Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 10 March 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  10 March 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 at 6:00pm

 

Committee Members:         The Mayor T Seng, Andrews, Belleli, Bowen, D’Souza, Garcia (Chairperson), Matson, Moore, Nash (Deputy Chairperson), Neilson, Roberts, Shurey, Smith, Stavrinos and Stevenson

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members

 

NOTE:   At the Extraordinary Meeting held on 28 September 2004, the Council resolved that the Planning Committee whose membership consists of all members of the Council be constituted as a committee with full delegation to determine matters on the agenda.

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 10 February 2015

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

In respect to Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act, members of the public are advised that the proceedings of this meeting will be recorded for the purposes of clause 69 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

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

D12/15     22 Canberra Street, Randwick(DA/870/2014)......................... 1

D13/15     5 Cobham Street, Maroubra (DA/593/2014)......................... 13

D14/15     135-139 Belmore Road, Randwick (DA/917/2014)................ 23

D15/15     59-65 Chester Avenue, Maroubra (DA/280/2014/A).............. 29

D16/15     5-7 Adams Avenue, MALABAR (DA/750/2014)..................... 39

D17/15     103-105 Donovan Avenue, Maroubra (DA/19/2015).............. 45

D18/15     29/36 McKeon Street, Maroubra (DA/370/2014)................... 59

Miscellaneous Report (record of voting required)

M1/15       34 Milford Street, Randwick (DA/505/2014) DEFERRED ...... 69

Miscellaneous Report (record of voting NOT required)

M2/15       Affordable Housing Dwelling at Lot 3 Strata Plan (SP) 89004, 495 Bunnerong Road, Matraville, Classification of Land under the Local Government Act 1993......................................... 101    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                  10 March 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D12/15

 

 

Subject:                  22 Canberra Street, Randwick
(DA/870/2014)

Folder No:               DA/870/2014

Author:                    Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to the existing mixed use building including a new shop front, rear ground and first floor alterations and additions and a new rear carport

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mr J Spiteri

Owner:                    Canberra St Barber Shop Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

The application is referred to Planning Committee as the proposal exceeds the maximum allowable floor space ratio (FSR) standard by more than 10%.

1.     Proposal

 

The application seeks consent for alterations and additions to the existing mixed use building including; a new shop front, rear ground and first floor alterations and additions and a new double rear carport.

 

Specifically, the proposal is inclusive of the following:

 

·        Ground Level: Reconfiguration of shop front, including new façade; reconfigure internal layout of shop; new ground floor rear patio; new kitchen, living and dining area; new double carport; and associated landscape works.

 

·        Level one (1): Construction of an additional bedroom to the rear of the existing first floor; construction of new ensuite and balcony to new bedroom.

 

2.     Site

 

The site is located on the western side of Canberra Street between Oberon Street to the north and Helena Street to the south.

 

The lot presently contains a two level attached building, consisting of a shop to the front of the subject site at ground level and a split level dwelling located to the rear at ground level and also at first floor level above the shop. At present there is also a single attached garage located directly to the west fronting Clarke Lane.

 

The site has a frontage to Canberra Street of 6.115m and a total site area of 181m2 (as per survey). The site has a depth of 29.63m and is rectangular in shape. The topography of the site is flat and the proposal does not involve the removal of any significant vegetation.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by low density residential development including, primarily, detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and neighbourhood shops. The scale of existing development on surrounding sites varies between single storey and two stories in scale.

 

Figure 1: Subject site and surrounding area

 


3.     Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. There were no submissions received as a result of the notification process.

 

4.     Key Issues

 

4.1   Request to vary a development standard – RLEP Clause 4.6

Clause 4.6 of RLEP provides a mechanism for variation to development standards in certain circumstances.

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard of Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratio, contained within RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written justification that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. The variation is addressed as follows

 

4.2   Floor Space Ratio Control

Clause 4.4 (2A) states that the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map. The subject site is a mixed use development and as per the FSR map has a maximum F.S.R of 0.5:1. Based upon the site area of 181m², the standard would indicate 90.5m² of gross floor area may be accommodated within the scope of the standard

 

The FSR resulting from the amended proposal is 0.985:1. The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Existing

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

4.4 (2A)

Floor space ratio

0.5:1 (90.5m²)

0.86:1

(155m²)

0.985:1 (178.31m²)

No- Clause 4.6 variation submitted

(97%)

87.81m²

 

(i)      Assessment against the applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the development standard

Pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of RLEP 2012, development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

 

(a)    that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and;

 

(b)   that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

(i)    the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by sub clause (3), and

 

(ii)    the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out.

 

The concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3) there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (“SEPP 1”) and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012, it remains of some assistance in relation to identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

(ii)     Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

In the Wehbe case, Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the floor space ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4(1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

(a)    To ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,

(b)    To ensure that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

(c)    To ensure that development is compatible with the scale and character of contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item,

(d)    To ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following key arguments for the departure from the standard:

As a result, an objection, under Clause 4.6 of the LEP is provided below to argue that full compliance with the maximum floor space ratio standard contained in the LEP, in the circumstances, is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

The objection to the identified standard is based upon Clause 4.6(3) and Clause 4.6(4) of the LEP, which states:

 

(3)   Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

 

(a) that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

 

(b)  that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

(4)   Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

(i)  the applicant's written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

 

(ii)  the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

 

(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.

 

In respect to the above Clauses, it is considered that strict compliance with the maximum floor space ratio standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of the case for the following reasons:

 

·     The proposed development is consistent with the bulk and scale of other two storey development in the vicinity of the site. The proposed building mass and form will reinforce, complement and enhance the visual character of the streetscape.

 

·     The proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining dwellings in terms of overshadowing, loss of privacy or views.

 

·     The proposal will provide a high quality contemporary residential development that is sympathetic to the existing and desirable future character of the locality and will contribute to the mixture of building styles and sizes in the area.

 

·     The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio control, contained in Clause 4.4 of the LEP, in that it will provide an appropriately scaled development that is consistent with the existing surrounding built form.

In addition, the proposed contravening of the development standard is considered to be in the public interest and supportable on the following environmental planning grounds:

 

·       The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the R2 – Low Density Residential zone.

 

·       The proposed variation to the floor space ratio standard does not conflict with any matters of State or regional environmental planning significance, nor does it conflict with any State Planning Policies or Ministerial directives. The significance of the non-compliance is acceptable in the context of the overall development of the broader Randwick area.

 

·       The public benefit would be best served by approval of the development application under consideration, given the absence of any demonstrable adverse impacts resulting from the proposal.

 

·       It is considered that due to the absence of any demonstrable adverse impacts arising from the proposed development, as argued elsewhere in this objection, adherence to the subject development standard wo1.1-ld hinder the attainment of the objects of Section 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended). Further; the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the floor space ratio standard.

 

·       The proposed development has been designed to respect the amenity of the adjoining neighbours and the character of the streetscape. No precedent will be set that would allow unjustified non-compliance with the standard in future applications.

 

For the above reasons, it is considered that the objection under Clause 4.6 of the LEP satisfactorily demonstrates that strict adherence to the maximum floor space ration standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the subject application, and consent to the proposed development, would be in the public interest.

 

Planning comment:

It is considered that the proposed development and variation from the maximum floor area standard is satisfactory in this instance. The submitted Clause 4.6 variation is considered well founded for the following reasons:

 

·      Regarding objective (a), the site has a total area of 181m² and the existing development exceeds the allowable FSR on site by 64.5m², the proposal will further increase this by 23.31m². The additional floor area is located at ground and first floor level to the rear of the site and will not be visible from either the Canberra Street streetscape or from Helena Street. The proposed development is compatible with the adjoining attached building at No.22a Canberra Street in that it will maintain a similar building height and FSR (1.04:1) as well as compatible side setbacks and a reduced rear setback. It is considered that the proposal relates to surrounding development as existing and approved, in a manner that is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality.

 

·      In relation to objective (b), the scheme is articulated and makes effective use of the narrow site through the provision of landscaped and courtyard areas. The proposal results in a scale that remains consistent with adjoining and surrounding development. The proposed landscaping regime provides for an increased amount of deep soil area on the site from what is existing. In addition the proposal meets the relevant BASIX requirements and BASIX Certification has been provided.

 

·      Objective (c) is not relevant given both the proposed development and it’s surrounds have no heritage classification.

 

·      Regarding objective (d), the proposed development poses bulk, privacy, shadow and view implications to adjoining sites that are considered a reasonable expectation of any development on this site. The proposal is consistent with the adjoining properties within the urban block with regards to FSR, building height, site coverage and setbacks. The proposal will not result in any adverse impacts on the adjoining properties or the character of the streetscape. Specifics of these impacts are further discussed in the relevant sections of this report.

 

The applicant’s written request is considered to have successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

(iii)    Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

The proposal has been designed to achieve the planning objectives for the locality and to fit in with the existing scale and character of development in the immediate context, whilst minimising potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties.

 

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

(iv)    Will the proposed development be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out?

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

•     To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

•     To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet the day to day needs of residents.

•     To recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form or, in precincts undergoing transition, that contribute to the desired future character of the area.

•     To protect the amenity of residents.

•     To encourage housing affordability.

•     To enable small-scale business uses in existing commercial buildings.

 

The proposed development is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone of RLEP 2012. The proposal provides for an appropriate low-density housing development, both in the context of this site and as contemplated within the R2 zone.

 

The proposal has been designed with consideration of surrounding amenity, seeking to minimise environmental impacts upon neighbouring sites. The proposed built form serves to maintain the desirable attributes of the existing and desired future character of the residential area.

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential.

 

(v)     Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

(a) whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

 

(b)  the public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of  development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for floor space within clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical floor space standard will not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance. Further, the proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

4.3   Carport

The proposal includes a double carport structure fronting Clarke Lane; the carport has a nil setback from the laneway as well as nil side setbacks. The carport structure is proposed to be 3m in height and has a roller door fronting the lane way.

 

The RDCP 2013 states that Entry to garages and carports off the rear lane must be setback a minimum of 1m from the lane boundary; notwithstanding the required 1m rear setback, Council’s Development Engineer has recommended a 300mm setback to improve turning paths for vehicles exiting the laneway into the proposed carport, as such an appropriate condition has been included in the development consent.

 

The proposed reduced setbacks is consistent with the streetscape along Clarke Lane and will not result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

There are two existing roller doors fronting Clarke laneway, it is acknowledged that the RDCP 2013 states that Carports must not use a solid panel or roller shutter door, notwithstanding the non-compliance it is considered that the proposal is consistent (as shown in Figure 2 below) with the adjoining properties and will not set an undesirable precedent in the urban block.

 

Figure 2: Clarke Lane (Left = 16-18 Canberra St, Right = 22a Canberra St)

 

The proposal is consistent with the height controls under section 8.1 for development in laneways. The proposal subject to conditions in the development consent is considered to meet the relevant controls and objectives in the RDCP 2013.

 

4.4   Side Setback

The subject site has an extremely narrow width 6.115m, and sits in a block of 5 attached shops/dwellings. From the Canberra Street frontage all are provided with nil side setbacks.

 

The proposal seeks a nil side setback on the southern boundary at first floor level mimicking that of the adjoining property at No. 22a Canberra Street. It is considered that it will not result in any adverse impacts on the adjoining property and is consistent with the predominant side setback within the urban block.

 

As shown in figure 3 (below) the proposal seeks to continue the existing nil side setback on the northern boundary, in addition to providing a small courtyard area to provide modulation. It is considered that the proposal will not result in any adverse impacts with regards to bulk or scale when viewed from the streetscape or the nieghbouring properties.

 

Figure 3: Site Plan (Orange = Proposed; Blue = Existing)

 

The nil side setbacks provided on both boundaries are considered consistent with the predominant setbacks in the urban block; it is considered that the proposal will not result in any adverse impacts with regards to excessive bulk and scale, additional overshadowing or impacts on the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

4.5   Site Coverage

The proposal has a site area of 181m², the existing site coverage is 70.5%, the proposal seeks to increase this to 77%.  It is acknowledged that the proposal does not meet the numerical controls in the RDCP 2013, shown below:

 

Site Area

Maximum Site Coverage

(% of site area)

Up to 300 sqm

60%

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with adjoining properties in the urban block and will not result in an undesirable precedent being set.

 

The proposal meets the numerical controls for minimum contiguous POS being provided on site and also results in an increased deep soil permeable area being provided than what currently exists on site.

 

It is considered that the proposal improves the internal amenity for the occupants without resulting in adverse impacts on the adjoining properties; in addition the proposal is consistent with the objectives in the RDCP 2013 in providing adequate unbuilt areas for the purpose of POS, deep soil area and ancillary developments. 

 

4.6   Business premises, shops, cafes, office premises in Residential Zone

The proposed changes to the shop façade fronting Canberra Street, will retain the fabric of the existing shop front whilst creating separation between the dwelling and commercial premise. The proposal will not result in any adverse impacts on the existing character of the row of neighbourhood shops within the urban block nor will it adversely affect the functionality of the business premises. The proposal is considered to meet the relevant controls and objectives in the RDCP 2013.

 

5.     Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

 

The Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 17 July 2012, is applicable to the proposed development. In accordance with the plan, the following monetary levy is required:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$258,000.00

1.0%

$2,580.00

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal entails a number of modifications that when considered on balance with resultant environmental impacts, eventuate in a generally positive development outcome for the site, the streetscape and surrounds.

 

The proposal will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The proposal remains within the bounds of the objectives of the Low density zone and the Low Density Residential DCP.

