Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 23 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                                                                                                23 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, 23 October 2012 at 6pm.

 

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

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

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

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

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 9 October 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

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.

 

 

Director City Planning Reports  (record of voting NOT required)

CP75/12    Youth Council presentation

 

Director City Planning Reports  (record of voting required)

CP76/12    2 St Marks Road, Randwick (DA/98/2010/B)

CP77/12    321 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/439/2012)

CP78/12    10 Anthony Lane, Matraville (DA/455/2012)

CP79/12    88 Garden Street, Maroubra (DA/319/2012)

CP80/12    6 Brighton Road, Coogee (DA/1139/2010/A)

 

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP81/12    Reporting variation to Development standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) between 1 August to 30 September, 2012

CP82/12    Proposed Funding of a Sculpture Monument by Ms Eileen Slarke at Little Bay

CP83/12    Community and Cultural Grants Program - September 2012 Round - Recommended Allocations

General Manager's Reports

GM29/12    Council Response to “NSW Government – Funding Our Emergency Services” Discussion Paper

GM30/12    Council operating hours - Christmas and New Year 2012/13

Director City Services Reports

CS12/12    Buildings for our Community 2013-14 Advanced Funding

CS14/12    Randwick City Council Resident Parking Scheme

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF50/12    Presentation of the 2011-12 Financial Statements

GF51/12    Monthly Financial Report as at 31 August 2012

GF52/12    Investment Report - September 2012

GF53/12    2011-12 Disclosure of Interests Returns  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM59/12    Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Renewed resident request for consideration of a community centre in Lexington Place

NM60/12    Notice of Motion from Cr Nash - Arthur Lane Carpark

NM61/12    Notice of Motion from Cr Nash - BIKEast’s Questionnaire for Local Government Candidates

NM62/12    Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Call on the Planning Minister to withdraw referral of Inglis Rezoning Proposal to the JRPP

NM63/12    Notice of Motion from Cr Nash - Submission to JRPP - Inglis/Newmarket Site Planning Proposal

NM64/12    Notice of Motion from Cr Seng - Rental Accommodation in Randwick LGA

NM65/12    Notice of Motion from Cr Seng - Acknowledgement of contribution to Bali Memorial  

 

 

 

Closed Session (record of voting required)

CS13/12    Tender T12/12 Cooper Street Retaining Wall - Retaining Wall Stabilisation

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.

 

 

GF54/12    SSROC Tender for Playground Equipment

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 Motion

NR6/12      Notice of Rescission Motion from Crs Andrews, Belleli and Nash - Awards for Sporting Achievements 2012  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP75/12

 

 

Subject:                  Youth Council presentation

Folder No:                   F2010/00408

Author:                   Avril Jeans, Project Officer     

 

Introduction

 

At the Council Meeting of 27 March 2012 Council considered a report in relation to ‘Randwick City Council's Support and Service for Young Peopleand it was subsequently resolved as follows:

 

‘(Andrews/Smith) that Council notes the information contained in the report and invites the Randwick Youth Council to attend a Council meeting.’

 

This report is in response to the above resolution.

 

Issues

 

In March this year a report was presented to Council detailing the range of youth activities, programs and support provided by Randwick City Council. Part of that report described the work undertaken by Randwick Youth Councillors over their 12 month term. This included:

 

·           Scoping, planning and implementing youth activities like The LeX-factor busking competition, Urban Shorts – youth film festival and the Filthy Art Festival

·           Hosting and speaking at various public events including the Bringing Parent’s up to Speed information forum

·           Presenting at Precinct Committee meetings

·           Attending state level advisory panels like NSW Youth Advisory

·           Undertaking youth consultations including film making, Vox Pops and surveys

·           Participating in training and forum opportunities including the Refugee Forum at UNSW

·           Regularly attending meetings, working parties and youth events in advisory capacities, as planners and project coordinators and hands on volunteers and facilitators

 

Following their induction in September 2012, the new Youth Councillors resolved to accept the invitation to attend an Ordinary Council meeting and to request that time be allocated for them on the agenda so that they can introduce themselves and present their plans for the new term.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction:          Regularly consult our community on their needs.

 

 

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The Youth Council request a 5 minute time slot at the beginning of the Council meeting to introduce themselves and present their program for the 2012-13 term.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council receive and note this report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP76/12

 

 

Subject:                  2 St Marks Road, Randwick (DA/98/2010/B)

Folder No:                   DA/98/2010/B

Author:                   Alex Van Son, Senior Environmental Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 application to modify the consent by altering the internal configuration of the approved first floor level of the Hotel including relocation of the BBQ cooking area, the extension of the indoor seating area and one new mechanical exhaust vent. 

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Ducester Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Ducester 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 S96 application involves changes to approved DA/98/2010 and subsequent s96(2) applications, which allowed for alterations to the Duke of Gloucester Hotel including relocation of the kitchen and restaurant upstairs, demolition of the existing garage and dining room, upgrading the beer garden, new external entry and stairs with a stair-lift to the upper floor; and removing approved external stairs between the first level and the beer garden, providing access between floors with a lift; provide a fire stair between the first floor and St Marks Road; provide unisex disabled toilet, make changes to conditions of consent, respectively.

 

It is proposed to make external and internal changes at first floor level, reconfiguring the dining and kitchen areas and expending the proposed dining area into the area occupied by the original managers residence.

 

The site is on the western side of St Marks Rd, Randwick. The site is irregular in shape and 746.1m2 with a moderate easterly aspect. There is an apartment building to the west and a pair of semi-detached homes to the south. The Hotel is listed as a heritage item in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

The proposal was notified in accordance with the DCP Public Notification of Development Applications and four (4) objections were received. Further details of submissions are provided and addressed in this report.

 

The proposal satisfies the requirements of Section 96 and the relevant heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The subject s96(2) application proposes to extend the first floor dinning area into the area occupied by the original manager’s residence, increasing the dining area by approximately 50m2, and make internal changes at first floor level, including reconfiguration of the kitchen area. Minor external changes are proposed to create a small balcony on the north eastern corner.

 

Plant and equipment: One new exhaust fan is proposed to the east, shown on the southern elevation as “new mechanical exhaust to eng’s detail”.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is on the western side of St Marks Rd, Randwick. The site is irregular in shape and 746.1m2 with a moderate easterly aspect. It is a corner lot with long frontage to Frenchmans Rd. There is an apartment building to the west and a pair of semi-detached homes to the south. The Hotel is listed as a heritage item in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. There are heritage items immediately to the south, across the intersection to the north-east, and over Frenchmans Road to the north-west.

 

Figure 1 – An aerial photograph of the building

 

4.    Site and Application History

 

4.1      Regulatory Action

Council is currently investigating the existing mechanical ventilation exhausts, shown on the submitted plans as “existing mechanical exhaust” due to complaints associated with excessive noise. Approval for these exhausts does not form part of the subject application.

 

4.2      Application History

The existing hotel was constructed in the early 1930s. There were refurbishments during the 1970’s, the mid 1990’s and a recently completed refurbishment approved in 2008. The following applications are recorded for the site.

 

·      DA/98/2010/A,   Modify Development Consent No DA/98/2010 by removing approved external stairs between the first level and the beer garden, providing access between floors with a lift; provide a fire stair between the first floor and St Marks Road; provide unisex disabled toilet, make changes to conditions of consent.

·      DA/98/2010, Alterations and additions to the existing Duke of Gloucester Hotel including relocation of kitchen and restaurant upstairs; demolition of existing garage and dining room; upgrading of beer garden; and new external entry and exit stairs with disabled access to the upper floor; closing time for beer garden 10.00pm

·      DA/893/2007/A, Section 96 (2) Modification of approved development including relocating disabled toilet from new extension to inside the Hotel; changing layout to Poker Machine area; setting courtyard back by 1200mm from boundary; enclosing perimeter of the courtyard with new wall for acoustic insulation purposes,

·      DA/893/2007, Conversion of the existing rear court yard into an outdoor smoking area; expansion & refurbishment of the existing gaming room area; refurbishment of the bar area; demolition of existing male toilets & construction of new toilets.

·      DA/1097/1998, Increase the bar areas of the hotel with the addition of a pool room, bar area.

·      DA/145/1998, Increase bar areas of hotel with addition of a games room, pool room & bar facilities (Refused).

·      DA/153/1996, Alterations and Additions to existing hotel including new bistro involving demolition of rear exit and rebuilding.

·      DA/411/1994, Alterations to existing hotel.

·      BA/97/1995, Alterations to existing hotel.

·      BA/546/1979, Canvas hood blind.

·      BA/589/1978, Alterations to existing hotel.

·      BA/230/1970, Alterations/additions to existing hotel.

·      BA/739/1950, Service shelter

·      BA/317/1933, Hotel.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification from 12 September 2012 to 26 September 2012.  The application was also advertised in the local newspaper on 11 September 2012.  As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:-

 

2/36 Frenchmans Road

 

Objection

Comment

The proposed BBQ cooking grill utilises an exhaust fan that is unapproved. The unapproved exhaust fan generates excessive noise levels and results in disruption to adjoining dwellings.

 

The subject s96(2) application does not seek approval for the exhaust vents that are shown on the plans submitted as “existing mechanical exhaust”.

 

Conditions that form part of the original approval (DA/98/2010) and additional conditions recommended are considered to adequately address the issue of noise emissions from any new mechanical plant. See comments in relation to Noise, below.

 

In instances where existing plant and equipment does not meet the above standard, Council’s regulatory arm should be notified and enforcement action taken.

 

See further comment under Environmental Assessment, below.

 

The S96(2) application does not involve upgrading of the beer garden. No acoustic report has been prepared by the applicant in relation to the beer garden.

 

Condition No. 16 of DA/98/2010/A requires that:

 

Details of compliance with required acoustic treatments outlined in Acoustic report prepared by Environmental Results titled “Noise Impact Assessment Duke of Gloucester Hotel Frenchmans Road Randwick” dated 14 April 2011 shall be included in the construction certificate plans and submitted to the principal certifying authority and Council.

 

These details are to be shown in construction certificate plans associated with DA/98/2010/A and not in the plans associated with the subject s96(2) development application.

The closing time of the beer garden is not consistent with the closing time of other beer gardens “under Randwick Council authority.”

The subject s96(2) development application does not involve amendments to the hours of operation associated with the beer garden.

 

Randwick Precinct

 

Objection

Comment

This section 96 modification application is not substantially the same application to which Council has given consent (on 14/9/2010 and the modification 'A' on 13/9/2011). This section 96 modification application ('B') should either be refused on this basis, if not withdrawn by the applicant prior.

 

Refer to s96(2) assessment below.

The bar area should be utilised for food service purposes with only alcohol sales to patrons utilising the first floor dining facilities limited to packaged alcohol (being wine or bottled beer) from this 'kitchen / bar area' or alternatively table service .

 

The proposed development involves the extension of the restaurant area approved as part of DA/98/2010 and is not considered a significant intensification of the approved use and will involve only a minor extension of the usable area. The form of the proposed development is considered consistent with that of a restaurant.

 

Imposing a condition restricting the types of alcohol that can be served at the kitchen / bar area to bottled wine and beer only is a matter for the liquor licence authority should the premises breach its responsible service of alcohol requirements

We note that the proposed BBQ cooking area is remote from the staffed kitchen area which could lead to health and safety concerns, particularly if this is to be used on a 'self-service' basis by the public. We consider that any BBQ area should be within clear view of the staffed kitchen area and be supervised.

 

There are no foreseen health and safety issues associated with the proposed layout of the BBQ area. Conditions are included in the original consent that require the premises to be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004, Australia & New Zealand Food Standards Code and Australian Standard AS 4674-2004, Design, construction and fit-out of food premises.

 

A condition is included in he original consent that requiring a plan of management that would address such matters.

The ground floor garbage storage area should be located away from adjoining residential uses. It is suggested the office area facing Frenchmans Road be converted for this purpose

The existing garbage storage area was approved as part of DA/98/2010/A and no changes to this aspect of the development is proposed as part of the subject s96 application. As such, this is considered to be outside the scope of the subject application.

 

Address withheld

 

Objection

Comment

The existing exhaust vent generates unreasonable noise levels. An objection is lodged on the basis that the new exhaust vents will generate similar problems.

 

Refer to comments under “Regulatory Action”, above, and Noise, below.

 

Conditions that form part of the original approval (DA/98/2010), as detailed above, are considered to adequately address the issue of noise emissions from any new mechanical plant associated with the subject application.

 

In instances where existing plant and equipment do not meet the above standard, Council’s regulatory arm should be notified and enforcement action taken.

 

33 Frenchmans Road

 

Objection

Comment

The application contains serious flaws and omissions that imply approvals which do not exist (re: hours of operation and BBQ facility). 

 

The subject application is not considered to contain any significant or misleading flaws. The proposal does not seek to amend or change the existing hours of operation and no conditions that would have this effect are included in the recommendation. The BBQ facility formed part of the modifications approved by DA/98/2010/A.

The proposed amendment does not provide adequate noise suppression.

 

Subject to recommended conditions, no aspect of the proposed amendments is expected to result in unreasonable noise impacts. Conditions included in the original application are considered to adequately address the issue of noise emissions from any new mechanical plant associated with the subject application. Refer to comments below, Noise.

 

6.    Referral Comments

 

6.1      Heritage

The Site

The subject site occupied by the Duke of Gloucester Hotel, listed as a heritage item under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The site is in the vicinity of a number of heritage items including nos.4-10 St. Mark’s Road, a Federation semi-detached group, no.41 Frenchmans Road, a Federation cottage and nos.49-55 Frenchmans Road a two storey commercial residential building.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for the building describes it as a “good example of 1930s hotel building with Art Deco styling and interior.  Almost intact.  Important streetscape on prominent intersection.”  The Inventory Sheet also notes the brick construction and the excellent Art Deco interior.  A notable feature is the use of ceramic decorative elements including an ornamental frieze which runs around the parapet on the eastern, northern, western and part of the southern elevations. 

 

Background

DA/893/2007 for provision of disabled access, new openings to the rear courtyard and an extension to the existing gaming area (including relocation of male toilets) was approved in May 2008. 

 

DA/98/2010 for alterations and additions at ground and first floor level was approved in September 2010.  At ground floor level was proposed to make changes at the western end of the site to enhance the existing courtyard area for use as a beer garden.  Ground floor kitchen and dining areas were to be relocated to the first floor, requiring removal of a number of internal walls.  A new external stair and stair lift with awnings was to be provided for access between ground and first floors. 

 

A previous Section 96 application proposed changes at ground and first floor level.  At first floor level, additional male and female toilets were to be provided in the south eastern corner of the building, and approval was also given for the removal of a number of internal walls to the original manager’s residence.  An internal lift was to be provided in the north west corner of the building. 

 

The Proposal

A further Section 96 application has now been received which proposes internal changes at first floor level, configuring the dining and kitchen areas and expanding the proposed dining area into the area occupied by the original manager’s residence. 

 

Submission

The original application was accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared by Rappoport Pty Ltd.  The Statement of Significance which has previously been submitted noted that despite modification to the rear and internally, the Art Deco hotel building retained a high proportion of original fabric, particularly externally.  The SHI also considered that the proposal would conserve the primary eastern and northern facing street facades of the hotel, and allow the place to evolve and cater to patron expectations in order to remain economically viable, given that the demand for accommodation has declined.  The SHI also provided several recommendations to mitigate heritage impact. 

 

The current application has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects which suggests that the proposed modifications will preserve the heritage significance of the hotel both internally and externally, and is consistent with the heritage recommendations of the previous approvals. 

 

Comments

The current application proposes to relocate the kitchen from the area to the west of the stair to the area to the east of the stair, and includes removal a number of existing walls at the eastern end of the building.  The removal of these walls was approved as part of the previous Section 96 amendment.  Where the previous application proposed removal of the walls separating the now enclosed corner balcony from the internal area, the current application retains these walls and reinstates the open balcony. 

 

Further internal and external works have been carried out which are not part of the current approval.  It is unclear whether these works have been approved as part of a previous consent or Schedule of Conservation Works.  At first floor level, a number of false timber panelled ceilings have been installed, as well as stone cladding to remaining columns.  At ground floor level the original lining to the underside of the awning has been entirely replaced with unpainted pressed metal. 

 

Removal of internal walls at upper floor level

The removal of these walls was approved as part of the previous Section 96 amendment, which included consent conditions in relation to retention of retention of existing timberwork and plasterwork.  The removal of walls has generally been carried out to ensure retention of cornices

 

Changes to ceilings and columns at upper floor level

The previous SHI submission acknowledged that the existing cornices contribute positively to the interior of the heritage item and should be conserved as a contributory element to the whole.  Previous consent conditions required that existing internal fabric which is to be retained including cornices, fireplaces and windows are to be protected during construction of the works.  The applicant has advised that the false ceilings which have been installed in conjunction with the works which are now underway are required for fire safety reasons.  The installation of timber panelled ceilings obscures these cornices in some cases however.  Any false ceiling should be installed to ensure the plaster cornices are not damaged and so that these ceilings can be removed in future.  Similarly stone cladding to columns should be installed so that surfaces are not damaged and so that this cladding can be removed in future.  Appropriate consent conditions should be included. 

 

Replacement of lining to underside of ground level awning

The entirety of the original lining to the underside of the ground level awning has been replaced by a new unpainted pressed metal lining.  A consent condition should be included requiring details of the proposed paint finish to the new surface. 

 

Reinstatement of corner balcony

The original open balcony has been enclosed with panels of awning windows, possibly during the 1960s.  Original railings have been removed although it appears that the coloured glass panels which remain are original.  The removal of existing windows and reinstatement of the original open balcony will enhance the heritage value and streetscape contribution of the building.  Due to the extent of removal of original fabric, the original detailing and materials of the balcony are unclear.  Heritage advice should be sought to ensure accurate reconstruction of the open balcony.  An appropriate consent condition should be included requiring details of proposed new railings to the corner balcony. 

 

Changes to existing balustrades on northern balcony

The applicant noted on site that changes to existing balustrades may be required to ensure BCA compliance.  It is unclear whether details of any proposed changes have been approved as part of any previous approved drawings. 

 

Recommendation

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

·      Architectural details are to be submitted of the metal balustrade of the reinstated corner balcony.  Heritage advice should be sought to ensure accurate reconstruction of the open balcony.  Drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

·      Architectural details are to be submitted of any required modification of existing metal balustrades to the northern balcony for BCA compliance.  Modifications are to be carried out to avoid damage to original balustrades.  Drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

·      Details of the proposed paint scheme to the underside of the new ground level awning are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

·      Any false ceiling should be installed to ensure the plaster cornices are not damaged and so that these ceilings can be removed in future. 

 

·      Stone cladding to columns should be installed so that surfaces are not damaged and so that this cladding can be removed in future. 

 

6.2      Development Engineer

 

An application has been received to modify the subject development consent by altering the internal configuration of the approved first floor level of the Duke of Gloucester Hotel.

 

Parking Comments

In the assessment of Development Application 203/2011 Council’s Development Engineer requested the applicant to provide additional information in the form of a Traffic and Parking Assessment. This application proposed to increase the floor area of the restaurant by approximately 94m2 and approximately 48 additional seats.

 

The proposed Section 96 modification increases the floor area by approximately 50m2 however the layout is such that only an additional 18 seats are added to the restaurant. Given that this modification does not significantly increase the capacity of the restaurant, a Traffic and Parking Assessment has not been requested. The proposed expansion of the restaurant area is not expected to have significant adverse impacts on parking within areas surrounding the hotel and is supportable.

 

There are no opportunities to increase parking provision within the site. The site is a heritage item and Council’s DCP-Parking states that in some circumstances the requirement for additional parking may be waived.

 

7.    NSW Police

 

NSW Police has reviewed the proposal and whilst it is noted as having a medium risk, no objection has been raised.

 

 

 

8.    S96(2) Assessment

 

The proposal has been lodged as a S96(2) which allows for the modification of an existing consent if the Consent Authority is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted.

 

Prior to assessing the application in relation to the acceptability of any potential environmental impacts, it must be determined whether the proposed modifications result in a development that is "substantially the same" as that which was originally approved. This determination is based on a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the changes proposed to the approved development.

 

The proposal involves the expansion of the restaurant approved under the original DA by a net area of approximately 50m2 with an additional 18 seats shown on the plans, making internal and external alterations to areas associated with the restaurant use and other minor associated works.

 

The proposal does not involve any changes to the nature of the use approved as part of the original approval and merely seeks to expand the restaurant use in a subservient manner. Based on a calculation of floor area, the usable GFA of the dining room will increase from 145m2 to 195m2, which is an increase of 34%.

 

A modification of this nature is not expected to significantly alter or increase the environmental impacts associated with the approved use, particularly in relation to noise and parking. Overall, the increased dining area represents a small increase in the usable area of the hotel as a whole and is contained within the existing floor area of the hotel. Qualitatively and quantitatively, the proposed development is considered to be substantially the same as that approved under DA/98/2010 and subsequent S96(2) applications.

 

9.    Existing use rights

 

Planning principles in relation to the assessment of development applications based on existing use rights were stated by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Fodor Investments v Hornsby Shire Council (2005) 141 LGERA. These principles were later confirmed by Justice Pain in Stromness Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council [2006] NSWLEC 587 as follows.

 

Planning Principle for existing use rights development

Four questions usually arise in the assessment of existing use rights developments, namely:

 

Principle One: How do the bulk and scale (as expressed by height, floor space ratio and setbacks) of the proposal relate to what is permissible on surrounding sites?

 

While planning controls, such as height, floor space ratio and setbacks do not apply to sites with existing use rights; they have relevance to the assessment of applications on such sites. This is because the controls apply to surrounding sites and indicate the kind of development that can be expected if and when surrounding sites are redeveloped. The relationship of new development to its existing and likely future context is a matter to be considered in all planning assessment…

 

Assessment: The proposal involves no perceptible changes to the bulk and scale of the existing building. The proposal satisfies this principle.

 

Principle Two: What is the relevance of the building in which the existing use [sic] takes place?

 

Where the change of use is proposed within an existing building, the bulk and scale of that building are likely to be deemed acceptable, even if the building is out of scale with its surroundings, because it already exists. However, where the existing building is proposed for demolition, while its bulk is clearly an important consideration, there is no automatic entitlement to another building of the same floor space ratio, height or parking provision…

 

Assessment: As above, the proposal involves no perceptible changes to the bulk and scale of the existing building. The proposal satisfies this principle.

 

Principle Three: What are the impacts on adjoining land?

