Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 9 October 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                                                                                                  9 October 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, 9 October 2012 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

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

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

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

 

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.

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 28 August 2012

Extraordinary Council Meeting - 25 September 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)

CP60/12    483-485 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/732/2010/A) Deferred

CP61/12    65-71 Belmore Road, Randwick (DA/606/2011) Deferred

CP62/12    151 - 191R Beach Street, Coogee (DA/210/2012)

CP63/12    28 Arcadia Street, Coogee (DA/713/2004/C)

CP64/12    4 McLennan Avenue, Randwick (DA/140/2010/A)

CP65/12    1-3 Jenner Street, Little Bay (DA/348/2012)

CP66/12    390-396 Anzac Parade, Kingsford (DA/206/2012)

CP67/12    10 Bunya Parade, South Coogee (DA/248/2012)

CP68/12    33 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee (DA/222/2012)

CP69/12    9-11 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra (DA/297/2012)

CP70/12    1/102-106 Boyce Road, Maroubra (DA/466/2012)

CP71/12    155-157 Arden Street, Coogee (DA/58/2008/E)

CP72/12    A New Planning System for NSW- Green Paper submission

General Manager's Reports

GM26/12    Strengthening Your Community - Randwick City Council submission

Director City Services Reports

CS9/12      Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly - Burying Overhead Power Lines.

CS10/12    Tree Removal - Outside 3-3A Abbott Street, Coogee

CS11/12    Tree Removal - Outside 16 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF43/12    Councillor Workshops and Ongoing Councillor Professional Development Program 2012-13

GF44/12    Affixing of the Council Seal - Randwick District of the Sydney Branch of SLSA of Australia Incorporated

GF45/12    Investment Report - August 2012

GF46/12    Affixing of the Council Seal - Eastern Suburbs Tennis Association Inc.

GF47/12    Monthly Financial Report
as at 31 July 2012
 

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM55/12    Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Management and operation of Child Care Centres in Randwick City

NM56/12    Notice of Motion from Cr Garcia - Stormwater drainage diversion works at Malabar Beach

NM57/12    Notice of Motion from Cr D'Souza - Port Botany

NM58/12    Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Repsonse to Moverly Precinct meet-the-candidates forum re: Spot Rezoning for Defence surplus land at Bundock Street  

Closed Session

GM27/12    Randwick Rugby Club

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

CP73/12    2 St Marks Road, Randwick (DA/98/2010/A)

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (e) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, prejudice the maintenance of law.

 

CP74/12    Awards for Sporting Achievements 2012

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

 

CS12/12    Tender T08/12 Des Renford Pool Enclosure

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

 

GF48/12    SSROC Tender for the Provision and Coordination of Temporary Staff

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

 

GF49/12    SSROC Tender for Waste Mattress Processing and Collection Services

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

  

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  9 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP60/12

 

 

Subject:                  483-485 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/732/2010/A)

Folder No:                   DA/732/2010/A

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

The application was reported to Council at its Planning Committee Meeting held on 12 June 2012. At the meeting it was resolved:

 

“(Andrews/White) that the application be deferred in accordance with the applicant's request.”

 

The Section 96 application included the following proposed modifications: 

 

§ changes to the configuration of units within the western and eastern buildings;

§ increase in the size of the attic space to accommodate additional bedrooms to the top floor units

§ changes to the layout of the basement parking

§ changes to the ground floor commercial units and associated service areas

§ amendment to condition 8 to remove the requirement for lowering the walls of the central courtyard and windows on the northern and southern elevations

 

The application was recommended for refusal in the report to the Planning Committee for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives for Business 3B Zone as set-out in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) in that: 

 

a)   The proposal fails to achieve high quality design for all new development and improvements undertaken in the public domain.

 

b)   The proposal fails to require and encourage environmental sustainability approaches to future land use and development.

 

c)   The proposal fails to improve the overall environmental quality of the Matraville Town Centre.

 

2.       The proposal fails to satisfy the SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles as set-out in State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

 

3.       The proposed development does not satisfy the controls and performance requirements for Building Design, Facades, Materials and Finishes, Solar Access, Natural Ventilation, Acoustic and Visual Privacy set out in Section 3 of the Matraville Town Centre DCP.

 

4.       The proposed development would result in adverse impacts upon the internal amenity of the building, through poor natural ventilation, solar access, and visual and acoustic privacy.

 

5.       The proposal will result in an overbearing visual bulk and scale and poor outlook for residents in the adjoining northern property due to the provision of blade walls adjacent to windows.

 

6.       The documentation submitted with the application is deficient of information and details relating to the colours, materials, finishes and insulation of the external surfaces to the building; the operation of screens and windows; and the necessary aesthetic treatment to reduce visual bulk and scale and to enhance the character of the street and the Matraville Town Centre.

 

7.       The proposed development does not satisfy the numerical visitor car parking requirement of the DCP - Parking.

 

8.       The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest as the proposal does not meet the objectives of the zone and will have detrimental visual and environmental impacts on the quality of future dwellings and the street within the Matraville Town Centre.

 

Issues

 

2.1    Amended plans and additional information

The applicant has met with Council officers to discuss amendments to the Section 96 proposal to address the reasons for refusal. Amended plans were lodged on 19 July 2012 containing the following changes:

 

·      Provision of 1.5m high sill windows with opaque operable glazing on the eastern wall of Units 7, 10 and 16 to allow for cross ventilation (advice has been provided from the applicant’s private certifier that a high sill window at 1.5m above finished floor level can be open without the need to be fire protected).

 

·      Provision of glass blocks in the bathroom windows of Units 8, 11 and 17 along the northern façade to address potential privacy issues to the adjoining northern property.

 

·      Provision of openable roof windows on the top floor of the rear building block to allow air flow and solar access to Units 12, 13 and 14.

 

·      Provision of solar panels to the roof of the rear block.

 

·      Integration of the top floor of the rear block with the main building by providing a pergola frame over the elevated terraces on the eastern façade of the top floor which ties the top floor with the blade walls rising from the floor below.

 

The applicant has also provided the following additional information to address reasons for refusal:

 

§ A letter from a Private Certifier, Barry Johnson & Associates Pty Limited, dated 13 July 2012, advising that a high sill window at 1.5m above finished floor level can be open without the need to be fire protected.

 

§ A letter from the applicant dated 13 June 2012 addressing all the recommended reasons for refusal and the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel’s issues. 

 

§ A revised sample board showing proposed finishes and material to match an amended façade treatment that provides for a single broad rendered and painted masonry frame containing neat horizontal brick balustrades in blue grey finish.

 

§ Alternate Solution Report – prepared by Delfire Pty Ltd demonstrating that the windows within 3m of boundaries would not require fire protection as they are already protected by the adjacent blade walls running alongside the side boundaries.

 

§ Details of Building Code of Australia (BCA) Compliance report prepared by Acoustic Logic advising that the thickness of internal party walls are acoustically adequate in line with BCA compliance. 

 

§ Report on the Thermal Performance of AFS Wall Systems for Product Group Pty Ltd indicating the use of AFS walls is suitable to achieve the required thermal performance to protect the western facade from the heat loads that will be imposed by the western sun.

 

Additionally, amended landscape plans have also been lodged on 30 April 2012 showing the provision of a more robust landscaping scheme in the central courtyard including a hedge along the western edge of the central courtyard adjoining the living room and kitchen windows of Unit 6 to enhance the privacy of this dwelling unit.

 

2.2    Response to reasons for refusal

In addition to the proposed amendments, the applicant has provided a letter dated 13 June 2012 addressing each reason for refusal as follows (Council’s comments included where necessary):

 

1.         The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives for Business 3B Zone as set out in the Randwick LEP 1998 Consolidation in that:

 

(a)      the proposal fails to achieve high quality design for all new development and improvements undertaken in the public domain

(b)      The proposal fails to require and encourage environmental sustainability approaches to future land use and development.

(c)       The proposal fails to improve the overall environmental quality of the Matraville Town Centre.

 

Applicant’s response: “In response to the point above, Units 7, 10 & 16 were amended so that they are now dual aspect units. This was done with the addition of a secondary window to the living areas of these units, which opens up to an unenclosed/open foyer. This change to these units not only improves cross ventilation, but improves the solar access, as the new window to the living areas faces towards the north east. Please refer to SK002 attached which outlines change to unit 10 (Units 7 & 16 are similar).

 

Furthermore in relation to privacy, a hedge has been added to the communal open space to provide privacy to unit 6. This was shown on the amended landscape plan that was issued to Council back in May. Also attached to this cover sheet is a copy of section AA from the landscape plan which demonstrates this.

 

In addition, the street elevation was amended to contain a metal frame segment which separates the rendered & painted element from the segment containing the terracotta brick tiles and the metal sliding screens, and thus articulates the front facade. The terracotta tiles now enhance the horizontality to the front facade, and thus adding to the contemporary form.”

 

2.         The proposal fails to satisfy the SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles as set-out in State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

 

Applicant’s response: “As mentioned in point 1 above, Units 7, 10 & 16 are dual aspect units with the introduction of a secondary window to the living area of these units. This being said, the development now has 100% cross ventilation and is still compliant with the requirements of SEPP 65.”

 

3.         The proposed development does not satisfy the controls and performance requirements for Building Design, Facades, Materials and Finishes, Solar Access, Natural Ventilation, Acoustic and Visual Privacy set out in Section 3 of the Matraville Town Centre DCP.

 

Applicant’s response:  “Please refer to point 1 response above.”

 

Council’s comments: The applicant also has specifically addressed the SEPP 65 issues as detailed in Section 2.3 below.

 

4.         The proposed development would result in adverse impacts upon the internal amenity of the building, through poor natural ventilation, solar access, and visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Applicant’s response: “Please refer to point 1 response above. Also note in respect to layout, the current Section 96 proposal has the same number of living areas facing west as the original Development Approval, and thus the internal amenity of the building in terms of solar access to the living areas has not changed.”

 

5.         The proposal will result in an overbearing visual bulk and scale and poor outlook for residents in the adjoining northern property due to the provision of blade walls adjacent to windows.

 

Applicant’s response: “In response to this point 5, it should be noted that the blade walls have always been part of the original Development Application. The only difference between the position of the blade walls shown on the original DA and the position of the blade walls shown on the currently Section 96 Application, is that the blade walls on the S96 have been positioned on the boundary as opposed to approximately 600mm off the boundary as previously shown on the original DA. Furthermore these blade walls in question have only been amended on the western/street block, but have remained in the same position on the eastern/rear block. The function of these blade walls is to provide fire protection to the window openings which are in close proximity to the side boundaries”.

 

Council’s comments: The original plans show a northern blade wall along side the northern edge of living room openings and balconies of units 5, 11, 19 and 22 in the western block generally in the same location as the proposed blade wall under the Section 96 application. While the proposed blade wall will be located directly on the boundary (compared to being setback at approximately 500mm in the current approved plans), it will not be visually intrusive or dominant in the context of the 12m separation between the proposed front and rear block which will be maintained and which aligns with the outlook from the two south-facing balconies of the adjoining RFB at No 481 Bunnerong Road. 

 

6.         The documentation submitted with the application is deficient of information and details relating to the colours, materials, finishes and insulation of the external surfaces to the building; the operation of screens and windows; and the necessary aesthetic treatment to reduce visual bulk and scale and to enhance the character of the street and the Matraville Town Centre.

 

Applicant’s response:  “Please refer to point 1 response above. Furthermore, the operation of the screens has been shown on the floor plans. Please refer to the amended architectural drawings submitted in July.”

 

7.         The proposed development does not satisfy the numerical visitor car parking requirement of the DCP – Parking.

 

Applicant’s response: “It was stated in the “Development Application Report No.D65/12” that the proposed development does not comply with the numerical visitor car parking requirement. It was also stated in this report that the development only had 4 visitor car spaces. This is not the case as the proposed development has 5 visitor spaces (i.e. 4 on the upper car parking level and 1 on the lower car parking level). Furthermore, when the original Development Application was lodged it was for 22 units and 6 visitor spaces were proposed at the time. During the assessment of the original DA, the number of units within the development was reduced to 20 units; however the applicant did not amend the number of visitor car spaces to suit the reduction in the number of Units. We are now saying (the current Section 96 Application) that only 5 visitor car spaces are required for 20 units (i.e. 1 per 4 units), and believe that the current Section 96 proposal complies with numeric visitor car space requirement.”

 

Council’s comments: The proposal provides a total of 39 car parking spaces which is significantly more than the total numerical car parking requirement of 33 spaces. The amended proposal will ensure that the required 5 visitor car parking spaces are provided while maintaining the required residential car parking spaces. The amended proposal is now satisfactory in relation to car parking provision.

 

8.         The proposal is not considered to be in the public interest as the proposal does not meet the objectives of the zone and will have detrimental visual and environmental impacts on the quality of future dwellings and the street within the Matraville Town Centre.

 

Applicant’s response: “Please refer to point 1 response above”

 

2.3    Response to SEPP 65 Issues

The applicant has also provided the following responses to relevant SEPP 65 Design Review Panel issues as summarised from a letter from the applicant dated 13 June 2012:

 

Level 1

SEPP 65 comment:

 

“Level 1

Air conditioning units are added to the outdoor courtyard areas - the Panel does not support the introduction of air conditioning.  If it is perceived that the internal comfort levels of the apartments are inadequate the applicant should investigate the introduction of better passive measures to attain comfortable internal conditions.  Matraville has good access to cooling summer breezes therefore low energy models are achievable.

 

In this respect the change to a precast panel construction system is not supported by the Panel unless it is a thermomas panel type or equal where the insulation is on the outside of the load bearing wall.  Plasterboard to the interior of a single skin precast panel is unacceptable due to the amount of heat transfer in summer.

 

The construction of the stairs into the eastern private courtyards is not described on the architectural or the landscape drawings.

 

The elimination of windows to the eastern courtyards is not supported.  Sliding doors as well as windows (as provided in the approved DA) should be reinstated.”

 

Applicant’s response:

§ Air conditioning units have been removed from the proposed development as per the Panel’s recommendation.

§ As per the Panel’s recommendation, the construction of the stairs leading up to the rear lawn areas has been noted on the amended architectural drawings submitted to Council.

§ As per the Panel’s request, the original windows to the eastern courtyards have been reinstated. Refer to the amended architectural drawing SK006.

§ Report submitted on the Thermal Performance of AFS Wall Systems indicating that the use of AFS Walls is suitable to achieve the required thermal performance to protect the western facade from the heat loads that will be imposed by the western sun.

 

Level 2

SEPP 65 comment:

 

Level 2

The central courtyard landscape plan is considered an improvement to the DA approved design.

 

The removal of the windows on the north and south wall is not supported.  The Panel considers that the natural light will be available for a reasonable number of years given the configuration of the neighbouring developments.  The introduction of indents and openable windows with fire screens would be a good solution to investigate as this could continue as ventilation if, in the future, the neighbouring developments build closer or to the boundary.

 

Reconfiguration of Units 6 and 7 - the applicant should provide a comparison by including the DA approval plans.  Unit 7 is a single orientation, west facing apartment fronting a busy road and is therefore compromised with regard to SEPP 65.  Unit 6 has a large kitchen, living, dining area facing into the courtyard which lacks privacy - this is not considered ideal.

 

Removal of windows in stairwells Units 2-5 is not supported as it is a reduction in the flexibility for achieving cross ventilation and natural daylight.”

 

Applicant’s response:

§ As per the Panel’s recommendation, the windows on the north and south walls have been reinstated to allow for natural light. Refer to the amended architectural drawings submitted to Council.

 

§ Unit 7 is no longer a single aspect unit as it now has a secondary window to the living areas of this unit, which opens up to an unenclosed/open foyer. This Unit is now a dual aspect unit. Refer to amended drawing SK002.

§ A hedge has been added to the communal area (i.e. in front of the living area of unit 6) which provides privacy between the living areas of unit 6 and the communal area. Refer to amended landscape plan.

§ Windows in stairwells of Units 2-5 (i.e. western facade of rear block – Level 2) have been reinstated as per the Panel’s recommendation. Refer to drawing SK007.

 

Level 3

SEPP 65 comment:

 

“Level 3

As per Comments as for Level 2

 

Air conditioning not supported as previously noted.

 

Reconfiguration of units 13 and 14 not supported - the bedroom areas should be exchanged to enhance cross ventilation.

 

The removal of solar collectors is not supported - any panels that form part of the DA approval should be relocated rather than removed.

 

The Panel would prefer that the non-trafficable roof awnings were trafficable and the balcony areas increased.

 

The roof design should be improved to facilitate the exhaust of hot air and improved natural lighting to the centre of the plan.”

 

Applicant’s response:

§ The reconfiguration of Units 13 and 14 had been amended from the original application only to provide a bathroom common to each unit, instead of being confined to that of a bedroom en-suite in each case. Refer to drawing SK003.

§ Solar collectors have now been provided on the roof of the eastern block. Refer to drawing SK09.

§ The questionable balcony depths have been increased as per the Panel’s recommendation. The non- trafficable areas have been converted into balcony areas as per the Panel’s recommendation. These changes to the balconies were made to Units 12, 13 & 14. Refer to drawing SK003.

§ The roof design shape has been amended to reflect the intention to exhaust hot air when required and has now been illustrated to do so. By reversing the slope of the roof, and raking the ceiling to Units 12, 13 & 14, we were able to add highlight glazing over the living room sliding doors of these units. Section AA on drawing SK13B illustrates the raked ceiling, and change to roof slope. Furthermore, the amended rear elevation (on drawing SK12B shows the highlight glazing over the sliding doors (see rear elevation drawing SK12b)

 

Level 4

SEPP 65 comment:

 

“Level 4

Comments as for Level 2, however Unit 15 does achieve more privacy and a better outlook than the units below.  Improvements still need to be investigated for Unit 16.

 

For assessment of the roof form the Applicant should supply the approved drawings for comparison.  There is also room for improvement to the passive environmental performance through the roof design.  Opportunities for cross ventilation, stack ventilation and the introduction of natural light to stairs and internal rooms (including bathrooms) should be thoroughly investigated.”

 

Applicant’s response:

§ The layout of Unit 10 is identical to the layout of Unit 7. This being said, Unit 10 is no longer a single aspect unit as it now has a secondary window to the living areas of this unit, which opens up to an unenclosed/open foyer. This Unit is now a dual aspect unit. Refer to drawing SK002.

§ Improvements to this level as sought by the Panel are also given further consideration by the improvements to the roof design and reflected in the street elevation in particular.

 

Level 5 & Attic

SEPP 65 comment:

 

“Level 5 + Attic Level

The continuous attic form is considered acceptable if the above issues are satisfactorily resolved however the upper levels do not present well to the street.  It is recommended that a finely detailed light shade structure be added to the level 5 west facing terraces.”

 

Applicant’s response:

§ Presentation to the street was the only outstanding concern applying to this level. A suspended lightweight shade structure has been incorporated at Level 5 along with other passive shading measures as a response to the Panel’s otherwise justified concern. Refer to the amended Section AA on SK13B

 

“Generally

The proposed changes to the elevations have environmental impacts and are therefore not supported by the Panel.

 

The elevations are also considered inferior with regard to aesthetics.  Brown off form panels of horizontal proportions are unconvincingly mixed with vertical coloured panels that do not relate to the construction or the context.  These party walls are likely to remain highly visible, as the neighbours to the north and south are older strata-title buildings. The proportions of the openings to Bunnerong Road are less generous.

 

Many windows remain without sunshading or weather protection and the operation of the window needs to be clearly marked on the elevations for assessment.  Aluminium screens should be noted as fixed or operable, preferably operable.

 

The new planning arrangements result in more bedrooms facing the main road.

 

A materials and finishes board should be submitted for assessment.

The lift lobby is very deeply inset.  Some design consideration needs to be given to improve the balance of natural light to this area such as ‘hold-open’ doors to the stair and windows to the stair to increase natural daylight to the lift doors.”

 

Applicant’s response:

The applicant advises that “Accepting the criticism raised by the Panel’s deliberations and noting that the site is said to be ‘an exemplar of what is envisaged in the DCP’ the elevations have been forthrightly re-addressed. Consequently the shading provisions not only fully address the western orientation but at the same time provide opportunity for interest and versatility by providing adjustable sun screens. An example of just one change in perception is illustrated; showing how the integrity of the design remains but also opportunities for heightened dynamic interest within the strong format of the western façade. All four facades have been carefully considered and the Panel’s leaning towards the original terra cotta brick as a facade material was noted. At the same time the Panel was advised that the owner / builder was experienced in the use of pre-cast concrete and also sought to incorporate precast work into the design. The outcome as amended is one of precast- panel construction along with the metal of the screens and the three metal framed segments of the western façade. However, the precast panels will also vary between those of painted concrete and panels incorporating terra cotta brick tiles, throughout all the facades. In this way interest is also added to the otherwise blank north / south elevations, already mitigated by adjoining buildings to varying degrees. But in acknowledgement of their likely endurance as visible boundary walls, despite the neighbouring site’s capacities to build to their boundaries in the future. Overall the interweaving of the two solid wall finishes ties the buildings together ‘ in the round’. At the same time distinguishing the three strong horizontal elements of the street massing and the east / west elevations from the more vertical proportions and the massing of the north / south elevations. Insofar as the outcome otherwise results in more bedrooms facing Bunnerong Road and directly west, this is not seen to be as problematic (given the orientation of the subject land).”

 

Council’s comments: The amended proposal has included additional sun-shading and screening devices on the western façade. The proposal has also included the use of two tone colour brick to the front west elevation as required by the Panel. A condition will be applied requiring the installation of hold open doors to the stair way. 

 

2.4    Consideration of resident submission

A representative of the adjoining property owners has indicated that the issues raised in relation to the original Section 96 proposal remain valid and should be addressed in any further amendments to the proposal. This section addresses the issues raised in the resident submissions to the original proposal having regard to the latest amended proposal:

 

Loss of privacy from eastern terrace on Level 5

The strata owners in the adjoining RFB at of No. 481 Bunnerong Road have raised concerns regarding the loss of privacy from the relocated east facing terraces on Levels 2 to 5. While these terraces are linked to living rooms, they are located further away from the common northern boundary than the originally approved balconies so overlooking is mitigated under the current section 86 proposal.  

 

Noise impacts from air conditioning units on balconies and terraces

Following concerns raised by the SEPP 65 DRP regarding the use of air conditioning units, the amended section 96 plans have deleted the provision of all air conditioning units previously shown in the original plans.

 

Overbearing bulk, scale and visual impact of northern wall

The applicant advises that a limited extent of blade walls along the northern boundary is required under the amended Section 96 proposal to provide fire protection of bedroom windows to proposed Units 8, 11, 17 and 20. The proposed blade walls are considered reasonable as the section 96 proposal maintains the 12m separation between the eastern and western blocks so that there will still be a significant central open space in the development that will align with the existing south-facing balconies of No. 481 Bunnerong Road.  The outlook from all these adjoining south facing balconies will not be detrimentally affected. Furthermore, the proposed blade walls occupy an area that largely coincides with an approved northern wall adjoining the northern edge of the balconies units 8, 11, 17 and 22 as approved under the original DA such that there will be minimal increase in visual bulk and scale of the north elevation to that originally approved. 

 

Asbestos during demolition

The subject site is already largely excavated. Notwithstanding this, standard conditions have been applied under the original DA consent requiring that any works involving the demolition, storage and disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with a number of recognised listed standards and licenses including Work Cover.

 


Access via objectors’ property during construction

Access to and via adjoining properties for constructions of walls on common boundaries can and should be facilitated by private arrangements between the developer and adjoining property owners. 

 

In summary, all issues raised in the submission to the original proposal have been adequately and satisfactorily addressed in the amended proposal.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in urban design.

Outcome 10:     A healthy environment.

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

Direction 10a:    Council is a leader in fostering sustainable practices.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

In accordance with Council’s resolution at the Planning Committee Meeting held on 12 June 2012, the application has been deferred for the applicant to address the recommended reasons for refusal. The applicant has made substantial changes to the Section 96 proposal, and provided additional information and details to address the reasons for refusal.

 

Overall, as detailed above, the amended plans and additional information have resulted in the following positive responses:

 

§ adequately and reasonably addressed each recommended reason for refusal in the original Section 96 assessment report to Council such that the amended proposal is now satisfactory and supportable

 

§ adequately and reasonable addressed each issue raised by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel in their comments dated February 2012 such that the amended proposal is now satisfactory and supportable

 

§ adequately and reasonably addressed each objection raised in the resident submission to the original Section 96 proposal such that the amended proposal is now satisfactory and supportable

 

Accordingly, the amended development scheme will not result in unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, view loss, solar access and privacy. The amended proposal also has been assessed as being satisfactory, and will not result in unreasonable impacts on the streetscape.

 

In view of the above, it is recommended that DA/732/2010/A be approved.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the responsible Consent Authority, grants consent under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/732/2010 for the demolition of existing dwelling and construction of part 3/part 6 storey mixed use development in two building forms containing 3 retail spaces, 22 residential units with basement level car parking of 39 spaces and associated works at 483-485 Bunnerong Road, Matraville, in the following manner: 

 

A         Amend Condition No.1 to read:

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

 

Plan Number

Revision

Prepared by

Plot Date

Received on

DA01

D

The Architecture Company

23 June 2011

24 June 2011

DA02

B

25 November 2010

24 June 2011

DA03

D

23 June 2011

24 June 2011

DA04

D

23 June 2011

24 June 2011

DA05

D

23 June 2011

24 June 2011

DA06

D

23 June 2011

24 June 2011

DA07

D

23 June 2011

24 June 2011

DA08

D

23 June 2011

24 June 2011

DA09

C

25 November 2010

24 June 2011

DA10

E

23 June 2011

24 June 2011

DA11

D

23 June 2011

24 June 2011

DA12

E

23 June 2011

24 June 2011

DA13

D

 

23 June 2011

24 June 2011

       

only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, and as amended by the following Section 96 plans “A”:

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

SK01 A

23-04-2012

19 July 2012

MacKenzie Architects

SK02 A

23-04-2012

19 July 2012

SK03 A

23-04-2012

19 July 2012

SK04 B

12-07-2012

19 July 2012

SK05 B

12-07-2012

19 July 2012

SK06 B

12-07-2012

19 July 2012

SK07 A

23-04-2012

19 July 2012

SK08 A

23-04-2012

19 July 2012

SK09 B

12-07-2012

19 July 2012

SK10 B

13-07-2012

19 July 2012

SK11 B

13-07-2012

19 July 2012

SK12 B

13-07-2012

19 July 2012

SK13 B

13-07-2012

19 July 2012

LPDA 12 -202 /1 Issue C

16-02-2012

30 April 2012

Conzept Landscape Architects

LPDA 12 -202 /2 Issue D

30-04-2012

30 April 2012

Conzept Landscape Architects

BASIX provisions as contained in BASIX Assessment: Report No. 409197M

dated 16 December 2011

22 Dec 2011

Planning Principles Pty Ltd

Schedule of Colour and Material

Undated

19 July 2012

MacKenzie Architect

 

the application form and any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

B.      Add Conditions as follows:

125.    The following amendments shall be made to the landscape plan, drawing number  LPDA 12 -202 /2 Issue D dated 30-04-2012 :

 

§         The proposed hedge adjacent to the living area and kitchen of Unit 6 shall be installed at a minimum mature height of 2m.