 

In view of the issues discussed above, the proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to the intent of the planning controls and the specific context of the site. The application is recommended for approval, subject to the below recommended conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the application to vary a development standard under clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 (2a) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to maximum floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality and that the Department of Planning and Infrastructure 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/870/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing mixed use building including a new shop front, rear ground and first floor alterations and additions and a new rear carport, at No. 22 Canberra Street, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements, as indicated in red on the approved plans. The amendments shall be made to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Development Assessment, prior to the issue of a construction certificate:

 

a.     The carport shall be setback 300mm from the rear boundary, the internal length of the carport shall be reduced to 5450mm as a result.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Report - Compliance Report - 22 Canberra Street, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  10 March 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D13/15

 

 

Subject:                  5 Cobham Street, Maroubra (DA/593/2014)

Folder No:               DA/593/2014

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including new front hardstand car spaces, 2.4m high fence on side and rear boundaries, shade structures over outdoor play areas, associated landscaping and change of use to a childcare centre for 20 children

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Mrs J A Oshorov

Owner:                    Mrs J A Oshorov

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview25172.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

The application is referred to Planning Committee for consideration by the call up of Councillors Andrews, Nash, Stavrinos and Stevenson.

1.       Proposal

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling to change the use of the dwelling into a childcare centre for 20 children within the age group of 0-6 years. The proposal also includes 2 new front staff hardstand carspaces, new 2.4m high fence on side and rear boundaries, shade structures over outdoor play areas and associated landscaping.

 

The proposed hours of operation of the centre are from 7:00am to 7.00pm weekdays. The centre is closed during weekends and public holidays. The maximum number of staff members is 6. Two bicycle racks are proposed within the centre.

 

The applicant has amended the operating hours from 7:30am to 6:30pm to address the objectors concerns relating to the operation of the centre.

 

2.       Site

 

The subject site is located on the south eastern side of Cobham Street and land is identified as Lot A in Deposited Plan (DP) 405905.  The site is occupied by a single storey dwelling house which is currently operated as a home day care facility for 5 children. The site is slightly irregular in shape and has a frontage width of 13.6m and a site area of 297.2m².

 

The subject site is close proximity to Bunnerong Road which is an arterial road which is serviced by very good public transport provisions.  The site is also in close proximity to Westfield Eastgardens.

 

The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of single and two storey dwelling houses.

 

Image 1: subject site

 

3.       Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

·     Petition containing 44 signatures lodged by No. 3 Cobham Street, Maroubra

·     1 Cobham Street, Maroubra

·     3 Cobham Street, Maroubra

·     6 Cobham Street, Maroubra

·     7 Cobham Street, Maroubra

·     26 Cobham Street, Maroubra

·     28 Cobham Street, Maroubra

·     6 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

·     16 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

·     20 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

·     11B Wild Street, Maroubra

 

Issues raised in the objections are summarised in the table below:

 

Issue

Comment

Noise and loss of amenity

 

The bedroom window to no. 3 Cobham Street is relatively close to the play area.  The long operating hours from 7:00am to 7:00pm and potential to increase the hours in the future will causes parking congestion and noise problems. 

 

Concerns regarding excessive uncontrollable noise from cry and scream children from both early morning and during the day. 

Potential impacts of noise have been investigated by Council’s Environmental Health Unit. The noise expected to arise from the proposal is capable of complying with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1999 and Council’s Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

Appropriate screen fencing is provided around the perimeters of the site boundaries. 

 

Suitable conditions to protect surrounding amenity from noise of the operation are recommended where necessary. 

 

These noise concerns are discussed further in the Key Issues section below under Visual and Acoustic Privacy.

 

Loss of parking, increase traffic & street congestion

 

Disruption from additional traffic of staff & parent’s vehicles (drop off & pick up), delivery vehicles, cleaner and after hours parents meetings.  

 

Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the application and have indicated the proposed parking situation is acceptable.  These issues are discussed further in the Key Issues section below.

 

 

Inappropriate location, over-development in residential area & potential zoning changes

 

The frontage width and land size is too small to cater for 20 children.  Also, this is a narrow semi-detached dwelling wedged tightly between 3 very close neighbours and will cause amenity impacts.

 

The proposed development is permissible under the prevailing land use zone, and is consistent with the relevant standards of Randwick LEP 2012. The proposed child care centre is consistent with the relevant development control plans and Randwick City Council policies for child care centres.  The centre will meet the objectives of the zone in that it will provide a facility and service that meet the day to day needs of the community without significantly impacting on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings as discussed in the relevant sections of this report. The street will continue to be zoned for residential purposes and will not be changed to a commercial zone.

The site meets all of the council requirements in relation to the proposed location as well as the external and internal floor space requirements for 20 children.

 

The location, land use & size is considered to be able to cater for the number of children proposed and through proper management and operation of the centre. Potential impacts of noise, parking and traffic have been assessed by Council’s technical officers. The proposed use and intensity can be reasonably accommodated within the residential area, subject to suitable conditions and recommendations made by acoustic consultant to protect surrounding amenity.

 

Asbestos concerns

 

Risk of asbestos from the carport roof.

 

In relation to the works carried out on the subject site appropriate conditions will be included to ensure all hazards and asbestos material are removed from the site in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·    Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements.

 

·    Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy.

 

§ Asbestos waste is 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

 

In addition to the above, the applicant is required to clearly display a sign to the front of the property noting that the site involves the removal of asbestos and details of the licensed contractor.

 

Lack of community consultation

 

There is massive community concern about this over-development of a residential property due to the great concern in relation to traffic, amenity and noise impacts.

 

 

There are no Council’s Policies that require the applicant to consult with neighbouring dwellings.  The application has been notified in accordance the with the notification requirements in the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 which allows the neighbouring properties to comment and submit their concerns for consideration during the assessment process.

 

Lack of fence details

 

Visual concerns were raised by no. 3 Cobham Street. The plans do not show the precise materials used from the proposed 2.4m acoustic wall recommended by the acoustic consultant.

These issues are discussed further in the Key Issues section below under fences.

 

Blocking of natural light and shade

 

The new shade structure will not allow sufficient sunlight to the back yard of no. 7 Cobham Street.

 

The 2.4m high fence will restrict sunlight to the back yards of no.’s 7 Cobham Street and 20 Kingsford Street.

 

 

The proposed shade structure to the side and rear boundaries will not result in any additional overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring properties.  The structures are only 2.4m in height and majority of the shadows will cast on the subject site.  The additional fence height to no. 7 Cobham Street and 20 Kingsford Street is only 2m in height.  The existing fence is 1.8m in height and it is not anticipated that an additional 200mm to the existing fence will result in significant overshadowing impacts.

 

Removal of trees

 

Concerns were raised to the removal of the front trees.

Refer to landscape comments below which address this issue.

Devaluation of property

 

Experience has shown that the value of homes immediately surrounding a childcare centre decrease.

The effect of a proposal on property values is not a factor that can be considered under Section 79C of the EP&A Act in the determination of a development application.

Child care centre

 

There is already a sufficient amount of childcare centres within the immediate facility which function well and don’t believe the necessity of an additional centre.

Regardless of the number of child care centres in the locality, Council is required to respond to the environmental impacts of the proposal and not on the market demand associated with the establishment of a child care centre.

 

The presence of similar uses in the area does not provide grounds to refuse the application.

 

4.       Key Issues

 

4.1          Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

 

PART B7 – Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

Based on the information provided by the applicant in relation to the various age groups the staff/child ratio requirements under the Childcare Regulations 2014 is that a minimum of 5 staff members is required when the centre is full.  A maximum of 6 staff members is proposed on the site.

 

Council’s Randwick DCP 2013 Part B7 specifies that parking be provided for childcare centres at the rate of 1 space per two staff plus 1 space per 8 children for pickup and drop of children.

Therefore, the proposed development consisting of 20 children and 6 staff will generate a parking provision of 3 car spaces for staff members and 2.5 (or say 3) for pickup and drop off.

 

The proposal provides two car spaces on the site for staff and relies on the availability of on-street parking to satisfy the drop off and pick up.

 

The applicant has submitted a Parking and Access report for the proposed centre which assesses the impacts of the proposal on the availability of on-street parking and traffic volume within the area. The parking and traffic study concluded that there are more than sufficient and safe parking opportunities near the site and the proposed centre’s traffic will have no negative impacts on street network operation.  This was supported by Councils’ Development Engineers.

 

A comprehensive traffic and parking assessment was carried out by Council’s Development Engineers who concluded that that the shortfall of one (1) car parking space for staff member and three (3) car parking spaces for drop off and pick up could be supported in this instance due to the location of the subject site in relation to public transport and availability of parking spaces along Cobham Street and surrounding nearby streets. Also, it concluded that the additional traffic demand generated by the proposed development is relatively minor and will not have a significant or unacceptable impact on the road network serving the site.  Refer to photos taken by Council’s Development Engineers below which indicates that there is ample supply of on-street parking in the area. Additionally, to help offset any additional parking demand arising from staff parking, it is recommended by Council’s Development Engineers that a condition be placed in any consent requiring at least one additional bicycle space and a shower facility for staff be provided on the site in compensation for the shortfall. Refer to detailed assessment made by Council’s Development Engineers in the compliance report.

 

Pic1- 8:00am 28/10/14                             Pic 2 – 8:10am 28/10/14

  

 

Pic 3 – 8:18am 28/10/14                       Pic 4 8:33am 28/10/14

  

In the photos above the view is north east along Cobham Street with the subject site on the right past the first tree.

 

PART D11 – Child Care Centres

The proposed development has been assessed against Part D11 of the DCP and is considered to satisfy the objectives of all the relevant development and design controls that are applicable to the site. Where issues may arise from the proposed development specific comments in relation to the DCP are discussed below.

 

Sub-clause 3.2 - Setbacks

The proposal involves minor ground level alterations and additions to the rear the existing dwelling and the construction of store rooms to the front and rear of the property.

 

The additions to the rear are sited on the boundary with a nil setback.  This is considered acceptable as the store room is 1.5m in height which is below the existing fence height and the addition is directly adjacent to the neighbours blank wall which is also sited on the boundary.   The store room to the front north eastern side is within the front established building line and is directly opposite the neighbours store room. There are no north facing windows that will be impacted by the proposed development.

 

The single storey dwelling and front building alignment of the existing dwelling is maintained. 

 

The entry is located to the front of the dwelling and will provide street presents, safety and security for the centre.

 

The proposed alterations and additions will not have unreasonable amenity impact on the streetscape or adjoining properties.

 

Sub-clause 4.1 - Acoustic Amenity and Privacy

Potential impacts of noise associated with the proposed number of children have been investigated by Council’s Environmental Health unit and appropriate conditions have been recommended with respect to noise. The noise expected to arise from the proposed development is capable of complying with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1999 and Randwick DCP 2013 pending implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the acoustic report by CPS Creative Planning Solutions and appropriate operational management of the centre.

 

The acoustic report recommends that, at a minimum, the outdoor play area 1 be surrounded by a 2.4m high wall and outdoor play area 2 be surrounded by a 2m high noise wall. The wall should be constructed of either masonry, perspex, laminated glass, overlapped timber palings or Colorbond which should all provide a satisfactory level of acoustic performance assuming there are no cracks or gaps present in the wall.  The applicant has provided details of the side and rear fences which show a 600mm high Perspex being constructed over the existing colour bond fence to outdoor play area 1 and a 200mm high Perspex over the existing colour bond fence to outdoor play area 2, which complies with the recommendations made by the acoustic consultant.

 

The acoustic consultant also recommends that, the air conditioning unit should be selected so that the noise levels at the adjacent receivers are below the background noise level plus 5 dB(A) (when in use) in order to comply with the Industrial Noise Policy (EPA, 2000).  A condition is included to ensure compliance with this requirement.

 

There are no overlooking impacts generated from the proposal, the impact lies mainly with noise.  It is considered that this level is reasonable and as discussed above, appropriate fencing height between the properties and relevant management procedures will ameliorate any of these potential impacts.  In addition to the above, the following privacy and acoustic measures have been implemented to help mitigate amenity impacts to surrounding properties:

 

·     The outdoor play time is limited to a maximum of two hours per day as per the operational management plan and recommendation made by CPS acoustic consultant.  The play times are from 10:30am to 1:30am and 3:30pm to 4:30pm.

·     The proposed operational hours are reduced from 7:00am - 7:00pm to 7:30pm - 6:30pm to address the objectors concerns.

·     Ensure all staff and management are to comply with the noise and amenity impact policy as per the operational management plan.

·     The common wall, shared with 7 Cobham Street is not connected directly with the designated indoor play areas.  The proposed design places the bathroom, storage, administration office and kitchen between the play area and the shared common wall to minimise the transmission of sound.

 

It is also recommended by Council Environmental Health officer that music will not be played in outdoor areas and a condition of consent to that effect be included with any consent.

 

Given the above design measures and recommended conditions, the proposed use and intensity can be reasonable accommodated with in the residential area without resulting in unacceptable impacts to neighbouring properties. These noise concerns are discussed further by Council’s Environmental Health officer comments below.

 

The recommended acoustic treatments detailed in the acoustic report by CPS Creative Planning Solutions are incorporated into the proposed child care centre design to comply with the noise criteria.

 

Sub-clause 6 - Hours of Operation

The proposed childcare centre will operate 7:30am to 6:30pm Monday to Friday as per the recommendations made by CPS Acoustic consultant and will be shut for weekends and on public holidays. These hours are considered to be acceptable in a residential area and for most parts of the day the children will be inside. As detailed above, the proposal is acceptable subject to proposed conditions of consent, in particular compliance with the recommendations made by acoustic consultant and implementation of the amended operational management.

 

Sub-clause 7 - Fences

The acoustic report recommended that the existing boundary fence along the north eastern side boundary of the site extend from 1.8m to 2.4m and along the south eastern rear boundary from 1.8m to 2m high.  An objection was raised to the height of the 2.4m high fence.

