-310

1

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-311

2

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-316

1

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

DD-A-317

2

Argo Architects, Master Planers

5 April 2012

 

Landscaping works

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

001

D

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/001

E

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/102

E

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/103

E

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/104

E

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/105

D

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/106

D

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/201

A

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/202

A

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/203

B

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/204

B

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/205

B

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/206

B

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/301

B

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/302

B

Site Image

5 April 2012

SS11.2385/303

B

Site Image

5 April 2012

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with before a ‘Construction Certificate’ is issued by either an Accredited Certifier or Randwick City Council.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be included in the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

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.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

3.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $13,120,299.00  the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $131,202.99

 

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.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

4.       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.

 

Security Deposits

5.       The following security deposits requirement must be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to Council’s assets and infrastructure; and as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

·           $5,000.00   -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

The security deposits may be provided by way of a cash, cheque or credit card payment and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council upon the completion of the works which confirms that there has been no damage to Council's assets and infrastructure.

 

The developer/builder is also requested to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge and other assets prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

To obtain a refund of relevant deposits, a Security Deposit Refund Form is to be forwarded to Council’s Development Engineer upon issuing of an occupation certificate or completion of the civil works.

 

Sydney Water Requirements

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

 

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s waste water 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 details please refer to the Sydney Water web site at www.sydneywater.com.au for:

 

·           Quick Check agents details -  see Building and Developing then Quick Check and

·           Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets – see Building and Development then Building and Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that a Sydney Water Quick Check Agent has appropriately stamped the plans prior to issuing the construction certificate.

 

Heritage Conservation

 

7.       The colours, materials and finishes of the proposed structures and landscape elements are to be compatible with surrounding built and landscape elements particularly comprising retaining walls and ponds. 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.   

 

8.       An archival recording of the site shall be prepared and 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.  This recording shall be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office 2006 Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture.  Two copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library. 

 

9.       A comprehensive Interpretation Strategy and Plan for the southern part of the site is to be prepared including identification of Historical Themes, Audiences and Resources, and Interpretative Recommendations.  Full details of the Interpretation Strategy and Plan shall 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.  The recommendations of the Interpretative Strategy and Plan are to be implemented in conjunction with the proposed development. 

 

10.     Any required repair and maintenance works to the existing sandstone retaining walls and to existing steps and pathways which are to be retained, are to be carried out in conjunction with the proposed development. Such conservation works are to be identified in construction certificate drawings and are to be carried out using technically sound and appropriate techniques.

 

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

 

        Security Deposit

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

 

·           $5000.00    -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash, cheque or credit card payment and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council upon the completion of the civil works which confirms that there has been no damage to Council's infrastructure.

 

The owner/builder is also requested 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.

 

To obtain a refund of relevant deposits, a Security Deposit Refund Form is to be forwarded to Council’s Director of City Services upon issuing of an occupation certificate or completion of the civil works.

 

Electricity Substation

12.     The applicant must liaise with Ausgrid prior to obtaining a construction certificate (for any above ground works), to determine whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development. Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within the site and shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on relevant construction certificate and landscape plans.

 

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

 

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s waste water 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 details please refer to the Sydney Water web site at www.sydneywater.com.au for:

 

·           Quick Check agents details -  see Building and Developing then Quick Check and

·           Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets – see Building and Development then Building and Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that a Sydney Water Quick Check Agent has appropriately stamped the plans.

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

The requirements contained in the following conditions of consent must be complied with and details of compliance must be included in the construction certificate for the development.

 

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

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia & Relevant Standards

14.     In accordance with section 80A (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).

 

15.     Access and facilities for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia, Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010, relevant Australian Standards and conditions of consent, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority. 

 

Site stability and construction work

16.     A report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer, which includes the following details, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority for the development:-

 

a)     Geotechnical details which confirm the suitability and stability of the site for the development and relevant design and construction requirements to be implemented to ensure the stability and adequacy of the development and adjacent land.

 

b)     Details of the proposed methods of excavation and support for the adjoining land (including any public place) and buildings.

 

c)     Details to demonstrate that the proposed methods of excavation, support and construction are suitable for the site and should not result in any damage to the adjoining premises, buildings or any public place, as a result of the works and any associated vibration.

 

d)     The adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times throughout demolition, excavation and building work, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

e)     Written approval must be obtained from the owners of the adjoining land to install any ground or rock anchors underneath the adjoining premises (including any public roadway or public place) and details must be provided to the Certifying Authority.

Traffic conditions

17.     Adequate provisions are to be made to provide pedestrian visibility and safety.  All new walls (and/or landscaping) adjacent to vehicular crossings should not exceed a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.5m within the site or new walls (including landscaping) should splayed 1.5 metres by 1.5 metres. Details of compliance, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority, are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

18.     The vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the carpark areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of AS2890.1:2004. The Construction Certificate plans must demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

 

Design Alignment levels

19.     The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) at the property boundaries for driveways, access ramps, steps and pathways or the like, must be obtained in writing from Council’s Development Engineer Coordinator prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate.

