HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
CIVIC CENTRE, MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE.
__________________________________
SUMMARY OF ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE' REPORT
TO THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 98 01 28TH JANUARY, 1998-
05:01 Ward Councillors' Reports
05:02 Development Applications - Hurstville Ward
05:02.01 Shop 2, 183B Forest Road, Hurstville (D.A. 80/96)
Request for Permanent Approval of Trading Hours to 3.00 am Monday to Saturday
05:02.02 313 Forest Road, Hurstville (Cnr. Forest Road and Bridge Street) (D.A. 202/97)
Section 102 Modification to Existing Development Consent for a 9 Storey Mixed Use Development
05:03 Development Applications - Penshurst Ward
05:03.01 477-479 King Georges Road, Beverly Hills (D.A. 314/97)
Chinese Seafood Restaurant
05:03.02 28 Pitt Street, Mortdale (D.A. 174/97)
Brothel
05:04 Development Applications - Peakhurst Ward
05:04.01 51, 51A, 53 Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno (D.A. 110/97)
Residential Development Containing 8 Dwellings and Parking for 17 Cars
05:04.02 91 Mulga Road, Oatley (D.A. 249/97)
Mixed Use Development Consisting of Ground Floor Retail and Office Suites and Two Levels of Residential for Six (6) Units With Basement Parking for 20 Vehicles
05:05 Miscellaneous and Other Matters
05:05.01 Development Applications Received Between 1 December and 31 December, 1997. (File T/01244)
05:05.02 Development Applications Determined Under Delegated Authority from 1 December to 31 December, 1997. (File T/01243)
05:05.03 Appeal Against Council's Refusal Of DA 114/97 - 15 Coleridge Street, Riverwood - For A 2 Storey Residential Development Containing 5 Units Over 1 Level of Basement Parking
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION ONE
REPORT NO 01TO THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 98 01 28TH JANUARY, 1998-
REPORT NO 01TO THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 98 01 28TH JANUARY, 1998-
The General Manager
Hustville City Council
The Civic Centre
HURSTVILLE
Dear Sir,
Hereunder is my report No.01 to be submitted to the DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING Committee:-
05.01 WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORTS
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.02.01 SHOP 2, 183B FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 80/96)
REQUEST FOR PERMANENT APPROVAL OF TRADING HOURS TO 3.00 AM MONDAY TO SATURDAY
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)
- Applicant : Ralph Ciccia
Proposal : REQUEST FOR PERMANENT
APPROVAL OF TRADING HOURS
TO 3.00 AM MONDAY TO SATURDAY
AND 1.00 AM SUNDAY
Zoning : Zone No. 3(b) - City Centre Business
Owners : Yiu Kin Liu
PRECIS OF REPORT
1. The use of Shop 2, 183B Forest Road, Hurstville as a Pizza Restaurant was originally given approval under DA 130/84 on 24 April, 1984.
2. The original consent limited hours of operation to 12.00 midnight Monday to Friday and 1.00 am Saturday and Sunday.
3. In March, 1996 Development Application 80/96 was lodged requesting trading hours be extended to 3.00 am Monday to Saturday.
4. Council approved DA 80/96 in June 1996, but limited the approval for extended trading hours to a six (6) month period with the onus being placed on the applicant to request any extension of approval prior to the expiry of the six (6) months.
5. At its meeting held on 9 April, 1997 Council approved the extended trading hours requested by the applicant for a further six (6) months and required that the applicant apply to Council for any further extensions at the expiry of the six (6) month period.
6. Solicitors on behalf of the lessee have now lodged a further request for trading hours to 3.00 am Monday to Saturday to be given approval on a permanent basis.
7. It is recommended that the request for continued approval for a 3.00 am closing time be refused.
Background
Council would be well aware of the problems of rowdy and anti-social behaviour which have occurred on an on-going basis in the vicinity of the Roundabout Hotel. Shops 2 and 3, 183B Forest Road have been subject to similar problems and numerous complaints that close of trading hours for these businesses have not been adhered to, have been received from the Police and members of the community in the past. At present no complaints are being received about these shops.
Existing Trading Hours
Shop 2, 183B Forest Road was originally approved by Council in 1984 for use as a Pizza and Kebab Shop. Development Consent 130/84 issued on 24 April, 1984, approved the use, but restricted the trading hours of the shop to 5.00 pm to 12.00 midnight Monday to Friday and 5.00 pm to 1.00 am Saturday and Sunday.
In March, 1994 the lessee of the Pizza Shop applied to Council for an extension of trading hours to 3.00 am on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday and 5.00 am on Tuesday, Friday and Saturday. This application was refused by Council on 6 April, 1994 for the following reasons :
- 1. The extension of trading hours would exacerbate the congregation of persons in the immediate area which encourages loutish behaviour, and in some instances results in the damage of public and private property.
2. The continuation and increase of littering associated with the operations of the take-away Pizza business to the immediate area such as carpark areas and the local street system.
Solicitors acting on behalf of the proprietor of Shop 2, the Pizza and Kebab shop, lodged a request in November, 1996 for Council to approve the 3.00 am closing time from Monday to Saturday and 1.00 am on Sunday on a permanent basis. Prior to presenting this request to Council for determination, an opinion was sought from the Police, with the following response being reproduced in full for Council's information :
- "Reference is made to your correspondence of 31 December 1996 seeking comments in relation to a Development Application seeking approval for an extension of trading to 3.00 pm to 3.00 am on Monday to Saturday and 5.00 pm to 1.00 am on Sunday.
The following information is supplied in answer to the issues raised in your correspondence.
(1) During an inspection of the Roundabout Hotel in 1995 the District Licensing Co-Ordinator indicated the abovementioned premises were operating far later than 3.00 am.
(2) At 3.30 am on Wednesday 8 January 1997 a fight broke out outside the Roundabout Hotel which resulted in approximately 300 persons gathering in and around the Hotel, in the Palm Court Carpark and at the shop located at 2/183B Forest Road. The problems for Police were exacerbated by the fact that the abovementioned shop and neighbouring shop at 3/183B Forest Road operate according to the crowd at the Roundabout Hotel, often trading with large groups of persons gathering at these locations.
Both shops situated at 183B Forest Road operate according to the crowd at the Roundabout Hotel, often trading late on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday mornings.
When intoxicated persons are denied entry to the Hotel late at night, it is common for these persons to gather in the Palm Court Carpark or in the premises 2 and 3, 183B Forest Road.
(3) It is my recommendation that both premises cease trading at 2.30 am and that the closing times be monitored by Council."
- A. THAT Council as the consent authority grant a six (6) month consent for the operating hours of Shop 2, 183B Forest Road, Hurstville, being 3.00 pm to 3.00 am Monday to Saturday and 5.00 pm to 1.00 am Sunday and that this approval be subject to the applicant lodging any request for further extension prior to the expiry of the six (6) month period.
B. THAT legal action be taken in the event that Shops 2 or 3, 183 Forest Road, Hurstville trade beyond their approved hours.
Current Application
In September, 1997 Council received a further request from the Solicitors acting on behalf of the lessee of the subject shop, that Council consent to a permanent extension of operating hours in accordance with the limits approved in Development Consent DA 80/96. Prior to presenting this request to Council for determination, comments were again sought from the Hurstville Local Area Command to establish the attitude of the Police to the application. The response from the Police is reproduced for Council's information :
- "There is no current information available within the Local Area Command in relation to the closing times of the Pizza Restaurant.
The subject premises has not come under police notice recently, although there had been a number of incidents prior to this Commands previous response to you.
Although there is a perception that the premises determines its closing times on the patronage of the Roundabout Hotel, this information is not confirmed. Accordingly, police have no comment to offer in relation to preferred closing times."
In determining its attitude to the request before it Council needs to take into account the following factors :
i) The previous problems of rowdy and anti-social behaviour which have occurred in the vicinity of the subject shop.
ii) The comments of the Police that they are not aware of the previous problems being repeated within recent times.
iii) Council's resolution of 26 February, 1997, wherein it considered the Review of Late Trading in NSW Licensed Premises which was undertaken by the Department of Gaming and Racing and resolved that late trading for licensed premises should be limited to a 1.00 am closing time.
iv) Council's most recent resolution of 17 December, 1997 relating to the government's Review of Late Trading, which stated :
- "THAT Council write to the Minister for Gaming and Racing and reiterate that Hurstville Council requests that the State Government give consideration to a 1.00 am closing time for licensed premises as set out in Council's previous submission on the review of late trading of licensed premises."
Conclusion
In considering the applicant's request for permanent approval to trade to 3.00 am Monday through to Saturday, it is clear that Council has had continuing concerns regarding the anti-social behaviour which has occurred in the vicinity and has therefore felt the need to limit all licensed premises to a closing time of 1.00 am. Based on Council's most recent resolution which reiterates its earlier preference for a blanket 1.00 am closing time, it is recommended that the current request for continued approval for a 3.00 am closing time be refused.
If Council wishes to consider an alternative whilst the State Government considers the issue of closing times of licensed premises then a further six (6) or twelve (12) month temporary approval could be granted.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.01 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation SHOP 2, 183B FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 80/96)
REQUEST FOR PERMANENT APPROVAL OF TRADING HOURS TO 3.00 AM MONDAY TO SATURDAY
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)
. Recommendation SHOP 2, 183B FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE (D.A. 80/96)
REQUEST FOR PERMANENT APPROVAL OF TRADING HOURS TO 3.00 AM MONDAY TO SATURDAY
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT Council as consent authority refuse the request for a further extension to the 3.00 am trading hours approved in DA 80/96 and that the subject shop therefore be limited to a closing time of 1.00 am Monday to Sunday.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.02.02 313 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE (CNR. FOREST ROAD AND BRIDGE STREET) (D.A. 202/97)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR A 9 STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)
- Applicant : Stanisic Turner Architects
Proposal : SECTION 102 MODIFICATION
TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
CONSENT FOR A 9 STOREY
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
Zoning : Zone No. 3(b) - City Centre Business
Owners : Idoll Mine Pty. Ltd.
Cost of Development : $9 million
PRECIS OF REPORT
1. At its meeting of 24 September, 1997, Council gave approval to the development of No. 313 Forest Road, Hurstville for a nine storey mixed use development.
2. In December, 1997 the applicant lodged a Development Application for the Change of Use of the ground floor from retail shops to an automotive showroom. This application was approved under delegated authority on 22 December, 1997.
3. The application now before Council is for a Section 102 amendment to the original consent which requests Council's approval for the overall height of the building to be increased by 880 mm.
4. The Section 102 modification was notified to previous objectors with two (2) further objections being received.
5. It is recommended that the Section 102 application be approved.
Background
The site is bounded by Forest Road to the north, Bridge Street to the west, the King George Gardens residential development to the south and State Rail Authority land to the east. The subject land has historically been used for automotive sales, with a single storey office located on site.
At its meeting held on 24 September, 1997, Council approved the development of a nine storey mixed use building, designed in "block edge" form on the subject site. At the time of approval the development contained the following components :
* a three level basement carpark incorporating parking for 109 vehicles;
* a two storey base covering the entire site and including one level of retail and parking and one level of office space;
* seven levels of residential apartments containing a total of 47 units;
* a landscaped courtyard situated in the south-eastern portion of the site on the roof of the commercial space.
The development was approved by Council in the form it was lodged, subject to a range of conditions, including specific parking requirements for each individual use within the building. The consent also required that should it be proposed to change the use of the retail space to an automotive showroom, that a separate Development Application be lodged. A Development Application proposing this change of use was lodged with Council on 3 November, 1997. This Development Application did not propose additional floor area, nor did it involve changes to the external appearance of the building and as such did not require notification. The Change of Use was therefore approved under delegated authority on 22 December, 1997.
Current S.102 Amendment
The change of use of the ground floor retail use to an automotive showroom has resulted in the applicant's request for a subsequent physical change to the approved building. In particular, the higher ceiling height preferred for the motor vehicle showroom has resulted in a formal request from the applicant to raise the overall height of the approved building by 880 mm. This change forms the basis of the Section 102 modification now before Council. The applicant has argued that the requested height increase is necessary to the operation of the motor vehicle showroom as the additional 880 mm will :
- "* allow the ceiling in the automotive showroom to be increased and improve the proportion of the base of the building in relation to the street and the overall height of the building;
* increase light penetration and solar access to the automotive showroom and thereby reduce energy use during the day;
* allow for the retention of ceiling heights of minimum 2700 on the typical and penthouse apartment levels;
* allow for an increased depth of transfer beam which results from the larger column spans and fewer columns in the automotive showroom."
The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with the heads of Consideration in Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and the following comments are made.
The subject land is zone 3(b) City Centre Business under the provisions of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. LEP 1994 does not set a height limit for the 3(b) zone and as such the proposed amendment is permissible with Council consent.
Public Notification and Comment
In accordance with the requirements of Section 102 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the proposed amendment was notified to those persons who lodged submissions in respect of the original Development Application. A twenty-one (21) day period was set aside for the receipt of submissions. Two (2) objections were received, both from the occupants of one apartment situated within King George Gardens. The substance of the two objections is as follows (portions of the two letters are reproduced here for Council's information).
i) Height Increase
- "I can see no justifiable reason for allowing this development to be extended in height by the 880 mm which is being requested. The Development is already exceeding the DCP 5 plans in height and floor space ratio. By allowing this extra height you are indicating to all developers that the DCP 5 is easily varied, that it is not valid. The given reason for requiring this extra height is to allow more sunlight into the Car Salesroom, suggesting he would be using little or no electricity to illuminate the area as the sunlight coming through the large windows would be sufficient. Considering he currently operates a Car Sales over the road, with added height for maximum sunlight BUT has the Car Salesroom lit by artificial means (electricity) all day, I feel this is not a valid reason.
If he wants extra height for this floor he should have to acquire it from within the existing building height,
* He could easily remove 100mm from each floor area.
* He could reduce the number of floors to the Development.
I have no objection to there being a Car Sales business operating on the ground floor."
The applicant has argued that the proposed height increase will not adversely affect residents of adjacent developments as follows :
- "The increased height of 880 mm is marginal in a 25 metre high building and the increase at high level shall not be discernible from the street level.
Further, the marginal increase in height will not prejudice the amenity of the adjoining apartments in the recent Benchmark Development to the south of the proposed building as :
* private open space will not be overshadowed as adjoining residents have their principal private open space on the east and west elevations of the building. The adjoining balconies provide secondary private open space only. This is supported in the original Development Application DA 202/97;
* adjoining residents will not suffer loss of view as the approved height of the building is already well above view lines."
The position of the apartment occupied by the objectors is that of the top floor in King George Gardens facing the street frontage. In practical terms it is unlikely that the additional 880 mm in height will exacerbate the impact which will result from the erection of the already approved development. The height of the building as already approved by Council does impact on the sunlight and views enjoyed by this unit, the Section 102 modification will not worsen this situation.