 

It is not considered that the height of the fences will contribute to significant visual amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties.  The 2.4m high fence spans the distance of the outdoor play area 1 to provide acoustic privacy to the neighbouring property at no. 3 Cobham Street. 

 

Details of the side boundary fence is provided showing the existing colour bond fence adjacent to play area 1 being retained with an additional 600mm high Perspex material proposed above the existing fence.  The Perspex is a transparent material which is not considered to be visual intrusive and will still allow daylight to the adjoining property.  Also, the neighbouring properties windows at no. 3 Cobham Street are on a slight angle away from the boundary fence.  Therefore, it is not considered that the fence will cause significant visual impacts to no. 3 Cobham Street. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2a:     Enrich our range of community services that meet our community’s needs.

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the standards and objective for development in Zone R2 Low Density Residential and the controls for height of buildings and floor space ratio. The application is also considered to satisfactorily address the relevant provisions of Council’s Comprehensive DCP in relation to Part D11 – Child Care Centres, given the implementation of appropriate conditions of consent, recommendations made by acoustic consultant and implementation of the amended operational management plan. The proposed built form is not uncharacteristic scale in the context of surrounding development.

 

With regard to traffic, parking and safety concerns, the proposal is considered suitable for approval subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.  Also, acoustic screen fencing and proposed conditions of consent will ensure any noise impacts are acceptable.

 

Given the above, the proposed child care centre is considered to have merit and will contribute a necessary service to the community.  Consequently, the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to the application of the recommended conditions of consent.

 

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/593/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling to change the use to a childcare centre for 20 children including new front hardstand car spaces, 2.4m high fence on side and rear boundaries, shade structures over outdoor play areas and associated landscaping at No. 5 Cobham Street, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Transport

8.       Plans submitted for the construction certificate must demonstrate compliance with the following requirements/amendments designed to compensate for the 1 space parking deficiency in vehicle parking and to encourage sustainable transport options;

a)     A bike rack large enough to accommodate a minimum of 3 bicycles shall be provided.

b)     A shower facility is to be provided for staff.

 

9.       The proposed timed pickup & drop-off zone in front of the property is not required and shall be deleted from the application.

 

20.     The acoustic mitigation measures outlined in acoustic report undertaken by Senior Acoustic Engineer E.B. Milton dated 15 June 2014, Project no:A878 Noise Assessment (r0) are to be implemented including, but not limited to;

 

·             Outdoor Play Area 1 be surrounded by a 2.4metre noise wall. The wall shall be constructed of material detailed in acoustic report with no gaps or openings.

·             Outdoor Play Area 2 be surrounded by a 2.0metre noise wall. The wall shall be constructed of material detailed in acoustic report with no gaps or openings.

·             All mechanical plant shall be selected and sited to ensure compliance with acoustic criteria as detailed in this consent.

 

Environmental Amenity

62.     A validation report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics three (3) months after the business commences trading and from time to time as reasonably requested by Council. The report should demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s development consent.

 

The report is to be forwarded to and approved by Council. This report must address (but not limited to) the accumulation effect of mechanical plant and equipment and noise generated from all children in the outdoor play area. Any recommendations outlined in the acoustic report are to be implemented in accordance with the report.

 

63.     Music is not to be played in the outdoor play areas at any time.

 

64.     The operation of the child care centre shall be in accordance with the Plan of Management dated November 2014 titled “Operational Management Plan“ project: A811 prepared for this application unless otherwise stated by this development consent.

 

65.     The childcare centre indoor and outdoor areas shall not exceed a maximum number of 20 children at any one time.

 

66.     Outdoor Play Area 1 is restricted to a maximum of 12 children.

 

67.     Outdoor Play Area 2 is restricted to a maximum number of 8 children.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 5 Cobham Street, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

  


Planning Committee                                                                                                  10 March 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D14/15

 

 

Subject:                  135-139 Belmore Road, Randwick (DA/917/2014)

Folder No:               DA/917/2014

Author:                    Willana Associates, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Shop 1- Fit out and use of the existing premises as a pharmacy with consulting rooms and new signage (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:               Mr S Seeho

Owner:                    Amachong Nominees Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview12664.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been assessed by an external consultant and is referred to Planning Committee for determination as the applicant is a close friend of a Council employee.

Proposal

 

The subject application proposes the fit out and change of use to Shop 1, 137-139 Belmore Road, Randwick as a pharmacy with consulting rooms and new signage.  The pharmacy will operate from 8am till 7pm, seven (7) days a week. The site is located within a heritage conservation area.

 

The application was subject to public notification for a period of 14 days between 14 January 2015 and 29 January 2015. No submissions were received during this period. 

 

No structural building works are proposed, however there will be internal walls constructed to enable three (3) consulting rooms, a store room and a reception area.  The existing toilets will remain to the rear of the shop and cupboards will be installed in the open plan office section of the shop.  The existing separate entries and common party wall between the shop and the stairs that lead to Level 1 will be maintained. 

 

The following signs are proposed:

 

§  A non-illuminated fascia sign consisting of the wording ‘Eastern Compounding Pharmacy’, approximately 500mm in height and 7.5m in length (refer to accompanying plans).  It will replace an existing sign and is erected 3.6m above the footpath level (refer to accompanying plans).

§  A light-box under-awning sign that will be replacing an existing sign within the same under-awning.  The sign will consist of the wording ‘Eastern Compounding Pharmacy’.

 

Site

 

The subject site is described as Lot 8 in DP 789629, 135-139 Belmore Road, Randwick (the Site).  The Site is located on the eastern side of Belmore Road.  The Site currently contains a two (2) storey building.  The land area and dimensions of the Site are summarised in Table 1 below:

 

Image 1: Subject site

Table 1 | Lot Dimensions

Boundary

Approx. Length

Approx. Land area

Northern, side boundary

30m

445m²

Southern, side boundary

19m

Eastern, rear boundary

17m

Western, front boundary

25m

The site is currently occupied by a two (2) storey building containing a retail tenancy.  Vehicular access is provided off Avoca Street. 

 

The Site is within the Randwick Junction Heritage Conservation Area, which is centred on the Randwick Junction Commercial Centre.  It is bounded by Belmore Road, Alison Road and Avoca Street, Randwick.  It focuses on the commercial centre retaining the coherent streetscape character. 

 

Belmore Road is the main commercial and retail strip of Randwick.  It contains a mix of uses.  Belmore Road is also a major public transport route, with a number of regular bus services running 7 days a week.  The area has a varied built form with a range of building heights and designs, reflecting the variety of uses of the locality.   

Royal Randwick Shopping Centre, on Lot 104 DP 812174 is north of the subject site adopting a height of 2–3 storeys fronting Belmore Road and up to five stories at the rear fronting Avoca Street.  The shopping centre has a zero setback to the street.  The shopping centre contains a mix of retail and commercial tenancies and is serviced by a two (2) storey basement car park. 

 

Adjoining the Site to the north is 133 Belmore Road.  This property contains a two (2) storey building, primarily contains a retail tenancy.  The property is similar in height, setbacks and use to the adjoining neighbour.  The building on 133 Belmore Road has minimal setbacks to the street.  This property is local heritage item number 300 and is a federation commercial building.

 

Adjoining the subject site to the south is 141-143 Belmore Road.  The property contains a partial two (2), partial three (3) storey building, with mixed uses containing a restaurant and office space.  The building on 141-143 Belmore Road has minimal setbacks to the street.  This site is local heritage item number 302, known as the Star and Garter Inn.  This is the single most striking building within the heritage conservation area and is notable for its distinctive castellated sandstone tower and the adjacent statue of Captain James Cook.

 

Opposite the subject site, to the west is a two storey shopping centre containing retail and commercial uses fronting the street with basement parking via a rear entrance.  The property also contains health service facilities, and makes up part of the Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre.

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The application was placed public notification for a period of 14 days between 14 January 2015 and 29 January 2015.  No submissions were received during this period.

 

Key Issues

The main issues with the proposal relate to the amenity impacts, compliance with the BCA, public health, deliveries, safety and security, and signage.  Conditions of consent are recommended to address the issues. 

 

Amenity Impacts

The proposed pharmacy will operate generally within standard business hours and the nature of the business is considered to be a low key activity for this commercial centre.

 

The number of staff will be outlined in a management plan, which is a condition of the consent.  The number of staff will not likely have any significant adverse pedestrian movements or people noise as a result of the proposed use.

 

The proposed use will not result in any adverse noise impacts to the surrounding area.

 

Signage

The proposed projecting awning signage is permissible under the Development Control Plan –Randwick Junction Centre as it is consistent with the streetscape and is existing. 

 

The proposed signage shown on the front elevation plan satisfies the objectives of the Outdoor Advertising DCP and the Randwick Junction Centre DCP, which are to ensure that signage is in keeping with the scale and character of the building to which it is attached and does not detract from the architectural style or features of the building.

 

The outdoor advertising which is proposed relates to the existing and desired character of the Randwick Junction Centre and will not contribute significantly to the visual complexity of the streetscape.  The proposed signage relates to and identifies the use of the building to which it is to be attached to and will not obscure any existing architectural features.  

 

Conditions are included in the consent to ensure that the signage is generally in accordance with Council’s requirements.

 

The proposed signage is therefore acceptable.

 

Parking and Access

The proposed use is classified as business/retail and therefore a rate of 1 parking space per 40m2 applies to the subject application in accordance with Council’s DCP 2012.

 

The shop has a gross floor area of 97m² which generates a requirement for 2.5 car spaces.

 

It is recommended that 2 spaces be provided so that there is adequate area for waste storage.  It is noted that there is a public bus stop along Belmore Road with frequent buses, which will encourage the use of public transport.

 

On-street parking is available along Belmore Road at the front of the premises which is restricted to 30 minutes and one hour.

 

Mobility and Access

The existing shopfront is flush with the footpath at the front of the shop.  Council’s DCP controls require entries that are flush with the footpath or a ramp as an alternative.  However, the controls relate to new development and refurbishment of shops.  The proposal is for a change of use which involves installation of low height partitions and furniture and therefore does not constitute a refurbishment.

 

Regardless, the proposal is considered acceptable in relation to mobility and access.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

 

The proposed pharmacy is a low key activity which involves health consulting rooms and is considered compatible with the surrounding Randwick Junction Centre.  Across Belmore Road to the west is the Health and Education Hub of Randwick City and therefore the proposal will complement the surrounding area. The number of staff on-site at any one time is generally limited and will be shown in the Management Plan.  The proposal will, therefore, not result in any adverse amenity impacts to the surrounding area.

 

The Site is located within close proximity to multiple public bus stops on Belmore Road, which will encourage the use of public transport.  Notwithstanding, the provision of 2 car spaces in the rear of the shop will satisfy Council’s parking requirements. 

 

The proposed use will assist in activating the retail strip and will complement the existing commercial area.  The proposed development will provide an important health service facility for the surrounding medical centres.  The proposed use is therefore in the public interest.

 

The proposal is, therefore, suitable 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. 917/2014 for fit out and use of existing premise as a pharmacy with consulting rooms and new signage within the Heritage Conservation Area, at No. 135-139 Belmore Road, Randwick, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 135 - 139 Belmore Road, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  10 March 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D15/15

 

 

Subject:                  59-65 Chester Avenue, Maroubra (DA/280/2014/A)

Folder No:               DA/280/2014/A

Author:                    Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

Proposal:                 S96 modification by increasing the size of the east facing units at ground & 1st floor levels and reconfiguring the east facing units at 2nd floor level to provide 2 additional 2 bedroom units and increase the overall building height by providing a new mezzanine level for all east facing units at 2nd floor level, removal of northern boundary clothes line and deletion of Condition 5 in relation to boundary fence

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Fox Johnston Architects

Owner:                    Chester Projects Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview24581.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

This application referred to Planning Committee for consideration as the original application was determined by Council.

1.       Proposal

 

The proposed modification would provide a revised mix of apartments and increase the number of apartments from 32 to 34.

 

The details of the proposed alterations and additions are as follows:

 

Basement

•    Relative adjustment to accommodate 37 car spaces (increase of 2 spaces from that approved). The 2 additional car spaces are created through the removal of the existing driveway crossovers along Chester Avenue and the adjustment to the Basement plan is administrative only.

 

Ground Floor

•    Removal of clothes line area from northern boundary (keeping southern boundary clothes drying area);

•    Removal of Condition S(a) and retention of existing fence to northern boundary;

•    Eastern glazing line moved 350mm east (along gridline 'E').

 

Level 1

•    Eastern glazing line moved 350mm east (along gridline 'E').

 

Level 2

•    Redesign of Apartments  204, 205,  206  and 207 to  become  double  storey  2  x bedroom mezzanine apartment with the addition of Apartments 208 and 209;

•    Extension  of the  northern  and  southern  walls  to  align  with  gridline  '1'  and  '7' respectively .

 

Roof Level

•    Introduction of mezzanine level within the pop-up window roof form.

 

Condition 5(a) currently reads:

 

"5. Boundary fencing shall be consistent with the following detail:

(a)     Where adjacent the driveway, the northern boundary shall provide fencing of 1800mm in height and masonry construction to minimise acoustic issues to the neighbour. The fence shall taper down to be no greater than one (1) metre in height at the front boundary to allow adequate view lines."

 

It is also requested to delete Condition 5(a) of Approval DA/280/2014 as the original plans sought to retain the existing northern boundary fence (as originally depicted).

 

2.       Site

 

The subject site is presently made up of four (4) Torrens Title allotments of east –west orientation, known as 59 through 65 Chester Ave, Maroubra, and described as follows:

 

Address

Lot & DP

59 Chester Ave, Maroubra

61 Chester Ave, Maroubra

63 Chester Ave, Maroubra

65 Chester Ave, Maroubra

Lot 344B, DP 36798

Lot 344A, DP 36798

Lot 343B, DP 36798

Lot 343A, DP 36798

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Chester Ave, close to the intersection of Chester Avenue and Portland Crescent. The site has a single frontage to Chester Ave. The parcel is square in shape and oriented east- west. Topographically, the site has a cross fall of roughly two (2) metres from the southern to northern shared boundaries and a site area is 1794.8m2  

 

Surrounding development is characterised by multi- unit development, with interspersed single dwellings. Multi- unit development in the vicinity comprises a mixture of walk-up flat buildings and townhouse style development.