 

The design alignment level/s at the property boundary as 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.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0924.

 

20.     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.

 

21.     The alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section will be issued at a prescribed fee of $200. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.       Grassed areas

iv.      Garden areas

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Internal and External Drainage

 

23.     The site stormwater drainage system and extension of Council’s existing drainage system in Military Road is to be provided in accordance with the following requirements;

 

a)    The stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and the conditions of this consent, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

b)    The applicant shall construct a minimum 375mm diameter rubber ringed reinforced concrete pipeline under the kerb alignment (edge of road) in Military Road from the point of discharge from the subject Site to the existing underground drainage system at the intersection of Military Road and Bumborah Point Road. The Site discharge pipeline shall be connected to the extended underground drainage system via a new kerb inlet pit. All costs associated with the construction of this pipeline and new pit shall be met by the applicant. All construction works within Council's road reserve shall be carried out in accordance with Council's policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works”. Plans, longitudinal sections, specification and stormwater drainage calculations for any pipeline within a Council road reserve shall be submitted to Council for approval. The new pipeline and associated pit/s in Military Road must be constructed prior to commissioning of the proposed internal drainage system.

 

c)    On-site detention shall be provided for all Site stormwater being discharged to Military Road. The detention system on the Site shall be capable of detaining the critical 100 year ARI storm event (1%AEP) from the contributing catchment in its fully developed state. The permissible discharge from the contributing catchment on the Site shall not exceed the discharge that would occur from the subject catchment during a 5 year ARI storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions.

 

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

 

The applicant ensure that all overland flows up to and including the 1 in 100 year storm events are directed to the detention systems on the Site. A clear overland flow path shall be provided from the detention system on the Site to Military Road.

 

d)    Determination of the required cumulative storage (in the on-site detention system) must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible any detention tanks should have an open base to infiltrate stormwater into the ground. Infiltration should not be used if ground water and/or any rock stratum is within 2.0 metres of the base of the tank.

 

e)    A reflux valve shall be provided (within the site) over the pipeline discharging from the site into Council’s underground drainage system to ensure that stormwater from Council drainage system does not surcharge back into the site stormwater system.

 

f)      Any new kerb inlet pits (constructed within Council’s road reserve) are to be constructed generally in accordance with Council’s standard detail for the design of kerb inlet pits (drawing number SD6 which is available from Council).

 

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

 

h)    A sediment/silt arrestor pit (or equivalent) must be provided within the site near the street boundary prior to discharge of the stormwater to Council’s drainage system.

 

i)     The floor level of all habitable, retail, commercial and storage areas located adjacent to any detention systems with above ground storage must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be provided.

 

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

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

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

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

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

v.    Above ground stormwater detention areas must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

Note: Above ground storage of stormwater is not permitted within basement car parks or store rooms.

 

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

 

l)     A ‘V’ drain (or equally effective provisions) are to be provided to the perimeter of the property, where necessary, to direct all stormwater to the detention area.

 

m)    The site stormwater system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it operates as required by the design.

 

n)    Site discharge pipelines shall cross the verge at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the kerb line.

 

Waste  Management

24.     A Waste Management Plan detailing the waste and recycling storage and removal strategy for all of the development, is required to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Services.

 

The Waste Management plan is required to be prepared in accordance with Council's Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Development and must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·       The use of the premises.

·       The type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development.

·       Demolition and construction waste, including materials to be re-used or recycled.

·       Details of the proposed recycling and waste disposal contractors.

·       Waste storage facilities and equipment.

·       Access and traffic arrangements.

·       The procedures and arrangements for on-going waste management including collection, storage and removal of waste and recycling of materials.

 

Further details of Council's requirements and guidelines, including pro-forma Waste Management plan forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre.

 

           Landscaping & Environmental amenity:

25.     Landscaping at this site is installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plans, dwg no 301-303, SS11-2385, revision B, dated 14.03.12, Landscape Plan Setout, dwg no’s 202-206, and Softscape Plans, dwg 101-106, by Site Image Landscape Architects, subject to the following additional requirements being included on amended plans which must be submitted to, and be approved by the PCA, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate (with copies of the approved plans to be forwarded to Council if not the PCA, prior to the commencement of site works):

 

a.       The landscape plans must specify species to be used that are generally known not to have the ability to escape cultivation and establish outside the site, including the proposed aquatic plants.

 

b.       Species selection must be restricted to those which will tolerate the prevailing site and soil conditions, including persistent winds from the west and south, and harsh afternoon sun during summer months, and must require minimal watering once established.

 

c.             Where those exotic species which are unable to be sourced, or, prove unsuccessful, they must be replaced with more hardy species that will achieve a similar size at maturity and perform a similar function within the design.

 

d.            In order to reduce the amount of storm-water generated by the site, as well as to recharge groundwater supplies, where possible porous/permeable paving shall be used in all hard surfacing not over slab..