Conclusion
The proposed additional height of 880 mm is considered relatively minor, taking into account the height of the overall building (i.e., approximately 30 metres) and the fact that the development as approved, is already higher than the King Georges Gardens building on the adjoining site. It is unlikely that the requested additional height will increase any existing impact to be suffered by residents of the adjacent development. The Section 102 modification is therefore recommended for approval.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.02 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 313 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE (CNR. FOREST ROAD AND BRIDGE STREET) (D.A. 202/97)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR A 9 STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)
. Recommendation 313 FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE (CNR. FOREST ROAD AND BRIDGE STREET) (D.A. 202/97)
SECTION 102 MODIFICATION TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR A 9 STOREY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT Council as the consent authority approve the Section 102 modification of Development Consent DA 202/97 being for a height increase of 880 mm to a mixed use development on the corner of Forest Road and Bridge Street, Hurstville, subject to the following conditions :
GENERAL
1. Compliance generally with Drawing No DA1.01 - DA1.16 and documentation prepared by Stanisic Turner Pty. Ltd., dated August, 1997 and revised plans dated 27 October, 1997 and submitted with DA 202/97, except where amended by the conditions of consent.
SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTIONS
2. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for open space/community recreation facilities.
The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett increase in the City's population which will create extra demand on open space and community recreation facilities. Therefore the requirement for additional open space and embellishment of existing open space is a direct measurable consequence of the approved development.
The contribution is $197,493 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.
3. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for community services and facilities.
The contribution is based on the criteria of any development that results in a nett gain of people living in the City or a change in the population structure which will create extra demand on community services and facilities.
The contribution is $22,282 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.
4. Payment to Council of a contribution pursuant to Section 94(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The purpose of the contribution is for the provision of traffic management facilities within the Hurstville CBD.
The contribution is based on the following criteria as a direct consequence of the proposed development.
* The increased traffic volume, raise the potentiality of conditions accelerating the deterioration of road pavement and/or traffic system operational conditions.
* Where provision of the scheduled facilities is essential to the traffic system operation due to the proposed development.
* Where the provision of a facility is a direct requirement as a result of the proposed development.
The contribution rate for Residential/Retail is $1.40/$22.80 per square metre respectively of nett increase in floor space. The amount is $30,039 and payable prior to the release of the approved building plans.
PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS
5. The provision of 104 car spaces in accordance with the submitted plans. Such spaces, manoeuvring areas, driveways and vehicular crossings are to be suitably constructed, sealed to provide a surface of concrete or bitumen, signposted, clearly linemarked, and drained to Council's specifications. Footpath and crossing levels are to be obtained from the Engineering Division at a fee set by Council. Of the total number of spaces required two (2) must be designed and located to be accessible for disabled persons.
6. Of the total number of parking spaces the minimum allocation of spaces relative to retail, commercial, residential and visitor purposes must be as follows :
- * Automotive Showroom = 4 spaces
* Commercial = 11 spaces
* Residential = 77 spaces
* Residential Visitor = 12 spaces
7. Of the total number of parking spaces allocated to residential purposes, a minimum of one (1) space must be provided for each residential unit.
8. All entry and exit points and one or two way circulation movements are to be clearly signposted to the satisfaction of Council.
9. All loading and unloading of vehicles, containers, etc. in relation to the use of the premises shall take place wholly within the subject premises and not in adjacent forecourts, yards, accessways, landscaped or parking areas or Council's footpath or in or upon any part of a road reserve.
10. All vehicles shall enter or leave the site in a forward direction at all times.
11. All vehicular access to the subject site must be via Bridge Street.
12. Applicant to pay Council to :
a) Replace the redundant crossing with kerb and gutter.
b) Construct a 150mm thick concrete crossing reinforced with F72 mesh.
Quote given on request.
OR
Construction of the above work by the applicant subject to:
a) This work being carried out in accordance with Council's conditions and specifications.
b) Payment of Council's administration fee.
13. All car spaces shall have minimum dimensions of 2.5m X 5.5m, except for disabled spaces which shall have minimum dimensions of 3.0m X 5.5m.
14. Each proposed single garage shall have a minimum clear door jamb width of 2.7 metres. Details shall be submitted with the building application.
15. A minimum height between the floor surface and the lowest overhead obstruction shall be 2.2 metres for all areas traversed by cars and service vehicles.
16. All access driveways, queuing areas, ramps, gradients and the like for basement and ground level parking areas are to conform with the provisions of Australian Standard AS 2890-1-1993 - Parking Facilities except where otherwise required by Council. Details are to be submitted with the Building Application for approval.
17. The developer must ensure that the visitor parking spaces are accessible at all times. Any security gates or doors must be located to permit sufficient manoeuvring area for visitor vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward motion.
18. The loading and/or unloading of all goods and materials used in conjunction with the development must take place only on the site. In this respect details of the size and location of the loading dock/servicing facility must be submitted with the Building Application for the approval of the Manager, Traffic and Transport prior to the issue of the Building Permit.
19. The developer must provide long sections of all ramps within and giving access to the basement carpark indicating compliance with Council's maximum permitted gradient.
20. Should it be intended to change the use of the ground floor from an automotive showroom to another use or the commercial component to another use at any time in the future, a separate Development Application will be required to be lodged, at which time the parking requirements of the entire development will be re-assessed and any shortfall WILL be the subject of a Section 94 Contribution.
21. Provision must be made within the basement carpark for the parking of bicycles. Plans submitted with the Building Application must indicate an appropriate location for bicycle parking to the satisfaction of the Manager, Transport and Traffic.
22. The proposed driveway onto Bridge Street be widened to a minimum of 6.0 metres to cater for the left in/left out arrangement, the dimensions tapering back to 4.0 metres at the bottom of the ramp as detailed on the plan.
23. A 3.0 metre long boom gate be installed covering only the exit part of the ramp, to be activated by a push button arrangement which would be installed on a pedestal and would be centrally located to allow the driver of the existing vehicle to stop, activate the boom gate and proceed out onto Bridge Street turning left.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
24. Stormwater drainage plans prepared by a qualified practising hydraulics engineer being submitted to Council with the Building Application. The layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of drainage pits are to be shown.
25. The applicant to provide an on site detention (OSD) facility designed by a professional hydrological/hydraulic engineer, showing computations of the inlet and outlet hydrographs and stage/storage relationships of the proposed OSD using the following design parameters:
* For events up to a 1% annual exceedance probability (AEP) design event as defined by Australian Rainfall and Runoff (May 1987), maximum peak site discharge resulting from the development shall not be greater than peak site discharge under existing conditions for all durations up to the time of concentration with OSD included and of the same AEP.
* Where the stormwater discharge points are connected to the street gutter system, the peak flow from the site shall not increase the width of gutter flow by more than 200mm at the design storm.
* The OSD facility shall be designed to meet all safety requirements and childproof safety fencing around the facility must be provided where the OSD facility is open or above ground when the design peak storage depth is greater than 300mm.
26. Stormwater to drain by gravity to the kerb and gutter in Bridge Street and the underground car parking levels to be pumped to the same kerb and gutter.
BUILDING REQUIREMENTS
27. A Building Application being submitted to and approved by the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993, accompanied by detailed building plans, specifications, and the payment of relevant building application fees.
28. The side and rear boundaries of the site shall be fenced with either 1.8 metre high lapped and capped paling fences (suitably stained) or 1.8 metre high colour bond metal fencing, to Council's satisfaction. This work is to be completed prior to the issue of Certificate of Classification. It is to be the responsibility of the developer to pay for the construction of the fence and to ascertain which type of fence is preferred by the adjoining property owners.
29. The hours of work on the site during demolition of the existing building or excavation of the site and construction of the proposed building shall be limited to the hours of 7 am to 5 pm Monday to Saturday inclusive with no work on Sundays, Good Friday, Christmas Day or Public Holidays.
PLEASE NOTE : A separate application for demolition work is required to be lodged with Council for approval prior to the commencement of the work.
30. No burning of demolition or waste materials shall be carried out on the subject site.
31. A street number shall be clearly displayed in a prominent location at the front of the premises at all times, and shall be affixed to the building before occupation.
32. Arrangements are to be made for the collection, storage and disposal of all waste materials in an approved container, to the satisfaction of the Divisional Manager, Development and Health. Details of the means of disposal of waste and size and location of storage area for waste and recyclable materials must be submitted to Council with the Building Application for the approval of the Manager, Environmental Services prior to the issue of the Building Permit.
33. The developer must pay the full cost of undergrounding all low voltage cables adjacent to the development and provide conduits for the future undergrounding of all high voltage cables.
34. The development shall be constructed to a standard of construction which will result in noise levels within habitable rooms from external noise sources not exceeding 50 dB(A) with the windows and doors shut. A report from a qualified and practising Acoustical Engineer and the recommended construction details to comply with the above shall be submitted with the Building Application.
35. The display or storage of goods outside the confines of the building is prohibited.
36. Compliance with the requirements of Energy Australia in relation to the provision of a site within the subject land for the establishment of an electricity kiosk type substation, if required for the locality. Prior to submission of building plans, the developer shall present details of the development in writing to Energy Australia and obtain confirmation of that authority's requirements. The kiosk site shall be dedicated at the applicant's expense for use of Energy Australia.
37. Should the subject site be unoccupied or vacant the applicant or owner shall erect or install 1.8 metre high cyclone fencing to enclose the site. Such work is to be completed to within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of the development consent and to the satisfaction of the Manager, Building Services
38. That the proposed development provide for access for people with disabilities in accordance with the provision of AS 1428.1 as set out in the Building Code of Australia - Building.
39. Final details of materials, finishes and colours must be submitted with the Building Application for the approval of the Divisional Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment prior to the issue of the Building Permit.
ADVERTISING SIGNS
40. A separate development application will be required for any advertising signs and/or structures including temporary advertisements within the Hurstville Town Centre, that are proposed to be erected or placed on any property.
41. The use, display or affixing of any flashing, animated, moving or revolving illumination or lighting is expressly prohibited in, upon or attached to any part of the subject premises.
LANDSCAPING
42. The submission of a detailed landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services, with the building application. This plan is to be prepared by an approved landscape consultant. The plan is to include details of the species, size and number of all plant material, together with the surface treatment of all areas. Landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services in accordance with the approved plan prior to occupation of the building. All landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Manager, Development Services.
Note: In addition the Landscape Plan is to identify all existing trees by Botanical and Common names, having a height which exceeds 3 metres or a girth greater than 300mm at 450 mm above ground level, and their relationship, by scale to the proposed development. NO trees are to be removed or lopped without written Council approval.
43. The landscape plan must incorporate street tree planting for both the Forest Road and Bridge Street frontages of the site.
44. The landscape plan must provide for deep soil planting within the courtyard.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
45. The developer must provide details of the proposed means of cleaning the windows within the development with the Building Application for the approval of the Manager, Building Services prior to the issue of the Building Permit.
46. No site clearing, site preparation or excavation, (whether for the purposes of the commencement of construction, undertaking site survey or creation of an access road) is permitted to take place prior to the issue of the Building Permit.
47. The developer must ensure that appropriate dust suppression measures are installed/utilised during the period of excavation/placement of fill/construction. Details of the means of dust suppression must be submitted with the Building Application for the approval of the Manager, Building Services prior to the issue of the Building Permit.
48. The developer must take all measures available to control the emission of dust from the site and in this regard adequate watering equipment acceptable to Council shall be used on the site at all times other than in wet weather. The developer must ensure that the contractor is able to control emission of dust from the site on weekends when windy conditions prevail.
49. The developer must obtain written evidence from the owners of adjoining properties acknowledging that they have been notified of any proposed excavation and that they understand the nature of the works proposed to be carried out. This evidence must be submitted to Council prior to the issue of the Building Permit.
50. The developer must submit a report to Council in relation to the level of contamination existing on site from its previous use. In this regard, the report must be prepared by a suitable consultant experienced in contamination matters to the satisfaction of Council. The report must detail recommendations on any measures necessary to remove or contain any contaminated materials plus information on where the soil material will be disposed of if removed from the site.
ADVISORY NOTES REGARDING THE
SUBMISSION OF A BUILDING APPLICATION
SUBMISSION OF A BUILDING APPLICATION
A) Provision must be made for a fixed on-site hydrant pumpset and sprinkler valves to be located in rooms at ground level which have direct egress to the road.
B) disabled access must be provided to Retail Units 1-4 and Lobby "A" from forest Road in accordance with Clause D 3.2 of the Building Code of Australia.
(Disabled access to the above areas from Bridge Street via Lobby "B" and adjacent carparking area will not be permitted.)
C) Openings in external walls that are required to have a fire-resistance rating and are radially within 3.0 metres of the allotment boundaries must be protected in accordance with Clause C 3.2 of the Building Code of Australia. Details of such protection must be submitted with the building application.
NOTE : In the event that such protection is provided by means of sprinklers or fire windows permanently fixed in the closed position, and the rooms that are served by those openings are provided with mechanical ventilation or air conditioning systems in accordance with AS 1668.2, provision must be made for the cleaning of the fixed windows located three or more storeys above ground level in accordance with NSW Clause G 1.101 of the Building Code of Australia.
D) In order to comply with Clause 3.7.3 of AS 1668.2 and to avoid a noise nuisance being caused to the occupants of the units on the subject land as well as the occupants of buildings on surrounding properties, the exhaust air from the basement carpark levels must be discharged above the main roof via a ventilation shaft provided within the building. Details of this form of construction must be submitted with the building application.
E) Where natural ventilation in accordance with Clause F 4.6 of the Building Code of Australia cannot be provided to the wet rooms, those rooms must be provided with mechanical exhaust ventilation systems. Details of the mechanical exhaust ventilation systems must be submitted with the building application and include details of whether the mechanical ventilation ductwork will be discharged above the roof surface via common shafts or will be discharged to the sky at each floor level.
NOTE : the STC of 30 in respect of the ceilings in the wet rooms must not be reduced by the penetration of any mechanical exhaust grills.
F) Under Clause F 4.11 of the Building Code of Australia the basement carpark levels are required to be provided with a system of ventilation complying with AS 1668.2. In accordance with Clause E 2.2 of the Building Code of Australia such system will be required to be dedicated for smoke control purposes and in this regard the system will be required to operate continuously.
G) Structural details relating to the method of supporting Council's footpath and public utility services under the footpath in forest Road and Bridge Street as well as the buildings on the adjoining allotments during excavation of the basement carpark levels must be submitted with the building application.
NOTE : Building approval will not be granted until such details have been received and evidence of the required notice to adjoining owners regarding excavation and shoring support is lodged with Council.
H) Details of the method of complying with Council's Guidelines on Sediment and Silt Control together with details of the measures to prevent mud being taken onto the road from trucks leaving the site during and after excavation works must be submitted with the building application.
I) Details of site fencing (or restriction of public access to the site in accordance with Clause 37A of the Local Government Approvals) Regulation, 1993), together with the means of storing site sheds, building materials on the property, particularly at the early stages of construction, must be submitted with the building application.
J) A minimum of two carspaces must be provided for disabled persons in accordance with Clause D3.5 of the Building Code of Australia. Such spaces must be available to the general public at the times when the retail and office levels are open to the public.