 

To the immediate south of the subject site exists a three (3) storey walk-up flat building, owned by Housing NSW. Further examples of this type of development occur further to the south, across Portland Crescent and also owned and operated by Housing NSW. To the north of the subject site exists two (2) storey multi-unit developments. Single dwellings are located to the east, beyond the rear boundary of the subject site and to the west across Chester Ave.

 

Neither the subject site nor its surrounds are noted to have any individual heritage significance within the provisions within RLEP 2012. The site and its surrounds are part of the Coral Sea Park Estate.

 

59 chester

Image 1: Subject Site 59 – 65 Chester Avenue, Maroubra

 

3.       Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

·      18 Chicago Avenue, Maroubra

·      20 Chicago Avenue, Maroubra

·      2/16 Chicago Avenue, Maroubra

·      3/16 Chicago Avenue, Maroubra

·      3/6 Portland Crescent, Maroubra

·      3/4 Portland Crescent, Maroubra

·      4 Portland Crescent, Maroubra

·      4/4 Portland Crescent, Maroubra

·      2/4 Portland Crescent, Maroubra

·      8 Portland Crescent, Maroubra

·      1/53 Chester Avenue, Maroubra


 

Issues

Comments

Excessive density of the development

 

See assessment under Key Issues section

Excessive height of building

 

See assessment under Key Issues section

Privacy Impacts

The proposed modifications result in additional windows to the upper level of the eastern elevation. However, they are sited approximately 14m from the rear boundary providing for and acceptable degree of separation. New balconies are proposed to the western elevation which will only overlook the street and do not raise any adverse privacy impacts

 

Lack of onsite car parking

 

See assessment under Key Issues section

Loss of solar access

 

See assessment under Key Issues section

Amended roof form is an eyesore

 

See assessment under Key Issues section

 

Key Issues

 

Section 96 Assessment

Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that a consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

(a)    it 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 and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

 

(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, and

 

(c)    it has notified the application in accordance with:

 

(i)   the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)  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, and

 

(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.

 

The proposed modifications involve an increase in the quantum of dwellings and size of the building envelope. However, in the context of the overall scope of the development the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted.

 

Height, bulk and scale

The proposed modification will increase the floor space ratio (FSR) of the approved development from 0.75:1 (which complied with the maximum permissible FSR under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012) to 0.89:1.  The maximum height of the proposed changes to the approved building will also increase from 11.9m to 14m. The building envelope for the site is largely a function of the FSR and height standards, and in conjunction with an external wall height of 8m provides for a built form that is 2 to 3 storeys in scale. As Council’s planning policies clearly anticipate a predominant building height of 2 to 3 storeys, any development that breaches both the FSR and height controls has the potential to compromise the integrity of the LEP, given that the numerical standards contained therein are the result of considerable community consultation and detailed analysis of the existing and emerging development patterns in the Randwick LGA. Whilst the approved development did breach the height standard, this was localised and largely due to the cross fall of the site. The approved building height was also justified on the basis that the maximum permissible FSR was compliant and distributed in a manner that provided a 3 storey form. This site strategy minimised impacts on adjoining properties and provided a deep recess in the middle of the site allowing visual relief to a long street elevation. The increase in both FSR and building height does not meet the objectives of the height and FSR standards as the resultant size and scale of the proposed development will not the compatible with the desired future character for the locality.

 

The LEP development standards are key determinants in achieving a certain urban character and density. In this respect, considerable weight must be given to the development standards for FSR and height and the associated built form controls contained in the RDCP 2013. Allowing ad hoc increases in the density and scale of development on a project by project basis and with variations of this magnitude, will cumulatively impact to transform the character of the locality. The resultant character would be one dominated by 4 storey development with an FSR of 0.9:1 rather than 3 storey development with an FSR of 0.75:1. Council has adopted a clear planning policy position in relation to its medium density zoned areas which has been subsequently endorsed under RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 and should not be varied based on the proposed modification.

 

Solar access

The subject site is oriented roughly east- west, with landform that falls gently to the north. Adjoining sites to the south are oriented perpendicular to the subject site, with rear open space that abuts the southern side boundary of the subject site. The applicant has prepared shadow diagrams that provide a comparison of shadow impacts between the approved building and that of the proposed modification. The properties most affected are described below:

 

•      2 Portland Crescent, Maroubra

The building at 2 Portland Crescent is a three (3) storey walk up residential flat building of six (6) units and 1950s to 60s construction. The building has diagonal orientation on its corner site, with its private open space adjoining the southern boundary of the subject site. The southern neighbour at 2 Portland Crescent will see additional shadow impacts as a result of the proposed modification, mostly on its rear open space and to an extent on its northern elevation. As this property may also be redeveloped in the future, its ability to achieve good levels of solar access would be restricted from the additional overshadowing.

 

•      4 Portland Crescent, Maroubra

The building at 4 Portland Crescent is a residential flat building of four (4) units and constructed in the last ten (10) years. The building has two (2) storey scale, with an attic style habitable roof form above. The building is oriented north- south, with its private open space adjoining the southern boundary of the subject site. The southern neighbour at 4 Portland Crescent will see additional shadow impact as a result of the proposal, concentrated in the afternoon hours.

 

As discussed previously, the proposal does not comply with the FSR and height requirements and results in a building that is of a size and scale that is not commensurate with the desired future character of the locality. In this context the additional overshadowing impacts would not be occasioned if the proposal complied with the FSR and height controls. It should be noted that the approved development was deemed to be acceptable because it distributed the height to the northern end where there were less overshadowing impacts and provide for a compliant height at the southern end. The proposed modification now introduces a significant breach in the height limit at the southern end and does not provide for a better planning outcome in terms of the spatial relationship with adjoining properties. As such, the additional overshadowing that occurs is unacceptable as it results from a significant variation in the key areas of density and height.

 

Car parking

Council’s Development Engineer has provided the following comments in relation to the car parking provision:

 

Parking Issues

 

The original development was for 32 units comprising of 12 x studio apartments,  18 x 1 bedroom & 2 x 2 bedroom units which generated a parking demand of 34 spaces (including 8 visitor spaces) under Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013. This was provided on-site within the basement car-park and hence the original development was fully compliant with its parking obligations.

 

The S96 proposal is for 34 units comprising of 14 x studios + 14 x 1 bedroom + 6 x 2 bedrooms. The parking demand associated with this proposal is as follows;

 

Amended Parking Demand         = 14 x 0.5 +14 x 1 + 6 x 1.2 + 34/4 (visitor)

        = 7 + 14 + 7.2 + 8.5 (visitor)

        = 36.7

        = say 37 spaces

 

Parking Provided       = 35 spaces (34 approved)

 

One additional off-street parking space has been provided by deletion of 2 disabled spaces and associated share zone within the basement.

 

Parking Deficiency = 2 spaces

 

The applicant has argued that due to the removal of 3 vehicle crossings on the Chester Avenue frontage, some on-street parking will be reinstated & will therefore compensate for the shortfall.

 

Although the provision of additional on-street parking is acknowledged it should be noted that on-street spaces will also be available to the general public and will not be for the exclusive use of future residents of the proposed development.  It is therefore not appropriate to include them in the parking allocation for the development as a way of justifying a parking shortfall. A parking deficiency of two spaces therefore exists and it is considered the proposed S96 amendments do not achieve compliance with Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013.

 

Development Engineering also indicated in its original report that full compliance with the parking requirements was preferred on the basis that it would minimize vehicles parking on-street and avoid potential conflicts in traffic flow since all parking (including visitor parking) would be provided within the basement carpark.

 

The conflict issue arises as Chester Avenue is not wide enough to allow two way traffic flow if both sides of the kerb-side parking are occupied. With the amended S96 proposal, kerb-side parking is more likely to be occupied, thereby potentially impacting on traffic flow and on-street parking.

 

It is not considered the application has satisfactorily justified the parking shortfall of two spaces assessed under Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013. The proposed amendments will also encourage on-street parking which may impact traffic flow in Chester Avenue. The Section 96 application is therefore not supported.

 

In view of the above, the deficiency in on site car parking albeit only two spaces is unacceptable in the circumstances given the road conditions in the vicinity of the site and that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development will be able meets its demand for car parking wholly within its site.

 

Design Review Panels Comment

The Design Review Panel has provided the following comments on the proposed modification:

 

This is a now a Section 96 to the approved Development Application, the Panel having previously reviewed the scheme at pre-Development Application concept design in March 2014 and at DA stage in June 2014.

 

The proposal includes the demolition of existing dwellings, removal of a significant pine tree and the construction of 33 units over 3 storeys and basement parking for 35 vehicles. This Section 96 provides a partial upper floor to the rear units on Level 2, and apparently arises from suggestions raised by Councillors.

 

The Panel is familiar with the site and the broader area.

 

Previous comments are retained where relevant.

 

1.     Relationship to the Context of the Proposal 

This large regular site is located in the south-west corner of the Coral Sea Estate. Chester Avenue has a diversity of residential buildings representing most periods since the estate’s initial construction in the 1950s. This site is currently occupied by a pair of semi-attached buildings, built by the then NSW Housing Commission, and somewhat altered since. Much of this stock in the estate has been replaced over recent decades by small apartment buildings of undistinguished design. The estate also has a number of better-quality (though unfortunately sited) Housing Commission 3 storey walk-up flats, such as the building immediately to the south.

 

The effect of overshadowing on neighbours to the south of the proposal need to be made clearer – what extra shadow is caused by this S96? This urgently needs to be clarified on the drawings to show additional shadow, if any.

 

2.     The Scale of the Proposal

The approved DA has a wall height slightly in excess of the controls and this S96 seeks to increase the height in the centre of the site – the Panel considers that is strategy is acceptable, and would have minimal effects on neighbours in terms of bulk, height and privacy impacts.

 

Some extra floor space is also included in this S96, which is acceptable.

3.     The Built Form of the Proposal

This proposal has many good design aspects and displays the potential for a good outcome;

 

-         The open courtyard to the street is a good architectural type that can act as a positive model for urban housing.

-         The open circulation and stairs can offer a welcoming sense for the residents, and have environmental benefits

-         All units have east or northern aspect, and almost all are cross ventilated

-         The building is fringed by generous garden areas on all sides

-         All units have lift access

 

The S96 proposes that more use be made of the roof design to benefit the front 6 east-facing units on the top floor. The Panel strongly supports the generous internal volumes created under the roof pitch, which would be a memorable living space.

 

However the Panel considers that the living rooms and their balconies in the 6 altered apartments are adequate for a 1 bedroom size, but too small for the 2 bed units. The Panel suggests that the following scenarios be considered;

 

-     at least 2 of the 6 units remain as 1 bed units, and that the other 4 units have both bedrooms upstairs. This would allow the downstairs bedrooms to be joined as part of the living space

-     some units could be 1 bed plus study, rather than full 2 bed units

-     a marginal increase in balcony area could be investigated on the lower level, and some minor extra floor area accommodated upstairs

 

4.       The Proposed Density

The intensification of use of the site is desirable as the building is well designed. The Panel has no problem with the S96’s minor increase in floor space.

 

5.     Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

The attic floor has continuous west-facing balconies with movable screens, which should provide good solar protection.

 

The following issues are outstanding from the DA and should be resolved as part of this S96;

 

-     Sunshades and weather protection appropriate to orientation should be provided to all openings.  The unprotected north-facing windows in the wings to the street in particular need solar protection.  This orientation receives sun all year and can be a heat load problem from September to March.

-     Ceiling fans should be provided to all bedrooms (and indicated on the floor plans) to reduce the need for air conditioning.

-     Outdoor clothes drying areas should be provided

-     The front wings should have operable skylights over the internal bathrooms and kitchens

-     The window design throughout is not particularly good for natural ventilation. Large areas of fixed glass are inappropriate for this climate and windows should have more operable panes.  Lower openings assist in getting air movement in the spaces that people occupy.  These openings need to have restricted openings, making louvres a good option.

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

No change

 

7.     The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

The Panel has concerns about the inadequate living areas for the two storey apartments – see above.

 

As noted in previous reports the ground floor units adjacent to driveway need operable privacy screening.  This should also be resolved as part of this S96.

 

8.     The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

Satisfactory

 

9.       Social issues

Improved by the S96, which introduces a greater variety of unit sizes.

 

The Panel strongly supports Council recent practice of requiring that any FSR above the LEP control be subject to the NRAS Affordable Housing provisions.

 

10.   The Aesthetics of the Proposal

The high mono-pitch of the roof is marked different to the rest of the scheme, however the Panel considers that it better articulates the silhouette, and appropriately increases the scale.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel supports this S96, subject to the above important issues being satisfactorily addressed.

 

Whilst the Panel’s support for the proposal is noted, they do recommend changes to the proposed building and apartment configuration. These matters have not been pursued with the Applicant given the determinative weight attributed to the threshold issues about the exceedence of the density and height controls contained in this assessment.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The size and scale the proposed development that would result from the modified scheme is considered to be unsuitable for the site and is inconsistent with the desired future character of the locality. The proposed density and height will also give rise to detrimental impacts to surrounding residential properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, overshadowing, and car parking. As such the proposed development does not satisfy the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority refuses its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No. DA/160/2011/A for residential flat building at at 59 – 65 Chester Avenue, Maroubra, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the R3 zone specified in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as it does not contribute to the desired future character of the of area or protect the amenity of residents.