 

e.            The plans will need to demonstrate that the use of Water Sensitive Urban Design Guidelines has been considered and implemented as part of the terracing, pathways and landscape works.

 

f.             Any new trees which will achieve a height of 6 metres or more, and/or; a canopy spread of 4m or more, must be located a minimum distance of 2.5 metres away from any existing/new buildings, so as to prevent future maintenance issues.

 

            Tree Protection Measures (within the Development Site)

26.     The grove of large, mature and significant Ficus macrocarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Figs), as well as the twin rows of Melaleuca quinquinervia (Broad Leafed Paperbarks), all growing within the open grassed area, to the west of the internal roadway, Morrison Way, must be retained in their entirety, with no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of, and no stockpiling of soil or rubble to be undertaken within this grass area.

 

27.     In order to also ensure retention of the Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Fig), within the site, just east of the vehicle exit, in a garden bed that surrounds the existing ESMP administration building, as well as Trees T5-10, 13, 15, 17, 19-20 & 28-32 throughout the rest of the site, as identified on the submitted Tree Schedule and Landscape Plans, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show the position and diameter of their trunks and canopies, tree number, and accurate measurements/distances to any proposed works.

 

b.       Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the applicant must prepare a site specific Tree Protection Plan that precisely details the measures that will be implemented to ensure their preservation, and must provide discussions and recommendations on relevant topics that will have a direct or indirect impact, such as, but not limited to:

 

§ Species/tree number, their location and relationship to the proposed works,

§ changes in ground level,

§ excavations for footings/placement of structures, site services,

§ root and canopy pruning,

§ physical protection measures,

§ amendments required to the architectural or landscape plans, and;

§ any other issues deemed necessary.

 

c.       The report must be prepared by a professional Consulting Arborist, who holds a minimum of AQF Level V in Arboriculture (and is also a registered member of a nationally recognised organisation/association), and must be submitted to, and be approved by, the Certifying Authority, with a copy to be forwarded to Council if not the Certifier. 

 

d.       The measures described in the approved Tree Protection Plan must be implemented and complied with at all times on-site, with any amendments that are required to the architectural and landscape plans to be made.

 

Tree Protection Measures (Street Trees)

28.     The large and mature Washingtonia robusta (Washingtonia Palm) within the Military Road verge, just east of the main vehicle exit, is included in Council’s Register of Significant Trees, and therefore, must remain unaffected by the works, with no storage of materials or machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble within 5 metres of its trunk.

 

29.     The recently planted Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pines) within garden beds on Military Road, as well as the rows of Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo’s), on either side of the public footpath, must also be retained, with any damage to these trees or public land to be re-instated to Council’s satisfaction, at the applicants cost, prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate. Note: the applicant is not authorized to perform any works to the trees located on public property.

 

30.     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.

 

31.     Prior to the issue of a Final (or any type of interim) Occupation Certificate, certification from an AQF Level V consulting Arborist (as described above), must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA (with a copy to be forwarded to Council if not the Certifier), which confirms that all measures and recommendations from the approved Tree Protection Plan were complied with during the course of the works, and that that the relevant trees have been retained on site.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Certification and Building Inspection Requirements

32.     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 and the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 must be satisfied 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.

 

33.     Notwithstanding any other condition of this consent nothing prevents the issuing of a staged construction certificate for various stages of construction. An occupancy certificate can only be provided for each of the staged construction certificates if all of the necessary stormwater works have been completed to the satisfaction of the PCA. The minimum extent of works to be completed are:

 

·      Construction of the on site stormwater detention tank

·      Construction of the primary site stormwater collection pipeline as noted on civil drawings C100.03, C100.04 and C100.05.

 

Geotechnical Report

34.     A report or written correspondence must be obtained from a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, confirming the suitability and stability of the site for the proposed buildings and certifying the suitably and adequacy of the proposed design and construction of the building for the site.

 

Home Building Act 1989

35.     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 relevant 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.

 

Dilapidation Reports

36.A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer or suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of demolition, excavation or building works detailing the current condition and status of all buildings and ancillary structures located upon all of the premises adjoining the subject site (e.g. dwellings, residential flat buildings, commercial/industrial building, garages, carports, verandah’s, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc).

 

The report (including photographs) are required to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage and other structures located upon the adjoining premises, which may be affected by the subject works.  A copy of the dilapidation report must be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

36.     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 site fencing / hoardings;

·           location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·           location of building materials for construction;

·           provisions for public safety;

·           dust control measures;

·           details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·           site access location and construction

·           details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·           protective measures for tree preservation;

·           location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·           provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·           construction noise and vibration management;

·           construction traffic management details;

·           provisions for temporary sanitary facilities.

 

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

37.     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 (including asbestos)

·           Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·           Details of re-use, recycling and disposal of waste materials

·           Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must 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.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

38.     A Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the Department of Climate Change Guidelines for Construction Noise and Assessing Vibration, by a suitably qualified person, is to be developed and implemented prior to commencing site work and throughout the course of construction.