K) The garbage storage room adjacent to Lobby "B" must be increased in size to cater for the storage of 3 x 1100 litre mobile bins together with an area for the recycling of materials, i.e., bales for cardboard, drums for glass etc. In addition the slope of the driveway between the garbage storage room (off the main driveway) and Bridge Street must be reduced to permit the 1100 litre mobile garbage bins to be wheeled to this street in order to allow such bins to be emptied by Council's garbage contractors from the aforesaid street.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
ADDENDUM
05.02.03A HURSTVILLE SUPERCENTRE, 225H FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE - MODIFICATION TO CONSENT (DA 94/93)
Applicant : Todbern Pty Ltd
Proposal : Modification to an existing consent for a mixed
retail/commercial/residential development containing
143 units.
Zoning : Special Uses 5(b) - Railways
Owners : State Rail Authority
PRECIS OF REPORT
1. Background.
2. Description of modifications.
3. Report on modifications.
4. There are two critical issues for Hurstville Council to consider:
(a) Deletion of pedestrian link through old Post Office site.
(b) Proposed pedestrian ramp projecting over Memorial Square
plus a lift provided from Memorial Square.
5. Recommendation - authority be delegated to determine matters under
specified arrangements.
6. Any approval will require the concurrence of Kogarah Council.
BACKGROUND
Development Consent No. 94/93 was issued by Council (on behalf of both Hurstville and Kogarah Councils) on 1st November, 1993 for a refurbished retail area, two (2) levels of parking and seven (7) floors for 168 residential units.
A modification to this consent was approved by both Councils on 30th November, 1994 for refurbishment of the retail area, relocation of an expanded supermarket (the Franklins "Big Fresh" concept) to the first carpark level, provision of 2nd and 3rd levels and six (6) floors for 143 residential units.
This consent expired on 30th November, 1996 but the applicant successfully appealed Council's decision to refuse extension of the consent and the consent is now valid until 30th November, 1998.
No building application has been received for this development but the applicant did lodge such an application in 1996 to construct the supermarket and carparking parts of the building. This building application was assessed by Council to the approval stage but the permit has never been collected by the applicant due to the requirement to pay outstanding fees.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
The applicant has lodged two (2) separate applications to Council to modify the subject consent of 1994 under application nos. 34/97 and 39/97 and these will be referred to in this report as "Option 1" and "Option 2" respectively.
"Option 1"
The proposed modifications to the previously approved development consent involve the following changes:
1. Concourse Level * extension of the existing supermarket area to
a larger store size of 3000 square metres to
cover the whole western end of the building;
* minor amendments to the retail shop layouts;
* relocation of public toilet facilities;
* introduction of a small commercial lobby and
lift off Ormonde Parade to service the commercial
office/retail/professional suite area on Parking
Level 2;
* relocation of the pedestrian trolley ramp from the
Western end of the building to new position on the
Northern facade above Memorial Park;
* addition of a new lift, connecting Memorial Park to
Concourse Level and the Parking Levels above,
which will be located on the Northern facade
adjacent to the pedestrian/trolley ramp;
2. Parking Level 1 * deletion of the Franklins Big Fresh Supermarket
and the provision of a full level of carparking
similar to the layout for Parking Level 2 in the
previously approved consent, with minor
modifications to plant rooms and ancillary services;
* relocation of the pedestrian/trolley ramp and
external lift access to the Northern facade as
noted above, connecting Concourse Level;
3. Parking Level 2 * addition of 2040 square metres of commercial
office/retail/professional suite area facing onto
Ormonde Parade with carparking for 205 cars;
4. Parking Level 3 * This floor level for residential parking lowered
by 1400mm but layout is similar to the previously
approved proposal.
5. Residential Floors * the only change proposed to the residential units
is an overall reduction in height of these floors by
1400mm due to a lower retail podium height below.
The layout for six (6) floors of 143 residential
units remains identical to the previously approved
proposal.
6. Ormonde Parade
Facade * redesign of the podium facade above Concourse
Level up to Parking Level 3 to reflect the changed
function of commercial usage on Level 2 and to
reflect the design controls established by
Council's Draft Development Control Plan for
Hurstville.
The design of the podium now emphasises street
alignment of the building, glazed facade elements,
the incorporation of vertical and horizontal
elements within the facade with articulated and
visually separate bays and the building facade
emphasising the curve of Ormonde Parade through
the podium base.
The proposed modifications relate primarily to the podium level only and in essence provide a slightly lower building height, less commercial/retail floor area and an improved facade to Ormonde Parade whilst maintaining the identical six (6) storey tower of residential development above the podium.
"Option 2"
This application differs only from "Option 1" in that the proposed pedestrian/trolley ramp attached to the northern facade above Memorial Square and external lift access are varied for this proposal.
The lift access has been deleted and the pedestrian/trolley ramp is proposed to be located internally at the eastern end of the building as opposed to the western end as approved in the original proposal.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
The applications have been submitted in accordance with Section 102 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. It is substantially he same development as the previous consent.
With this application the Council is only considering the specified modifications, not the overall development.
REPORT ON THE MODIFICATIONS
The applicant has submitted written comment on his application and this states as follows:-
- "Development Description
- Retail/Commercial
The existing retail Concourse Level is to be refurbished in accordance with the previous Development Consent.
The design retains the residential lift lobby accessed from Ormonde Parade and increased shopfront exposure.
The proposed Western entry to the retail concourse from Ormonde Parade has been deleted due to the retention of the existing Supermarket. The new Eastern entry has been retained as in the previous development approval.
The deletion of Franklins Big Fresh Supermarket from the upper level has significantly reduced the retail area to the project, whilst some of this area has been replaced with commercial office/retail/professional suite area on Parking Level 2.
The proposed gross retail area for the development is now:
* Concourse Level 6912 square metres
* Parking Level 2 2040 square metres
Total gross retail area 8952 square metres
This represents a reduction of 1934 square metres in retail area from the previous development proposal of 10,886 square metres gross retail area.
The existing retail area at concourse level is 6515 square metres so the modified proposal still entails an increase of 2437 square metres in commercial/retail floor area.
Carparking
Three parking levels are provided within the development to accommodate a total of 620 cars based on the following layout:
* Parking Level 1 (retail) 258 cars
* Parking Level 2 (retail/commercial) 205
* Parking Level 3 (residential) 157
Total carparking 620 cars
Parking Level 1 is the existing Super Centre roof carpark and together with Parking Level 2 provides 463 carparking spaces for retail and commercial use. The new parking deck on Parking Level 3 provides 157 carspaces for residential use on virtually the same layout and design as the previous development approval.
The revised parking layouts for this proposal retain the same design principles for layout and access as the previous approval. Access to the retail and residential parking is unchanged from the previous approval with entry via the existing Western ramp from Greenbank Street and Forest Road. Exit from the retail and residential parking through the roundabout at the same Western end to Ormonde Parade and Forest Road has also remained unchanged from the previous approval. This roundabout also retains the same design as the previous approval in preventing through traffic from Forest Road to Ormonde Parade.
The existing Eastern end ramp serving Parking Level 1 has been shown retained in this application. With the deletion of Franklins Big Fresh from this proposal there would no longer be Franklins service vehicles exiting via this ramp to Ormonde Parade, the ramp is retained in this application as an alternative exit for the carpark and to maintain access to the existing service area at Concourse Level. Access to vehicles using this ramp would be security controlled and restricted to residential or commercial use vehicles with security pass keys, and not available to public patrons shopping within the Centre. It is envisaged the primary carpark access point for vehicle entry and egress will remain the Western entry point, with access to Forest Road, Ormonde Parade and Greenbank Street.
Servicing
With the deletion of the Big Fresh Supermarket from this proposal servicing to the Concourse Level retail shops will continue from the two existing loading bay areas as in the previous approval.
Servicing to residential units above is maintained through a residential loading bay at Parking Level 1, the same as for the previous approval. The type of usage anticipated for the commercial floorspace on Parking Level 2 will not generate high demand or special types of servicing and it is envisaged would be serviced by light vans or small trucks accessing through the carpark circulation system.
- Residential Units
This application for modification of the previous Development Consent retains the same residential unit configuration and design as the previous approval, with 143 residential units on 6 floors above the residential parking deck.
The same range of unit sizes is retained with one. two and three bedroom dwellings.
These units are arranged around the same four lift cores which also service the residential parking level.
The landscaped deck at Residential Level 1 has been extended out to the Ormonde Parade facade in keeping with the facade design principles outlined below and to increase the extent of passive recreation space available for the residents' use.
All other aspects of the residential unit component of the development remain identical to the previous approval, including area, location, orientation, layout, structural considerations, facade design and roof.
Accommodation Schedule
- A comparison of the gross floor areas for the previous approval and this application indicates there is a relatively minor reduction in the overall scale of the development.
 | Previous Approval | Modified Proposal |
| | |
| Retail gross floor area | 10,886 m2 | 8,952 m2 |
| Residential floor area | 15,994 m2 | 15,994 m2 |
| Carparking area P1 | 5,322 m2 | 9,447 m2 |
| P2 | 9,447 m2 | 7,286 m2 |
| P3 | 5,683 m2 | 4,915 m2 |
| Total gross building area | 47,332 m2 | 46,594 m2 |
- This modified proposal therefore represents virtually the same building area as the previous approval with a change in usage from retail to carparking of 4% reduction in retail space and 2.5% increase in carparking space over the total gross building area of the previous approval.
Facade Design
- One of the principal areas of change of the modified design over the previous approval relates specifically to the design of the Ormonde Parade facade to the podium levels.
- This facade has been modified above Concourse Level up to Parking L3 and Residential Level 1 to firstly reflect the changed function of commercial floorspace on Level 2, and more significantly to reflect the design controls expressed in Hurstville City Council's Draft Development Control Plan - Hurstville Town Centre.
- The facade design to Ormonde Parade now emphasises the street alignment of the building facade, particularly along the more curved section of the street towards the centre of the site, where this street alignment and the facade design step up in height towards the curve, maintain this height emphasis through the curve and then step down again after the curve. This facade has also been altered to incorporate vertical and horizontal elements with articulated and visually separate bays. Vertical elements are designed to emphasise the podium height through the central curved section of the facade and these are further articulated through horizontal elements, windows and louvres.
- The awning to Ormonde Parade has been significantly reduced in extent, following the removal of the old continuous awning structure and upgrading of Ormonde Parade which has dramatically opened up the streetscape to Ormonde Parade and introduced more light to the area. Awnings in the modified proposal are minimised to key entry points in order to maintain the more open feeling in Ormonde Parade.
- The Forest Road facade retains the same design character and elements of the previous approval, with the only change being the addition of the external pedestrian/trolley ramps and glazed enclosure above Memorial Park and new pedestrian lift connecting Memorial Park to Concourse Level. This lift will provide disabled access to Concourse Level from Forest Road as well as direct access to the retail centre and railway from Memorial Park.
- The proposed finishes to the external facades of the building are not proposed to alter from the previous approval and any selection of colours to the building would be subject of future Building Application.
Environmental Reports
- The environmental impacts of the proposed modifications are not anticipated to have any significant effects or change from the previous approval.
- Wind effects of this proposal are expected to improve marginally due to the increased modulation and articulation of the facades and the slightly lowered height of the podium and development overall.
- Building reflections will not alter from the previous approval as the only window changes relate to the Ormonde Parade facade on the Southern side of the building, and the remaining facade elements would be solid masonry or flat cladding construction.
We trust the above outlines clearly the proposed modifications to the previous approval and the relationship of this application to the design report previously submitted to Council for the earlier Development Application 94/93."
COMMENTS
Building
Matters of a building and environmental nature such as building code requirements, fire ratings, fire safety, external finishes, acoustic and vibration aspects, wind impact, reflectivity, shadow analysis and television reception were covered in the original proposal and by conditions imposed on the development consent.
These conditions remain unchanged.
Design
The applications have addressed design issues raised by Council's Divisional Manager - Policy, Planning and Environment with regard to the podium level but architectural resolution issues on the residential towers remain outstanding.
However, as there is no modification to the residential section, Council is unable to enforce any changes to this part of the building.
Officers of Hurstville and Kogarah Councils have met and discussed the design alterations and it is anticipated that Kogarah Council will request some cosmetic changes to the Ormonde Parade facade proposed with these modification applications.
Traffic
The original consent contains conditions reflecting the earlier advice of the RTA's Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee. The modifications do not alter the basic access points to the development nor the overall type of development. However, comment is being sought from Council's Manager Traffic and Transport on the parking volumes, internal vehicle circulation, parking layouts and loading points.
No major changes occur on the Hurstville side and it is anticipated that any minor variations for layout and circulation will be covered by conditions of approval.
Kogarah Council has indicated that the matter is being referred to their local traffic committee for comment due to the main ingress and egress points and loading areas being on their side of the development. They will also address the proposal of this application to increase the number of on site parking spaces.
Parking
The original approval called for 523 parking spaces of which 179 were required for the residential units. This latter area was also required to be separated from the retail parking levels.
With the modification application 620 parking spaces are provided with 463 for retail levels but only 157 are allocated to the residential level. Whilst the overall parking capacity has increased by 97 spaces, the applicant does not address any reasons for the reduction in residential spaces. The increased number of spaces reflects the decrease in retail/commercial floor space.
Thus a condition will be imposed requiring the original amount of 179 residential spaces (143 to units plus 36 visitor spaces) with some visitor spaces being permitted or the commercial level.
Under Council's present control plan, 194 residential spaces and 299 retail spaces, totalling 493 spaces would be required, but this cannot be applied in this instance.
Pedestrian Access
Both options indicate deletion of the pedestrian link via the old Post Office site due to the proposed enlargement of the existing supermarket. The applicant fails to address any reasons for this modification but it is presumably due to the re-development of the Post Office not proceeding.
In the latter half of 1994, the Council considered development applications for both this site and the old Post Office site and imposed the same condition on each to provide a pedestrian link accommodating the disabled so that permanent access was provided over the railway between Forest Road and Ormonde Parade.
The development consent for the old Post Office has since expired but that owner has objected to the deletion of the pedestrian link.
The superseded 1989 DCP and the new 1997 DCP for the Hurstville City Centre Business Zone both express a preference for this pedestrian link and it is felt that the condition for such link should be retained in accordance with the existing consent.
The Council may wish to review this condition if approval is granted to Option 1 containing the lift to Memorial Square.
Pedestrian Ramp over Memorial Square
It is only "Option 1" which contains this alternative and this option is not formally a legitimate application as it does not contain the consent of the owner, i.e. Hurstville Council, to project a structure over the air space of Memorial Square.
However, there is no reason why Council cannot consider both the ownership and application proposals together.
This matter should be referred to a meeting of Ward Councillors and other interested Councillors to consider the proposal. Consideration should also be given to granting delegated authority to the General Manager to determine this matter in the event of there being a unanimous decision of all Councillors present. Further comment by other Divisional Managers on the proposal to build over the air space will be given at this meeting.
Advertisement and Notification
The development was advertised in the local newspaper and letters were sent to adjoining owners plus tenants of the Supercentre.
One (1) objection was received from the owner of the adjacent old Post Office site calling upon Council to adhere to the requirement for a pedestrian link between the two buildings.
This has been addressed earlier in the report under "Pedestrian Access".
Section 94 Contributions
The conditions for contribution to traffic facilities will need to be amended to accommodate the variation in floor space.
Kogarah Council
The two options are still under consideration by Kogarah Council but this application is placed before Council to gain a decision in the matter so that the applications may be determined under delegated authority once a decision is made by Kogarah Council. This process is being followed so that there will be no delay in forwarding the final decision to the applicant.
Summary
1. The modifications are split into two options whereby the basic proposal is to replace the "Big Fresh" supermarket with a commercial area and at the same time improve the architectural design on the Ormonde Parade frontage.
2. However, they raise two main issues for Hurstville Council as follows:
(a) Proposal to project a structure over the air space of Memorial Square.
(b) Proposes deletion of the pedestrian link through the old Post Office site.
3. For (a), it is proposed that Option 1 be referred to Ward and other interested Councillors and the General Manager for further consideration.
4. For (b), it is proposed that Council refuse to delete the requirement of a pedestrian link through the old Post Office.
5. The Council grant delegated authority for determining these options once a decision is reached from Kogarah Council.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.03A DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation HURSTVILLE SUPERCENTRE, 225H FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE - MODIFICATION TO CONSENT (DA 94/93)
. Recommendation HURSTVILLE SUPERCENTRE, 225H FOREST ROAD, HURSTVILLE - MODIFICATION TO CONSENT (DA 94/93)
RECOMMENDATION
- 1. THAT the application for modification of development
consent no. 94/93 for a mixed retail/commercial/residential
development for Hurstville Supercentre, 225H Forest Road,
Hurstville and lodged under application no. 34/97 (known as
"option 1") be referred to Ward and other interested
Councillors and relevant officers for report and that
authority be delegated to the General Manager to determine
the matter in the event of the decision of Ward Councillors
being unanimous and upon receiving the decision of
Kogarah Council.
2. THAT the application for modification of development
consent no. 94/93 for a mixed retail/commercial/residential
development for Hurstville Supercentre, 225H Forest Road,
Hurstville and lodged under application no. 39/97 (known as
"option 2") be determined by the General Manager under
delegated authority subject to:
a) Condition 54 requiring a pedestrian link through the
old Post Office site be retained on the consent.
b) The standard conditions of the Divisional Manager -
Development & Health imposed pursuant to
assessment of the application under Section 90
of the Environmental Planning and Assessment
Act, 1979.
c) Inclusion of the requirements of Kogarah Council.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.03 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARD
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.03.01 477-479 KING GEORGES ROAD, BEVERLY HILLS (D.A. 314/97)
CHINESE SEAFOOD RESTAURANT
- Applicant : Simon Yuan Lin Tang
Proposal : CHINESE SEAFOOD RESTAURANT
Zoning : Zone No. 3(a) - General Business
Owners : B Harathi & Sri Reddy
Existing Development : Vacant shop (previously a supermarket)
Cost of Development : $80,000
PRECIS OF REPORT
1. Consent issued for Chinese seafood restaurant with limitation on hours to 1.00 am.
2. Application to modify consent to permit extended trading hours to 3.00 am.
3. Matter for Council.
CURRENT APPROVAL
On 29th December, 1997, a consent was issued for a Chinese seafood restaurant subject to 16 conditions, of which condition 11 stated as follows:
- "The approved use being conducted only between the hours of 5.00pm and 1.00am, Monday to Sunday."
The site is located on the south western side of King Georges Road in the Beverly Hills shopping centre, an area zoned 3(a) - General Business. Under Council's Local Environmental Plan, 1994, there is no requirement to advertise applications in this zone.
MODIFICATION PROPOSAL
On 19th January, 1998 an application was received to modify the proposal by varying condition 11. The owner submitted a letter explaining the applicant's proposal and this states as follows:-
- "Thank you very much for granting the consent to Mr. Simon Yuan Lin Tang for the development of my property at 477, King Georges Rd, Beverly Hills into a Chinese Restaurant. However, I would like you to reconsider the trading hours and extend the hours to 3 am for the following reasons.
1. Mr Tang would be investing a large sum of money in developing the place into a good Chinese restaurant and he is of the opinion that extra hours (14 hours/week) are needed to make it profitable. He does not want to proceed with the development if the hours are not extended (copy of the letter enclosed).
2. The place has been vacant for more than 4 years. We tried to rent it for supermarket, furniture shop, appliances centre, bedding shop etc. These attempts were unsuccessful because of the clearway traffic conditions during the day time on King Georges Rd.
3. Extension of trading hours will not create any parking problems.
4. Restaurant of this size (150 capacity) will generate more business and additional jobs in local area.
5. I understand that the rules till 1 am only trading hours came into effect only in March 1997. The above property was approved for restaurants in 1995-1996.
6. There are other restaurants (Bennelong Hotel, Peakhurst In [sic]) in the area already operating till 3 am. Therefore extending hours to our property will not cause any public nuisance.
7. The property has been vacant for a long time and it will be difficult for me to find a tenant again if the present developer backs out because of the restrictions on the trading hours.
I therefore request you to reconsider and extend the trading hours to 3 am."
COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL
The condition limiting the hours of operation was imposed in line with the resolutions of Council of 27th February and 17th December, 1997 whereby Council, in consideration of hours of operation of licensed premises, resolved as follows:-
- "... that it does not support 24 hour trading and considers that late trading for hotels should be limited to a 1.00 am closing time and that a 1.00 am closing time should be introduced for registered clubs".
The Bennelong Hotel in Beverly Hills, as the applicant states, operates the public bar until 3.00 am and has a 24 hour licence for a function room.
In light of the previous resolutions on trading hours, the matter of the applicant's request as set out above is placed before Council for consideration.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.01 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 477-479 KING GEORGES ROAD, BEVERLY HILLS (D.A. 314/97)
CHINESE SEAFOOD RESTAURANT
. Recommendation 477-479 KING GEORGES ROAD, BEVERLY HILLS (D.A. 314/97)
CHINESE SEAFOOD RESTAURANT
RECOMMENDATION
- A matter for Council.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.03.02 28 PITT STREET, MORTDALE (D.A. 174/97)
BROTHEL
- Applicant : P.A.M. Relaxation Services
Proposal : BROTHEL
Zoning : Zone 3(a) - General Business
Owners : J & V Theodoropoulos
Existing Development : Shop and Dwelling
PRECIS OF REPORT
1. Development application lodged to use first floor as a brothel.
2. The application has been assessed in accordance with Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
3. The application was widely notified with a total of 540 letters of objection and signatures to petitions.
4. Application recommended for refusal.
SITE AND LOCALITY DESCRIPTION
The subject premises is situated at 28 Pitt Street, Mortdale. It is located within the Mortdale General Business zone on the north western side of Pitt Street, just down from the Mortdale Hotel, and is surrounded by a mixture of retail and commercial development with a residential zone at the rear and a residential development of home units immediately opposite. There is parking at the rear for four vehicles with access being obtained off Macquarie Street via a right-of-way. A church is located around the corner and a scout hall, a senior citizen centre, a child minding centre, a school and a special school for the disadvantaged are located in adjacent blocks.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Plans submitted by the applicant indicate that it is proposed to use the first floor only and to link the two dwellings on the first floor for a single use. This would involve converting the existing lounge and dining rooms into reception, waiting and dressing rooms and retaining the existing kitchens and four bedrooms.
The applicant advises that the business will have seven (7) employees and will operate seven (7) days a week with hours of 11.00am to 1.00am, Monday to Friday, 12 noon to 2.00am Saturday and 1.00pm to 11.00pm Sunday. There are no details of the number of clients anticipated to be on the premises at any one time.
Also no details have been provided on how the proposed development will address the guidelines of NSW Health and the NSW Workcover Authority.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
The subject site is zoned 3(a) - General Business under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan, 1994 which provides the proposed use is permissible only with Council's consent.
The Council, by resolution of 26th February, 1997, proposed to amend the Local Environmental Plan to prohibit brothels. This plan has not been approved by the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning but Council still seeks such an amendment. On this basis, the application has been assessed in accordance with Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
ASSESSMENT
1. "(d) the social effect and the economic effect of that development in the locality."
- The premises is located near (approximately 100 metres) Mortdale Railway Station and is one of the main pedestrian routes to the station from a major home unit area of Mortdale. A senior citizen centre, a child care centre, a church, a school, a special school and a scout hall are located in the adjoining street blocks. The suburb also has a high proportion of elderly residents who use the shopping centre and this route to the railway. The social impact is that this significant group of young and elderly pedestrians may be deterred from using a route that takes them past a brothel.
Adjoining and adjacent businesses may be impacted by the then reduced customer levels due to the drop in passing trade and this may affect the long term viability of the businesses.
The proposed use would also be detrimental to residential development at the rear and to the one opposite due to hours of operation and the type of use.
or on other land in the locality".
- Adjacent and opposite are land uses such as a Mexican restaurant, occupational therapist, barber, cafe, family medical practice, hotel and a block of home units. Taking into account the operating hours of the proposed business, the use may be considered to be incompatible with adjoining development which operates during the day.
There are no other brothels in the area.
- The coming and going of vehicles via the rear right-of-way as associated with the proposed business will be inconvenient to adjoining properties which are zoned residential. Also car parking required for the proposed use may be detrimental to the car parking requirements of the two shops on the ground floor.
- The proposed development is not suitable to an area undergoing increased residential development to cater for future higher populations as it is adjacent to such areas and fronts a major pedestrian route for this area to access public transport.
Letters of objection have been received from Mortdale Baptist Church and the Uniting Churches at Mortdale and South Peakhurst.
5. "(p) any public submission"
- A total of 540 letters and names on petitions were received in response to advertisement and notification of this application. One letter was received in support of the application.
The objections can be summarised as follows:-
(i) located on a main pedestrian thoroughfare used by children and the elderly,
(ii) economic impact on local business,
(iii) proximity to residential area, child care centre, school and churches,
(iv) concerns for safety, especially by the elderly,
(v) adjacent to occupational therapist used by pre-school children,
(vi) undermines community standards,
(vii) loss of Mortdale's reputation as a quiet, safe, respectable and family shopping centre.
The letter of support for appropriately controlled brothels quoted reasons as follows:-
(i) removes connection between drugs and prostitution,
(ii) reduces rate of sexually transmitted diseases,
(iii) cleanliness and presentation kept to a high quality,
(iv) breaks the nexus between crime and prostitution,
(v) encourages a reasonable relationship between the brothel and the
local community.
- The substantial nature of the objections indicates that the proposed development is contrary to the public interest as expressed by members of the community. The strong response from the community in relation to the moral issue of allowing the development to proceed indicates that it is incompatible with the community standards of many residents living within the area of the subject site.
- The location of the proposed brothel would breach the above Act on the following basis:
(i) operate near residential building, schools and churches and in a place
regularly frequented by children,
(ii) cause a disturbance in the neighbourhood,
(iii) unsuitable access and lack of off-street parking,
(iv) interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood.
Also, the State Government has failed to introduce regulations to the Disorderly Houses Act and the absence of such regulation leads to a situation where the control of brothels is unsatisfactory.
Having considered the proposed development, it is concluded that the proposal is inappropriate. The proposal would create an unacceptable situation where the existing pedestrian thoroughfare, used by schoolchildren, commuters, workers, residents and shoppers in the Mortdale Shopping Centre would become an access point for this brothel. This would discourage such pedestrian use which would have a flow on effect on the retail, commercial and community services presently accessed by members of the community.
The nature and location of the proposed development is incompatible with the amenity of the area and, accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .03.02 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 28 PITT STREET, MORTDALE (D.A. 174/97)
BROTHEL
. Recommendation 28 PITT STREET, MORTDALE (D.A. 174/97)
BROTHEL
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT Council, as the consent authority, refuse Development Application No. 174/97 for the use of the first floor of 28 Pitt Street, Mortdale as a brothel for the following reasons:
1) The possible adverse social and economic effect on development in the locality.
2) The inappropriate relationship of the proposed development to development on adjoining land.
3) The proposal is inadequate in terms of parking.
4) The incompatibility of the proposal is considered to be likely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood, now and in the future.
5) There has been significant community interest in the proposal resulting in an overwhelming number of submissions calling for refusal of the application.
6) The application fails to satisfy the requirements of the Disorderly Houses Act and no regulatory system has been introduced for the control of brothels.
7) The application lacks relevant information on occupational safety and health guidelines, parking needs, security, client usage, street prostitution and outcalls.
8) The application fails to satisfy the objectives of Council's Local Environmental Plan, 1994, the draft amendment and of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as set out in Section 5.
9) The circumstances of the case and the public interest.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.04 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.04.01 51, 51A, 53 WOODLANDS AVENUE, LUGARNO (D.A. 110/97)
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING 8 DWELLINGS AND PARKING FOR 17 CARS
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)
- Applicant : Farman, Bonser & Associates
Proposal : RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CONTAINING 8 DWELLINGS
AND PARKING FOR 17 CARS
Zoning : Zone No. 2 - Residential
Interim Residential
Development Code: Development Area "A"
Owners : Mr. & Mrs. M. Brodie, Mr. & Mrs. R. Piltz
and Piltz Investments
Existing Development : Two Single Dwellings and Vacant Land
Cost of Development : $1.1 million
PRECIS OF REPORT
1. The proposal now before Council is for the erection of 7 x 3 bedroom and 1 x 6 bedroom dwellings with on-site parking for 17 cars.
2. The Development Application has been assessed in accordance with Council's IRDC and several areas of non-compliance have been identified.
3. The development does not comply with Clause 19 of Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994 in respect to its contravention of the foreshore building line.
4. The Development Application has been placed on public notification twice with objections received in response to each notification.
5. Council's Manager, Development Advice raised no objections in respect to the proposal, however the Manager, Building Services raised concerns with respect to driveway gradients, extent of excavation and the necessity for retaining walls.
6. It is recommended that the Development Application be refused.
Background
On 26 May, 1997 Council received a Development Application for the erection of eight dwellings on three adjoining allotments on the southern side of Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno. The subject land consists of one lot which faces directly onto Woodlands Avenue and two adjoining battleaxe allotments which extend in a southerly direction to a waterfront reserve and the Georges River. The site has a total area of 4202.4 square metres and is currently occupied by two existing single dwellings, one of which will be demolished to enable the project to proceed. The other dwelling is to be retained and incorporated into the development.
Development in the vicinity generally consists of detached houses, of a range of sizes and heights. There is little medium density development in the area, however, Council has given approval for two medium density developments in close proximity to this site. The subject site has a width of approximately 23.75 metres and length of 176.96 metres to the boundary of the public reserve.
The site represents a consolidation of three lots extending from Woodlands Avenue beyond an escarpment to a river front reserve. From Woodlands Avenue to the existing residence, No. 51A, the site slopes towards the river at a gradual rate and then falls rapidly towards the escarpment. From the escarpment to the reserve and on to the river the gradient is very steep. Dramatic views of the river are had through the trees and from the rock platform adjacent to the escarpment.
Initial Development Proposal
The initial Development Application submitted to Council proposed the erection of 7 x 3 bedroom dwellings and 1 x 6 bedroom dwelling as follows :
* Street Frontage
Four large units in two separate attached town houses, Units 3 and 4 being attached by a single width, single storey garage. An existing single storey residence is to be demolished in this area.
* Existing Residence
The existing two storey brick residence (No. 51A) is to be retained in its present form and integrated with the development.
* Centre Area
Two three bedroom detached residences are located in a space that provides for low intensity development in recognition of the gradient of the site, the existence of significant trees and the opportunity to provide significant landscaped areas.
* Escarpment (Adjacent to rock ledge)
A large six bedroom residence is proposed to the north of the escarpment.
To serve the proposed development, the original plan provided a total of 18 parking spaces of which two were for visitors. All of the proposed dwellings gain access via a single driveway onto Woodlands Avenue. The applicant's Statement of Environmental Effects explains the design philosophy of the development, as follows :
- "The site is developed with maximum density located from the existing house north to Woodlands Avenue, taking advantage of the proximity of the street and the relatively flat terrain.
The remainder of the site is less intensively developed resulting in the required landscaped area being provided in large areas with attendant landscaping advantages. The area below the escarpment is undeveloped.
Private open space is provided at ground level for units 1 - 4 and 5 while decks are provided for the remainder. The private open space for Units 5 and 6 are not formally defined.
Vehicular access is via a 3m wide common driveway adjacent to the eastern boundary generally in the location of the existing driveway. Once clear of the existing residence, the driveway deviates to the western boundary where it continues to Unit 8. This deviation reduces the gradient and provides variety of vista down the site.
Parking is generally provided in two car garages with the exception of Unit 3 which is provided with a single garage and stack parking area in front. Unit 8 has a 3 car garage.
The garages to units 6 and 7 are located under the bedroom area to reduce the footprint in the steep area of the site in which they are located.
Two visitor car parks are provided.
Units 1- 4 are conventional, designed particularly for easy access to the street and level surrounds. These units contain the main bedroom at ground floor level.
The remainder of the units are designed to take advantage of surrounding views including to the river together with the natural site environment."
The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the heads of Consideration in Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the following comments are made :
The subject site is zoned No. 2 - Residential in accordance with the provisions of Hurstville LEP 1994. As such the proposed development is permissible, subject to an assessment in respect to the relevant provisions of Council's IRDC for Development Area "A", and consideration being given to the objectives of the Residential zone, the objectives of Area "A" and the provisions of the LEP relating to the foreshore building line.
Compliance with the IRDC - Initial Development Proposal
Tabled Information
| | Proposal | Compliance |
| Density (site area/unit) | 315 m2 | 525 m2 | Yes |
| Landscaped Open Space | 55% | 50% | No (1) |
| Front Site Height Maximum | 9 m | 5.6 m | Yes |
| Rear Site Height Maximum | 6 m | Varied | No (2) |
| Front Site Storeys Maximum | 2 | 2 | Yes |
| Rear Site Storey Maximum | 1 | 1/2, 2 | No (3) |
| Attached Dwellings Minimum Private Open Space Less than 3 bedroom More than 3 bedroom | No 80 m2 100 m2 | No N/A Varied | Yes N/A Yes/No (4) |
| Minimum dimensions of principal private open space Less than 3 bedroom More than 3 bedroom | 5m x 5m 5m x 6m | N/A Varied | N/A Yes/No (5) |
| Front Boundary Setbacks | 4.5 m | 4.5 m | Yes (6) |
| Rear Boundary Setbacks | FBL | 168 m | No |
| Minimum Street Frontage | 15 m | 23.775 m | Yes |
| Minimum Side Boundary Setback Front Site 1 storey Front Site 2 storey Rear Site 1 storey Rear Site 2 storey Three Storey | 1.35 m 2.00 m 1.35 m 2.00 m | 1.35 m 4.60 m Varied Varied | Yes Yes Yes No |
| Parking Requirements | 18 | 18 | Yes (7) |
Comments :
1. Landscaped open space for the site is estimated at approximately 2070.48 square metres or 50%. This is a shortfall of approximately 268 square metres.
2. A number of the dwellings appear to encroach the single storey compliance for the rear of the site. Of note, dwellings 8, 6, possibly 3 and 4 do not comply dependent upon what is determined to be the "front" and "rear" divide of the site.
3. Similar to (2), again dependent on definition of "front" and "rear" of the site.
4. Difficult to determine exact areas of Private Open Space, fence lines are not included on many of the dwellings. Dwelling 1 appears to only provide 45 square metres of private open space and the majority of this is forward of the 4.5 metres street setback.
5. Similar to (4), a number of the dwellings appear to not comply, however inadequate information has been provided to enable a comprehensive assessment.
6. Private Open Space for dwelling 1 has been brought forward of street setback of 4.5 metres. This may be varied subject to assessment of the street front of adjoining properties. A large site should however provide this area behind the setback.
7. The ability to manoeuvre from dwelling 8 in a forward direction is questionable. The ability for vehicles to manoeuvre from the existing carport at Unit 5 is also questioned.
Divisional Referrals
- Manager, Building Services
Raised concerns with respect to the extent of excavation proposed, the steepness of the driveway gradients particularly relating to the units furthest from the street and the potential environmental and structural impact of the proposal on the cliff edge.
Manager, Development Advice
No objections to the proposed development subject to the imposition of standard conditions.
Tree Preservation Officer
The Development Application was accompanied by a tree survey and tree report which recommended the removal of eighteen (18) trees on site. In addition the development, as proposed, would result in the loss of an additional three (3) trees. The tree survey, tree report and Landscape Concept Plan were referred to Council's Tree Preservation Officer for assessment. The recommendation was that sections of the development should be redesigned to preserve at least six (6) major trees proposed for removal by the applicant. Overall concern was raised regarding the removal of several healthy canopy trees.
Adjoining residents were notified by letter and a notice was placed in the "St. George and Sutherland Shire Leader" and on site advising of a notification period of twenty-one (21) days from 10 July to 24 July, 1997. Three (3) letters of objection were submitted in response. concerns raised are summarised as follows :
i) Breach of the Foreshore Building Line.
The foreshore building line was set in its present position for a good reason - it protects the river, fauna and flora. The proposed variation to the foreshore building line will be detrimental to the whole area leading to additional runoff, sedimentation, siltation, as occurs now on the Illawong side of the River.
ii) Environmental Impact
The Georges River cannot continue to cope with the extent of development proposed. Profit should not be placed before protection of the environment, particularly of one of the most pristine areas of Sydney.
iii) Parking and Traffic
The cumulative impact of previous medium density proposals approved in Woodlands Avenue and the present proposal will seriously affect availability of on-street parking and traffic levels and thereby reduce the amenity and quality of life of existing residents. The current proposal, in itself will adversely affect traffic levels in the street.
iv) Noise
The proposed development will generate additional noise, particularly due to the movement of an extra 18 vehicles.
v) Bushfire Risk
The additional number of vehicles and increased population will add to the risk during bushfire events. Lugarno is situated on a peninsula with only one access leading out, the more vehicles, the more difficult to evacuate if required.
Planning Comments
In response to the concerns raised by the objectors, Council's desire to protect the sensitive environmental nature of Lugarno, and the fact that the development contravened several provisions of Council's IRDC, a Ward Councillor meeting was convened on 29 July, 1997. The meeting involved Ward Councillors, Council officers and the applicant, however, despite detailed discussion, did not resolve the issues in any satisfactory manner. Both Councillors and officers made clear to the applicant that the development in its current form was unacceptable for the following reasons :
a) Non-compliance with the IRDC.
b) Extent of excavation.
c) Potential environmental impact.
d) Non-compliance with the foreshore building line.
e) Loss of significant trees.
Subsequent to the meeting with the applicant, the Peakhurst Ward Councillors inspected the subject site with Council officers and reached a unanimous decision that the Development Application be returned to the applicant for redesign. In particular Councillors agreed and the applicant was advised that :
i) No final decision be given with respect to the subject development pending a review of the foreshore building line to be undertaken throughout all foreshore suburbs (i.e., Lugarno, Oatley, Peakhurst).
ii) consideration would be given to a variation of the foreshore building line with respect to the development of Nos. 51, 51A and 53 Woodlands Avenue subject to the development being redesigned to :
- a) protect the Eucalyptus haemostoma situated at the front of the site (i.e., redesign Units 1 and 2),
b) relocate Unit 8 a minimum distance of 12 metres back from the cliff,
c) retain all the existing trees required to be protected by Council's Tree Preservation Officer particularly those located between Unit 7 and the cliff edge (i.e., Unit 8 must be redesigned to respect the existing vegetation).
Revised plans were submitted to Council on 9 December, 1997. These plans were re-notified to those residents who had previously lodged objections and comment was invited during the period 17 December, 1997 to 5 January, 1998. A further two (2) objections were received from those that had originally objected. The objections received reiterated the previous concerns raised regarding environmental impact, traffic, noise and the inappropriate nature of the development within Lugarno.
Merits of Revised Proposal
The revised plans now presented to Council for consideration consist of the same number of units and substantially the same design. In response to Council's requirements, Dwellings 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been revised and relocated in order to conserve the significant tree at the front of the property. Dwelling 8 and the swimming pool have been relocated away from the cliff edge. The impact of this repositioning on existing trees will be discussed in detail in a later section of this report.
Compliance with Provisions of the IRDC
An assessment of the revised plans in relation to the provisions of the IRDC reveals that the following areas of non-compliance remain :
* Landscaped Open Space
Despite the large site area and the fact that the proposed density is less than that permitted by the IRDC, landscaped open space is less than the 55% required by Council's Code.
* Rear Site Height Maximum
Dwellings 6, 7 and 8 exceed the rear height maximum of 6.0 metres permitted by the IRDC. The variations proposed extend to a maximum of 8.0 metres, thus a variation of up to 33%.
* Rear Site Storeys Maximum
It is accepted that the boundary line which establishes the front and rear of the site is situated in the vicinity of Dwelling 5. No objection is raised to the two storey nature of Dwelling 5 as it is an existing residence. Dwellings 6, 7 and 8 are also two storey dwellings and therefore do not comply with Council's IRDC.
* Private Open Space
The applicants have not provided calculations of private open space, however, an assessment of the revised plans indicates that it is unlikely that Dwellings 1-4 would be able to provide the required minimum of 100 square metres, taking into account that any area to be included must be a minimum 3.0 metres wide and must not be located on the street frontage. The ability of the development to provide level, useable areas of private open space for Dwellings 6, 7 and 8 is also questionable and has not been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant.
* Principle Private Open Space
Council's IRDC requires a minimum area of dimensions 6m x 5m to be provided for dwellings of three bedrooms or greater. No grid calculations have been provided by the applicant to establish the extent of compliance with this requirement, however an assessment of the revised plans indicates that Dwellings 1-4 would be unlikely to comply with this requirement. Although Dwellings 5-8 clearly have adequate area to conform with the 6m x 5m provision, it is again questionable whether these areas would be level or useable, taking into account the slope of the land. It should be noted that the provision of a deck is not an acceptable form of private open space unless it is provided at ground level.
* Parking and Vehicular Manoeuvring
The IRDC requires the provision of sixteen (16) resident parking spaces and two (2) visitor spaces. The revised plans provide seventeen (17) resident spaces (Dwelling 8 which has six (6) bedrooms, is serviced by a three (3) car garage) and one (1) visitor space. It is considered a minimum of two (2) visitor spaces should be provided on site, taking into account the need to discourage on-street parking and the distance visitors would need to walk from Woodlands Avenue to access Dwellings 5 through 8. The driveway linking Woodlands Avenue to Dwelling 8 is approximately 140 metres in length. Due to its width of only 3.0 metres along most of its distance, vehicular conflicts could be expected and the provision of a passing bay, particularly between Dwellings 5 and 6 should be provided.
Concern is raised regarding the gradient of the driveway, particularly adjacent to Dwellings 6, 7 and 8. No longitudinal section has been provided by the applicant to determine whether the driveway gradient complies with Council's standard and permits level manoeuvring areas for all vehicles accessing the site.
Taking into account the slope of the site and narrow driveway, it is considered that manoeuvring areas for Dwellings 2, 3 5 and 7 are inadequate, particularly as the garages are of minimum size, with minimum width door openings and additional obstructions created by the provision of internal doors giving access to the dwellings.
* Boundary Setbacks
Council's IRDC requires that single storey and two storey development provide a minimum boundary setback of 1.35 metres and 2.0 metres respectively. The proposed development contravenes these requirements in two instances, being the second storey of Dwelling 4 and the second storey of the garage to Dwelling 8.
* Rear Boundary Setback (Foreshore Building Line)
At its meeting held on 17 August, 1994, Council adopted a Foreshore Building Line affecting the subject land and adjoining properties having frontage to the Georges River. The line affecting the subject property is set at 80 metres, as measured from the front boundary of the property to Woodlands Avenue. The proposed development encroaches substantially beyond this line. Dwellings 6, 7 and 8 are entirely situated beyond the development limit set by the foreshore building line. In fact, Dwelling 8 (the most southerly projecting dwelling, is situated a distance of approximately 76 metres beyond the line. In addition the swimming pool proposed for Dwelling 8 extends a distance of 87.5 metres beyond the foreshore building line. I consider the extent of encroachment to be unacceptable.
The objectives of the Foreshore Building Line while not explicitly outlined in Local Environmental Plan 1994 are implicit and can be interpreted from the wording of Clause 19.
I consider the objectives to be three-fold as follows :
1. environmental, in order to retain a significant portion of the foreshore in its natural state and minimise (by filtering) adverse impacts upon water quality created by land clearing and urban development through stormwater drainage, sediment build-up and chemical leaching;
2. visual, in order to retain a substantial tree canopy, and screening of urban development particularly when the landscape is viewed from the river; and
3. ecological, in order to retain a sustainable habitat for local fauna, particularly birdlife.
The extent of encroachment proposed by the subject development will reduce the effectiveness of the existing foreshore building line and minimise the potential to achieve the objectives listed above. Should development of the site occur to the extent of approximately 72 metres beyond the existing line, substantial environmental, ecological and visual damage may occur. Additional urban runoff, silt and sediment build-up will occur both during and after the completion of the development. However, the opportunity for existing vegetation to act as a natural filter will be reduced due to the reduced distance between the edge of development and the foreshore.
In terms of Council's ability to consider a variation to the foreshore building line it would be necessary for it to assess an objection lodged under the provisions of S.E.P.P. No. 1. No objection has been lodged by the applicant.
Impact on Existing Trees
Council's Tree Preservation Officer has reviewed the tree survey, landscape plan and tree report submitted by the applicant and has assessed each individual tree within the area proposed for development during a series of site inspections. As indicated in the following table, the revised plans submitted by the applicants involve the removal of 13 trees out of a total of 23 trees within the area proposed for development.
| Original Plans | Revised Plans |
| Total No. of trees within development area | 23 | 23 |
| No. trees proposed to be retained | 5 | 10 |
| No. trees recommended to be retained (Council's TPO) | 10 | 10 |
| No. trees detrimentally affected by development or proposed for removal | 21 | 20 |
Council's Tree Preservation Officer has identified a minimum of 10 trees as being significant and to be retained. However, although the applicant has now accepted that the same 10 trees should be retained, the development as proposed will result in the loss of a minimum 6 of these 10 trees due to the proximity of buildings and the impact of excavation, filling, driveways, retaining walls and the location of services. Therefore of a total of 23 trees, 20 are either proposed to be removed or are likely to die as a result of the development. Taking into account the zoning of the land, the leafy character of the street and suburb, and the recent Council resolution to prepare a Draft LEP to protect its environmental sensitivity, the loss of this number of mature native trees is unacceptable.
Bushfire Risk
The proposed development has made no provision for bushfire protection. Due to the dense vegetation situated between the southern side of the development and the river, and the steep slope, the dwellings could face a serious bushfire risk. Should the development proceed, an additional distance of a minimum 40 metres would be required to be cleared either as the fuel free or fuel reduced zone. This would mean that the clearing would extend by a distance of 10 metres into the foreshore public reserve. Taking into account the steep slope of the land in this vicinity, the extent of land required to be cleared as fuel free and fuel reduced areas may actually be significantly greater than 40 metres.
Objectives of Development Area "A"
Page 38 of the IRDC outlines the physical characteristics of Area A development :
"Residential development found in Development Area A is generally detached housing on larger allotments with a dense vegetation cover or garden setting. The desired form of development is one of single detached dwellings integrated with landscaped features. This will ensure that the character of detached housing in the area and the local streetscape will be retained.
Future development opportunities are limited due to the environmental constraints. Where new redevelopment occurs it must be of a small scale low-rise form as infill development."
The objective of Area A development is therefore to encourage development which
* is in the form of detached houses;
* is compatible with the scale and character of the existing detached housing; and
* has a high proportion of natural ground surface to maximise natural surface drainage and tree planting.
Conclusion
The development now before Council has been the subject of several officer-level meetings with the applicant, and one Ward Councillor meeting. The applicant has been aware during all stages of the process and before lodging the formal Development Application that the proposal did not comply with several provisions of the IRDC and proposes a substantial variation to the foreshore building line. Having considered in detail all respects of the proposed development and the major areas of non-compliance which include the removal of a substantial number of mature canopy trees from the site, it is recommended that the Development Application be refused. This recommendation reflects not only the extent of non-compliance and the objections received but relates the development proposed to the objectives of Development Area "A" and the contrast between the existing low scale leafy nature and what is proposed. Finally this recommendation takes account of and is consistent with the recent judgement of the Land and Environment Court which upheld Council's decision to refuse a development at 63-67 Woodlands Avenue which proposed a similar level of non-compliance with the IRDC and contravention of the foreshore building line.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.01 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 51, 51A, 53 WOODLANDS AVENUE, LUGARNO (D.A. 110/97)
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING 8 DWELLINGS AND PARKING FOR 17 CARS
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)
. Recommendation 51, 51A, 53 WOODLANDS AVENUE, LUGARNO (D.A. 110/97)
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING 8 DWELLINGS AND PARKING FOR 17 CARS
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT Council as the consent authority refuse Development Application DA 110/97, being for the erection of eight (8) dwellings at Nos. 51, 51A and 53 Woodlands Avenue, Lugarno for the following reasons :
1. The development does not comply with Council's Interim Residential Development Code in the following respects :
- * Landscaped Private Open Space
* Boundary Setbacks
* Height and Number of Storeys
* Extent of Excavation
3. The extent of vegetation required to be removed as a consequence of the development is considered to be unacceptable, particularly in Development Area "A" locality.
4. The development would have an unacceptable impact on the environment, scenic quality and amenity of the area having regard to the relevant matters raised under S.90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.04.02 91 MULGA ROAD, OATLEY (D.A. 249/97)
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF GROUND FLOOR RETAIL AND OFFICE SUITES AND TWO LEVELS OF
RESIDENTIAL FOR SIX (6) UNITS WITH BASEMENT PARKING FOR 20 VEHICLES
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)
- Applicant : Mr Jim Flevaris
Proposal : MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTING OF GROUND
FLOOR RETAIL AND OFFICE
SUITES AND TWO LEVELS OF
RESIDENTIAL FOR SIX (6)UNITS WITH BASEMENT PARKING FOR
20 VEHICLES
Zoning : Zone No. 3(a) - General Business
Owners : J & D Flevaris
Existing Development : Detached Residential Dwelling
Cost of Development : $900,000
PRECIS OF REPORT
1. Mixed use development consisting of ground floor retail and office suites, two residential levels of 4 x 3 and 2 x 2 bedroom units with basement parking for twenty (20) vehicles.
2. Existing and surrounding development.
3. Statutory framework - Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994, Hurstville Draft Development Control Plan No. 8 - Development in 3(a) General Business Zones.
4. Proposed Development.
5. Public and adjoining owner notification - one hundred and ninety-nine (199) submissions received.
6. Recommendation - Refusal on the basis that the proposal does not comply with Draft Development Control Plan No. 8 - Development in 3(a) General Business Zones.
A Development Application for the mixed use development was lodged with Council on 7 October, 1997 following preliminary meetings between Council's Divisional Manager, Policy Planning and Environment and Council's planning officers.
Existing and Surrounding Development
The subject site, 91 Mulga Road, Oatley, comprises Lot 12 in Deposited Plan 6368 and is 766.28 square metres in area. The property is located on the southern side of Mulga Road and is in close proximity to several commercial premises located on the southern side of Mulga Road between Woronora Parade and Mi Mi Street, Oatley. Development adjoining the subject site is that of detached Federation style dwellings. 91 Mulga Road has a street frontage of 16.765 metres and a depth of 45.72 metres. The site slopes toward Mulga Road, however the general fall of land within the area is toward Gungah Bay and the Georges River.
Further from the subject site along both ends of the southern side of Mulga Road are a number of commercial buildings consisting of single shops with flat dwellings over. These buildings are generally two (2) storey in height and of varying facade heights and architectural style. Properties located on the north side of Mulga Road and to the rear of the subject site are generally detached residential dwellings ranging in height from one and storey buildings.
History
| September 1997 | Development proposal discussed with Council's Divisional Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment and Council officers. |
| 7 October, 1997 | Development Application No. 249/97 lodged with Council. |
| 14 October, 1997 | Application referred to Council's Divisional Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment for comment. |
| 17-31 October, 1997 | Development Application 249/97 notified to surrounding and affected property owners. |
Section 90
The site has been inspected and the proposal examined in accordance with the provisions of Section 90 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, and the following comments are submitted for consideration.
Statutory Requirements
The subject site is zoned No. 3(a), General Business under the Hurstville Local Environmental Plan 1994. The proposal is permissible within the zoning with Council consent. The proposal has been assessed against the provisions of the Hurstville Local Environmental plan 1994. Council currently has on exhibition a Draft Development Control Plan No. 8 (Development in 3(a) General Business zones). Part 2 of this plan applies to all land within 3(a) General Business zones in the Peakhurst Ward of the City of Hurstville excluding Riverwood.
Clause 13(2) of the Hurstville LEP 1994 within the 3(a) General Business zone, permits a floor space ratio (fsr) of 1.5:1. The maximum non-residential component of the above floor space is 1:1 under the provisions of this clause. The proposed fsr for the development is 1.48:1 comprising 0.94:1 residential floor space and 0.54 commercial/retail floor space. Based on the above the proposal development complies with the statutory requirements of the Hurstville LEP 1994.
Part 1 of the Draft Development Control Plan No. 8 outlines that the residential component for development in 3(a) General Business Zones in the City of Hurstville excluding the Beverly Hills and Riverwood Town Centres be restricted to 0.5:1. Part 2 of the Draft DCP No. 8 proposes to restrict development within 3(a) General Business Zones in the Peakhurst Ward of the City of Hurstville excluding Riverwood to not exceed two storeys. Compliance with the above provisions for the subject proposal would therefore not be achievable.
Proposed Development
The proposed development is to demolish the existing residential cottage and to construct a new three storey commercial/residential building consisting of 2x2 and 4x3 bedroom units, ground floor retail and office floor area and basement carparking for twenty (20) vehicles. The lower ground floor is serviced by a one way ramp off Mulga Road. The ground floor consists of a large retail space fronting Mulga Road with internal arcade accessing two office suites at the rear with private courtyard access being provided over the basement carpark. A central stair services and connects the carpark and upper levels.
As highlighted the first and second floors contain a total of four (4) dwelling units, fronting Mulga Road and two (2) dwelling units at the rear above the office suites. All units have been provided with adequate living and balcony areas. The applicant submits that the proposed building meets the zone objectives in that the building offers a large flexible retail area (approximately 150 square metres) with a wide street frontage and arcade exposure suitable for most retail applications as well as cafe or restaurant use. The space is also suitably sized for possible subdivision into two conventional neighbourhood shops. Further, the ground floor offers two professional office suites with plenty of natural light from private on site courtyards.
A higher residential component on the upper levels of the development responds to :
* a growing demand for housing in the area,
* close proximity to surrounding residential zones,
* the opportunity for further support and development to local business,
* close proximity to transport and amenities,
* matching the traditional "shop-top housing", well suited to neighbourhood business areas.
The applicant further states that the
- "proposal has been designed to have a comparable front facade height to other typical older style two storey commercial buildings despite having an additional level. Three storey appearance is supported as
* the facade height (at the front boundary is 9.0 metres above the footpath and comparable to other older style two storey buildings;
* due to the natural topography of the area, the building profile adjacent to Mulga Road has a similar scale and height of the two storey dwellings on opposite side of the road;
* the three storey portion of the building has no shadow impact on the surrounding residential zones;
* the building includes design features that reduce the bulk street appearance including front balconies at two levels, bull-nosed and terrace roof styling."
* shadows cast for the majority of the day (i.e., between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm) for summer, autumn and spring do not impact on any neighbouring residential zones in any way,
* worst scenario shadows cast early morning and late afternoon (i.e., 9.00 am and 3.00 pm) mid winter does extend onto some properties at the rear by up to 4.0 metres on ground, however this matches the existing shadow of a typical 1.8 metre high paling fence at the 24 degree vertical shadow angle of the sun at these times. The shadow cast by the proposed building at these times would be to the top of the rear paling fence only and would not, in real terms, increase shadow impact on neighbouring properties,
* no shadow impact will occur to properties on the opposite side of Mulga Road,
* shadow impact is fully contained to neighbouring properties within the 3(a) General Business zoning."
The proposed building steps down in size at the rear with a facade height of 6.0 metres and a ridge height of 8.5 metres. Rear boundary setback is over 8.0 metres from the nearest residential property. Windows viewing onto neighbouring properties are limited to one elevation and one storey only (first floor). The windows are further recessed to balconies and are over 10.0 metres in setback distance from the rear boundary. This area is screened by existing boundary trees, and are from two residential units only. The appearance of the building at the rear is that of two storey terrace housing, and not the often typical service areas associated with commercial zones and buildings.
The applicant further submits that the amenity of the residential zone on the opposite side of Mulga Road is also preserved in the following ways :
* No shadow impact.
* A more pleasant residential terrace appearance with balconies and bull-nosed roofs than the more typical extensive hard wall appearance in evidence in most commercial buildings in other sections of Mulga Road.
* The subject site has a wide separation of over 20.0 metres from boundary to boundary.
* The proposal also has a lower intensity traffic generating use, due to the high residential component, with fully contained and concealed parking facilities, serviced by a single width driveway crossing only.
Tabled Information
| Proposed | LEP 1994 | Compliance |
| Site Area | 766.5 m2 | | N/A |
| Floor Space Ratio | 1.48:1 | 1.5:1 | Yes |
| Non-Residential Floor Space Ratio | 0.54:1 | 1:1 | Yes |
| Building Height | 3 storeys | N/A | N/A |
| Private Open Space: | Varied | N/A | Yes |
| Landscaped Area | | N/A | N/A |
| Building Setbacks: Mulga Road | Nil | Nil | Yes |
| Side/rear | Nil | Nil | Yes |
| Parking - Total | 20 | 16.9 | Yes |
| Visitor Parking | 2 | 2 | Yes |
| Building Envelope - Front | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| - rear | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Frontage | 16.765 m2 | N/A | Yes |
Comment :
Carparking - The above carparking requirement is based on the following calculations:
Required parking for Retail Floor Space - 1 space per 28 square metres gross lettable area (150 square metres/28) = 5.35 spaces.
Required parking for Office Area - 1 space per 40 square metres gross lettable area (162 square metres/40) = 4.05 spaces.
Required parking for Residential Units - 1 space per unit + 1 space/4 units visitors (6 + 1.5) = 7.50 spaces.
Required total = 16.90 spaces
The proposed parking = 20 spaces
Therefore providing an additional 3.1 parking spaces.
Building Height
No specific building envelope or Development Control Plan for the Mulga Road 3(a) commercial zone has been formulated to date. It is, however highlighted that Council currently has on exhibition a Draft Development Control Plan No. 8 - Development in 3(a) General Business Zones. Part 2 of this plan applies to all land within 3(a) General Business Zones in the Peakhurst Ward of the City of Hurstville excluding Riverwood.
Specific controls applicable include residential floor space within these zones not exceeding 0.5:1 and that Development within 3(a) General Business Zones in the Peakhurst Ward of the City of Hurstville, excluding Riverwood must not exceed a height of two storeys.
As submitted by the applicant, there is no height restriction for a building within zone 3(a) and the height is governed by the floor space ratio. The proposal has been designed to have a comparable front facade height to other typical older style two storey commercial buildings despite having an additional level. The applicant further submits that the three storey appearance is supported as :
* the facade height (at the front boundary) is 9.0 metres above the footpath and comparable to other older style two storey building facades,
* the natural ground topography, due to the building profile adjacent to Mulga Road has a similar scale and height of a typical two storey dwelling on the opposite side of the road,
* the three storey portion of the building has no shadow impact on the surrounding residential zones and,
* the building includes design features that reduce the bulk street appearance including front balconies at two levels, bull-nosed and terrace style roofing.
Divisional Referrals
- Manager, Building Services
The proposal was referred to the Manager, Building Services to which the following comments were made. A number of contraventions of the Building Code have been highlighted at this early stage. The main deficiencies include the provision of a fire isolated stair, provision of a minimum of two exits from the basement carpark, details of fire protection of all openings within 3.0 metres of a fire source, access for and sanitary facilities for disabled, garbage bay areas and the provision of driveway profiles for basement car parking. These issues would be required to be addressed prior to development consent being issued.
Manager, Development Advice
The proposal was referred to the Manager, Development Advice to which the following comments were made. Standard conditions relating to stormwater, drainage amplification and the replacement of kerb and gutter crossings in Mulga Road should be imposed.
Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment
The proposal was referred to the Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment to which the following comments were made. The development proposal from an urban design point of view is satisfactory but the bull-nosed verandahs should be replaced with straight colourbond. In order to reduce scale, the applicant should also divide the building with a party wall. The above concerns are considered to be acceptable design changes that are able to be rectified at the Building Application stage.
Public Notification and Comment
Adjoining residents were notified by letter and given fourteen (14) days in which to view the plans and submit any comments on the proposal. 199 submissions were registered and their concerns are outlined below :
i) Council's resolution to limit development proposal heights to two storeys - December, 1995.
A majority of letters received raised strong objection to Council's planning instruments not limiting development proposals in General Business 3(a) zones within the Peakhurst Ward to two storeys. Many outlined a public meeting held in December, 1995 with a unanimous vote of over 1000 residents supporting the above height limit restrictions being imposed.
ii) Character of the Area
Many of the submissions received outlined the proposed development at a height of three storeys being totally out of character with adjoining two storey development, single detached residential dwellings and the "leafy" village atmosphere of the Oatley West area.
iii) Density
Submissions highlighted the predominant form of density within the locality as being generally that of low density, single detached residential dwellings. The proposed high rise proposal of 91 Mulga Road does not address the existing density within the Oatley West locality.
iv) Precedent
Of concern to many residents is the potential precedent that a development of this nature may have not only on the Mulga Road commercial precinct but the potential for three storey development in General Business zones throughout the Peakhurst Ward as a whole. Most further outlined the Council decision to limit development height to two storeys within the 3(a) General Business zones of the Peakhurst Ward.
v) Strategic Planning
Many submissions highlighted the need for comprehensive planning controls to be implemented to restrict the subject development to two storeys and that environmental impact studies may be required for the future development of the unique areas. Of specific note, issues requiring examination included traffic impacts, flora and fauna and existing suburb character.
vi) Traffic Impacts
Concerns have been raised regarding the impact of traffic from the subject proposal upon pedestrian and Mulga Road vehicular movements. The cumulative impact of this style of site access along Mulga Road was also highlighted. Further, the general street width of Mulga Road was questioned with regard to the on street parking of vehicles further east along Mulga Road, toward the Oatley train station.
vii) Lack of Unloading Bays for Commercial Development
Some concern has been raised about the inadequacy of the proposal to provide adequate drop off and pick up areas for the commercial development and the single drive via Mulga Road encouraging vehicles to enter and exit the site at speed dependent upon driveway grades.
viii) Overshadowing
Many objections raised concern relating to the potential for overshadowing on adjoining properties.
ix) Legal Issues/Floor Space Ratios
Many respondents felt that the subject proposal is based upon legal and technical areas rather than merit and regard for the locality. It was presented that the Council should upgrade policy to ensure such legal loopholes are closed to ensure development subject of this application cannot be approved.
Summary
As submitted by the applicant the proposed building has a great deal of merit. That is a sensible design layout with an architectural style that is compatible to the character of the area and the surrounding locality. The proposal complies with the aims and objectives of the General Business 3(a) zoning and presents an example of the opportunities available for the further development of the locality. The resultant development is a well integrated design that responds to the features of the site with a net positive benefit to the local business, residential and environmental amenity.
The subject proposal has been based upon sound urban design principles in consultation with Council's Divisional Manager, Policy, Planning and Environment. It is further highlighted that the Mulga Road commercial precinct is currently under review by urban design consultants engaged by Council, but no controls have been formulated to date.
In contrast, overwhelming support against the proposal has been received from residents of the Oatley West area, pertaining essentially to the scale and form of development being proposed. In addition to the above a Council resolution has been adopted in December, 1995 limiting the height of commercial development within General Business 3(a) zones within the Peakhurst Ward excluding the Riverwood Town Centre to two storeys and the residential floor space to a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1.
In light of the above, the subject proposal presents a design that is within general compliance of Council's previous planning provisions but not in accordance with Council's current draft Development Control Plan No. 8.
Therefore although the design of the proposal has merit, it is considered that it cannot be recommended for approval because it clearly contravenes Council's present policy for the Mulga Road commercial precinct.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .04.02 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 91 MULGA ROAD, OATLEY (D.A. 249/97)
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF GROUND FLOOR RETAIL AND OFFICE SUITES AND TWO LEVELS OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH BASEMENT PARKING FOR 20 VEHICLES
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)
. Recommendation 91 MULGA ROAD, OATLEY (D.A. 249/97)
MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF GROUND FLOOR RETAIL AND OFFICE SUITES AND TWO LEVELS OF
RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH BASEMENT PARKING FOR 20 VEHICLES
(Report by Town Planner, Mr. N. Harrison)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT Council as the consent authority refuse Development Application DA 249/97 being for a three storey mixed use development at 91 Mulga Road, Oatley for the reason that it does not comply with Draft Development Control Plan No. 8 - Development in 3(a) General Business Zones.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.05 MISCELLANEOUS AND OTHER MATTERS
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.05.01 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 1 DECEMBER AND 31 DECEMBER, 1997.
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker) (File T/01244)
- The Development Applications as set out in the attached schedule have been received between 1 December and 31 December, 1997.
D.A. NO. | PROPERTY | APPLICANT | DESCRIPTIONS | VALUE |
318/97 | 29 George Street Penshurst | Mr P N Dib | Attached 2 Storey Dual Occupancies | $25,000 |
319/97 | 536 King Georges Road Beverly Hills | G Kehagias | Shop Fitout | $16,000 |
320/97 | 34 Pitt Street Mortdale | Mr W R Pearson | Sign | Use |
321/97 | 313 Forest Road Hurstville | Hurstville Historical Society | Sunday Car Boot Markets | Use |
322/97 | 7/53-55 Lorraine Street Peakhurst | R Annesley | Warehouse Extension | $4,000 |
323/97 | 373 Forest Road Penshurst | K Mundy | Sing Storey Addition to Rear of Mixed Development | $30,000 |
324/97 | 313 Forest Road Hurstville | Stanisic Turner | Sign | Use |
325/97 | 18 Kims Avenue Lugarno | Fibrent Pty Ltd | Detached 2 Storey Dual Occupancy | $200,000 |
326/97 | 24 Barry Avenue Mortdale | A Ashworth | Factory | Use |
327/97 | 5/40-42 Inverness Avenue Pensurst | J & M Stapleton | Enclose patio | $5,500 |
328/97 | 378 Forest Road Hurstville | Maxi Metal Int. | Shop Fitout | $65,000 |
329/97 | 124 Forest Road Hurstville | T Lam | Sign | Use |
330/97 | 27A Morts Road Mortdale | R Roberti | Sign | Use |
331/97 | 154 Forest Road Hurstville | Y Chen | Shop Fitout | $1,000 |
332/97 | 4/707 Forest Road Peakhurst | Quill Stationery | Change of Use | Use |
333/97 | 5/707 Forest Road Peakhurst | Quill Stationery | Change of Use | Use |
334/97 | 156 Forest Road Hurstville | A Chiu | Shop Fitout | $1,000 |
335/97 | 15 Salt Pan Road Riverwood | Piccioni Pty Ltd | 2 Townhouses & 8 Villas | $900,000 |
336/97 | 33 Dora Street Hurstville | G J Taylor | Sign | Use |
337/97 | 344 Forest Road Hurstville | A Chiwah | Shop Fitout | $3,500 |
338/97 | 313 Forest Road Hurstville | Stanisic Turner | Automotive Showroom | Use |
339/97 | 39 Park Road Hurstville | McFadyen Anlezark | Mixed Development | $5 mill |
340/97 | 117D Woronora Parade Oatley | Gallery 101 | Art Classes | Use |
341/97 | 179 Dora Street Hurstville | F Gaffney | Attached 2 Storey Dual Occupancy | $250,000 |
342/97 | 344 Forest Road Hurstville | Landmark Aust. | Sign | Use |
343/97 | 38 Mavis Avenue Peakhurst | S & T Popovski | 2 Detached Dual Occupancies | $130,000 |
344/97 | 7/802-820 Forest Road Peakhurst | G Warn | Shop Fitout | $1,250 |
345/97 | 20 Eldon Street Riverwood | J Balic | Detached Dual Occupancies | $70,000 |
346/97 | 162 Forest Road Hurstville | Chung Pak Travel | Shop Fitout | $8,000 |
347/97 | 162 Forest Road Hurstville | Chung Pak Travel | Sign | Use |
348/97 | 147/-25-35A Park Road Hurstville | R Venter | Dental Surgery | $10,000 |
349/97 | 114 Penshurst Street Penshurst | Dr H Khan | Sign | Use |
350/97 | 1/33 Stanley Street Peakhurst | J Christiano | Warehouse Fitout | Use |
351/97 | 121 Stoney Creek Road Beverly Hills | Dragan Design | Sign | Use |
352/97 | 121 Stoney Creek Road Beverly Hills | Dragan Design | Refurbish Commercial Display Centre | $180,000 |
353/97 | 510 Forest Road Penshurst | Penshurst Public School | Sign | Use |
354/97 | 31 Gungah Bay road Oatley | Fibrent | 3 Villas | $343,700 |
355/97 | 4/1A Pritchard Place Peakhurst | D Ryan | Warehouse Fitout | Use |
356/97 | 21 Queensbury Road Penshurst | L Romanovski | Detached Dual Occupancy | $150,000 |
357/97 | 259 Forest Road Hurstville | N Bassil | Sign | Use |
358/97 | 97 Stoney Creek Road Beverly Hills | M Smith | Townhouse and Villas | $350,000 |
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 1 DECEMBER AND 31 DECEMBER, 1997.
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker) (File T/01244)
. Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BETWEEN 1 DECEMBER AND 31 DECEMBER, 1997.
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker) (File T/01244)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT the information be noted.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.05.02 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY FROM 1 DECEMBER TO 31 DECEMBER, 1997.
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker) (File T/01243)
- The Development Applications as set out in the attached schedules have been Approved (Part A), Refused (Part B) or Withdrawn (Part C) under delegated authority between 1 December and 31 December, 1997.
Part A
D.A. NO. | PROPERTY | APPLICANT | DESCRIPTIONS | RESULT DATE |
178/97 | 5 Pearce Avenue Peakhurst | Department of Housing | Aged & Disabled Housing | 1/12/97 |
226/97 | 79 Seaforth Avenue Oatley | S Messervy | Home Activity | 30/12/97 |
255/97 | 74A Roberts Avenue Mortdale | K Hristovski | Factory Fitout | 5/12/97 |
257/97 | 58 Cambridge Street Penshurst | Masterton Homes | Attached Dual Occupancies | 19/12/97 |
258/97 | 24 Stanley Street Peakhurst | Jenzam | Factory Fitout | 16/12/97 |
259/97 | 17 Pritchard Place Peakhurst | S Koulis | Factory Fitout | 4/12/97 |
268/97 | 15/47 Lorraine Street Peakhurst | LMN Properties | Warehouse Fitout | 16/12/97 |
282/97 | 17/63 Norman Street Peakhurst | Fung Lea Food Services | Warehouse Fitout | 30/12/97 |
285/97 | 52 Penshurst Street Penshurst | Penshurst RSL Club | Office Fitout - Temporary Office Accommodation | 30/12/97 |
288/97 | 213 Forest Road Hurstville | Interarch Aust | Medical Centre | 23/12/97 |
289/97 | 43 Stanley Street Peakhurst | Paleena Holdings | Smash Repairs | 3/12/97 |
291/97 | 190 Forest Road Hurstville | J S Lee | Shop Fitout | 18/12/97 |
292/97 | 164 Forest Road Hurstville | S Fan | Sign | 17/12/97 |
293/97 | 336-336A Forest Road Hurstville | E Tsang | Shop Fitout | 23/12/97 |
307/97 | 272 Forest Road Hurstville | Wolff Architecture | 2 Storey Commercial Block | 23/12/97 |
314/97 | 477 King Georges Road Beverly Hills | S Yuan Lin Tang | Restaurant | 29/12/97 |
321/97 | 313 Forest Road Hurstville | Hurstville Historical Society | Car Boot Markets | 29/12/97 |
323/97 | 373 Forest Road Penshurst | K J Mundy | Single Storey Addition to Rear of Mixed Development | 31/12/97 |
337/97 | 344 Forest Road Hurstville | A C Chiwah | Shop Fitout | 23/12/97 |
Part B
D.A. NO. | PROPERTY | APPLICANT | DESCRIPTION | RESULT DATE |
262/97 | 12 Clarendon Road Riverwood | M Harrison | Home Activity | 19/12/97 |
Part C
D.A. NO. | PROPERTY | APPLICANT | DESCRIPTION | RESULT DATE |
287/97 | 300 Forest Road Hurstville | H Venter | Dental Surgery | 2/12/97 |
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.02 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY FROM 1 DECEMBER TO 31 DECEMBER, 1997.
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker) (File T/01243)
. Recommendation DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY FROM 1 DECEMBER TO 31 DECEMBER, 1997.
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker) (File T/01243)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT the information be noted.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
05.05.03 APPEAL AGAINST COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF DA 114/97 - 15 COLERIDGE STREET, RIVERWOOD - FOR A
2 STOREY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING 5 UNITS OVER 1 LEVEL OF BASEMENT PARKING
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)
- Notice of the above Appeal was served upon Council on 9 January, 1998. The Appeal has been set down for callover before the Registrar of the Land and Environment Court on 23 January, 1998.
Council's solicitors, Deacon, Graham and James, have been advised of the receipt of the Appeal and in concurrence with usual practice have been instructed to represent Council and defend refusal of the consent.
The subject development proposed the erection of a two storey residential building containing 5 x 2 bedroom units over one level of basement carparking. The subject land is an Area "D" allotment with a frontage of 15.24 metres and therefore the development did not comply with Council's minimum frontage requirements as outlined in its IRDC.
The application also proposed other minor variations to Council's Code. The applicant argued that the site could be considered landlocked as it is adjoined by a three storey residential development on one side and Department of Housing single dwellings on the other.
At its meeting of 12 November, 1997 Council deferred determination of the Development Application for a Ward Councillor meeting. At the subsequent Ward Councillor meeting a unanimous decision was taken to refuse the Development Application on the basis that the land could not be considered to be physically landlocked and therefore did not comply with the provisions of the IRDC.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.03 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation APPEAL AGAINST COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF DA 114/97 - 15 COLERIDGE STREET, RIVERWOOD - FOR A
2 STOREY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING 5 UNITS OVER 1 LEVEL OF BASEMENT PARKING
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)
. Recommendation APPEAL AGAINST COUNCIL'S REFUSAL OF DA 114/97 - 15 COLERIDGE STREET, RIVERWOOD - FOR A
2 STOREY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING 5 UNITS OVER 1 LEVEL OF BASEMENT PARKING
(Report by Manager, Development Services, Ms. G. Vereker)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT the action taken to instruct Council's solicitors to represent Council in the Land and Environment Court and oppose the appeal be confirmed.
HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL
CIVIC CENTRE, MACMAHON STREET, HURSTVILLE.
__________________________________
SUMMARY OF ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE
DIVISIONAL MANAGER - DEVELOPMENT AND HEALTH - SECTION TWO' REPORT
TO THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT, HEALTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
TO BE HELD ON 98 01 28TH JANUARY, 1998-
06:02 Building Applications - Hurstville Ward
06:02.01 47 Orange Street, Hurstville - Amendment To New Two Storey Dwelling (Report By Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr L Josifov) (File 010275)
06:03 Building Applications - Penshurst Ward
06:04 Building Applications - Peakhurst Ward
06:05 Miscellaneous And Other Matters
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
SECTION 2
06.01 WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORTS
THERE ARE NO WARD COUNCILLORS' REPORTS IN RESPECT OF BUILDING APPLICATIONS FOR THIS MEETING.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.02 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - HURSTVILLE WARD
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.02.01 47 ORANGE STREET, HURSTVILLE - Amendment to New Two Storey Dwelling (Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr L Josifov) (File 010275)
- Applicant: Mr & Mrs Chumkovski (BA 340A/97)
Proposed: Amendment to rear of proposed two storey
dwelling
Development Area: B
Referred for: Non-compliance with the 1.5m setback for the
second storey option (Clause 3.3.3 of Council's
Code for Single Dwelling Houses)
Building Application No. 340/97 for a new two storey dwelling was received by Council on 10th June, 1997 and approved on 22nd July, 1997. As the proposal did not comply with the building envelope or the floor space ratio requirements, it was approved under the 1.5m setback option for the two storey portion. Adjoining landowners were notified and no written submissions were received.
In the assessment of the original application, it ws found that a 1350mm diameter Council stormwater pipe affected the subject site. A condition of approval (Condition No. 37) was included to require that no part of the building be built over the pipeline and that the pipeline be accurately located prior to commencement of work.
In accordance with Council's directions, the applicant located the pipeline, which was found to be more to the centre of the allotment than as shown on Council's drainage map. Following this finding, the applicant amended the rear portion of the dwelling so as to avoid building walls over the stormwater pipe. Consequential adjustments to the floor plan layout has resulted in the side boundary setbacks for the master bedroom (including ensuite) and bedroom 2 on the second storey being reduced from 1.5m to 1m, thereby not complying with any of the three options as outlined in Clause 3.3.3 of Council's Code for Single Dwelling Houses.
In support of his request to amend the second storey setbacks as per the original application, the owner has made the following submission:-
- "Further to our telephone conversation regarding the above development we seek an amendment of the approved plans in order to avoid building over the existing council 1350mm dia. stormwater pipe.
This pipeline uncovered during excavation intrudes further into the site than anticipated based on council correspondence dated 19 August 1997.
Construction in accordance with the approved plans would require building over this pipeline with the inherent construction difficulties and costs involved in achieving this.
We are also concerned in regard to the potential consequences should the pipeline fail in the future and major rectification works be required.
For these reasons we seek to amend the approved plans to enable the dwelling to be constructed without bridging this pipeline whilst maintaining building area.
As the pipeline crosses the site at approximately 45 degrees it is proposed to mirror the rear section of the proposed dwelling to allow the stepped rear walls to follow the general angle of the pipeline.
This allows the pipeline to pass under the rear balcony and avoids the dwelling itself bridging the pipeline.
In order to accomplish this on a narrow block without sacrificing functional area or front setback, a compromise on side setbacks has been necessary to a small proportion of the upper level.
Generally the upper level setback from side boundaries has been maintained at 1500mm with the exception of the master bedroom on the South East side and bedroom 2 on the North West side, where the setback reduces to 1000mm.
A slight narrowing of the ground floor footprint has increased the minimum side setbacks at the ground level from 900 to 1000mm.
As the upper level encroachment within the 1500mm setback on the North Western side is alongside a neighbouring driveway and on the South East side an adjoining two storey dwelling, it is not anticipated that this will result in increased overshadowing problems.
We also believe that the stepped form of the proposed dwelling frontage would result in an apparent scale of less than a flat frontage that complied entirely with side setback guidelines.
We also note that in the vicinity of the proposed development there is a precedence with many newly constructed two storey dwellings being closer than 1500mm from side boundaries.
For the above reasons we believe that the proposed plan revisions are a reasonable compromise that achieves the objective of avoiding building over the trunk drainage without undue prevention of development potential of the property.
We therefore believe the proposed amendment to the approved development should receive favourable support."
i) a small section of the second storey contravenes the minimum required side boundary setbacks;
ii) the average setbacks of the north eastern side exceed 1.5m;
iii) the proposal complies in all other respects with Council's Code for Single Dwelling Houses;
It is recommended that the side boundary setbacks for the master bedroom (including ensuite) and bedroom 2 be permitted at 1m.
Council invited adjoining landowners to comment on the proposed amendments and one written submission was received from Mr J Najem of 49 Orange Street, Hurstville. A meeting was held at 4pm on 15th December, 1997 between myself and Mr & Mrs Najem. It was brought to Mr & Mrs Najem's attention that the matters raised in their submission were taken into consideration with the original application and that the purpose of renotifying them was in relation to the amendments only. After being guided through the architectural plans, Mr & Mrs Najem had more of an understanding of the application and had no objections to the development.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .02.01 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation 47 ORANGE STREET, HURSTVILLE - Amendment to New Two Storey Dwelling (Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr L Josifov) (File 007254)
. Recommendation 47 ORANGE STREET, HURSTVILLE - Amendment to New Two Storey Dwelling (Report by Environmental Health & Building Surveyor, Mr L Josifov) (File 007254)
RECOMMENDATION
- 1. THAT Council resolve to permit, in this particular instance,
a reduced side boundary setback of 1m for the master
bedroom (including ensuite) and bedroom 2 located on
the second storey.
2. THAT the amended building application be approved, subject to
the same conditions as imposed on the original approval
and additional condition (38).
38. Further to condition (37), no walls of the building
and/or supporting footings shall be erected over
Council's pipeline. Open balcones without supporting
walls may extend over such pipeline in accordance
with the requirements of Council's Engineer.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.03 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - PENSHURST WARD
THERE ARE NO BUILDING APPLICATIONS IN RESPECT OF PENSHURST WARD FOR THIS MEETING.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.04 BUILDING APPLICATIONS - PEAKHURST WARD
THERE ARE NO BUILDING APPLICATIONS IN RESPECT OF PEAKHURST WARD FOR THIS MEETING.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.05 MISCELLANEOUS AND OTHER MATTERS
THERE ARE NO REPORTS IN RESPECT OF MISCELLANEOUS AND OTHER MATTERS FOR THIS MEETING.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL REPORT ITEM NO: . DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
06.05.01 ON-STREET PARKING - DELEGATIONS (Report by Manager - Divisional Administration) (File (I/00526)
Precis
In accordance with Council's resolution application was made to and authority subsequently granted by the NSW Police Commissioner to Council to enforce the provisions of the Traffic Act 1909 with respect to on-street parking.
This report proposes that this authority be delegated to the General Manager so that the General Manager may delegate this authority to appropriately qualified officers of Council.
Report in Full
The Council at its meeting 19 March 1997 adopted the folllowing recommendation of the Safety and Anti-Litter Committee 27/2/97 in relation to the subject matter :
"THAT Representations be made to the NSW Police Commissioner that Council be granted authority to enforce SEINS infringements with respect to on-street parking with Hurstville City".
Initial meetings were held with Sergeant Jim Hains, Traffic Sergeant Hurstville, NSW Police Service, Geoff Morris, Manager - Traffic & Transport and Brett Daintry, Manager - Divisional Administration, Development & Health to negotiate with local police over areas in which Council can patrol and enforce on-street parking and to discuss general operational issues. After these issues were satisfied the Council then resolved to make formal representations to the NSW Police Commissioner for Council to enforce on-street parking regulations.
On the 8 September 1997, Commissioner Tony Ryan issued Council with authority under Regulation 130A of the Motor Traffic Regulation 1935.
Section 130A of the Motor Traffic Regulations 1935 states inter alia:
"Prescribed officers and offences (section 18B)
130A. (1) For the purposes of section 18B of the Act:
(d) a person:
(i) who is an employee of a council of a local government area, an officer
or employee of the National Parks and Wildlife Service or an officer
or employee of the Forestry Commission; and
(ii) who is an authorised officer, within the meaning of section 8G of the
Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989, in respect of an
offence arising under section 8F of that Act,
is a prescribed officer in respect of offences set out in Parts 7 and 12 of
Schedule K;
(f) an employee of a council of a local government area who is an
authorised officer, within the meaning of section 8G of the
Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989, in respect of an
offence arising under section 8F of that Act is a prescribed officer
in respect of:
(i) an offence arising under Regulation 54 (7) in respect of any parking
restriction displayed on a traffic control sign containing
the words "AUTHORISED RESIDENTS VEHICLES EXCEPTED" or "PERMIT HOLDERS EXCEPTED"; and
(ii) an offence arising under Regulation 81 (1) or 85 (2); and
(iii) an offence arising under subsection 9 of section 6 of the General
Traffic Regulations 1916; and
(iv) an offence arising under the Road Transport (Mass, Loading and Access)
Regulation 1996 in respect of standing or driving a road train or of
an overdimension vehicle,
(f1) an employee of a council of a local government area (being a council
authorised in writing by the Commissioner of Police for the purposes of this
Regulation) who is an authorised officer, within the meaning of section 8G of
the Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989, in respect of an offence
arising under section 8F of that Act is a prescribed officer in respect of:
any parking offence (as defined in section 18A (5) of the Traffic Act 1909)
set out in Table B of Part 2 of Schedule K that is not an offence referred to
in paragraph (f); and
(f2) an employee of a council of a local government area who is an authorised
officer, within the meaning of section 8G of the
Environmental Offences and Penalties Act 1989, in respect of an offence
arising under section 8F of that Act is a prescribed officer in respect of any
offence under section 650 of the Local Government Act 1993; and
(f3) an employee of a council of a local government area who is an authorised
person (within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1993) for the purposes
of section 679 of that Act (Penalty notices for certain offences) is a
prescribed officer in respect of an offence arising under Regulation 118A
(Requirements as to certain loadings); and
(2) For the purposes of section 18B of the Act, an offence set out in Schedule
K is a prescribed offence.
(3) If an offence is dealt with under section 18B of the Act the penalty for
the offence is that set out in Schedule K."
Section 18 B of the Traffic Act 1909 states:
"18B Penalty notices for certain offences
(1) Where it appears to a member of the police force or a prescribed officer that any person:
*See also Part 4B of the Justices Act 1902.
(a) has committed, or by virtue of section 18A is guilty of, any prescribed offence under this Act or the regulations,
(bb) has committed, or by virtue of section 651 of the Local Government Act 1993, is guilty of, an offence under section 650 (1) or (4) of that Act,
(c) has committed any prescribed offence under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 or any regulation made under that Act,
(ca) has committed any prescribed offence under the Driving Instructors Act 1992 or any regulation made under that Act,
(cb) has committed any prescribed offence under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1988 or any regulation made under that Act,
(cc) has committed any prescribed offence under the Road Transport (Heavy Vehicles Registration Charges) Act 1995 or any regulation made under that Act,
(d) has committed any prescribed offence under the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act 1942 or any regulation made thereunder,
(da) has committed any prescribed offence under the Transport Accidents Compensation Act 1987 or any regulation made under that Act,
(db) has committed a prescribed offence under the Motor Accidents Act 1988 or the regulations made under that Act,
(dc) has committed any prescribed offence under the Tow Truck Act 1989 or any regulation made under that Act,
(e) has committed any prescribed offence under Part 4A of the Clean Air Act 1961 or any regulation made under that Act, being an offence relating to the operation of a motor vehicle,
(f) (Repealed)
(g) has committed any prescribed offence under the Recreation Vehicles Act 1983 or any regulation made thereunder, or
(h) has committed, or by virtue of section 244 of the Roads Act 1993 is guilty of, any prescribed offence under that Act or the regulations under that Act,
such member of the police force or prescribed officer may serve a notice on such person to the effect that if such a person does not desire to have the matter determined by a court, such person may pay to an officer specified in such notice within the time specified therein an amount of penalty prescribed for such offence if dealt with under this section.
(2) Any notice under subsection (1):
(a) may be served personally or by post,
(b) if it relates to an offence of which the owner of a motor vehicle is guilty by virtue of section 18A of this Act or section 651 of the Local Government Act 1993, may:
(i) be served personally or by post, or
(ii) be addressed to the owner without naming him or stating his address and may be served by leaving it on or attaching it to the vehicle.
(3) (Repealed)
(4) Where the amount of any prescribed penalty for an alleged offence is paid pursuant to this section no person shall be liable for any further proceedings for the alleged offence.
(4A) Subsection (4) does not affect any power of the Authority under section 11AB or 11AE.
(5) Payment of a penalty pursuant to this section shall not be regarded as an admission of liability for the purpose of nor in any way affect or prejudice any civil claim action or proceeding arising out of the same occurrence.
(6) The regulations may:
(a) prescribe the offences which shall be prescribed offences for the purposes of this section:
(i) by setting out those offences,
(ii) by referring to the provisions creating those offences,
(iii) by providing that all offences under a specified Act, Part of an Act, or Division of a Part of an Act, or under specified regulations (being an Act, a Part or a Division or regulations referred to in subsection (1)), shall be prescribed offences for the purposes of this section, or
(iv) by providing that all offences under any such Act, Part, Division or regulations, other than such of those offences as are specified in the regulations, shall be prescribed offences for the purposes of this section,
(b) prescribe the amount of penalty payable under this section for any prescribed offence,
(c) prescribe different amounts of penalties for different prescribed offences or classes of prescribed offences or for different prescribed offences or classes of prescribed offences having regard to the circumstances thereof.
No offence in respect of which a penalty of imprisonment may be imposed under this Act or the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Insurance) Act 1942 shall be prescribed for the purposes of this section as a prescribed offence.
(7) No penalty prescribed under this section for any prescribed offence shall exceed any maximum amount of penalty which could be imposed for such offence by a court.
(8) The provisions of this section are supplemental to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other section of this Act or any other Act in relation to proceedings which may be taken in respect of prescribed offences."
Council's two existing Car Parking Control Officers and the Manager Divisional Administration have since completed required training through the NSW Police Academy.
Council Carparking Control Officers will be carrying out patrols with NSW Parking Police over the next month to learn practical issues of on-street parking enforcement, whilst delegations are finalised.
A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) has been formulated between Hurstville Police and Hurstville City Council and patrols will be implemented in accordance with the agreed SOP.
This report proposes that the authority issued to Council under the Motor Traffic Regulation 1935 be delegated in accordance with S377 of the Local Government Act 1993 to the General Manager so that the General Manager may sub-delegate such authority initially to the two (2) existing Carparking Control Officers and the Manager Divisional Administration in accordance with S378 of the Local Government Act 1993.
Council's existing Regulation Control Officers and Council two (2) new Law Enforcement Officers will also, subject to the General Managers delegations, be authorised as they complete required training through the NSW Police Academy in March, June and September 1998.
| HURSTVILLE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION NO: .05.01 DEVELOPMENT & HEALTH |
HEADING: Recommendation ON-STREET PARKING - DELEGATIONS (Report by Manager - Divisional Administration) (File (I/00526)
. Recommendation ON-STREET PARKING - DELEGATIONS (Report by Manager - Divisional Administration) (File (I/00526)
RECOMMENDATION
- THAT pursuant to Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993, Council delegate authority granted to Hurstville City Council by NSW Police Commissioner Tony Ryan for the purposes of Regulation 130A of the Motor Traffic Regulation 1935 to the General Manager.
- * * * * *
Yours faithfully
D Beaumont
Divisional Manager - Development & Health