 

2.       The proposal further exceeds the maximum building height of 9.5m specified in Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the resultant built form will be of a size and scale that is incompatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

3.       The proposal exceeds the maximum FSR of 0.75:1 specified in Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the resultant built form will be of a size and scale that is incompatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

4.       The proposal further exceeds the maximum wall height control of 8m specified in Clause 3.2 of RDCP 2013 resulting in significant overshadowing and excessive bulk and scale.

 

5.       The proposed development by virtue of the combined effect of the above non compliances would have a height, bulk and scale that adversely impacts on the solar access and visual amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

6.       The proposal does not comply with the on-site carparking requirements of RDCP 2013.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  10 March 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D16/15

 

 

Subject:                  5-7 Adams Avenue, Malabar (DA/750/2014)

Folder No:               DA/750/2014

Author:                    Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new bathroom to Unit 6 and new balconies to Units 1, 3 and 5, construction of a new detached 4 car garage with an additional 2 bedroom unit above fronting Rubie Lane

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Mr R Yannakis

Owner:                    Mr P Vanni

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview17828.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

The application is referred to Planning Committee for determination as the applicant has a personal relationship with a Council’s employee.

Proposal

 

The application is referred to Planning Committee for determination as the applicant is a friend to a Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

The development application proposes demolition of an existing garage at the rear of the site.  The application also proposes alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building.  Specifically the changes detailed in the application are as follows:

 

·          Construct a new building at the rear of the site adjacent to Rubie Lane.  This building is to contain four (4) car parking spaces at ground floor level and a residential apartment at first floor level.

·          Ground floor changes to the existing residential flat building to:

 

-     infill the front entry alcove to Unit 6 and install a new entry door flush with the external wall;

-     make minor additions to Unit 6 to install a new bathroom and walk-in-wardrobe and adjust the location of the private courtyard for Unit 6;

-     alter the layout of the common laundry and storeroom adjacent to the common stairwell to remove the common laundry and replace it with a storeroom and provide a private laundry for Unit 1;

-     add a ground level private terrace and courtyard area to the northern side of Unit 1.

 

·          First and second floor changes to the existing residential flat building to:

- install Juliet balconies and French doors to Bedroom 1 and to two (2) of the Living Room windows for Units 2 and 4;

- install glass sliding doors to both bedrooms and new balconies to the full width of the external façade accessible from the bedrooms of Units 3 and 5.

 

·          Render and paint the exterior of the existing residential flat building.

 

Other changes to the site include:

·          Installation of a front fence and gates along the boundary to Adams Avenue between the building and the eastern side boundary.  Letterboxes are to be incorporated in the fence design;

·          Landscaping of a common courtyard area to be provided between the new building and the existing building.  The common courtyard is to include a leveled turfed area and a BBQ facility.

 

It is relevant to note that the entry alcove for Unit 6 to Adams Avenue has already been enclosed and the front entry door replaced to finish flush with the exterior wall of the building.  A cantilevered awning has been installed above the entry door.  The awning overhangs the public footpath.  This development assessment cannot grant retrospective consent for these works.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the northern side of Adams Avenue and has a rear boundary to Rubie Lane.  The site is rectangular being 12.19m wide and 33.53m long.  The total area of the site is 408.8m2

 

The site contains a three storey walk-up residential flat building with three (3) x 1 bedroom units fronting Adams Avenue and three (3) x 2 bedroom units at the rear.  The front of the building has a nil setback to the western side boundary.

 

There is a concrete access path between the building and the eastern side boundary which extends from Adams Avenue to Rubie Lane.  The width of this path is not sufficient to provide vehicle access to the site in accordance with Australian Standards AS2890.1.

 

A brick garage with metal roof is located in the north west corner of the site and is accessed via Rubie Lane.  There is a large concrete paved area adjacent to Rubie Lane in the north east corner of the site which is used for off-street parking.

 

Figure 1: Site street

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. No submissions were received as a result of the notification process.

 

Key Issues

 

Car parking

 

The main key issue for this application is the non-compliance with the number of on-site parking spaces required by Council’s Development Control Plan.  There is presently a single garage and an open concrete hard stand area on the site which can be used for car parking but has no formal line marking.  Therefore it is possible to park three (3) or four (4) cars on the site although the spaces may not comply with Australian Standards AS2890.1(2004).  The DCP requires the provision of seven (7) resident parking spaces and two (2) visitor parking spaces.

 

The plans originally submitted with the development application proposed on-site parking in a new building adjacent to Rubie Lane with ground level parking as four (4) enclosed garage spaces as well as two (2) stacked car parking spaces within the eastern side setback.   These spaces were assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and determined to be non-compliant with AS2890.1(2004).

 

The applicant was requested to amend the design and amended plans were received on 5 February 2015.  The amended plans deleted the stacked spaces within the eastern side setback and altered the garage to remove internal partitions between car parking spaces.  The amended plans have been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and determined to be satisfactory in terms of their dimensions, access and egress,

 

Four (4) car parking spaces is the maximum that can be accommodated on the site in a practical manner compliant with Australian Standards.  Stacked spaces are not encouraged as they are likely to encroach upon the common open space area and deep soil planting area between the new building and the existing building.  To off-set the deficiency in on-site parking Council’s Development Engineer supports the provision of motorcycle and bicycle parking to a greater rate than the DCP controls.

 

Support for the proposed car parking arrangement will not set a precedent.  There are older style three-storey walk up flat buildings to both sides of the site and these have boundaries to Adams Avenue and Rubie Lane in the same manner as the subject site.  The neighbouring site to the east is No.9-11 Adams Avenue and has greater capacity for on-site parking as it is a corner site and parking can be accessed via the north-south section of Rubie Lane.  The neighbouring site to the west is No.3 Adams Avenue and has been developed to capacity in accordance with Development Consent DA-129/2007.  It contains one (1) x 1 bedroom unit and two (2) x 2 bedroom units with two (2) on-site parking spaces.  Development Consent DA-122/2012 granted consent to the strata subdivision of the existing building allocating one car parking space to each of the two bedroom units.

 

The proposed car parking arrangement is considered to be the maximum that can be reasonably accommodated on the site and an appropriate ratio of parking spaces to units in comparison to the approved neighbouring development at No.3 Adams Avenue.  The shortfall in parking is consistent with Council’s Policy position to encourage sustainable transport initiatives and the site has good access to bus transport.  There were no submissions in response to the application which suggests that local residents have no significant concerns regarding the capacity of existing on-street parking.

 

The applicant was also requested to make amendments to the proposal for:

-      A common property pedestrian link between Adams Avenue and Rubie Lane;

-      Open form parking arrangement to provide view lines and improve natural air flow to the common courtyard area and provide sight lines to the rear lane;

-      Add landscaping and screening devices to protect the privacy of Unit 1 from the common open space;

-      Redesign of the new apartment to improve solar access, natural ventilation and aesthetic appearance from the laneway; and

-      Provide details to demonstrate compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

 

Amended plans received on 5 February 2015 and a letter received on 24 February 2015 responded to the abovelisted matters.  The design amendments to the proposed new apartment are considered to be satisfactory.  Other matters are addressed in recommended conditions listed in the Development Application Compliance report.

 

There are no other outstanding matters and the development application can be determined accordingly.

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The key issue of on-site parking is considered to be appropriately addressed with the provision of four (4) parking spaces within a partly enclosed garage.  Matters of design refinement and landscaping can be addressed with recommended conditions of development consent as detailed in the Development Application compliance report.  The proposal complies with all relevant requirements of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan.

 

Recommendation

 

A.       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. 0750/2014 for demolition of an existing garage, alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building including new bathroom to Unit 6 and new balconies to Units 1, 3 and 5, construction of a new detached 4 car garage with an additional 2 bedroom unit above fronting Rubie Lane at No. 5-7 Adams Avenue, Malabar, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)     No car parking spaces are to be provided within the eastern side setback to the existing residential flat building;

 

b)     The window to the kitchen of Unit 1 shall be infilled with glass blocks to ensure acoustic and visual privacy between the kitchen of Unit 1 and the private courtyard of Unit 6.

 

c)     The new gates to be installed at the boundary to Adams Avenue are to be open form security gates and shall open inwards to the site.

 

d)     Open form gates and fencing is to be installed across the southern side of the parking area to control pedestrian access to the eastern side of the parking area only to improve security whilst maintaining natural air flow and opportunities for surveillance between Rubie Lane and the communal open space area.

 

e)     Internal laundry facilities are to be provided within each unit and indicated on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.

 

f)      The communal courtyard space is to have a north-south dimension of 5.0m in order to provide appropriate space for passive outdoor recreation including seating and a BBQ facility, rainwater tanks, canopy tree planting and a common clothes drying area.

 

 


Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 5-7 Adams Avenue, Malabar

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  10 March 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D17/15

 

 

Subject:                  103-105 Donovan Avenue, Maroubra (DA/19/2015)

Folder No:               DA/19/2015

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Subdivide the land into two Torrens Title lots

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               RPS AAP

Owner:                    Est Late Mr A J North

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the proposed strata lot sizes have a shortfall greater than 10% to the 400sqm minimum lot size standard required for each lot under Clause 4.1(3) of the RLEP 2012.

Proposal

Subdivide the land into two Torrens Title lots as follows:

•      Lot 1 = 326.9sqm with a frontage of 8.13m

•      Lot 2 = 276.9sqm with a frontage of 7.11m

 

Site

 

The site is on the south side of Donovan Avenue between Wild Street and Paine Street, Maroubra. It has a 15.24m frontage, a 39.625m depth and is 603.885sqm in area. The land has a northern aspect and is relatively flat. There are semi-detached dwellings in the vicinity of the site and the surrounding area as shown in the cadastral image below. The local area is dominated by free-standing and semi-detached homes. The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential specified in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan.

 

Cadastral image: Subject site shaded pink and surrounding allotments generally containing semi-detached dwellings on allotments of land that are similar in size to the proposed allotment sizes.

Photo of subject site


Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. No submissions were received as a result of the notification process.

 

Key Issues

 

1.     Minimum allotment size - subdivision

Clause 4.1 (3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 states:

 

(3)  The size of any lot resulting from a 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.

 

Pursuant to Clauses 4.1(3) of the RLEP, the minimum allotment size for subdivision of land zoned R2 zone is 400sqm per allotment and the proposal contravenes the standard as contained in clause 4.1 (3) of RLEP 2012. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Lot 1 – 103 Donovan Avenue

Lot 2 – 105

Proposal

326.9sqm

276.9sqm

Variation

73.1sqm below the development standard equates to an 18% shortfall.

123.1sqm below the development standard equates to a 30% shortfall.

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012: Exception to a Development Standard

 

2.     Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to vary development standard

Clause 4.6 of the RLEP provides a mechanism for variation to development standards in certain circumstances.

 

Assessment against the applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the development standard

Pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of RLEP 2012 development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

 

(a)      that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

 

(b)     that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

(i)    the applicant's written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

 

(ii)    the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

 

The concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08-003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4) (b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by sub clause (3) there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1-Development Standards ("SEPP 1") and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 it remains of some assistance in relation to identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the minimum lot size standard are set out in clause 4.1(3) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

(a)      to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

 

(b)     to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views,

 

(c)      to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose.

 

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following key arguments for departure from the standard:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

It is considered that the justification submitted by the applicant substantiates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case when assessed against the objectives of the standard.

 

(a)    to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

 

The main objective for applying the minimum allotment size standard is to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties. There is no physical development sought other than that which has been erected on the site which is pre 1930’s and the subdivision will not result in any immediate adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. In this respect, the proposed allotments containing the semi’s will maintain its existing layout which is similar to the layout of other properties in the surrounding area that also containing old semi-detached housing.

 

The built form alone is not sufficient to address the objective of protecting amenity of neighbouring properties in so far as the potential for adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of the neighbouring properties must have regard to the broader context of the low density zone. Council has undertaken reviews of the minimum lot size in 1998, 2005 & 2012 and deliberated the questions of site area and form of subdivision making well considered decisions on the minimum allotment sizes and on the potential outcomes resulting from the proposed development standards. These reviews reflect a detailed understanding of the nature of development throughout the area and the integrity of the decisions being made about the form of development that the Council and the community expect in order to achieve a desired level of local amenity as well as housing mix and choice.

 

Despite the proposed land sizes of both lots having significant shortfalls to the current standards, it is not uncommon for semis constructed in the early 1900s through to the 1960s to be sited on small sized lots with small frontages and for these to have been mostly subdivided around the late 1950’s and 1960’s. The historical nature of the existing semi-detached dwellings on the one lot distinguishes itself from the questions of minimum site area and the provision of attached dual occupancies on lots of 450sqm to increase housing choice and which are not permitted to be subdivided.

 

(b)   to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views,

 

The proposed development will not affect any adjacent natural or cultural or special features associated with the site or surrounding developments.

 

(c)    to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose.

 

The development standards for minimum allotment sizes are intended to maintain the existing character of the R2 zone and to ensure acceptable environmental outcomes from housing that are suitably located with access to services, transport, shops and the like, whilst minimising the impact on adjoining neighbours and maintaining or enhancing neighbourhood character.

 

As indicated earlier, although there are significant shortfalls to the current standards, the historical nature of the existing semis and the consistency in size of other separately titled old semis in the locality are indicative of the suitability of the lots for development.

 

In addition, Council’s DCP which complements the RLEP in terms of providing more detailed guidelines stipulates the following objectives in respect of subdivision in the R2 zone:

·          To ensure land subdivision respects the predominant subdivision and development pattern in the locality.