 

a)     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. 

 

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.

 

b)     The Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan must include details of measurements, analysis and relevant criteria and demonstrate that the noise and vibration emissions from the work satisfy the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, current DECC Guidelines for Construction Noise and Assessing Vibration and Councils conditions of consent.

 

c)     A further report/correspondence must be obtained from the consultant as soon as practicable upon the commencement of works, which reviews and confirms the implementation and suitability of the noise and vibration strategies in the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and which demonstrates compliance with relevant criteria.

 

d)     Any recommendations and requirements contained in the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and associated reports are to be implemented accordingly and should noise and vibration emissions not comply with the terms and conditions of consent, work must cease forthwith and is not to recommence until details of compliance are submitted to Council and the PCA.

 

A copy of the Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan and associated acoustic/vibration report/s must be maintained on-site and a copy must be provided to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority accordingly.

 

Public Liability

39.     The owner/builder is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $10 million and a copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

 

Construction Traffic Management

40.     A detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to commencement of any site work.

 

The Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must include the following details, to the satisfaction of Council:

·       A description of the demolition, excavation and construction works

·       A site plan/s showing the site, roads, footpaths, site access points and vehicular movements

·       Any proposed road and/or footpath closures

·       Proposed site access locations for personnel, deliveries and materials

·       Size, type and estimated number of vehicular movements (including removal of excavated materials, delivery of materials and concrete to the site)

·       Provision for loading and unloading of goods and materials

·       Impacts of the work and vehicular movements on the road network, traffic and pedestrians

·       Proposed hours of construction related activities and vehicular movements to and from the site

·       Current/proposed approvals from other Agencies and Authorities (including NSW Roads & Traffic Authority, Police and State Transit Authority)

·       Any activities proposed to be located or impact upon Council’s road, footways or any public place

·       Measures to maintain public safety and convenience

 

41.     Any necessary approvals must be obtained from NSW Police, Roads & Maritime Services, Transport, and relevant Service Authorities, prior to commencing work upon or within the road, footway or nature strip.

 

Civil Works

42.     A separate written approval from Council is required to be obtained in relation to all works which are located externally from the site within the road reserve/public place, in accordance with the requirements of the Roads Act 1993.  Detailed plans and specifications of the proposed works are to be submitted to and approved by the Director of City Services prior to commencing any works within the road reserve/public place.

 

All works within the road reserve/public place must be carried out to the satisfaction of Council and certification from a certified practicing engineer is to be provided to Council upon completion of the works.

 

Relevant Council assessment and inspection fees, as specified in Council's adopted Pricing Policy, are required to be paid to Council prior to commencement of the works.

 

          Public Utilities

43.     A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on 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.  The assessment should include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of services.

 

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 demolition, excavation or building works.

 

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

 

Environmental amenity and public health safety.

45.     Site remediation must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements (as applicable):

 

a)     Remediation works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997, environmental planning instruments applying to the site, guidelines made or approved by the NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change (formerly EPA) and the NSW Department of Infrastructure Planning & Natural Resources (formerly Planning NSW), Randwick City Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

b)     Any requirements contained within an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which forms part of the Validation Report, forms part of this consent and must be implemented accordingly.  Council must be consulted with prior to the development of any EMP and comments made by Council are required to be taken into consideration prior to finalising the EMP.

 

c)     Any variations to the proposed remediation works or remediation action plan must be approved by the Council in writing before such works commencing. A written statement is to be provided to the Council by the environmental consultant prior to the commencement of such works detailing the amended remediation action plan/works and provide any necessary explanation.

 

d)     The Environmental Consultant, in their assessment of appropriate soil investigation levels, must take into account all environmental concerns (for example, the potential effects on wildlife) and the protection of ground and surface water.

 

e)     Should any underground tanks be discovered they shall be removed in accordance with relevant NSW DECC/EPA Guidelines; Australian Institute of Petroleum’s (AIP) Code of Practice for the Design, Installation and Operation of Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (CP4-1998); and WorkCover NSW requirements.  In the event of conflict between AIP Code of Practice and WorkCover requirements the latter shall prevail.

 

f)      Any odours from excavated materials shall be mitigated by the use of an odour suppressant, such as Biosolve, and shall not give rise to an offensive odour as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.  Stockpiles shall also be covered and dampened down to reduce odour and dust impacts.

 

On-site land farming of contaminated soil is not permitted, except with the written approval of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services.

 

g)     Any fill importation to the site is to be monitored and classified by the environmental consultant appointed for remediation of the site. Only ‘Virgin Excavated Natural Material’ (VENM) is to be imported to the site, as defined within the NSW DECC Waste Classification Guidelines 2008.