 

§         All proposed Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palms) shall be replaced with Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm)

 

126.    The common stairs nest to the lift lobby areas shall be installed with “hold-open” doors to improve the access to natural light into this area. Details are to be shown on the construction certificate plans.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  9 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP61/12

 

 

Subject:                  65-71 Belmore Road, Randwick (DA/606/2011)

Folder No:                   DA/606/2011

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Conversion of the existing building into 74 residential dwellings, 16 Serviced apartments, 2 retail premises on the ground floor, retention of the existing office space on the first floor and the inclusion of a communal room for the residents of the building, a total of 43 car spaces for residents, a total of 3 car spaces for the retail premises, 6 motor cycle spaces, 38 bicycle space and a communal roof top open space. The proposal also includes minor works, stratum subdivision and strata subdivision.

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:                Mr S Piano

Owner:                         Piano Holdings Pty Limited

Summary

Recommendation:     Deferred Commencement

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Introduction

 

The original Development Application (DA) proposed the conversion of an existing hotel to residential dwellings with retail units at the ground level and the existing commercial tenancies on levels one and two to be retained.  The proposal resulted in 90 residential units.

 

Amended plans were submitted on 22 June 2012 in response to Council deferring the matter at the Council meeting of 8 May 2012.  The amended plans propose the additional provision of 38 bicycles and six (6) motor cycle spaces and a new communal room on the first floor, for the permanent residential section of the development.  The amended plans also propose the retention of 16 units on level three to be used as serviced apartments, reducing the total number of dwellings to 74.  The amendments include the provision of a roof top communal open space area.

 

This proposal is for the conversion of the existing hotel rooms into residential dwellings with minimal works.  The application is accompanied by two (2) State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 (SEPP 1) objections to the development standards for Building Height and Floor Space Ratio.  Both the SEPP 1 objections were assessed in accordance with the relevant case law.  The proposal represents variations; despite this the variation will not result in significant impacts as the building already exists.  The SEPP 1 objections are considered satisfactory and the variations can be supported in this instance. 

 

The submission of amended plans resulted in the application being re-exhibited from 4 July to 18 July 2012.  As a result, eight (8) submissions were received.  The submissions have been considered as part of the assessment.

 

The proposal represents a sustainable re-use of an existing building, which results in an improved urban design outcome.  As a result, the proposal is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The DA is primarily for the change of use of the existing hotel rooms to residential dwellings.  The proposal includes alterations to the ground level to allow for additional retail area and the reconfiguration of the lobby.  The proposal includes the stratum and strata subdivision of the building. 

 

The original application has been amended three (3) times and three (3) separate sets of amended plans were submitted in response to consultation with Council.  The final amended plans were submitted on 22 June 2012.  These final amended plans were submitted in response to the determination of Council, to defer the matter (Council Meeting of 8 May 2012).

 

The amended plans proposed that the 16 units on level three (3) be serviced apartments.  This results in a reduction in the total number of dwellings, now proposed to be 74.  The amended application also proposes a reconfiguration of the basement car park to allow for 38 bicycle and six (6) motor cycle spaces, a communal room for the use of the residents on level one and the inclusion of a roof top open space area.

 

The Applicant entered into the discussions with Council’s Development Engineers to address previous concerns related to waste management for the proposal.  These concerns have now been addressed.  

 

 

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lot 10 in DP 84436, 65-71 Belmore Road, Randwick. The site is located on the eastern side of Belmore Road. The land area and dimensions of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Table 1 | Lot Dimensions

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, side boundary

49.23m

975.7m2

Southern, side boundary

51.16m

Eastern, rear boundary

16.66m

Western, front boundary

19.81m

 

The site is currently occupied by a seven (7) storey building containing a retail tenancy on the ground floor, commercial tenancies on the first and second floors and motel rooms above.  The site also contains car parking on the ground, first and second floors.  The subject building is one of the tallest in the Randwick Centre and is visually prominent.

 

Belmore Road is the main commercial and retail strip of Randwick.  It contains a mix of uses.  Belmore Road is also a major public transport route, with a number of regular bus services running 24 hours a day.  The area has a varied built form with a range of building heights and designs, reflecting the variety of uses of the locality.   

 

Royal Randwick Shopping Centre, on Lot 104 DP 812174 adjoins the subject site for both the south and much of the eastern boundaries.  The Shopping Centre adopts a height of two to three (2–3) storeys fronting Belmore Road and up to five (5) storeys at the rear fronting Avoca Street.  The Shopping Centre has a zero setback to the subject site along the southern boundary. 

 

The Shopping Centre contains a mix of retail and commercial tenancies and is serviced by a two (2) storey basement car park.  To the rear of the subject site is a portion of the Marcellin College School although the greater portion of the school is primarily located to the north east of the subject site.  There is a small building and a playground / access path to the rear of the subject site.

 

Adjoining the subject site to the north is 57-63 Belmore Road.  This site contains a four (4) storey mixed use building, with retail uses at street level and residential uses above.  The subject site has the benefit of a right of way across 57–63 Belmore Road that provides access to Belmore Road, in an “L” shape running along the eastern and northern boundaries.  The building on 57-63 Belmore Road has minimal setbacks to the south and adopts an irregular shape.  The building contains a roof top terrace for use by the residents.

 

Opposite the subject site, to the west, are a range of three (3) storey mixed use buildings containing retail and commercial uses fronting the street and residential uses above.  The subject site is also opposite Waratah Avenue which is a residential street that contains a mix of dwellings types, including residential flat buildings, single storey semi detached cottages and detached dwellings.

 

4.    State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 Development Standards

 

4.1    Proposed variation to the development standards

 

The proposal seeks to vary development standards contained within Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) (RLEP 1998). 

 

The SEPP 1 Objections have been submitted with the development application to support the variations.  An updated SEPP 1 Objection for the building height variation has been provided to accompany the amended drawings received in June. 

 

(i)     Floor space ratio

Pursuant to Clause 20F(3) of RLEP 1998, the maximum floor space ratio for buildings in the General Business 3A zone is 2:1 as indicated on the zoning map.  The proposal has an existing floor space ratio of 4.49:1 (existing) but still and does not comply with the requirement of Clause 20F (3) of the RLEP 1998.

 

(ii)    Building height

Clause 20G(5) of RLEP 1998 stipulates a maximum building height of 12m as illustrated on the zoning map.  The proposal has an existing maximum building height of 30.4m and does not comply with Clause 20G(5) for maximum building height.

 

4.2    SEPP 1 assessment

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

The stated purposes of the standards as outlined in the LEP are:

 

Maximum FSR:

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

 

Maximum building and external wall height:

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.

 

Consistency of the development with the aims of SEPP 1, the local planning objectives for the locality and objects of the Environmental Panning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended

 

Clause 20F(3) Floor space ratio

The applicant has submitted written SEPP 1 Objections, which outline the following key justifications for the variations to the standard:

 

Comments:

The SEPP 1 Objection is considered well founded. There were previous concerns with the quality and amenity of both the dwellings and the building as a whole, given that the strata subdivision effectively prevents redevelopment in the foreseeable future. The amended scheme coupled with the conditions of consent has addressed these concerns. The longer term presence of the building is now considered acceptable.

 

The impact of the proposal, in terms of aesthetic qualities, is improved by the proposed works to the building facade despite the building form remaining largely unchanged.  There are reasonable changes proposed to the facade that improve the building aesthetics through the use of planters and louvre screens.  Further conditions are proposed, in the form of a deferred commencement consent, which seeks additional embellishment to the facade of the building including significant improvement to the highly visible side facades.

 

In terms of the internal amenity of the dwellings, the amendments result in a reduction in the number of units, from 90 to 74 and the inclusion of communal area, being both external and internal.  These communal spaces have addressed Council’s previous concerns relating to the size of the proposed dwellings. The increase in residential density and the associated parking and waste impacts have been addressed in detail in Section 7.1. 

 

The applicants have made amendments to the proposal as a result of discussions with the Council Development Engineers.  The result is significant improvements to the operations of the car park areas and waste collections services.  The amended proposal provides a better urban design outcome and upgrades the existing building stock.

 

The proposed design, along with the proposed conditions, will significantly improve the aesthetics of the building and ensure compliance with the underlying objective of the development standard.  Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with the underlying objective of the development standard.

 

Clause 20G(5) Maximum building height

The applicant has submitted written SEPP 1 Objections, which outline the following key justifications for the variations to the standard:

 

Comments:

The height of the proposal will not be altered so that there are no direct impacts as a result of this application.  Notwithstanding, the proposal still needs to be assessed in terms of the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area and the underlying objectives of the standard.

 

It is recognised that approval of this application will give a greater permanency to this building and that the surrounding development is unlikely to reach the same heights.  Accordingly, the extent of building protruding above the surrounding development requires special consideration regarding the aesthetics and character.

 

The amended plans and the proposed conditions ensure that the existing building will be upgraded significantly to improve the external aesthetics. The deferred commencement conditions have been included to ensure that the finishes and visible facades of the building are adequately treated to enhance the character of the area and provide a higher level of amenity than currently exists in terms of the visual impact of the building. As significant parts of the building’s facades to the north and south are likely to remain visible into the future given the 12m height limit, there exists an opportunity to include public art on these elements in order to relieve what are currently blank facades. The recommended conditions, combined with the works that had previously been undertaken will result in an improved level of amenity and a proposal which enhances the aesthetic character of the area.

 

Conclusion

The proposal changes little in respect to the overall building form but makes reasonable changes to the appearance.  The SEPP 1 objections are considered to be “well founded” as the proposal is consistent with the objectives that underpin the development standards, subject to the deferred commencement conditions included.

 

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 SEPP 1 objections state:

 

For the variation to the FSR control:

 

For the variation to the Building Height Control:

 

Comments:

The variations from the standards for FSR and building height are not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1.  The proposal is achieves the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii).  Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly and economic use of the land.

 

Similarly, the proposal is also consistent with the relevant objectives of the 3A Zone, in particular the proposal is consistent with:

 

(a)    to maintain the viability of existing business centres, and

(d)    to encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposal will introduce 74 additional dwellings on to the market, which will reduce the existing demand.  The change of use of the existing building, along with the subdivision of both the residential units and the commercial units, ensures the ongoing viability of the development and contributes to the town centre by providing additional dwellings in close proximity to services and public transport.  The proposal represents the sustainable conversion and adaption of existing building stock.

 

The amended plans have addressed previous concerns related to the amenity of the proposed dwellings and the site can adequately accommodate the proposed additional 74 dwelling in terms of both parking and waste (subject to the proposed conditions).  Accordingly the proposal is considered consistent with the objects of the section 5 (a)(i) and (ii) of the Act and the objectives of the subject zone.

 

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 SEPP 1 Objects do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.  The strict adherence to the numerical standards is inconsistent with the existing built form.  In order to maintain the numerical controls demolition would be required, which would not be a sustainable outcome and not considered in the public benefit.

 

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:

 

Table 2 | Ways of Establishing that Compliance is Unreasonable or Unnecessary Assessment. 

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.

 

Applicant’s responses:

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standards is relevant to the subject development.  The proposal is considered to satisfy the underlying objective of the FSR and building height standards. 

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.

 

Applicant’s responses:

 

 

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.

 

Applicant’s responses:

Comments:

The underlying objective of both the floor space ratio and the building height standards would not be defeated or thwarted if full numerical compliance was required.

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.

 

Applicant’s responses:

Comments:

The FSR and Building Height development standards have 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.

 

Applicant’s responses:

 

Comments:

The existing zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality. The site is located within the core of one of Randwick Council's prime retail areas.

 

Conclusion:

The proposed variations to the development standards are considered to adequately address the principles established from the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827.  In this instance, the variations can be supported.

 

 

 

5.    Site History

 

A Previous DA 882/2010 was lodged and approved for “alterations to Gemini Hotel including decrease in hotel rooms from 98 to 91, increase in ground floor shops from 2 to 3 and new openings on northern elevation”.  These works are currently being undertaken and as a result, the operation of the hotel has ceased.  The commercial and retail uses are still in operation. 

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  As a result of the amended plans, the application was notified again.  The application was also advertised in the local newspaper.  The following submissions were received:-

 

6.1    Objections

Notification period 4 July to 18 July 2012:

 

The Randwick Precinct Committee

Owner of property adjoining, resides 201 Penshurst St, Beverly Hills

Unit 28/ 57-63 Belmore Road, Randwick

Objector address not provided.

Unit 20, 57 – 63 Belmore Road, Randwick

Unit 14, 57-63 Belmore Road, Randwick

Unit 11, 57 – 63 Belmore Road, Randwick

Centre Manger Royal Randwick Shopping Centre 73 Belmore Road, Randwick

 

Table 3 | Objections from the 4 July to 18 July 2012 notification period.

Issue

Comment

The proposal represents over intensification of site use.

The proposed studio apartments have no kitchens provided; lack of cross ventilation and lack of solar access for the south facing apartments and are considered unsuitability.

The Parking is insufficient and many spaces are of sub-standard size.

Excessive number of studios planned and these should be changed to a fewer number of larger units with kitchens provided.

The application should comply with the Residential Flat Design Code and Randwick Precinct requests that these plans go to the Design Review Panel.

The proposal is considered to adequately accommodate the proposed number of units.

The accompanying documentation demonstrated that each dwelling is considered acceptable in terms of ventilation and solar access.  Kitchens are provided in each of the dwellings of an adequate nature.  The dwellings also have very high levels of amenity in terms of outlook and views.

The parking has been reviewed by Councils Development Engineers and the level of parking has been deemed adequate for the site.  The reduced parking provision also inherently reduces the traffic generation using the right of carriageway.  It is also expected, given the site location, that there will be an increased reliance on public transport options.

The number of studios proposed represents a sustainable method to alter the existing building for its future use.  This form of development addresses the demand for this smaller form of dwellings.

The application has been reviewed by the Design Review Panel and was found to be generally acceptable.  Application of the Residential Flat Design Code also has limitations in applying to a conversion of an existing building such as this one.

The proposed use of the communal driveway will result in increased traffic congestion, security and maintenance concerns.

It is understood that the subject site has the benefit of a right of way, via the adjoining property’s driveway. As such, the applicants are legally able to use the driveway.

The traffic report based on the original proposal (full residential) foreshadowed a slight increase in traffic movements in the morning (approx 20 vehicles) and then 8 to 9 vehicles in the evening.  A reduction in the amount of dwellings and retention of serviced apartments in the subsequently amended plans will reduce these outcomes slightly.  In any event, the changes are minor in the context of traffic movements in the right of way and any potential consequences onto Belmore Road.

In addition, the parking is limited to 43 spaces and it would not be expected that all of these vehicles would leave the building neither every day nor always during peak periods.  This limits the potential for traffic generation, and there is not expected that there would be any unreasonable interference with the right of way.

It is expected that the reduction in the “transient” nature of patrons to the previous motel use will provide some benefits in reducing the impacts on amenity.  This is particularly the case as the Gemini use was a 24 hour operation with associated impacts.

The increased level of permanent residency is also likely to reduce the security risks associated with the building.  The previous use, with a higher transient population, makes it more difficult to recognise people associated with the premises. The change in use from a motel to dwellings with longer term residents is more likely to result in a decrease in anti social behaviour and noise impacts to the adjoining residents and locality.

Increased maintenance costs, noise impacts and security concerns related to the proposed use of the driveway.

Maintenance costs are subject to the terms of the right of way agreement.

The amended waste management plan does not rely on the Right of Way to access the site , thereby minimising impacts associated with its use.

The driveway was originally intended for the use of Energy Australia and has been used during construction of the current site, by the builders.  The driveway currently has been damaged.  The driveway is not adequate in condition or size to allow for 96 vehicles and garbage trucks to use.  There is also the potential for noise impacts to increase.  Additional issues with the use of the driveway, such as congestion, illegal parking and lack of safe access will increase.

Dealt with above.

Increased traffic movements resulting in danger to pedestrians, congestion, noise impacts, smell as a result of the garbage trucks using the rear driveway,

Dealt with above.

Objects to the potential safety, security, noise and air pollution as a result of the use of the shared driveway by the subject proposal. 

Dealt with above.

Objects to the use of the driveway which will result in increased noise impacts, maintenance costs, and decreased security.

Dealt with above.

Objects to the use of the Centre’s car parking for the purposes of the proposed residential uses. 

This is not proposed as part of the subject development application and there is no entitlement to such use.

 

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 as follows.

 

7.1 Development Engineer

An amended application has been received which includes reduction in number of residential units from 91 to 74 and creation of 16 serviced apartments.

 

Original proposal: Conversion of an existing hotel to residential apartments with retail units at ground level, facade upgrade, extension of unit on level 7 to roof top (level 8), lift access from level 7 to level 8, associated works and strata subdivision (Heritage Conservation Area) at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Architectural Plans by  Marchese Partners Architects  stamped by Council 22nd June 2012;

·      Supplementary Statement of Environmental Effects received by Council 2nd April

·      Detail & Level Survey by Macquarie Park

·      Waste Management plans by ABC Planning and stamped by Council 14th August 2012.

·      Draft Strata Plans by Surveyor Scott Deveridge.

 

General Comments

With the amended plans the parking and waste management concerns have now been addressed although concerns remain with existing non-compliances with AS 2890.1:2004 and the proposed strata plans. These have been addressed by condition and there is no further objection to the proposal.

 

Waste Management comments

The assessing officer is advised that the ongoing waste management issues associated with the development have now been resolved. In consultation with Council’s Coordinator Strategic Waste an acceptable strategy has been accepted by Council. .

A waste management plan detailing the acceptable procedure has now been submitted and approved by Council’s Coordinator of Strategic Waste Mr Talebul Islam.

 

Parking/Traffic Comments

Parking Provision – Residential Component

The amended application now proposes 63 studio apartments, 7 x 1 bedroom apartments 4 x 2 bedroom apartments and 16 serviced apartments (provided on level 3). Council’s DCP-Parking does not specify a parking rate for serviced apartments however a rate of 1 space per two bedrooms (with no visitor parking) is specified for hotels which is considered comparable.

 

Parking Required         = 63 x 0.5 + 7 x 1 + 4 x 1.2 + 16 x 0.5 (serviced apartments) + 74/4(visitor)

(Residential)      = 31.5 + 7 + 4.8 + 8 + 18.5(visitor)

        = 69.8 spaces (including 18.5 visitor spaces)

 

Parking Provided         = 43 spaces

Parking Shortfall = 26.8 (including 18.5 visitor spaces)

       

Development Engineering may consider the removal of the visitor parking requirement for the proposal (18.5 spaces) due to the site’s proximity to good public transport and Randwick Town Centre. After this reduction the residential parking requirement would be reduced to 51.3 spaces which is still deficient by up to 8 spaces (18%). This represents a considerable improvement on previous proposal and when also considering the proposed 6 motorbike spaces and 38 bicycle spaces the deficiency is considered acceptable.

 

It should be noted that the traffic and parking study makes reference to available parking within the adjacent carpark at Randwick Shopping Village. This is not public parking and is located on private property and therefore should not be relied upon to offset parking demand for the proposed development. It is noted that an objection from the owners of the carpark has been received on this aspect. The parking deficiency has therefore been considered by Development Engineering independent of this carpark.

 

Parking Provision – Commercial Component

The commercial/retail space in the building amounts to 931m2 and was approved under DA consent DA/882/2010 with a minimum parking provision of 3 carspaces. The 3 spaces provided for the commercial component with this proposal is thereby consistent with this consent.

 

TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED    = RESIDENTIAL (43) + COMMERCIAL (3) + 6 (motorbike)

        = 46 CARSPACES + 6 MOTORBIKE SPACES

       

Bicycle Parking

The amended plans indicate that 38 bicycle spaces will now be provided on the second floor. This provision satisfies the requirements specified in previous memo.

 

Carpark layout –Existing  Non  Compliances with Australian Standard 2890.1:2004

There are existing non-compliances with Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 evident within the existing carpark layout. For example the ground and first floor carparks only have a head clearance of 1.9m while the second floor carpark is even lower at 1.8m. AS2890.1:2004 requires an overhead clearance of 2.2m. Some car spaces are also narrow & difficult to access especially for larger vehicles like 4WD’s or vans. Development Engineering have concerns over future liability issues if residents are unable to use these carspaces due to the non-compliances especially considering the site is to be strata subdivided.

 

The applicant is proposing that contracts for sale for the individual dwelling include details of the available dimensions of the carspaces including height clearance and ramp access so prospective purchasers are fully aware of the existing non-compliances of the carpark and minimize the risk to Council. Shall the application be considered for approval it is recommended a condition requiring the above be included in any consent. An appropriate clause has been included in the operational conditions of this report. 

 

Strata Comments

Strata issues raised in previous memo have been acknowledged by the applicant but amended strata plans were not submitted.  A condition has therefore been included to amend strata plans showing an appropriate allocation of the carspaces.

 

Comment:

 

Amended Strata plans have since been submitted and are considered acceptable subject to conditions.

 

7.2 Heritage Planner

The Heritage Planner has previously reviewed the application and considered that the proposal would not adversely impact on the Heritage Conservation area. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in this regard.

 

7.3 Design Review Panel

The Panel had previously reviewed the proposal in November 2011 and February 2012. The architect was not required to attend the meeting as a set of revised drawings had been submitted for review.

 

This proposal is for the conversion of the Gemini Hotel from a mixed use building containing retail, commercial and hotel, to a mixed use building with upgraded retail at the ground floor, 16 serviced apartments and the remainder as up to 7 storeys of apartments over.  The current building is an anomaly and the proposal to convert it to include strata titled apartments will require additional work to increase its amenity and environmental performance as outlined in this report.

 

This is a DA and the third time the Panel has reviewed a proposal for the site. 

 

The Panel has visited the site and is familiar with the context.

 

The drawings remain unclear with regard to the existing building, recently approved balconies and screens and proposed new apartment layouts.  The Panel was asked to comment on the following issues;

 

Balconies and Facades

The proposed facade upgrade has the potential to improve the street presentation of the building. Louvred screens have been provided for western sunshading.  It is not clear if the louvres are operable - this should be clarified.

 

Although the new balconies add to the amenity of the apartments they increase the bulk of the building and the opportunities for overlooking. 

 

Generally the aesthetics could be acceptable however there is not enough detail to be certain of quality.  The Panel recommends that more detail be provided for further assessment including 1:50 wall and roof sections showing construction, balustrade details, window types, sunshading, water management, roof insulation etc.

 

It is not apparent where the air-conditioning plant and vents are placed for the existing office spaces

 

Roof and Communal Terrace

A communal roof terrace has now been provided on the western end of the building, now termed level 8. This terrace would be improved by the following;

-      the existing tall lift overrun should be adapted to provide equitable access for all to the roof terrace. The terrace should be extended marginally eastward to allow this

-      a common laundry and clothes drying areas should be provided on the roof terrace

-      a linear shelter should be introduced between the stair and the lift

-      BCA advice should be sought regarding egress from the terrace

-      the location of the terrace to the street side is supported

-      the screen planting to the north and south sides is supported

 

Roof areas that are not occupied by the roof terrace or plant rooms should be upgraded to include ventilating skylights / toplights to the internal service rooms below. Natural light and ventilation should be introduced to the long internal corridor and lift lobby on level 7, as noted in previous reports.

 

Apartment Ventilation

The Panel remains skeptical of any claim for comfortable natural ventilation provided to any of the single orientation apartments, regardless of the opinions of the environmental engineer.

 

Typical Floor Plan

The long internalized corridor on every floor should be altered to extend to the street. This would allow some natural light and ventilation into what is otherwise a dismal space.  It would also offer more equitable access to views of the street and therefore increase the amenity for the occupants.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel remains concerned regarding compliance with SEPP 65 and RFDC requirements. The Panel recommends that the issues could be suitably addressed by appropriate conditions.

 

The Panel does not need to review this application again.

 

7.4 State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality for Residential Flat Developments

The proposal has been referred to the Design Review Panel three times since being submitted.  The principles have been considered in detail.  The proposal is considered to have been adequately amended, to allow approval to be granted in terms of SEPP 65, subject to further conditions.  Conditions will be included to ensure that additional improvements are achieved, including the adequate treatment of the visible facades on the sides of the building to improve the overall amenity of the area.

 

The proposal to retain the existing building stock is considered a sustainable outcome.  The internal layout has been adapted wherever possible to ensure that each dwelling addressed each of the principles.  The proposal is constrained by the existing floor space however the applicant has endeavoured to address concerns previously raised relating to amenity, solar access and ventilation. This has partially been achieved through amending the design to use the level three units as serviced apartments and partially through the provision of additional information, which demonstrates that the proposed dwellings will have an adequate level of amenity.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

·      State Environmental Planning Policy 1 Development Standards (SEPP 1)– addressed above.

·      State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality or Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

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

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998

·      Development Control Plan – Parking

·      Development Control Plan – Randwick Junction

·      Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

8.1 SEPP (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

The proposal is for the creation of 74 new dwellings and the applicant has provided a BASIX certificate in accordance with the requirements of the SEPP.  The certificate indicates that compliance with the current targets set for energy and water conservation have been met by the development.  The certificate also identifies the measures to be shown on Development Application plans to ensure these targets are maintained through to construction. 

 

8.2 Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998

The site is zoned 3A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan (Consolidation) 1998 (RLEP 1998) and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the RLEP 1998 apply to the proposal.

 

Clause 13 Zone No 3A (General Business Zone)

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zone.  The proposal will ensure that the existing building has maintained its viability, through changing the use to residential dwellings, thus addressing market trends away from the previous motel use.  The proposal allows for the upgrading of an otherwise aged building and will result in an improved urban design outcome.  The subject site provides for residential, commercial and retail uses, which service the needs of both the local and regional community.  Through utilising the existing building stock, the potential impacts on surrounding residents are minimised. 

 

 

Clause 20F Floor Space Ratio

The control for floor space ratio in the 3A zone is 2:1. The existing building exceeds the development standard.  The proposal and the numerical variation is status quo with the existing building.  A SEPP 1 is provided to address this variation, as discussed in Section 4.  The SEPP 1 is considered to be well founded and the variation is acceptable in this instance.

 

Clause 20G Building Height

The indicated building height for the site is 12m. The proposal is to maintain the existing building height. A SEPP 1 is provided to address this variation, as discussed in Section 4.  The SEPP 1 is considered to be well founded and the variation is acceptable in this instance.

 

Clause 43 Heritage Conservation

The subject site is located within a heritage conservation area.  The application and subsequent amendments were referred to Council's Heritage Planner who raised no concerns with the application.