·          To ensure land subdivision creates allotments that have adequate width and configuration, to deliver suitable building design and to maintain the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed lot sizes are of a similar size of immediately adjoining sites, and where sites are larger these contain single detached dwellings or more recent attached dual occupancies. Pertinent to this application, and as shown in cadastral and aerial photo below above, those lots in the surrounding street networks that contain old semi-detached dwellings are in fact sited and configured on similarly sized lots (size and frontage) to those being sought as part of this application. Therefore, having regard to the applicant’s submission and the objectives for subdivision, it is considered that the proposed subdivision both in terms of layout and building design will be respectful of the subdivision pattern in the locality.

 

Cadastral of subject site and surrounding area: The subject site (shaded red) adjoins and is located opposite allotments that contain old semi-detached dwellings on properties with similar frontages and areas to that being sought under this application.

 

Aerial photo of subject site and surrounding semi-detached dwellings. Of the sites bounded in red containing old semi-detached dwellings, the average allotment size is 299sqm.

 

Overall, having regard to the abovementioned objectives, the exception to the development standard addresses the consistency of the proposed development with the objectives of the standard.

 

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal achieves the objectives of the standard, fits in with the subdivision layout and character of similar developments and is considered to be representative of the most orderly and economic use of the site.

 

Will the proposed development be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out?

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the minimum lot size standard. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

•     To provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

•     To recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form or, in precincts undergoing transition, that contribute to the desired future character of the area.

•     To protect the amenity of residents.

•     To encourage housing affordability.

 

In respect of these objectives, the proposal is consistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

·      The amenity of residents will not be affected by any works associated with the subdivision

 

·      The proposed development is consistent with the separate tenure which exists on nearby properties whereby there are similarly sized and configured semi-detached dwellings

 

·      The subject site has been separately rated for a significant period.

 

·      The proposed separate tenure will not cumulatively transform the character and density within the R2 zone in so far as the above-mentioned circumstances apply.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it represents the most orderly use of the site, it does not contravene the purpose of the standard, and it maintains the low density character of the area and therefore satisfies the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 – Low Density Residential zone and objectives of the minimum allotment size standard.

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

(a)   whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

 

(b)   the public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for minimum allotment size  in clause 4.1 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the minimum lot size standard on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

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

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the DCP controls may be considered where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome. Hence, the consent authority must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternative solutions to achieve the objectives of the DCP Controls.

 

Section 2.1 Minimum lot size and frontage

The proposed development is subject to the DCP minimum 12m lot frontage control. The subject site has a frontage of 15.24m and the proposed development provides only 8.13m and 7.11m frontages for Lot 1 and Lot 2 respectively.  An assessment against the following objectives is therefore required:

 

·      To ensure land subdivision respects the predominant subdivision and development pattern of the locality.

 

·      To ensure land subdivision creates allotments that have adequate width and configuration, to deliver suitable building design and to maintain the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

Despite the proposed lots being well below the 12m minimum required for each allotment, the proposed frontages are generally consistent with the frontage widths of other allotment frontages in the vicinity.

 

Overall, characteristics such as the historical configuration of the development from street level and consistency with examples of older type semi-detached dwellings on similarly sized frontages in the vicinity will not create any potential to transform the low density character of the locality.

 

Parking

Section 3 of Part B7 of the DCP sets out Parking & Service Delivery Requirements for the proposed development for two two-bedroom semi-detached dwellings on separate lots. The proposed development requires at least one space for each of the semi-detached dwellings.

 

The proposed Lot 2 at No. 105 Donovan Avenue has sufficient car parking. However, proposed Lot 1 at 103 Donovan Avenue does not have parking and is unable to provide parking as the length between the front of the dwelling and the front boundary measures only 4.1m which would require modifications to be carried out to the front of the dwelling. 

 

Whilst other similarly configured semi-detached dwellings (mostly asymmetrical) have car spaces within their front yards these have largely been accommodated by alterations to their front façades.

 

In essence, the proposed subdivision will be simply reflecting what has been in existence for some time with the existing arrangement of the semi-detached dwellings.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

This development application is referred to Council because there is an Exception to the RLEP development standards for minimum lot sizes that exceed 10%.

 

The site is on the southern side of Donovan Avenue between Wild Street and Paine Street, Maroubra. It has 15.24m frontage across the whole of the site, and the proposed lots are similar in size and frontages to other lots in the vicinity. Moreover, the historical nature of the semi-detached dwellings precedes Councils provision for attached dual occupancies on lots of 450sqm in order to increase housing choice.  In addition, the proposed lot sizes are more consistent with the predominant subdivision pattern in the vicinity containing semi-detached dwellings in the surrounding area and the proposal will not alter the character of the area.

 

Overall, the application is accompanied by well-founded Exception to the development standard and the proposal will be compatible with the character of the subdivision pattern, and does not unacceptably impact on neighbouring dwellings or the surrounding area.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.1(3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Minimum subdivision lot size, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause and the zone, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure 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. 19/2015 to subdivide the land into two Torrens Title lots, at No. 103-105 Donovan Avenue Maroubra, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 103 - 105 Donovan Avenue, Maroubra 

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  10 March 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D18/15

 

 

Subject:                  29/36 McKeon Street, Maroubra (DA/370/2014)

Folder No:               DA/370/2014

Author:                    Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 82A review of the determination in relation to the size of the addition to the bedroom of Unit 29. Original consent: Alterations and addition to Unit 29 including increasing the size of the bedrooms at level 3 of the building (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Ms A D'Cruz

Owner:                    The Owners - Strata Plan No. 82375

Summary

Recommendation:   The original decision to restrict the increase in the size of the bedroom is confirmed.

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the requests of Councillors Andrews, Nash and Stavrinos.

1.  Proposal

 

The application is seeking a review under Section 82A of Environmental Planning and Assessment (EP&A) Act 1979 in relation to Council’s determination to approve the proposed addition at Unit 29 with a condition of consent to reduce the size of extension so that it matched the adjoining unit to the east.

 

The proposed alterations to Unit 29 will partially enclose the balcony resulting in an additional 11.7m² of floor area. A Clause 4.6 variation is also sought in relation to Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio as the proposed development will exceed the development standard for maximum FSR of 2:1 under RLEP 2012.

 

2.  History of the Development Application

 

The proposal was originally approved under delegated authority with a condition to reduce the extension to align with existing glass line of lot Nos. 21 and 25 for the following reasons:

 

1.  The proposed balcony enclosure protrudes much further than the existing balcony alignment and will contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development.

 

2.  The proposed balcony enclosure does not appropriately integrate into the overall architectural form and detail of the residential flat development and is not consistent with the overall scheme for the building.

 

3.  The proposed development would result in an undesirable planning precedence of piece meal balcony enclosures and does not comply with the controls as detailed in C2: Medium Density Residential and D7: Maroubra Beach Centre for Balconies.

 

4.  The proposed balcony enclosure would represent greater consistency with the overall building design should the balcony enclosure be setback 2.728m from the front boundary. This would form a more sympathetic design to the overall form of the development in particular given it would maintain a similar building alignment as lot nos. 21 and 25.

 

Note: The adjoining Unit 28/36 McKeon Street, Maroubra has also been approved with the same condition of consent for a similar form of development applied under DA/371/2014.

 

3.  Site

 

The subject site no. 36 is located on the northern side of McKeon Street between Hereward Street to the west and Marine Parade and Maroubra Beach to the east within B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone. The site has a frontage of 33.91m, depth of 32.615 and a total site area of 1105.97m². The site currently contains a mixed use four storey building containing 3 (three) retail units at the ground floor and 30 (thirty) residential units above with 2 (two) levels of basement parking. The site is located within the Maroubra Beach Commercial centre in close proximity to Maroubra Beach. The streetscape contains of a mixture of mixed use premises, two storey dwellings and two to four storey flat buildings.

 

Figure 1: Street photograph of the subject site and surrounds

 

4.  Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013 and the EP&A Act regulations. A letter of support from 5/40 McKeon Street, Maroubra was received as a result of the notification process.

 

5.  Key Issues

 

5.1 Section 82A Assessment:

Under the provisions of Section 82A of the EP&A, Act 1979, Council may review the determination if has notified the request for review in accordance with the development control plan and has considered any submissions made concerning the request. In the event that the applicant has made amendments to the development described in the original application, the consent authority must also be satisfied that the development, as amended, is substantially the same development as the development described in the original application. Council may review the determination, and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the determination.

 

The application remains the same as it was originally applied for and it has been notified to each person who made a submission in respect of the relevant development application. A submission of support was received as a result of the notification process.

 

The applicant provided the following reasons for requesting the review of determination:

5.2 Relevant Planning Instruments

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum floor space shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map, which is 2:1.

 

As the existing residential flat building was already approved with variation to floor space ratio, the proposed extension of subject property will also exceed the floor space ratio standard of Clause 4.4 under the RLEP 2012. The variation is addressed as follows:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

Gross Floor Area

Approved development

2.06:1 (RLEP 2012)

 

2286.41m²

Permissible Floor Space Ratio/Gross Floor Area

2:1

2211.94m²

Current proposal

2.078:1

2298.11m²

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

3.89%

86.17m²

 

The applicant has submitted a written justification that seeks to support the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6, which provides a mechanism for variation to development standards in certain circumstances.

 

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to Development Standards

(1)  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

(a)  to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

 

(b)  to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances.

 

Assessment against the applicant’s written justifications for the contravention of the development standard

 

Pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of RLEP 2012 development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

 

(a)      That compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

 

(b)     That there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

(i)      The applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3), and

 

(ii)      The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, and

 

The concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by subclause (3) there are various ways that may be invoked to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary as discussed by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. Although the Wehbe case was decided in relation to State Environmental Planning Policy No 1—Development Standards (“SEPP 1”) and not clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 it remains of some assistance in relation to identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the FSR standard are set out in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

(a)      To ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,

 

(b)      To ensure that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

 

(c)      To ensure that development is compatible with the scale and character of contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item,

 

(d)      To ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following key arguments for the departure from the floor space ratio standard:

 

·      Strict compliance is unreasonable as it will continue to render a significant area of the apartment unusable for majority of the year due to its southerly orientation and harsh coastal weather/winds

 

·      The proposal will result in substantially the same as approved existing building therefore it is not expected to compromise the objectives of Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios

 

·      The proposal will not alter the number of rooms, nor change the primary use of the rooms altered.

 

·      The proposal complies with SEPP 65 with a minimum of 15sqm of balcony space.

 

·      The proposal will improve the use of the apartment dwelling, benefiting the current and future occupants.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comments:

 

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of the maximum floor space ratio development standard, it is considered that subject to maintaining the condition that restricts the extension of the bedroom, the proposal will achieve a high level of consistency with the objectives and will result in a positive planning outcome.

 

(a)      To ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality,

 

The proposed extension of the bedrooms as sought by the applicant will increase the building envelope to an extent that will detrimentally impact on its aesthetics and the visual amenity of the streetscape.

 

(b)      To ensure that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

 

The proposed extension of the bedrooms protrude much further forward than the dominant glass line at that level of the building. Further, the cumulative impact of other partial balcony enclosures on the McKeon Street façade will compromise the overall architectural form and massing of the building. The proposed extension of the glass line for the subject unit can be differentiated from the treatment of the upper level that has a pergola and louvred screen to the balcony space in that the upper level has been designed in an integrated manner that stills maintains a substantive outdor area as part of the balcony space.

 

(c)      To ensure that development is compatible with the scale and character of contributory buildings in a conservation area or near a heritage item,

 

The development will not affect the scale and character of the adjoining Maroubra Bay Hotel, which is listed as a heritage item under Council’s LEP.

 

(d)      To ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

The proposed extension and potential precedent for other extensions will adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk due to the loss of depth in the façade.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s submission to further decrease the balcony space has not demonstrated that compliance with the floor space ratio standard is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Whether non-compliance with the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and the public benefit of maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument.

The proposed development and variation from the development standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will be conducive to the orderly and economic use of the site and contribute to the public benefit.

 

Has the applicant’s written request adequately addressed that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

The proposal subject to maintaining the setback in the original approval will achieve the planning objectives for the locality and is an appropriate form of the development.

 

Will the proposed development be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out?

The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone B1 – Neighbourhood Centre) are:

 

·        To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

 

·        To enable residential development that is well-integrated with, and supports the primary business function of, the zone.

 

·        To minimise the impact of development and protect the amenity of residents in the zone and in the adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

It is considered that the proposed development (subject to conditions restricting the size of the extension) is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form and would have an acceptable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

(a)   Whether contravention of the development standard raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning, and

 

(b)   The public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of  development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for floor space ratios in Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

Subject to maintaining the terms of the original approval variation from the adherence to the numerical floor space ratio standard and will be not be detrimental to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

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

 

5.3 Development Control Plan

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013

C2: Medium Density and D7: Maroubra Beach Centre

Based on the assessment carried out under the specific controls of Council's DCP as stipulated in a separate compliance table, the proposed extension will not comply with Part D7: Maroubra Beach Centre Clauses 7-Building Appearance and Façade Articulation and 12-Balconies and Private Open Space.  

 

The existing 4 storey mixed use development was approved with a nil setback to McKeon Street and with generous balcony depths for the upper floor levels which was intended to add articulation to the front façade as stipulated in the determination of DA/353/2002.

 

The bedroom extension sought by the applicant has the potential to encourage other units in the building to reduce their balcony depths which would detract from the architectural form and aesthetics of the building. Each unit under DA/353/2002 has been provided with a private open space or balcony ranging from 13m² to 43m² with a minimum depth of 2m. The existing third level balcony has depth of 3.06m and size of 19.278m² and the proposed extension will reduce the depth of balcony to 1.2m and its size to 7.56m². Even though variation to the size of balcony is minimally less than the required area of 8m2, the proposed depth is not considered sufficient in providing a functional secondary open space area. The proposed screening of the wall extension with planting to soften its appearance will further prevent the occupants from utilising the balcony area.