 

h)     A Site Remediation Management Plan must be prepared prior to the commencement of remediation works by a suitably qualified environmental consultant and be implemented throughout remediation works. The Site Remediation Management Plan shall include measures to address the following matters:

 

·           general site management, site security, barriers, traffic management and signage

·           hazard identification and control

·       worker health & safety, work zones and decontamination procedures

·       cross contamination

·           site drainage and dewatering

·       air and water quality monitoring

·           disposable of hazardous wastes

·           contingency plans and incident reporting

·           details of provisions for monitoring implementation of remediation works and persons/consultants responsible

 

A copy of the Site Remediation Management Plan is to be forwarded to Council prior to commencing remediation works.

 

i)      All trucks and service vehicles leaving the site shall go through a suitably constructed on site truck wash down area, to ensure no tracking of material occurs from the site onto roads adjoining the site. Details are to be submitted to Council in the Site Management Plan.

 

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

 

k)     Remediation work shall be conducted within the following hours:

Monday – Friday      7am – 5pm

Saturday        8am – 5pm

No work permitted on Sundays or Public Holidays

 

l)      A sign displaying the (24 hour) contact details of the remediation contractor (and the site manager if different to remediation contractor) shall be displayed on the site adjacent to the site access.  This sign shall be displayed throughout the duration of the remediation works.

 

m)     Any new information which is identified during remediation, demolition or construction works that has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination or the remediation strategy shall be notified to the Council immediately in writing.

 

The written concurrence of the Council must be obtained prior to implementing any changes to the remediation action plan or strategies.

 

46.     The Validation Report must, where no guideline made or approved under the NSW Contaminated Land Management Act is available (as with asbestos), clearly state the source of the standard adopted in determining the suitability of the land for the intended development and use and must also demonstrate its suitability to Council.

 

In relation to any asbestos contamination, a comprehensive remediation strategy and remedial action plan must be developed, to the satisfaction of the environmental consultant and NSW Department of Health or other suitably qualified and experienced specialist to the satisfaction of the Council. 

 

The remediation strategy and remedial action plan must demonstrate that the land will be remediated in accordance with relevant guidelines (if any) and to a level or standard where no unacceptable health risk remains from asbestos exposure, which shall be verified upon completion of the remediation works to the satisfaction of the environmental consultant.

 

47.     Any contaminated land must be remediated to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure (NEPM) 1999 and details of compliance are to be provided to Council from a suitably qualified Environmental Consultant upon completion of the remediation works.

 

48.     A Validation Report shall be prepared by a suitably qualified Environmental Consultant and be submitted to Council upon completion of the remedial works, and prior to commencing any building works. The Validation report shall be prepared in accordance with relevant NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change guidelines, including the guideline “Consultants Reporting on Contaminated Sites”, and shall include:

 

·       Description and documentation of all works performed.

·       Results of validation testing and monitoring.

·       Validation results of any imported fill onto the site.

·       Demonstrate how all agreed clean-up criteria and relevant regulations have been satisfied.

·       Confirmation and justification as to the suitability of the site for the proposed use and the potential for off-site migration of any residual contaminants.

 

49.     The works must not cause any environmental pollution, public nuisance or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act (2000) & Regulations (2001).

         

50.     Hazardous or intractable wastes arising from the demolition, excavation and remediation process being removed and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of WorkCover NSW and the Environment Protection Authority, and with the provisions of:

 

·       New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2000;

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

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

·       Protection Of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (NSW) and

·       NSW DECC Waste Classification Guidelines (2008).”

 

Aboriginal Land Council

51.     Prior to the commencement of any works the La Perouse Aborigional Land Council must be advised of the program of excavation works.

 

52.     Provision must be mad for excavation works to be attended and inspected by a representative of the La Perouse Aborigional Land Council.

 

53.     Should any Aborigional objects (such as shell middens, stone artifacts, human remains etc.) be uncovered at any stage of the works, all work in the affected area will immediately cease and the La Perouse Aborigional Land Council and NSW Office of Environment and Heritage must be contacted

 

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.

 

Inspections during Construction

54.     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.

 

Building & Demolition Work Requirements

55.     All work and activities must be carried out in accordance with the relevant regulatory requirements and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·           Work Health and Safety Act 2011 & Regulations

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001

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

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

·           Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

·           Relevant Office of Environment & Heritage / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines.

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

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

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

 

·           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 (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council and the Principal certifying authority 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.

 

Excavations, Back-filling & Retaining Walls

57.     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, piling or other measures are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Support of Adjoining Land

58.     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.

 

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

59.     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 must be shown in a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan, including; a site plan; indicating the slope of land, access points & access control measures, location and type of sediment & erosion controls, location of existing vegetation to be retained, location of material stockpiles and storage areas, location of building operations and equipment, methods of sediment control, details of drainage systems and details of existing and proposed vegetation.

 

A copy of the Sediment and Erosion Control Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Dust Control

60.     During demolition excavation and construction works, dust emissions must be minimised, so as not to result in a nuisance to nearby residents or result in a potential pollution incident.

 

Adequate dust control measures must be provided to the site prior to the works commencing and the measures and practices must be maintained throughout the demolition, excavation and construction process, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Dust control measures and practices may include:-

·       Provision of geotextile fabric to all perimeter site fencing (attached on the prevailing wind side of the site fencing).

·       Covering of stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material with adequately secured tarpaulins or plastic sheeting.

·       Installation of a water sprinkling system or provision hoses or the like.

·       Regular watering-down of all loose materials and stockpiles of sand, soil and excavated material.

·       Minimisation/relocation of stockpiles of materials, to minimise potential for disturbance by prevailing winds.

·       Landscaping and revegetation of disturbed areas.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

61.     Temporary site safety fencing or site hoarding must be provided to the perimeter of the site throughout demolition, excavation and construction works, to the satisfaction of Council, in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a)     Temporary site fences or hoardings must have a height of 1.8 metres and be a cyclone wire fence (with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control), or heavy-duty plywood sheeting (painted white), or other material approved by Council.

 

b)     Hoardings and site fencing must be designed to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises and if necessary, be provided with artificial lighting.

c)     All site fencing and hoardings must 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.

 

d)     An overhead (‘B’ Class) type hoarding is required is be provided to protect the public (unless otherwise approved by Council) if:

 

·       materials are to be hoisted (i.e. via a crane or hoist) over a public footway;

·       building or demolition works are to be carried out on buildings which are over 7.5m in height and located within 3.6m of the street alignment;

·       it is necessary to prevent articles or materials from falling and causing a potential danger or hazard to the public or occupants upon adjoining land;

·       as may otherwise be required by WorkCover, Council or the PCA.

 

Notes:

 

·       Temporary site fencing may not be necessary if there is an existing adequate fence in place having a minimum height of 1.5m.

 

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

62.     Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works and the following requirements must be complied with to the satisfaction of Council:

 

a)     Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other articles must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time.

 

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

 

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)     Access gates and doorways within site fencing, hoardings and temporary site buildings or amenities must not open outwards into the road or footway.

 

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

 

f)      Adequate provisions must be made to ensure pedestrian safety and traffic flow during the site works and traffic control measures are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Roads and Traffic Manual “Traffic Control at Work Sites” (Version 4), to the satisfaction of Council.

 

Site Signage

63.     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”.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

64.     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

Additional requirements for all development

·   Saturdays and Sundays where the preceding Friday and/or the following Monday is a public holiday - 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.

 

Survey Requirements

65.     A Registered Surveyor’s check survey certificate or other suitable documentation must be obtained at the following stage/s of construction to demonstrate compliance with the approved setbacks, levels, layout and height of the building to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·           prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of footings and boundary retaining structures,

·           prior to construction (pouring of concrete) of each floor slab,

·           upon completion of the building, prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate,

·           as otherwise may be required by the PCA.

 

The survey documentation must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy is to be forwarded to the Council, if the Council is not the Principal Certifying Authority for the development.  

 

Building Encroachments

66.     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

67.     Any openings within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place (i.e. for proposed drainage works or installation of services), must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of Council:

 

a)     A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any 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.

 

b)     Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer must be notified at least 48 hours in advance of commencing any excavation works and also immediately upon completing the works (on 9399 0691 or 0409 033 921 during business hours), to enable any necessary inspections or works to be carried out.

 

c)     Relevant Road / Asset Opening Permit fees, construction fees, inspection fees and security deposits, must be paid to Council prior to commencing any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or other public place,

 

d)     The owner/developer must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate or occupation of the development (whichever is sooner).

 

e)     Excavations and trenches must be back-filled and compacted in accordance with AUSPEC standards 306U.

 

f)      Excavations or trenches located upon a road or footpath are required to be provided with 50mm depth of cold-mix bitumen finish, level with the existing road/ground surface, to enable Council to readily complete the finishing works at a future date.

 

g)     Excavations or trenches located upon turfed areas are required to be back-filled, compacted, top-soiled and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf.

 

h)     The work and area must be maintained in a clean, safe and tidy condition at all times and the area must be thoroughly cleaned at the end of each days activities and upon completion.

 

i)      The work can only be carried out in accordance with approved hours of building work as specified in the development consent, unless the express written approval of Council has been obtained beforehand.

 

j)      Sediment control measures must be implemented in accordance with the conditions of development consent and soil, sand or any other material must not be allowed to enter the stormwater drainage system or cause a pollution incident.

 

k)     The owner/developer must have a Public Liability Insurance Policy in force, with a minimum cover of $10 million and a copy of the insurance policy must be provided to Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place.

 

Traffic Management

68.     Adequate provisions must be made to ensure pedestrian safety and traffic flow during the site works and traffic control measures are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Roads and Traffic Manual “Traffic Control at Work Sites” (Version 4), to the satisfaction of Council.

 

69.     All work, including the provision of barricades, fencing, lighting, signage and traffic control, must be carried out in accordance with the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority publication - ‘Traffic Control at Work Sites’ and Australian Standard AS 1742.3 – Traffic Control Devices for Works on Roads, at all times. All conditions and requirements of the NSW Police, Roads & Maritime Services, Transport and Council must be complied with at all times.

 

Stormwater Drainage

70.          Adequate provisions must be made to collect and discharge stormwater drainage during construction of the building to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority.

 

The prior written approval of Council must be obtained to connect or discharge site stormwater to Council’s stormwater drainage system or street gutter.

 

71.     A separate written approval from Council is required to be obtained in relation to any proposed discharge of groundwater into Council’s drainage system external to the site, in accordance with the requirements of Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

            Tree Removal

72.     With the exception of the trees referred to in the ‘Tree Protection Measures’ conditioned elsewhere in this report, no objections are raised to removing any of the other remaining trees within this part of the site due to a combination of their small size, insignificance, or, so as to accommodate the proposed works and new landscape treatment as shown.

 

73.     To ensure correct identification, all plans must use the numbers that have been assigned in the Existing Tree Schedule, and are to be marked/tagged prior to any removals taking place. Council’s Landscape Development Officer (9399-0613) must confirm this on-site prior to performing any removal works.

 

Tree Pruning

74.     Should the applicant seek to prune any of those existing trees that are being retained, Council’s Landscape Development Officer must be contacted on 9399-0613 to arrange a joint inspection to determine the exact extent and location of pruning that is permitted. Where permission is granted, it must be minimal and selective, and only so as to avoid damage to the trees, or, interference with the works, with Council’s instructions to be complied with at all times.

 

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

 

Aboriginal objects

76.     Should Aboriginal objects be found, the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) is to be informed (as required by the provisions of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974).  Subject to an assessment of the extent, integrity and significance of any exposed objects, applications under ether Section 87 or Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act may be required before works resumes.

 

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

77.     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.

 

 

Fire Safety Certificates

78.     Prior to issuing an interim or final Occupation Certificate, a single and complete Fire Safety Certificate, encompassing all of the essential fire safety measures contained in the fire safety schedule must be obtained and be submitted to Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.  The Fire Safety Certificate must be consistent with the Fire Safety Schedule which forms part of the Construction Certificate.

 

A copy of the Fire Safety Certificate must be displayed in the building entrance/foyer at all times and a copy must also be forwarded to Fire and Rescue NSW.

 

Structural Certification

79.     A Certificate must be obtained from a professional engineer, which certifies that the building works satisfy the relevant structural requirements of the Building Code of Australia and approved design documentation, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority. A copy of which is to be provided to Council.

 

Sydney Water Certification

80.     A section 73 Compliance Certificate, under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.  An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  For details, please refer to the Sydney Water web site www.sydneywater.com.au > Building and developing > Developing your Land > Water Servicing Coordinator or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions may take some time and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate, whichever the sooner.

 

Noise Control Requirements & Certification

81.     The operation of 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 Office of Environment and Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

 

82.     A report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from any plant and equipment (e.g. mechanical ventilation systems and air-conditioners) satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Manual, Industrial Noise Policy and Council’s development consent.

 

A copy of the report must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

83.     The owner/developer must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to construct a minimum 375mm diameter rubber ringed reinforced concrete pipeline under the kerb alignment (edge of road) in Military Road from the point of discharge from the subject development site to the existing underground drainage system at the intersection of Military Road and Bumborah Point Road. The works shall include all necessary drainage pits and reinstatement of kerb and gutter, road pavement and footpath as required.

 

84.     Prior to issuing a final occupation certificate or occupation of the development (whichever is sooner), the owner/developer 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.

 

85.     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 an occupation certificate being issued for the development, 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.

 

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

 

Service Authorities

Sydney Water Requirements

87.     A section 73 Compliance Certificate, under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.  An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  For details, please refer to the Sydney Water web site www.sydneywater.com.au > Building and developing > Developing your Land > Water Servicing Coordinator or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions may take some time and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

88.     The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines located along the Military Road site frontage to be relocated underground. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be relocated. All cables most be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

Stormwater Drainage

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

Notes:

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

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

 

90.     A works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced hydraulic consultant/engineer must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council. The works-as-executed plan must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·      The location of any detention basin/s with finished surface levels;

·      Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

·      Volume of storage available in any detention areas;

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

·      The orifice size/s (if applicable);

·      Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

91.     The applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer, which confirms that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standard AS3500.3:2003 (Plumbing & Drainage- Stormwater Drainage) and conditions of this development consent. 

 

The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the Hydraulic Engineers to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

92.     The applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council certification from a suitably qualified and experienced professional Engineer, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority confirming that the basement tanking/waterproofing and any sub-soil drainage systems (as applicable) have been provided in accordance with the conditions of consent and relevant Standards.

 

Landscaping

93.     Prior to the issue of a Final (or any type of interim) Occupation Certificate, certification from a qualified professional in the landscape/horticultural industry must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, confirming that landscaping at this site has been installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plans, dwg no 301-303, SS11-2385, revision B, dated 14.03.12, Landscape Plan Setout, dwg no’s 202-206, and Softscape Plans, dwg 101-106, by Site Image Landscape Architects, as well as the relevant conditions, with the owner/s to implement strategies to ensure that it is maintained in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity.