 

The impact on adjoining land should be assessed for all development. It is true that where, for example, a development control plan requires three hours of sunlight to be maintained in adjoining rear yards, the numerical control does not apply. However, the overshadowing impact on adjoining rear yards should be reasonable…

 

Assessment: The original approval and subsequent s96 application include a comprehensive suite of conditions dealing with social, environmental and amenity impacts. The impacts of the proposed modification (noise and parking) are acceptable and the proposal satisfies this principle.

 

Principle Four: What is the internal amenity?

 

Internal amenity must be assessed as it is assessed for all development. Again, numerical requirements for sunlight access or private open space do not apply, but these and other aspects must be judged acceptable as a matter of good planning and design. None of the legal principles discussed above suggests that development on sites with existing use rights have lower amenity than development generally.

 

Assessment: The proposal refurbishes and significantly improves upon the amenities offered within the hotel.

 

10. Environmental Assessment

 

The Hotel use is prohibited in the 2B zone. However, the proposal is permissible subject to the existing use rights provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The use of the premises as a Hotel was lawfully commenced and has not been abandoned. 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, and a merit based assessment has been undertaken in relation to the proposed works.

 

10.1    Noise

 

The proposed s96(2) modification includes changes that have the potential to effect noise levels associated with the existing use. In particular, the proposal will:

 

·      Increase the area of upstairs restaurant by 50m2 (existing managers office); and

·      Involve the installation of new plant – mechanical exhaust vent.

 

Proposed new condition No. 112 in relation to plant and equipment:

 

112.  The proposed 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).

 

Conditions that form part of the original approval are also considered relevant to  noise emissions from any new mechanical plant and equipment.

 

24.   The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance or damage to other premises.

 

25.   The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health nuisance to the adjoining/nearby premises or the environment.

 

26.   There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulation.

 

The increase in the restaurant floor area is not expected to significantly increase the noise output associated with the premises as it is contained within the existing floor area of the hotel and essentially converts the manager’s residence to restaurant. Conditions associated with noise levels imposed as part of the original approval remain relevant to the subject application:

 

15.   The L10 noise level emitted from the licensed premises shall not exceed the background noise level (L90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz – 8kHz inclusive) by more than 5dB between 7.00am and 12.00 midnight at the boundary of any affected residence.  The background noise level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from the licensed premises.

 

a.     The LA10 noise level emitted from the licensed premises shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz – 8kHz inclusive) between 12.00 midnight and 7.00am at the boundary of any affected residence.  The background noise level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from the licensed premises.

 

b.     Notwithstanding compliance with the above, the noise from the licensed premises shall not be audible within any habitable room in any residential premises between the hours of 12.00 midnight and 7.00am.

 

Amendments are proposed to condition No. 18 that form part of DA/98/2010/A, which address noise and vibration outputs from the development as a whole and ensure compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the NSW Environment Protection Authority Industrial Noise Policy Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance):

18.   A compliance report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council:

 

a)       In relation to the mechanical plant prior to commencement of use;

b)      1 month after commencement of use of the ground floor outdoor area;

c)      6 months after commencement of use of the ground floor outdoor area;

d)      12 months after commencement of use of the ground floor area;

e)      And from time to time as requested by Council

 

which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997; NSW Environment Protection Authority Industrial Noise Policy Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance); the recommended criteria and measures detailed in the report entitled “Noise Impact Assessment Duke Of Gloucester Hotel Frenchmans Road Randwick”  dated 14 April 2011  prepared by Environmental results Pty Ltd. and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

The assessment must include (but not be limited to):

 

a.    Monitoring from the nearest affected residential premises,

b.    Monitoring and assessment during the use and operation of the premises when the maximum occupancy is present,

c.    Compliance monitoring shall be carried out during the times when the nearby residential and public domain areas are likely to be most affected, this shall include (but not be limited to) the hours of operation on a Friday and/or Saturday night,

d.    Ensure the break out of any internal noise complies with the set criteria. If not, nominate the necessary and required measures to ensure compliance (this may include controlling internal noise; provision of sound locks; other management practices as deemed appropriate and necessary),

e.    The report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources.

 

10.2    Parking

The proposal involves increasing the floor area of the upstairs restaurant by approximately 50m2. As a guide, in accordance with Council’s DCP: Parking, this generates an increased demand of 7 parking spaces based on the parking rate for hotels (1 car park per 6m2 less 1 space associated with the existing managers residence: 50/6 – 1 = 7.33). 

 

There are no opportunities to provide additional parking within the site. Notwithstanding, within the context of the existing operation, the increased demand for parking is expected to be negligible. The site is located within a local village and increased parking demand is expected to be absorbed by existing on-street parking. Furthermore, the site is well serviced by public transport services.

 

The site is a heritage item, listed in the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation), and Council’s DCP Parking makes reference to the provision of additional parking areas for properties identified as heritage items. Clause 3.7.3(4) states that in some circumstances, the requirement for additional on site parking may be waived in order to maintain the heritage significance of a heritage item. In this circumstance, additional onsite parking would be considered detrimental to the historical significance of the site. Further the proposed modification will contribute to the conservation of the heritage item by ensuring its ongoing viability and historical significance as a hotel.

 

The proposed expansion of the restaurant area is not expected to have any unreasonable impacts on parking in the immediate area.

 

10.3    Heritage Impacts

The heritage impacts of the proposal have been considered by Council’s heritage planner and discussed in detail, above. Overall the proposed amendments will not have unreasonable impacts on the historical significance of the building, subject to conditions.

 

11. Section 79C assessment

 

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 2B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is prohibited with Council's consent.  The subject site benefits from existing use rights.

 

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

See table below. 

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

Not applicable

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 proposal is not considered to result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

 

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

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

12. Draft Randwick LEP 2012

 

Description

LEP Standard

Proposed

Compliance

 

Zoning: B2 Local Centre.

 

Is development permitted under zoning?

 

Zone B1 Local Centre (3), Permitted with consent: Food and drink premises > Pub.

Alterations and additions to an existing hotel.

Yes.

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

 

1.5:1

No change to existing.

Not applicable

Height of Building (Maximum)

 

12m

No change to existing

Not applicable

Lot Size (Minimum)

 

None

No change to existing

Not applicable

Heritage:

·    Draft Heritage Item

 

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

The proposal would require consent in accordance with (2)(a)(b) as it involves altering a heritage item (No. 1262) by making exterior changes and making structural changes to its interior.

 

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

Yes.

 

See heritage planners comments above.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

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

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

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that the proposal be approved to allow for an increase in restaurant area and for proposed works to be carried out subject to conditions. The proposal satisfies the relevant heads of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 will not result in an adverse impact on the amenity of locality.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the responsible Consent Authority, grant consent under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/98/2010 by altering the internal configuration of the approved first floor level of the Hotel including relocation of the BBQ cooking area, the extension of the indoor seating area and one new mechanical exhaust vent at No. 2 St Marks Road, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01 to DA05, stamped received by Council 18 February 2010, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by plans DA01, DA02, DA04, DA05, stamped and received by Council on the 24th of December 2010 and DA03 Rev A stamped and received by Council on the 27th of January 2011, except as may be amended by S96 plans DA2.20, DA3.10, and DA3.20 all dated 7/08/2012, drawn by Philip Leamon and Associates, stamped and received by Council on 27 August 2012 and the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Amend Condition No. 18 to read:

 

18.   A compliance report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council:

 

a)     In relation to the mechanical plant prior to commencement of use;

b)     1 month after commencement of use of the ground floor outdoor area;

c)     6 months after commencement of use of the ground floor outdoor area;

d)     12 months after commencement of use of the ground floor area;

e)     And from time to time as requested by Council

 

which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration emissions from the development comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997; NSW Environment Protection Authority Industrial Noise Policy Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance); the recommended criteria and measures detailed in the report entitled “Noise Impact Assessment Duke Of Gloucester Hotel Frenchmans Road Randwick”  dated 14 April 2011  prepared by Environmental results Pty Ltd. and conditions of Council’s approval, to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager Environmental Health & Building Services.

 

The assessment must include (but not be limited to):

 

a.     Monitoring from the nearest affected residential premises,

b.     Monitoring and assessment during the use and operation of the premises when the maximum occupancy is present,

c.     Compliance monitoring shall be carried out during the times when the nearby residential and public domain areas are likely to be most affected, this shall include (but not be limited to) the hours of operation on a Friday and/or Saturday night,

d.     Ensure the break out of any internal noise complies with the set criteria. If not, nominate the necessary and required measures to ensure compliance (this may include controlling internal noise; provision of sound locks; other management practices as deemed appropriate and necessary),

e.     The report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources.

 

Proposed new conditions to be added after Condition No. 106:

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that the proposed modifications to the building do not unreasonably impact the historical significance of the building:

107.    Architectural details are to be submitted of the metal balustrade of the reinstated corner balcony.  Heritage advice should be sought to ensure accurate reconstruction of the open balcony.  Drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

108.    Architectural details are to be submitted of any required modification of existing metal balustrades to the northern balcony for BCA compliance.  Modifications are to be carried out to avoid damage to original balustrades.  Drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

109.    Details of the proposed paint scheme to the underside of the new ground level awning are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

110.    Any false ceiling should be installed to ensure the plaster cornices are not damaged and so that these ceilings can be removed in future. 

 

111.    Stone cladding to columns should be installed so that surfaces are not damaged and so that this cladding can be removed in future. 

 

         Plant and Equipment

112.    The proposed 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).

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP77/12

 

 

Subject:                  321 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/439/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/439/2012

Author:                   Adrian McKeown, Environmental Planning Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Change of use of part of a residential dwelling at first floor level to a health consulting room including massage. Hours of operation: Monday to Friday 9am to 8pm and Saturday and Sundays 9am to 5pm

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Shareen McLeish

Owner:                         HFDT Pty Ltd.

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application details the change of use of a first floor room within the existing business premises to a health consulting room including massage. The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposed use involves remedial massage in accordance with Council’s Resolution on 27 June 2006. 

 

It is considered that the proposed use is legitimate and that the premises are not intended to be used for the purposes of providing sexual services.  Council approved DA/534/2008 on 21 October 2008 for the provision of remedial massage to the ground floor of the building. This use has been in operation since this approval was granted. Further, the applicant has provided sufficient proof of relevant qualifications; specifically a Diploma of Remedial Massage.

 

The proposed use as a remedial massage and nutritional consultation business is legitimate and the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application details the change of use of a first floor room within the existing business premises from a residential portion of the building to a health consulting room including massage. Hours of operation are proposed as: Monday to Friday 9am to 8pm and Saturday and Sundays 9am to 5pm. Services to be offered within the health consulting room include massage, naturopathy, kinesiology and acupuncture.

 

 

No building works are proposed however Council’s Building Projects Officer has recommended that several fire safety measures are to be installed prior to the commencement of use. No additional signage is proposed.

 

Figure 1:  The subject premises as viewed from the streetscape.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject property is located on the northern side of Clovelly Road between Arden Street and Beach Street in Clovelly.  The site is presently occupied by an existing two-storey mixed-use development and is part of a small group of commercial premises with retail/ commercial activity on the ground floor and residential units above. 

 

The surrounding area consists of residential flat buildings with some residential dwellings and is located within a strip of retail/commercial development along Clovelly Road.

 

4.    Development History

 

Application

Description

DA/534/2008

Approved for the change of use of the ground floor of the premises to a Remedial Massage and Nutritional Consultation business including fitout works & signage.  The proposed hours of operation are from Monday to Friday 9.00am - 8.00pm and Saturday & Sunday 9.00am – 7.00pm.

DA/566/2005

Approval was granted on 19 August 2005 for change of use to an Organic Grocery Store including internal fitout and under awning sign.  The proposed hours of operation was approved from 8.30am to 7.00pm Seven days.

DA/335/1998

Approval was granted on 4 June 1998 for change of use to a hairdressing salon including associated fitout works.

DA/183/1998

Refused for the internal fit-out and use as a hairdressing salon

DA/302/1992

Approval was granted on 28 August 1992 to use the front of the shop as a giftware and haberdashery and use the rear as a workshop.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  No submissions were received regarding the application. 

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

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

 

6.1      Environmental Health comments

 

The Proposal

Council is in receipt of an application for the fit out of a first floor residential premise above an existing massage business located at 321 Clovelly Road, Clovelly. The first floor is proposed as a consulting room and to conduct naturopathy, kinesiology and acupuncture.

 

Key Issues

Compliance with Public Health Codes/Guidelines

Assessing planner should take note that acupuncture is proposed, however it has been mentioned that there are no hand washing facilities in the treatment room.

 

Proposed Hours of Operation

Monday to Friday:                9.00am – 8.00pm

Saturday and Sunday:          9.00am – 5.00pm

 

Appropriate conditions in relation to public health and safety have been included in this report to ensure compliance with the legislation and guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION

Should the approval be granted to this application, the following conditions should be included in the development consent.

 

6.2      Building Services comments

 

The proposal

Existing 2 storey shop and dwelling

Change of use to the front room at 1st floor level in the dwelling to use in conjunction with the existing massage business.

 

BCA Building Classification

Class 4 – Residential units

Class 5 – Massage therapy

 

Description of the Building

In summary, the building incorporates:

§ A ‘rise in storeys’ of two

§ Masonry walls, tiled roof and timber floors

§ One exit stairway, of timber construction

§ A total of 2 sole occupancy units,

§ Side boundary building setbacks of NIL

 

Key Issues

Building Code of Australia (BCA):

Full details of compliance with BCA and fire safety provisions are not included in the DA documentation and therefore further detailed information is required. See specific conditions re: appointing a certifier and obtaining an Occupation Certificate.

 

Should the approval be granted to the application, the following conditions should be included in the development consent:

 

7.    Master Planning Requirements

 

The subject site has an area of less than 10,000 square metres and is not subject to Clause 40A of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

8.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned 2B Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) and the proposed activity is prohibited within the zone. Nevertheless, the proposal may be permitted with Council’s consent under Clause 35 of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

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

The proposal (as conditioned) will be consistent with the broader zoning objectives of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) in that the proposed activity will maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area in which the site is located and will protect the amenity of existing residents.

 

Randwick LEP, Clause 35 – Business premises in residential zones

Council may grant development consent to a business premises in a residential use provided that it is satisfied that the proposed use is situated in a building that was originally designed or constructed for use as a business premises and that the total floor space to be used does not exceed 100m².

 

The area of the proposed additional business premises is 25.0m² and the total floor area of the business premises will then be 74.8m². Accordingly the continued use of the business premise is permissible under clause 35 of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

Clause 43 – Heritage conservation

The subject site is adjacent to a heritage item known as 319 Clovelly Road, Coogee [“Walders Corner” Federation style commercial/residential building, c 1915]. The proposed development involves the change of use of a first floor room for the provision of remedial massage only; and will not impose any unreasonable impacts on the heritage values of the neighbouring heritage item.

 

8.2 Policy Controls

a.      Development Control Plan - Parking

Council will only require additional parking to be provided to cater for additional demands arising from increases in floor space or change in use.  The proposal does not increase the gross floor area to the premises and the proposed use will not generate additional parking demands.

 

b.      Development Control Plan – Outdoor Advertising

The applicant advised Council during a site visit on 17 August 2012 that no additional signage is proposed on the building façade. A condition of consent is recommended to ensure that an application is to be made to Council for any additional signage; other than that which may be installed as exempt or complying development under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

 

8.3 Council Policies
No Council policies are relevant to the proposal.

 

9.    Relevant Draft Environmental Planning Instruments

 

9.1      Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Under the Draft RLEP 2012, the subject site is located within zone B1 (Neighbourhood Centre) and it is noted that the existing business premises would be permissible development within this zone. It is noted that the proposed development will not be inconsistent with the relevant objectives, aims and provisions under the Draft RLEP 2012 with respect to floor space ratio and building height.

 

10. Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

10.1    Nature of the Use

The proposed use is consistent with the general zoning objectives of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and will be commensurate with the existing business which operates within the ground floor of the subject building. Notwithstanding, appropriate conditions are recommended to ensure that no services of a sexual nature are to be provided within the premises. 

 

 

 

10.2    Hours of operation

The applicant has stated that the proposed hours of operation are from Monday to Friday 9.00am - 8.00pm and Saturday & Sunday 9.00am – 7.00pm.  These hours are consistent with those approved under the previous consent issued by Council (DA/534/2008).

 

It is considered that the proposed hours will not result in any unreasonable adverse impact upon the amenity of the surrounding residential properties.  The proposed trading hours will be consistent with other adjoining commercial/retail uses within this area and will satisfy the relevant assessment criteria.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 8:       A strong local economy.

Direction 8a:      The proposal, in providing for a commercial use will facilitate the provision of services to the community as well as the growth of local businesses.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed change of use of a portion of the subject building as a health consulting room including massage will comply with the relevant assessment criteria outlined in the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation); as well as with Council’s Parking DCP.  The proposed change of use is considered to be consistent with the existing business on the ground floor of the subject site as well as with 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/439/2012 for the change of use of part of a residential dwelling at first floor level to a health consulting room including massage, at No. 321 Clovelly Road, Clovelly, subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the First Floor Plan received by Council on 13 July 2012, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2.       The operation of the premises is to be restricted to a health consulting room and to remedial massage. The premises are not to be used for the purpose of a brothel and in this regard, no sexual services are to be offered in association with the massage usage.

 

3.       No approval is granted for any signage, other than that which may be installed as exempt or complying development under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

 

4.       The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance.

 

5.       There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

6.       The design, construction and fit out of the premises must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of the:

·      Public Health Act 2010

·      Public Health Regulation 2012

·      NSW Health Codes of Best Practice

 

Details of compliance are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the Construction Certificate including work area surfaces, storage, sinks, hand wash basins, sanitary facilities and waste disposal/storage.

 

7.       The use and operation of the premises must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Public Health Act 2010, Public Health Regulation 2012 and associated NSW Health Codes of Best Practice and guidelines at all times

 

8.       The business may be the subject of routine inspection by Council’s Environmental Health Officers and relevant inspection fees are payable, as provided in Council’s Annual Pricing Policy.

 

9.       The premises must be maintained in a clean, healthy and sanitary condition at all times.

 

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

 

11.     Trade/commercial waste materials must not be disposed via council’s domestic garbage service.  All trade/commercial waste materials must be collected by Council’s Trade Waste Service or an appropriately licensed waste contractor and details of the proposed waste collection and removal service are to be submitted to Council prior to occupation of the building.

 

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

 

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

 

13.     The hours of operation are restricted to:

 

Monday to Friday:            9.00am – 8.00pm

Saturday and Sunday:      9.00am – 5.00pm

 

14.     The owner of the subject site must advise Council in writing of any change in the tenant that is operating the business and advise the new tenant that they must provide Council with the qualifications of all staff involved in providing massage services prior to commencing the new operation.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations and to provide for reasonable levels of safety and amenity:

15.     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.

 

All new building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), in accordance with Clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations and to provide for reasonable levels of fire safety:

16.     Buildings in which there is a change of building use must comply with the category  fire safety provisions (as defined in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000) as applicable to the proposed new use, in accordance with clause 93 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, unless an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188 of the Regulation.  Details of compliance are to be provided to the certifying authority and the Council, prior to issuing an occupation certificate.

 

17.     In accordance with clause 93 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the levels of fire safety within the existing building are to be upgraded and the following measures are to be implemented prior to commencement of the change of use:

 

·      Provide a suitable fire extinguisher and fire blanket to the first floor commercial portion of the premises.

·      Provide a self closing, 35mm thick, solid core door to separate the Class 4 (residence) portion of the premises from the commercial portion.

·      Provide suitable exit signs at 1st floor level in accordance with Part E of the BCA.

 

In accordance with clause 168 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, the fire safety measures contained in the attached ‘fire safety schedule’ must be implemented in the building premises and the fire safety schedule forms part of this consent.

 

The fire safety measures are to be implemented in accordance with the minimum standards of performance as specified in the schedule and the provisions of Part 9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 are to be complied with.

 

A copy of the fire safety certificate, encompassing all the existing and new fire safety measures, is to be submitted to the Council with an occupation certificate prior to commencement of the change of use.

 

18.     A Principal Certifying Authority must be appointed to inspect the installation of the required fire extinguisher and fire blanket, to confirm that the requirements of this approval (in relation to compliance with the category 1 fire safety provisions) are complied with and to issue the required Occupation Certificate.

 

 

19.     An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from a Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of the change of use, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The essential fire safety measures to be included in the fire safety certificate and annual fire safety statement (as a minimum) are detailed below:

 

FIRE SAFETY MEASURE

 

 

BUILDING CODE OF AUSTRALIA REFERENCE

 

 

MINIMUM STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE

(To be specified in the Fire Safety Certificate / Statement)

A suitable portable fire extinguisher to 1st floor commercial component

BCA Clause E1.6

AS 2444 (1995, as amended)

Self closing 35mm thick solid core door to separate residence from commercial use

BCA Clause C3.11

Manufactures specification

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP78/12

 

 

Subject:                  10 Anthony Lane, Matraville (DA/455/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/455/2012

Author:                   Alex Van Son, Senior Environmental Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy with garages to front, pergolas to rear and associated works

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Mr S Kogias

Owner:                         Mr S J Kogias, Ms A J Kogias, Mr B G Robinson, Ms A M Robinson

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Executive Summary

 

The application is reported to Council at the request of Councillors Garcia, D'Souza and Matson.

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwelling located within the site and the construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy. On site parking will be provided by garages located to the front of the site. Private open space is located to the rear of the site off ground floor living areas, with south facing juliet balconies provided at first floor level off bedrooms.

 

The site has a frontage to Anthony Lane of 17.985 and a depth on the western boundary of 33.53m. On the eastern boundary the site has a 900mm wide access handle that connects to Jersey Road. The allotment is a “battle axe” shape and 633.2m2 in area. The topography of the site falls gently from the front (southern) boundary to the rear (northern) boundary.

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development between 25 July 2012 and 8 August 2012, in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.

 

The proposal is considered to generally satisfy the preferred solutions, performance requirements and objectives of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, as detailed within the body of this report.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

1.        Subject Site and History.

 

The subject site, Lot 2 DP549395, is known as 10 Antony Lane, Matraville. The site originally formed one larger lot that had a frontage to the Southern side of Jersey Road. SC/69/1970 granted approval for the land subdivision of the site into 2 lots, creating the subject site with a primary frontage to Anthony Lane.

 

The site has a frontage to Anthony Lane of 17.985 and a depth on the western boundary of 33.53m. On the eastern boundary the site has a 900mm wide access handle that connects to Jersey Road. The allotment is a “battle axe” shape and 633.2m2 in area. The topography of the site falls from the front (southern) boundary to the rear (northern) boundary at an average grade of 6%.

 

The site presently contains a single storey brick cottage with on site parking. There is no significant vegetation within the site.

 

2.        Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwelling located within the site and the construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy. On site parking will be provided by garages located to the front of the site. Private open space is located to the rear of the site off ground floor living areas, with south facing juliet balconies provided at first floor level off bedrooms.

 

3.        Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, submissions were received from:

 

 

·      10 Anthony Street

·      12 Anthony Street

·      254A Anthony Lane

·      252 Beauchamp Road

·      256A Beauchamp Road

·      256 Beauchamp Road

·      5a Dive Street

·      41 Jersey Road

·      Petition with 14 signatures.

 

The issues raised in objections have been addressed in the table below:

 

Objection

Comment

Site Suitability: The site is a service lane, not a road, and is not suitable for this level of density; over population.

 

The 1970 subdivision consent (SC/69/1970) approved the creation of a separate residential lot with a frontage to Anthony Lane. The site is located within the Residential 2A Zone where dual occupancies are permissible with Council approval. The Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) has minimum lot requirements (Clause 20B(4)) for the erection of an attached dual occupancy with the objective of protecting and improving local residential amenity. The proposed development exceeds these minimum requirements, as detailed in the “Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation)” section of this report.

 

The laneway will adequately service the proposed development. There are a number of dwellings that already have a frontage and vehicle access to Anthony Lane and the addition of one further residential unit (in addition to the existing unit located on the site) is not excessive. The proposal is not considered to represent overdevelopment of the site.

 

Building height: The height of the proposed dual occupancy is not in keeping with the scale of development within the streetscape; the building will be three stories at the rear; proposal will block skyline views.

 

In relation to building height, the proposed development meets the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) development standards and the DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies  preferred solutions, which are deemed to comply standards. See assessment against DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies for further comment.

 

The zoning of the site, Residential 2A, anticipated two storey detached dwelling house and dual occupancy development. While it s acknowledged that there are no existing two storey dwellings on the northern side of Anthony Lane, this is not considered to be reflective of any constraints within these sites that would otherwise prohibit two storey development. Furthermore, there are a number of two storey developments located on the southern side of Anthony Lane. The proposed development is not expected to result in any unreasonable streetscape impacts.

 

Any view loss as a result of the proposal is expected to be consistent with the principles of view sharing.

 

Building bulk: The proposed dwelling is “box looking”; not in character with the other dwellings in the street; adverse streetscape impacts; FSR calculations appear to be incorrect.

 

In relation to building bulk, the proposed development meets the DCP preferred solutions, which are deemed to comply standards. See assessment against DCP Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies for further comment. The bulk of the proposed building is considered to be adequately articulated given the context of the site and will not result in any unacceptable streetscape impacts.

 

The total gross floor area stated on the submitted plans is an accurate calculation of the floor area associated with the development.

 

Overshadowing: The proposed development will unreasonably overshadow adjoining sites; shadow diagrams do not show impact in summer; health impacts due to reduced solar access; higher energy bills; negative impact on vegetation;

 

The proposal is not considered to result in the unreasonable overshadowing of any adjoining property. Shadows cast by the proposal fall primarily over the frontage of No. 8 Anthony Lane, the Anthony Lane carriageway and only affect the private open space of No. 12 Anthony Street from early/mid afternoon onwards. Sufficient levels solar access will be maintained to all adjoining properties. 

 

Adequate information has been provided by the applicant to assess impacts associated with overshadowing; shadow diagrams are only required to show impacts at 21 June, which is considered to represent the worst case scenario.

 

The proposed development meets the DCP preferred solutions in relation to overshadowing, as discussed within the relevant sections of this report.

 

Parking: The proposed development will unacceptably increase parking pressure on Anthony Lane; there is inadequate on street parking for future visitors;

 

Each residential dwelling provides two on-site parking spaces. The provision of parking complies with Council’s requirements in relation to parking and, furthermore, no objection has been raised by Council’s development engineer in relation to parking.

 

Traffic: The proposed development will increase traffic movements within Anthony Lane; increased traffic movements will create a safety hazard; the location of vehicle crossings is inappropriate; increase vehicle crossings will cause safety issues.

 

The residential 2A zoning permits the erection of a detached dwelling house or attached dual occupancy, which would involve the provision of up to two or four onsite parking spaces, respectively. The variation between traffic movements associated with the two forms of development is not considered to significant. The proposal has been referred to Council’s development engineer and no objection has been raised in relation to traffic safety, vehicle crossings, vehicle grades, access, sightlines, pedestrian safety or increased traffic movements likely to be generated by the development.

Garages: The proposed garages do not comply with the DCP.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in relation to garages and will not be out of keeping with the streetscape. Refer to DCP assessment for further detail.

 

Precedent: Council has refused previous applications for dual occupancies on Anthony Lane on the basis that “properties [on the northern side] of Anthony land should not exceed two storeys.

 

There are no refusals issued by Council that would establish a precedent for limiting development on the northern side of Anthony Lane to single storey development.

 

DA/654/1997 for the erection of an dual occupancy and strata subdivision at No. 41 Jersey Road was refused on the grounds that “the development (attached dual occupancy within the Residential 2A zone) is prohibited under the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance…” Dual occupancy development is permissible in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation). 

 

Privacy: First floor south facing windows and balconies will allow views to properties on the opposite side of the road, including open space; the proposed development will overlook adjoining properties; second floor north facing balconies will over look adjoining properties; overlooking from ground floor balconies; overlooking from west facing windows;

 

Subject to recommended conditions, the proposed development is not expected to result in unreasonable privacy impacts on any adjoining property and is considered to meet the objectives of the DCP in relation to privacy. 

Noise: Any air-conditioning plant on the side boundaries would result in unreasonable noise impacts.

 

Standard conditions have been recommended in relation to the installation of all plant and equipment on the premises. Accordingly, air conditioning units would not be permitted to give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

Rental accommodation: The dwelling is likely to be rented and “renters are well known to bring down area standards”

 

This objection is considered to by unfounded. To the contrary, the proposed development is considered to contribute to housing options and affordable housing choices within the area, in accordance with  the objectives of the residential 2A zone.

 

Materials and construction cost: The estimated cost of development indicates poor quality materials; the building should be constructed of brick and tile to match the character of existing development.

 

The proposed development is not located within the scenic foreshore protection area or within a heritage conservation area. Standard conditions have been imposed requiring compliance with BCA standards. The proposed materials are considered to be acceptable.

 

A condition is recommended that would require a quantity surveyors report to be provided prior to the issuing of construction certificate.

Asbestos Removal: No information has been provided by the applicant in relation to the presence of asbestos or procedures for it’s removal.

 

Standard conditions have been recommended in order to ensure that any asbestos is removal is carried out in accordance with Council policy and state requirements.

Drainage: Measures for stormwater drainage must be considered; stormwater should be directed to Jersey Road

 

Stormwater is proposed to be pumped to Jersey Road and appropriate conditions have been recommended by Council’s development engineer.

Waste management: There is inadequate room to place bins for the garbage truck.

 

Waste management has been considered by Council’s development engineer and no objections have been raised. Conditions are recommended that require a Waste Management Plan detailing the waste and recycling storage and removal strategy for all of the development to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Services.

 

Errors: Statement mentions 2 bedrooms and three bedrooms in the description of the development.

 

This error is considered to be a minor inconsistency. The number of bedrooms are clearly shown on the proposed plans.

 

3.1      Support

·      43 Jersey Road (x2): Initial privacy concerns have been addressed through discussions with the applicant and the application is now supported.

 

4.        Engineering Referral Comments

 

The subject development was referred to Council’s development engineer and the below comments have been received:

 

General Comments

The above site was the subject of an approved Subdivision/Boundary Adjustment (DA/472/2011 & SC/3/2012) which maintained an easement for services which front Jersey Road.

 

Landscape Comments

While the SEE details that this proposal complies with Council’s numerical controls for a development of this size and type in this zone, a table of compliance to confirm this has not been provided.

 

Further, the submitted landscape plan cannot be accepted due to the poor standard of detail and treatment that has been shown, as follows:

 

§ the botanical and common names in the Plant Schedule do not relate to each other;

§ the plan does not include species which are decorative, adaptable to the local conditions, and which are associated with high quality residential developments; eg, hedging Carpinus betulus to 2m, which is a rare, northern hemisphere tree that can attain a mature height of 20m;

§ poor plant selection and poor arrangement/landscape design that should enhance the appearance of the development, cater to the amenity of future occupants as well as assist with screening and privacy between this site and neighbours.

 

For these reasons, conditions in this report require that a completely new plan which will achieve a higher quality result be submitted prior to issuing the CC.

 

There is no significant vegetation within the site at all, with the group of mature, 6m tall Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palms) growing beyond the eastern boundary, within the rear yard of the adjoining property at 10 Anthony Street, not to be affected, despite growing close to the common boundary, as a standard side setback is shown as being maintained, with the same applying to those small shrubs which overhang into the northeast corner, as they are too small for the TPO, and there are no works shown for this area, so will not be affected.

 

5.    Environmental Planning Instruments

 

5.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation):

The proposed development is subject to the provisions of the RLEP. Particular consideration has been given to the clauses listed, which have been discussed in further detail, below:

 

·      Clause 10: Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) Objectives

·      Part 2B: Development Standards

 

Clause 10: Residential A Zone Objectives

The objectives of the Residential 2A Zone that relate to the proposed development seek to provide a low density residential environment; maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area; to protect the amenity of existing residents; and to encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposal is considered to generally satisfy the objectives of the Residential 2A Zone. The proposal involves the construction of a new part 2 level attached dual occupancy which is permissible with Council consent. The effect of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring sites, as discussed in the following sections of this report, is considered to be acceptable. The proposal will encourage housing affordability in so far as it will contribute to the availability and diversity available housing within the local area.

 

Part 2B: Principal Development Standards

 

Clause

Development Standard

Proposed

20B Minimum Allotment Size

The minimum allotment size for an attached dual occupancy within Zone No 2A is 450 square metres and the allotment must have a frontage of at least 15 metres.

Area: 633.2m2; Frontage: 17.985m

 

(complies).

20E Landscaped Area

Development must provide a minimum of 40% of the total site area as landscaped area.

 

Soft/deep soil landscaping must be no less than 50% of total landscaped area.

 

50% or 317.68m2

 

(complies)

 

No landscaping is located over basement or podium areas. Adequate deep soil landscaping is provided

 

(complies).

20F Floor Space Ratio

The maximum floor space ratio for a building in the 2A zone is 0.5:1.

0.44:1 or 282.62m2

 

(complies)

20G Building Heights

The maximum height for a building in the 2A zone is 9.5m measured vertically from any point at ground level.

 

The maximum height for any external wall for a building in the 2A zone is 7m

8.5m

 

(complies).

 

 

6.95m

 

(complies)

 

5.2      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:

R2 - Low Density Residential

Dual Occupancies are permitted within the Zone.

Dual Occupancy.

 

Yes

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

 

0.5:1

0.44:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

 

9.5m

8.5m

Yes

Lot Size (Minimum)

450m2

633.2m2

Yes

 

6.    Policy Controls

 

6.1      Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

The proposed development has been assessed against the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and is considered to satisfy all of the relevant objectives and performance requirements. The DCP states that a proposal is deemed to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP if it complies with the corresponding preferred solutions. Where the proposal does not satisfy the preferred Solutions of the DCP an assessment against the relevant objectives and performance requirements has been carried out, below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Objectives

Comment

3.1 Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

·       To promote energy efficiency in the design, construction and use of housing;

·       To encourage the use of reusable, recyclable and renewable resources in construction;

·       To reduce energy costs in demolition, reconstruction and recycling by maximising the lifecycle of buildings;

·       To encourage the use of passive solar design;

·       To protect solar access enjoyed by neighbours.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in relation to solar access and energy efficiency for the following reasons:

·       A BASIX certificate has been obtained in relation to the proposed dwelling and relevant conditions have been recommended that require compliance with BASIX certificate recommendations.

·       Private open space associated with each unit receives in excess of 3 hours of solar access per day on 21 June.

·       North facing windows to living areas (ground floor) will receive in excess of 3 hours solar access per day on 21 June.

·       There are no known solar collectors on adjoining buildings that will be affected by the proposed development and the proposal will not prohibit the installation of solar collectors on adjoining buildings in the future.

·       North facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings will not be unreasonably affected (i.e. greater than 3 hours) by overshadowing as a result of the proposed development.

·       Private open space associated with neighbouring dwellings will not be unreasonably affected (i.e. greater than 3 hours) by overshadowing as a result of the proposed development.

3.2 Water Management

·       To control stormwater quality and quantity and eliminate discharge impacts on adjoining properties;

·       To ensure cost-effectiveness in the provision and maintenance of stormwater drainage works;

·       To reduce pressure on new housing development on domestic water supplies;

·       To ensure that building and landscaping design incorporate techniques for conserving mains water;

·       To encourage rainwater storage for domestic use reducing run off.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in relation to water management for the following reasons:

·       A BASIX certificate has been obtained in relation to the proposed additions and relevant conditions have been recommended that require compliance with BASIX certificate requirements.

·       Standard conditions have been recommended by Council’s engineer in relation to stormwater drainage.

 

4.1 Landscaping and Open Space

·       To retain and enhance existing significant trees and vegetation;

·       To provide dwellings with useable outdoor recreation space;

·       To improve  stormwater management, the appearance, amenity, and energy efficiency of; and

·       To preserve and enhance native wildlife populations through the planting of appropriate native species.

The proposal provides 317.68m2 (50%) landscaped area, adequate areas of soft landscaping, well in excess of 25m2 usable private open space per unit, and is considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in relation to landscaping and open space.

 

4.2 Floor Area

·       To ensure that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale but are compatible with the existing character of the locality.

 

The proposal has 282.62m2 gross floor area and a floor space ratio of 0.44:1. The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in relation to floor area and will be consistent with the character of built form in proximity to the site.

4.3 Height, Form and Materials

·       To ensure that the height and scale of buildings relate to the topography of the site with minimal cut and fill;

·       To ensure that developments are not excessive in height and compatible with the existing character of the locality;

·       To ensure buildings preserve privacy and natural light access to neighbouring dwellings and allow for a sharing of views;

·       To ensure additions do not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling; and

·       To ensure that buildings enhance the predominant neighbourhood and street character. 

The maximum external wall height associated with the dwelling is 6.95m from natural ground level at it’s highest point and there are no buildings to the rear of the site. The proposal involves the erection of a dual occupancy dwelling that will present to the street as a two storey development, consistent with existing development within visual proximity to the site.

The proposed development is not considered to have any unreasonable impacts on immediately adjoining neighbours in relation to overshadowing, privacy or view loss as discussed within the body of this report.

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in relation to height, form and materials.

4.4 Building Setbacks

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

·       To ensure dwellings have adequate access to natural daylight and fresh air; and

·       To maintain and enhance establish trees and vegetation

 

·       The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in relation to building setbacks for the for the following reasons:

·       The front setback of the dwelling is 5.9-6.2m and generally aligns with the setbacks of the front setback of the dwelling to the west.  

·       Side setbacks at ground floor level are a minimum of 900mm and increase to 1692mm. Side setbacks at first floor level are a minimum of 1500mm and increase to 1692mm.

·       Impacts on neighbours in relation to overshadowing, visual bulk or ventilation is considered to be acceptable.

4.5 Visual and Acoustic Privacy

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

 

Subject to recommended conditions, the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in relation to visual and acoustic privacy for the following reasons:

·       All windows on side elevations have minimum sill heights of 1500mm from ground level.

·       A condition has been recommended that the timber privacy screening associated with the “Outdoor Rooms” be fixed adjacent to side boundaries.

·       Balconies at first floor level fronting the street are limited to 1m in depth, located off bedrooms, and not considered to be areas where large numbers of people will congregate.   These balconies are adequately separated from surrounding development to ensure that overlooking will not be unreasonable. Furthermore, passive surveillance of the streetscape is encouraged by the objectives of the DCP.

·       Rear balconies at first floor level are limited to approximately 500mm in depth and located off bedrooms.

·       Standard conditions require compliance with the BCA.

4.6 Safety and Security

·       To ensure a safe physical environment by promoting crime prevention through design;

·       To ensure the security of residents and visitors and their property and enhance the perception of community safety.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in relation to safety and security for the following reasons:

·       The proposed dwelling has windows and balconies orientated to the street.

·       Front entrances are located directly fronting the street and pedestrian entrances to the property will be visible.

4.7 Garages and Carports

·       To ensure that on-site car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive or detract from the appearance of dwellings or the streetscape; and,

·       To provide convenient and safe car parking

 

Garage doors will occupy 47% of the site width and driveway width at the property boundary is 3.8m. Notwithstanding, the proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in relation to garages and carports for the following reasons:

·       The provision of a garage at ground floor level is consistent with existing development fronting the street and the proposal is not expected to unreasonably detract from the character of the streetscape..

·       Landscaping has been proposed to soften the visual dominance of parking structures when viewed from the street.

·       The width of the vehicle crossing at the boundary is 3.8m however landscaping has been incorporated within the front boundary of the site to soften the visual appearance of garage/parking structures. 

·       The site has no rear lane access and there is not sufficient width to provide access to parking at the rear.

·       Council’s development engineer has not raised any issues in relation to ingress/egress safety.

4.8 Fences

·       To ensure that front fencing is integrated with the streetscape and continues positively to street character;

·       To ensure that front fencing is integrated with landscape and dwelling design; and,

·       To ensure adequate privacy, amenity, safety and security for occupants of new and existing dwellings.

Subject to recommended conditions, the proposed solid front fence will not exceed 600mm from ground level and will comply with DCP preferred solutions. 

 

6.2 Policy Controls: Parking

Each proposed unit is provided with two adequately dimensioned onsite parking spaces. The proposed development satisfies the parking requirements of the DCP: Parking.

 

6.3  Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

The Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 2 July 2007, is applicable to the proposed development. In accordance with the plan, a monetary levy at a rate of 1% of the development cost is required. Conditions are recommended that require the submission of a quantity surveyors report to be submitted prior to the issuance of construction certificate and Section 94 levies paid to Council accordingly. 

 

7.        Section 79C Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

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

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

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

Refer to table above

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

 

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

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

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

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

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

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in Urban Design and Development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/455/2012 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy with garages to front, pergolas to rear and associated works at 10 Anthony Lane, Matraville, subject to the schedule of conditions outlined in this report:

 

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

Stamped

DA-SP-00

Georges Karkafi

19 July 2012

DA-SP-02

Georges Karkafi

19 July 2012

DA-GF-04

Georges Karkafi

19 July 2012

DA-FF-05

Georges Karkafi

19 July 2012

DA-ES-06/1

Georges Karkafi

19 July 2012

DA-ES-06/2

Georges Karkafi

19 July 2012

DA-ES-07

Georges Karkafi

19 July 2012

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

10 Anthony Lane Matriville

419469M_02

17 July 2012

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a.     The privacy screens associated with the Outdoor Rooms at ground level parallel to side boundaries (both units) must be fixed. The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

a.     All solid walls on the front boundary of the site must not exceed 600mm in height when measured vertically from the existing ground level.

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

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

 

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

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

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

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

5.       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

6.       The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, must be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

Security Deposit

7.       The following damage / civil works security deposit requirement must be complied with 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:

 

·           $2000.00    -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Design Alignment levels

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

 

Driveway Entrances – 70mm below the top of the Council kerb level.

 

Pedestrian Entrances – Match the existing Council kerb level opposite the pedestrian entrances

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council and their relationship to the kerb must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate (a construction note on the plans is considered satisfactory). The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

     

9.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $863.00 calculated at $48.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Driveway Design

10.     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.

         

Sydney Water

11.     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.

 

Stormwater Drainage

12.     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.  A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i.   Directly to Council’s kerb and gutter in Jersey Rd via the services easement.

 

OR

 

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

 

Note: Any Pump-out systems must be provided with two pumps connected in parallel (with each pump being capable of discharging at the required discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well is required to be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working,

 

Pump-out systems must be designed by a suitably qualified and experienced hydraulic consultant/engineer and the pump-out system designed and constructed generally in accordance with Council's Stormwater Code.

 

c)       Should stormwater be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, an on-site stormwater detention system must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the site does not exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of one hour duration for existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the street drainage system, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

f)       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.

 

g)       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.

 

h)       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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Landscaping

14.     The Landscaping Plan submitted by Killcare Landscapes, dwg DA-LD-12, revision 0, dated 14/03/12 cannot be accepted due to the low level of detail and treatment that has been proposed for a development of this type.

 

15.     A completely new landscape plan that has been prepared by a qualified professional in the Landscape/Horticultural industry (must be a registered member of either AILDM or AILA) shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the Certifying Authority, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, and must include the following:

 

a)       A Planting Plan & Plant Schedule which includes proposed species, botanic and common names, pot size at the time of planting, quantity, location, dimensions at maturity and any other details required to describe the proposed works;

 

b)       A predominance of hardy, native species that can withstand poor quality sandy soils and are not reliant on high rates of moisture and fertiliser for survival;

 

c)       A high quality selection and arrangement of decorative species throughout the front setback so as to assist with presentation of the development to the streetscape;

 

d)       Provision of minimum 1 metre wide, deep soil garden beds in the rear yards, to which, continuous evergreen hedges shall be strategically located so as to maximise screening potential between the subject site and neighbouring properties, and must use species which will attain a minimum height of 1.5 metres at maturity;

 

e)       At least 2 x 25 litre (pot size at the time of planting) NATIVE trees (not palms) within the site, selecting those species which will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity, with at least 1 to be provided within the front setback.

 

Waste  Management

16.     A Waste Management Plan detailing the waste and recycling storage and removal strategy for all of the development, is required to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Services.

 

The Waste Management plan is required to be prepared in accordance with Council's Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Development and must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·       The use of the premises and the number and size of occupancies.

·       The type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development.

·       Demolition and construction waste, including materials to be re-used or recycled.

·       Details of the proposed recycling and waste disposal contractors.

·       Waste storage facilities and equipment.

·       Access and traffic arrangements.

·       The procedures and arrangements for on-going waste management including collection, storage and removal of waste and recycling of materials.

 

Further details of Council's requirements and guidelines, including pro-forma Waste Management plan forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre.

 

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

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, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).  Details of compliance with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

Smoke Alarms

18.     Smoke alarms are required to be installed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia (volume 2) and smoke alarms must comply with AS3786.  Smoke alarms must be connected to the consumer mains electric power supply and provided with a battery back-up.  Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

BASIX Requirements

19.     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.

 

Design Alignment levels

20.     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, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

The design alignment level/s at the property boundary as issued by Council and their relationship to the roadway/kerb/footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

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

 

 

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’ (PCA), as applicable.

 

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

 

Certification, PCA & other Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

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

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor and a copy of the relevant Certificate of Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

 

Dilapidation Reports

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

 

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

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

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

·           as otherwise may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) are required to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon the adjoining premises.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

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

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the NSW DECC Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, is to be implemented throughout the works, to the satisfaction of the Council.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works on site.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

25.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

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

·           location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·           location of building materials for construction;

·           provisions for public safety;

·           dust control measures;

·           site access location and construction

·           details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·           protective measures for tree preservation;

·           provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·           location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·           details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·           provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·           construction noise and vibration management;

·           construction traffic management details.

 

 

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

 

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

 

Demolition Work Plan

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

 

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

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

·           Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·           Method/s of demolition (including removal of any asbestos)

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

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

·           Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·           Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·           Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

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

 

Notes

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

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

 

Demolition & Construction Waste Plan

27.     A Demolition and Construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be development and implemented for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Public Utilities

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Site Signage

30.     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

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

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

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

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

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

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

 

Demolition Work Requirements

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

 

·           Work Health and Safety Act 2011

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation      2001

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

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

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

·           Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

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

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

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

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

 

·           Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

·           Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

·           A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 10m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation).  Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.  A copy of the relevant licence must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

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

·           Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.  Details of the landfill site (which must be lawfully able to receive asbestos materials) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

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

 

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

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

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

 

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

 

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

a)     Public access to the building site and materials must be restricted by existing boundary fencing or temporary site fencing having a minimum height of 1.5m, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

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

 

b)     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.

 

c)     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.

 

d)     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)     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.

 

f)      Site fencing, building materials, bulk bins/waste containers and other articles must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Health, Building and Regulatory Services department.

 

g)     Adequate provisions must be made to ensure pedestrian safety and traffic flow during the site works and traffic control measures are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Roads and Traffic Manual “Traffic Control at Work Sites” (Version 4), to the satisfaction of Council.

 

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

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

36.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring, piling or other measures are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Survey Requirements

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

 

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

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

·           as otherwise may be required by the PCA.

 

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

 

Building Encroachments

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

 

Site Amenities

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

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

42.     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.

           

            Drainage

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

 

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

 

Tree Management

44.     Approval is granted for removal of all existing vegetation within the site due to their small size and insignificance, as well as to accommodate the proposed works as shown, subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping.

 

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

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

 

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

 

BASIX Requirements

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

 

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

 

Occupant Safety

47.     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 (excluding upon any front or street elevation of the building) e.g. A metal security screen or metal security mesh and frame system, but not standard fly-screen material,

·           Other appropriate effective safety measures or barrier.

 

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

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

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

a)  Construct concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

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

c)  Construct a concrete path between the kerb and the front fence along the full site frontage. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

b)     Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Pre-paid Works Application Form, prior to 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.

 

Sydney Water

51.     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 an Occupation Certificate.

 

Stormwater Drainage

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

Notes:

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

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

 

53.     A works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced hydraulic consultant/engineer must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council. The works-as-executed plan must include the following details (as applicable):

 

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

·          Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

·          Volume of storage available in any detention areas;

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

·          The orifice size/s (if applicable);

·          Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

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

 

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

 

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

 

Landscaping

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

 

56.     The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved plans and relevant conditions of consent, prior to occupation of the development, and must be maintained in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

 

Certification from a qualified professional in the Landscape/Horticultural industry (must be a registered member of either AILDM or AILA), shall be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, prior to occupation of the development, which confirms that the landscaping works have been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent.

 

Waste Management

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

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

Use of premises

58.     The premises is to be used as a single residential dwelling only at all times and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

External Lighting

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

 

Street Numbering

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

 

Waste Management

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

 

Plant & Equipment

62.     The operation of all plant and equipment on the premises 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 & Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

 

Air Conditioners

63.     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.

 

Rainwater Tanks

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

 

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

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

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

 

A1      The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

A2      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.

 

A3      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.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

A7      The finished ground levels external to the building must be consistent with the development consent and are not to be raised, other than for the provision of approved paving or the like on the ground.

 

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                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP79/12

 

 

Subject:                  88 Garden Street, Maroubra (DA/319/2012)

Folder No:                   DA/319/2012

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Development Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Strata subdivision of approved health consulting room and dwelling into two (2) allotments

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Solutions Zane

Owner:                         Dr M Sim

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application is reported to Council on the basis of a SEPP 1 variation greater than 10%. The proposed strata scheme seeks consent for a minimum lot size of 259 square metres, presenting a 20.3% deficiency from the minimum allotment size standard of Clause 20B, within RLEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

The subject application proposes a two (2)-lot strata subdivision as follows:

 

·      Lot 1 having area of 259 square metres, with frontage of nine (9) metres to Garden Street. This component of the site has approval for fit out and use as a Health Consulting Room under DA/674/2011;

 

·      Lot 2 proposes an area of 298 square metres, with frontage of nine (9) metres to Garden Street, a side frontage of 27 metres to Gale Road and contains a single storey dwelling.

 

The subject application does not propose any works.

 

The site currently contains an existing pair of semis (attached dual occupancy), constructed circa 1959. Of the two (2) existing occupancies, one (1) has approval for fit-out and use as a health consulting room (dental surgery) under DA/674/2011. This consent has not yet been activated. The subject strata subdivision application is made subservient to the approved health consulting room and dwelling house uses of this consent, intending to separate the two (2) uses in order to facilitate separate ownership.

 

The proposed situation of separate strata ownership of the dwelling and health consulting room will not significantly change the existing circumstances, which allows separate occupation of the tenancies, under a sole ownership.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The site presently contains two (2) residential occupancies within a semi-detached building. The fit out and use of one (1) occupancy as a health consulting room (dental surgery) was approved under DA/674/2011.

 

The application proposes subdivision of the existing Torrens Title allotment into two (2) strata lots. The proposed lots are as follows:

 

Proposed strata lots

Proposed lot size

Frontage

Lot 1: Health Consulting Room

259m2

9.1 m

Lot 2: Existing dwelling

298m2

9.2m

 

Figure 1: The site, from the intersection of Garden Street & Gale Road.

Figure 2: The rear open space of the site.

 

The proposed strata scheme is shown below:

 

Figure 3: Layout of the lot. Proposed lot separation highlighted.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is located on a corner allotment at the intersection of Garden Street and Gale Road, Maroubra. The site has an approximate area of 556.5m2, with an 18 metre frontage to Garden Street and a 30 metre frontage to Gale Road. The site is generally flat, with an east-west orientation. Contained within the site are two (2) semi-detached residential dwellings.

 

Development located along Garden Street, to the south of the subject site, consists of two (2) storey dwellings, two (2) multi unit housing complexes at numbers 92-94 & 98-100 Garden Street. Each complex is a two (2) storey development containing four (4) strata subdivided townhouses, approved under applications DA/648/2007 and DA/645/2001, respectively.

 

Development to the north along Garden Street and to the west on Gale Road consists of predominantly one (1) and two (2) storey single residential dwellings within the 2A zone.

 

4.    Site History

 

·      88 Garden Street

The building contained within the site at 88 Garden Street appears to have been constructed for use as two (2) individual residential dwellings, circa 1959. The two (2) dwellings have remained on the same Torrens Title allotment, with the use currently considered an attached dual occupancy. Dual occupancies are not permissible in the 2B zone.

 

·      DA/319/2012- 88 Garden Street, Maroubra (Current application)

1 August 2012- The applicant submitted historic documentation illustrating the building was constructed as an attached dual occupancy prior to the implementation of the current controls. The documentation effectively demonstrates the existing building benefits from existing use rights.

 

·      DA/674/2011- 88 Garden Street, Maroubra

Approved by Council on 22 November 2011.

 

Consent was issued for the change of use of a component of the existing dual occupancy to a health consulting room (dental surgery) and associated fit out works. Minor alterations were approved to the adjoining dwelling remaining on the site, in order to facilitate the health consulting room. No increase in building envelope was approved under this application. Three (3) hardstand car parking spaces were approved within the rear open space of the site, two (2) for the purpose of the health consulting room and a single space for the remaining dwelling house.

 

It should be noted the applicant did not seek to apply Exiting Use Rights provisions to this application and consequently, the application was assessed in accordance with the relevant controls of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and DCP Dwelling Houses and attached Dual Occupancies.

 

A SEPP 1 Objection was submitted to the application in respect of Clause 20G- Landscaped Area, presenting a 33% variation of the standard. Council supported the SEPP 1 Objection in it’s determination of 22 November 2011.

 

Conditions were applied in relation to signage for the health consulting room, in addition to the configuration of the rear open space on the site, maximising this space for the purpose of the dwelling.

 

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

The application seeks variation of the development standard 20B (2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation), relating to minimum allotment size. A SEPP 1 Objection has been submitted to the standard and is addressed as follows. 

 

Minimum Allotment Sizes – Clause 20B (2)

Clause 20B (2) of RLEP 1998, stipulates a minimum allotment size of 325 square metres to sites within the Residential 2B zone. Each allotment must have a frontage of nine (9) metres. 

 

The application seeks consent for strata subdivision into two (2) allotments. A lot size of 259 square metres and frontage to Garden Street of nine (9) metres is provided to the proposed Lot 1, corresponding to the health consulting room. To the proposed Lot 2, 298 square metres in area is provided, with a frontage to Garden Street of nine (9) metres, corresponding to the existing dwelling.

 

The application seeks a variation of 66 square metres or 20.3% of the minimum lot size standard to Lot 1. A variation of 27 square metres or 8.3 % is proposed to Lot No. 2.

 

5.1      SEPP 1 Objection Assessment

 

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

 

Matter 1

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

 

The stated purpose of the minimum allotment size standard, as outlined in the LEP is:

 

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

 

The applicant has submitted a written SEPP 1 Objection to the above clause, which outlines the following key justifications for the variation to the minimum allotment size standard:

 

Justification: Minimum Allotment Sizes – Clause 20B (2)

Planning comment:

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

 

1.    The circumstances of the site are unique;

·      While the proposed land sizes represent a significant shortfall to the current standards, it is not uncommon for semi’s/ dual occupancies constructed in the 1920s through to the 1960s to be sited on small sized lots and for these to have been subdivided around the 1960’s. Such buildings predate the current planning controls and in this respect, the historical nature of the subject building makes the situation unlikely to be replicated to more recent development within the 2B zone, thus alleviating the potential for precedent of substandard lot sizes.

 

·      The existing building contains two (2) historic occupancies, is of single storey scale and is located within the low to medium density zone. This zone supports a higher density of development than what would be expected of the 2A zone, where similar dual occupancies or semi-detached dwellings are generally located. The likelihood of recurrence of this circumstance is considered remote.

 

·      The proposal benefits from a corner block location. This attribute enables each of the proposed lots to achieve a sufficient nine (9) metre frontage to Garden Street and vehicular access from Gale Road.

 

2.    Intensity of the approved uses will not substantially change through the proposed strata subdivision:

·      The application is for the purpose of strata subdivision alone. The individual uses have been previously assessed as reasonable in the context of the locality and subsequently approved by Council. The subdivision remains subservient to these approved uses and does not directly facilitate additional intensity of these uses.

 

·      The lots have previously been approved as self contained and independent uses. Any perceived sharing of resources (i.e. parking and open spaces) by the dual occupancy currently on the site, has been discarded by the approval of the independent health consulting room use. Enabling each occupancy to be held within separate strata title is not considered to pose unreasonably intensified use of the site on this basis.

 

·      Multi-unit housing is permissible within the zone and on the site, providing possibility for three (3) or more individual strata lots. Such development benefits from specific omission from the development standard of 20B, despite this use posing both a far greater intensity and likely lesser lot size than proposed.

 

·      An application solely for strata subdivision is not an opportunity for the approved uses and consequent environmental impacts of these uses to be reevaluated. Strata subdivision and it’s associated impacts only are open for consideration. The application of a strata plan on the site is not considered to have direct environmental consequences.

 

3.    Wording of the development standard does not implicitly specify ‘strata’ subdivision:

·      It is generally interpreted from the wording of Clause 20B (2) that all subdivision should be subject to this standard. The intention and structure of the standard would indicate the contrary, expressly omitting multi-unit housing, of which would generally comprise strata schemes.

 

·      It is questionable as to whether the intention of Clause 20B (2) contemplates consulting rooms, given alternate requirements for open space and livable area to these uses. The proposed smaller lot No. 1 accommodates the health consulting room use, which has far lesser demand for open spaces and internal living areas in order to function practically.

 

·      The application seeks to divide the site footprint between both lots. The application of the development standard assumes this two (2) dimensional strata lot shape will remain. The ability of the proposed lots to construct a first floor addition on the site, adding a three (3) dimensional aspect to the strata plan, remains within the scope of the built form controls and would in turn, increase the size of each strata lot. The omission of multi unit housing from clause 20B reflects the possibility of a three (3) dimensional strata lot shape. Strict application of lot size would contradict the intent of the standard.

 

Based on the above, it is considered the intent of the development standard is not practical in application and intent to the current circumstance of strata subdivision. In this specific instance the standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary to enforce.

 

4.    Practicalities of the lot shape and size are reasonable:

·      The proposed strata subdivision will maintain the parent Torrens Title lot and as a consequence will not significantly vary the development potential of the site or alter the local subdivision pattern through the proposed lot sizes or shapes.

 

·      The strata lot shapes are proposed as such in accommodating a reasonable degree of parking, landscaping and building footprint. The uses proposed, most notably the health consulting room use, distribute lot area effectively, in the interest of practical operation of each use.

 

·      The proposed strata scheme and consequent lot sizes will allow potential future development on the site, most likely at first floor level, to generally remain within the scope of the built form controls of bulk, setback and height.

 

5.    Consistency with current zone objectives of RLEP 1998;

·      The proposed strata subdivision is generally consistent with the objectives of the 2B zone, specifically;

 

The proposed subdivision is consistent with the desirable attributes of the low to medium residential area, given the built form is not proposed to change and uses have already been approved. Opportunity will remain on both lots for future development that maintains consistency with the built form controls and surrounds;

The amenity of existing residents will not be substantially changed, given both use and built form will remain as previously approved. The current circumstance allows separate occupation of the dual occupancy, not separate ownership. Enabling this possibility of separate ownership of the health consulting room to that of the dwelling is not expected to significantly impact upon surrounding amenity from that existing,

The subdivision is subservient to an approved health consulting room, of which provides for a low intensity community use that will serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors;

The subdivision is subservient to the existing single dwelling use, of which has potential to contribute to affordable housing stock in the area. 

 

The proposed subdivision will allow the separate holding of the existing dwelling and approved health consulting room uses. The proposed subdivision will result in two (2) lots of acceptable size for the purpose of the use approved to each, without unreasonable imposition upon the character of the surrounding area. The proposal is considered consistent with the objectives of the zone.

 

6.    Consistency with the proposed Development Standards of DRLEP 2012;

·      The proposed strata subdivision is generally consistent with the proposed Principle Development Standards of Part 4 of the Draft LEP. The Draft LEP is a relevant matter of consideration under the Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979. Notably Clause 4.1, ‘Minimum subdivision lot size’ outlines:

 

(3) The size of any lot resulting from the subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

 

The Lot Size Map proposes a minimum size of 400 square metres for subdivision of this site.

 

(4) This clause [4.1] does not apply in relation to the subdivision of individual lots in a strata plan or community title scheme.

 

While the proposed controls do not presently hold weight beyond a strategy prior to gazettal, the intent to omit strata subdivision from minimum lot sizes is clear. This is considered to verify the inherent ambiguity of the current development standard 20B (2), not specifying strata subdivision. Based upon this direction, it is considered unreasonable and unnecessary to strictly enforce the standard, given the possibility of no minimum site area applying to this application upon gazettal of the new planning controls.

 

The submitted SEPP 1 objection has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. Moreover, the applicant has appropriately justified that the 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.”

 

Comments:

The proposed variation of the minimum allotment size standard is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 and will not detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the proposed strata subdivision is considered to promote the orderly and economic use of the land, and will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts on the area.

 

Matter 3

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

The proposed development and variation from the minimum allotment size standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or Regional environmental planning and there is no public benefit in maintaining the control in this instance.

 

The strict adherence to the numerical minimum allotment size standard is in this instance, not considered necessary given:

 

The circumstances of the site are unique;

Intensity of the approved uses will not substantially change through proposed strata subdivision:

Practicalities of the lot shape and size are reasonable for the approved uses:

Consistency with current zone objectives of RLEP 1998;

Consistency with the proposed Development Standards of DRLEP 2012.

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

 

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

 

First

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

 

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

 

Comments:

As discussed above and established by the submitted SEPP 1 objection, strict compliance with the development standard 20B (2) is unreasonable and unnecessary as the proposed strata scheme will achieve the objectives of the development standard.

 

Second

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the minimum allotment size development standard is relevant to the subject proposal.

 

Third

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

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the minimum allotment size standard would not be defeated or thwarted, as full numerical compliance in this particular instance is unreasonable, given the justification discussed above.

Fourth

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

 

Comments:

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

Fifth

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

 

Comments:

The site is zoned Residential 2B and is proposed to be zoned R3: Medium Density Residential, under the Draft RLEP 2012. The objectives of the R3 zone correlate to those for the existing Residential 2B zone under the current LEP. The existing zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were not required to be notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

7.1      Development Engineer:

The draft strata plans are generally consistent with the building plans approved under DA/674/2011 and there is no objection on engineering grounds to the strata subdivision of the site providing parking is provided to the residential lot in accordance with DA/674/2011.

 

It is noted the lot sizes are below the minimum standard set by Council and a SEPP 1 objection has been lodged on this aspect.

 

8.        Environmental Assessment- Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979

 

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 2B under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. Strata subdivision is permissible with Council's consent.

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

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

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

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

The provisions of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP are discussed below, where relevant. The proposed is considered acceptable in relation to the DCP.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant character of 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

 

In accordance with the DCP- Public Notification, the application was not required to be notified.

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

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

 

9.        Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

9.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) identifies the subject site within Zone No 2B (Residential B Zone). The site currently contains an attached dual occupancy, of which is not permissible. It has been established by the applicant that existing use rights apply in the present situation.

 

In relation to existing and approved uses on the site, the following summary is provided:

 

Land-use definition

Permissible in Residential 2B Zone? (RLEP 1998)

Permissible in Residential R3 Zone? (Draft LEP 2012)

Existing

Attached Dual Occupancy

Prohibited;

Existing use rights apply

Permissible

Approved under DA/674/2011

Health Consulting Room & Dwelling House

Permissible;

Approval not yet activated

Permissible in conjunction with SEPP Infrastructure.

Proposed under DA/319/2012

Permissible.

 

The current application is made on the basis that the proposed strata subdivision is subservient to the approved uses of DA/674/2011. The submitted plans enforce this intention. Existing or approved uses on a site are not changed by virtue of a subdivision and as such, the approved ‘Dwelling house’ and ‘Health consulting room’ uses remain applicable to the subject application. Both are permissible with the 2B zone.

 

Activation and use of the consent to DA/674/2011 will serve to nullify any claim to existing use rights on the site, through abandonment of the attached dual occupancy use. Council has no record of a construction certificate being issued pursuant to DA/674/2011 and therefore, existing use rights still apply, given the current use has not yet been abandoned.

 

Despite this, the current subdivision application is dependant upon DA/674/2011 being activated and existing use rights will not apply on this basis. Given this, the provisions of Council’s planning controls are applicable to this assessment.

 

In maintaining permissibility of the uses with the provisions of the 2B zone, the proposed subdivision must not occur prior to the activation and commencement of the approved uses of DA/674/2011. It is therefore pertinent that any endorsement of the current application be subject to a condition requiring that consent is implicitly tied to the prior implementation of DA/674/2011.

 

9.2      Clause 11 – Zone No 2B (Residential B Zone)

The site is zoned Residential 2B under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation). The existing Attached dual occupancy on the site is not permissible in the Residential 2B Zone. Health consulting rooms and dwelling houses are permissible in the zone and these uses were approved under DA/674/2011.

 

The objectives of the zone seek to achieve the following:

 

(a)   to provide for a low to 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.

 

In relation to the above zone objectives, it is considered the proposal has merit and will be compatible with the zone, for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed subdivision is consistent with the desirable attributes of the low to medium residential area, given the built form is not proposed to change and uses have already been approved. Opportunity will remain on both lots for future development that maintains consistency with the built form controls and surrounds;

 

·      An adequate frontage of approximately nine (9) metres is provided to each component of the development;

 

·      The overall site area proposed, while short of the development standard of Clause 20B is not expected to create an undesirable precedent for small lots, given the proposal is for strata subdivision and the unique circumstances this site benefits from, discussed above;

 

·      The overall site area proposed, while short of the development standard of Clause 20B, does not unnecessarily restrict the practicality and reasonable use of, the existing or approved uses on the site;

 

·      The amenity of existing residents will not be substantially changed, given both use and built form will remain as previously approved. The current circumstance allows separate occupation of the dual occupancy, not separate ownership. Enabling this possibility of separate ownership of the health consulting room to that of the dwelling is not expected to significantly impact upon surrounding amenity from that existing,

 

·      The subdivision is subservient to an approved health consulting room, of which provides for a low intensity community use that will serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors;

 

·      The subdivision is subservient to the existing single dwelling use, of which has potential to contribute to affordable housing stock in the area. 

 

The overall function of the development under the proposed strata subdivision is considered consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone outlined above. The proposed strata allotment sizes are of sufficient length and width to accommodate a reasonable medium density development, ancillary to the approved uses of DA/674/2011.

 

9.3      Clause 20B: Minimum allotment sizes

(1)  The minimum allotment size for allotments resulting from the subdivision of land, other than for the purpose of public utility undertakings or roads, within Zone No 2B or 2C is 325 square metres and each allotment must have a frontage of at least 9 metres. This requirement does not apply to development for the purposes of multi unit housing.

 

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

 

The proposal seeks the strata subdivision o the site into two (2) individual allotments, summarised as follows:

 

Proposed strata allotments

Clause 20b requirement

Proposed lot size

Frontage

Compliance

Lot 1:

Min. 325m2

9m frontage

259m2

9.1 m

No, 66m2 or 20% variation of standard.

SEPP 1 Objection addressed above.

Lot 2:

Min. 325m2

9m frontage

298m2

9.2m

No, 27m2 or 8% variation of standard.

 

Clause 21 – Subdivision consent requirements

        (1)    Land to which this plan applies may be subdivided, but only with consent.

The proposal seeks consent for strata subdivision of the existing Torrens Title lot. A strata scheme containing two (2) lots will result and hence requires consent under this clause. The proposal generally complies with the objectives of the LEP in relation to subdivision.

 

9.4      Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Draft LEP)

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

 

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

 

Zoning:

 

The site is zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential.

Yes.

 

Permissible under the proposed zoning?

Yes

Floor Space Ratio (Max)

0.75:1

No change from that approved under DA/674/2011.

Yes.

Height of Building (Max)

9.5m

 

Yes.

 

Lot Size (Min)

No minimum for strata subdiv.

Lot 1: 259m2

See discussion below.

Lot 2: 298m2

 

9.4.1   Draft subdivision controls

The proposed strata subdivision is generally consistent with the proposed Principle Development Standards of Part 4 of the Draft LEP. Notably Clause 4.1, ‘Minimum subdivision lot size’ outlines:

 

(3) The size of any lot resulting from the subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

 

The Lot Size Map proposes a minimum size of 400 square metres for subdivision of this site.

 

(4) This clause [4.1] does not apply in relation to the subdivision of individual lots in a strata plan or community title scheme.

 

9.5      Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP

The health consulting room and dwelling house uses, with ancillary works, are proposed to remain generally as assessed and approved under DA/674/2011.

 

The only exception exists in the fencing layout approved under DA/674/2011 and allocation of private open space, addressed in Section 8.6.1, below.

 

The proposed situation of separate strata ownership of the tenancies will not significantly change the circumstances assessed under DA/674/2011, comprising separate occupation of the tenancies, under a sole ownership. Each occupancy operates independently in the present circumstance and the general provision of landscaped area, floor space and parking provided on the site will not change under proposed strata scheme.

 

Notwithstanding this, the potential for either proposed lot of the strata scheme to develop remains a possibility. It is considered that each lot has the ability to remain within the scope of the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in doing so.

 

The proposed strata subdivision is not considered to directly exacerbate any existing issue on the site in relation to the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP.

 

9.5.1   Landscaped area & Private Open Space

During the assessment of DA/674/2011 it was considered necessary to apply a condition requiring an alternate fencing arrangement, providing less private open space to the health consulting room and increasing that to the dwelling. The proposed strata subdivision plan does not reflect this required fencing arrangement and it is not considered practical to do so, in achieving sufficient lot sizes.

 

Section 4.1 of the DCP outlines several performance requirements and preferred solutions for the provision of landscaped area and open space, including the following:

 

P1     The size and dimensions of landscaped areas suit the projected requirements of the dwelling occupants and accommodate outdoor recreation needs as well as providing space for service functions.

 

S1    Each dwelling is provided with at least 25m2 of usable private open space.

 

The previous consent to DA/674/2011 sought to maximise private open space to the dwelling component of the site, through amendment of internal fencing arrangements. The condition would require exit of the site to access the health consulting room from the parking area. The arrangement proposed under the current subdivision application allows for direct access within the site from the parking area to both occupancies.

 

Based on site practicalities, notably that to the health consulting room, it is considered suitable to remove Condition 2a) of DA/674/2011. Regardless of the removal of this condition, the private open space arrangements to each occupancy will still meet the numerical preferred solutions of the DCP for private open space and allow reasonably practical space for use of occupants.

 

The provision of private open space to both occupancies is considered acceptable in regards to the above provisions of the DCP.

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 8:       A strong local economy;

Direction 8a:      Vibrant business, commercial and industrial sectors that provide ongoing and diverse employment opportunities.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

The submitted SEPP 1 Objection provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate the purpose of clause 20B (2) will be achieved and further, compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.  The proposal remains within the bounds of the objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clause 20B (2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to minimum allotment sizes, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/319/2012 for Strata subdivision of approved health consulting room and dwelling into two (2) allotments, at No. 88 Garden Street, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plan references ‘SP-GARDEN’, prepared by Richard Wilkinson and received by Council on 16 May 2012, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.

 

2.       This consent must only be implemented in association with Development Consent No. 674/2011. An Occupation Certificate for DA/674/2011 must be issued prior to the registration of the approved strata plan the subject of this consent.

 

3.       The fencing arrangement to the rear open space required by Condition 2a of DA/674/2011 shall be amended in accordance with the strata plan referred to in Condition No. 1 of this consent.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF STRATA CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

4.       All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the proposed strata plan must correspond to those of the building as constructed.

 

5.       All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the proposed strata plan must correspond to those depicted in the approved building plans for the site under DA/674/2011.

 

6.       Prior to endorsement of the strata plans, all facilities required under previous development approvals (such as parking spaces, terraces and courtyards) must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements.

 

7.       The applicant shall provide Council with a copy of the ‘Plan of Redefinition’ survey plan of the property prior to receiving subdivision approval.

 

8.       The relevant requirements of the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be complied with and a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water.

 

An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. For details please refer to the Building Developing and Plumbing section of the website www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

 

Following the application a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer infrastructure can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issuing of a strata certificate.

9.       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.

 

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

 

11.     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 prior to the issuing of a subdivision certificate.

 

Street numbering

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

         

          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, prior to issuing a strata certificate.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP80/12

 

 

Subject:                  6 Brighton Road, Coogee (DA/1139/2010/A)

Folder No:                   DA/1139/2010/A

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of approved development by changes to roof form, windows and awnings, addition of skylights, changes to front porch design, decking at rear, internal changes, minor changes to internal walls, increase in height of studio layout, new terraced garden by pool and addition of pool services room, alteration to garage walls and facade. Original consent: Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of new two storey dwelling house with a detached building consisting of three car garage at ground level and 2 bedroom studio above, new rear in ground pool, associated landscape works and installation of solar panels on roof

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Greg Miller

Owner:                         Greg Miller & Jenny Trinca

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

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

 

The original development approval (DA/1139/2010) details the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of a new two storey dwelling house facing Brighton Road. The site also has frontage to Dolphin Street. The proposal provides for garaging at the ground level with a new 2 bedroom dwelling above the garage. The proposed garage will provide two spaces for the main dwelling that fronts Brighton Road and one car space for the dwelling fronting Dolphin Street.

 

The application was notified between 20 June 2012 to 4 July 2012 in accordance with DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. No submissions have been received at the conclusion of the public consultation process.

 

The site is zoned Residential 2B under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the proposed modifications are permissible with Council’s consent.

 

Overall, it is considered 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.

 

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.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

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

 

 

Description of proposed amendments

 

Roof form

·     The fall of the roof over the Master Bedroom has been changed. 

·     The eave height is reduced at the western boundary.

·     The approved 2 roofs over the Entry, Laundry & Bedroom 3 have been amalgamated into a single roof falling to the south.

·     The approved roof over the side porch has been reduced in size and a new roof added at the lower level.

 

Windows

·     Minor window alterations to the size of the approved window openings, some of the window openings have been reduced in size and others have been increased slightly in area.

·     A new window, W2.17 is added into the corridor between the Robe and Master Bedroom.

·     The BASIX Certificate is amended to reflect the changes.

Skylight

·     Three new skylights are proposed (S-03, S-04 & S-05) for the Laundry & WC as the DA approved highlight window are deleted as a result of the new roof design changes.

Front Porch

·     The approved porch is altered by removing the posts and adding a new wind wall to the western side of the porch.

Bedroom 3 & Master Bed walls

·     The northern external wall of Bedroom 3 is moved slightly to align with the pool door below and is increased in thickness to allow for an integrated external louvre screen.

·     The external wall of the Master Bedroom is changed as the approved gas fire is relocated and the chimney is deleted from the design.

 

Courtyard deck

·     The layout of the courtyard deck is revised.

Bathroom 1 size

·     Bathroom 1 is extended to match the footprint of the 1st floor above.

 

Ensuite layout

·     The internal layout of the ensuite is revised.

Window awning

·     The design of the approved awning above W2.10 & W2.11 is amended to include a wing wall to the southern side.

Floor levels

·     Level changes to the garage to comply with Condition No. 55 in the original consent.  Due to the above level changes the studio floor level has increased from RL 18.060 to RL 18.320.

 

Studio layout

·     To comply with Condition No.’s 1a & 1b the internal layout of the studio is amended to provide for a single bedroom and a planter box is incorporated along the eastern side of the deck. 

 

Pool pebble bed

·     Proposing to delete Condition No. 1f from the consent.

·     Condition No. 1f requires that a pebble bed at RL 20.000 be incorporated around the northern end of the approved pool. This was not feasible for the owner and an alternate solution is proposed by providing a terrace garden along side the pool that reflects the existing boundary walls and providing planting and new timber fences/screens to the north and eastern ends of the pool.

 

Garage rear walls

·     The proposed rear walls of the garage are aligned with the locations of the existing brick retaining walls, whereas in the original application it was to retain these walls and build inside these walls.

 

Garage Facade

·     Minor alterations to the garage/studio façade.  The balustrades to the studio deck are reduced in height and extend the full width of the deck.

·     Minor revisions to the garage entry, removal of the solid roof garden balustrade and revised eave/wing wall design.

 

Section 94A Contribution

·     Amend Condition No. 11 relating to Section 94A Contribution to reflect the reduction in construction costs.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Brighton Road between Carrington Road and Melody Street, Coogee. The site also has street frontage to Dolphin Street.

 

The subject site is directly opposite a public reserve off Dolphin Street.

 

The site currently contains an existing two storey dwelling that faces Brighton Street. To the rear, being the Dolphin Street frontage, the site contains two detached garages.

 

The site has a considerable fall from Brighton Road to Dolphin Street in the order of 8 metres.

 

The site has a frontage width of 10.375m to Brighton Road and 10.32m to Dolphin Street. The side boundaries vary from 42.950m to west with the eastern boundary being 42.965m. The site has an overall site area of 447 m². 

 

This site has a unique characteristic of having two street frontages as being there front and rear boundaries. This situation also applies to the adjoining properties, with numbers 2, 4 and 8 having this arrangement, although No. 8 has been redeveloped so there are two dwellings with one facing Brighton Road and the other facing Dolphin Street.

 

Brighton Road presents itself as a laneway with a narrow road pavement and little road reserve for pedestrian movement, yet it is generally the principle street address for all these properties. Dolphin Street can be characterized as a standard suburban street with a wider road pavement and a footpath reserve on either side of the pavement allowing an avenue of street trees. Notwithstanding these characteristics, Dolphin Street services these properties for garaging.

 

Surrounding properties are generally detached dwellings that vary in height. Generally the properties in the area are two storeys in height of varying architectural styles.

 

4.    Site History

 

The original application was referred to Council as the cost of works was greater than 2 million dollars.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

As a result of the above notification no submissions have been received.

 

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

The site is zoned Residential 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:-

 

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

 

Clause

 

Requirement

Approved

Proposal

Compliance

20E Landscaped Area

 50% of total landscaped area (223.5m² required)

 

 

 

 

Landscaped areas over podiums not to exceed 50% of landscape provision.

 

 50% (or 225.3sqm)

 

 

 

 

 

1.3%

The landscaped area is reduced to 48.41% (or 216.4m²).

 

1.3%

No. See comments below.

 

 

 

 

Yes

20F Floor space ratios

 Residential 2B – 0.65:1

(Allowable 290.5m²) based on 447m² site area.

 

 0.66:1 (or 295.5m²)

The floor area will not be altered as the additional area is within the garage which is excluded from the FSR.

 

n/a

 

20G Building heights

 9.5metres

 6.2m

6.2m from the natural ground level.

 Yes

 

Clause 20E - Landscaped Area

The approved landscaped area is 50% (or 225.3m²). The amended proposal will provide 48.41% (or 216.4m²) of landscape area which does not comply with the minimum 50% (or 225.3m²) required under the Randwick LEP. Accordingly, the proposal will be deficient in total landscape area by approximately 7m².

 

The reduction in the landscaped area is to the vegetable garden located to the rear of the garage. This reduction is due to the extension of the rear garage and stair access.

 

The reduction in the landscaped area is minimal and will not greatly impact on the current approval.  The design and usability of the open spaces will continue to be adequate for the site and the objectives of the control will be satisfied.

 

(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 multi unit housing development.  The proposed 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)

0.75:1

 0.66:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

The development will have a maximum height of 6.2m from the existing natural ground level.

 

Yes

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 - 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.

 

The proposed modifications will not be significantly altering the approved building envelope.  There will be minor changes to the approved landscaping, FSR, building setbacks.  The maximum approved building height will not be altered.  The proposed modifications are minor in nature and will be improving the amenity on the site.

 

The table below lists and discusses the issues that may arise from the proposed modifications in relation to specific controls outlined in the DCP.

 

Issue

Comment

3.2 Height

The amended proposal will satisfy the key  objectives and performance requirements relating to Height as follows:

 

The modifications to the front roof form will not result in detrimental visual impacts on the adjoining properties and the public domain.  The roof will not impose any additional bulk to the approved multi-unit building.

 

The modifications to the studio and garage are minor and will have no additional impacts on the amenity of the streetscape or adjoining properties. The height of the balustrades to the studio deck have been reduced in height and run the full width of the deck, this will minimise the bulk and scale of the garage and studio.

 

Despite the roof modifications to the dwelling and increase in height of the garage and studio the overall maximum building height of the development will remain the same as the approved development.

 

3.3 Building Setbacks

The amended proposal will satisfy the key  objectives and performance requirements relating to Building Setbacks as follows:

 

The main footprint of the dwelling will not be altered.  The changes to the building façade are minor and will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to the streetscape or neighbouring properties.

 

The modifications to the layout of the garage and upper level studio are also minor and do not create any additional adverse impacts to nearby buildings, open space or streetscape.

 

The extended part of the garage wall to the western boundary has a nil setback.  This is considered to be acceptable as it is the continuation of the existing garage wall and this wall aligns with the neighbouring properties garage; and therefore, will not have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property at no. 4 Brighton Road.

 

 

4.2 Privacy

 

The amended proposal will satisfy the key  objectives and performance requirements relating to Privacy as follows:

 

The amended proposal does not affect current levels of privacy to the locality.  The new window W2.17 to the eastern elevation has a sill height of approximately 1.6m which prevents overlooking to the neighbouring properties.

 

The design of the awning structure above W2.10 & W2.11 is amended to include a wing wall to the southern side; this will improve privacy to the adjoining dwellings and will also provide weather protection for the building.

 

Condition 1b of the consent required that a planter box be provided along the northern and eastern sides of the studio deck.  The amended plans indicate that a planter box is only provided along the eastern side of the studio deck.  It is not considered necessary for the planter box to the return to the northern side of the studio deck as it will primarily overlook the street and park reserve and will not have an unreasonable privacy impacts to the neighbouring sites.  Therefore, Condition No. 1b is to be deleted accordingly.

 

Condition No. 1e requires the proposed vertical screen located along the eastern boundary, to the side of the pool, to be reduced in height from 2.4m to 2m and that a return screen is to be provided to the northern end of the screen, to prevent access along the eastern boundary.  Condition No. 1f required that pebble bed be provided to the northern end of the pool and extend along the eastern boundary to the alignment of the screen as required under Condition No. 1e.  The plans indicate that the vertical screen along the eastern boundary is reduced in height to 2m; however, the return screen and pebble bed are not provided on the plans.  Advice was provided by the applicant’s structural engineers that the addition of a new retaining wall to RL 20.000, to allow for a pebble bed is not feasible.  The applicant states that it would be preferable that the eastern side of the pool be accessible for servicing of pool. 

 

The proposed alternate solution to address the above conditions is to provide a terrace garden to the northern end of the pool and then screen the pool with planting and new timber fences/screens.  The new fences/screens above the existing boundary fence/wall will have a total height of 1.5m from the proposed ground level. 

 

The above solution is satisfactory and will prevent overlooking impacts to the neighbouring property to the east.  Accordingly, Condition No.’s 1e & 1f are to be deleted.

 

The addition of a new pool services room to the studio level should not result in any unreasonable noise amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties. Appropriate noise conditions where included in the original consent to ensure that noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents are minimised.

 

Overall, it is not considered that there will be any unreasonable amenity impacts on the visual and acoustic privacy to the surrounding and neighbouring properties.

 

4.4 Solar Access & Energy Efficiency   

 

 

The amended proposal will satisfy the key  objectives and performance requirements relating to Solar Access & Energy Efficiency as follows:

 

The proposed development should not result in any additional unreasonable impact on neighbouring dwellings with regard to overshadowing of private open spaces, north-facing living areas or potential solar collection areas.

 

Section 94 Contributions

The applicant wishes to amend Condition No. 11 relating to Section 94A Contribution to reflect the reduction in construction costs.  The applicant has stated that it was difficult to provide an adequate construction cost of the works when no geotechnical or structural analysis was under taken, and has over catered for structural costs which were not necessary.  An amended construction costing has been provided by Streamline Projects, the estimated construction cost has been reduced to $1,212, 575.71.

 

This costing has been provided by a builder. Council requires that construction costs over $500,000 must be provided by Quantity Surveyor’s; therefore, 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.

 

 

8.2 Council Policies

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 proposal does not involve any significant changes to the overall built form, envelope or landscaped open space provision of the approved development.

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.

No submissions have been received in response to this application.

 

 

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

 

No submissions have been received for this development application.

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:  Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction:  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The 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.  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 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 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/1139/2010/A for S96 Application to modify existing development consent DA/1139/2012 by changes to roof form, windows and awnings, addition of skylights, changes to front porch design, decking at rear, internal changes, minor changes to internal walls, increase in height of studio layout, new terraced garden by pool and addition of pool services room, alteration to garage walls and facade. Original consent: Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of new two storey dwelling house with a detached building consisting of three car garage at ground level and 2 bedroom studio above, new rear in ground pool, associated landscape works and installation of solar panels on roof at No. 6 Brighton Road, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

Amend Condition No.’s 1 & 11 to read:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA00 to DA28, dated December 2010 and received by Council on 23 December 2010, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 ‘A’ - plans drawn by Anderson Architecture, plans numbered 1018/S96-00 to S96-02, S96-05, S96-06, S96-08, S96-10 to S96-13, S96-15, S96-17, S96-19, S96-21 & S96-23 and received by Council on 14 June 2012, only in so far as they relate to the modifications clouded on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application; 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.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

11.     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.

 

Conditions No.’s 1b, 1e & 1f are deleted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP81/12

 

 

Subject:                  Reporting variation to Development standard under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) between 1 August to 30 September, 2012

Folder No:                   F2008/00122

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

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

 

1)     Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP1;

 

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 to be determined by full council (rather than the general manager or nominated staff member);

 

3)     Providing a report to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP1;

 

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

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all SEPP1s approved in the period from 1 August to 30 September 2012 three (3) were approved during this period, with one (1) of those under delegation by Council Officer and two (2) either by Planning Committee meeting or Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP1 objections. This report is in response to one of those requirements whereby a report is provided to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP1. 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

SEPP 1 Between 1 to 30 September 2012

 

 

 

 


SEPP 1 Between 1 to 30 September 2012

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 AUGUST TO 30 SEPTEMBER 2012

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apartment/ Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb/Town

Post code

Category of develop-ment

Environmental planning instru-ment

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concurring authority

Date DA determined
dd/mm/yyyy

Approved by

DA/204/2012

2

105442

 

22

Houston Road,

KINGSFORD

2032

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 1998

R2B Residen-tial

Clause 4 of Schedule 1 of the Affordable Housing - maximum 60m2 floor area.

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of oversha-dowing, privacy and views.

Floor area increa-sed by 8m2

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

14-Aug-12

PCM

DA/175/2012

COR LOT 4832

752015

 

1

Dampier Street

CHIFLEY

2036

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 1998

R2A Residen-tial

 Clause 20(G) (4) external wall height of 7m.

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of oversha-dowing, privacy and views.

The external wall height is 8.5 increa-sed by 1.5m or 21%.

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

28-Aug-12

OCM

DA/901/2011

6

 245585

 

2

Landy Street

MATRAVILLE

2036

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 1998

R2A Residen-tial

Clause 20F - FSR =0.5:1.

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of oversha-dowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.53:1 or 6%.

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

19-Sep-12

Dele-gated Authority

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP82/12

 

 

Subject:                  Proposed Funding of a Sculpture Monument by Ms Eileen Slarke at Little Bay

Folder No:                   F2007/00506

Submitted by:          Teresa Mok, Manager Community Planning & Development     

 

Introduction

 

This report is in response to Council resolution NM34/12:

 

(Andrews/Bowen) that Council consider a report on the possible funding of a small bronze sculpture monument by Eileen Slarke to be erected at the spot where Christo and Jean Claude wrapped the coast of Little Bay in 1969 as part of the adopted budgetary allocation for public arts projects for 2012-13.

 

Background

 

The Cultural Arts Program, initiated in 2010, receives an annual budget allocation of $30,000 per year.  This amount is used to fund between eight to twelve events under Twilight Concert and Ignite Talks Programs.  The Council has not set aside any monies under its 2012-13 Budget to fund a public art project.

 

Council developed and endorsed its Public Art Strategy (the Strategy) on 20 July 2010.  As part of the Strategy, it prescribed a process for commissioning new public art works that is consistent with best practices used by other councils, and government agencies in Australia. 

 

An objective of the Strategy is to implement a fair and transparent process for commissioning public art.  Once a site and the desired art form is identified, ‘established’ and ‘emerging’ artists are given the opportunity to compete for, and win a tender or commission, using a transparent and equitable selection process. Using this process will help the Council build an interesting collection of works from different artists.  It is one way of reflecting the cultural diversity of our communities.

 

 Artists are prepared to participate in a competitive selection process because it is considered to be a privilege to have their work displayed in the public domain.

 

The Strategy’s also provides the Council with a practical framework for making decisions about where to locate public art works, what format it should take, and the timing of delivery.

 

It should be noted that the Council has previously funded the fabrication and installation of a bronze sculpture by Ms Eileen Slarke, The Impressionist’s Seat, located in Dunningham Reserve, at a cost of $40,000.

 

Issues

 

The proposal is not consistent with the Council’s own policies for the following reasons:

 

 

·      The public art commissioning practices endorsed by Council in 2010 (Attachment 1, Public Art Strategy page 12) provide an open and fair commissioning process.  Such a process is important for giving artists from different walks of life an opportunity to win a commission to create a public art work for Council. It also allows the Council to build up an interesting collection that reflects the cultural diversity of its communities.

 

·      Does not meet the processes set out in Council’s Purchasing Procedures. Specifically:

o In the absence of a pre-approved supply agreement, the purchase must be sourced by Council directly and should include an evaluation process.

o The evaluation process requires 3 written quotes for level 2 expenditure (over $500 and up to $100,000) and evaluation by a committee for level 3 and 4 (over $100,000). Larger amounts must call for tender.

 

Ms Slarke has advised the bronze sculpture will cost in the order of $38,000 to fabricate by a bronze caster.  The bronze sculpture refers to the temporal art work of Christo, an American artist who once wrapped the cliff of Little Bay with white canvas material

 

It is understood that the proposed sculpture is to be placed in a position to frame the view of cliffs that Christo once wrapped in 1969.  However no further details have been made available to indicate the final position of the proposed sculpture.  It is essential to know the final site location because if the Council is not the property owner, then the owner’s consent will need to be sought.  Council staff will also need to ensure that the position of its artwork is secure for surveillance and public safety grounds.

 

There are already several pieces of public art work located in Little Bay.  There are bronze sculptures in Bob-a-Day Park, the McCartney Oval, and Observation Park and an Inscription Panel (depicting the site) near the site of the former nurses’ dining hall.  The Council’s Public Art Strategy has identified the priority locations for public art should ideally be in town centres with Public Domain strategies (Kensington and Matraville).

 

As testimony of its on-going commitment in implementing the Council’s Public Art Strategy, it has funded and delivered a number of art projects in accordance with the Strategy’s guiding principles. These include the refurbishment and restoration of its existing heritage monuments, completion of Ruark Lewis’s Residence public art project in Alison Park, Queen Emma’s Story in Stained Glass and Etched Woodwork, Memorial Wall for Bali Bombing victims, and the repainting of the Proud of Our Elders mural.

 

Again, in line with the Strategy, council staff has adopted the practice of integrating a component of public artwork within its capital works projects, in the form of street furniture (bike racks in the shape of a penny farthing) and paving design (along the coastal walkway).  Officers are also in the process of investigating the feasibility of installing an iconic public art work at the Des Renford Aquatic Centre.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2f:      Our cultural diversity is appreciated and respected.

 


Financial impact statement

 

If Ms Slarke’s sculpture is supported by Council, the funds will need to be identified to finance the cost of this commission, at an estimated cost of approximately $38,000.  This amount does not include the cost of site preparation and landscaping works associated with the placement of the sculpture.

 

Conclusion

 

The Council’s budget allocation for 2012-13 does not have funds to purchase Ms Slarke’s bronze monument to the American artist, Christo.  The Strategy states that where possible, the Council will endeavour to acquire a public art work once every two years.  Construction Ruark Lewis’ Residence was completed this year.  Council officers are now investigating the feasibility of procuring a public art work on the premises of the Des Renford Aquatic Centre in 2013-14.

 

Despite the potential inconsistency with the Council’s policies, Ms Slarke advised that she has already engaged a bronze caster to fabricate her sculpture.  It appears that there has been a misunderstanding of the Council’s approval process for acquiring works of public art.

 

Recommendation

 

Randwick City Council to determine whether or not to fund Ms Slarke’s bronze sculpture, estimated to cost approximately $38,000 (excluding site preparation and placement costs).

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Randwick City Council's Public Art Strategy

UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP83/12

 

 

Subject:                  Community and Cultural Grants Program - September 2012 Round - Recommended Allocations

Folder No:                   F2009/00182

Author:                   Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner     

 

Introduction

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program was endorsed by Council on 28 April 2009 and commenced in June 2009.  The Cultural Community Grants Program provides financial support to creative arts and cultural projects that encourage community participation and vibrancy within the City of Randwick. The Program is linked to actions and strategies identified within the Council’s Cultural Plan, A Cultural Randwick City.

 

The Council has received a total of 23 applications seeking $104,338.46 (in-kind and cash). Applications recommended for funding are listed in Attachment One to this report. Applications not recommended for funding are also listed in Attachment One.

 

This report recommends 15 applications to receive funding totalling $61,938.87

The remaining funds of $43,061.13 will be available for allocation as part of the March 2013 round.   

 

All applicants will be advised about the outcomes of their grant application.

 

Issues

 

Cultural and Community Grants Program Background

The Cultural and Community Grants Program has an annual budget of $105,000.00.

 

There are two Cultural and Community Grants Program assessment rounds each  financial year, in March and September, and is promoted in the local newspaper, on the Council’s website and email through local community networks.

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program Funding is awarded to not-for-profit organisations or community groups. The resulting activities or events must be based in the City of Randwick. Applicants may seek grants from Council as an in-kind contribution only (waiver of Council fees and charges), cash contribution only, or a combination of in-kind and cash contribution.

 

The Program requires and expects a high level of accountability from funding recipients. As part of the funding acquittal process, all recipients who have received cash grants will be required to provide evidence that the activity or event was held.

 

Under the current grants assessment guidelines (last reviewed in September 2011), projects have a link to commercial ventures, and those that have a profit making outcome (e,g charging an entry fee to view or participate in event or project) are not eligible to apply for funding.

 

There were a number of applications that, as a result of the amended guidelines, have been disqualified by the assessment panel under the current funding round. 


September Assessment Round 2012-13

The assessment process was undertaken by a panel of Council officers and a representative from Woollahra Council, with expertise in community services, governance and grants administration. The panel met to assess the applications and to determine which of these should receive full, partial or no funding. All applications were assessed for compliance with the program’s funding priorities and guidelines, and the organisation’s capacity to deliver the program outcomes. Each application was assigned a numerical score reflecting and a priority ranking of A, B or C. Priority levels are detailed below:

 

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

·           Priority B: Possibly if sufficient funds. Application meets eligibility criteria but with lower scores than the Priority A applications.  Priority B applications may lack adequate detail or be poorly targeted.

·           Priority C: Does not meet the eligibility criteria.

 

Through this assessment process, a total of 17 applications have been recommended to receive funding totalling $61,938.87 comprising of $25,544.50 in cash and $36,394.37 in-kind (fee waiver). This amount represents approximately a budget split of 60:40 between the September 2012 and March 2013 funding rounds, respectively.  Allocating a larger proportion of the budget to the September round is appropriate because the spring/summer seasons are the busiest period for organised community events and activities. The grant applicants and a brief description of their proposed projects being recommended for funding are summarised below:

 

·           Club Swimming (Bayside Swimming Club Inc.) In-kind funds for lane hire at Des Redford Aquatic Centre to conduct fortnightly Club Swims for children aged between 3 and 16 years.  80-100 swimmers attend each club swim

·           Coogee Family Fun Day 2012 (Coogee Chamber of Commerce). In-kind funds for the use of Goldstein Reserve, and cash contribution towards the annual community event that celebrates the start of summer and consists of market and craft stalls, rides and other entertainment. Profits raised from the event are donated to a local charity; traditionally the Children’s Hospital. 

·           Coogee Island Challenge (Coogee Surf Life Saving Club) In-kind funds to hold an Ocean swim run at Coogee Beach by the Club for the purpose of fundraising for the club.

·           Coogee Carnival (Coogee Surf Life Saving Club) In-kind funds for the use of Coogee Beach to hold an Ocean swim run by the  Club for the purpose of fundraising for the club

·           Athens West (Greek Orthodox Community of NSW) In-kind funds for use of the Prince Henry Centre, and cash contribution towards a showcase of music from Athens to Andalusia. Concert featuring 4-6 individual and small groups of musicians representing each different part of the western Mediterranean. 

·           Summer Fiesta Ball (Junction House Inc) In-kind funds for the use of the Prince Henry Centre, and cash contribution towards a ball event for people with intellectual disabilities, their carers, service provider organisations and interested Randwick residents. To be held a week prior to International Day of People with a Disability.

·           Memorial Park Family Fun Day (Kooloora Soldier’s Settlement Community Centre) In-kind funds for the use of Memorial Park, and cash contribution towards the event.  The Family fun Day is to be organised in partnership with University based social research unit Working from the Ground Up which will provide free activities fun families in the South Maroubra and Matraville areas near public housing areas.

·           Training Camp and National Training Camp for Beach Handball Club Championship (NSW Handball Association NSW) In-kind funds for the use of Maroubra Beach in February to hold regular handball championships  training prior tournament and training camp for the National Handball Squad

·           Randwick Art Society Exhibition (Randwick Art Society Inc.) In-kind funds for the use of Prince Henry Centre, and cash contribution towards artwork hanging, for printing, prizes and stationary.

·           South Maroubra Junior Surf Club Annual Proficiency tests (South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club) In-kind funds for lane hire at Des Redford Aquatic Centre to test approximately 400 children aged between 8 and 14 years swimming skills to enable them to participate in surf club activities.

·           South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club Youth Carnival  (South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club) In-kind funds for the use of South Maroubra Beach and associated equipment to hold a club youth carnival for children 8 to 17 yrs.

·           Pere Receveur Mass (St Andrew’s Catholic Church, Malabar) Cash contribution towards hiring a marquee and sound for the annual mass.  The mass commemorates the Frenchmen buried at Botany Bay and serves as a reminder of the ill fated expedition of the Enlightenment.  Several hundred participants are expected.

·           SMCS Multicultural Seniors Carnivale 2013 (Sydney Multicultural Community Services) In-kind funds for the use of the Prince Henry Centre, and cash contribution towards the Carnivale to be held in Seniors Week celebrating cultural diversity by engaging in approximated 180 frail aged senior clients from Sydney Multicultural Community Service’s programs. The Carnivale will include formal speeches, cultural performances, lunch, music entertainment, dancing and socialising.

·           The Newsroom (The Patch) In-kind funds for the use of Totem Hall, and cash contribution towards mentors, marketing print and catering for a series of creative workshops  for young people from 8-15 years.  The workshops will be run by experienced artists, designers, image-makers and writers who will work with the participants to produce a 48 page newspaper; and website sharing stories in words, imagery and film. The Shack Youth Services is a partner of this project.

·           Annual South Maroubra Village Green Art Show (Walsh’s Village Pharmacy) Cash contribution towards the Art Show under canvas community event for local artists to display their work at no fee.  Includes a children’s section.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  5:     Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

Direction:  5b:   A range of cultural, sporting and leisure activities.

Key actions:              Recognise and promote opportunities for residents and visitors to engage in sports and other cultural pursuits. Increase public art, performance spaces and opportunities for creative expression across our City.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no additional financial impact as the recommended allocations are within the approved Cultural and Community Grants Program annual budget of $105,000.

Conclusion

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program plays an important role in providing artistic and cultural events and activities that contribute towards vibrancy and social cohesion within Randwick City. Following a rigorous assessment process of applications against program criteria and guidelines, the panel has recommended 16 applications to receive funding totalling $61,938.87 under the September 2012 assessment round.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council approve Cultural and Community Program funds totalling $61,938.87 to be allocated to the recommended grant applicants listed in Attachment One.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Cultural and Community Grants Program September 2012 - Attachment One - Details of Recommended Sucessful and Not Sucessful  Gratn Applications

 

 

 

 


Cultural and Community Grants Program September 2012 - Attachment One - Details of Recommended Sucessful and Not Sucessful  Gratn Applications

Attachment 1

 

 

Attachment One

 

2012/2013 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING - SEPTEMBER 2012 ASSESSMENT

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project & Description

Amount

Requested

 

Rank

In-Kind Recommended

Cash

Recommended

In kind

Cash

1

Bayside Swimming Club Inc

Club swimming

In-kind funds for lane hire at Des Redford Aquatic Centre to conduct fortnightly Club Swims for children aged between 3 and 16 years.  80-100 swimmers attend each club swim

$ 2,361.15

$ 0.00 

B

 $ 2361.15

$ 0.00 

2

Coogee Chamber of Commerce

Coogee Family Fun Day 2011

In-kind funds for use of Goldstein Reserve, and cash contribution towards the annual community event that celebrates the start of summer and consists of market and craft stalls, rides and other entertainment. Profits raised from the event are donated to a local charity; traditionally the Children’s Hospital. 

$ 4939.35

$ 11,067.00

A

$ 4939.35

 $ 5,000.00

3

Coogee Surf Life Saving Club

Glass Island Challenge

In-kind funds for use of Coogee Beach to hold an Ocean swim run by the  Club for the purpose of fundraising for the club

$ 1,828.81

$ 0.00

B

$ 1,828.81

$0.00

4

Coogee Surf Life Saving Club

Coogee Carnival

In-kind funds for use of Coogee Beach to hold an Annual Surf Carnival of Club

$ 1,244.55

$ 0.00

B

$ 1,244.55

$ 0.00

7

Greek Orthodox Community of NSW

Athens West

In-kind funds for use of the Prince Henry Centre, and cash contribution towards a showcase of music from Athens to Andalusia. Concert featuring 4-6 individual and small groups of musicians representing each different part of the western Mediterranean. 

$ 4,059.80

$ 8,734.00

A

 $ 4,059.80

$3,500.00

8

Junction House Inc

Summer Fiesta Ball

In-kind funds for use of the Prince Henry Centre, and cash contribution towards  a ball event for people with intellectual disabilities, their carers, service provider organisations and interested Randwick residents. To be held a week prior to International Day of People with a Disability.

$ 4,295.37

$ 1,000.00

B

 $ 4,295.37

 $ 800.00

9

Koolloora Soldiers Settlement Community Centre

Memorial Park Family Fun Day

In-kind funds for the use of Memorial Park, and cash contribution towards the event.  The Family fun Day is to be organised in partnership with University based social research unit Working from the Ground Up which will provide free activities fun families in the South Maroubra and Matraville areas near public housing areas.

$ 477.00

$ 4,300.00

A

 $ 477.00

 $ 2,000.00

12

Handball Association of NSW

Training Camp and National Training Camp for Beach Handball Club Championship

In-kind funds to use Maroubra Beach in February to hold regular handball championships  training prior tournament and training camp for the National Handball Squad

 

$ 4,477.80

 

$ 0.00

B

$ 4,477.80

$ 0.00

13

Randwick Art Society Inc

Randwick Art Society Exhibition

In-kind funds for use of Prince Henry Centre, and cash contribution towards artwork hanging, for printing, prizes and stationary.

$ 6,917.13

$ 2,500.00

A

 $ 6,917.13

 $ 1,500.00

14

South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club

South Maroubra Junior Surf Club Annual Proficiency tests

In-kind funds for lane hire at Des Redford Aquatic Centre to test approximately 400 children aged between 8 and 14 years swimming skills to enable them to participate in surf club activities.

$ 1,140.00

$ 0.00

B

$1,140.00

$0.00

15

South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club

South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club Youth Carnival

In-kind funds for use of South Maroubra Beach and associated equipment to hold a club youth carnival for children 8 to 17 yrs.

$ 1,272.00

$ 0.00

B

$1,272.00

$0.00

16

St Andrew’s Catholic Church

Pere Receveur Mass

Cash contribution towards hiring a marquee and sound for the annual mass.  The mass commemorates the Frenchmen buried at Botany Bay and serves as a reminder of the ill fated expedition of the Enlightenment.  Several hundred participants are expected.

$ 0

$ 3,394.00

B

$0.00

$3,394.00

20

Sydney Multicultural Community Services (SMCS)

2012 SMCS Multicultural Seniors Carnivale

In-kind funds for use of the Prince Henry Centre, and cash contribution towards the Carnivale to be held in Seniors Week celebrating cultural diversity by engaging in approximated 180 frail aged senior clients from Sydney Multicultural Community Service’s programs. The Carnivale will include formal speeches, cultural performances, lunch, music entertainment, dancing and socialising.

$ 1,751.00

$ 500.00

A

 $1,751.00

 $450.00

22

The Patch

The Newsroom

In-kind funds for the use of Totem Hall, and cash contribution towards mentors, marketing print and catering for a series of creative workshops  for young people from 8-15 years.  The workshops will be run by experienced artists, designers, image-makers and writers who will work with the participants to produce a 48 page newspaper; and website sharing stories in words, imagery and film. The Shack Youth Services is a partner of this project.

$ 1,910.00

$ 7,350.00

A

 $ 1,910.00

 $ 5,000.00

23

Walsh’s Village Pharmacy

Annual South Maroubra Village Green Art Show

Cash contribution towards the Art Show under canvas community event for local artists to display their work at no fee.  Includes children’s section.

$ 0

$ 8,000.00

A

$ 0.00

$ 3,900.00  

(Includes funds for venue application fee)

 

 

 

 $ 39,548.96

 $  64,789.50

Total

 $  36,394.37

 $   25,544.50

 

 

 

 

 

Total

$   61,938.87

 


2012/2013 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING – SEPTEMBER 2012

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

Rank

In kind Recommended

Cash

Recommended

In kind

Cash

5

East is East Boutique Market

East is East Boutique Market

Funds to pay for printing of flyers, and rent of Masonic Hall Kensington to run markets featuring local hand-made crafts by Sydney artists and providing a stall for UNSW art students.

Comment:  Application was not assessed. Project ineligible because the organization is profit making with proceeds of sales retained by artists and students.

$ 0.00

$ 925.00

N/A

$ 0.00

$ 0.00

6

Garnet Productions

A Midsummer Night’s Dream 2012

Funds towards theatre performance works in Centennial Park.

 

Comment: Not assessed. Project ineligible because organization is profit making (tickets sold to general public).

$ 0.00

$ 7,000.00

N/A

$ 0.00

$ 0.00

10

Left Right Think Tank

NSW 2012 Policy Fellowship Program

Funds for venue hire, promotional and marketing, speaker gifts and photographer for an education forum for a select group of young people across the State and a launch event to be held in the CBD or inner city.

 

Comment: Contrary to Guidelines: all funded events must be held in Randwick City

$0.00

$ 1,000.00

C

$ 0.00

$ 0.00

11

Multicultural Support Network of Randwick

Multicultural, religious and racial harmony promotion and the New Years Celebration

Funds to hold an informal dinner and New Years celebration with guest speakers from a range of religious, multi-racial, multicultural organisations, with social and cultural entertainment

 

Comment:  Given a low priority ranking as majority of funding is for an informal dinner, with unspecified outcomes.

$ 143.00

$ 950.00

C

 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00

18

St Marks Anglican Church Malabar

Malabar Carols by Candlelight

Funds towards the Carols by Candlelight to be held at Pioneers Park, Malabar.  Activities also include jumping castle, baby animal far, kid’s games, face painting, sausage sizzle, drinks, and fireworks.  Local choirs, including schools.  Last year 400 people attended.

 

Comment: Application was not assessed as Council has resolved to fund or sponsor only two community run carols by candlelight events.

$ 1,676.00

$ 1,000.00

N/A

$ 0.00

$ 0.00

19

St Nicolas Anglican Church

St Nic’s Playroom Replenishment Funds to purchase and replace old toys for their Playgroup

 

Comment:  Request is for solely capital items

$ 0.00

$ 1,000.00

C

$ 0.00

$ 0.00

20

St Paul’s Anglican Church

Carols by the Sea

Funds towards the Carols by Candlelight to be held at Grant Reserve Coogee, Malabar.  Activities also include jumping castle, baby animal far, kid’s games, face painting, sausage sizzle, drinks, and fireworks.  Local choirs, including schools. 

 

Comment: Application was not assessed as Council has resolved to fund or sponsor only two community run carols by candlelight events.

$1,565.00

$ 2,534.00

N/A

$0.00

$ 0.00

21

The Junction Neighbourhood Centre Inc.

Step to Connect

Funding is requested to employ a cultural consultant, purchase art materials and to hold an event to launch the artwork created. This work will be displayed in the hospital foyer at the Randwick Hospital complex. This project aims to increase access to health services by then producing a directory of services available in the hospital for the Aboriginal community.

 

Comment: Given a low priority ranking because Council already provides a comprehensive directory of Aboriginal services.  Also project has not sufficiently demonstrated the connection between the artwork and encouraging access to health services.

$ 0.00

$ 4,600

C

$ 0.00

$ 0.00

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM29/12

 

 

Subject:                  Council Response to “NSW Government – Funding Our Emergency Services” Discussion Paper

Folder No:                   F2011/00090

Author:                   David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services     

 

Introduction

 

Recently Council received a copy of the “NSW Government – Funding Our Emergency Services” discussion paper. In the meantime Council has liaised with Sutherland Shire Council, who has undertaken detailed modelling on this issue, in order to come to a position which will be submitted to the NSW Government accordingly. The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to submit a response to the “NSW Government – Funding Our Emergency Services” discussion paper (FES Paper).

 

Issues

 

This report is provided as the formal council response to be submitted to the State Government as input into their discussion paper “NSW Government – Funding Our Emergency Services” (the FES paper).

 

The FES paper focuses on the insurance industry fire and emergency services levy suggesting that this should be abolished and this funding should be recovered through a property based levy administered by local government. The amount to be recovered would be levied on land values and would appear on the rate notice.

 

In 2011-12 Randwick City Council contributed $2,299,513 from rate payers towards funding NSW emergency services. This represents 4.1% of rates income, or roughly for every $100 of rates $4.13 is paid to the emergency services.

 

It is estimated that our rate payers will have to make an additional contribution of $14.485 million if the insurance industry levy is abolished and transferred to local government for collection. The suggested offset is that insurance premiums would be reduced by abolishing the current fire levy and associated stamp duty and GST.

 

A levy on land values through the Ad Valorem method will always benefit lower end land valuations as opposed to higher land valuations. On a state average basis the Randwick City area has much higher land valuations than many other local government areas. This results in a higher Emergency Services Levy (ESL) in comparison with other areas, with no correlation to the actual use of emergency services. According to the Insurance Council of Australia, Randwick's share of the 2009-10 ESL was 3.04% of the total local government contribution, yet there were 281 fires within the LGA in the same period representing 0.91% of fires in the state.

 

Modelling conducted by Sutherland Shire Council on actual properties supports the higher valuation theory suggesting that most of their rate payers will be worse off financially under the new proposed levy system. Randwick City Council will be in the same situation if this proposal proceeds.

 

Council, therefore, does not support the proposal of a property based levy on land valuations as most rate payers will be financially worse off under the new funding proposal. Council would give further consideration to funding proposals based on incident expenditure and other more transparent related recovery. Council's position is stated in more detail throughout the report and in the summary of recommendations provided in the conclusion.

 

Background

Emergency Services in NSW comprises Fire and Rescue NSW, NSW Rural Fire Service and NSW State Emergency Service. The following pie chart illustrates the current NSW emergency services funding model:

 

2011-12 Emergency Services Funding Model

Of the $111 million contributed by local government in 2011-12, Randwick City Council contributions were:

 

Service

Methodology

Contribution

Fire and Rescue NSW

Each council’s contribution is determined on the five year moving average of the value of rateable land for the Councils within the Sydney Fire District.

$2,179,749

NSW Rural Fire Service

Local councils' contributions are based on the costs of providing services in each local area.

$0

NSW State Emergency Services

The NSW SES is currently in a transitional five year phase commencing in 2010-11 moving towards a population based system. Currently for each of the five years the population based system is being introduced by increment of 20% each year, so after 5 years it will be fully 100% population based. In the interim it is proportionally population based and expenditure based.

$119,764

TOTAL 2011-12 CONTRIBUTION

$2,299,513

 

The Council funds its contribution with ordinary rates income. In 2011-12 the council collected $55.615 million in ordinary rates income. The ESL represented 4.1% of rates income, with $4.13 for every $100 of rates paid towards emergency services. The percentage of rates paid towards emergency services increases each year. In the past four financial years the average increase in the annual ESL has been 7.2%. This is in contrast with the average rate peg of 3% over the same period.

 

In contrast to the Local Government charge, the insurance industry is permitted to recover the full cost of their ESL through a transparent surcharge on policy holders’ insurance premiums, mainly building and home contents policies. Most policies will show this as “Fire & Emergency Services Levy” calculated on the actual insurance premium. This Levy is also subject to a further 11% stamp duty tax.

 

In July 2012 the NSW Government released a discussion paper “Funding Our Emergency Services” (the FES paper). The FES paper states the current emergency services funding model in NSW is complicated, inefficient and unfair. The FES paper focuses on the insurance industry levy suggesting that this should be abolished and the funds recovered through a property based levy administered by local government. One of the main objections to the current system is that the majority of funding is provided by people who insure their properties (approx 64%), while people who do not insure their properties enjoy the same benefits (approx 36%).

 

The 40 page discussion paper outlines the proposal and reasoning behind the suggested change. It also welcomes submissions in relation to the FES paper and in particular 10 Questions for specific feedback.

 

QUESTION 1 – REPLACING EXISTING FUNDING   

“Which of the following revenue sources associated with emergency services funding should be replaced by a property levy.

 

·      The emergency services levy payments by insurers and the associated stamp duty;

·      Local Government contributions;

·      The portion of emergency services funding currently provided from general government revenue?”

 

Local Government Contributions – Should the Local Government contribution remain, councils should be permitted to charge a separate levy for the collection of the ESL to ensure the contribution does not erode the Council’s ordinary rates funding and to be more transparent.

 

The Insurance Industry Contribution - The insurance industry contribution for 2011-12 was $698 million, and further $65 million is proposed to be added to this component for lost stamp duty. The FES paper proposes that $763 million be recovered by a property based levy through local government. For Randwick City Council it is estimated this would increase our contribution from $2.3m to $16.8m without stamp duty and $16.9m with stamp duty, resulting in an average additional contribution of $293 per rate payer (without stamp duty) or $296 per rate payer (with stamp duty). This is in contrast with the estimate provided by the Insurance Council of Australia that removing the ESL from insurance premiums would save the average household with building and contents insurance around $250 per annum. For Randwick rate payers, premium savings do not offset the higher ESL contribution that would be required through a property based levy.

 

This is further supported by modelling conducted by Deloitte for the Insurance Council of Australia which concluded rate payers in the Randwick LGA will pay $50 to $100 more under the proposed system (Insurance Council of Australia report "Property based funding options for the NSW Fire Services Levy”, June 2011, p7.).

 

Randwick rate payers will be worse off under the proposed property based levy due to the relatively high land values within the LGA compared with the rest of the state and Sydney region. The average value of residential land in the Randwick LGA is $426,943, compared with a median of $200,000 in the State and $280,000 in metropolitan areas (in NSW the median and average land valuations are relatively close).

 

A land value based levy draws no correlation to the actual risk or occurrence of fire to these properties, and will result in excessive charges to those who own properties with high land values, regardless of the actual market value or use of that land. 

 

Stamp Duty

The new proposal includes recovering the lost stamp duty of approximately $65 million through the new Levy. This is not the case in Victoria, where the government has forgone the stamp duty as a “good will” exercise to introduce the new system. The NSW Government should cover the lost stamp duty by other income means rather than build the required tax income into the new levy. Building the tax in would mislead rate payers as the levy is recovering not only the estimated emergency services expenditure but also stamp duty foregone (State revenue). The proposal to recover the stamp duty should be withdrawn.

 

State Government Contribution – In 2011-12 the State Government contributed $139 million to NSW Emergency Services, funding this from the overall State Budget. Including this contribution with the existing local government ESL would increase Randwick Council’s contribution by $2.9m, resulting in an average additional contribution of $58 per rate payer

 

It would be unfair to include this in a new levy, as rate payers are already funding this contribution through state taxes.

 

Summary of the Impact on Rate Payers of Increasing the ESL

 

 

Randwick City Council

ESL

Average Contribution per Rate Payer

Existing Contribution

 $         2,299,513

 $                 46.44

Insurance Industry Contribution

 $       14,484,968

 $               292.53

Stamp Duty Foregone

 $            159,257

 $                   3.22

State Government Contribution

 $         2,869,478

 $                 57.95

TOTAL

 $      19,813,217

 $               400.14

 

Recommendation:

 

1.     Should the Local Government contribution remain, councils should be permitted to charge a separate levy for the collection of the ESL to ensure the contribution does not erode the Council’s ordinary rates funding and to be more transparent.

 

2.     That the proposal to fund the current State Government contribution through local government as an Emergency Services Levy be rejected and not included in any local government levy as rate payers are currently making this contribution through state taxes.

 

3.     That the insurance industry contribution not be passed onto local government for levying and collection via a property based system as land valuation has no connection to emergency services. That another expenditure based system be investigated, e.g. population, risk assessment, incidents per area or type of property protected.

 

4.     That the State Government abandons the proposal to recover through local government any lost stamp duty in any current or revised levy proposals.

 

QUESTION 2 – RATE STRUCTURE

“Should a property levy be raised as a fixed amount per property, as a proportion of property value, or some combination of the two?”

 

Neither basing the ESL on a fixed amount per property or a proportion of land value is an equitable method of recovering the cost of providing emergency services in NSW.

 

In areas like Randwick and Sutherland, where land values are much higher than other areas across the State and Sydney region, a property levy has the potential to excessively charge rate payers of these areas for more than their share of Emergency Services. Sutherland Shire Council has conducted extensive modelling that demonstrates in most scenarios rate payers will be financially worse off under any type of property levy system. They estimate the net cost would be between $70 and $120 a year for rate payers.

 

These methods draw no correlation to the actual risk or occurrence of fire to these properties, especially in respect to business usage. Nor does it take into account what building is actually on the land.

 

Research conducted by Sutherland Shire Council revealed the ESL charged on building and home contents premiums correlated with land valuations, i.e. the higher the land value the higher the ESL. The ESL charged on business premiums was more complex and assessed factors such as the nature and size of the industry, possible fire risk factors and contents value depending on type and volume of capital equipment/stock insured. The business insurance model used by the insurance industry is a much more equitable approach to recovering the ESL.

 

However, if a property levy is to be introduced it should include a cap on the maximum amount payable to reduce the impact on owners of the highest valued land.

 

Recommendation:

5.     That the State Government acknowledge that most Randwick City Council rate payers will be worse off under the new funding proposal and that they will share a higher burden of a proposed levy than most other local government areas.

 

QUESTION 2a – RATE STRUCTURE (addendum to Question 2)

Council Question:

 

“The examples and content within the discussion paper implies that the Ad Valorem levy would apply to rateable land in the State”.

 

Under the Local Government Act certain properties are exempt from paying rates, they are classified as non-rateable properties. Properties that fall into this category are schools, churches, charitable organisation nursing homes, hospitals and government bodies to name a few. The implication in the FES paper suggests that the proposed property based levy will apply to only rateable land indicating those classed as non-rateable would not pay the new levy. The new Victorian legislation includes recovery from non-rateable properties, exceptions are Crown land and some other government lands.

 

Investigations suggest (and it would be assumed) that those properties regarded as non-rateable do currently have insurance and are subject to the current fire levy on their premiums. For example public schools and hospitals would be insured under the NSW Treasury Fund, while churches and nursing homes, etc., are insured through the general insurance market. Advice received suggests that any entity that is insured is subject to the current fire service levy.

 

Based on this information to abolish the current levy from all insurance premiums and recover through a levy on “rateable” properties would remove any contribution made by these non-rateable properties and transfer that burden to rate payers.

 

Recommendation:

6.    If a property based levy is to be introduced then this should include non-rateable properties.

 

QUESTION 3 – RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND RURAL LAND

“Should a different rate of tax be applied to different property types?”

 

In the Randwick LGA 92% of total land valuations are residential, representing 79% of total rates income. It is a concern that a property based levy may impose a greater ESL on residential properties to the benefit of businesses. Especially when FRNSW reports that in 2010-11 emergency call-out incidents were 55% to business properties, 34% to residential, 7% to rural and the remainder to others.

 

This issue does need to be addressed, however it would be a more equitable distribution if high risk (fire and emergency) properties could be identified with a view that they be levied a higher amount than lower risk properties. Once the higher risk property contributions were calculated then the residual funding to be collected would be calculated over the remaining lower risk properties. This would distribute the recovery burden on a more equitable basis related to relative risk, regardless of whether the property is a business or residence.

 

Also please note that on page 21 of the discussion paper it states “the existing allocation of costs between councils reflects” the property risks, fire-fighting costs ad values of protected properties.” This statement is incorrect as the bulk to the ESL is only based on land values.

 


Recommendation:

7.     To provide a more equitable distribution, high risk fire and emergency properties should be identified with a view that they be levied a higher rate than lower risk properties.

 

QUESTION 4 – DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN GEOGRAPHIC ZONES

“Should different tax rates be applied in different parts of the State? If revenue amounts are zoned geographically, where should the boundaries be?”

 

It is acknowledged that different geographic zones would have varying degrees of expenditure and emergency incidents. Council would have no objections to distinguishing different rates of recovery on a geographic basis as long as it relates to incident expenditure and/or expenditure on providing the service in a local government area.

 

Council would be in favour of more distinct "fire districts" being identified with clear transparency of the expenditure to be recovered by those districts. This is similar to the current method used to recover the costs of the Rural Fire Service from local Councils.

 

Recommendation:

8.     That the State Government should introduce different geographic zones to share their appropriate proportion of the recovery required and give consideration to implementing distinct "fire districts" based on local government areas and the cost of services in that area.

 

QUESTION 5 – MOTOR VEHICLES

 “Should some proportion of emergency services funding be raised as an annual charge on vehicle registration?”

 

Yes, as around 17% of the cost of emergency services relates to motor vehicle incidents, a charge on motor vehicle registrations would support a more equitable funding model.

 

Recommendation:

9.     Yes, the emergency services cost associated with motor vehicle incidents should be collected by an annual charge on vehicle registration.

 

QUESTION 6 – CONCESSIONS

“Should pensioners receive concessional rates for a new property levy?”

 

Randwick City Council currently supports its pensioners by offering a council rebate on rates ($614k) as well as granting the state government rebate ($729k). The Council also offers pensioners the right to defer their rates in cases of financial hardship.

 

Pensioners do not receive a concession on the Fire and Emergency Services Levy imposed by the insurance industry.

 

Any proposed concessional rate/amount should be funded by the state government and not shifted to local government by increasing the amount to be recovered from other rate payers to compensate for the concessions.

 

Recommendation:

10.    A concessional rate for pensioners is supported only if the state government does not shift part or all of the subsidisation to local government to recover from other rate payers. Any concessions should be financed by the State Government and any contributions to be made by the state government should not be inflated to compensate for any concessions granted.

 

QUESTION 7 – TAKING ACCOUNT OF CHANGING COSTS

“How should the revenue target be varied each year to reflect changing costs of fire and emergency services.”

 

The annual revenue target variation should be calculated on an agreed formula, in a similar method to the Local Government Cost Index. This should be calculated on a long term planning cycle (at least estimates for four years) to enable organisations to budget with a high degree of certainty.

 

Councils will need to be advised by February of the actual variation to apply for the following year to ensure budget and community consultation processes are met.

 

Recommendation:

11.    The annual revenue target variation should be calculated on an agreed formula, in a similar method to the Local Government Cost Index, with forecasts provided for long term planning.

 

QUESTION 8 – COLLECTION AGENCY

“Should revenue from a land based levy be collected by local governments or the Office of State Revenue?”

 

The levy is a state tax and should be collected by the State, not another entity. Responsibility for revenue raising and associated expenditure places a greater accountability and transparency for the use of and collection of a tax if administered by the responsible entity.

 

It is suggested in the FES paper that councils have the land based systems for this type of levy; this is only true dependent on the design of a new levy. Council as the collection agency would be expected to:

 

·      administer the levy by maintaining appropriate records,

·      ensure IT systems are designed to apply the required levy accurately,

·      produce and print the levy on rate notices,

·      become the defacto customer contact point for enquiries from the rate notice,

·      collect the payments for the levy,

·      treasury manage the collections by banking and investing,

·      disburse the payments to the State Government,

·      conduct reconciliations of levies raised and paid,

·      conduct debt recovery proceedings for non-payers

 

The agency roles outlined above will require additional resources, and hence costs to the Council. Council should be compensated for these costs if this proposal is to proceed.

 

As a collection agency, any payments the Council receives should be remitted to the NSW Government. The Council should not be issued an invoice for the full contribution when not all the funds have been received as this will create significant cash flow problems.

 

Recommendation:

 

12.    That further consideration and investigation of the capability of the Office of State Revenue to collect the ESL be undertaken.

 

13.    If local government is confirmed as the collection agency, then the State Government should consider the actual cost to each council of assuming this role and that council should receive a commission.

 

14.    If local government is the collection agency, then the disbursement of the Levy to the State should be on a cash received basis not a levy accrued or due basis.

 

QUESTION 9 – TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

“Is a transitional period required for adjustment of the emergency services levy, and if so how should any funding gap arising from a transitional period be recovered?”

 

The insurance industry is in a far better position to pro-rata the current fire levy based on the number of days left in the year to coincide with any council levy commencing uniformly throughout the state on 1 July of each year. No doubt the insurance premium periods are all over the year so a pro-rata calculation will be required to ensure no one duplicates a part payment on any changeover of the system. Particular consideration would need to be given to property tenants paying premiums for any cover to be transferred to the property owner.

 

Recommendation:

15.    That if the insurance levy is collected by local government, then any transitional arrangements for collection of funding should be implemented through the insurance industry through a pro-rata insurance premium phase out process.

 

QUESTION 10 – MONITORING INSURANCE POLICIES

“What arrangements are needed to ensure that any reductions in insurance taxes are passed onto consumers?”

 

It is expected that lower insurance premiums should result for consumers if the current insurance industry fire levy is abolished. As stated in the discussion paper similar systems introduced in other states were reviewed after implementation and in the main findings suggested lower insurance premiums were passed onto consumers.

 

Consumers deserve to be informed that this process has achieved the goals set and that can only be satisfied by appointing an independent entity to monitor and report the outcomes.

 

Recommendation:

16.    An entity, such as IPART, should be appointed to ensure insurance providers pass on lower premiums.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

Direction 1b:      The council is a leader in the delivery of social, financial and operational activities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter at this stage.

 

Conclusion

 

In summary the Council’s recommendations from the FES report are:

 

1.       Should the Local Government contribution remain, councils should be permitted to charge a separate levy for the collection of the ESL to ensure the contribution does not erode the Council’s ordinary rates funding and to be more transparent.

 

2.       That the proposal to fund the current State Government contribution through local government as an Emergency Services Levy be rejected and not included in any local government levy as rate payers are currently making this contribution through state taxes.

 

3.       That the insurance industry contribution not be passed onto local government for levying and collection via a property based system as land valuation has no connection to emergency services. That another expenditure based system be investigated, e.g. population, risk assessment, incidents per area or type of property protected.

 

4.       That the State Government abandons the proposal to recover through local government any lost stamp duty in any current or revised levy proposals.

5.       That the State Government acknowledge that most Randwick City Council rate payers will be worse off under the new funding proposal and that they will share a higher burden of a proposed levy than most other local government areas.

 

6.       If a property based levy is to be introduced then this should include non-rateable properties.

 

7.       To provide a more equitable distribution, high risk fire and emergency properties should be identified with a view that they be levied higher than lower risk properties.

 

8.       That the State Government should introduce different geographic zones to share their appropriate proportion of the recovery required and give consideration to implementing distinct "fire districts" based on local government areas and the cost of services in that area.

 

9.       Yes, the emergency services cost associated with motor vehicle incidents should be collected by an annual charge on vehicle registration.

 

10.     A concessional rate for pensioners is supported only if the state government does not shift part or all of the subsidisation to local government to recover from other rate payers. Any concessions should be financed by the State Government and any contributions to be made by the state government should not be inflated to compensate for any concessions granted.

 

11.     The annual revenue target variation should be calculated on an agreed formula, in a similar method to the Local Government Cost Index, with forecasts provided for long term planning.

 

12.     That further consideration and investigation of the capability of the Office of State Revenue to collect the ESL be undertaken.

 

13.     If local government is confirmed as the collection agency, then the State Government should consider the actual cost to each council of assuming this role and that council should receive a commission.

 

14.     If local government is the collection agency, then the disbursement of the Levy to the State should be on a cash received basis not a levy accrued or due basis.

 

15.     That if the insurance levy is collected by local government, then any transitional arrangements for collection of funding should be implemented through the insurance industry through a pro-rata insurance premium phase out process.

 

16.     An entity, such as IPART, should be appointed to ensure insurance providers pass on lower premiums.

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be considered, and with any amendments, be submitted as the Randwick City Council response to the “Funding Our Emergency Services – Discussion Paper 2012”.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Emergency Services Levy Discussion Paper July 2012 - NSW Government

UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM30/12

 

 

Subject:                  Council operating hours - Christmas and New Year 2012/13

Folder No:                   F2006/00304

Author:                   Fiona Calabrese, Manager Organisational  Staff Services     

 

Introduction

 

For a number of years Randwick City Council has reduced opening hours during the Christmas/New Year period in line with community expectation and usage during this time of year. It is proposed to continue with this arrangement during the 2012-13 Christmas/New Year period similar to last year while ensuring minimal impact on Council’s customer service levels.

 

Christmas Eve this year falls Monday 24 December 2012. As the majority of businesses will cease operating Friday 21 December 2012 and to thank Council staff for their tremendous efforts in 2012, in consultation with the Mayor, it is proposed that Monday 24 December 2012 be classified as a public holiday for all staff. 

 

Issues

 

The following arrangements are proposed for the Administration Building, Depot and libraries during the Christmas and New Year period this year:

 

Administration  Building and Depot( normal operating hours with the following exceptions)

Friday 21 Dec

Normal operations closing at 12pm

Monday 24 Dec

Closed

Tuesday 25 Dec

Closed

Wednesday 26 Dec

Closed

Monday 31 Dec

Normal operations closing at 3pm

Tuesday 1 Jan

Closed

 

Bowen Library and Community Centre:

 

Friday 21 Dec

9.30am to 12pm

Saturday 22 Dec

9.30am to 4pm

Sunday 23Dec

12pm to 4pm

Monday 24 Dec

Closed

Tuesday 25 Dec

Closed

Wednesday 26 Dec

Closed

Thursday 27 Dec

10am to 5pm

Friday 28 Dec

10am to 5pm

Saturday 29 Dec

9.30am to 4pm

Sunday 30 Dec

12pm  to  4pm

Monday 31 Dec

9.30am  to 12pm

Tuesday 1 Jan

Closed

 

Margaret Martin Library:

 

Friday 21 Dec

9.30am  to12pm

Saturday 22 Dec

9.30am  to 4pm

Sunday 23Dec

12pm to 4pm

Monday 24 Dec

Closed

Tuesday 25 Dec

Closed

Wednesday 26 Dec

Closed

Thursday 27 Dec

9.30am to 5pm

Friday 28 Dec

9.30am to 5pm

Saturday 29 Dec

9.30am  to 4pm

Sunday 30 Dec

12pm to 4pm

Monday 31 Dec

9.30am to 12pm

Tuesday 1 Jan

Closed

 

Malabar Community Library:

 

Friday 21 Dec

9.30am to 12pm

Saturday 22 Dec

9.30am to 12pm

Sunday 23Dec

Closed

Monday 24 Dec

Closed

Tuesday 25 Dec

Closed

Wednesday 26 Dec

Closed

Thursday 27 Dec

10am to5pm

Friday 28 Dec

10am to5pm

Saturday 29 Dec

9.30am to12pm

Sunday 30 Dec

12pm to 4pm

Monday 31 Dec

9.30am to 12pm

Tuesday 1 Jan

Closed

 

Des Renford Leisure Centre:

 

Friday 21 Dec

6am to 6pm      

Saturday 22 Dec

7am to 6pm

Sunday 23Dec

7am to 6pm

Monday 24 Dec

6am to 5pm      

Tuesday 25 Dec

Closed

Wednesday 26 Dec

8am to 5pm

Thursday 27 Dec

6am to 8pm      

Friday 28 Dec

6am to 6pm      

Saturday 29 Dec

7am to 6pm

Sunday 30 Dec

7am to 6pm

Monday 31 Dec

6am to 5pm      

Tuesday 1 Jan

8am to 5pm

 

The days of reduced opening are relatively quiet in terms of contact with the community and a number of staff take annual leave over this period.  There will be a staff function at lunch time on 21 December 2012 to celebrate the Christmas season and thank the staff for their efforts during 2012.

 

Essential operational services including Waste Service, Rangers, Storey Street Depot, Aquatic Centre and the Beaches will be maintained through the Christmas/ New Year period. Staff required to work during this period will be paid the appropriate penalty rates in accordance with our Award.

 

Unfortunately there will be some staff from Information Technology, Waste Service, Rangers, Storey Street Depot and the Beaches required to work after 3.00pm on Monday 31 December (in lieu of New Year’s Eve). Arrangements have been made already with these staff members.

 

The early closing times will be advertised in the Mayoral column and notices will be displayed at council offices and the libraries to minimise any inconvenience for members of the public.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1b:      The Council is a leader in the delivery of social, financial and operational activities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The financial impact for this matter has been allowed for in the 2012-13 budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed hours of Council operations are in line with community expectation for this time of year and have been in place for a number of years.  Given adequate publicity, it is felt that the reduced opening hours will create minimal impact on Council’s customer service levels.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)       Council confirm Monday 24 December to be classified as a public holiday for Council staff.

 

b)     Council adopt the proposed 2012-13 Christmas and New Year opening hours for Administration Building, Depot and libraries.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS12/12

 

 

Subject:                  Buildings for our Community 2013-14 Advanced Funding

Folder No:                   F2010/00044

Author:                   Hayley Segedin, Buildings for our Community Projects Coordinator     

Introduction

 

The Buildings for our Community program is approaching its fourth year, with sixteen projects currently being planned for construction commencement in the 2013-14 financial year.

 

The projects include a new childcare centre for Popplewell Park and upgrade of the existing Clovelly Childcare Centre, refurbishment of the Cromwell Park and Little Bay toilet facilities, upgrade of two Heffron Park amenities buildings, restoration works for the Randwick Town Hall and James Bundock fountain, a new amenities facility at Mahon Pool, plus additional new and upgrade projects.

 

Issues

 

In order for the buildings to meet the programmed time frame, substantial planning for the projects needs to commence including the preparation of feasibility studies and cost plans associated with dilapidated reports, master planning and preliminary concept designs.

 

For this reason, it is proposed that a portion of the funding allocated to these projects be made available before the commencement of the new financial year. This will allow planning of the projects to proceed, by achieving appropriate programming of construction works throughout the financial year ahead.

 

Specifically, the following amounts are requested to be made available against each of the upcoming projects:

 

Project

Budget

Proposed advanced funds

  1.   Clovelly Childcare Centre

$   125,000

$  10,000

  2.   Cromwell Park toilets

$   100,000

$  10,000

  3.   Heffron Park central western amenities

$   600,000

$  30,000

  4.   Heffron Park south western amenities

$   100,000

$  20,000

  5.   James Bundock fountain

$     25,000

$  10,000

  6.   Latham Park Jeff Sayle Pavilion

$   250,000

$  10,000

  7.   Little Bay toilets

$   200,000

$  10,000

  8.   Mahon Pool amenities

$   900,000

$  30,000

  9.   Plant Nursery greenhouse

$   220,000

$  10,000

10.   Popplewell Park childcare centre

$   800,000

$  30,000

11.   Randwick Cemetery toilets

$   100,000

$  20,000

12.   Randwick Town Hall

$1,200,000

$150,000

13.   South Maroubra surf club toilets

$   300,000

$  20,000

 

                                          Total proposed advanced funding      $360,000

Project site locations and photos are illustrated in attachment 1.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:      Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There will be no financial impact on the overall funding for the Buildings for our Community program. The projected balances at the end of financial year of the reserves that fund these projects are sufficient enough to allow for this advance funding.

 

These advance funds will be drawn from the following reserves:

 

Funding Reserves

 

 

Building Levy Reserve

$ 180,000

Town Hall Reserve

$ 150,000

s94 Contributions

$   30,000

 

                                              Total advanced funding                $360,000

 

The proposed advanced funding to be made available during this financial year will be deducted from the funds available against each project in the new 2013-14 financial year.

 

Conclusion

 

The release of some funding towards next year’s Buildings for our Community projects will allow the planning for each of these buildings to be undertaken.  This will enable some of the projects to be scheduled for immediate commencement in mid 2013, and construction programming to be paced in a manageable fashion throughout the 2013 -14 financial year.

 

Recommendation

 

That a total of $360,000 in advanced funding be made immediately available for the planning of the Buildings for our Community projects scheduled for construction in the 2013-14 year.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Buildings for our Community - 2013-14 projects - site plans and photos

 

 

 

 


Buildings for our Community - 2013-14 projects - site plans and photos

Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

1.  Clovelly childcare centre - location and photo showing existing premises

 

 


 

 

2.  Cromwell Park toilets - location and photo showing existing building

 

 

 

 

 

3 & 4. Heffron Park - location showing two amenities buildings, central western (left, indicative location of existing facility) and south western (right, existing facility) 


 

Heffron Park central western amenities - site photo of existing building

 

 

 

Heffron Park south western amenities - photo showing existing building

 

 

 

 

 

5.  James Bundock fountain – location and photo showing existing fountain

 

 

 

 

6.  Latham Park amenities - location and photo showing existing Jeff Sayle Pavilion

 

 

 

 

7.  Little Bay toilets - location and photo showing existing facility

 

 

 

 

 

8. Mahon Pool amenities - location and photo showing existing facility

 

 

 

9. Randwick Nursery - location and photo showing existing potting shed

 

 

 

 

10.    Popplewell Park childcare centre – site location and photo showing existing Totem Hall

 

 

 

11.    Randwick Cemetery - indicative site location and photo showing existing amenity and storage building

 

 

 

 

 

12.    Town Hall - site location and photo showing building frontage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13.    South Maroubra SLSC toilets - Arthur Byrne Reserve site location and photo showing existing surf club

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                23 October 2012

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS14/12

 

 

Subject:                  Randwick City Council Resident Parking Scheme

Folder No:                   F2004/07237

Author:                   Tony Lehmann, Manager Integrated Transport     

 

Purpose of Report

 

The purpose of this report is to inform the Council of the many details of the Randwick Resident Parking Scheme and to seek endorsement of the ongoing management of the Scheme within the City of Randwick.

 

Introduction

 

In many ways the need for a Randwick Resident Parking Scheme is due to the numerous regional facilities and institutions contained within our boundaries. These facilities attract people from all over Sydney and many of these people drive and seek to park near to these facilities. Some of these attractors are the many beaches, the University of NSW, the shopping precincts, the dining precincts, hospitals, etc.  Given the pressure placed upon parking as a result of these attractors Randwick City Council operates a Resident Parking Scheme.  This Scheme, operated under NSW legislation, gives an on-street parking priority to eligible residents who cannot park on their own property. The Scheme allows eligible residents to obtain a parking permit to park without time limits in a Resident Parking Zone, in their Area. Resident parking zones are identified by parking signs indicating a time limit and the words “Permit Holders Excepted”.

 

Definitions

 

TERM

EXPLANATION

Randwick Resident Parking Scheme

The term used to describe the whole resident parking scheme which operates within a number of the suburbs within the Randwick local government area.  It includes all of the systems which are used to manage and operate the system and this term encompasses the resident parking areas and the resident parking zones.

 

Resident Parking Area

This refers to individually numbered areas which define the neighbourhood within which a local resident can park without time limit. They are separately numbered with a 3 character Area Code (e.g. C03, RA2 etc) and most resident parking permits are issued for a single area only. The relevant parking signs within an area each display this Area Code.  Residents with parking permits issued for one area cannot use it to exceed time limits in another area. For example, a resident of the northern section of Coogee beach who has a resident parking permit issued for area C01 cannot use that resident parking permit to then park longer than the signposted limit in the resident parking area of Maroubra Junction, known as MJ2.

 

 

Resident Parking Zone

This describes the many parking zones which are within a resident parking area.  For example Grosvenor Street, which is located within the boundaries of the KN2 Resident Parking Area, contains a Resident Parking Zone which is 6 car spaces long.

 

Objectives of the Resident Parking Scheme

 

The objective of the Randwick Resident Parking Scheme is to:

 

·       manage the availability of on-street parking in ‘high pressure’ areas for those residents with no, or limited, off-street parking.

 

·       give local residents with no off-street parking preferential access to the available on-street parking and, therefore, a reasonable likelihood of parking an eligible vehicle in reasonable proximity to their home.

 

·       achieve a sensible balance between the needs of all road users, which includes residents, commuters, shoppers, workers and local businesses etc.

 

Legislative Permissions & Delegation

 

New South Wales Roads and Maritime Services (RMS – formerly the RTA) is the entity which has legal authority to control traffic and parking on the public road.  RMS offers to each Council a delegation to manage parking on its local streets.  This delegation and the NSW Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999 allows Councils to operate a Resident Parking Scheme.

 

Clause 124 (4) of the NSW Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management)(Road Rules) Regulation 1999 mandates the a parking authority (the Council) must not issue a Parking Permit except in accordance with the current RMS manual for Permit Parking.  Accordingly the procedures in the RMS Parking Permit manual are mandatory and must be followed by Council in order to obtain approval for any changes proposed to the Resident Parking Scheme (RPS). Also, this mandates the limitations regarding the issuing of Parking Permits to applicants.

 

With regard to these limitations the following eligibility criteria must be met by an applicant:

 

·       Residents must have no on-site parking or limited on-site parking.

·       Their place of residence could not be reasonably modified to provide on-site parking space(s).

·       The vehicle for which their seeking a Permit cannot be a truck, bus, tram or tractor.

·       The applicant must establish their residential status within the RPS to the satisfaction of the Council, e.g. entry on the electoral roll.

 

Ziade v Randwick City Council [2000] NSWSC

 

In a ruling of the New South Wales Supreme Court dated 23rd February 2001, it was

found that Council’s resolution of 4th March 1997 to introduce a residents preferential

parking scheme in “The Spot”, Randwick, was invalid, void, and of no force or effect. As a consequence of this ruling, all residents parking introduced in the Spot under Council’s 1997 resolution was removed forthwith by Council.  The court’s lengthy ruling raised several issues which brought into question Council’s past implementation strategy and its management of permit parking schemes.

Resident Parking Scheme Areas

 

Council currently manages 17 individual Resident Parking Areas within the Resident Parking Scheme, see Figure 1. Within each area, there are a varied number of streets and zones where the Scheme applies. The extent of each Area was based on surveys of residents, parking surveys and subsequent approvals through the Traffic Committee process.

 

When the Scheme was first established Permits were issued only on a ‘street by street’ basis.  For example a Permit issued for Brook Street, Coogee, could not be used by residents to park in nearby Kidman Street.  This was a source of some frustration for residents. In order to provide greater flexibility the Council established distinct Resident Parking Areas. This allowed residents who come home, and who find no spaces in their own street, to use another, nearby, street which has a resident parking zone.  There are only 7 streets which still operate under the street based system and it is proposed that these streets will be transferred to an area based system in the near future.

 

Remaining Street Based RPS, 1 September 2012

Street

Code

Proposed Area

Abbott Street, Coogee

ABBOTT

CO5

Bream Street, Coogee

BREAM1

CO5

Boyce Road, Maroubra

BOYCE1

MJ1

Anzac Parade, Maroubra

ANZAC1

MJ2

Borrodale Road, Kingsford

BORRO1

KF2

Houston Road, Kingsford

HOUST1

KF2

Strachan Street, Kingsford

STRAC1

KF2

 

The table below outlines the status of valid resident parking permits issued to residents in each area. Between the period 01/09/11 to 01/09/12, a total of 1,955 valid permits were in operation.

 

Resident Parking Permits by Area

Valid from 01/09/12 to 01/09/13

Area

No. of Resident Permits Issued

CO1 - Coogee

288

CO2 - Coogee

263

CO3 - Coogee

226

CO5 - Coogee

20

KF1 - Kingsford

112

KF2 - Kingsford

41

KN1 - Kensington

30

KN2 - Kensington

159

KN3 - Kensington

23

MJ1 – Maroubra Junction

34

MJ2 – Maroubra Junction

6

RA1 - Randwick

201

RA2 – Randwick

147

RA3 – Randwick

107

RA4 – Randwick

83

RA5 – Randwick

35

RA6 – Randwick

0

RA7 – Randwick

15

SP1 – “The Spot”

165

Total

1,955

 

Operation of the Resident Parking Scheme

 

The Parking Restrictions

 

Resident Parking Zones are typically of a one or two hour duration – with eligible vehicles (those displaying a Permit) being exempt from the time limit.  Such time limits provide a reasonable turnover of vehicles; while also recognising the requirement to cater for short to medium term visits to residents.

 

All on-street resident parking restrictions are identified by signage with the following wording:

 

 “Permit Holders Excepted Area xxx”

 

Eligibility

 

Resident Parking Permits allow eligible residents’ vehicles to be legally exempt from on-street time limits in their relevant Resident Parking Zones. Eligible residents are those persons who, having no access to off-street parking for the relevant vehicle, can prove that they live at the location.

 

RMS guidelines requires all applicants to provide proof of their residential status; to provide proof that the vehicle is associated with them; and, to legally indicate that they have no access to off-street parking.  Therefore, an Application Form must be completed and provided to Council, along with the relevant supporting documentation and the relevant fee. The Council cannot issue a Resident Parking Permit to a non-resident, even if they are a ratepayer of the City of Randwick or if they run a business in the City.

 

Permits per Household

 

RMS guidelines consider a maximum number of three vehicles per dwelling.  Also, a maximum of three permits are conditionally available per eligible property. The maximum number of Permits is reduced by the number of on-site parking spaces available for the property. The Council will consider all garages, carports and other off-street parking spaces at a residence when deciding upon a Permit application.  Also, if the residence can be reasonably modified to provide any off-street parking spaces, this will be considered too.

 

If there is one on-site space (e.g. a single carport) and one car registered to the property then no Permits will be issued. If there is one on-site space and two vehicles are registered to the property, then one Permit can be issued so long as the registration papers of both vehicles are provided.  The following table details this approach:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of on-site parking spaces available

Number of vehicles at the residence

Maximum number of Permits able to be issued

0

1

1

0

2

2

0

3 or more

3

1

1

0

1

2

1

1

3 or more

2

2

1

0

2

2

0

2

3 or more

1

3 or more

n/a

0

Permit Types

 

There are four types of permit available:

 

Resident Permits - Permits will only be issued to residents who are able to prove their residential status and who can prove the legal connection between themselves and the vehicle.

 

Visitor Permits - Residents can apply in advance for Visitor Permits for their visitors. It is not necessary to hold a Resident Permit to purchase Visitor Permits. The maximum number of Visitor permits to be issued to an individual dwelling is limited to two per residence; reduced by one for every off-street visitor parking space available or which can reasonably be provided at the premises.

 

Carer Permits – Residents may apply for Carer Permits for people who provide care and support for their parent, partner, child, relative or a friend who has a disability, is frail, aged or who has a chronic illness OR someone who provides childcare, the act of caring for and supervising minor children. Carer Permits only exempt the carer from time limits in Resident Parking zones.

 

Trades Permits - Residents who reside in areas where the Resident Parking Scheme operates may purchase, in advance, Trades Permits.  These allow tradespersons to park their vehicles close to their client’s homes while work is being carried out.

 

Permit Fees & Charges

 

Each year Council’s projected budget, including all of the proposed Fees and Charges, is advertised and is available for public comment and submission, prior to formal adoption by Council.

 

The fees for the Resident Parking Permits are intended to cover a proportion of the cost of production of the Resident Parking Permits, the cost of erecting and maintaining street side parking signage as well as covering a proportion of the administrative costs and software systems required to manage the Scheme.  A comparison of Randwick City Council’s fees and others Council’s fees is shown within Attachment 4.  It may be noted that whereas Randwick Council issues up to 3 permits per dwelling, many councils issue only a maximum of 2 parking permits.

 

On occasion some residents query the reason for them having to pay to park in their

own street.  In essence the Resident Parking Scheme operates as a ‘user pays’ scheme.  The residents who get the benefit of the Scheme, whether they are rate-payers, “renters”, or occupiers of dwelling houses etc, pay to participate in the Scheme.

 

Management of the Resident Parking Scheme

 

There are a number of different aspects associated with the management of the Resident Parking Scheme.  The following sub-headings address these aspects:

 

Application Process: Residents get a parking permit by applying to the Council (on the proscribed form) and paying the set fee.  When applying for a resident parking permit the Council has to have a level of certainty about the residential bona fides of the applicant.  Accordingly, the resident must provide originals of at least two of the following documents showing that they live in the resident parking area:

 

•    current driver's licence

•    tenancy documents in your name

•    your name on the electoral roll

•    utility account ( gas, electricity, water etc)

•    bank or credit card statement

•    current vehicle registration paper

•    home/contents insurance

•    rental bond board receipt.

 

They must also provide proof of their legal connection to the car – this is usually in the form of the vehicle's registration papers showing that it is registered to them.  However, it could also be in the form of a letter from the legal owner of the vehicle, or – in the case of a business vehicle - a written statement on company letterhead from their employer confirming that they have “take home” use of the business vehicle.

 

Generally, most applicants bring these documents to the Council, fill out the form, pay the fee and are issued with a Permit.  Applications can also be made via letter or email, however, the copies of the required documentation must be signed off as correct copies by a Justice of the Peace.

 

The Permits are issued for a 12 month period – with expiry occurring on the date of anniversary of the issuing of the Permit.

 

Typical community consultation

 

As an example of the processes undertaken to date the Council had resolved to survey the residents of the Maroubra Junction area for a possible extension of the Resident Parking Scheme.  This followed a number of concerns having been raised by residents. The Council surveyed some 1,000 Maroubra Junction residents (west of Anzac Parade) in March 2011 to see if there was community support for the extension of the Scheme into other Maroubra Junction streets. Residents received a letter, a Fact Sheet and a Survey Form.  215 responses to the survey were received. A sample of responses is listed in the table below.

 

 

Street

Proposed Area

Voting

Recommendation

Yes

No

Unsure

Glanfield Street

MJ1

0

0

0

No change

Shepherd Street

MJ1

2 (22%)

4 (44%)

3 (33%)

No change

Maroubra Road

MJ1 & MJ2

MJ2

18 (56%)

9 (28%)

5 (16%)

Install 8 resident parking spaces on south side

Gale Road

MJ1

4 (50%

4 (50%)

0

Resident parking already existed, length of time restrictions could be extended up to 8pm including Saturday and be converted into area based parking MJ1

 

The Council resolved (Nash/Andrews) on 22 July 2008 that it would adopt the following priority list for investigations into the introduction of the area based format, of the Resident Parking Scheme:

 

·       Kingsford and Kensington

·       Coogee Beach scheme extension

·       North Randwick (TAFE Precinct)

·       Maroubra Junction (inclusive of the Walsh Street area)

·       Maroubra Beach.

Since 2008 each of the above areas has been investigated and appropriate action has been undertaken.  Furthermore, additional investigations have been undertaken into the expansion of the Scheme into other areas. They were:

 

·      the Spot Extension for SP1

·      Prince St and Church Street extension within RA3

 

In addition a number of extensions have been undertaken in some 6 other locations:

 

·       Spot Extension for SP1

·       Beach Street extension in CO3

·       Perouse Road extension in SP1

·       Cook Street extension in RA3

·       Prince St and Church Street extension in RA3

·       Abbott Street extension

 

Within each of the suburbs highlighted above specific proposed Resident Parking Areas were determined and all of the residences within these areas were surveyed.  The returned surveys were then analysed on a street by street basis.  The Council’s practice has been to recommend introduction or expansion of the scheme into a street only where the majority of the respondents have indicated that they support the introduction of the Scheme. Where there is no majority respondent support for the introduction of the Scheme no action has been proposed.  For each area surveyed the results of the surveys have been collated and reported to the Council via the Traffic Committee process. 

 

As a result of the above processes most of the ‘higher parking pressure’ streets have now been surveyed and the results implementation.

 

Introduction of the New Resident Parking Area

 

·       If the survey indicates that the parking occupancy levels, undertaken on a typical Tuesday and Wednesday in the street in either the AM or PM peak periods (between 10am and 2.30pm) are higher than 75% theses streets may become a candidate street for further investigation/resident surveys within the Resident Parking Scheme.

·       a survey of the residents within the area may then be conducted to assess the community views on the introduction of the Scheme; noting that the Council will inform residents of the limitations of a RPS during consultation

·       If there is a minimum of 50% resident support the Council should consider commencing the process for installation of the Scheme to this street.

·       All residents will be advised of the Local Traffic Committee’s recommendation arising from the consideration of the Scheme.

 

Introduction of a new RPS

Stage 1

Residents from at least 10% of the dwellings in a single street ‘block’ request introduction of the Resident Parking Scheme.

Stage 2

A parking survey of on-street (occupancy) and off street parking (audit) is undertaken.

Stage 3

Analysis of data to determine if a Resident Parking Scheme will be beneficial to the area.  If so proceed to next stage.

Stage 4

A residential parking scheme survey is distributed to residents to asses the need for the introduction/review existing residential parking

Stage 5

Analysis of data

Stage 6

Recommendations are tabled at the Randwick Traffic Committee for its consideration.

 

 

Review of Existing Residential Parking Schemes

 

To review an existing Resident Parking Scheme or an extension to an existing Resident Parking Scheme the following process is suggested:

 

·      The situation within each of the 25 Resident Parking Areas will be reviewed annually. This will consist of a Geographic Information Systems based analysis of the existing parking restrictions and the numbers of Parking Permits issued within each area.

·      Any minor amendments required, based on parking Permit demand, will be referred to the Traffic Committee.

 

Review of Existing RPS

Stage 1

Yearly analysis of data i.e.:

Permits issued and permit areas in the Geographic Information Systems

Stage 2

Prepare updated list of Resident parking Areas to be surveyed for the Traffic Committee, based on the agreed criteria

Stage 3

Residents Surveys/Parking Surveys – where necessary

Stage 4

Analysis of Data

Stage 5

Recommendations are tabled at the Randwick Traffic Committee for its consideration. Council will modify or remove schemes as required.

 

An example - Community Consultation Surrounding UNSW

 

As part of its review of the Resident Parking Scheme (RPS), and as a result of a number of concerns expressed by residents, Council has examined the operation of the scheme within Kensington. Parts of Kensington currently have the RPS operating on a street by street basis.  It is proposed to broaden this street based scheme by introducing an area based operation – similar to the operations in Randwick (incl. The Spot) and Coogee.  Area based operation of the RPS provides residents with greater flexibility by entitling them to park in nearby streets, if their own street is ‘parked out’.

 

Council surveyed Kensington residents in October 2009 to see if there is community support for an extension of the Resident Parking Scheme into other streets in the area.  Residents received a letter, a Fact Sheet and a Survey Form. 669 responses to the survey were received.

 

 

Area*

Street

Voting**

No. of existing resident parking spaces

No. of permits issued

Recommendation

 

 

Yes

No

 

KN2

Abbotsford Street

3 (75%)

1 (25%)

14

15

Install 3 spaces

KN2

Addison Street

5 (62.5%)

3 (37.5%)

0

0

Install 5 spaces

KN2

Alison Road

9 (75%)

3 (25%)

0

0

State road

KN1/

KN2

Anzac Parade

15 (51.7%)

14 (48.3%)

0

0

State road

KN1/

KN2

Balfour Road

7 (33%)

14 (67%)

0

0

No Change

KN1

Barker Street

2 (33%)

4 (67%)

7

 

No change

KN2

Ascot Street

4 (100%)

0

0

0

Install 4 spaces (south side)

KN2

Boronia Street

17 (47.2%)

19 (52.8%)

0

0

No Change

KN2

Bowral Street

3 (50%)

3 (50%)

0

0

Install 3 spaces

KN2

Carlton Street

8 (88%)

1 (12%)

4

3

Install 6 additional spaces (south side)

KN1

Cottenham Avenue

12 (37.5%)

20 (62.5%)

0

0

No change

KN2

Darling Street

9 (64%)

5 (36%)

23

8

Install 6 spaces

KN1

Day Avenue

4 (33%)

8 (67%)

0

0

No change

KN1/

KN2

Doncaster Avenue

47 (70%)

20 (30%)

74

41

No change

KN2

Duke Street

15 (48%)

16 (52%)

0

0

No Change

KN2

Elsmere Street

6 (100%)

0