 

The applicant failed to provide accurate documentation to Council in relation to the approved setbacks of the building and consequently the condition of consent prescribed by DA/370/2014 should be amended. The original plans submitted by the applicant and received by Council on 18 June 2014 indicated that the existing front setback of lot nos. 21 and 25 on the third floor level was 2.728m, whilst now it is suggested under the current application that the front setbacks is 2.35m. Council’s records indicate that there is also nominal difference between the approved front setback under the modification application DA/353/2002/C and the dimension provided under the construction certificate CC/612/2008, which are 2.43m and 2.428m respectively. The general perception of the existing front setback of the third floor level is approximately 2.4m. To ensure that the proposed development integrates with the glass line of lot 25, the size of extension should be match that of the adjoining unit to the east.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The reduction in the size of the front balcony of the Unit 29 will result in an unsatisfactory design outcome for the existing building and also create undesirable precedent for the piecemeal balcony enclosures, which is strongly discouraged by Council. The proposed development is therefore not supported at its current form. The size of extension is to be reduced to satisfy Council’s DCP objectives in that the balcony design is integrated with the overall architectural form and detail of the building.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority under S82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, change its original determination of Development Application No. DA/370/2014 for Section 82A review of the determination in relation to the size of the addition to the bedroom of Unit 29 at 29/36 McKeon Street, Maroubra, in the following manner:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)  The proposed extension of the southern glass line of unit 29 at level 3 shall match that of the adjoining unit (lot 25) to the east.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 29/36 McKeon Street, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

  


Planning Committee                                                                                                  10 March 2015

 

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M1/15

 

 

Subject:                  34 Milford Street, Randwick (DA/505/2014) Deferred

Folder No:               DA/505/2014

Author:                    Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

The DA for demolition of an existing dwelling at 34 Milford St Randwick and construction of a new three storey residential flat building containing 5 units, basement parking for seven vehicles, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works was the approved at the Planning Committee meeting held on 10 February 2015. This determination was subsequently rescinded at Council’s meeting held on 24 February 2015 and the following resolution was carried:

 

‘(Roberts/Matson) that”

 

a)     the matter be deferred with the invitation extended to the applicant to submit amended plans to:

 

•       increase the setbacks on the western and northern boundaries to address amenity issues of the adjoining neighbours.

 

•       move the air conditioning unit adjacent to the boundary of No. 32 Milford Street to the Judge Street frontage in order to reduce the noise impact on No. 32 Milford Street.

 

b)     the house at No. 32 Milford Street be assessed for heritage listing under the Randwick LEP because of its social and architectural significance.’

 

Issues

 

The applicant has advised Council that they are prepared to make the following amendments to the proposed development and have provided a sketch plan (attached) indicating the proposed changes:

 

1.  Provide a full length covered portico to the western entrance.

The covered portico entry way as shown in the sketch plan would appear to be larger than required and should only be enclosed on the western side so that it does not constitute gross floor area pursuant to RLEP 2012. A suitable condition is included in the recommendation requiring the walkway to be limited in width to 2m and situated adjacent to the eastern wall of the proposed building. No objection is raised to this amendment subject to the detailed design being provided prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

2.  Move AC units from western boundary to eastern side.

No objection is raised to this amendment and a suitable condition is included in the recommendation

 

3.  Provide non trafficable planter boxes to the northern balcony at first floor.

It is proposed to install a planter box along the north western end of the first and floor balcony in order to restrict access and the overlooking potential from this section of the balcony. It should be noted the northern balcony on the second floor is narrower at its western end having a depth of only 1m. It is also off a bedroom which is used less intensively than a living area.  No objection is raised to this amendment subject to the detailed design being provided prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

4.  Align the western elevation so that the stairwell and lift are flush with the remaining wall.

The proposed amendment would increase the setback to the western boundary and provide a minimum side set back of 4.3m well in excess of the 2.5m minimum. This will result in the proposed building moving closer the eastern boundary having a 1m setback from Judge St. No objection is raised to this amendment subject to the detailed design being provided prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The applicant has submitted amendments in response to Council’s resolution. Should Council accept these changes, the recommendation includes suitable conditions that would require the detailed design of each of these elements to be approved prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

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. 505/2014 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new three storey residential flat building containing 5 units and basement parking for seven vehicles, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works at No. 34 Milford Street, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to 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

Dated

Received by Council

DA03 C

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA04 C

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA05 C

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA06 C

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA07 C

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA08 C

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA09 C

MHN Design Union

05.09.2014

05.09.2014

DA10 C

MHN Design Union

05.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA11 C

MHN Design Union

05.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA12 C

MHN Design Union

05.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA018A

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

Draft Strata Plan Sheets 1 of 5 to 5 of 5 Issue A

Eric Scerri

Undated

30 July, 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

551063M_03

24 July, 2014

30 July, 2014

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.  A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the western and northern edges of the balcony at the rear of unit 201 on the second floor. On the northern edge the screen is to extend east to screen the first sliding door window as shown on the western elevation (drawing DA11 C). 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.

 

b.  The privacy screen provided to the northern edge of the first floor rear unit 102 is to extend east to screen the first of the sliding doors shown on the western elevation (drawing DA11C). The screen is to be semi-operable to preclude opening beyond a 45 degree angle to from right to left. 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.

 

c.   Section detail of the amendments required in 2 a. and 2 b. and all privacy screens within the development to a scale of 1:50 is to be submitted to and approved by Councils Manager of Development Assessment prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

d.  The air conditioning units on the western boundary as shown on the ground floor plan (drawing DA04 C) must be relocated to the eastern (Judges St) side of the site. Details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

a.   The washing line area shown at the front of unit 001 on the ground floor (drawing DA04C) is to be removed. Details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

e.  The stormwater pipes shown on the western elevation (drawing DA12 C) shall be relocated to run straight down the stair wall north of the louvre screen. Details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

f.   The courtyard shown as allocated to Part lot 1 (ground floor front unit) on the draft Strata plan is to be allocated as common property. An amended draft Strata Plan is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessment prior to issue of the construction certificate.

 

g.  The proposed amendments indicated in Sketch plan DA05 received by Council on 26 February 2015 must be incorporated into a detailed set of amended plans to be submitted for approval by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

h.  The covered walkway indicated in Sketch plan DA05 received by Council on 26 February 2015 must only be enclosed on the western side, be limited in width to 2m and situated adjacent to the western wall of the proposed building. Details to be submitted for approval by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to the issuing of a construction certificate

 

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.       a)   Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

Section 94A Development Contributions

5.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 12 July 2012, based on the development cost of $1,272,850.00  the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $12,728.50.

 

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. Please contact Council on telephone 9399 0999 or 1300 722 542 for the indexed contribution amount prior to payment.

To calculate the indexed levy, the following formula must be used:

IDC = ODC x CP2/CP1

 

Where:

IDC = the indexed development cost

ODC = the original development cost determined by the Council

CP2 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney, as published by the ABS in  respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of payment

CP1 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney as published by the ABS in respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of imposition of the condition requiring payment of the levy.

 

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:

 

·           $8000.00          -   Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Electricity Substation

8.       The applicant must liaise with Ausgrid prior to obtaining a construction certificate (for any above ground works), to determine whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development. Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within the site and shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on relevant construction certificate and landscape plans.

 

Sydney Water

9.       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.

 

Landscape Plan

10.     The Certifying Authority/PCA must ensure that the Landscape Plan submitted as part of the approved Construction Certificate is substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plan by Zenith Landscape Designs, dwg 14-2828 L01, dated 27.5.14.

 

Protection of neighbouring trees

11.     In order to ensure retention of the two Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s, T12-13) which are located wholly on the adjoining private property to the west, no.32, against the common boundary, as well as the three Banksia serrata (Saw Toothed Banksia’s, T9-11) located  beyond the northern site boundary, in the adjoining public walkway (33R Pitt Street) in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.     All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show their retention, with the position and diameter of both of their trunks and canopy to be clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.     The Construction Certificate plans must show that the western wall of the proposed basement level will finish at a minimum offset of 2900mm from the western site boundary, as shown on DA03B.

 

c.     That part of the basement level within a radius of 4 metres, measured off the respective common boundaries, adjacent the centreline of any of their trunks, must be constructed using contiguous bored piers, sheet piling or a similar method that will not require bulk excavations and earthworks.

 

d.     All initial excavations associated with demolition of the existing masonry fences/walls, along either the western site boundary, adjacent T12-13, as well as along the northern site boundary, adjacent T9-11; or; for footings for the basement in these areas, within a radius of 3 metres of their trunks, must be performed by hand, to a minimum depth of 600mm.

 

e.     Any roots encountered which are in direct conflict with the approved works that need to be pruned, may be cut cleanly by hand, with the affected area to be backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

 

f.      To prevent collapse of the soil profile and failure of these trees, in the time between when existing walls are demolished and any new walls are constructed, temporary shoring must be provided adjacent the tree, with a suitable system to be approved by the PCA, prior to demolition.

 

g.     Where the trunks or branches of any of these trees require physical protection, this may be achieved by rapping geo-textile, underfelt or layers of Hessian, to a height of approximately 2m above ground level (for trunks), to which, 2m lengths of 50mm x 100mm hardwood timbers, spaced at 150mm centres shall be placed around its circumference, and are to be secured by 8 gauge wires or steel strapping at 300mm spacing. NO nailing to the trunk.

 

h.     The applicant is not authorised to perform any other works to these trees, and shall contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 should any other work appear necessary, with the applicant required to cover all costs associated with such work, to Council’s satisfaction, prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate.

 

i.      The PCA must ensure compliance with these requirements on-site during the course of construction, and prior to issuing any type of Occupation Certificate.

 

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

12.     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.

 

Design Alignment levels

13.     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:

 

Milford Street Frontage – Match the existing Council footpath level along the full site frontage.

 

Judge Street Frontage

 

·           Basement Garage Entrance – RL 39.35 AHD

·           Pedestrian Entrance (Northeast Corner of site) RL 39.70 AHD

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundaries as issued by Council 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.

 

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

 

14.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $1527.00 calculated at $50.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

i.    Roof areas

ii.   Paved areas

iii.   Grassed areas

iv.   Garden areas

 

d)     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.

 

e)     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.

 

f)      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.

 

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

 

Council at the Planning Committee held on 2 December 2014 resolved that;

 

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

 

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

 

i.   Directly to the kerb and gutter or drainage system in front of the subject site in either Milford St or Judge St; or

 

i.   Directly into Council’s underground drainage system located in Milford Street via the existing kerb inlet pit; or

 

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

 

c)       Should stormwater be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, an on-site stormwater detention system must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the site does not exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 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)        If connecting to Council’s underground drainage system, a reflux valve shall be provided (within the site) over the pipeline discharging from the site to ensure that stormwater from Council drainage system does not surcharge back into the site stormwater system.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

p)       Site discharge pipelines shall cross the verge at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the kerb line and must not encroach across a neighbouring property’s frontage unless approved in writing by Council’s Development Engineering Coordinator.

 

q)       Any onsite detention/infiltration systems shall be located in areas to be dedicated as common property.

 

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

 

Site seepage & Dewatering

17.     Site seepage and sub-soil drainage (from planter boxes etc) must comply with the following requirements:

 

a)       Seepage/ground water and subsoil drainage (including from planter boxes etc) must not be collected & discharged directly or indirectly to Council’s street gutter or underground drainage system. This includes no discharging of seepage/ground water into an on-site detention system.

 

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

 

c)       The walls of the basement level/s of the building are to be waterproofed/tanked to restrict the entry of any seepage water and subsoil drainage into the basement level/s of the building and the stormwater drainage system for the development.

 

d)       Sub-soil drainage systems may discharge via infiltration subject to the hydraulic consultant/engineer being satisfied that the site and soil conditions are suitable and the seepage is able to be fully managed within the site, without causing a nuisance to any premises and ensuring that it does not drain or discharge (directly or indirectly) to the street gutter.

 

e)       Details of the proposed stormwater drainage system including methods of tanking/waterproofing the basement level/s and any sub-soil drainage systems (as applicable) must be prepared or approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Professional Engineer to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

Waste Management

18.     A Waste Management Plan detailing the waste and recycling storage and removal strategy for all of the development, is required.

 

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.

 

19.     The garbage room shall be sized to contain a minimum of 6 x 240 litre bins (comprising 3 garbage bins & 3 recycle bins) and with adequate provisions for access to all bins.  Details showing compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

BASIX Requirements

20.     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.

 

 

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.

 

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

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

 

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

 

Dilapidation Reports

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

24.     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and NSW EPA 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 EPA Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, is to be implemented throughout the works.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works 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

-     Details of re-use, recycling and disposal of waste demolition/building materials

-     Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

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

 

Notes

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

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

 

Construction Traffic Management

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

 

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

 

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

 

28.     A detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Intergrated Transport Section, prior to:

 

a)     commencement of any site work [or]

a)       a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must include the following details, to the satisfaction of Council:

·       A description of the demolition, excavation and construction works

·       A site plan/s showing the site, roads, footpaths, site access points and vehicular movements

·       Any proposed road and/or footpath closures

·       Proposed site access locations for personnel, deliveries and materials

·       Size, type and estimated number of vehicular movements (including removal of excavated materials, delivery of materials and concrete to the site)

·       Provision for loading and unloading of goods and materials

·       Impacts of the work and vehicular movements on the road network, traffic and pedestrians

·       Proposed hours of construction related activities and vehicular movements to and from the site

·       Current/proposed approvals from other Agencies and Authorities (including NSW Roads & Traffic Authority, Police and State Transit Authority)

·       Any activities proposed to be located or impact upon Council’s road, footways or any public place

·       Measures to maintain public safety and convenience

 

29.     Any necessary approvals must be obtained from NSW Police, Roads & Maritime Services, Transport, and relevant Service Authorities, prior to commencing work upon or within the road, footway or nature strip.