 

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.

 

Fire Safety Statements

94.     A single and complete Fire Safety Statement (encompassing all of the fire safety measures upon the premises) must be provided to the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000

 

The Fire Safety Statement must be provided on an annual basis each year following the issue of the Fire Safety Certificate, and other period if any of the fire safety measures are identified as a critical fire safety measure in the Fire Safety Schedule

 

The Fire Safety Statement is required to confirm that all the fire safety measures have been assessed by a properly qualified person and are operating in accordance with the standards of performance specified in the Fire Safety Schedule.

 

A copy of the Fire Safety Statement must be displayed in the building entrance/foyer at all times and a copy must also be forwarded to Fire & Rescue NSW.

 

 

 

Environmental Amenity

95.     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.

 

96.     Street numbering must be provided to the front of the premises in a prominent position, in accordance with the Australia Post guidelines and AS/NZS 4819 (2003) to the satisfaction of Council.

 

In this regard, an Application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, together with the required fee, for the allocation of appropriate street and unit numbers for the development.

 

Stormwater Detention  System

97.     The detention area must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

GENERAL 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 requirements.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

A1      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.

 

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

 

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

§  An Accredited Certifier or Council 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.

 

A2      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA), Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards.  You are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

A3      Any proposed amendments to the design and construction of the building may require a new development application or a section 96 amendment to the existing consent to be obtained from Council, before carrying out such works

 

A4      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.

 

A5      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.

 

A6      This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

A7      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 any adjoining land.

 

A8      Finished ground levels external to the building are to be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised, other than for the provision of approved paving or the like on the ground.

 

A9      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.

 

A10     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.

A11     The necessary development consent and a construction certificate or a complying development certificate (as applicable) must be obtained for proposed external plant and equipment, if not included in this consent.

 

A12     An application must be submitted to an approved by Council prior to the installation and operation of any proposed greywater or wastewater treatment systems, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Greywater/Wastewater treatment systems must comply with the relevant requirements and guidelines produced by NSW Health, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and other relevant regulatory requirements.

 

A13     Swimming/spa 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.

 

A14     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.

 

A15     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.

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  28 August 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP59/12

 

 

Subject:                  Reporting variation to development standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) for the month of July, 2012

Folder No:                   F2008/00122

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

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

 

1)     Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP1;

 

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 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 SEPP1;

 

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 SEPP1s approved in the period from 1 to 31 July 2012 six (6) were approved during this period, with one (1) of those under delegation by Council Officer and five (5) either by Planning Committee meeting or Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

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 SEPP1 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 SEPP1. 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

SEPP 1 - July 2012

 

 

 

 


SEPP 1 - July 2012

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 TO 31 JULY 2012

Council DA reference number

Lot No.

DP No.

Apartment/Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb/ Town

Postcode

Category of development

Environmental planning instrument

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concur-ring authority

Date DA determined
dd/mm/yyyy

Approved by

DA/311/2012

16

36835

 

20

 Lasseter Avenue,

 CHIFLEY

2036

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 1998

R2A Residen-tial

Clause 20(G) (4) external wall height of 7m.

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

External wall height increased by 7.2m or 3%

NSW Dept of Planning

04-Jul-12

Delegated Authority

DA/317/2012

1

1047171 (BEING LOTS 1-10,12-21&23-28 IN SP 68307 & LOTS 29-30 IN SP 72300)

 

 Unit 22/44-46

Melrose Parade,

 CLOVELLY

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

R2C Residen-tial

Clause 20F - FSR =0.9:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 1.11:1 or 23.56%

NSW Dept of Planning

10-Jul-12

PCM

DA/994/2011

9

244471

 

 1179

Anzac Parade,

MATRAVILLE

2036

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 1998

R2A Residen-tial

Clause 20F - FSR =0.5:1 and Clause 20(G) (4) 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 by 0.53:1 or 6%, and external wall height increased by 8.47m or 21%

NSW Dept of Planning

10-Jul-12

PCM

DA/313/2012

100

1053181 (BEING LOTS 1-17 IN SP 70357) SUBJ TO VAR EA

 

Unit 17/90-96

 Beach Street,

COOGEE

2034

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

R2B Residen-tial

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 1.36:1 or 81.33%

NSW Dept of Planning

10-Jul-12

PCM

DA/664/2011,

48

13810 (BEING LOTS 1-2 IN SP 35891)

 

1 & 17

Moira Crescent & Marcel Avenue ,

COOGEE

2034

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 1998

R2B Residen-tial

 Clause 20(E) Landscaped area 50% &  Clause 20(G) (4) 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 reduced to 38% or deficient by 12% and the external wall height is 8.7 increased to 1.7m.

NSW Dept of Planning

24-Jul-12

OCM

DA/939/2011

3

10140