 

8.3 Development Control Plan – Parking

The application has been referred to Council's Traffic Engineer for comment, which is provided in Section 7.1 of this report.  This provision is significantly less than the required number of car spaces.  Despite this, Randwick Junction is well serviced by bus routes, which provide a viable alternative transport option.

 

8.4 DCP Randwick Junction

The existing building predates this DCP and as is generally not compliant with the controls contained within the document.  Despite this, the subject proposal will result in an improvement to the overall amenity of the existing building and results in an improved design outcome for the built form.  As a result, the proposal is considered to improve the subject site in terms of the objectives of this DCP. 

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

Table

 

Table 4 | Assessment of the proposal against Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

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 3A General Business 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

Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Under the Draft LEP, the subject site is zoned B2 Local Centre (See table below) in which the proposal is permissible. The controls applicable over the subject site under the Draft LEP are:

 

Max FSR – 2:1

Max Building Height – 12m

 

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

The proposal generally satisfies the relevant parts of the DCP, as discussed in Section 8.4 and 8.5 of this report.

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

N/A.

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 will result in a significant increase to the population density of the area. The population increase can be adequately accommodated within the area.  Despite this the existing building has limited opportunities for noise and visual overlooking to occur. 

 

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 minimal works are proposed. 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.

 

 

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:

 

Table 5 | Consideration of the relevant controls contained within the Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Zoning:

(Please insert)

 

Is development permitted under zoning?

The proposed zoning for the subject site is B2 Local Centre

Mixed use developments and multi unit housing is permissible within the zone. 

Yes

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

2:1

4.4:1

No

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m 

As is 28.2m

No

Lot Size (Minimum)

 

 

N/A

Heritage:

Draft Heritage Item

Draft Heritage Conservation Area

In vicinity of draft item or area

Contained within a heritage conservation area.

No impact.

N/A

 

The proposal fails to comply with the numerical controls contained within the draft LEP, however the proposal is contained within an existing building on the subject site and is considered acceptable.   

 

Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

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

 

Table 6 | Section 94 Contributions.

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$345,000

1.0%

$3,450

 

Whilst there are only minimal works proposed to the building, it is considered reasonable to request a Quantity Surveyor’s costing to be provided prior to the issuing of the construction certificate and that the S94A conditions reflect the cost of works indicated in the report by the Quantity Surveyor. A suitable condition is included in the recommendation.

 

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 subject proposal for the proposed change of use at 65-71 Belmore Road, Randwick has been assessed in accordance the planning relevant controls.  The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the zoning.  The State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Objections have been upheld and the numerical non compliances to the development standards for floor space ratio and building height are considered acceptable. Consequently, the proposal is recommended for deferred commencement approval subject to the resolution with council of appropriate treatments and finishes to the external surfaces of the building.

 

Recommendation

 

A.      That the Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20C of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), relating to maximum floor space ratio and maximum building height on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

A.       B.   That the Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. 606/2012 for the upgrade of the facade, change of use from a motel to residential units, serviced apartments, retail/commercial, subdivision and associated works at No. 65-71 Belmore Road, Randwick, subject to following deferred commentcement conditions:

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

This consent does not operate until the applicant satisfies the Council, in accordance with the Regulations, as to all matters specified in this condition:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

1.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate:

a.     a breaking up of the roof terrace into smaller space and a reduction in the paved area, using landscaped planter boxes, accounting for a minimum of 20m2 of additional landscaping.

 

b.     a common laundry and clothes drying areas should be provided on the roof terrace

 

c.     a sun shelter should be introduced which has the same height as the access stairs for the roof terrace.

 

2.       The north elevation must be treated, at the height of levels 5 and 6, with a public artwork, whether in the form of a mural or sculpture that does not encroach on the side setback. Details of their public artwork must be provided to Council for approval.

 

3.       The south elevation must be treated, at the height of levels 4 to 7 on the blank portion of the wall with no openings, with a public artwork, whether in the form of a mural or sculpture that does not encroach on the side setback. Details of the public art work must be provided to Council for approval.

 

External Colours, Materials and Finishes

4.       Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted for approval.

 

Period within which evidence must be produced

The applicant must produce evidence to Council sufficient enough to enable it to be satisfied as to those matters above within 365 days (1 year) of the date of determination.

 

Clause 95(4) of the Regulation:

"The applicant may produce evidence to the consent authority sufficient to enable it to be satisfied as to those matters and, if the consent authority has specified a period for the purpose, the evidence must be produced within that period."

 

No development can lawfully occur under this consent unless it operates.

 

Note:  Nothing in the Act prevents a person from doing such things as may be necessary to comply with this condition. (See section 80(3) of the Act)

 

Note:  Implementing the development prior to written confirmation of compliance may result in legal proceedings. If such proceedings are required Council will seek all costs associated with such proceedings as well as any penalty or order that the Court may impose. No Construction Certificate can be issued until all conditions including this condition required to be satisfied prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate have been satisfied.

 

Evidence required to satisfy these conditions must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the date of this consent.

 

Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement conditions, to the satisfaction of Council, development consent is granted under Section 80 & 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following conditions:

 

B.      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

DA 0.01 revision E, DA 2.05 revision F, DA2.02 revision G, DA 2.02A revision B, DA 2.03 revision G, DA 2.04 revision I, DA 2.07 revision E, DA 3.02 revision F, DA 3.03 revision E, DA3.04 revision E, DA4.01 revision D, DA 4.02 revision C, DA 4.03 revision B, DA 4.04 revision B.

Marchese Partners International Pty Ltd

Dated 15.092010, stamped by Council 22.06.12

DA2.01 revision I and DA2.06 revision F

Marchese Partners International Pty Ltd

Dated 15.09.2010

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Multi  Dwelling

358389M

29 April 2011

 

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.

 

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

 

2.       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.

 

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.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

4.       A Quantity Surveyor’s report detailing the cost of the approved works must be provided to Council for approval prior to the construction certificate being issued. In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007 a monetary levy of 1% must be paid to Council based on the approved Quantity Surveyor’s report.

 

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

5.       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

6.       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.

 

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

7.       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).

 

8.       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) Standard 2010, relevant Australian Standards and conditions of consent, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.  Details of the required access and facilities for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans/specifications for the construction certificate.

 

BASIX Requirements

9.       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.

 

Site stability and construction work

10.     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 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 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.

 

Stormwater Drainage

11.     Stormwater runoff (from the redeveloped portion of the site) must continue to be drained and discharged to the underground drainage system in Belmore Road in front of the site to the satisfaction of the certifying authority and details of any amendments to the  proposed stormwater drainage system are to be included in the construction certificate details for the development.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of works.

 

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 Traffic Management

12.     An application for a ‘Works Zone’ and Construction Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to Councils Integrated Transport Department, and approved by the Randwick Traffic Committee, for a ‘Works Zone’ to be provided in Belmore Road for the duration of the demolition & construction works. 

 

The ‘Works Zone’ must have a minimum length of 12m and extend for a minimum duration of three months.  The suitability of the proposed length and duration is to be demonstrated in the application for the Works Zone.  The application for the Works Zone must be submitted to Council at least six (6) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site to allow for assessment and tabling of agenda for the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

The requirement for a Works Zone may be varied or waived only if it can be demonstrated in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (to the satisfaction of Council’s Traffic Engineers) that all construction related activities (including all loading and unloading operations) can and will be undertaken wholly within the site.  The written approval of Council must be obtained to provide a Works Zone or to waive the requirement to provide a Works Zone prior to the commencement of any site work.

 

13.     A detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

          Public Utilities

14.     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.

 

15.     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.

 

Certification and Building Inspection Requirements

16.     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

17.     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

18.     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 Noise & Vibration Management Plan

19.     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.

 

Temporary Site Fencing

20.     Temporary site safety fencing must be provided to the perimeter of the site throughout demolition, excavation and construction works.

 

Temporary site fences 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.

 

A ‘B Class’ overhead type hoarding is required is be provided to protect the public, located adjacent to the development, prior to the commencement of any works on the site which comprise:

 

·       any works or hoisting of materials over a public footway or adjoining premises, or

·       any building or demolition works on buildings which are over 7.5m in height and located within 3.6 metres of the street alignment.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Construction Site Management

21.     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

22.     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.

 

Public Liability

23.     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.

 

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.

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

24.     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 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.

 

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

 

·           Relevant Road / Asset Opening Permit fees, repair 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.

 

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

 

Inspections during Construction

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

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Building & Demolition Work Requirements

26.     All work and activities must be carried out in accordance with the relevant regulatory requirements, including:

·           Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 & Regulations

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

·           WorkCover NSW Requirements, Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

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

·           DECC/EPA Waste Classification Guidelines

·           Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

27.     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 (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

28.     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

29.     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.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

30.     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.

Excavations, Back-filling & Retaining Walls

31.     All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations 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 prior to commencing such excavations or works.

 

Support of Adjoining Land

32.     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.

 

Site Signage

33.     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

34.     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 1.00pm only

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   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

35.     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 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

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

 

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.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

37.     The owner/developer must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

a)     Construct/reconstruct a full width footpath along the Belmore Road site frontage, in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Randwick Commercial Centre.

 

38.     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.

 

39.     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.

 

Service Authorities

Sydney Water Requirements

40.     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.

 

Waste Management

41.     Waste Management provisions must be implemented in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by ABC Planning approved by Council’s coordinator of Strategic Waste and stamped by Council 14th August 2012.

 

42.     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 premises.

 

43.     The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

44.     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 Certificate Requirements

45.     Prior to issuing an interim or final Occupation Certificate, a single and complete Fire Safety Certificate, which encompasses 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 Fire Safety Statement must be provided to the Council on an annual basis, each year following the issue of a Fire Safety Certificate, which confirms that all the fire safety measures are operating in accordance with the relevant standards of performance.

 

A copy of the Fire Safety Certificate/Fire Safety Statement 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

46.     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

 

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

 

BASIX Requirements & Certification

48.     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 any relevant BASIX commitments and requirements have been satisfied.

 

Relevant documentary evidence of compliance with the BASIX commitments is to be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council upon issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

Occupant Safety - Windows

49.     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 safety measures must be implemented prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

Noise Control Requirements & Certification

50.     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.

 

51.     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.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE FOR STRATUM SUBDIVISION

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing a ‘Subdivision certificate’.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works.

 

52.     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 the issuing of a Subdivision Certificate.

 

53.     The applicant shall create suitable rights of carriageway, easements for services, support and stormwater lines, as required. The applicant shall be advised that the minimum easement width for any stormwater line is 0.9 metres.

 

54.     Stratum Plans submitted for the subdivision certificate shall demonstrate compliance with the following required amendments;

a)  A minimum of 7 and maximum of 10 carspaces shall be allocated to the stratum lot containing the serviced apartments.

b)  3 carspaces shall be allocated to the stratum lot containing the commercial component consistent with DA/882/2010.

c)  The remainder of the carspaces shall be allocated to the stratum lot containing the residential individual units.

d)  The roof terrace shall be allocated to the stratum lot containing the residential component.

 

55.     A formal subdivision application in respect to the stratum subdivision is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council and all stratum subdivision conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

 

56.     The application for stratum subdivision shall be accompanied by a Building Management Statement (BMS) prepared on approved form 12 from Land Property Information.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION/STRATA CERTIFICATE

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing a ‘Subdivision certificate’ or ‘Strata Certificate’.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works.

 

57.     A formal subdivision application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or an accredited certifier and all relevant conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied.

 

58.     Strata Plans submitted for the strata certificate shall demonstrate compliance with the following required amendments to the strata plans;

a.  A maximum of 1 carspace is to be allocated to each unit in the strata scheme.

 

59.     All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the proposed strata plan must be constructed.

 

60.     All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the proposed strata plan must correspond to those depicted in this development consent and construction certificate for the building.

 

61.     Details of critical stage inspections carried out by the principal certifying authority, together with any other certification relied upon, must be provided to Council or the accredited certifier.

 

62.     The applicant shall create suitable right of carriageway, easements for services and internal stormwater lines, as required. The applicant shall be advised that the minimum easement width for any internal stormwater line is 0.9 metres.

 

63.     The conditions of development consent must be satisfied and all public roads and footpaths  must be satisfactorily restored prior to endorsement of the strata subdivision plans.

 

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.

 

64.     The serviced apartments level shall be operated in accordance with the definition of “serviced apartments” contained in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

 

65.     The proposal must operate in accordance with the Plan of Management received by Council on 22 June 2012.

 

66.     Contracts for sale for the individual dwelling must include details of the available dimensions of allocated carspaces including height clearances and ramp access and noting that the existing parking layout does not comply with current Australian Standards. This is so prospective purchasers are fully aware of the existing non-compliances and limitations of the carpark.

 

67.     The following conditions have been applied to ensure that noise emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

 

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

 

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

 

Environmental Amenity

69.     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.

 

70.     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.

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 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.

 

A2      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.

 

A3      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.

 

A4      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.

 

A5      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

 

A6      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.

 

A7      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.

 

A8      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).

 

A9      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.

 

A10     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.

 

A11     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.

 

A12     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.

 

A13     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.

 

A14     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.

 

A15     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.

 

A16     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.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  9 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP62/12

 

 

Subject:                  151 - 191R Beach Street, Coogee (DA/210/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/210/2012

Author:                   GAT & Associates , Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of new bin enclosure at Coogee Surf Life Saving Club to the turning bay of the adjacent car park.

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Randwick City Council

Owner:                         Department of Primary Industries

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

Council has submitted a development application which seeks consent for the construction of a bin enclosure which is designed to house six (6) x 240 litre waste bins at the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club. As Council is the applicant, the application has been assessed by an external planning consultant and reported to Council.

 

Upgrade works have recently been completed at the Club under Council’s Building for our Community program. Part of these works included a new entry to the Beach Street elevation of the building.

 

As a result of the new entry to the Club, the existing waste storage area was made redundant. On this basis a development application for a new bin enclosure has been lodged.

 

The original location of the bin enclosure, located in a planter area, adjacent to the pathway immediately southwest of the life saving club was considered unsuitable. The reason for this was that it partially obstructed the pathway, due to the gates of the enclosure swinging outwards towards the pedestrian walkway, which forms part of the eastern beaches coastal walk.

 

In addition, it was considered that the bin enclosure compromised the aesthetic character of the locality, as the enclosure cannot be adequately screened from public view and would have been a prominent element along the eastern beaches coastal walk.

 

To address the above concerns, the bin enclosure was relocated to its current position, within the north-western portion of the existing car park. This location is considered acceptable and is supported.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The development application before Council is for a bin enclosure which is designed to house six (6) x 240 litre waste bins as required by the Club. The enclosure measures 4.6m in length, 950mm in width and has an overall height of 1.5m. This represents an area of 4.37m2.

 

The structure is proposed to be located in the north-western portion of the car park, within the leased area of the Club. This new location was considered more appropriate in that it resolved the issues relating to the original location.

 

The construction of the bin enclosure utilises the existing car park asphalt as a base for the structure, which backs onto the existing kerb in this part of the car park area. The remainder of the enclosure will consist of metal palisade fencing. Three gates are proposed, which swing outwards, accessed from the front of the structure.

 

The bin enclosure will have a lockable gate system for exclusive use by the Surf Life Saving Club. On garbage collection days, the bins will be taken from the enclosure the Beach Street frontage, towards the Carr Street end for collection and returned by staff on the same day of collections. Collections will occur on a twice weekly cycle.

 

There will be no loss of car parking spaces as a result of the proposed bin enclosure because the area in which the structure is to be located does not contain any car spaces. The turning bay, where the bin enclosure is proposed is of a sufficient size to accommodate the proposed structure and accommodate on-site vehicle manoeuvring.

 

Despite two other locations being considered within the leased area, they were initially deemed unsuitable for the following reasons:

Ocean side terrace: this location required bins to be carried up and down a flight of steps and considered not suitable for occupational health and safety reasons.

 

Car park: a new bin enclosure is likely to compromise safe manoeuvrability of traffic in this area. In addition, an enclosure would also impinge on driver sight lines, affecting pedestrian safety. This new location is not the original location ad noted above.

 

Due to the concerns raised with the original location of the bin enclosure, Council undertook a review of the enclosure’s original location. As a consequence, the car parking area immediately outside the Surf Life Saving Club was revisited, resulting in the current alternate location which will not impede traffic manoeuvring or driver sight lines within the car park.

 

There is no vegetation which will be affected by the proposed bin enclosure.

 

As the construction of the bin enclosure utilises the existing car park asphalt as a base, a condition of consent has been imposed requiring that the base of the structure meet any relevant waste management requirements for its design and construction.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

Figure 1 – Aerial photo of subject site and surrounds

 

The subject site is located on land leased by the Coogee Surf Living Saving Club (SLSC). This building has cultural significance as the home of the SLSC is one of the oldest in Australia. Founded in 1907, the Coogee SLSC is a foundation member of the surf lifesaving movement in Australia. The Coogee SLSC clubhouse sits at the southern end of Coogee beach.

 

To the east of the Club lies the South Pacific Ocean, whereas to the north is Coogee beach.

 

Grant Reserve immediately surrounds the site to the south and west. Grant Reserve comprises of a series of recreational spaces separated by banks of planting. Located at the southern end of the reserve is the children's playground.

 

Across Beach Street to the west, facing the Coogee SLSC is a series of three storey residential flat building developments. The immediate area beyond Beach Street comprises of residential flat buildings of a similar or higher density.

 

The area in which the bin enclosure is to be located is in the north-western portion of the car park, across from the footpath which forms part of the Eastern Beaches Coastal Walk, within the leased area of the Club.

 

4.    Site History

 

There are several parcels which make up Grant Reserve. A search of Councils records indicates the following applications which are applicable to the subject allotment of land where the bin enclosure is proposed:

 

1.   DA/ 230/1986 – was submitted to Council seeking consent to erect a bandstand & viewing platform. This application was approved by Council on 22 October 1986.

 

2.   DA/283/2003 - proposed an upgrade of the ladies bath involving construction of a catch drain, reconstruction & re-paving of northern stairs, creation of larger grassed areas, relocation and addition of seats, increase in the height of privacy wall, extended fencing and other related miscellaneous repairs. This application was approved by Council on 10 June 2003.

 

3.   DA/388/2007 – sought consent from Council for the construction of shade structures to the playground situated in Grant Reserve.  This development application was approved on 14 August 2007.

 

It should be noted that the bin enclosure will relate to the Surf Life Saving Club which is located on an adjacent allotment of land. The bin enclosure and the car park is exclusively used by the Club, adjoins the club building and thus is not isolated.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification of Development Application and Council Plans on two occasions, initially when the original proposal was lodged with Council, and again on a second occasion when the amended plans were submitted.

 

The application was advertised in the local newspaper on 10 April 2012.  As a result of the application being amended, the proposal was again advertised in the local newspaper on 25 July 2012.

 

5.1 Objections

The First notification period (10 April 2012 to 26 April 2012). Note that the comments provided below reflect the current plans, not the original proposal although the comments made reflect the changes as currently before Council.

 

1.     4/138 Beach Street, Coogee (two duplicate submissions)

2.     3/140 Beach Street, Coogee

3.     6/140 Beach Street, Coogee

 

The issues raised in the submission are addressed as follows:

 

Issue

Comment

Consideration to a reduction in the size of the bin enclosure to cater for a maximum of four bins

 

At present, four bins are used by the SLSC. Due to the recent upgrade works, additional bin storage is required as four bins are not considered adequate.

The enclosure is likely to attract additional rubbish to the area

 

The bins to be housed within the enclosure will not be available for public use. The gates to the structure will be locked by the Coogee SLSC and therefore will not attract additional rubbish to the area.

That caterers whom operate from the Coogee SLSC should take their rubbish with them

It is noted by the residents that at times of private functions that the amount of rubbish is increased. To manage this situation, although the additional bins would assist, as a safeguard an additional condition is recommended that requires caterers or the Club to have the rubbish removed should the bins reach capacity before the next collection.

 

On this basis, a condition of consent has been imposed as follows:

 

“In the event that the bins provided reach capacity, additional rubbish generated by caterers or the club shall be taken off site for appropriate disposal.”

 

The above condition will ensure that the bin collection area will not overflow and any surplus rubbish is either taken off site or stored in the clubhouse for alternate collection.

Increase noise on bin collection nights

As noted in this report, the SLSC at present uses four bins. Given only two additional bins are proposed by this application, the noise associated with the collection of an additional two bins, twice a week is considered to be negligible.

 

The collection of the bins will be maintained, that is to the corner of Beach and Carr Streets on collection nights.

Loss of vegetation

The amended plans do not require the removal of any existing trees or plantings. In fact we are increasing the landscaping as part of this application.

 

Second notification period, (25July 2012 to 8 August 2012)

 

1.  Laing and Simmons, Randwick on behalf of the owners of 3/138 Beach Street, Coogee; and

2.  4/138 Beach Street, Coogee

 

The issues raised in the submission are addressed as follows:

 

Issue

Comment

Due to the proposed enclosure being located opposite both of the objectors front bedrooms along Beach Street, concern is raised with noise from the emptying of bins in the early morning if the bins are emptied from the area where the proposed bin enclosure is to be located.

As noted in this report, the SLSC at present uses four bins. Given only two additional bins are proposed by this application, the noise associated with the collection of an additional two bins is considered to be negligible.

 

Notwithstanding the above , Councils Co-ordinator Buildings for our Community has confirmed that the bins will be wheeled to the corner of Carr and Beach Streets on collection nights, which is the current practice for the existing bins.

 

Those persons whom made a submission noted that if the bins are wheeled to the corner of Carr and Beach Streets on collection nights then they are satisfied.

Concern raised with the number of bins provided, as 6 is too many, and 3 bins is preferable.

At present, four bins are used by the SLSC. Due to the recent upgrade works, additional bin storage is required and is considered adequate. The bins are appropriately screened with conditions imposed to ensure provision for new landscaping around the enclosure.

Suggest alternate location north of the fire hydrant so the access to the hydrant is not impeded and will not result in conflict within the car parking area.

The location of the bin enclosure will not impede access to the fire hydrant, or result in conflict for vehicles manoeuvring within the car park area. Access to the hydrant is off the street/footpath while access to the bins is within the car park. Therefore there is no conflict.

 

Careful consideration was also given to the proposed location to avoid vehicle conflict in the car park area. The turning bay is of a sufficient size to accommodate the proposed structure and accommodate on-site vehicle manoeuvring.

 

 

5.2 Support

There was no submission to Council in support of the application.

 

It was noted that in one of the submissions received that if the bins are wheeled to the corner of Carr and Beach Streets on collection nights then the noise will be of a sufficient distance to not hear the noise.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has not been referred to technical officers for comment.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

None.

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 6A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The objectives of Zone No 6A are:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

In response to the objectives noted above, the subject site has been identified as land for the use of recreational purposes. The use of the land promotes the enjoyment of open space. On this basis the proposed bin enclosure directly relates to the use of the land in association with the Club, which provides a positive recreational use.

 

The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:

 

Clause 29, Foreshore scenic protection area

The consent of Council is required to erect a building within the foreshore scenic protection, and consent may only be granted after consideration has been given to the aesthetic appearance of the proposal in relation to the foreshore.

 

There is no objection to the new bin enclosure structure in that the structure will be within the context of a car park and service area. Notwithstanding, it is considered the foreshore and the aesthetic value of Grant Reserve and the surrounding coast will not be compromised due to the location of the structure between the car park and Coogee SLSC. Additional landscaping recommended will screen the enclosure within a landscape setting.

 

Clause 38, Development in open spaces

When determining an application for consent to carryout development on land within a 6A zone the Council must consider the need for the proposed development on that land, whether the proposed development promotes or is related to the use and enjoyment of open space, the impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use and character of the land and the need to retain the land for it’s existing or likely future use.

 

The purpose of this clause is to establish criteria for the assessment of applications for development in open space zones and provide for greater flexibility in the development of open space areas for recreation and leisure activities especially where there is an adopted plan of management.

 

The proposed installation of bin enclosure structures satisfies the objectives of this clause of the LEP in that in that it relates directly to the Club which is used and enjoyed within the surrounding open space.

 


Clause 43 Heritage Conservation

Under Clause 43, development consent is required for works on land which a heritage item is located. Referring to location map under Section 3 of this report, and the below map extract from Randwick LEP, it is noted that the subject site is not a heritage item.

Figure 2 – Randwick LEP map extract (not to scale)

 

The bin location is however within the vicinity of heritage items. However given the scale and size of the proposed structure, within a proposed landscaped setting, there will be no impact on surrounding items.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plans

There are no applicable development control plans which relate to the proposed development.

 

8.2 Council Policies

There are no applicable Council policies which relate to the proposed development.

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

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 6A 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 development is related to the use and enjoyment of open space enhance.

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

Draft Randwick LEP 2012 applies – refer to relevant section in this report.

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

Not applicable. – there are no relevant provisions of the DCP’s which apply to the proposed 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 character in the locality due to its location within a car park and service area. The proposal is not considered to result in any detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality and the bin enclosure has been located to minimise any visual impacts.

 

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

The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

 

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

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

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:

RE1 – Public Recreation

 

Is development permitted under zoning?

The proposed development is permissible with the consent of Council in the subject zone

The development is defined as a ‘community facility’

 

A community facility is permitted in the zone subject to the consent of Council.

 

Yes

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

Not applicable

Not applicable

N/A

Height of Building (Maximum)

Not applicable

Not applicable

N/A

Lot Size (Minimum)

Not applicable

Not applicable

N/A

Heritage:

·    Draft Heritage Item

·    Draft Heritage Conservation Area

·    In vicinity of draft item or area

The subject site does not contain a heritage item however it is within proximity to  the following items:

 

1.(McIver Women’sBaths) which is located approximately 135 metres away from the proposed works.

 

2. The building located on the southwest corner of Beach and Carr Street (Grand Pacific Hotel),  some 20 metres away, across the road from the proposed works.

 

3.  The Ross Jones Memorial Pool located at the Carr Street end of Coogee Beach which is also some 20m away from the proposed enclosure.

Refer to discussion under RLEP 1998.

Yes

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse Community.

Direction 2d:      New and upgraded community facilities that are multi purpose and in accessible locations.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

The estimated cost of the bin enclosure is $7,000.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

It is therefore recommended that Council as the consent authority grants development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.210/2012 for Construction of new bin enclosure at Coogee Surf Life Saving Club at 151-191R Beach Street Coogee subject to the following conditions:

 

 

Recommendation

 

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/210/2012 for Construction of new bin enclosure at Coogee Surf Life Saving Club to the turning bay of the adjacent car park at No. 151 – 191R Beach Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered Drawing -01, 02, 03 and 04 dated 23/5/2007 and received by Council on the 12 July 2012, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions.

 

Operational

2.       In the event that the bins provided reach capacity prior to the regular collection times, additional rubbish generated by caterers or the club shall be taken off site for appropriate disposal.

 

3.       The bin enclosure shall be kept clean and tidy and the gates locked at all times.

 

4.       The floor (base) of the structure shall be designed to meet Randwick Council’s design requirements for bin enclosures.

 

Landscaping

5.       Suitable landscape planting shall be provided to the northern and eastern elevation of the structure to screen the bin enclosure. Such landscaping shall:

 

a)  not grow more than 1.2m in height, and

b)  wrap around the enclosure or the eastern elevation to extend at least 0.5m; and

c)  be provided within the existing landscaped/turfed area and be approved by Councils Landscape Officer.

 

The landscaping shall be provided upon completion of the works.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

a)     a Construction Certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Temporary Site Fencing

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Construction Site Management Plan

9.       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.

 

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

10.     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

11.     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

12.     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.

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

14.     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.

 

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

15.     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.

 

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      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.

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  9 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP63/12

 

 

Subject:                  28 Arcadia Street, Coogee (DA/713/2004/C)

Folder No:                   DA/713/2004/C

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 application to modify the approved development by adding a new roof terrace and associated internal reconfiguration to Unit 4

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Peter Bakhos

Owner:                         Sebhel Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject Section 96 application is referred to Council as the original development application was determined by Council.

 

The original development application (DA/713/2004) was approved at the Health, Building and Planning Committee of 7 December 2004. The works involved demolition of the existing dwelling and construct a four (4) storey multi-unit housing development comprising of 4 x 3 bedroom apartments, basement car parking for 9 vehicles including storage areas and associated strata subdivision.

 

There have been two (2) other Section 96 modifications to the approved development which has been grant for the site under delegated authority.

 

The subject Section 96 application seeks to modify the approved development by altering the internal layout of Unit 4 to include new access stairs for the addition of a new roof terrace area.

 

The application was notified and adversities in the local paper from the 30 May 2012 to 14 June 2012 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. One (1) submission was received during the notification period.  The main issue raised in this submission related to visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Overall, subject to the reduction in size of the roof terrace and screen planter box provided to the eastern end of the terrace, it is considered in this circumstance that the proposed works will not have an unreasonable adverse impact upon the appearance of the approved building within the streetscape nor will it unreasonably impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties, particularly in relation to visual and acoustical privacy.

 

The proposed modifications satisfy the matters for consideration under Sections 79C and 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. Therefore, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to the addition of conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

It is proposed to modify the approved development in the following manner:

 

·      By adding a new concrete roof terrace to Unit 4.  The dimensions of the roof terrace is 5.24m in depth by 5.7m in width; and

·      Internal reconfiguration to unit 4 by modifications to the layout of Bathroom 4.1, Laundry 4.1 and Corridor 4.1 to incorporate an external stair to provide access to the proposed roof terrace.    

 

Additional plans were submitted indicating the dimensions and boundary setbacks of the proposed terrace area.  Also, the provision of an additional planter is proposed on the north eastern corner of the proposed terrace.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Arcadia Street between Beach Street and Arden Street. The site is located between a three storey multi unit development to the east and a two storey dwelling to the west.  To the north of the subject site (No. 143 Arden Street) is a two storey dwelling house that is listed as an item of environmental heritage. Arcadia Street is comprised of a mixture of architectural styles and densities with generally a scale of three and four storey developments with typically four units provided to each development.

 

The subject site has a total area of 697.5m² with a frontage of 13.51m and a depth of 51.6m. The site has a cross fall of approximately 10m with the site elevated approximately 5m above street level. The site is currently under construction.

 

4.    Site History

 

The original development application (DA/713/2004) was approved at the Health, Building and Planning Committee of 7 December 2004. The works involved demolition of the existing dwelling and construct a four (4) storey multi-unit housing development comprising of 4 x 3 bedroom apartments, basement car parking for 9 vehicles including storage areas and associated strata subdivision.

 

Section 96(1A) ‘A’ – An application was lodged on 6 September 2007 that sought Council consent to make relatively minor alterations to the approved development at basement level and levels 2, 3 and 4. The Section 96 application was approved under delegated authority by Council on 21 September 2007.

 

Section 96(2) ‘B’ – An application was lodged on 14 December 2007 that sought Council consent to provide additional pergola to balcony of Unit 3, new glazed awning to fenestrations of bedroom 1 of Unit 4, new glazed roof to balcony of Unit 4 & revised landscaped plans. The Section 96 application was approved under delegated authority by Council on 31 January 2008.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  The application was also advertised in the local newspaper.  As a result of this notification, one (1) submission was received:-

 

5.1 Objections

3/19 Arcadia Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed roof terrace particularly on the weekends would lead to noise and privacy disruption to their bedrooms which face Arcadia Street.

Refer to section 8.1 Policy Controls, which addresses the objectors concerns in relation to visual and acoustic privacy.

 

5.2 Support

There are no supporting letters attached with this application.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

No referrals are required for this application.

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

No Master Planning Requirements apply to this site.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (consolidation)

 

Clause 11 - No. 2B (Residential B Zone)

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

 

(1) The objectives of Zone No 2B are:

(a)  to provide 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.

  

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with objectives (a), (b), (c) of the zone. The proposal retains the medium density residential environment within Arcadia Street. The development will not alter the predominant scale of development in the area, which consists of a mixture of multi unit housing development and single and two storey residential dwellings.

 

Subject to conditions, the proposed works will not compromise the amenity of adjoining properties as there will be no unreasonable adverse impacts to adjoining properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing or fresh air.

 

Objectives (d), (e) and (f) are not relevant in this instance, as the residential use of the site will continue.

 

(b)    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:

(R3 - Medium Density Residential)

 

Is development permitted under zoning?

Alterations to the approved residential flat buildings are permitted within the Zone.

The proposal is for modifications to the approved residential flat building.  The modifications are permissible within the zone and will satisfy the relevant objectives, aims and provisions under the Draft RLEP 2012. 

Yes

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.9:1

The proposal will not be altering the approved FSR on site.

 

n/a

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

The proposal will not be altering the approved building height maximum.

 

n/a

Lot Size (Minimum)

325m²

 

n/a

 

n/a

Heritage:

· Draft Heritage Item

· Draft Heritage Conservation Area

· In vicinity of draft item or area

n/a

n/a

n/a

 

8.1    Policy Controls

a.      Development Control Plan No. Multi Unit Housing

The modified development will continue to comply with the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP – Multi Unit Housing. The residential character of the site will be maintained and the modified development is not considered to significantly impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties nor will it impact on the streetscape.

 

Amenity impacts

The proposed roof terrace area is relatively large in size and may have the potential to have a visual and acoustic privacy impacts onto the amenity of neighbouring properties.  To minimise privacy impacts and limit the number of people when entertainment occurs on the roof terrace, it is recommended that the size of the roof terrace be reduced in depth by 1.44m and to the eastern side reduced in width by 1.2m, (this will reduce the overall size of the terrace to 3.8m in width and 4.5m in depth). The front boundary setback will increase to 17.8m and to the eastern side boundary the setback will increase to 5.09m. 

 

A submission was received by the neighbouring property at no. 3/19 Arcadia Street objecting to the proposed roof terrace.  The concerns related to noise and privacy disruption to their bedrooms which face Arcadia Street.

 

The roof terrace is setback sufficiently from the front boundary and will not be readily noticeable from the streetscape.  Further, the windows of the objector’s property at no. 3/19 Arcadia Street are located approximately 40m from the proposed roof terrace. Subject to the reduction in size of the roof terrace and the fact the terrace is located a fair distance from the objector’s property, it is not considered that there will be any unreasonable amenity impacts on the visual and acoustic privacy to the objectors or neighbouring properties.

 

The 760mm high solid concrete parapet/balustrade will prevent overlooking in a down ward direction.  However, given that there are a number of windows located directly adjacent to the roof terrace at no. 30 Arcadia Street it is recommended that a fixed planter box be provided along the eastern end of the roof terrace. This would prevent direct overlooking into these windows and reduce the visual and acoustic privacy to the adjoining residential flat building.

 

To the western end there is only one small window directly adjacent to the roof terrace.  This window will be located below the terrace level and will not necessitate the requirement for the provision of privacy screening.

 

8.2    Section 96 Assessment

 

Section 96(2) ‘Other modifications’

Comments

Section 96(2)(a) - The development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all).

The development provides for minor amendment to the approved development.

 

The building footprint of the approved development will not be altered and the proposed modifications are not considered to represent a major change to the original consent. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be substantially the same as the originally approved development.

Section 96(2)(b) - It has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent.

 

N/A

Section 96(2)(c) - It has notified the application in accordance with:

(i)

The regulations, if the regulations so require, or a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent.

 

The application was placed on public exhibition in accordance with Council’s DCP – Public Notification.

Section 96(2)(d) - it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

 

Subsections (1) and (1A) do not apply to such a modification.

There is one submission in response to this application. The submission has been considered in relation to the proposed works and has been addressed in this report.

 

 

9.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

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

 

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

Refer to the “Environmental Planning Instruments” section of this report for details on the Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Draft LEP).

 

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

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

 

There is one submission in response to this application. The submission has been considered in relation to the proposed works and has been addressed in this report.

 

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:         Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 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 proposed modifications to the approved development have been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP and Council policies and plans as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended. The proposed modifications are considered to result in a development which is substantially the same as that previously approved.  Subject to the recommended conditions, the modified development will not give rise to any significant environmental impacts on adjoining properties, or have any unreasonable adverse impacts on the visual amenity and character of the streetscape.

 

As noted in the original assessment report, the proposed multi unit housing development has been reviewed against all the assessment criteria contained within Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, DCP-Parking and DCP-Multi Unit Housing.  The proposed modifications will continue to satisfy the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the control and does not unreasonably affect the amenity of the residential streetscape, heritage listed properties or adjoining neighbours.

 

The modified development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The modified development also satisfies the relevant legislation, State policies and Local planning controls, and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

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/713/2004/C for S96 Application to modify existing development consent DA/713/2004 by adding a new roof terrace and associated internal reconfiguration to Unit 4 at No. 28 Arcadia Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

1.    The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 3 101 Issue G, DA 3 202 Issue G, DA 2 300 Issue G, dated Job number 04 009 undated 27 August and 11 November 2004, strata subdivision plans surveyors reference 76199.03. L01 through to L05 submitted 13 September 2004, dilapidation report prepared by Rickard Hails Moretti P/L Ref 04-0019-180804 28 Arcadia St submitted 27 August 2004, unnumbered, undated plans submitted 2/11/04 detailing basement layout and faxed details of the structural integrity of the retaining wall dated 5/11/04 by Henry Young, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the following:

 

·      Section 96 ‘A’ - plans drawn by Allen Jack and Cottier, marked “Issue Sec96”, numbered DA2300, DA3101 and DA3202 and received by Council on 6 September 2007, only in so far as they relate to the modifications clouded on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application;  

 

·      Section 96 ‘B’ - plans drawn by Allen Jack and Cottier Architects,  dated 28 November 2008, and received by Council on 14 December 2007; and

 

·      Section 96 ‘C’ plans numbered DA2300 (Issue C), DA3101 (Issue C) and DA3202, drawn by Allen Jack and Cottier Architects, dated 15 May 2012, and received by Council on 16 May 2012; and addition plans numbered DA2301 (Issue A) & DA3203 (Issue A), drawn by Allen Jack and Cottier Architects, dated 23 July 2012, and received by Council on 27 July 2012,

 

only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.

 

Condition No.’s 124 & 125 are added:

124.    The proposed roof terrace must be reduced in size by increasing the setback to 17.8m from the southern edge of the roof terrace to the front boundary and 5.09m from the eastern edge of the terrace to the eastern boundary.

 

125.    A fixed planter box must be provided to the eastern end of the roof terrace.  The planter box must be 900mm in width by 900mm in height.  The proposed plant species must be able to attain a maximum height of 600mm above the soil level, to restrict overlooking of the adjoining property at No. 30 Arcadia Street.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  9 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP64/12

 

 

Subject:                  4 McLennan Avenue, Randwick (DA/140/2010/A)

Folder No:                   DA/140/2010/A

Author:                   Matthew Choi, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) application to modify the consent by adding new laundries and decks/balconies to the rear of the building

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Jacino Management Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Jacino Management Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The section 96 application is referred to Council as the original development application was determined by Council.

 

The original application was approved at Council’s Planning Committee Meeting on the 8 June 2010 for the demolition of outbuildings, alterations and additions to the existing multi-unit housing building and strata subdivision into 4 residential lots (SEPP 1 to FSR control).

 

The subject application is for the addition of new laundries, ground floor decks and first floor balconies to the rear of the multi-unit development.

 

The proposal was notified from the 11 of July to the 25 of July 2012 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. One (1) submission was received at the conclusion of the public consultation process. The issues raised in the objection primarily relate to the visual and acoustic privacy impacts from the construction of the new ground floor and first floor balconies. The applicant has addressed the objectors concerns by reducing the width of the balcony to be in line with the approved width of the balcony under the previous consent.

 

The approved development of DA/140/2010 featured an FSR of 0.79:1 which does not comply with the 0.65:1 maximum FSR for buildings located in 2C zoned land with a site area less than 700m² under Clause 20F(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (consolidation). The above amendments of DA/140/2010/A will result in an additional 11 square metres of floor space to the approved 281 square metres of floor area and will equate to an FSR of 0.82:1.

 

Despite the increase in floor area from the original consent the proposed addition will not be visible from the streetscape and the proposal will not significantly contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development. As discussed in the relevant section of this report, the proposed modifications do not give rise to unreasonable amenity impacts as the modifications will result in improving the internal amenity to the occupants and will not significantly compromise privacy levels to the adjoining dwellings. The proposal is considered to be substantially the same development as was originally approved and satisfies Section 96 of the Act.   

 

Concerns were received by an adjoining neighbour that unauthorised building works had been carried out without Council’s consent being granted. An inspection was carried out by Council’s Environmental Health and Building Compliance Officer on 3 September 2012 and it was revealed the building works had commenced and were not consistent with the approved consent under DA/140/2010. The works include the commencement of the balcony and laundry on the ground level at the rear of the subject premises that were proposed under the subject section 96 application. Council’s Regulatory Building Section is aware of the matter and have served a notice of intention to serve an order. Council will hold in abeyance any further action until the subject section 96 application (DA/140/2010/A) has been assessed by Council for the modification to the approved development consent by adding new laundries decks/balconies to the rear of the building. 

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The subject section 96 application seeks to modify the approved development with the addition of new laundry facilities, ground floor decks and first floor balconies to the rear of the multi-unit development.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is rectangular in shape and contains a two storey residential flat building containing 4 units. The surrounding area contains a mixture of similar multi-unit developments and single residential housing. Directly to the east and west of the subject site are existing multi-unit developments and to the north is a pair of detached dwelling houses with frontages along Fraser Street and Ethne Avenue. 

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1.  The existing subject site

 

2. The rear of the existing dwelling

3. View to the rear adjoining neighbour at no. 15 Ethne Avenue

4. View to the rear adjoining neighbour at no. 13 Fraser Street

 

 

4.    Site History

 

DA/140/2010:

A development application was approved on the 8th of June 2010 for the demolition of outbuildings, alterations and additions to the existing multi-unit housing building and strata subdivision into 4 residential lots (SEPP 1 to FSR Control).

 

5.    Technical Officers Comments

 

Building Regulation and Compliance

Council’s Environmental Health and Building Compliance officer has advised the Planning officer that unauthorised building works pertaining to the subject section 96 modification have been carried out without Council’s consent. The works currently include the partial construction of the balcony and laundry on ground level at the rear of the subject premises. The building works commenced are inconsistent with the approved consent under DA/140/2010 and Council’s Regulatory Building Section have issued a notice of intention to serve an order.

 

    

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

The subject application was notified from 11 July to the 25 July 2012 to the adjoining and nearby properties in accordance with the Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The application was also advertised in the local newspaper on 11 July 2012. The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.  

 

13 Fraser Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

The objector is concerned that the increase of the first floor balconies by a further 800mm will compromise visual privacy.

Noted. The applicant has provided amended plans to Council to minimise the impact of overlooking from the first floor balconies by altering the length and width of the balconies. The reduction in the width to a 1 metre balcony is not envisaged to result in any appreciable visual privacy impacts than as approved under the original consent. The proposal will continue to provide the enjoyment of visual and acoustic privacy to the objectors property.

Concern that the proposal will result in pruning of the objectors trees given the proximity of the works.

There are no existing trees, (covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order), that will be affected by this proposal. Consequently under Common Law the occupant/owners of no. 4 McLennan Avenue have the right to cut an overhanging branch back to the property boundary without Council approval if it is less than six (6) metres in height and/or less than four (4) metres across the canopy of less than one (1) metre in trunk circumference at one (1) metre above ground level.

The proposal will result in acoustic privacy impacts if windows and balcony doors are open

The proposal is not expected to result in any unreasonable acoustic privacy impacts and is considered acceptable within a Residential 2C zone.

 

6.1      Support

No letters of support were received.

 

7.    Section 96 Amendment

 

Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria has been complied with:

 

7.1      Substantially the same development

The proposal will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted. The section 96 modification involves a rear addition to incorporate new laundry facilities, ground floor decks and an increase in the length of the first floor balcony. The proposed works will not significantly increase the bulk and scale of the approved development and will not result in any appreciable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining dwellings or the character of the locality.

 

7.2      Notification and consideration of submissions

The application has been advertised and notified in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The issues raised in the submission have been addressed within the body of this report.

 

7.3      Consultation with relevant public authorities

No referrals to other public authorities are required

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (consolidation)

The site is zoned Residential 2C under RLEP 1998 (consolidation). The proposed works will not compromise the appearance of the multi-unit development within the streetscape given the modifications will not be visible from McLennan Avenue. The proposal does not alter the overall form and function of the development as approved and will continue to comply and uphold the main aims and objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

 

The following clauses of the LEP are relevant to the proposed modification:

 

8.1    Clause 20E: Landscaped Area

Clause 31 of the LEP states that a minimum of 50% of the site must be provided as landscaped area for multi-unit housing.

 

The proposal will result in a landscaped area of 52% of the subject site. Complies.

 


8.2    Clause 20F: Floor Space Ratio

Clause 20F of the RLEP 1998 (consolidation) states that a maximum floor space ratio for land zoned 2C is 0.9:1. However, if the site is located on land zoned 2C and has less than a total site area of 700m²; the floor space ratio is 0.65:1. The subject site has a site area of 355.8m² and therefore a maximum FSR of 0.65:1 is permissible on site. The original application was approved with an FSR of 0.79:1, and as such a SEPP 1 objection was submitted against the development standard and supported by Council. The proposed development will increase the floor space ratio to the site, achieving 0.82:1.

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

Gross Floor Area

Existing building

0.75:1

266.9 m²

Approved development

0.79:1

281.1 m²

Current modifications

0.82:1

291.8 m²

Permissible Floor Space Ratio/Gross Floor Area

0.65:1

231.3 m²

Section 96 Floor Space Ratio/Gross Floor Area in excess of LEP development standard

0.10:1

60.5

 

The subject modification will increase the deviation from the FSR development standard as compared to the approved scheme. Given that the current application is made pursuant to Section 96 of the EP&A Act, no SEPP 1 Objection is required to justify the variation from the statutory control. It is considered that the proposed FSR is satisfactory for the following reasons:

 

·      The extent of the increase in gross floor area (being 11m2) is minor in nature and there are no significant changes to the approved building envelope. The built form will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts in terms of overshadowing, views and privacy intrusion than the approved development. 

 

·      The proposed addition will not impact the amenity of the streetscape nor will it detract from the individual character as the proposed laundry area is located to the rear of the existing dwelling and will not be readily visible from the public domain.

·      The proposal involves the installation of a new first floor balcony on the northern elevation of the multi-unit development. Whilst the balcony is not technically included in floor space calculation, it has implications on visual bulk of the development.

 

The applicant has amended the plans to reduce the width of the balcony from 1.8 metres to 1 metre. This reduces the width of the balcony to be aligned with the approved balcony width and will maintain the occupants and neighbours requirements for visual and acoustic privacy.

 

The proposed modification is considered to be reasonable and will not result in significant additional impacts on the adjoining properties. The proposal is consistent with the aims of the LEP and the 2C zoning objectives in that the built form will not compromise the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality. The deviation from the FSR control is therefore supported.

 


8.3    Clause 20G: Building Heights

Clause 20G of the RLEP 1998 (consolidation) imposes a maximum overall building height of 12 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C. It also imposes a maximum external wall height of 10 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C

 

The maximum overall building height of the proposed rear addition will result in a building height of 6.3 metres and an external wall height of 6.1 metres. Complies.

 

9.    Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (consolidation)

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

 

Zoning:

(Please insert)

 

Is development permitted under zoning?

The proposed development is permitted and consistent with the objectives of the zone.

 

Complies

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.9:1

0.82:1

Complies

Height of Building (Maximum)

12 metres

6.3 metres

Complies

Lot Size (Minimum)

Existing allotment

 

Complies

 

10. Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan: Multi-Unit Dwellings

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

 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Height

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

 

The proposal will largely remain sympathetic to the existing multi-unit dwelling in terms of visual bulk and scale and will continue to correspond with the local context. The proposed building height will not protrude above the existing multi-unit development and is located at the rear of the building. Consequently it will not compromise the appearance of the dwelling or the street presentation from the streetscape.  

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.

 

Building Setbacks

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

§ Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

§ Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces.

§ Landscaping and private open space provided.

§ Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

The proposed development has an average building side setback of 1.25 metres from the eastern side boundary and 3.054 metres from the western side boundary. The proposed side setback will maintain the existing setback of the multi-unit development and will continue to integrate with the desirable characteristics of the surrounding multi-unit developments. The adjoining multi-unit developments at no. 2 and 6 McLennan Avenue share a similar side setback as the one proposed and is not expected to result in any adverse amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings, private open space or communal dwellings.  

P3  Rear Boundary Setbacks

Ensure that:

§ Solar access and overshadowing are minimised.

§ Privacy between neighbouring dwellings and their open spaces provided.

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

§ Building built across site.

S3  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 8 metres.

No part closer than 6 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation 10 metres.

The construction of the laundry addition will reduce the rear setback from 5.1 metres (as approved under DA/140/2010) to 3.34 metres. However, the proposal will continue to meet the performance requirements and objectives of the DCP as the design is considered to have provided adequate separation between the extension and the adjoining properties and will not result in a detrimental environmental impact. The proposal will maintain solar access to the adjoining premises (no. 2 and no.4 McLennan Avenue) and will not create any significant additional overshadowing impacts given that the orientation of the site allows shadowing to primarily fall on McLennan Avenue. Privacy has been minimised by a reduction in the size of the proposed first floor balconies and the installation of masonry privacy blade walls on the eastern and western edges will provide reasonable levels of amenity to the neighbouring premises. Finally, the rear boundary setback will be in keeping with

 

 

the characteristics of the adjoining property which shares a similar rear setback as proposed on the subject site which generally conforms to the setback of the adjoining properties.

 

In consideration of the above, the rear boundary setback is considered acceptable and is not expected to contribute to any additional adverse impacts to the neighbouring dwellings or the streetscape. The works will continue to comply with the Council’s objectives and performance requirements with the DCP for Multi-Unit Dwellings.

 

Density

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

0.65:1

0.82:1. Does not comply. See assessment under Clause 20F: Floor Space Ratio.

Landscaping and Private Open Space

P1  Landscaped Areas

Areas are sufficient size allow recreational activities and substantial vegetation.

 

S1 Minimum for landscaped area 2 metres.

Complies.

P6  Flats and apartments

Each dwelling has direct access to an area of private open space.

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

The proposal seeks to provide ground floor decks and an increase in the length of the first floor balconies. This will allow each unit direct access to an area of private open space. Complies.  

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

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

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

The proposed extension of the first floor balcony and ground floor decks will preserve existing privacy levels to the adjoining sites, in particular to the rear at no. 15 Ethne Avenue and 13 Fraser Street. The applicant has provided amended plans to Council to minimize the impact of overlooking from the first floor balconies by altering the length and width of the first floor balconies and installing masonry privacy blade walls on the eastern and western edge of the balcony. The reduction in the width to a 1 metre balcony is not envisaged to result in any appreciable visual privacy impacts than the approved consent and direct views to the east and west will be appropriately screened. Further, due to the size constraints of the balcony it is not expected to allow for any significant number of persons to occupy the balcony and impact acoustic privacy from noise-generating activities. 

 

In relation to the slightly elevated nature of the ground floor decks, overlooking to the adjoining property at the rear will not be possible given that an existing 1.8 metre rear boundary fence with vegetation above will screen any potential views into the neighbouring property. The proposal is considered acceptable in complying with the performance requirements and objectives of the DCP for Multi-Unit Housing in regards to Visual and Acoustic privacy.   

 

P3  Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

Design, orientation, siting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

 

The adjoining premises (no.2 and 4 McLennan Avenue) will maintain solar access and the proposed works will not create any significant additional overshadowing impacts given that the orientation of the site allows shadowing to primarily fall on McLennan Avenue. Consequently, the proposal will continue to allow (3) three hours of sunlight over the neighbouring dwellings living area and (3) three hours over at least 50% of its area throughout the year. Complies. 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

b.      Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

Under Clause 25J of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 the proposed cost of carrying out development is to be determined when:

 

10.1    The proposed cost of carrying out development is to be determined by Council, for the purposes of this plan, by finding the sum of all the costs and expenses that have been or are to be incurred by the applicant in carrying out the development, including the following:

 

10.1.1     If the development involves the erection of a building, or the carrying out of engineering or construction work – the costs of or incidental to erecting the building, or carrying out the working, including the costs (if any) of and incidental to demolition, excavation and site preparation, decontamination or remediation.

 

The subject section 96 application seeks to modify the approved development by construction of new laundry facilities, ground floor decks and alterations to the balconies on the first floor level. The modifications involve additional building works that were granted under the original consent and subsequently increase the cost of works from $200,000 (as specified under DA/140/2010) to $482,450 as part of the subject section 96.

 

In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, the following monetary levy must be paid to Council.

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost

$100,001 - $200,000

-

0.5%

-

Development Cost

More than $200,000

$482,450

1.0%

$4,824.50

 

Must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card

 

Notwithstanding the above given the applicant has paid the necessary Section 94A contributions cost under the original consent (prior to the issue of the construction certificate). The remaining levy amount of $3,824.50 must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the proposed development. Condition no. 3 has been amended to reflect this.

 

11. Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

 

Refer to Section 7: Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

Refer to Section 8: Draft Environmental Planning Instruments 

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

Refer to Section 9a: Policy Controls - Development Control Plan Multi-Unit Housing

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. The proposal is not considered to result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

 

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

The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

 

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

 

Refer to Section 5: Community Consultation. 

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

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Leadership in sustainability, excellence in urban design and

development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the existing multi-unit development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 1998 (consolidation), the Draft RLEP 2012, the relevant council policies including the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended. The proposed modification will result in substantially the same development as that previously approved and will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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/140/2010/A for permission to modify to the approved development to include new laundry and decks/balconies to the rear of the dwelling at 4 McLennan Avenue, Randwick in the following manner:

 

          Amend Condition No. 1 and 3to read:

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 30/09, sheet 1 of 2, dated 16 April 2010 and received by Council on 10 May 2010, plan numbered 30/09, dated 22 May 2009 and received by Council on 3 March 2010, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered 040/11, sheet 4 – 5, dated 16 April 2010 and received by Council on 6 August 2012, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

3.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, based on the development cost of $482,450.00, the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $4,824.50.

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a occupation 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.

 

        Add Condition 44 to read:

44.   A certificate must be obtained from a professional engineer prior to the    issuing of a new or amended construction certificate which confirms that the variations carried out prior to the issuing of the Section 96 determination satisfy the requirements of the Building Code of Australia.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                  9 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP65/12

 

 

Subject:                  1-3 Jenner Street, Little Bay (DA/348/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/348/2012

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Construction of a part 4, part 5 storey multi-unit residential development with basement level car parking comprising 73 units, 88 car park spaces and 31 bicycle spaces, associated works, and dedication to Council of an affordable housing unit under a Voluntary Planning Agreement (SEPP1 objections to No. of storeys, wall height, maximum height and FSR controls) (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Moorgate Property Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Norwent Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Deferred Commencement Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

Introduction

 

The subject proposal is referred to Council for determination as it has a development that has a cost of development of $18,474,723 million and involves variations to the FSR, wall and building height development standards in excess of 10%. 

 

Following concerns raised by the Design Review Panel, amended plans were submitted on 31 July 2012 incorporating changes primarily comprising revised layouts to reduce the depth of the entry under croft on Jenner Avenue, revised layout of units on all floors directly above the main entry to improve solar access and ventilation to rear southern bedrooms; reconfiguration of the eastern lift and lobby area; incorporation of the rear external stairs on the eastern Park Wing into the building envelope; and  provision of clerestory roof light to improve energy efficiency and ventilation.

 

The amended plans were not required to be re-notified as the amendments represent improvements to the proposal as required by the Design Review Panel with minimal new fenestration or no significant increase in the original building envelope to warrant re-notification. These amended plans are the subject of this report, and are considered to be satisfactory, addressing an improved overall proposal in relation to visual bulk and scale, aesthetics and energy efficiency.

 

The amended proposal has an FSR of 1.45:1 (5866 sqm) compared with the maximum 1:1 FSR standard applicable in Residential 2D zone under the Randwick LEP 1998. The amended proposal also has a maximum wall and building height of 17.06 m (at RL 52.46) which also does not comply with the maximum wall and building height standard of 14m and 15m respectively under the Randwick LEP 1998.  State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) Objections have been lodged in support of the variation to the FSR and height standards. The SEPP 1 Objections have been assessed and found acceptable as the subject site was previously approved for a 4 storey aged care development with an FSR of 1.36:1 (5514 sqm) so that, when compared to this previous approval, the additional floor area amounts to 352 sqm. As such, the bulk and scale of the proposed development will not be excessive but will be consistent with the existing scale and character of development in the immediate streetscape along Anzac Parade which is predominantly comprised of 4 storeys with recessed loft levels. Additionally, developments at No. 2-7 Jenner Street and 2-8 Pine Avenue have been approved at FSRs in excess of 1.5:1. Overall, the breaches in FSR and height are not considered to translate to a perceptibly bulky and excessively scaled building that does not relate appropriately with the context of the surrounding development and natural environment. Rather, the proposed development will be in an area of the City where the character of development is changing significantly as part of the overall master plan redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site, especially along Anzac Parade. A number of multi-unit developments of similar bulk and scale have already been developed in the Prince Henry site along Anzac Parade. The proposed development will be lower in absolute height than these adjoining existing multi-unit housing developments, and therefore will not be out of character with these existing developments. Additionally, the new buildings will not have any adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views as assessed in Section 10 of this report.

 

The applicant has lodged a separate application under Section 60 of the Heritage Act 1977 for approval to carry out the proposed activity on the subject site which is located on land listed on the State Heritage Register. The Heritage Council has advised of its approval of the application in a letter dated 7 August 2012. Accordingly, Council can proceed to determine the application as recommended in this report.

 

The proposal complies with the provisions of the Prince Henry DCP and numerical car parking requirement of the DCP – Car parking.

The DA is accompanied by a draft Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) between the developer and Council, pursuant to Section 93E of the Act for the dedication of one dwelling unit to Council for the provision of affordable housing. As detailed in Section 10 below the VPA has been assessed against Council’s Planning Agreements Policy and primarily satisfies the purpose and acceptability test set out in the policy.

 

Three objectors have raised issues relating to height, bulk and scale, view loss and   parking and non-compliance with development standards. The objectors’ issues are addressed in relevant sections of this report.

 

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

 

The application is considered suitable for deferred commencement approval subject to conditions.

 

1.      Site description and locality

 

The subject site is located in the northern part of the Prince Henry Site within Precinct P1 identified in the DCP – Prince Henry Site, and on the corner of Jenner Street and Anzac Parade. 

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of subject site

 

The subject site comprises Lot 9 DP 270427 has an area of 4055 sqm and is generally flat with a gentle slope towards the west. It has a 50m frontage to Jenner Street on the northern boundary and a 75m frontage to Anzac Parade on the western boundary.

 

The subject site is within the western part of the development area, on the south eastern corner of Jenner Street and Anzac Parade.  The site has a western boundary to the Oval/Macartney Park, and a southern boundary to adjacent residential lots.  The site is located within Precinct 1 as identified in the Prince Henry site Development Control Plan.  This precinct lies to the east of the Historic Precinct, and is separated from it by other parks, roads and residential allotments.

 

Photo1 : Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The subject site (middle vacant) viewed internally from Macartney Oval with apartment blocks at 7 Jenner Street to the left and 2-4 Jenner Street to the right.

2. Adjoining mixed use development to the south at 2-8 Pine Avenue and 1-3 Pine Avenue beyond marking the activity centre at the main entrance to the Prince Henry development.

 

3. The subject site (right) looking south-east towards No 7 Jenner Street and the Prince Henry Site and beyond.

4. Existing residential development to the north west on the opposite side of Anzac Parade.

 

2.      History

 

The site forms part of the wider Prince Henry site which is the subject of a Master Plan/Deemed DCP adopted on 27 May 2003 and subsequently amended on 18 October 2005, 30 May 2006 and July 2006.

 

Following gazettal of an amendment to the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 on 26 November 2004 and the Prince Henry site was rezoned to a mix of 2D Residential (Comprehensive Development), 6 Special Uses and 7 Environmental Protection. The amendment also prescribed height, FSR and landscape area requirements for development within the 2D area of the site. In July 2004, the Prince Henry Site DCP was approved by Council and became effective after the gazettal of the subject amendment to RLEP1998.

 

DA/3/2005

 

Erection of a 4-level multi-unit development containing 44 self-care apartments for seniors, including basement car parking for 57 vehicles.

 

Approved – 11 October 2005

DA/451/2009

Change of use from aged self-care apartments to multi-unit housing apartments and strata subdivision.

Withdrawn – 4 November 2009

 

The proposal was subject of PreDA (PL/15/2012) which was referred to the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel in April 2012. The applicant subsequently amended the proposal to incorporate the Panel’s advice as reflected in the current DA scheme.

 

3.      The proposed development

 

The amended proposal lodged on 31 July 2012 incorporated the following amendments:

 

§ Line of the main front entry doors brought forward toward the Jenner Street to increase solar access thus also reducing the depth of the undercroft at the main entry area below.

§ Eastern lift has been shifted further south to widen the opening to the east to improve light and ventilation of lobby space

§ Revised layout and design of the apartments above the main entry space (proposed units 201 and 207) by reducing the maximum depth of these units

§ Straightened south wall of units 01 and 07 on all floors to create a more regular façade and remove the awkward window to bedroom 2 of unit 201 and realigning the party wall between the units to ensure all bedrooms share fairly equal access to light and air. Effectively the glass-line to glass-line depth of these units is reduced to distance to approximately 15 metres and greatly improves the amenity to these rear bedrooms.

§ the recessed landscape area adjoining Unit 113 made into private open space for Unit 113.

§ Reconfiguration of units 115, 215, 315 and 415 so that the rear stairs at the southern end of the Anzac Parade wings is integrated into the building envelope.

§ Increase the size of bedroom windows in units on Level 5 and installation of skylights to bathrooms with openings no higher than the proposed roof line.  

§ All bathrooms with external wall provided with operable windows.

 

Accordingly, the amended proposal has the following development statistics:

 

No. of dwelling units

73

Apartment mix

17 x 1 bedroom

26 x 1 bedroom + study

20 x 2 bedroom

10 x 2 bedroom + study

Parking

88 car spaces

31  bicycle spaces

FSR

1.45:1 (5866 sqm)

Max Building Height

17.06m at north-western corner of roof top over loft level at RL52.46

Landscaping

Total : 53%of total site area  (approximately 1224 sqm)

Deep Soil : 30% of landscaped area (approximately 693 sqm)

Setbacks

Front (Anzac Parade): max 5m to Anzac Parade (to glass-line);

Secondary to Jenner Street:  min. 2m and max 7m (to glass line)

Side setback to pedestrian accessway: min 5.3m

Rear southern: Min. 5.8m and max 6m to southern boundary (to glass line);

 

Table 1: Development statistics for the proposal

 

Car parking is provided in a single basement level containing 88 car spaces. The basement levels also contain storage areas, plant rooms and bicycle spaces.

 

Vehicular access is provided via single driveway from Jenner Street The proposal will also involve associated landscape works and utility service installation.

 

4.      SEPP No. 1 objections

 

Clause 20C (2) - Floor space ratios

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained with Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 being Clause 20C – Site specific development controls.

 

A maximum FSR standard of 1.0:1 (4055 sqm) is applicable to the subject site pursuant to Clause 20C (2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The proposal will result in an FSR of 1.45:1 (5866 sqm).

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards (SEPP 1), and has argued that strict compliance with Clause 20F of Randwick LEP is unreasonable and unnecessary. Principles for assessing SEPP No. 1 Objections have been established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. 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. The principles established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council are addressed in the assessment of the applicant’s current SEPP 1 Objection:

 

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 maximum FSR standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

To provide for controls in relation to the size, scale and site coverage of development on land the subject of a built form control map inset.”

 

The applicant has submitted the following arguments in support of the SEPP1 Objection:

 

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

 

·      The excess floor area arises primarily in the loft level on the Anzac Parade Wing. The potential for the non-compliance to result in an undesirable and intrusive built form is unlikely as it will be stepped and setback from the Anzac Parade and Jenner street building lines making this loft feature  relatively imperceptible from the street (see Figures 2 and 3 below). The recessed nature of this loft element results in a massing and design that not only matches existing adjoining buildings with frontage to Anzac Parade but also will be lower in absolute height than these buildings.

 

Figure 2: Montage to Anzac Parade with part recessed loft level above. Similar recessed loft levels have been approved and developed in adjoining developments at No 2-8 Pine Avenue on the right, and at No. 2-4 Jenner Street to the left.

 

Figure 3: Montage to Jenner Street with loft level roof overhang on the eastern section (building on the right).

 

·      When compared with the maximum FSR control of 1:1 (4055 sqm), the additional floor area amounts to 1811sqm. However, when compared with the floor area approved under the previous aged care development under DA/3/2005 (max FSR of 1.36:1 or 5514 sqm) the additional floor area amounts to 352 sqm. Furthermore, the proposal will have a more compact footprint than the approved aged care development (see Figure 4 below) allowing for more landscape area and better landscape treatment.

 

Figure 4: Footprint of the proposal (shaded dark grey) superimposed on the footprint of the previous approved aged care development (red dashed outline) under DA/3/2005.

 

·      The numerical non-compliance in FSR is not considered to translate to a perceptibly bulky, excessively scaled building that does not relate with the context of the surrounding development and natural environment. Nor will the proposal have a bulk and scale that would be visually intrusive in the existing coastal and heritage setting. Rather, the proposed building will generally occupy the designated permissible footprint in the DCP (thus providing for adequate open space at ground level both privately for individual dwellings and in common as a central courtyard and adjoining southern corridor).

 

·      The compact and refined building footprint of the proposed development will allow for more landscaped area (49.2% or 1998.7 sqm) to be provided than the minimum 40% (1622 sqm) required under the Randwick LEP. As such, the proposal has a maximum FSR that operates well with the control for 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. Accordingly, the increase in FSR does not result in a reduction in landscaping as the proposal complies with the minimum 40% (of site area) landscaped area requirement of the Randwick LEP, providing for 49.2% of site area as landscaped area. The compliant landscape treatment will provide adequate areas for landscaping which will mitigate the bulk and scale of the proposed development. It will also allow for a quality landscape treatment that appreciates the existing coastal and heritage setting whilst creating functional and useable spaces for future residents.

 

·      The proposal will have an architectural design comprising primarily an inverted u-shaped built form with a major wing section that crucially will strengthen the streetscape edge along Anzac Parade and wrapping around into Jenner Street as envisioned in the Prince Henry Master Plan/Deemed DCP and Prince Henry DCP. This Parade wing has been designed to reduce its apparent scale and respond to the contextual character, including a well modulated framed bay design containing recessed balconies and recessed flat pavilion roof-forms. The Parade wing is complemented by a more subdued and low-key Park wing section on the eastern side which frames a section of Macartney Park. This Park wing will not be dominant or overbearing consistent with the established ‘building frame’ provided by the built form at No 7 Jenner Street on the adjoining site to the south-east.

 

·      the proposal will maintain adequate levels of amenity for the proposed development especially in terms of solar access, ventilation and landscaping. The new buildings will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring properties in terms of solar access, privacy and views (see Section 10 below).

 

·      The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that:

 

1.     It fulfils the Masterplan principle contained in the Prince Henry Masterplan (Section 5.5 page 10), namely to

 

·    Create a new residential and community precinct within a site of natural beauty and heritage significance

·    Retain openness and well-being felt by people on the site which is so dominated by the natural elements of open sky, sea and coastal winds.

·    New building faces generally to be parallel to street alignments.

 

2.     It will promote the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site, specifically in this case, for multi-unit housing to form an appropriate medium to high density built form and massing which will integrate well with the existing adjoining multi-unit housing developments along Anzac Parade.

 

3.     It will implement the amended Prince Henry DCP Precinct P1 Objectives (Section 7.3, page 57) namely “To encourage a mix of housing types”. The FSR control in question is a development standard contained in the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

4.     It will implement the Prince Henry DCP Precinct Performance Criteria (Section 7.2, page 54) that requires that “New buildings are to present a strong built edge to Anzac Parade and Pine Avenue.”

 

·      The proposed development will also result in an improved urban environment, ensuring an orderly and economic use of land for urban consolidation in the Prince Henry site with minimal adverse environmental and amenity impacts on neighbouring uses and locating these in close proximity to public transport, regional centres and services.

 

In conclusion, the proposal has adequately addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard and the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The SEPP 1 objection has been provide that appropriately justifies that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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 FSR control is consistent with the aims of the SEPP No.1 because it would not detract from the objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) in that the resultant development would promote the orderly use and development of the subject land because

 

·      it will have a height, bulk and scale that will not detract from the predominant existing character of its specific location containing predominantly medium to high density residential development forming part of the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site. 

 

·      it will create additional floor area that will not negatively impact upon the amenity of adjoining and surrounding uses  in terms of privacy, solar access, views and visual bulk and scale 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. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the medium to high density residential built forms in the locality, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development. Additionally, there is no public benefit in maintaining the FSR control in this case given the considerations outlined in Matter 1 above.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

 

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Second

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Third

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

 

Comments:

Compliance would, in this case, be unreasonable as the underlying objectives of the standard is 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 maximum 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 2D zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality, which is characterised by medium to high density residential development. 

 

Clause 20C (4)           Building Heights

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

 

The maximum storey, wall and building height standards are prescribed in Clause 20C (4) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal varies from these standards as follows:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum number of storeys

Maximum 4 storeys

 

 

Building A: Maximum part-4 and part-5 storeys

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Wall Height

Maximum 14m

 

 

Maximum 17.06m

 

 

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

 

Maximum Building Height

 Maximum 15m

 

Maximum 17.06m

 

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

 

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

·      Comments:

The stated purpose of the storey, building and wall height standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

To provide for controls in relation to the size, scale and site coverage of development on land the subject of a built form control map inset.”

 

The applicant has submitted the following arguments in support of the SEPP1 Objection:

 

 

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

 

·      The breaches in wall and building height occur on the top floor level, being the part 5th storey loft-level over the Parade Wing along Anzac Parade. Loft levels in excess of the storey, building and wall height controls have been approved for existing developments at No 1-3 Gubbuteh Road, 4-6 Gubbuteh Road and 2-4 Jenner Street. Furthermore, the adjoining mixed-use sites to the south at Nos. 1-5 and 2-8 Pine Avenue are 5 storeys in height in accordance with the maximum storey and building heights permissible under the Randwick LEP for these sites (see Figure 5 below). As such, the additional loft-level will not be visually dominant relative to these mixed use buildings.

 

Figure 5: Existing five storey mixed use development at No 2-8 Pine Avenue that immediately adjoins the subject site to the south.

 

·      The extent of the storey height non-compliances is restricted to the Anzac Parade wing where the existing site context allows for the provision of the loft level as an urban edge along Anzac Parade. It will  read as a gentle stepped element in the built form and setback from the main building lines so that, from street level, the increase in height will appear non-intrusive and from some perspective, imperceptible.  

 

·      The recessed nature of the loft element results in a massing and design that not only matches existing adjoining buildings with frontage to Anzac Parade but also will be lower in absolute height than these buildings as shown in Figure 6 below. Accordingly, the proposed development will be in keeping with the existing height and scale of multi-unit housing development in adjoining sites along Anzac Parade. In particular, it will result in a lower building (at max RL 52.46) than the adjoining residential flat buildings at No. 2-4 Jenner Street (RL 52.53), No. 4-6 Gubbuteh Road (53.45) and No. 1-3 Gubbuteh Road (RL53.05) (see Figure 3 below). The proposal will also be lower than the existing mixed use development at No. 2-8 Pine Avenue at the corner of Pine Avenue and Anzac Parade at RL53.45.


 

 

Figure 6 : Anzac Parade comparative Streetscape Elevations (proposed building with red arrow)

 

·      The Anzac Parade wing will be complemented by a more subdued and low Park Wing section on the eastern side (see Figure 7 below) which will be compliant with the maximum storey and building height controls. Additionally both wings sit on a compact inverted u-shaped footprint that allows for landscape (49.2% or 1998.7 sqm) and soft landscaping areas (29% or 1182 sqm)  well in excess of the minimum requirement under the Randwick LEP. In this regard, the proposal has maximum storey, wall and building heights that operate effectively with the control for landscaped area to limit the size, scale and site coverage of a building. The compliant landscape treatment will provide adequate areas for landscaping which will soften the proposed builtform. It will also allow for functional and useable spaces for future residents especially within the central courtyard and southern rear setback areas.

 

Figure 7: A restrained lower Park Wing section on the eastern side which complies with the maximum storey, wall and building heights standards.  This wing faces, and has direct access to, Macartney Park.

 

·      Any requirement to delete the areas in breach of the height control will be of no significant benefit in terms of reducing visual bulk and scale given that the stepped nature of the loft addition will be no more higher and different to that already approved and developed on adjoining properties at 1-3 & 4-6 Gubbuteh Road and 2-4 Jenner Street.  Accordingly, the potential for the non-compliances to result in an undesirable built form is unlikely as the proposal exhibits a thoughtful design that will blend in with the existing multi-unit developments fronting Anzac Parade and Jenner Street. It will also have an appropriate degree of articulation and facade treatment that breaks and ameliorates the built form’s presentation to the two street frontages and the Park.  Overall the proposal, will provide a positive contribution to the developing streetscape and will not adversely impact the heritage buildings located further to the east of the subject site.

 

·      The proposed development will be consistent with planning objectives for the locality in that: 

 

1.     It fulfils the Masterplan principle contained in the Prince Henry Masterplan (Section 5.5 page 10), namely to

 

·        Create a new residential and community precinct within a site of natural beauty and heritage significance

·        Retain openness and well-being felt by people on the site which is so dominated by the natural elements of open sky, sea and coastal winds.

·        New building faces generally to be parallel to street alignments.

 

2.     It will promote the redevelopment of the Prince Henry Site, specifically in this case, for multi-unit housing to form an appropriate medium to high density built form and massing which will integrate well with the adjoining redevelopments along Anzac Parade.

 

3.     It will implement the amended Prince Henry DCP Precinct P1 Objectives (Section 7.3, page 57) namely “To ensure that the bulk, scale and design of new development complements adjacent heritage buildings” and “To encourage a mix of housing types”.

 

·      The development meets the stated and underlying objectives of the height standard. As such, it is unnecessary and unreasonable to enforce the height standard in the circumstances of the case.

 

·      The proposal will not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas in terms of privacy, solar access, views and bulk and scale impacts as indicated in relevant assessment sections of this report.

 

In conclusion, the proposal has adequately addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard and the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The SEPP 1 objection has been provided that appropriately justifies that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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 maximum building and external wall height control is consistent with the aims of the SEPP No.1 because it would not detract from the objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) in that the resultant development would promote the orderly use and development of the subject land because

 

·      it will have a height, bulk and scale that will consistent with other development in the street and the wider Prince Henry Site,

 

·      it will create additional storey, building and external wall height that will not negatively impact upon the amenity of adjoining and surrounding uses in terms of privacy, solar access, views and visual bulk and scale 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. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the medium density housing forms in the locality, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development. Additionally, there is no public benefit in maintaining the storey, building and external wall height controls in this case given the considerations outlined in Matter 1 above.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Second

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Third

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

 

Comments:

Compliance would, in this case, be unreasonable as the underlying objectives of the standard is 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 maximum storey, building and external wall height development standards have 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 2D zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the immediate locality, which is characterised by medium to high density residential development. 

 

5.      Notification/Advertising

 

The subject application was advertised and notified as integrated development from 13 to 27 June 2012 in accordance with Development Control Plan – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans and the EPA Act 1979.

 

Council has received 3 submissions from the following:

 

6/2 Millard Drive, Little Bay

7 Jenner Street, Little Bay

28 Florey Street, Little Bay

 

The submissions raised issues as follows:

 

Degradation of urban quality and increase in density

Increased people and traffic and surplus of unsold units in the area

The proposal has been referred to the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel and the Panel has found the proposed changes, overall, to be reasonable and acceptable especially in terms of design, density and residential amenity (see assessment in Section 10 below). The increase in FSR over the previous approved development will be some 352 sqm which is considered reasonable and will not result in any excessive increases in population and traffic in the locality. Notwithstanding this, a Section 94A contribution will be applied where, under the terms of the Deed of Agreement for the Prince Henry site at Little Bay, Council is entitled to charge a Section 94 contribution in respect of residential areas in excess of that prescribed in the Master Plan, LEP and/or the DCP. A condition to this effect will be applied should approval be granted for the subject development.

 

Increased shortage of on-street parking

As indicated in section 10 on car parking below, the proposal will have a shortfall of 10 visitor car spaces while providing fully for the required residential car spaces. The shortfall in car parking can be reduced from 10 to 6 car spaces through a requirement for some excess storage areas in the basement to be converted into 4 additional visitor car parking. The applicant’s traffic consultant advises that the shortfall in visitor car spaces can be provided for primarily along Anzac Parade. This advice is reasonable given that there is an existing indented car parking bay directly in front of the subject site that can be utilised for car parking. Furthermore, the location of the subject site at the periphery of the Prince Henry site adjacent to Anzac Parade allows for excess car parking along Anzac Parade to be utilised rather than imposing upon on-street car parking within the Prince Henry site proper.  Additionally, the subject site has a defined footprint under the Prince Henry DCP that originally was intended for aged care housing which has a smaller car parking requirement. The proposed use of the subject site now for a permissible multi-unit housing development within the original foot print creates a degree of restriction for the higher number of car parking required. In this context, the shortfall of 6 car spaces is reasonable.

 

Failure to notify Prince Henry Little Bay Community Association

Council has fulfilled its obligation in accordance with Council's Development Control Plan (DCP) - Public Notification in notifying all relevant individual residents adjoining and surrounding the subject site of the Section 96 application. Accordingly, Council is confident that its notification of the application is compliant with the DCP; has met appropriate standards of due process; and is appropriate for the application to proceed to determination.  

 

Non-compliances of the Prince Henry DCP

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant controls contained in the Prince Henry DCP. Non-compliances in terms of density and height have been adequately assessed in the assessment of the SEPP 1 Objections in the preceding sections above. Non-compliances in relation to building depth and articulation zones have been assessed in section 10 below and the variations from the relevant controls are considered reasonable and acceptable primarily as the proposal would still achieve the relevant objectives of the standards; perform adequately in terms of bulk and scale; and would not give rise to adverse amenity impacts to adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

Impact on views to Botany Bay

The objectors in No. 7 Jenner Street have objected to loss of south-western views to Botany Bay currently available from upper level secondary balconies on the east elevation of No 7 Jenner Street. This has been assessed in Section 10 below in accordance with the view loss principles established in Tenacity vs Warringah Council. Essentially, the objections are considered unwarranted as the compliant 4th storey section of the proposal will already obstruct the distant filtered views of Botany Bay. In other words, any loss of district views to the south-west is considered warranted as even a compliant building at FSR 1:1 with 4 storeys and maximum 15m building height on the subject site would already impact on the majority of the district outlook of No 7 Jenner Street. Furthermore, the majority of the dwelling units in No. 7 Jenner Street have their living areas and associated balconies facing north and north-east towards McCartney Oval, the Prince Henry site and the ocean. These views will remain intact. It should be noted that the objection regarding view loss has come from the Strata Manager of No 7 Jenner Street and not from any particular dwelling unit owner given that all dwelling units within No 7 Jenner Street are tenanted rental properties with no owner occupiers (as advised by the Strata Manager). Nevertheless, an inspection on-site of the affected view has been undertaken in Section 10 below. The affected view is an oblique district view looking south-east across a common rear boundary and the subject site. The view loss is considered minor and relates to a non-iconic vista. Furthermore, the design of the proposal, in particular the creation of a loft level, does not exacerbate any view loss impact above and beyond that already impacted upon under a compliant scheme.  

 

The subject site is only restricted to two storey town houses

The objectors in No 7 Jenner Street claim that, when purchasing their dwelling units, vendor advice was provided to them that the subject site would only be restricted to a maximum two storey town house development such that their existing district views of Botany Bay would be preserved. Vendor advice at purchase is not a valid ground for objection or a matter for consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act. Whatever advice was provided to the owners of No 7 at purchase is a matter between the owners and the vendor. The Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) clearly indicates the allowable footprint, maximum 4 storeys and 15m building height and max 1:1 FSR applicable in the subject site. Council’s DCP – Prince Henry applies the same standards. Furthermore, a height compliant 4 storey aged care development has been previously approved on the subject site under Development Consent DA/3/2005 since 11 October 2005.

 

Devaluation of property

Changes in property values are not valid planning considerations under Section 70C of the EP&A Act.

 

6.      Technical officer and external comments

 

6.1    Development Engineering Comments

The development application was referred to Council’s Development Engineering Department and the following comments are made:

 

“An application has been received for construction of a part 4, part 5 storey multi-unit residential development with basement level car parking comprising 73 units, 88 car park spaces and 31 bicycle spaces, associated works, and dedication to Council of an affordable housing unit under a Voluntary Planning Agreement (SEPP1 objections to number of storeys, wall height, maximum height and floor space ratio controls) (Heritage Conservation Area) at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Architectural Plans by  Mijollo International  dated  23rd July 2012;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by  Mijollo International  dated  23rd July 2012;

·      Detail & Level Survey by Rygate & Company dated 2nd April 2011.

·      Concept Drainage Plans by Mijollo International dated April 2012.

·      Traffic and Parking Assessment

 

Drainage Comments

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.

 

Stormwater runoff from the site shall be managed in general accordance with the Prince Henry drainage strategy prepared by Connell Wagner. This shall involve 80% of all stormwater runoff being drained in an easterly direction through the drainage easement created over Lot 8 (The Oval) and into the biofiltration swales.

 

All site stormwater which is not discharged to the biofiltration swales, shall be discharged to Council’s underground drainage (via a stormwater detention system) in Anzac Parade or Jenner Street via a new or existing kerb inlet pit.

 

The stormwater detention system must ensure that the maximum discharge from the portion of the site not discharging to the bio swales 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 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.

 

An overland escape route or overflow system (to Council’s street drainage system) shall 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.

 

Traffic Comments

The proposed development will generate a peak hour traffic generation of 37 vehicle trips. This is equivalent to less than 2 new trips on the surrounding road network every 3 minutes. The SIDRA analysis provided in the traffic report on the roundabout at the intersection of Anzac Parade and Jenner St indicated that there will only a very minor increase in degree of saturation (DOS) and average vehicle delay (AVD) with a good level of service of A continuing to be provided.  There are no objections to this development on traffic grounds.

 

Parking Comments

Parking Requirements for the site have been assessed as per Councils DCP-Parking which states the following rates for multi-unit dwellings;

1 bedroom unit = 1 space

2 bedroom unit = 1.2 spaces

3 bedroom units = 1.5 spaces

Visitor parking to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 4 units

Bicycle parking to be provided at 1 space per 3 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

1 car wash bay to be provided per 12 units (visitor spaces may be used as car wash bays)

 

Service and Delivery – 1 space per 50 dwellings up to 200 plus 1 space per 100 thereafter.

 

Parking Provision

The proposed development consists of 43 x 1 bedroom units + 30 x 2 bedroom units (total 73).

 

Residential Parking Required    = 43 X 1 + 30 X 1.2 + 73/4 (Visitor)

                                         = 43 + 36 + 18.25

                                         = say 97 spaces (including 18 visitor spaces)

 

Service and Delivery Parking required = 1 space

 

 

TOTAL VEHICLE PARKING REQUIRED = 98 spaces (including 18 visitor spaces)

TOTAL VEHICLE PARKING PROVIDED  = 88 spaces  (including 9 visitor spaces)

PARKING SHORTFALL                             = 10 spaces (10.2%)

 

Development Engineer’s comments on vehicle parking shortfall

The parking shortfall is significant and may impact on the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity of the site. To partially compensate for the shortfall it is recommended that some of the storage areas be converted to vehicular parking. The storage areas in the middle of the basement  between car spaces 5 & 6 and 77 & 78 can be converted to vehicle parking which will add 4 additional spaces although 1 space may be lost to accommodate an enlarged bin storage area (see waste comments)

This will still leave a parking shortfall of 6-7 spaces and borders on acceptability from Development Engineering, however the following characteristics are noted

§ The shortfall relates to the visitor parking component only. Residential units have been provided for.

§ Four motorbike spaces have been provided as partial compensation for the shortfall.

§ The site is located adjacent to good public transport. Bus Routes 394,X94,393,X92,392,399 operate on Anzac Parade  with typical frequencies of 10-15 minutes during peak times and 30-60 minutes outside peak times.

§ Indented car bays are provided on Anzac Parade which would also likely be used by visitors.

§ The shortfall is less than 10% of the total parking needs

§ On street parking is also available in Jenner St

§ The development is over-compliant in the amount of disabled parking

In consideration of the above factors and on the condition that the additional visitor spaces are provided, Development Engineering will not object to the proposed parking provision.

 

Disabled Parking

Under Council’s DCP – Prince Henry Site a minimum of 4 dwellings in the proposed development are required to be designed to be accessible for people with a disability with a corresponding number of parking spaces also designed for disabled access. It is noted the submitted plans indicate that 7 disabled spaces have been provided in the basement car park which is over-compliant. Development Engineering will not object to the number of disabled spaces being reduced to 4 as it is noted that this may also increase the availability of general parking.

Bicycle Parking

BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED         = 73/3 + 73/10(Visitor)

                                              = say 31 spaces

BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED         = 24 spaces in basement + 7 visitors at ground level

                                              = 31 (complies)

       

Parking Layout

The driveway entrance and internal parking layout including, ramp grades, car space dimensions, aisle widths etc shall be in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

 

Waste Management Comments

Council’s ‘Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Developments’ specify a waste generation rate for multi-unit housing of 120L/dwelling/week for normal garbage, 60L/dwelling/week for recycling.

Assuming a standard 240L bin this translates to 1 bin per two units for normal garbage (weekly collection) and 1 bin per two units for recycling (fortnightly collection).

 

For Normal Garbage (weekly collection)

Amount (Litres) = 73 x 120 = 8280

Number of 240L bins = 8760/240 (standard MGB)= 36.5 = say 37 x 240L bins

 

Recyclables (fortnightly collection)

Amount (Litres) = 73 x 60 x 2

Number of bins = 8760/240 = 36.5 = say 37 x 240L bins

 

Green Waste (fortnightly collection)

As some significant landscape areas are also proposed it is anticipated that a number of 240L green waste bins will also be required. The exact number will be dependent on the amount of landscaped areas and how the applicant intends to manage the landscaped areas on the site. In similar type of developments a minimum of around 5-6 x 240L green waste bins have been provided which has been used as a basis for this development

 

Number of BINS required     = 36(normal) + 36(recycling) + 5(green waste)

                                      = 77 x 240L BINS

       

The submitted waste management plan (appendix 18) states that an elephant foot single bin compactor (compaction ratio 3:1) will be used to reduce the amount of bins presented kerbside for collection.

 

The compaction device would reduce the amount of general rubbish bins to 12. Note that compaction is not appropriate for recyclables.

 

Total Number of BINS     = 12(normal) + 36(recycling) + 5(green waste-approximate)

(With compaction)         = 53 x 240L BINS

 

The submitted plans indicate the bin room will not be large enough to accommodate the required number of bins. A condition has been included in this report requiring the bin room to be enlarged sufficiently to accommodate the required number of bins. Note that this will likely result in one of the car spaces being removed. 

 

Landscape Comments

In terms of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO), the only vegetation that falls into this category is the row of five, 4-5m tall Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s), which are spaced evenly along the length of the Jenner Street verge, comprising one to the west of the existing crossing, and four to its east, which all appeared in good health and condition, and which make a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

As such, conditions in this report require that they be protected and retained during the course of the proposed works, with the same situation also applying to the row of 10 Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gums) beyond the eastern site boundary, across the full width of the site, fronting McCartney Park.

 

In the case where the removal of any of these public trees is sought for any reason, the applicant will need to cover Council’s costs for like-minded replacements.

 

While the mixture of native vegetation within the garden bed across the full width of the front (western) boundary, fronting Anzac Parade, are only relatively small at this point in time, this area performs a valuable function for the landscape strategy that has been applied across the whole of the Prince Henry site, and as it maintains a buffer zone to the street, and also assists in softening the visual bulk and dominance of these larger buildings on the public domain.

 

To ensure consistency and uniformity of appearance, the plans have shown this landscaped strip being maintained together with additional plants, which is supported.

 

Should the application be approved the following conditions shall apply under the appropriate section:”

 

6.2    Building Services and Environmental Health Comments

The development application was referred to Council’s Building Services and Environmental Health sections. No objection is raised to the proposed development subject to conditions of consent.

 

6.3    Heritage Comments

Council’s Heritage Planner advises that as follows:

 

“Background

The subject site is located within the Prince Henry Hospital Conservation Area.  The site and a number of buildings on it are listed on the State Heritage Register.

 

The Subject Site

The subject site is within the western part of the development area, on the south eastern corner of Jenner Street and Anzac Parade.  The site has a western boundary to the Oval/Macartney Park, and a southern boundary to adjacent residential lots.  The site is located within Precinct 1 as identified in the Prince Henry site Development Control Plan.  This precinct lies to the east of the Historic Precinct, and is separated from it by other parks, roads and residential allotments.

 

Heritage element

Item

Built elements in the vicinity

·    Artisan’s Cottages

·    Entrance Gates and Gateposts

Landscape elements in the vicinity

·    Significant road alignments including remaining sections of sandstone kerbing/gutter

Aboriginal archaeological zone

Yes

Aboriginal identified site

No

Historical archaeological zone

Former Prince Henry Hospital complex

Historical identified site

No

Little Bay Geological site

No

Remnant native vegetation in the vicinity

Yes

 

The Proposal

The application proposes a four and five storey residential flat building over basement car parking.  The site has a gentle slope towards Anzac Parade so the ground floor level is somewhat elevated above natural ground.  The building is in the form of two wings with a central linking element and courtyard.  The four storey east wing will have a frontage to the Oval/Macartney Park, the five storey west wing will have a frontage to Anzac Parade, and the central link will include an entry from Jenner Street.  External wall materials comprise painted masonry, timber cladding, aluminium louvres and masonry and glass balustrades.  Details of colours and finishes have been provided. 

History

DA/3/2005- for an aged care housing development containing self-care units for seniors was approved in October 2005. 

 

DA/451/2009- for conversion of aged care units to multi-unit housing was withdrawn in November 2009. 

 

Submission

The application is accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by NBRS + Partners.  The HIS concludes that the proposal will not impact on significant view corridors and that its siting, height and form will have a negligible visual impact on the setting of the Historic Precinct, the workshop or the chapel.  The HIS considers that there is very low potential for the identification of unexpected sub-surface cultural material. 

 

Approvals

As the site is listed on the State Heritage Register, the proposal needs to be the subject of an Integrated Development Application.  As the NSW Heritage Council is the consent authority for the application, Council cannot issue development approval until the Heritage Council has provided conditions of consent.

 

Site specific exemptions for the Prince Henry site for new single residences and multi-unit residential buildings which comply with the Prince Henry site DCP were gazetted in June 2005.  Under the Prince Henry Site Specific Exemptions which complies with relevant sections of the LEP and DCP does not need to be referred to the NSW Heritage Council for approval.  Exemptions apply toe development outside the Historic Precinct where the proposal complies with the Height and Setback and where non-compliance with a number of indentified sections of the DCP will not result in heritage impacts. 

 

DCP standard

Complies

Subject to

Site Specific Exemptions

Height

No

No

Setback

 

 

It appears that the proposal does not comply with the DCP height requirements.  Heritage Branch consent is therefore required. 

 

Consistency of the proposal with LEP, CMP and AMP

The proposal appears to be generally consistent with the siting requirements of the Prince Henry site Development Control Plan, although non-compliances have been identified relating to height.  It is noted that the fifth/loft level is set back from the east, south and west elevations and will not be prominent form the surrounding area, and that the scale of the building is compatible with surrounding development.  The footprint of the building assists in defining the edge of the Oval/Mc.Cartney Park and reinforces the corner of Anzac Parade and Jenner Street.  The proposal includes a pathway between Anzac Parade and the park along the southern boundary of the site, and provides a link through the entrance between Jenner Street and the courtyard.  It is considered that the proposal will not result in any adverse impacts to builtform or landscape elements identified in the DCP, or to the significance of the heritage conservation area as a whole, and has a low potential for the identification of unknown archaeological material.  It is considered that the proposed dwelling is generally consistent with the CMP, the AMP, the Amended Master Plan (August 2003), the LEP and the DCP. 

 

Recommendations

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

Aboriginal and Historical Archaeology

·      Prior to the commencement of any works on the site, site contractors should be made aware of the possibility that historical archaeological and Aboriginal remains may survive on and around the site.

 

·      Site contractors should be made aware of their obligations under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and the Heritage Act 1977 in the event that any Aboriginal or historical archaeological remains are disturbed or exposed during site works, and of the notification procedures for such material.

 

·      Should Aboriginal deposits or objects (such as shell deposits, flaked stone artefacts or engravings, etc) be found, exposed or disturbed, site work is to cease temporarily within the vicinity of these objects while advice is sought from archaeologists, the La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council and the DHBC.”

 

External Authority Comments

The Heritage Council of NSW has advised of its approval of the Section 60 application lodged by the applicant under the Heritage Act 1977 to carry out the proposed activity on the subject site which is located on land listed on the State Heritage Register.

 

The application was referred to the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited as the proposed height of the building would potentially result in permanent penetrations into controlled airspace which requires approval under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations 1996. No objections have been raised by SACL subject to relevant conditions.

 

The application was referred to the NSW Police in relation to Crime Risk Assessment and measures to achieve Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design  (CPTED). No objections have been and conditions will be applied to address relevant requirements.

 

7.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

The subject site is zoned Residential 2D. The proposal is permissible with development consent.

 

The following relevant clauses apply to the proposal (and are addressed in detail in Section 10.1 below):

 

Clause 12A - Zone No 2D (Residential D – Comprehensive Development Zone)

Clause 20C – Site specific development controls 

Clause 20D -      Traffic and transport measures in Zone 2D

Clause 40  -      Earthworks

Clause 40A -      Site specific development control plans

Clause 42B -      Contaminated land

Clause 43 - Heritage conservation

 

Additionally, the following statutory controls apply in the assessment of the proposed development:

 

1.     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

2.     State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

3.     State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) 2004

 

An assessment of the proposed development under the planning controls is provided in section 10 below.

8.         Policy controls

 

The following Development Control Plans are applicable to the subject site:

 

·      Development Control Plan – Prince Henry

·      Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The application of this  DCP is addressed in Section 10 below.

 

The following policy is also applicable to the proposed development:

·      Randwick City Council Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 17 July 2012.

 

9.      Environmental assessment

 

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

 

9.1      Statutory & Policy Controls – S79C(1)(a)

 

9.1.1          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The following relevant clauses of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) apply to the proposal:

 

Clause 9 - Objectives

Clause 9 of RLEP 1998 requires Council to consider the aims of the LEP and Zone objectives prior to determining any DA on land to which the RLEP applies. The purpose of this Clause is “To require the general aims of this plan and the specific objectives of each zone to be taken into account in the assessment and determination of development applications”. With reference to the general aims, as set out in relevant sections of this report, the proposed development will not compromise the aims of the LEP in relation to heritage, aesthetic character, sustainability, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality and contribute to the variety of housing types that does not compromise the amenity of the residential area, consistent with the specific zone objectives.

 

Clause 12A - Zone No 2D (Residential D – Comprehensive Development Zone)

The subject site is zoned Residential 2D under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). The proposed development for multi-unit housing is permissible with Council's consent under the zoning provisions applying to the land.

 

The proposal is also consistent with the following relevant objectives of the Residential D zone: 

 

(a)    To allow the comprehensive redevelopment of land for primarily residential and open space purposes;

(b)    To enable development that is consistent with a development control plan prepared in accordance with Clause 40A and approved by Council

(c)   To enable residential development in a variety of density and housing forms, where such development does not adversely affect the amenity and function of surrounding areas.

(f)    To encourage housing affordability.

 

In terms of objective (a) and (b), the proposal is a large scale development enabling a comprehensive redevelopment of the site within the Prince Henry area to be redeveloped for residential purpose largely consistent with the Prince Henry Site DCP which was prepared in accordance with principles outline in Clause 40A of the RLEP. In terms of objective (c), the proposed housing form comprises a large scale multi-unit housing building with frontage to Anzac Parade and Jenner Street having minimal amenity impacts both internally and externally. Finally, referring to objective (f), the proposal will assist in housing affordability, by increasing the stock and supply of multi-unit housing in the locality thus putting downward pressure on demand for multi-unit housing but more specifically by increasing Council’s stock of affordable housing through the dedication of one dwelling unit as part of the proposed VPA.

 

Clause 20C – Site specific development controls 

Clause 20C outlines the relevant standards applicable to land that are the subject of built form control map inset. The Prince Henry Site has an inset shown in the LEP map and marked “Inset 3 – Prince Henry Built Form Controls”. Clause 20C states that the controls applicable to the subject site are as follows:

 

Control

Requirement

Proposal

Complies

Maximum FSR

 

Maximum 1:1

(max 4055 sqm)

1.45:1

(max 5866 sqm)

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

Maximum number of storeys

Maximum 4 storeys

 

 

Anzac Parade Wing : Max 5 storeys

 

Park Wing : Maximum 4 storeys

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

 

 

Maximum Wall Height

Maximum 14m

 

Maximum 17.06m

 

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

Maximum Building Height

Maximum 15m

 

Maximum 17.06m

 

No (SEPP 1 Objection submitted)

Minimum Landscaped Area (% site area)

Minimum 40% (1622 sqm)

 

Total landscaped area – 49.2% (1998.7 sqm)

Yes

 

Clause 20D        Traffic and Transport measures in Zone 2D

Clause 20D requires relevant traffic or transport measures that may apply to land zoned 2D to be met in development proposals. A Traffic Management Plan has been submitted with the DA which basically indicates that the increase in traffic generation from the proposed development will be minor (in the order of approximately 37 trips  (7 arriving and 30 departing) during the morning peak hour and 37 trips (30 arriving and 7 departing) during the evening peak hour which is not considered to have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent classified road network and intersections nor on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding.

 

Clause 40        Earthworks

Clause 40 of the RLEP contains provisions for undertaking of excavation and filling of land. The proposal will require earthworks to be undertaken to construct the common basement car park of the proposed development and foundations for the buildings. A geo-technical assessment has been undertaken by Crozier Geotechnical consultants dated May 2012 providing recommendations for minimising potential adverse impacts on the locality. Subject to these recommendations being conditioned in any consent, there will be minimal impact on the topography of the site, and unlikely interruption to the drainage patterns of the site or result in soil instability. Furthermore, the proposal will not adversely impact upon the scenic quality of the site and locality. Accordingly, the proposal is acceptable in relation to the provisions of Clause 40.

 


Clause 40A        Site specific development control plans

Whilst the subject site is significantly less than the 10,000 sqm land area that activates Clause 40A for a site specific development control plan to be prepared, the wider Prince Henry Site has been the subject of an earlier Master Plan, inclusive of the subject site, adopted by Council on 27 May 2003 (as amended). The adopted Master Plan is now a Deemed DCP pursuant to amendments to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 gazetted on 16 June 2005. The proposal is generally consistent with the Master Plan/Deemed DCP.

 

Clause 42B        Contaminated land

Clause 42B contains provisions for remediation of contaminated land to ensure that such land will be suitable for the purpose for which development is proposed. As indicated above, the applicant has submitted a site audit statement (SAS) issued for the subject lot on 23 January 2006, indicating that the site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council development consent No. 1188/02 as amended (for the demolition of buildings and the remediation of the Prince Henry site, which was issued on 28 February 2003). Accordingly, the site will be suitable for the intended use.

 

Clause 43  Heritage conservation

Clause 43, requires among other things, that Council consider the effect of proposed development on the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas. Given its location within a Heritage Conservation Area, a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS) has been prepared by NBRS + Partners and lodged with the development application in accordance with Clause 43. Additionally, as indicated earlier in this report, the applicant has lodged a separate application under Section 60 of the Heritage Act 1977 for approval to carry out the proposed activity on the subject site which is located on land listed on the State Heritage Register. The Heritage Council has advised of its approval of the Section 60 application in a letter dated 7 August 2012. Furthermore, the proposal has been assessed by Council’s Heritage Planner who has found that the proposal will be consistent with the provisions of the Conservation Management Plan and Archaeological Management Plan for Prince Henry Site and will not have any adverse amenity or streetscape impacts.

 

9.1.2          Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Under the Draft LEP, the subject site is zoned R1 General Residential in which the proposal is permissible. The controls applicable over the subject site under the Draft LEP are:

Max FSR – 1.2:1

Max Building Height – 18m

 

Additionally, the subject site continues to be located within a Heritage Conservation Area.

 

9.1.3               State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

The proposal is subject to the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) – Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings. The application was considered by Council’s Design Review Panel in July 2012. The Panel essentially found the proposal satisfactory subject to a number of suggested changes.

 

Amended plans to address the Panel’s concerns were subsequently returned to the Panel for comments and, as indicated in bold in the Panel’s comments below, SEPP 65 design issues have now been adequately addressed:

 


“PANEL COMMENTS

This is a DA review and the second time the Panel has seen this proposal – the first review was at Pre-DA stage.  A prior development consent achieved in 2005 has lapsed.  The new proposal is for apartments instead of Seniors Living accommodation and the footprint is redistributed and reduced to a small degree.  An extra floor is also proposed.

 

1.      Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

The site is one of the “gateway” sites into the former Prince Henry Hospital site. A street elevation of Anzac Parade was provided during the meeting as additional detail.  The information shows that the surrounding buildings are built to just over a height of RL53 and all contain 5 levels, and that the additional floor sought for this site would mirror these existing conditions.

 

At Pre-DA there was an analysis of three possible alternate positions for the proposed 5th level.  The Panel noted that a 5th floor would be appropriate and that it should be placed on the western wing (Anzac Parade - Drawing 17) as it has no negative impacts on the proposed development or the neighbouring buildings.

 

The footprint is reduced from the original approval by pulling back the eastern wing from the southern boundary.  This arrangement improves the solar access for the remainder of the building, makes the courtyard more viable by reducing overshadowing, and links the central courtyard to that of the neighbour on the southern boundary.  The building envelope also pulls back from the north east corner and the south west corner and the Panel considers that this is not necessary.  It would be more desirable to positively build to these corners as there is more than enough surrounding open space including the oval and street reserves and the building should hold to the edges to strengthen the street frontage.

 

The Jenner Street elevation shows that the courtyard is proposed to be visible from the north through a one-level undercroft.  The Panel considers that this proposed area is far too deep to be open space.  The undercroft should be reduced and the foyer should instead be a semi enclosed common space that occupies the majority of the undercroft.  Some design development will be required to make this space work as a visual link to the courtyard planting due to its restricted height (a two storey space would be far more effective), reduce wind tunnel effects and provide for appropriate furniture.

 

The Panel has subsequently received a revised sketch plan which, although it does not create the optimum outcome for the undercroft, is an improvement and is acceptable.  However any increase in the area of the units above the foyer would not be viewed favourably.

 

Comment: The applicant submitted amended plans showing that the units above the proposed foyer will be shortened to reduce the depth of the entry undercroft below. The plans do not show any increase in the area of these dwelling units.   

 

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

Generally the scale, including the 5th floor is considered appropriate for this site.  The massing, scale and proportions of the elevations were discussed at the review meeting in relation to building to the corners, the addition of windows (as noted in the April report), the reduction of the undercroft and finessing of some of the proportions.

 

Responses to environmental requirements such as sunshading and weather protection seem to be well addressed and the colour and material selection helps to articulate the design.

 

3.         The Built Form of the Proposal

The Panel recommends the following minor adjustments to the planning and form;

 

·      the stair at the southern end of the west wing could be either more open or it could be moved inboard so that Unit type 215 could be reconfigured to have more accommodation right up to the line of the setback – this would give the apartment more access to light and ventilation.

·      Unit 203 should be increased to the full extent of the setbacks.

·      Unit type 214 should be increased to the full extent of the setbacks (except for the curved balcony).

·      the two bedroom apartments in the centre of the north elevation make the undercroft/foyer space very deep and they would be better as 1 bedders and transfer the accommodation elsewhere as noted above.  The Panel is concerned that unit types 201 and 207 do not meet SEPP 65 requirements due to the amount of internal space that would require artificial lighting throughout the day, the lack of good light and ventilation to some bedrooms, the impacts on unit types 208 and 202 which could otherwise be two sided rather than single orientation. Single orientation apartments in themselves do not meet SEPP 65 requirements. The Panel has subsequently received a revised sketch plan which, although it does not create the optimum outcome for the undercroft, is an improvement and is acceptable.  However any increase in the area of the units above the foyer would not be viewed favourably.

·      the applicant noted at the review that the design would incorporate light and ventilation openings to the basement car parking which is commendable.

·      the planning of the Level 5 apartments has some deficiencies which may be able to be improved if the stair and lift positions are adjusted.  Unit 508 could have more natural light and ventilation to bedrooms and bathrooms and it would also be beneficial to achieve a window in the kitchen.  Units 508, 510 and 511 could have light and ventilation to the bedrooms, bathrooms and kitchen through well-designed clerestories. Morning winter sun could be achieved in the west facing units as well.  The study in Unit 510 would be best as a cupboard only to give the occupants the option of a larger living space if preferred.

 

1:50 detailed sections were required for DA assessment.  Two sections have been provided however they are partial sections with inadequate information for assessment. Wall types, roofs, insulation, rainwater management, screens, sunhoods and balustrades need to be adequately described.

 

Council’s Comment: The Panel’s recommendation for a number of units to be expanded are provided by way of suggestions and are not critical for compliance with SEPP 65 design guidelines. Furthermore, these recommended changes involve further increases in floor area which, in the context of the proposed variation from the FSR standard, is not considered necessary and appropriate.  Additionally, the applicant has provided the following advice in relation to the Panel’s suggestion:

 

 The applicant’s advice is considered reasonable and acceptable.

 

4.         The Proposed Density

The density is considered appropriate. The Panel has consistently been of the view that the Anzac Parade sites should not be underutilized. This site has the further benefit of a park frontage.

 

5.         Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

The design attempts to alleviate the effect of a double loaded corridor by creating breaks from the corridor to the exterior at reasonable intervals.  This creates a large number of apartments that have good natural ventilation from adjacent external walls however it will not be as effective as full cross ventilation.  West facing apartments will still have substantial summer heat loads and the applicant is proposing plenum ventilation across the top of the corridor.  This type of ventilation is commended and should be provided to more of the apartments.  5 single orientation apartments per floor is however considered excessive and the reduction of the central north units and replanning of adjacent units would reduce this problem.

 

The position of a number of building elements that do not need external wall should be reconsidered so that external wall to units is optimized.

 

Sunshading and weather protection methods have been successfully developed except for a few windows that still require some treatment.

 

At Pre DA the Panel recommended that ceiling fans should be provided to all bedrooms and clearly noted on the plans – this has not been provided.

 

Top floor apartments should achieve natural light and ventilation to all internal spaces through ventilating skylights.  Clerestory roof lights are preferred – this has not been provided.

 

Window operation should be designed to optimise the occupants’ control of cross ventilation and needs to be clearly marked on the elevations (this has not been provided).  Ventilation design needs to take into account night time security as well as ventilation requirements.  The new level 5 apartments appear to have large areas of glass which will be subjected to afternoon summer sun.

 

Comment: A condition requiring installation of fans to all bedrooms will be applied should approval be granted. Clerestory roof lights have been provided and shown on the amended plan.

 

6.         The Proposed Landscape

The landscape plan provided is well considered.  There are two areas of concern:

-        The Panel does not encourage large areas of planting in undercroft areas – this has been dealt with by the recommendation that the undercroft is reduced.  Plants that do not achieve sunlight and cleaning by natural rainwater  require a large amount of maintenance.

-        The landscaped area adjacent to Unit 113 needs to be nominated as private open space as the balcony to this unit encompasses the garden space.

 

Comment: there will be minimal if no landscaping under undercroft areas as the amendments provided to the DRP panel show a reduction in the undercroft area. In relation to Unit 113, a condition will be applied to reinforce the allocation of the encompassing adjoining landscape area as private open space for Unit 113.

 

7.      The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

See comments above in Built Form and Energy Use.

The corridor widths could be increased by approximately 500mm at the lift doors.

Apartments directly above entry foyers or car park entries should have appropriate privacy treatment to their balconies.

There are a number of bathrooms on the external wall that should have bathroom windows added for day light and natural ventilation.

 

Comment: Conditions will be applied in relation to privacy treatments to balconies above car parks and additional bathroom windows.

 

8.      The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

Satisfactory.  The proposed new driveway position will need discussion with Council.

 

9.      Social issues

The change from Seniors Living to apartments is supported by the Panel. An increase in smaller units proposed is reasonable, given the predominance of single family houses at PHH and in the wider neighbourhood. The apartments provide much-needed housing choice in this extremely desirable location.

 

10.    The Aesthetics of the Proposal

Satisfactory. The elevations and montages clearly show the design intent, and an acceptable level of resolution.

 

Summary and recommendations

The Panel does not need to review this application again if the issues outlined in this report have been addressed to the satisfaction of the assessing planner.”

 

Comment: The applicant has provided amended plans and appropriate responses to address the DRP’s issues as discussed above. The amendments made in response to the Panel’s concerns are satisfactory. Accordingly, further review of the amended proposal by the Panel is not considered necessary.

 

5.         State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) 2004

SEPP: BASIX applies to the proposed development. The development application is accompanied with BASIX Certificate numbered 350817M.  The commitments listed in the above certificate will be imposed by appropriate standard conditions pursuant to Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000. 

 

6.         State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 aims to promote the remediation of contaminated land for the purposes of reducing risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. In relation to the subject site, a site audit statement (SAS) has been issued on 23 January 2006 indicating that the site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council consent 1188/02 as amended (for the demolition of buildings and the remediation of the Prince Henry site which was issued on 28 February 2003). Accordingly, the proposed development will satisfy the provisions of SEPP 55 and the site will be suitable for the intended use.

 

(ii) Any Draft Environmental Planning Instrument– S79C(1)(a)

 

8.         Policy Controls– S79C(1)(a)

 

Development Control Plan – Prince Henry Site

The table below assesses the proposal against relevant controls of the DCP – Prince Henry Site.

 

DCP Control

Proposal

 

4.1 Building Envelope

i  New buildings must comply with the requirements in the Built Form Control Table (Figures 6-7, Part 2) and the building envelopes indicated in Part 7 – Precinct Controls of DCP.

 

The proposed development will be subject to SEPP 1 Objections for variations to the maximum FSR, and wall and building height controls as assessed in Section above.

4.2 Height

i     The external wall height of a building must not exceed the maximum wall height for that lot indicated in the Build Form Control Table (Figures 6-7, Part 2)

 

The proposed building will have maximum wall and building heights of 17.06m respectively which exceeds the 17m wall height controls in the Built Form Control Table. SEPP 1 Objections have been lodged and assessed in Section 5 above.

ii No of storeys in any building does not exceed the number shown in relevant Precinct Control diagram and Built Form Control Table

 

Part-5 storey loft level on the Parade Wing along Anzac Parade which varies from the Built Form Control Table and assessed in the SEPP 1 Objection above.

iii   Minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7m for habitable rooms in new buildings.

 

Minimum flor to ceiling 2.7m. Complies.

iii   Earth filling only for and not access and infrastructure and landscaping and not for elevating buildings.

Complies

4.3 Building Depth 

i     Building depth to be consistent with relevant Precinct Controls (ie., max 13m depth for apartment buildings).

 

The Park Wing has a building depth that generally complies with the 13m However, the Anzac Parade wing has a variable building depth of between minimum 17m to max 20m glass-line to glass-line. This variation in the Parade Wing is considered reasonable and acceptable in that, while the wider building depth allows for double-loaded apartments, its bulk and scale has been broken by a series of protruding floor planes and a gap in the built form that serves as landscaped break that also provides achieve cross ventilation  whilst achieving visual interest.

I    Building depths to allow for dual aspect apartments.

90% of apartments have dual aspect.

4.4 DENSITY

i     Maximum FSR not to exceed FSR control indicated in the Build Form Control Table

 

The proposal will have a maximum FSR of 1.45:1 which exceeds the 1:1 FSR control in the Build Form Control Table. A SEPP 1 Objection has been lodged and assessed in Section 5 above.

4.5 SETBACKS 

i     Building Setbacks must comply with setbacks contained in relevant Precinct Controls.

 

The proposal provides compliant setback controls along Anzac Parade (min 7m), Jenner Street (min 6m) and Macartney Park (min 4m). Additionally, the proposal provides a more generous setback from the southern boundary than the previous approved aged car development.

ii    New buildings to maintain significant views and heritage views and vistas as identified in Part 2. 

 

The proposal maintains the designated view corridor between the subject site and No 7 Jenner Street by providing more than the minimum 6m setback between Park Wing and the common southern boundary.  

iii   New buildings to be sited and designed to form a strong predominately continuous built edge to the primary street frontage and public parks and pathways.

Strong built edge proposed along Anzac Parade, Jenner Street and Macartney Park.

4.6 Building Articulation 

i     Building articulation is to be consistent with the articulation areas identified in the precinct specific controls in Part 7.

 

 

Building articulation for generally will be consistent with those identified in the Precinct P1.

ii    New Building articulation must not extend forward of the identified building articulation area.

 

The proposal does not have any articulation elements that go beyond the identified building articulation area with the exception of some minor/localised variations along the internal east elevation of the Anzac Parade Wing facing the central courtyard. The breaches are localised and will not be visually intrusive as these facades will maintain strong articulation elements especially balconies and weather protection devices.

iii   Building articulation should respond to the environmental conditions of the site including orientation, breezes and privacy.

Site Analysis indicates appropriate response to environmental conditions and context based on building depths and orientations that comply with those in the relevant Precinct Controls.

iv   The maximum unarticulated building length is 9 metres along the primary street frontage and 10 metres along the secondary street frontages.

 

Complies as the proposal is consistent with the articulation zones along Anzac Parade and Jenner Street as required under the Precinct Controls.  

v    Buildings are to be aligned predominately parallel to the street and provide a clear street address

 

The proposal will be predominantly aligned to Anzac Parade and Jenner Street with adequate locations for clear street addresses.  

vi   Building entries are to address the primary street frontage and should form an integral part of the façade.

 

Complies, refer drawings in accompanying plans.

Strong built edge proposed along all primary street frontages, especially along Anzac Parade.

Clear building entries proposed to each apartment building.

 

vii  All facades, including rear facades, must include windows.

All facades will have windows.

viii  Multi-unit developments must provide street entrances to at least 50% of units that face the street or public open space.

Slope of land and hydraulic requirements will limit the extent of individual entries facing the street but primary building entries are available along the Macartney Park frontage.

ix   A min of 30% and max 60% of building articulation area for the building may be used.

 

The articulation of the building falls within the required building articulation range. Proposed wings enclose a central courtyard space and improve amenity of apartments.

x    Up to 30% of building articulation of any floor on any façade may comprise lifts, stairwells and associated lobby space.

Complies. No lifts and stairwells will encroach the designated articulation areas as these are all internalised.

xi   Up to 20% of the articulation of any floor on any façade may comprise glazed stairwells and lobby space.

Complies. No glazed stairwells or lobbies will encroach the designated articulation areas as these are all internalised.

xii   Large areas of glazing should be modulated by louvres, fins or the like.

 

No large areas of glazing are proposed with most glazed openings predominantly screened with louvers and framed within cantilevered bay frames acting as weather protection.

xiii  Windows and other glazing must be set back from the structure by a minimum of 80mm.

Generally complies with details to be confirmed at construction certification,,

xv  Grilles and transparent shutters are to have a minimum 70% transparency. Solid roller shutters, screens or grilles on… dwellings are not appropriate.

No shutters or grilles proposed on dwellings.

4.7 Landscaped area & private open space 

a)  General

i     A Landscape Plan, prepared by a suitably qualified professional, must be submitted as part of DA.

 

 

Landscape plan prepared by 360 degrees Pty Limited..

ii    Landscaped area on each site must not be less than the minimum percentage indicated in the Built Form Control table (Figures 6-7, Part 2):

     Min 40% %

Complies. 49.2% landscape area proposed

iii   Soft landscaped area on each site must not be less than the minimum percentage indicated in the Built Form Control table (Figures 6-7, Part 2) Min 20%

Complies. 29% soft landscape area proposed.

 

iv   At least two-thirds of area occupied by external car parks, driveways, courtyards, pathways and the like are to be laid with porous paving. Areas above underground parking and driveway ramps steeper than 1 in 10 are excluded from the calculation for this requirement.

Complies

c)  Apartments

i     Each apartment should have at least one balcony or courtyard area directly accessible from the living area.

Each apartment has deck, balcony or courtyard/terrace.

 

ii    Min balcony depth for new buildings 2.4m

Some balconies have minimum balcony depth of 2m, which are minor variation and consistent with SEPP 65.

iii   Min area for main balcony:

     Dwelling size up to 60m2: 10m2

     Dwelling size more than 60m2: 12m2

Generally complies. Only 9 apartments have balconies with 1-2sqm less than minimum area, which are considered minor variations due to the need to provide adequate size unit while maintaining required setbacks.

iv   Main balcony must:

     be located adjacent to principal living area

     be sufficiently large and well proportioned to promote indoor/outdoor living

     be able to accommodate dining table and chairs

     include sun screens, pergolas, shutters, operable walls, where appropriate

Complies.

v    Balconies should be north facing where possible

 

Complies.

vi   Additional balconies may be provided including Juliet and French balconies

 

Complies.

vii  Balconies must not be so deep that they stop sunlight entering lower apartments in a building.

 

Complies.

viii  Continuous wrap-around balconies are not appropriate

 

Not proposed.

ix   For adaptive reuse of heritage buildings for residential development refer to CMP SECP for guidance on provision of private open space

N.A.

4.8 Landscape design and biodiversity

i     Landscaping must include a predominance of:

-    native plant species (refer to Appendix A for appropriate species)

-    species that are drought resistant, and require minimal watering once established, or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions

-    water conserving landscape practices/ designs, including plant selection mulching, hydro zoning and multi storey planting

-    native ground covers and grasses in garden beds and path surrounds (turf is to be confined to useable outdoor areas)

-    where applicable, landscaping must be consistent with any relevant SECP or Plan of Management (POM).

 

 

See Landscape Design Statement and Landscape Plan submitted generally apply these principles including selection of appropriate native plantings suitable for the location and assist in energy and water use reductions.

 

ii    Landscape plans are to demonstrate how the  design responds to site’s microclimate to ensure that species survive and provide protection from wind and sun.

 

Addressed in Site Analysis in submitted Landscape Plans.

 

 

 

iv   Trees and shrubs are to be selected and positioned to maximise solar penetration in winter and minimise it in summer (eg deciduous plants on the north side of private open space).

 

Addressed in Site Analysis in submitted Landscape Plans.

 

v    Pergolas and awnings should be located to shade external areas and control sunlight into buildings.

 

Some degree of shading of external areas and control sunlight penetration especially for selected units in Levels 4 and 5.

 

vi   Landscape areas are to be contoured to encourage stormwater runoff to infiltrate to ground.

 

Addressed in Site Analysis in submitted Landscape Plans.

 

vii  Garden irrigation and watering systems to be connected to rainwater storage facilities, where applicable.

 

Rainwater storage as part of stormwater concept plan for site.

 

viii  Avoid planting that may obscure building entries or surveillance of street and pedestrian paths.

 

Plantings will not obscure building entries or surveillance of street and pathways.

 

ix   Minimise impact of driveways through materials selection and appropriate screen planting.

 

Shrubs and ground cover planting will be applied to minimise the impact of  driveways

 

x    Garden structures such as gazebos, clothes lines, play equipment, swimming pools, and spa baths, are not permitted in front gardens. These structures and paved areas must be sited to avoid damage to existing trees and their root systems.

 

Garden structures not proposed in front gardens.

 

xi   Landscaped areas must include an area dedicated to on-site composting of a size relevant to the number of dwellings and the landscaped area it serves.

 

Adequate areas will be available for composting purposes – condition to be applied.

4.11 Solar access

i     Shadow diagrams, including elevations showing shadow impacts on any walls (and windows) of adjoining development and any remnant bushland, must be submitted with DA for all new buildings of two or more storeys.

 

Shadow diagrams lodged with DA and assessed in Section 10 below.

 

 

ii    Dwelling orientation, siting, layout and landscaping are to ensure solar access to living areas and private open space, and maximise use of cooling breezes.

 

Dwelling orientation maximises solar access and natural ventilation.

 

iii   Principal living room/s of a new dwelling must be designed to achieve not less than three (3) hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

 

90% of principal living rooms or balconies achieve 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

 

iv   Residential re-use of existing heritage buildings should demonstrate that a reasonable level of solar access is provided, where it cannot meet the minimum requirements specified above.

 

N.A.

 

v    Sunlight access to at least 50% of primary private and communal open space area of adjoining properties must be achieved for at least 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

 

Building envelope and height ensures sunlight access of adjoining properties maintained.

 

vi   Maximise north facing roofs on new buildings. Roof areas shall be appropriate size, orientation and pitch, suitable for the installation of solar collectors.

Roofs on new building are flat or gently sloping to reduce bulk and scale. No solar collectors on roof proposed.

 

Section 10 below assesses the compliance of the proposal with the DCP – Prince Henry Site.

 

DCP – Parking

Compliance with the numeric controls of the DCP – Parking is assessed as follows:

 

USE

REQUIREMENT (DCP – Parking)

PROPOSED NUMBER AND/OR FLOOR AREA

REQUIRED PROVISION

PROPOSED PROVISION

 

1 space per one bedroom dwelling

43 x one bedroom and one bedroom + study dwellings

43 spaces

 

 

1.2 spaces per two bedroom dwelling

30 x two bedroom and two bedroom + study dwellings

36 spaces

 

1.5 spaces per three bedroom dwelling

nil

Nil

 

Visitor:

1 space per 4 units

Total dwellings = 163

18.25 spaces

TOTAL

 

 

97.5 spaces

 88 spaces

 

As indicated above, applying the DCP - Car Parking controls, a total of 98 spaces will be required for the proposed development. The proposal provides for 88 car spaces within the basement car park. Accordingly, there will be a shortfall of 9 car spaces. The applicant’s traffic consultant has provided the following advice in support of the shortfall:

 

The applicant’s advice is considered reasonable and the proposed car parking provision, additionally, is considered acceptable in view of the following considerations:

 

§ The parking shortfall can be reduced to 6 by requiring excess storage areas originally designated in the middle of the basement (between car spaces 5 & 6 and 77 & 78) to be converted to vehicle parking which will add 4 additional spaces.

§ The shortfall relates to the visitor parking component only. Residential units have been provided for. The shortfall of 6 spaces for the remaining visitor spaces can reasonably be met on street given the availability of car parking on Anzac Parade.  Indented car bays are provided on Anzac Parade which would also likely be used by visitors. Accordingly, the location of the subject site at the periphery of the Prince Henry site adjacent to Anzac Parade allows for excess car parking along Anzac Parade to be utilised rather than imposing upon on-street car parking within the Prince Henry site proper

§ Four motorbike spaces have been provided as partial compensation for the shortfall.

§ The site is located adjacent to good public transport. Bus Routes 394,X94,393,X92,392,399 operate on Anzac Parade  with typical frequencies of 10-15 minutes during peak times and 30-60 minutes outside peak times.

§ The shortfall is less than 10% of the total parking needs.

§ The development is over-compliant in the amount of disabled parking. Under Council’s DCP – Prince Henry a minimum of 4 dwellings in the proposed development are required to be designed to be accessible for people with a disability with a corresponding number of parking spaces also designed for disabled access. It is noted the submitted plans indicate that 7 disabled spaces have been provided in the basement car park which is over-compliant. Council’s Development Engineer advises that no objection to the number of disabled spaces being reduced to 4 is raised as this may also increase the availability of general parking.

 

§ the subject site has a defined footprint under the Prince Henry DCP that originally was intended for aged care housing with an associated smaller required car parking component. The current proposed use of the subject site for a permissible multi-unit housing development within the designated foot print presents a degree of constraint on the proposal’s capacity to provide the required increased car parking for multi-unit housing without impinging on the soft landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development. In this context, the shortfall of 9 car spaces is acceptable given that, in maintaining the designated footprint, the proposal achieves compliant soft landscape area of 29% (compared with the 20% requirement under the DCP – Prince Henry), and, in turn, setbacks compliant with the DCP along Anzac Parade (min 7m), Jenner Street (min 6m) and Macartney Park (min 4m) to ensure a compliant landscape area and treatment for the development. In fact, the proposal provides a more generous setback from the southern boundary than the previous approved aged car development to also enhance the landscape treatment.

 

§ Given the nature of the development and likely clientele of prospective purchasers of the dwellings the parking allocation is considered acceptable in this instance subject to a condition to ensure comprehensive allocation of the car spaces to all units. 

 

Section 94 Contributions Plan

Section 94 Contributions are not payable for developments that meet the LEP’s built form numerical controls (i.e. FSR). However, Clause 4.2 of the Deed of Agreement for the Prince Henry site at Little Bay entitles Council “to review the Section 94 contribution situation for any subsequent development application in respect of a development lot or lots which exceeds the LEP’s Built Form Numerical Controls for the development of that lot or lots prescribed in the Master Plan, LEP and/or the DCP.”

 

The proposal exceeds the maximum DCP FSR control of 1:1 by 0.45:1 which equates to an additional floor area of approximately 1811 sqm. Based on the estimated cost of development provided for the proposed development, the additional floor area will incur an estimated cost of $5,703,653.90. In view of the variation with the relevant built form numerical control and the additional floor area proposed, a 1% contribution is chargeable under Section 94A in accordance with Council’s Section 94 contributions plan made effective on 13 July 2012, and a condition will be applied accordingly should approval be granted.

 

Any Planning Agreement

Separate to this development application assessment, Council’s Manager - Strategic Planning has negotiated the implementation of a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) between the developer and Council, pursuant to Section 93E of the EP&A Act for the dedication of one dwelling unit to Council for affordable housing. Accordingly, the following advice has been provided by the Manager - Strategic Planning:

 

“As part of the DA documentation, the applicant is proposing to enter into a voluntary planning agreement (VPA) with the Council pursuant to Section 93F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), for the provision of affordable housing. The VPA proposes the construction of and dedication to the Council of one (1) x one bedroom affordable dwelling.

 

The DA applies to a site identified within the original Prince Henry master plan for aged housing, and for which the previous owner Landcom, included a covenant which restricts the use of the site for seniors living residential development for persons aged 55 years and over. The proposed dedication of the affordable housing unit to the Council for the purposes of Council’s affordable rental housing policy and program is an alternative public benefit to the site’s current requirement for seniors housing. 

 

The applicant is seeking this based on feasibility studies on the viability of developing aged care accommodation on the subject site. The findings outlined that the site is unlikely to be developed for aged care accommodation in the short, medium or longer terms given that: the original DA consent (43 units) is too small for an individual aged care development; the existing and immediate future supply of seniors housing in the locality is considered sufficient; and the provision of seniors housing within the Prince Henry site is substantial and has reached market saturation. It is also noted that the DA proposes to provide diverse housing targeted at the more affordable housing market price point for which there has been less provision for within the locality.

 

Note Landcom has no objection to the removal of the covenant given the provision of aged housing within the site but has noted that the Council’s agreement should be sought to the removal of the aged housing requirement. Similarly, the Department of Catchments and Lands (Minister responsible for administering the Prince Henry at Little Bay Reserve Trust) has no objection to the proposal in principle but has requested that the applicant seek Council’s opinion on the matter. In addition, there were no submissions received in relation to the draft VPA in response to the notification/advertising of the DA.

 

Given the site’s proximity to transport and services; the existing provision of aged housing within Prince Henry; and considering that the DA will provide for adaptable housing, there is no objection to the removal of the aged housing requirement. In terms of the affordable housing provision, it is noted that the dedication of the one affordable dwelling on-site is generally greater than what is required for large master planned sites (over 10,000 sqm).

 

The draft VPA is consistent with the provisions of Council’s Planning Agreements Policy in that it involves specific purposes listed in clause 2.4 of this Policy, namely, that it would provide affordable housing so that a socially diverse population can be maintained and it would secure planning benefits for the public.

 

The proposed agreement also satisfies the acceptability test set out in clause 2.5 of the Planning Agreements Policy through:

 

·           Serving proper planning purposes, having regard to statutory planning controls and providing for a reasonable means of achieving that purpose.

·           Producing outcomes that meet the general values and expectations of the community and protect the public interest.

·           Promoting Council’s strategic objectives for planning agreements and conforming to the principles governing the Council’s use of planning agreements.

 

The draft VPA prepared by the applicant requires notification in accordance with section 93G of the EP&A Act, which provides that a planning agreement cannot be entered into unless public notice has been given of the proposed agreement and made available for inspection by the public for a period of not less than 28 days.

 

Accordingly, any consent should include a deferred commencement development consent to allow for the VPA to be executed prior to the consent becoming operable.  The details of this deferred commencement are provided in the recommendation of this report.”

 

In line with the above advice, a deferred commencement condition will be applied should consent be granted for the proposed development to allow the proper execution of the proposed VPA prior to the consent becoming operable. The details of this deferred commencement are provided in the recommendation of this report. 

 

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

 

Natural Environment

The subject site does not contain any threatened flora or fauna and is currently vacant and devoid of any remnant vegetation. Endangered bushland containing Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub exist to the north-east across Jenner Street and a residential block at No.2-4 Jenner Street. However, these are located at a considerable distance of 300m to have any adverse impact.

 

Overall, the proposal will be acceptable in terms of natural environmental impacts which will be minimal, if not, nonexistent.

 

Urban Design

The architectural design of the two proposed multi-unit residential buildings is considered to be of a high standard and will complement the architectural style of new buildings already approved in other lots within the Prince Henry site (especially the approved 4 storey multi-unit housing developments with additional loft levels along Anzac Parade). 

 

The inverted u-shaped built form allows for a central courtyard enclosed by winged sections fronting relevant sections of the public domain. The winged section along Anzac Parade will crucially strengthen the streetscape and edge along this major thoroughfare, wrapping around into Jenner Street then becoming the Park wing section on the eastern side which frames a section of Macartney Park.

 

Figure 8: Well articulated Jenner Street façade with subdued  driveway to basement garage.

 

The proposal will have a well articulated façade with modulated framed bay design containing recessed balconies on the first floor, sitting on top of a ground floor base characterised by appropriate indentations and selected cladding. A variety of external building finishes as reflected in a sample board submitted with the application will give expression to the architectural form and visual character of the proposed development. The sample board contains a good balance of natural materials such as timber (for panel cladding) and stone (for base walls) and man-made materials such as face brick, rendered masonry, metal cladding and glass to create appropriate articulation and modulation and provide a quality visual interest for the development. In addition, the facade composition achieves an appropriate balance of vertical and horizontal elements, which provide symmetry to the proposed buildings.

 

Amended plans addressing concerns raised by the Panel at the DRP meeting in June 2012 have been assessed by the Panel.   The Panel has noted the amendments to the proposal undertaken by the applicant and, except for a number of issues which will be addressed by way of conditions, has found the current DA proposal satisfactory.

 

Sunlight, Privacy and Views

 

Sunlight

The subject site is bounded by roads on the western and northern sides as well as a park on the eastern side. Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that at 9am (mid-winter) overshadowing falls predominantly on Anzac Parade and, to a lesser extent, the internal courtyard of the proposal. By 12pm, the proposal will primarily overshadow the proposed rear yard and adjoining existing pedestrian path  between the proposed development and the mixed used development at 2-8 Pine Avenue. There will be minimal overshadowing of adjoining residential properties. By 3:00pm overshadowing will occur to the west elevation of the mixed use development at No 2-8 Pine Street and the residential apartment building at No 7 Jenner Street. The impact of afternoon overshadowing on the west elevation of No 7 Jenner Street is acceptable as the living rooms abutting this elevation internally have primary balcony openings facing north which will not be overshadowed by the proposal. Similarly, the overshadowing impact on the west elevation of the mixed use development at No 2-8 Pine Avenue will be minimal as the living areas of north-facing units abutting this elevation have north-facing balconies that will not be in shadow from the proposed development.

 

Internally, the DCP requires that new dwellings must achieve 3 hours of solar access 9am to 3pm midwinter. The DCP also requires that development maximise north facing roofs for installation of solar collectors. About 90 % of living rooms of the proposed development will achieve 3 hours sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June given that the inverted U-shape footprint allows for a reasonable distribution of units to achieve morning and afternoon solar access along the separate Park and Anzac Parade wings. The living areas that will not receive the minimum 3 hours occur predominantly in some of the east facing units in the Anzac Parade building. Notwithstanding this, these affected units will have living areas linked to generously sized balconies such that natural daylight will be readily accessible.

 

Privacy

In terms of privacy, the proposal will perform well as there is ample separation distance of 20m between the proposed development and adjoining buildings at No. 2-8 Pine Avenue and No. 7 Jenner Street to the south and east, and 25m between the proposed development and No 2-4 Jenner Street to the north. Furthermore, the majority of dwelling units have living areas and associated balconies facing McCartney Park and Anzac Parade and therefore will not impact upon any adjoining residential properties. No objections have been raised regarding loss of privacy. Accordingly, the proposal performs adequately in relation to privacy of adjoining residential properties.

 

Views

The proposal will maintain the view-sharing principles of the Prince Henry DCP in that the proposal is predominantly consistent with the building envelope outlined in the DCP – Prince Henry Site for Precinct P1. In particular, proposal will maintain an established view corridor along the public pedestrian path at the rear as designated in the DCP – Prince Henry with a readily compliant southern rear setback.

 

An objection regarding view loss has come from the Strata Manager of No 7 Jenner Street (and not from any particular dwelling unit owner largely because all dwelling units within No 7 Jenner Street are tenanted rental properties with no owner occupiers as advised by the Strata Manager). An inspection on-site of the affected view has been undertaken and the principles of view loss as established under the case of Tenacity vs Warringah Council yields the following assessment:

 

Step 1:   “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

The affected view comprises a distant filtered view of Botany Bay with a predominant district view of rooftops and vegetation in the foreground (Photo D). Having regard to Senior Commissioner Roseth’s comments regarding “iconic views”, this view does not qualify as iconic but can be rated as moderately significant because of its overall panoramic quality albeit with a limited view of water in the distance.

 

 

Photo D: Indication of the view that will be affected as obtained from the 4th floor lobby area adjacent to the balcony of the affected top most eastern dwelling unit at No 7 Jenner Street (access to individual units was unavailable due to all units in the building being tenanted). The affected views are of filtered water views of Botany Bay in the distance obscured predominantly by trees and existing dwellings in the foreground. 

 

Step 2:      “The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries.”

The filtered water views of Botany Bay in the distance with predominantly trees and existing dwellings in the foreground is obtained across the rear boundary of No 7 Jenner Street. While the view across a rear boundary renders retention of the view significant, the view in this instance is obtained at an oblique angle across the common southern rear boundary of the subject site such that retention of the view would be difficult.

 

Step 3:      “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact… The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them)… It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

The affected view is obtained from a 4th floor secondary balcony originally linked to a bedroom of the top most eastern unit on the 4th floor of No 7 Jenner Street but later connected also to a kitchen under a Section 96 modification to the development consent for 7 Jenner Street (DA/644/2005/C). This Section 96 modification shows that the approved level of the 4th floor of 7 Jenner Street is RL47.36 making the average eye-level of anyone standing on the affected balcony at RL48.86 (that is, additional 1.5m height for average eye level).  The district view is obtained obliquely over the subject site as indicated in Photo D above. Qualitatively, this view loss is considered negligible as a wider district view is currently available from the living room of the same dwelling unit from a larger primary balcony in the north elevation overlooking McCartney Oval and the Prince Henry complex (see Photos E and F below). This primary view will be unaffected by the proposed development. In this context, the claims of view loss are considered unwarranted and unjustified, and not supported.

 

Photos E : partial view of wider district view that can be obtained across McCartney Oval from the primary east-facing balcony to living rooms in No 7 Jenner Street. 

 

Photos F : another angle at ground level of the district view that can be obtained across McCartney Oval from the primary east-facing balcony to living rooms in No 7 Jenner Street. 

 

Step 4:   “The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of noncompliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours.”

As indicated above, the view of Botany Bay is obtained at an eye level of RL 48.86 from the rear secondary 4th floor balcony of the top most western unit in 7 Jenner Street. While the proposal has a non-complying 5th floor loft component, the compliant 4th floor section has an up-side ceiling level of RL 48.96 which is slightly above the eye level view of Botany Bay at RL 48.86. In other words, the compliant 4th storey level of the proposed development would already significantly block the district view of Botany Bay such that deletion of the 5th floor loft level would not result in any retention of these views. Accordingly, any requirement to delete the non-complying loft level will not improve view loss as the compliant section of the building already significantly obstructs the affected district view.

 

Traffic and Access

 The applicant’s traffic report indicates that the proposal is expected to generate an additional 37 vehicles per hour for both morning and evening peak periods which the traffic report advises is relatively low to moderate generation and which would not have a significant effect on the operation or amenity of the surrounding road network and its intersection. This assessment is considered reasonable and adequate and Council’s Development Engineer raises no objections to the proposed development on traffic grounds recognising that the proposal will be acceptable in relation to traffic impacts.

 

Overall, the increase in traffic generation in the proposed development is not considered to have a significant traffic impact on the adjacent classified road network and intersections nor on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding

Ecologically Sustainable Development

The Prince Henry DCP requires the preparation of a Sustainability Building Report by an appropriately qualified professional to improve the energy efficiency of the proposed building. The applicant has provided a Sustainability Report prepared by a consultant engineer, incorporating a BASIX assessment of the proposal in accordance with BASIX modelling requirements for multi-unit housing. The assessment shows that the proposed development will achieve the energy and water saving, and thermal massing, targets under BASIX. Accordingly, the proposal is considered acceptable in terms of energy and water conservation.

 

Additionally, the proposal contains the following reasonable environmental measures:

 

·      Installation of 3-star kitchen and bathroom fixtures

·      Installation of compact fluorescent lighting

·      Building materials that provide a balance of external insulation for thermal protection and internal thermal mass for heat absorption.  

·      Use of passive design measures including natural ventilation and external shading to achieve maximum thermal comfort.

·      Use of sun control elements comprising a combination of vertical and horizontal external shading devices, internal blinds and glare control.

·      Use of high efficiency lighting such as compact fluorescent with movement sensor control in common areas.

·      A significant degree of cross-ventilated units

·      Installation of compact fluorescent lighting

 

These measures are considered appropriate in achieving ESD objectives.

 

Site Remediation  

A site audit statement (SAS) has been issued for the subject lot on 23 January 2006, indicating that the site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council development consent No. 1188/02 as amended (for the demolition of buildings and the remediation of the Prince Henry site, which was issued on 28 February 2003). Accordingly, the site will be suitable for the intended use.

 

Social and Economic Impacts

The proposal will increase the availability of housing and promote the objectives of the zone. The added population will generate additional needs for businesses, employees and patrons, which will encourage the location of services and facilities into the broader area. The increase in density is not considered to generate an unreasonable demand on the availability of services, especially given that the overall Prince Henry development precinct is well served by a multi-purpose community centre in the eastern section near Little Bay Beach, as well as Seniors Coast Centre and Aboriginal Health Research facility. The designated neighbourhood centre at the corner of Pine Avenue and Anzac Parade provides, among other things, a new mini-supermarket, cafe and retail facilities. Overall the proposal presents a positive impact within the site and locality.

 

Suitability of the site

 

The subject site is part of the developable land within the Prince Henry Site which is identified in the revised Master Plan adopted by Council on 27 May 2003 (now referred to as a Deemed DCP). In doing so, Council considered the suitability of a range of proposed land uses and their location within the Prince Henry site. Consequently, the subject site is specifically identified in the DCP – Prince Henry Site as suitable for multi-unit housing development in Precinct P1. The proposal generally is consistent with the terms of the master plan and, as demonstrated above, the new apartment development will complement the existing heritage buildings. On a broader scale, the proposal will not have an adverse impact on any item of environmental, archaeological, heritage or cultural significance within the Prince Henry site.

 

The site has been remediated in accordance with the relevant standards for residential development contained in the Contaminated Lands Management Act 1997 and as per Council consent 1188/02 as amended. A site audit statement (SAS) has been issued for the subject lot.

 

Any submissions made

The proposal was notified and advertised from 13 to 27 June 2012. Objections raised in the submission received have been addressed in relevant sections of this report as indicated in Section 6 above.

 

The public interest

The proposed development is generally consistent with the Master plan and DCP for the Prince Henry Site. It will provide the local community with high quality housing while providing proximity to natural coastal areas as well as a range of urban facilities and services in the Prince Henry Site. Accordingly, the proposal will have a positive social benefit for the local community and is considered to be in the wider public interest as it will facilitate future residential development in accordance with the Randwick LEP 1998, the Prince Henry DCP and adopted Master Plan/Deemed DCP.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship to 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

 

No direct financial impact.

 

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.

 

The proposal does not comply with the maximum FSR and storey, building and wall height standards of the Randwick LEP 1998. SEPP No.1 objections to these standards have been submitted with the application and considered to be well founded in the circumstances.

 

The proposal does not comply with the requirements of the Prince Henry DCP primarily in regards to building articulation and height which have been assessed and found to be reasonable in the circumstances.

 

The Heritage Council of NSW has granted approval to the proposed development which was separately lodged as an application under Section 60 of the Heritage Act 1977.

 

The proposal will have minimal adverse impacts on surrounding properties and heritage items. The non-compliances with policy controls will not give rise to any adverse amenity in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, privacy and views.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.      That the Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20C of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), relating to maximum floor space ratio, and maximum storey, building and external wall height on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That the Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent as a Deferred Commencement under Section 80(3) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No DA/348/2012 for the construction of a part 4, part 5 storey multi-unit residential development with basement level car parking comprising 73 units, 88 car park spaces and 31 bicycle spaces and associated works at 1-3 Jenner Avenue, Little Bay, subject to the following conditions:

 

Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

This consent does not operate until the applicant satisfies the Council, in accordance with the Regulations, as to all matters specified in this condition:

a)      The making of a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) to the satisfaction of the Council generally in accordance with the letter of offer accompanied with the DA and annexed to this development consent providing for the dedication of 1 x 1 bedroom plus study affordable dwelling with basement parking to the Council.

 

b)      The VPA shall include a clause requiring the registration of the VPA upon the title to the land subject of this determined development application prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate for the subject development.

 

c)      Council has acknowledged compliance with this condition in writing.

 

Period within which evidence must be produced

The applicant must produce evidence to Council sufficient enough to enable it to be satisfied as to those matters above within 365 days (1 year) of the date of determination.

 

Clause 95(4) of the Regulation:

"The applicant may produce evidence to the consent authority sufficient to enable it to be satisfied as to those matters and, if the consent authority has specified a period for the purpose, the evidence must be produced within that period."

 

No development can lawfully occur under this consent unless it operates.

 

Note:  Nothing in the Act prevents a person from doing such things as may be necessary to comply with this condition. (See section 80(3) of the Act)

 

Note:  Implementing the development prior to written confirmation of compliance may result in legal proceedings. If such proceedings are required Council will seek all costs associated with such proceedings as well as any penalty or order that the Court may impose. No Construction Certificate can be issued until all conditions including this condition required to be satisfied prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate have been satisfied.

Evidence required to satisfy these conditions must be submitted to Council within 12 months of the date of this consent.

 

Subject to compliance with the deferred commencement conditions, to the satisfaction of Council, development consent is granted under Section 80 & 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 subject to the following conditions:

 

A.      General

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

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

A201-B

23 July 2012

31 July 2012

Mijollo International Pty Limited

A202-B

23 July 2012

31 July 2012

A203-B

23 July 2012

31 July 2012

A204-B

23 July 2012

31 July 2012

A205-B

23 July 2012

31 July 2012

A206-B

23July 2012

31 July 2012

A207-B

23 July 2012

31 July 2012

A301-B

23 July 2012

31 July 2012

A302-B

23 July 2012

31 July 2012

A401-B

23 July 2012

31 July 2012

A402-B

23 July 2012

31 July 2012

the application form and any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions:

 

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

2.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be consistent with the details shown on the colour and materials board, drawing No: A601-A prepared by Mijollo International Pty Limited received by Council on 25 September 2012.

 

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

 

4.       Lighting to the premises shall be designed in accordance with AS4282 – 1997 Control of the Obtrusive Effects of  Outdoor Lighting" so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents or motorists and to ensure that light overspill does not affect the amenity of the area.

 

5.       Public access to the visitor’s car parking spaces is to be maintained at all times and an intercom system is to be provided adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the car park, together with appropriate signage providing instructions for use.

 

6.       A copy of the Environmental Education Toolkit as required under the Section 5.5 of the Development Control Plan – Prince Henry Site is to be provided for all future residents of the development. 

 

7.       A formal subdivision application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

 

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

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

 

Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

The following conditions are applied to meet the requirements of the Heritage Council of NSW:

9.       The development must be implemented in accordance with the conditions of approval issued by the Heritage Council of NSW pursuant to Section 63 of the Heritage Act 1977 as detailed in the letter from the Council dated 7 August 2012.

 

The following conditions are applied to incorporate NSW Police Crime Prevention recommendations:

10.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the recommendations as detailed in the NSW Police Force letter dated 3 July 2012.

 

The following condition is applied to meet the requirements of the Sydney Airport Corporation Ltd. (SACL):

11.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the recommendations as detailed in the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited letter  and dated 98 June 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.

 

12.     The following amendments to the proposal shall be undertaken:

·      Provision of ceiling fans in all bedrooms.

·      Specific wording on plan indicating the allocation of the proposed landscape area adjoining proposed Unit No 113 as private open space for the exclusive use and maintenance by Unit 113.

·      Apartments directly above entry foyers or car park entries to be provided with appropriate privacy treatment to their balconies.

·      Windows to be added to all internal enclosed bathrooms for day light and natural ventilation.

 

Details shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

       

13.     The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent. Details shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

14.     Details of bicycle storage in the basement indicating compliance with the Development Control Plan – Parking shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

15.     Details of all fencing on site including all entrances and associated structures indicating compliance with Part 4.16 Fences of the Development Control Plan for Prince Henry Site shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

16.     In accordance with the provisions of clauses 143A and 154A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a ‘Design Verification Certificate’ must be provided to the Certifying Authority, prior to issuing a construction certificate.

 

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

17.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 13 July 2012, the following monetary levy must be paid to Council.

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development Cost more than $200,000

$5,703,653.90

1%

$57,036.53

 

 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

18.     Any required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

           Structural Adequacy

19.     A Certificate prepared by a professional engineer, shall be submitted to the Council prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the proposed works.

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity and public health safety.

20.     A Site Audit Statement (SAS) and Summary Site Audit Report (SSAR) have been issued for this site. An “Unexpected Finds Protocol” forms part of these documents and shall be complied with as part of this consent. Copies of the SAS and Unexpected Finds Protocol shall be included in all leases and sales contracts.

 

21.     The builders, site workers and the Principal Certifying Authority for this development are to be made aware of this unexpected finds protocol and its requirements prior to any works commencing.

 

22.     Details of any unexpected finds, including the details of any investigation procedures, remedial actions and validation undertaken shall be forwarded to the Council accordingly.

 

23.     Chemical, 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

·          Environment Protection Authority's Environmental Guidelines; Assessment,

·          Classification and Management of Liquid and Non Liquid Wastes (1999).

·          The Chemical Control Order for Scheduled Chemical Wastes 2004

 

24.     Any fill importation to the site is to be monitored and classified by the Site Auditor appointed for remediation of the site or a person with his qualifications. Only ‘Virgin Excavated Natural Material  ’ (VENM) is to be imported to the site, as defined within the NSW EPA ‘Environmental Guidelines; Assessment, Classification and management of Liquid and Non-Liquid Wastes. 1999’.

 

Security Deposit

25.     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:

·           $6000.00    -      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

26.     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.

 

27.     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.

 

·                                                Protection of Street Trees

28.     In order to ensure retention of the row of five Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s), spaced evenly along the length of the Jenner Street verge, comprising one to the west of the existing crossing, and four to its east, as well as the row of 10 Eucalyptus haemastoma (Scribbly Gums) beyond the eastern site boundary, across the full width of the site, fronting McCartney Park in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show the retention of these public trees, with the position and diameter of their trunks and canopies to be clearly and accurately shown in relation to the works.

 

b.       Any excavations associated with the installation of new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar over public property will need to be located an equal distance between each of their trunks.

 

c.       The five Banksia’s along the Jenner Street verge must be physically protected by installing a total of four star pickets at a setback of 1.5 metres to their east and west (measured off the outside edge of its/their trunk/s at ground level), as well as against the back of the kerb to their north, and against the footpath to their south, to which safety tape/para-webbing/shade cloth or similar shall be permanently attached so as to completely enclose each tree for the duration of works.

 

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

 

e.       The applicant is not authorised to perform any works to these 15 trees, and shall contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 should pruning or removal be sought, with the applicant required to cover all associated costs, to Council’s satisfaction, prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate.

 

f.        Within the TPZ’s, there is to be no storage of materials, machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble, with all Site Management Plans needing to acknowledge these requirements.

 

g.       A refundable deposit in the form of cash, credit card or cheque for an amount of $2,500.00 shall be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development, in order to ensure compliance with the conditions listed in this consent, and ultimately, preservation of these street trees.

 

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

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to the tree at any time during the course of the works, or prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate, may result in Council claiming all or part of the lodged security in order to perform any rectification works necessary, as per the requirements of 80A (6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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.

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia & Relevant Standards

32.     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).

 

33.     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) Standard 2010, relevant Australian Standards and conditions of consent, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.  Details of the required access and facilities for people with disabilities are to be included in the plans/specifications for the construction certificate.

 

34.     A report or written correspondence must be obtained from a suitably qualified professional geotechnical engineer and 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 building and certifying the suitably and adequacy of the proposed design and construction of the building for the site.

 

35.     A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of potential vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby land/premises.

 

Driven type piles/shoring must not be provided unless a geotechnical engineer’s report is submitted to the certifying authority, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, which demonstrates that damage should not occur to any adjoining premises and public place as a result of the works.

 

Any practices or recommendations specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises or land must be fully complied with and incorporated into the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

A copy of the engineers report is to be submitted to the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority.

 

Traffic & Parking

36.     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.

 

37.     The vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the car park areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, car park 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.

 

38.     An additional 4 visitor spaces shall be provided by conversion of the storage areas between car spaces 5, 6, 77 & 79 to vehicle parking. Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

39.     A minimum of 4 car spaces shall be provided for people with a disability consistent with Prince Henry Development Control Plan. Disabled spaces are to be designed in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.6.

 

Design Alignment levels

40.     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:

 

Jenner Street frontage

·       Match back of existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

Anzac Parade  frontage

·       50mm above the back of the existing footpath at all points opposite the path, along the full site frontage.

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0881.

 

41.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $2113 calculated at $48.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of Jenner Street site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

42.     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.

         

·                                                Flood Management

43.     The level of the 1% AEP (1in 100yr flood) shall be determined in the vicinity of the site and the proposed internal driveway shall be designed with a high point at least 150 mm above determined 1 in 100 year flood level.  Details demonstrating compliance with this condition are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

44.     The building, including building footings, are to be designed to ensure that they will not be adversely affected by stormwater, floodwater and/or the water table.

 

            All proposed footings located adjacent to drainage easements shall either be:

A.   Founded on rock, or;

 B.   Extended below a 30 degree line taken from the level of the pipe invert at the edge of the drainage reserve/easement (angle of repose).

Structural details demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted with the construction certificate application.

The footings must be inspected by the applicant's engineer to ensure that these footings are either founded on rock or extend below the "angle of repose”. Documentary evidence of compliance with this condition is to be submitted to the certifying authority prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction.

 

45.     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.

 

46.     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 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)     All stormwater runoff being discharged from the site shall be managed in general accordance with the Prince Henry drainage strategy prepared by Connell Wagner. This shall involve 80% of all stormwater runoff being drained in an easterly direction through the drainage easement created over Lot 8 (The Oval) and into the biofiltration swales.via a 375 mm diameter pipeline.

c)     All site stormwater which is not discharged to the biofiltration swales, shall be discharged to Council’s underground drainage (via a stormwater detention system) in Anzac Parade or Jenner Street via a new or existing kerb inlet pit.

d)     An on-site stormwater detention system must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the portion of the site discharging to Anzac Parade or Jenner Street 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 this portion of 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.

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.

f)     A reflux valve shall be provided (within the site) over the pipeline discharging from the site to Council’s underground drainage system 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)     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)

i.     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)

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

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

iv.   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.

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

m)    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.

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

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

p)     Any onsite detention systems shall be located in areas accessible by residents of all units.

 

47.     With the exception of the site discharge pipe, all new pipelines constructed within council’s road reserve shall be minimum 375 mm diameter, spigot and socket rubber ringed jointed, steel reinforced concrete pipeline (RRRCP). Prior to backfilling, all pipelines in council’s road reserve shall be inspected and approved by the Hydraulic Engineer certifying the works and Council.

 

48.     The written approval of Council is required to be obtained in relation to all drainage and infrastructure 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 professional 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.

 

Site seepage & Dewatering

49.     Sub-soil drainage (from site seepage & planter boxes etc) must comply with the following requirements:

 

a)  Sub-soil drainage must not be connected or discharged directly or indirectly to Council’s street gutter.

 

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

 

c)  Sub-soil drainage systems (if provided) must comply with one or more of the following requirements:-

 

i.    The system may be connected directly to Council’s underground drainage system (but only with the prior written approval of Council, as required under the Roads Act 1993).

 

i.    Any sub-soil drainage systems must be restricted from entering the basement areas of the building and the stormwater drainage system, by tanking/waterproofing the basement areas of the building.

 

ii.   Sub-soil drainage systems may discharge via infiltration subject to the hydraulic consultant/engineer being satisfied that the site and soil conditions are suitable and the seepage is able to be fully managed within the site, without causing a nuisance to any premises and ensuring that it does not drain or discharge (directly or indirectly) to the street gutter.

 

d)  Details of the proposed stormwater drainage system including methods of sub-soil drainage, tanking/waterproofing (as applicable) must be prepared or approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Professional Engineer to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

50.     Details of the proposed connection and or disposal of any site seepage, groundwater or construction site stormwater to Council’s stormwater drainage system must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Development Engineering Coordinator, prior to commencing these works, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

Details must include the following information:

·       Site plan

·       Hydraulic engineering details of the proposed disposal/connection of groundwater or site stormwater to Council/s drainage system

·       Volume of water to be discharged

·       Location and size of drainage pipes

·       Duration, dates and time/s for the proposed works and disposal

·       Details of water quality and compliance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Act 1997

·       Details of associated plant and equipment, including noise levels from the plant and equipment and compliance with the requirements of the Protection of the Environment Act 1997 and associated Regulations and Guidelines

·       Copy of any required approvals and licences from other Authorities (e.g.  A water licence from the Department of Planning/Department of Water & Energy).

·       Details of compliance with any relevant approvals and licences

 

Waste  Management

51.     Waste Management provisions must be implemented in accordance with the Waste Management Plan submitted with the development application received by Council 30th May 2012, subject to the following amendments:-

§ Compaction is not appropriate for recyclables, 36 x 240L bins must be provided for recyclables.

       

52.     The garbage room shall be sized to contain the compactor (with safe working area) plus a minimum of 54 x 240 litre bins and with adequate provisions for access to all of the bins. Details showing compliance are to be included in the construction certificate. The compactor system shall be managed by a caretaker and the compactor is to be located in an area that is not readily accessible by residents.

 

Note: This will require the proposed bin storage area to be enlarged and may require the deletion of one car space and is acceptable on the provision of the additional 4 visitor spaces being provided as required.

 

53.     The waste storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

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.

 

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

54.     An application for installation of any proposed grey water recycling system, in accordance with Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 is to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to these works commencing. Details of compliance with relevant Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (DEUS), Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) and NSW Health guidelines are to be provided with the application.

 

55.     An application for the operation of any proposed grey water system, in accordance with Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 is to be submitted to and approved by Council in accordance with the relevant regulatory framework. Details of compliance with relevant Department of Energy, Utilities and Sustainability (DEUS),Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) and NSW Health guidelines are to be provided with the application.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies relevant legislative requirements and to provide reasonable levels of health, safety and amenity:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

58.     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 any relevant Certificate of Insurance) or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencement of works.

 

59.     The installation of ground or rock anchors underneath any adjoining premises including (a public roadway or public place) must not be carried out without specific written consent of the owners of the affected adjoining premises and (where applicable) details of compliance must be provided to the certifying authority prior to the commencement of any excavation or building works.

 

60.     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 (eg. dwellings, residential flat buildings, commercial/industrial building, garages, carports, verandah’s, fences, retaining walls, swimming pools and driveways etc.).

The report is to be supported with photographic evidence of the status and condition of the buildings and a copy of the report must also be forwarded to the Council and to the owners of each of the abovementioned premises, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

62.     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, to the satisfaction of the Council.

 

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.

 

63.     Public health, safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works and the following requirements must be satisfied:

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

 

b)       Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions, soil and debris at all times.

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i)        A Road / Asset Opening application must be submitted to and be approved by 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.

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development. For further information, please contact Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

j)        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 Council.

 

64.     A Construction Site Management Plan is to be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

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

·       location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·       location of building materials for construction;

·       provisions for public safety;

·       dust control measures;

·       site access location and construction

·       details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·       protective measures for tree preservation;

·       provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·       location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·       details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·       construction noise and vibration management;

·       construction traffic management details.

 

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

 

65.     During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

If the proposal is acceptable to Sydney Water, 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 is required to ensure that a Quick Check Agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before the commencement of any works.

 

67.     Any metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted and form part of the colour scheme and external finishes for the development. The reflectivity index of materials used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent.  The details and samples of the materials to be used are to be submitted with the colour and material schedule for the approval of Council’s Director of City Planning, prior to the commencement of works.

 

Certification and Building Inspection Requirements

 

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

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

 

Construction Traffic Management

69.     A detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to:

 

a)     commencement of any site work [or]

b)       a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

70.     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.

 

            Public Utilities

71.     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.

 

72.     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.

 

Landscaping of Street Frontage

73.     A landscape design is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Services, for the (name of street) street frontage/s of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for the (name of commercial centre), prior to commencement of works. The landscape design may include pavements, seat and bin installations, street trees, tree grates and tree guards as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0915.

·                    All street furniture is required to be purchased through Council. Due to supply constraints, the applicant is required to place an order and pay for the required furniture three months prior to the estimated date for the completion of street frontage works.

·                    The approved landscape works to be carried out on Council land shall be in accordance with Council’s requirements for Civil Works on Council property. An application for the cost of the landscape works on Council property is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The owner/applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to the written approval, of Council, subject to the provision of a design checking and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council’s nominated contractor being paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

A refundable deposit in the form of cash, cheque or credit card payment of ($2,000 per street frontage) shall be lodged with Council prior to commencement of works in order to ensure the construction of the approved landscape works along the (name of street/s) site frontage/s.

 

74.     The applicant shall submit a separate Development Application dealing with the public open space requirement of the development.  The applicant shall meet the full cost of developing the public open space which shall include the preparation of all concept and detailed documentation, provision for children's play equipment and appropriate under surfacing, shade structures, site furniture, fencing, signage, pedestrian pavements, park structures, turfing, planting, lighting to Energy Australia standards, irrigation and/or (other - specify).

The following conditions are applied to provide for heritage, aboriginal and historical archaeological protection of the area :

75.     Prior to the commencement of any works on the site, site contractors should be made aware of the possibility that historical archaeological and Aboriginal remains may survive on and around the site.

 

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.

 

The following conditions are applied to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity and public health safety.

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

 

77.     The works shall not give rise to environmental pollution or public nuisance or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 or NSW Occupational Health & Safety Act (2000) & Regulations (2001).

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the construction works are executed in a proper manner:

 

Building regulation and construction site management

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

 

Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

79.     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.

 

80.     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”.

 

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

 

a)     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.

 

b)     On sites involving the removal of asbestos, a  professionally manufactured 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. The sign shall measure not less than 400mm x 300mm and the sign is to be installed prior to demolition work commencing and is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos has been safely removed from the site.

 

c)     Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act