 

        Public Utilities

30.     A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services located on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the building works.  The assessment should include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of services.

 

Sydney Water

31.     Prior to the commencement of building works the applicant is to liaise with Sydney Water (A Water Servicing Coordinator) in regards to the relocation/removal of the Sewer Vent Shaft located on the Judge Street frontage as the Council footpath at this location will have to be lowered to meet the new driveway levels for the basement garage.

 

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

 

Note: The above evidence shall include details regarding the Sewer Vent Shaft and the Aerial Bundling of Cables along the Council passageway at the northern boundary.

       

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

 

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

33.     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

34.     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

35.     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

36.     The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·       Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and Regulations

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

·       WorkCover NSW Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·       Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·       The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations

·       Relevant EPA Guidelines

·       Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

37.     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

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

39.     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)     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

40.     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.

 

41.     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.

 

42.     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;

·       as may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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.

 

 

Building Encroachments

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

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

44.     Any openings within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place (i.e. for proposed drainage works or installation of services), must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of Council:

 

a)     A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road / Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

 

b)     Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer must be notified at least 48 hours in advance of commencing any excavation works and also immediately upon completing the works (on 9399 0691 or 0409 033 921 during business hours), to enable any necessary inspections or works to be carried out.

 

c)     Relevant Road / Asset Opening Permit fees, construction fees, inspection fees and security deposits, must be paid to Council prior to commencing any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or other public place,

 

d)     The owner/developer must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate or occupation of the development (whichever is sooner).

 

e)     Excavations and trenches must be back-filled and compacted in accordance with AUSPEC standards 306U.

 

f)      Excavations or trenches located upon a road or footpath are required to be provided with 50mm depth of cold-mix bitumen finish, level with the existing road/ground surface, to enable Council to readily complete the finishing works at a future date.

 

g)     Excavations or trenches located upon turfed areas are required to be back-filled, compacted, top-soiled and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf.

 

h)     The work and area must be maintained in a clean, safe and tidy condition at all times and the area must be thoroughly cleaned at the end of each day’s activities and upon completion.

 

i)      The work can only be carried out in accordance with approved hours of building work as specified in the development consent, unless the express written approval of Council has been obtained beforehand.

 

j)      Sediment control measures must be implemented in accordance with the conditions of development consent and soil, sand or any other material must not be allowed to enter the stormwater drainage system or cause a pollution incident.

 

k)     The owner/developer must have a Public Liability Insurance Policy in force, with a minimum cover of $10 million and a copy of the insurance policy must be provided to Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place.

 

Stormwater Drainage

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

 

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

 

46.     Any required dewatering must be monitored by the consulting Engineer/s to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority and documentary evidence of compliance with the relevant conditions of consent and dewatering requirements must be provided to the principal certifying authority and the Council.

 

The site conditions and fluctuations in the water table are to be reviewed by the consulting Engineer prior to and during the excavation/construction process, to ensure the suitability of the excavation and dewatering process and compliance with Council's conditions of consent.

 

47.     A separate written approval from Council is required to be obtained in relation to any proposed discharge of groundwater into Council’s drainage system external to the site, in accordance with the requirements of Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

Basement Garage

48.     The internal access driveway must be constructed to match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council) as well as to the 1:20 grade as shown on the submitted Basement Plan (Drwg No DA03B dated 28/7/14)

 

          Tree Removal

49.     Due to their small size and insignificance, no objections are raised to removing any existing vegetation throughout the site where necessary so as to accommodate the proposed works as shown, including the Privet and Cotoneaster in the front setback, in the southeast corner, as both are weed species, with this approval subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping.

 

Pruning of neighbouring trees

50.     Permission is granted for the minimal and selective pruning of only those lower growing, lower order branches from the eastern aspects of the two Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s, T12-13) which are located wholly on the adjoining property to the west, at no.32, as well as from the southern aspects of the two Banksia serrata (Saw Toothed Banksia’s, T9-11) located beyond the northern site boundary, growing within the adjoining public walkway (33R Pitt Street), only where they overhang the common boundaries, into the subject site, and need to be pruned in order to avoid damage to the trees; or; interference with the works.

 

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

 

52.     All pruning must be undertaken by an Arborist who holds a minimum of AQF Level III in Arboriculture, and to the requirements of Australian Standard AS 4373-2007 'Pruning of Amenity Trees,’ and NSW Work Cover Code of Practice for the Amenity Tree Industry (1998).

 

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

53.     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

54.     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.

 

55.     A report or correspondence prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person shall be obtained prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates that noise and vibration from the air conditioning plant and equipment will satisfy the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant regulations, guidelines and conditions of approval.  A copy of the report or correspondence is to be included in the occupation certificate documentation.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

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

a)       Construct a full width concrete heavy duty vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to the premises to Council’s specifications and requirements.

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

b)       Reconstruct and regrade the Council footpath along the full Judge Street site frontage to meet the new Council driveway levels. Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

57.     Prior to issuing a final occupation certificate or occupation of the development (whichever is sooner), the owner/developer must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

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

 

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

 

a)     Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Civil Works Application Form, prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, together with payment of the relevant fees.

 

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

 

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

 

Service Authorities

Sydney Water Requirements

59.     A section 73 Compliance Certificate, under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.  An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  For details, please refer to the Sydney Water web site www.sydneywater.com.au > Building and developing > Developing your Land > Water Servicing Coordinator or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions may take some time and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate or Subdivision Certificate, whichever the sooner.

 

        Ausgrid

60.     The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines located along the northern site frontage, on the Council passageway and over/across Judge St to its eastern side,  to be aerial bundled. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be bundled. All cables most be aerial bundled to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

61.     Should the overhead power feed for the development site come from a mains power distribution pole located on the Council passageway, opposite the northern rear boundary, then the applicant must meet the full cost for Ausgrid to provide the power feed from the distribution pole in the street to the development site via an underground UGOH connection.

 

Stormwater Drainage

62.     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).

 

63.     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.

 

64.     The applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council certification from a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer, confirming that the walls of the basement have been fully tanked and waterproofed to prevent the entry of all groundwater in the basement level/s and that any required sub-soil drainage systems have been provided in accordance with the conditions of this consent..

 

Street Tree Planting

65.     As part of the external civil works that will be performed along the length of the Judge Street frontage, as described in the ‘Council Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Opening’ condition above, the applicant must also cover Council’s costs to supply, install and maintain new street trees in this area.

 

66.     The applicant must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 to obtain the cost for this work, with the specified fee needing to be paid into Tree Amenity Income, at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

67.     Once payment has been made, Council’s officer must be notified of the receipt number, and giving at least four working weeks’ notice (allow longer for public holidays or extended periods of rain) to arrange for their planting.


 

Public Walkway trees

68.     Should it be necessary to remove and replace any of the three Banksia serrata (Saw Toothed Banksia’s, T9-11) located in the public walkway adjacent the northern site boundary (33R Pitt Street) for any reason as part of the proposed works, the applicant must cover all costs for this, with the specified fee needing to be paid into Tree Amenity Income, at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

Landscaping

69.     Prior to issuing any type of Occupation Certificate, certification from a qualified professional in the landscape/horticultural industry must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, confirming the date that the completed landscaping within the site was inspected, and that it has been installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plan by Zenith Landscape Designs, dwg 14-2828 L01, dated 27.5.14.

 

70.     Suitable strategies must be implemented to ensure that the landscaping is maintained in a healthy and vigorous state, until maturity, for the life of the development.

 

71.     The nature-strip upon Council's footways 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. It must be completed wholly at the applicant’s cost, to Council’s satisfaction, and prior to issuing any Occupation Certificate.

 

Waste Management

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

 

73.     The waste storage area shall be clearly signposted.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION/STRATA CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

77.     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.

 

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

 

The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be prepared and specified 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 Engineers on 9399 0881.

 

Note: 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.

 

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

 

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

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

External Lighting

81.     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.

 

 

Plant & Equipment

82.     The operation of all plant and equipment upon 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

83.     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

84.     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.

 

Stormwater Detention/Infiltration  System

85.     The detention area/infiltration system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

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 $3,000) 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      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.

 

A2      In accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, building works, including associated demolition and excavation works (as applicable) must not be commenced until:

 

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

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

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

 

A3      Council’s Building Certification & Fire Safety team can issue your Construction Certificate 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 on 9399 0944.

 

A4      A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council 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 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.

 

A6      Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

A8      Smoke alarms are required to be installed in all residential dwellings, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and the Building Code of Australia.  Details should be included in the construction certificate application.

 

A9      Demolition work and removal of asbestos materials:

§  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.

 

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

 

A10    Any external lighting to the premises should be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

A11    Building owners and occupiers should consider implementing appropriate measures to prevent children from falling from high-level window openings and balconies (e.g. by installing window locking devices; installing heavy-duty screens to window openings; limiting the dimensions of any openings to 125mm; ensuring balustrades to balconies are at least 1m high and; locating fixtures, fittings and furniture away from high-level windows and balconies).

 

For further information about preventing falls from windows and balconies refer to www.health.nsw.gov.au/childsafety or pick-up a brochure from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Executive Report - 34 Milford Street, Randwick on 10/02/2015

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

2.

DA Compliance Report - 34 Milford Street, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

3.

Revised First Floor Plan

 

 

 

 



Planning Committee                                                                                                  10 March 2015

 

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M2/15

 

 

Subject:                  Affordable Housing Dwelling at Lot 3 Strata Plan (SP) 89004, 495 Bunnerong Road, Matraville, Classification of Land under the Local Government Act 1993.

Folder No:               F2004/07991

Author:                    Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner      

 

Introduction

 

On 11 December 2014 the Council received ownership of one further affordable housing unit being Lot 3 in Strata Plan (SP) 89004, 495 Bunnerong Road, Matraville. The unit which is situated within the Peninsula residential development in Matraville is being tenanted under the Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Program.

 

The purpose of this report is to seek Council resolution to classify its affordable housing unit, being Lot 3 in Strata Plan (SP) 89004, 495 Bunnerong Road, Matraville as ‘operational’ under the Local Government Act 1993, for the purposes of Council’s affordable rental housing program.

 

The proposal to classify the subject property to operational land has been publicly advertised for 28 days, as required by the Local Government Act 1993.  No submissions were received.

 

The report recommends that Council classify the affordable housing unit at Lot 3, in Strata Plan (SP) 89004, 495 Bunnerong Road, Matraville, ‘operational’ under the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Background

 

On 11 December 2014 Council received ownership of an affordable housing unit being Lot 3 in Strata Plan (SP) 89004 at 495, Bunnerong Road Matraville. This unit was negotiated under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Council’s Local Environment Plan.

 

Through this process, council officers successfully negotiated with developers of major sites the transfer of sixteen dwellings in total to Randwick City Council.  To date, the Council has received twelve out of the sixteen dwellings for use as rental accommodation in line with the Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Program and Procedures.  The Council expects to receive ownership of the final four dwellings before the end of 2015.  These four dwellings are located within the Prince Henry at Little Bay development site.

 

The Local Government Act 1993 (the Act) requires that all public land be classified as either operational or community, which includes the affordable housing properties acquired by Council.  The Act further provides that should a decision not be taken by Council to classify the acquired land within 3 months after transfer, the land will automatically default to a ‘community’ land classification.

 

A ‘community’ classification would limit Council’s capacity to cost effectively manage its affordable housing stock under the Affordable Rental Housing Program. Council’s Solicitor has confirmed that an ‘operational’ classification is appropriate for Council’s affordable housing properties.

Issues

 

The decision to classify all affordable housing units as ‘operational’ land was made by Council at its Health, Building & Community Meeting of 13 June 2006.  The report entitled “Affordable Rental Housing Program + Procedures” discussed the relative merits of an operational land classification.

 

This classification will not change the status of the properties for use as affordable housing accommodation but will enable Council to make timely decisions relating to maintenance liabilities, as well as ensuring its affordable housing stock continues to match the target group’s needs.

 

Methods of classification

The Local Government Act provides for two methods for classifying public land:

 

1)  By local environmental plan (LEP)

 

2)  By resolution of the Council (for land acquired after 1 July 1993) – Any acquired land, if not classified via a Council resolution within 3 months from the acquisition date, is taken to have been classified under a LEP as community land.

 

Classifying the property via a Council resolution (Method 2) is considered more time and resource efficient and is the purpose of this report.

 

Public notice

Section 34 of the Act requires Council to give public notice of its proposal to classify land. A period of not less than 28 days must be specified for the receipt of public submissions.

 

Public notice of Council’s proposal to classify the subject property as operational land was included in the Southern Courier. The general public was invited to make submissions during the advertised period from 27 January 2015 to 24 February 2014. Information was also displayed at Council’s customer service centre, libraries and on its website.

 

No submissions were received in response to the public notification process.

 

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.

Direction  6c:    Housing diversity, accessibility and adaptability to support our diverse community is enhanced.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact associated with the proposed resolution. However, should Council not adopt the proposed resolution, it will affect the ease with which the affordable housing unit may be sold or leased. This will have long term financial implications for Council’s asset management, as well as the success of its Affordable Rental Housing Program.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

An ‘operational’ land classification for Council’s affordable housing properties is consistent with the objectives set out in Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Program and Procedures (endorsed on 13 June 2006).

 

The proposal to classify the subject property to operational was publicly notified in accordance with the requirements of the Act.  No submissions were received.

 

The process of achieving the ‘operational’ land classification via a Council resolution needs to be completed promptly (by 11 March 2015) to avoid a default to ‘community’ classification.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council resolve to classify the affordable housing unit Lot 3 Strata Plan (SP) 89004, 495 Bunnerong Road, Matraville as ‘operational’ land in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil