Session: One & Two D1 to D3, R1 & D4 · 2012. 2. 28. · H:\Development Control Committee\AGENDAS\2012\Working Agenda\mar5-12dccage.docx Meeting Agenda Session Two - Commencing at

$Page 1: Session: One & Two D1 to D3, R1 & D4 · 2012. 2. 28. · H:\Development Control Committee\AGENDAS\2012\Working Agenda\mar5-12dccage.docx Meeting Agenda Session Two - Commencing at$
Agenda: Development Control Committee

Date: Monday 5 March 2012

Time: 5.30 & 8.00 pm

Session: One & Two

Item: D1 to D3, R1 & D4

H:\Development Control Committee\AGENDAS\2012\Working Agenda\mar5-12dccage.docx

Outline of Meeting Protocol & Procedure:

The Chairperson will call the Meeting to order and ask the Committee/Staff to present apologies

or late correspondence.

The Chairperson will commence the Order of Business as shown in the Index to the Agenda.

At the beginning of each item the Chairperson will ask whether a member(s) of the public wish

to address the Committee.

If person(s) wish to address the Committee, they are allowed four (4) minutes in which to do so.

Please direct comments to the issues at hand.

If there are persons representing both sides of a matter (eg applicant/objector), the objector

speaks first.

At the conclusion of the allotted four (4) minutes, the speaker resumes his/her seat and takes no

further part in the debate unless specifically called to do so by the Chairperson.

If there is more than one (1) person wishing to address the Committee from the same side of the

debate, the Chairperson will request that where possible a spokesperson be nominated to

represent the parties.

The Chairperson has the discretion whether to continue to accept speakers from the floor.

After considering any submissions the Committee will debate the matter (if necessary), and

arrive at a recommendation (R items which proceed to Full Council) or a resolution (D items for

which the Committee has delegated authority).

Recommendation only to the Full Council or to the Strategic and Corporate Committee

(“R” Items)

Specified developments, as may be determined and listed by the Council by resolution

taken from time to time.

Matters which involve broad strategic or policy initiatives within responsibilities of

Committee.

Matters requiring the expenditure of moneys and in respect of which no Council vote

has been made.

Matters not within the specified functions of the Committee.

Matters reserved by individual Councillors in accordance with any Council policy on

"safeguards" and substantive changes.

Delegated Authority (“D” Items)

To determine all development applications and related applications, which are not required to

be determined by the Council under Council’s adopted procedures for the call up of

applications except:

a) Applications for review of a determination under section 82A of the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“the Act”) where the DCC determined the original

application.

b) Development applications for development on community land which may not be

delegated for determination under section 47E of the LG Act.

Committee Membership: 7 Councillors

Quorum: The quorum for a committee meeting is 4

Councillors.


WOOLLAHRA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

Notice of Meeting

27 February 2012

To: Her Worship The Mayor, Councillor Susan Wynne ex-officio

Councillors Sean Carmichael (Chair)

Nicola Grieve

Lucienne Edelman

Chris Howe

Ian Plater

Isabelle Shapiro

Malcolm Young

Dear Councillors

Development Control Committee Meeting – 5 March 2012

In accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993, I request your

attendance at a Meeting of the Council’s Development Control Committee to be held in the

Thornton Room (Committee Room), ground floor level, 536 New South Head, Double

Bay, on Monday 5 March 2012 at 5.30pm.

Gary James

General Manager


Additional Information Relating to

Committee Matters

Site Inspection

Other Matters

Woollahra Municipal Council

Development Control Committee 5 March 2012


Meeting Agenda

Session One – Commencing 5.30pm

Part One of Three Parts

Item

Subject

Pages

1

2

3

Leave of Absence and Apologies

Late Correspondence Note Council resolution of 27 June 2011 to read late correspondence in conjunction

with the relevant Agenda Item Declarations of Interest

Items to be Decided by this Committee using its Delegated Authority

D1 Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting held on 20 February 2012 1

D2 DA588/2011 – 12 Longworth Avenue, Point Piper – 40cm extension

to the existing balconies of Units 2, 4 & 6 – 19/12/2011

*See Recommendation Page 19

2-31

D3 Register of Current Land and Environment Court Matters and

Register of Court Proceedings for Building Control, Environmental

Control & Health Control


32-40

Items to be Submitted to the Council for Decision

with Recommendations from this Committee

R1 DA282/1979 Part 2 – 9 Vickery Avenue, Rose Bay (Lyne Park) –

Section 96 Application – Proposed modification deletion of Condition

No. 6 of the development consent which restricts the rigging of

sailing boats to the area leased from Crown Lands by the Woollahra

Sailing Club to permit the rigging & unrigging of boats within

adjoining Council trust managed sections of Lyne Park – 6/7/2011


41-59




Meeting Agenda

Session Two - Commencing at 8.00pm

Part Two of Three Parts

Item

Subject

Pages

D4 DA845/2008 – 751-755, 757 & 759 New South Head Road and 12 &

14 Richmond Road, Rose Bay – The adaptive use of 751-755 (former

car showroom) & No. 757 (former Post Officer) New South Head

Road, for a retail use as a Woolworths Supermarket & the demolition

of the pair of semi-detached dwellings at No. 12 & No. 14 Richmond

Road, to provide off-street car parking for 25 vehicles, with egress for

service vehicles via 759 New South Head Road (Crystal Car Wash) –

19/12/2008


60-268




Meeting Agenda

Session Two - Commencing at 8.00pm

Part Three of Three Parts

Annexures 3 to 12

Item

Subject

Pages

D4 DA845/2008 – 751-755, 757 & 759 New South Head Road and 12 &

14 Richmond Road, Rose Bay – The adaptive use of 751-755 (former

car showroom) & No. 757 (former Post Officer) New South Head

Road, for a retail use as a Woolworths Supermarket & the demolition

of the pair of semi-detached dwellings at No. 12 & No. 14 Richmond

Road, to provide off-street car parking for 25 vehicles, with egress for

service vehicles via 759 New South Head Road (Crystal Car Wash) –

19/12/2008

269-424



H:\Development Control Committee\AGENDAS\2012\Working Agenda\mar5-12dccage.docx 1

Item No: D1 Delegated to Committee

Subject: Confirmation of Minutes of Meeting held on 20 February 2012

Author: Les Windle, Manager - Governance

File No: See Council Minutes

Reason for Report: The Minutes of the Meeting of Monday 20 February 2012 were

previously circulated. In accordance with the guidelines for

Committees’ operations it is now necessary for those Minutes be

formally taken as read and confirmed.

Recommendation:

That the Minutes of the Development Control Committee Meeting of 20 February 2012 be

taken as read and confirmed.

Les Windle

Manager - Governance

12 Longworth Avenue, Point Piper Woollahra Council Development Control Committee

DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012

H:\Development Control Committee\AGENDAS\2012\Working Agenda\D2.doc 1

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASSESSMENT REPORT

ITEM No. D2

FILE No. DA 588/2011/1

ADDRESS 12 Longworth Avenue, Point Piper

SITE AREA 970m2

ZONING Residential 2(b)

PROPOSAL 40cm extension to the existing balconies of Units 2, 4 and 6

TYPE OF CONSENT Local development

COST OF WORKS $4,950

DATE LODGED 19 December 2011

APPLICANT/OWNER Strata Plan 17043

AUTHOR Mr S Taylor

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. LOCALITY PLAN

2. DELEGATIONS SUMMARY

Level of Delegation Recommendation of Report

The application is to be determined by the Development Control Committee as

it involves an increase in the encroachment into the Foreshore Building Line.

Approval.

subject site

objectors

north


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


3. PROPOSAL SUMMARY

The proposal involves a 40cm extension to the existing balconies of Units 2, 4 and 6 on the north

western side of each level of the building.

4. ISSUES SUMMARY

4.1 Submissions

Issue Conclusion Section

Visual privacy The balconies will result in a minor amount of additional overlooking.

The objectors requested obscure glazing or privacy screening.

16.5

Encroachment into FSBL There is an existing non-compliance of 23m and a proposed non-

compliance of 23.4m.

13.6

Loss of view The proposal will not have an adverse impact upon available views from

adjoining properties.

16.4

Dominance to users of

Lady Martins Beach

This issue relates primarily to the non-compliance with the foreshore

building line.

13.6

4.2 Primary Issues

Issue Conclusion Section

Visual privacy The balconies will result in a minor amount of additional overlooking. 16.5

Foreshore Building Line There is an existing non-compliance of 23m and a proposed non-

compliance of 23.4m.

13.6

4.3 SEPP 1 Objections

Clause in LEP Standard Departure from Control Conclusion

Clause 22 30m Foreshore

Building Line

The existing departure is 23m whereas the proposed

additions increase the departure to 23.4m.

Satisfactory

PROPERTY DETAILS AND REFERRALS

5. SITE AND LOCALITY

Physical

features

The site is located on the lower western side of Longworth Avenue, Point Piper. It has a frontage

to Sydney Harbour along its northern boundary with a sandstone retaining wall at sea level.

The total site area is 970m2. The southern frontage to Longworth Avenue is 19.505m in length,

the eastern side boundary is 50.245m in length, the western boundary is 63.195m in length and

the frontage to Sydney Harbour is 8.275m in length.

Topography

The street level is approximately RL 13, before falling dramatically in the streetside half of the

site by 8m. The area in which the building is located is built at approximately RL 3.

Existing

buildings

Located in the centre of the site is a four storey residential flat building comprising six dwellings

on the three lower levels and a car park on the uppermost level. Level access to Longworth

Avenue is available from the car park.

Environment The surrounding streetscape is characterised by a variety of multi-storey residential flat buildings

or varying age on medium sized allotments.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


6. RELEVANT PROPERTY HISTORY

Past

Applications

DA666/2008/1 proposed substantial alterations and additions to the existing residential flat

building, including providing additional off-street parking and construction of an additional

dwelling. The application was lodged on 13 October 2008 and withdrawn on 23 February 2009

as it was recommended for refusal.

DA345/2009/1 was approved by the Development Control Committee on 30 August 2010 and

involved the conversion of the existing upper floor level car park to a new 3-bedroom dwelling

(increasing the number of dwellings from six to seven), a new two-storey basement garage for ten

vehicles, with associated excavation and access to Longworth Avenue via a single car lift/hoist on

the eastern boundary and other minor works. Works have not been commenced.

7. REFERRALS

No referrals were required.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 79C

The relevant matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 include the following:

1. The provisions of any environmental planning instrument

2. The provisions of any proposed instrument that is/has been the subject of public consultation

3. The provisions of any development control plan

4. Any planning agreement that has been entered into

5. Any draft planning agreement that a developer has offered to enter into

6. The regulations

7. Any coastal zone management plan

8. The likely impacts of that development:

i) Environmental impacts on the natural and built environments

ii) Social and economic impacts

9. The suitability of the site

10. Any submissions

11. The public interest

8. ADVERTISING AND NOTIFICATION

8.1 Submissions

In accordance with Parts 3 and 4 of the Woollahra Advertising and Notification DCP, the

application was notified and advertised from 11 to 25 January 2012. Submissions were received

from:

1. Robert and Bella Silverman of 2/10 Longworth Avenue, Point Piper

2. Joe Bongiorno of 3/14 Longworth Avenue, Point Piper

3. Stanley and Charmaine Roth of 162 Wolseley Road, Road, Point Piper

The objectors raised the following issues:


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


Loss of privacy

All of the objectors raised the loss of visual privacy as an issue. Additional privacy screening or

obscure glazing was offered as a solution to this issue by two of the objectors. This is discussed in

Section 16.5.

Encroachment into FSBL/Dominance to users of Lady Martins Beach

A minimum foreshore building line of 30m applies to the site.

The existing building has a non-compliance of 23m whilst the proposed extension to the balcony

will increase this non-compliance to 23.4m. The impacts associated with this addition are minimal

and do not warrant refusal of the application, as outlined in Section 13.6.

Loss of view

The 40cm extension to the balcony includes a glass balustrade. There is no significant issue with

regard to view loss, as outlined in Section 16.4.

8.2 Statutory Declaration

In accordance with Clause 4.5 of the Woollahra Advertising and Notification DCP, the applicant

has completed the statutory declaration dated 27 January 2012 declaring that the site notice for DA

588/2011/1 was erected and maintained during the notification period in accordance with the

requirements of the DCP.

9. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY 1: DEVELOPMENT

STANDARDS

SEPP 1 provides flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of

development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any

particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects

specified in Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

The applicant submitted a SEPP 1 objection for Clause 22 of Woollahra LEP 1995 in relation to the

30m foreshore building line applicable to residential flat buildings. This is discussed in Section

13.6.

10. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY 65: DESIGN QUALITY OF

RESIDENTIAL FLAT DEVELOPMENT

SEPP 65: Design Quality of Residential Flat Development applies to all new residential flat

buildings, the substantial refurbishment/redevelopment of existing residential flat buildings or the

conversion of an existing building to a residential flat building. A residential flat building, in this

instance, comprises three or more storeys and four or more self-contained dwellings.

The works do not constitute substantial refurbishment or redevelopment. As such, SEPP 65 is not

applicable.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


11. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY (BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY

INDEX: BASIX) 2004

Not applicable.

12. SYDNEY REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN (SYDNEY HARBOUR

CATCHMENT) 2005

The provisions of Clauses 13, 25 and 26 of this instrument and the accompanying DCP for SREP

(Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 require Council to consider the visual impact that a

development proposal will have upon Sydney Harbour and adjoining foreshore areas and the likely

impact upon available views to and from Sydney Harbour.

The aims of the SREP, as outlined in Clause 2, are as follows:

a) To ensure that the catchment, foreshores, waterways and islands of Sydney Harbour are

recognised, protected, enhanced and maintained as an outstanding natural asset, and a

public asset of national and heritage significance, for existing and future generations

b) To ensure a healthy, sustainable environment on land and water

c) To achieve a high quality and ecologically sustainable urban environment

d) To ensure a prosperous working harbour and an effective transport corridor

e) To encourage a culturally rich and vibrant place for people

f) To ensure accessibility to and along Sydney Harbour and its foreshores

g) To ensure the protection, maintenance and rehabilitation of watercourses, wetlands, riparian

lands, remnant vegetation and ecological connectivity

h) To provide a consolidated, simplified and updated legislative framework for future planning

The subject site has an immediate frontage to Sydney Harbour and the existing building is visible

from Sydney Harbour.

The matters of consideration in Clause 25 relate to the maintenance, protection and enhancement of

the scenic quality of foreshores and waterways, and are as follows: -

a) The scale, form, design and siting of any building should be based on an analysis of:

(i) The land on which it is to be erected

(ii) The adjoining land

(iii) The likely future character of the locality

The scale and form of the development remains acceptable. The addition is largely indiscernible

when viewed from Sydney Harbour.

b) Development should maintain, protect and enhance the unique visual qualities of Sydney

Harbour and its islands, foreshores and tributaries

The proposal involves the enlargement of the balconies on all three levels but does not involve an

increase in the extent of glazing to each balcony. When viewed from Sydney Harbour, the proposal

remains largely unchanged and is acceptable.

c) The cumulative impact of water-based development should not detract from the character of

the waterways and adjoining foreshores

The character of Sydney Harbour is not affected.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/srephc2005587


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


The matters of consideration in Clause 26 relate to the maintenance, protection and enhancement of

views, and are as follows: -

a) Development should maintain, protect and enhance views (including night views) to and from

Sydney Harbour

b) Development should minimise any adverse impacts on views and vistas to and from public

places, landmarks and heritage items

c) The cumulative impact of development on views should be minimised

Public and private views are not affected, as discussed in Section 16.4.

Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of Clauses

13, 25 and 26 of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 and Clause 5.6 of the DCP for SREP

(Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005.

13. WOOLLAHRA LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1995

13.1 Clause 1.1(2): Aims and Objectives of Woollahra LEP 1995

The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the Woollahra LEP 1995.

13.2 Clause 8(5): Aims and Objectives of the Zone

The proposal is permissible and is consistent with the aims and objectives of the Residential 2(b)

zone.

13.3 Clause 11: Floor Space Ratio

Clause 11 limits development to a maximum floor space ratio of 0.625:1 for a residential flat

building.

Site Area: 970m

2 Existing Proposed Control Complies

Floor Space Ratio 1.27:1

(1,237m2)

No change 0.625:1

(606m2)

No change

The floor space ratio is unchanged as the balconies remain less than 20m2

per unit.

13.4 Clause 12: Height of Buildings

Clause 12 limits development to a maximum height of 9.5m.

Existing Proposed Control Complies

Overall Height 12.13m Works to 8.6m 9.5m YES

The proposal complies with the maximum building height prescribed by Clause 12.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


13.5 Clause 19: Harbour Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Clause 19 requires Council to consider the likely impact of any proposed development upon the

Harbour Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (HFSPA). The proposed works are minor in nature and

remain acceptable when viewed from Sydney Harbour.

13.6 Clause 22: Foreshore Building Line

Clause 22 specifies a minimum foreshore building line of 30m.

Existing Proposed Control Complies

Foreshore Building Line –

RFB 7.0m 6.6m 30.0m NO

The applicant has submitted an objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 –

Development Standards in relation to the non-compliance with Clause 22, which reads as follows:

The proposal will create a 400mm addition to the existing balconies.

Having regard to the objectives of the FSBL standard, it is considered that:

The proposal is a minor addition (400mm) to the width of the existing balcony only

There is no threat to ecology or rock platform

The existing building is within the FSBL

There is no significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties from loss of

views or privacy

The alterations and additions will result in a more attractive building when viewed from

the harbour and beach

The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment

2005)

It is considered that non-compliance with the foreshore building line standard is acceptable

and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The variation is supported for the following reasons:

The development is appropriate in this location

The development does not undermine the underlying objectives of the standard

The non-compliance does not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts

on the amenity of the surrounding area in general or on the amenity of nearby

residential properties in particular

The scale of the proposal, notwithstanding the non-compliance, is compatible with

surrounding development

The general bulk and scale of the building remains unchanged

There will be no significant impact on views and streetscape character

Pursuant to the provisions of SEPP No. 1, the applicant objects to the strict adherence to the

above development standards.

The following assessment of the SEPP 1 objection applies the questions established in Winten

Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


These questions remain the principal tests to establish whether or not a SEPP 1 Objection is well

founded, however, the more recent principles arising from Wehbe v Pittwater Council are applied to

inform the assessment.

1. Is the planning control in question a development standard?

The planning control in question is the foreshore building line standard set by Clause 22 of

Woollahra LEP 1995. As such, any variation of the standard requires a SEPP 1 objection, as has

been prepared in this case.

2. What is the underlying purpose of the standard?

The objectives of the foreshore building line standard in Clause 22AA are:

a) To retain Sydney Harbour’s natural shorelines

b) To provide larger foreshore setbacks at the points and heads of bays in recognition of their

visual prominence

c) To protect significant areas of vegetation and, where appropriate, provide areas for future

planting which will not detrimentally impact on views of the harbour and its foreshores,

d) To protect the amenity of adjoining lands in relation to reasonable access to views and

sunlight

e) To preserve the rights of property owners to maintain an encroachment on the foreshore

building line by an existing main building

f) To protect rock platforms and the intertidal ecology

3. Is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in

particular, does the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects

specified in s.5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EPA Act?

The aim of the Policy is set out at Clause 3 and seeks to ―provide flexibility in the application of

planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict

compliance with those standards would be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the

attainment of the objects specified in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979.

In Wehbe v Pittwater Council, Commissioner Preston stated:

“An objection under SEPP 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in

clause 3 of the Policy in a variety of ways. The most commonly invoked way is to establish

that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary because the

objectives of the development standard are achieved not withstanding non-compliance with

the standard.”

Accordingly, the following assessment considers the objection made by the applicant against the

provisions of Clause 22 of Woollahra LEP 1995 and whether or not it is established that the

objectives of the development standard are achieved irrespective of the non-compliance:

The shoreline, extent of vegetation and rock platforms are unaffected

There is a significant existing non-compliance of more than 76%. The proposed modification

to the balconies is limited to a 40cm addition, which increases the non-compliance to 78%. It

is largely indiscernible when viewed from Sydney Harbour and will not affect the visual

prominence of the building


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


The setback from the MHWM on the eastern side of the residential flat building is less than

5m, which is significantly less than the western side where the proposed balconies will be

located

There is no foreseeable impact upon users of Lady Martins Beach, which is a public beach

and listed as a heritage item

The encroachment (approximately 5m-7m) remains consistent with the other Harbour front

residential flat buildings, including the adjoining property to the east at 14 Longworth Avenue

(approximately 2.3m-7m) and 16 Longworth Avenue (approximately 5.7m-9.2m)

The amenity of adjoining properties, in terms of access to views and sunlight, remains

acceptable

As a result of this assessment it is considered that, notwithstanding the non-compliance with the

development standard, the underlying objectives founding that standard are achieved by the

proposed development.

The Land and Environment Court have established that it is insufficient merely to rely on absence

of environment harm to sustain an objection under SEPP 1. This position was confirmed in Wehbe

v Pittwater Council. The following assessment considers whether the objection demonstrates that

strict application of the development standard would hinder the attainment of the objects of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Section 5(a) of the Act prescribes the objects relevantly as to encourage:

i) The proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources,

including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages

for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better

environment

ii) The promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land

iii) The protection, provision and co-ordination of communication and utility services

iv) The provision of land for public purposes

v) The provision of co-ordination of community services

vi) The protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native

animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities

vii) Ecologically sustainable development

viii) The provision and maintenance of affordable housing

It is considered that, in the circumstances of the case, the strict application of the development

standard would hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act, as the proposal results in the

enlargement of the existing balconies and achieves compliance with the minimum private open

space requirements (as outlined in Section 5.3 of the Woollahra RDCP 2003). This is achieved in a

manner that does not have an adverse impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties.

It maintains a suitable level of amenity to public land and does not have an effect upon the

ecological community within Sydney Harbour. It is undertaken in a manner that is perceived to

represent the orderly and economic use of the land in an area that has other larger balconies

maximising the outlook to Sydney Harbour.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


4. Is compliance with the standard unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the

case?

The foregoing analysis has found that notwithstanding the non-compliance with the foreshore

building line standard, the proposed development achieves the underlying objectives of that

standard. Consequently it is considered that the SEPP 1 objection has established that compliance

with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

5. Is the objection well founded?

The objection advanced by the applicant that compliance with the foreshore building line standard

is well founded on the basis that its strict application would hinder the attainment of the objects of

the Act and that the proposed development achieves the underlying objectives of the standard

notwithstanding the non-compliance.

13.7 Clause 25: Water, Wastewater and Stormwater

Clause 25 requires Council to take into consideration the provision of adequate stormwater drainage

and the provision of adequate water and sewerage services. The proposal is acceptable.

13.8 Clause 27: Development in the Vicinity of a Heritage Item

Clause 27 requires Council to consider the likely impact of a proposed development upon

surrounding heritage items in the vicinity of the subject site.

Located along the foreshore of the subject site is Lady Martins Beach, which is listed as a heritage

item under Schedule 5 of Woollahra LEP 1995. The residential flat building at 7 Longworth

Avenue (Santa Barbara) is also listed as a heritage item.

The proposed works are minimal in nature and will have no adverse impact in terms of Clause 27 of

Woollahra LEP 1995.

14. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS

None applicable.

15. SYDNEY HARBOUR FORESHORES AND WATERWAYS AREA DCP

15.1 Ecological Assessment

The proposed development would not result in the loss of mature trees or rock outcrops within the

foreshore.

15.2 Landscape Assessment

The proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the landscape character of the site.

15.3 Water based and Land/Water Interface Development

The NSW Office of Water were not required to be consulted given the extent and location of works.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


15.4 Design Guidelines for Land-based Development

The proposal would satisfy the relevant criteria prescribed by the DCP.

16. WOOLLAHRA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2003

16.1 Section 4.5: Desired Future Precinct Character

Site Area: 970m


Building Footprint –

RFB

56.1%

(544.3m2)

56.2%

(545.6m2)

35%

(339.5m2)

NO

Side Boundary Setback (east)

Ground Floor

First Floor

Second Floor

8.9m

8.9m

8.9m

8.9m

8.9m

8.9m

2.5m

2.5m

5.2m

YES

YES

YES

Side Boundary Setback (west)

Ground Floor

First Floor

Second Floor

1.0m

1.0m

1.0m

1.0m

1.0m

1.0m

2.5m

2.5m

5.2m

NO

NO

NO

Building Footprint

C 4.5.3 limits residential flat buildings to a maximum building footprint of 35% (339.5m²). The

proposal involves a 1.3m2 increase in building footprint, which is indiscernible and has no adverse

implications upon the amenity of adjoining properties.

Side Setbacks

C 5.2.5 requires development to be setback from the side boundaries by 2.5m, increased on a pro

rata basis by 0.5m for each metre (or part thereof) that the building height adjacent to the boundary

exceeds 6.0m.

The addition to the balconies will result in a non-compliance of between 1.5m and 4.2m. It is

consistent with the existing side boundary and will not lead to an undue level of overlooking, view

loss of shadowing. Further, the addition is minor in nature and is of an appropriate scale such that

the development remains appropriate when viewed from Sydney Harbour and adjoining properties.

Alterations and Additions to Post WWII Residential Flat Buildings

C4.5.6 requires alterations and addition to have regard to their highly visible location, views from

public spaces, environmentally sustainable design, architectural integrity and materials and finishes.

The proposal involves relatively minor works that will not affect the overall, appearance or integrity

of the building. It is therefore satisfactory with regard to the above.

Conclusion

The proposal is therefore acceptable with regard to Section 4.5 of the Woollahra RDCP 2003.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


16.2 Section 5.2: Building Size and Location

Site Area: 970m


Rear Setback 3.0m 2.6m Approx 10.0m NO

Rear Setback

C 5.2.3 stipulates that buildings have a minimum rear setback of 25% (10m) of the average site

length. (Note: The rear boundary of the property does not align with the MHWM.)

At 3.0m, the existing non-compliance is significant whilst the proposal will reduce the rear setback

by 0.4m to 2.6m. It is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

The shoreline, extent of vegetation and rock platforms are unaffected

The 40cm addition to each level is largely indiscernible when viewed from Sydney Harbour

and will not affect the visual prominence of the building

The encroachment remains consistent with the Harbour front setback of the adjoining

property to the east at 14 Longworth Avenue

The amenity of adjoining properties, in terms of access to views, privacy and sunlight,

remains acceptable

The usability of the rear yard is unchanged


16.3 Section 5.3: Open space and landscaping

Site Area: 970m


Deep Soil Landscaping –

RFB

Approximately

100m2

0.7m2 reduction

40%

(398.8m2)

NO

Private Open Space (Unit 2)

Total Area

Minimum dimension

7.2m

2m

8.5m2

2.4m

8m²

2m

YES

YES


Total Area

Minimum dimension

7.2m

2m

8.5m2

2.4m

8m²

2m

YES

YES


Total Area

Minimum dimension

7.2m

2m

8.5m2

2.4m

8m²

2m

YES

YES

Deep Soil Landscaping

C 5.3.1 requires a deep soil landscaped area of 40% (398.8m²) of the site area. The proposal

involves a 0.7m2 reduction in deep soil landscaping due to the extension of the balconies. The actual

amount of grass will remain unchanged.

Nevertheless, the change is minimal and does not affect stormwater management or landscape

character as viewed from Sydney Harbour. No objection is raised.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


Private Open Space

C5.3.5 stipulates that for residential flat buildings, each dwelling located above ground level is to be

provided with private open space in the form of a balcony, verandah or uncovered roof terrace

which has a minimum area of 8m2 and a minimum dimension of 2m. The proposed extensions will

now ensure compliance with C5.3.5.

Landscape Design

C5.3.8 and C5.3.9 notes that the location of private open space should take advantage of the outlook

and natural features of the site; utilise a northerly aspect where available, maintain privacy and solar

access and address surveillance. The proposal reinforces the outlook towards Sydney Harbour

whilst maintaining adequate privacy between properties.

Conclusion

The proposal is acceptable with regard to Section 5.3 of the Woollahra RDCP 2003.

16.4 Section 5.5: Views

Public views

C5.5.2-C5.5.5 requires Council to consider building form and location, setbacks, roof form and

landscaping when assessing public views. The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon any

public views.

Private views

C5.5.6 requires building forms to enable a sharing of views, particularly from the main habitable

rooms.

The owner of 2/10 Longworth Avenue (adjoining property to the west) objected to the proposed

development on the basis of view loss.

In assessing the reasonableness or otherwise of the degree of view loss, this report has had regard to

the case law established by Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140 (paragraphs 23-

33) which has established a four step assessment of view sharing. The steps are as follows:

The assessment of the views affected

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than

land views. Iconic views (eg. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued

more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a

water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in

which it is obscured.

The view is of Sydney Harbour and includes Shark Island and the northern foreshore.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


Consideration from what part of the property the views are obtained

The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example,

the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from

front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from standing or sitting position

may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The

expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

The view is obtained from the lounge room and adjoining balcony.

The extent of the impact

The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the

property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more

significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued

because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in

many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if

it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss

qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

The proposal will eliminate a minor amount of the view of the waters of Sydney Harbour. However,

this is dependant upon where one is standing or sitting within the property and as glass balustrades

are proposed, one is able to look through the glass balustrade. When noting the existing expansive

views and the extent of view loss, the overall impact is negligible.

The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A

development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than

one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or

more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a

complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the

applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of

neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development

would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

The Court poses two questions in Tenacity Consulting vs Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140. The

first question relates to whether a non-compliance with one or more planning controls results in

view loss.

The second question posed by the Court relates to whether a more skilful design could provide the

same development potential whilst reducing the impact on views.

There is a non-compliance with the foreshore building line. However, given the negligible amount

of view loss, Council is not of the view that the 40cm addition to the balcony warrants refusal of the

application. Views across the subject balconies are still maintained, including through the glass and

the remainder of the view of Sydney Harbour is unaffected.

Conclusion

The proposal is therefore acceptable with regard to the concept of view sharing and Section 5.5 of

the Woollahra RDCP 2003.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


16.5 Section 5.8: Acoustic and Visual Privacy

Acoustic privacy

The size of the balconies has been increased by 1.3m2. This is considered to be a minor increase in

usability of the space but not sufficient to warrant concern in relation to the provision of acoustic

privacy to adjoining properties.

Visual Privacy

C 5.8.6 requires balconies, terraces, decks, roof terraces and other like areas within a development

are suitably screened to prevent direct views into habitable rooms or private open space of adjoining

and adjacent dwellings. C5.8.7 seeks to eliminate windows and balconies of an upper-level dwelling

overlooking the private open space of a lower level dwelling within the same development.

The attached photographs (below) have been taken from the edge of the uppermost level, which is

considered to be the worst case scenario. There is presently a low level of privacy between

properties due to the minimal side setbacks, lack of landscaping along side boundaries, height of

development in the area and the desire to maximise outlooks from each respective unit. Given the

harbour front location, an element of overlooking is largely inevitable.

To 14 Longworth Avenue

Outlook to 14 Longworth Ave from balcony extension Outlook to 14 Longworth Ave from existing balcony

It is evident from the photographs above that there will be some additional sightlines from the

balcony in an eastern direction due to the projection of the balcony further from the building.

However, it is acceptable for the following reasons:


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


The additional overlooking is minimal when considered comparatively with the overall extent

of existing privacy between the properties. A bedroom window within each unit overlooks

directly to the adjoining property to a greater extent than the proposed balcony extension

The above photographs are the worst case scenario

The proposal now achieves compliance with the minimum private open space control

The balconies are not excessive in size and typical of other balconies in the area

To 10 Longworth Avenue and 162 Wolseley Road

Outlook to the west (including objector’s property)

The existing level of privacy afforded to the west is very minimal as the balconies are concentrated

to the western side of the building and the building itself does not limit sightlines in the way it does

to the east. As such, a 40cm extension to the existing balcony has little impact and is acceptable.

Conclusion

Objectors have requested obscure glazing to the balustrade or privacy screening. However, it is

considered unnecessary in this instance as the extent of additional overlooking is insignificant such

to warrant the enclosure of the balcony and impose undue enclosure of the occupant’s only area of

private open space.


16.6 Section 5.11: Harbour Foreshore Development

C5.11.3 requires the use of complimentary and compatible materials. Excessive use of glass

resulting in glare is not permitted.

The proposal involves the enlargement of the balconies on all three levels but does not involve an

increase in the extent of glazing to each balcony. In this regard, the proposal is acceptable with

regard to Section 5.11 of the Woollahra RDCP 2003.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


16.7 Section 5.14: Inter-war Flat Buildings

Inter war flat buildings relate to residential flat buildings constructed between 1918 and 1950. The

proposal is acceptable with regard to Section 5.14 of the Woollahra RDCP 2003.

17. WASTE NOT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2010

The Waste Not DCP is applicable to all development and seeks to establish waste minimisation and

sustainable waste management during demolition and construction phases and throughout the on-

going use of the building. The proposal is acceptable.

18. ACCESS DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2004

For all new Class 1A dwellings, The Access DCP encourages visitor accessibility and adaptability.

The subject dwelling is a Class 1 dwelling. The proposal remains satisfactory with regard to the

intent of the Woollahra Access DCP.

19. SECTION 94 CONTRIBUTION PLANS

Not applicable.

20. APPLICABLE ACTS/REGULATIONS

None applicable.

21. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL

All likely impacts have been addressed elsewhere in the report, or are considered to be satisfactory

and not warrant further consideration.

22. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE

The site is suitable for the proposed development.

23. THE PUBLIC INTEREST

The proposal is in the public interest.

24. CONCLUSION

The proposal is acceptable against the relevant considerations under Section 79C.

25. DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

Under Section 147 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 there have been no

disclosure statements regarding political donations or gifts made to any Councillor or gifts made to

any council employee submitted with this development application by either the applicant or any

person who made a submission.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979

THAT the Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent to Development

Application No. 588/2011 for a 40cm extension to the existing balconies of at Units 2, 4 and 6/12

Longworth Avenue, Point Piper, subject to the following conditions:

A. General Conditions

A.1 Conditions

Consent is granted subject to the following conditions imposed pursuant to section 80 of the

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (―the Act‖) and the provisions of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (―the Regulation‖) such conditions

being reasonable and relevant to the development as assessed pursuant to section 79C of the

Act. Standard Condition: A1

A.2 Definitions

Unless specified otherwise words have the same meaning as defined by the Act, the

Regulation and the Interpretation Act 1987 as in force at the date of consent.

Applicant means the applicant for this Consent.

Approved Plans mean the plans endorsed by Council referenced by this consent as amended

by conditions of this consent.

AS or AS/NZS means Australian Standard® or Australian/New Zealand Standard®,

respectively, published by Standards Australia International Limited.

BCA means the Building Code of Australia as published by the Australian Building Codes

Board as in force at the date of issue of any Construction Certificate.

Council means Woollahra Municipal Council

Court means the Land and Environment Court

Local native plants means species of native plant endemic to Sydney’s eastern suburbs (see

the brochure titled ―Local Native Plants for Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs published by the

Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils).

Stormwater Drainage System means all works, facilities and documentation relating to:

The collection of stormwater,

The retention of stormwater,

The reuse of stormwater,

The detention of stormwater,

The controlled release of stormwater; and

Connections to easements and public stormwater systems.

Owner means the owner of the site and successors in title to the site.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


Owner Builder has the same meaning as in the Home Building Act 1989.

PCA means the Principal Certifying Authority under the Act.

Principal Contractor has the same meaning as in the Act or where a principal contractor has

not been appointed by the owner of the land being developed Principal Contractor means the

owner of the land being developed.

Professional Engineer has the same meaning as in the BCA.

Public Place has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 1993.

Road has the same mean as in the Roads Act 1993.

SEE means the final version of the Statement of Environmental Effects lodged by the

Applicant.

Site means the land being developed subject to this consent.

WLEP 1995 means Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995

Work for the purposes of this consent means:

the use of land in connection with development,

the subdivision of land,

the erection of a building,

the carrying out of any work,

the use of any site crane, machine, article, material, or thing,

the storage of waste, materials, site crane, machine, article, material, or thing,

the demolition of a building,

the piling, piering, cutting, boring, drilling, rock breaking, rock sawing or excavation of

land,

the delivery to or removal from the site of any machine, article, material, or thing, or

the occupation of the site by any person unless authorised by an occupation certificate.

Note: Interpretation of Conditions - Where there is any need to obtain an interpretation of the intent of any

condition this must be done in writing to Council and confirmed in writing by Council. Standard Condition: A2

A.3 Approved Plans and supporting documents

Those with the benefit of this consent must carry out all work and maintain the use and works

in accordance with the plans and supporting documents listed below as submitted by the

Applicant and to which is affixed a Council stamp ―Approved DA Plans‖ unless modified by

any following condition. Where the plans relate to alterations or additions only those works

shown in colour or highlighted are approved.

Reference Description Author/Drawn Date(s)

A2001, A2002, A2004, A2005 Architectural Plans Prescott Architects 6 December 2011


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


Note: Warning to Accredited Certifiers – You should always insist on sighting the original Council stamped

approved plans. You should not rely solely upon the plan reference numbers in this condition. Should

the applicant not be able to provide you with the original copy Council will provide you with access to its

files so you may review our original copy of the approved plan.

Note: These plans and supporting documentation may be subject to conditions imposed under section 80A(1)(g)

of the Act modifying or amending the development (refer to conditions which must be satisfied prior to

the issue of any Construction Certificate.)

Standard Condition: A5

B. Conditions which must be satisfied prior to the demolition of any building or

construction

B.1 Construction Certificate required prior to any demolition

Where demolition is associated with an altered portion of, or an extension to an existing

building the demolition of any part of a building is "commencement of erection of building"

pursuant to section 81A(2) of the Act. In such circumstance all conditions in Part C and Part

D of this consent must be satisfied prior to any demolition work. This includes, but is not

limited to, the issue of a Construction Certificate, appointment of a PCA and Notice of

Commencement under the Act.

Note: See Over our Dead Body Society Inc v Byron Bay Community Association Inc [2001] NSWLEC 125.

Standard Condition: B1

C. Conditions which must be satisfied prior to the issue of any construction certificate

C.1 Soil and Water Management Plan – Submission & Approval

The principal contractor or owner builder must submit to the Certifying Authority a soil and

water management plan complying with:

a) ―Do it Right On Site, Soil and Water Management for the Construction Industry‖

published by the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils, 2001; and

b) ―Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction‖ published by the NSW

Department of Housing 4th Edition‖ ('The Blue Book').

Where there is any conflict The Blue Book takes precedence. The Certifying Authority must

be satisfied that the soil and water management plan complies with the publications above

prior to issuing any Construction Certificate.

Note: This condition has been imposed to eliminate potential water pollution and dust nuisance.

Note: The International Erosion Control Association – Australasia http://www.austieca.com.au/ lists consultant

experts who can assist in ensuring compliance with this condition. Where erosion and sedimentation

plans are required for larger projects it is recommended that expert consultants produce these plans.

Note: The ―Do it Right On Site, Soil and Water Management for the Construction Industry‖ publications can be

down loaded free of charge from http://www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au/ .

Note: Pursuant to clause 161(1)(a)(5) of the Regulation an Accredited Certifier may satisfied as to this matter Standard Condition: C25

C.2 Structural Adequacy of Existing Supporting Structures

A certificate from a professional engineer (Structural Engineer), certifying the adequacy of

the existing supporting structure to support the additional loads proposed to be imposed by the

development, must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

http://www.austieca.com.au/

http://www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au/


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


Note: This condition is imposed to ensure that the existing structure is able to support the additional loads

proposed.

Standard Condition: C35

C.3 Professional Engineering Details

The Construction Certificate plans and specifications, required by clause 139 of the

Regulation, must include detailed professional engineering plans and/or specifications for all

structural, electrical, hydraulic, hydro-geological, geotechnical, mechanical and civil work

complying with this consent, approved plans, the statement of environmental effects and

supporting documentation.

Detailed professional engineering plans and/or specifications must be submitted to the

Certifying Authority with the application for any Construction Certificate.

Note: This does not affect the right of the developer to seek staged Construction Certificates.


C.4 Stormwater Discharge to Harbour (Clause 25(2) WLEP 1995)

The developer must obtain written approval from the NSW Maritime Authority to discharge

stormwater from the subject property directly into Sydney Harbour. Standard Condition: C50

D. Conditions which must be satisfied prior to the commencement of any development

work

D.1 Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under the

Home Building Act 1989

For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, the following conditions are prescribed in

relation to a development consent for development that involves any building work:

a) that the work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building

Code of Australia,

b) in the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires

there to be a contract of insurance in force in accordance with Part 6 of that Act, that

such a contract of insurance is in force before any building work authorised to be

carried out by the consent commences.

This condition does not apply:

a) to the extent to which an exemption is in force under the Home Building Regulation

2004,

b) to the erection of a temporary building.

In this condition, a reference to the BCA is a reference to that code as in force on the date the

application for the relevant construction certificate is made.

Note: This condition must be satisfied prior to commencement of any work in relation to the contract of

insurance under the Home Building Act 1989. This condition also has effect during the carrying out of all

building work with respect to compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

Note: All new guttering is to comply with the provisions of Part 3.5.2 of the Building Code of Australia. Standard Condition: D1

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/summarize/inforce/s/1/?xref=RecordType%3DACTTOC%20AND%20Year%3D1989%20AND%20Actno%3D147&nohits=y



DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


D.2 Site Signs

The Principal Contractor or owner builder must ensure that the sign/s required by clauses

98A and 227A of the Regulation is/are erected and maintained at all times.

Clause 98A of the Regulation provides:

Erection of signs

For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, the requirements of subclauses (2) and (3) are prescribed

as conditions of a development consent for development that involves any building work, subdivision

work or demolition work.

A sign must be erected in a prominent position on any site on which building work, subdivision `work or

demolition work is being carried out:

a. showing the name, address and telephone number of the principal certifying authority for the

work, and

b. showing the name of the principal contractor (if any) for any building work and a telephone

number on which that person may be contacted outside working hours, and

c. stating that unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited.

Any such sign is to be maintained while the building work, subdivision work or demolition work is being

carried out, but must be removed when the work has been completed.

This clause does not apply in relation to building work, subdivision work or demolition work that is

carried out inside an existing building that does not affect the external walls of the building.

This clause does not apply in relation to Crown building work that is certified, in accordance with section

116G of the Act, to comply with the technical provisions of the State’s building laws.‖

Clause 227A of the Regulation provides:

Signs on development sites

If there is a person who is the PCA or the principal contractor for any building work, subdivision work or

demolition work authorised to be carried out on a site by a development consent or complying development

certificate:

Each such person MUST ensure that a rigid and durable sign showing the person’s identifying particulars

so that they can be read easily by anyone in any public road or other public place adjacent to the site is

erected in a prominent position on the site before the commencement of work, and is maintained on the

site at all times while this clause applies until the work has been carried out.

Note: Clause 227A imposes a penalty exceeding $1,000 if these requirements are not complied with.

Note: If Council is appointed as the PCA it will provide the sign to the principal contractor or owner builder

who must ensure that the sign is erected and maintained as required by Clause 98A and Clause 227A of

the Regulation. Standard Condition: D12

D.3 Erosion and Sediment Controls – Installation

The principal contractor or owner builder must install and maintain water pollution, erosion

and sedimentation controls in accordance with:

a) The Soil and Water Management Plan if required under this consent;

b) ―Do it Right On Site, Soil and Water Management for the Construction Industry‖


c) ―Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction‖ published by the NSW


Where there is any conflict The Blue Book takes precedence.


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


Note: The International Erosion Control Association – Australasia (http://www.austieca.com.au/) lists

consultant experts who can assist in ensuring compliance with this condition. Where Soil and Water

Management Plan is required for larger projects it is recommended that this be produced by a member of

the International Erosion Control Association – Australasia.


down loaded free of charge from www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au.

Note: A failure to comply with this condition may result in penalty infringement notices, prosecution, notices

and orders under the Act and/or the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 without any

further warning. It is a criminal offence to cause, permit or allow pollution.

Note: Section 257 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 provides inter alia that ―the

occupier of premises at or from which any pollution occurs is taken to have caused the pollution‖

Warning: Irrespective of this condition any person occupying the site may be subject to proceedings

under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 where pollution is caused, permitted or

allowed as the result of their occupation of the land being developed. Standard Condition: D14

D.4 Building - Construction Certificate, Appointment of Principal Certifying Authority,

Appointment of Principal Contractor and Notice of Commencement (s81A(2) of the Act)

The erection of the building in accordance with this development consent must not be

commenced until:

a) A construction certificate for the building work has been issued by the consent

authority, the council (if the council is not the consent authority) or an accredited

Certifier, and

b) The person having the benefit of the development consent has:

Appointed a principal certifying authority for the building work, and

Notified the principal certifying authority that the person will carry out the

building work as an owner-builder, if that is the case, and

c) the principal certifying authority has, no later than 2 days before the building work

commences:

Notified the consent authority and the council (if the council is not the consent

authority) of his or her appointment, and

Notified the person having the benefit of the development consent of any critical

stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the

building work, and

d) The person having the benefit of the development consent, if not carrying out the work

as an owner-builder, has:

Appointed a principal contractor for the building work who must be the holder of

a contractor licence if any residential building work is involved, and

Notified the principal certifying authority of any such appointment, and

Unless that person is the principal contractor, notified the principal contractor of

any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in

respect of the building work, and

Given at least 2 days’ notice to the council of the person’s intention to commence

the erection of the building.

Note: building has the same meaning as in section 4 of the Act and includes part of a building and any structure

or part of a structure.

Note: new building has the same meaning as in section 109H of the Act and includes an altered portion of, or an

extension to, an existing building.




DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


Note: The commencement of demolition works associated with an altered portion of, or an extension to, an

existing building is considered to be the commencement of building work requiring compliance with

section 82A(2) of the Act (including the need for a Construction Certificate) prior to any demolition

work. See: Over our Dead Body Society Inc v Byron Bay Community Association Inc [2001] NSWLEC

125.

Note: Construction Certificate Application, PCA Service Agreement and Notice of Commencement forms can

be downloaded from Council’s website www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au .

Note: It is an offence for any person to carry out the erection of a building in breach of this condition and in

breach of section 81A(2) of the Act. Standard Condition: D15

D.5 Notification of Home Building Act 1989 requirements

a) For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, the requirements of this condition are

prescribed as conditions of a development consent for development that involves any

residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989.

b) Residential building work within the meaning of the Home Building Act 1989 must not

be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the development to which the

work relates (not being the council) has given the council written notice of the following

information:

In the case of work for which a principal contractor is required to be appointed:

- the name and licence number of the principal contractor, and

- the name of the insurer by which the work is insured under Part 6 of that

Act,

In the case of work to be done by an owner-builder:

- the name of the owner-builder, and

- if the owner-builder is required to hold an owner-builder permit under that

Act, the number of the owner-builder permit.

c) If arrangements for doing the residential building work are changed while the work is in

progress so that the information notified under subclause (2) becomes out of date,

further work must not be carried out unless the principal certifying authority for the

development to which the work relates (not being the council) has given the council

written notice of the updated information.

d) This clause does not apply in relation to Crown building work that is certified, in

accordance with section 116G of the Act, to comply with the technical provisions of the

State’s building laws. Standard Condition: D17

E. Conditions which must be satisfied during any development work

E.1 Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under the


For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, the following condition is prescribed in


a) That the work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building

Code of Australia,






DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


b) In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires





a) To the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188, subject to the

terms of any condition or requirement referred to in clause 187 (6) or 188 (4) of the

Regulation, or

b) To the erection of a temporary building.

In this clause, a reference to the BCA is a reference to that Code as in force on the date the


Note: All new guttering is to comply with the provisions of Part 3.5.2 of the Building Code of Australia.

Standard Condition: E1

E.2 Compliance with Australian Standard for Demolition

Demolition of buildings and structures must comply with Australian Standard AS 2601—

1991: The Demolition of Structures, published by Standards Australia, and as in force at 1

July 1993. Standard Condition: E2

E.3 Critical Stage Inspections

Critical stage inspections must be called for by the principal contractor or owner builder as

required by the PCA, any PCA service agreement, the Act and the Regulation.

Work must not proceed beyond each critical stage until the PCA is satisfied that work is

proceeding in accordance with this consent, the Construction Certificate(s) and the Act.

critical stage inspections means the inspections prescribed by the Regulations for the

purposes of section 109E(3)(d) of the Act or as required by the PCA and any PCA Service

Agreement.

Note: The PCA may require inspections beyond mandatory critical stage inspections in order that the PCA be

satisfied that work is proceeding in accordance with this consent.

Note: The PCA may, in addition to inspections, require the submission of Compliance Certificates, survey

reports or evidence of suitability in accordance with Part A2.2 of the BCA in relation to any matter

relevant to the development. Standard Condition: E5

E.4 Hours of Work –Amenity of the neighbourhood

a) No work must take place on any Sunday or public holiday,

b) No work must take place before 7am or after 5pm any weekday,

c) No work must take place before 7am or after 1pm any Saturday,

d) The following work must not take place before 9am or after 4pm any weekday, or

before 9am or after 1pm any Saturday or at any time on a Sunday or public holiday;

i) Piling;

ii) Piering;

iii) Rock or concrete cutting, boring or drilling;

iv) Rock breaking;



DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


v) Rock sawing;

vi) Jack hammering; or

vii) Machine excavation,

e) No loading or unloading of material or equipment associated with the activities listed in

part d) above must take place before 9am or after 4pm any weekday, or before 9am or

after 1pm any Saturday or at any time on a Sunday or public holiday.

f) No operation of any equipment associated with the activities listed in part d) above must

take place before 9am or after 4pm any weekday, or before 9am or after 1pm any

Saturday or at any time on a Sunday or public holiday

g) No rock excavation being cutting, boring, drilling, breaking, sawing , jack hammering

or bulk excavation of rock, must occur without a 15 minute break every hour.

This condition has been imposed to mitigate the impact of work upon the amenity of the

neighbourhood. Impact of work includes, but is not limited to, noise, vibration, dust, odour,

traffic and parking impacts.

Note: The use of noise and vibration generating plant and equipment and vehicular traffic, including trucks in

particular, significantly degrade the amenity of neighbourhoods and more onerous restrictions apply to

these activities. This more invasive work generally occurs during the foundation and bulk excavation

stages of development. If you are in doubt as to whether or not a particular activity is considered to be

subject to the more onerous requirement (9am to 4pm weekdays and 9am to 1pm Saturdays) please

consult with Council.

Note: Each and every breach of this condition by any person may be subject to separate penalty infringement

notice or prosecution.

Note: The delivery and removal of plant, equipment and machinery associated with wide loads subject to RTA

and Police restrictions on their movement out side the approved hours of work will be considered on a

case by case basis.

Note: Compliance with these hours of work does not affect the rights of any person to seek a remedy to

offensive noise as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Protection of

the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2000.

Note: EPA Guidelines can be down loaded from http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/noise/nglg.htm .

Note: see http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/ci_build_sheet7.pdf Standard Condition: E6

E.5 Erosion and Sediment Controls – Maintenance

The principal contractor or owner builder must maintain water pollution, erosion and

sedimentation controls in accordance with:

a) The Soil and Water Management Plan required under this consent;




Department of Housing 4th Edition (―The Blue Book‖).


http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/noise/nglg.htm

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/ci_build_sheet7.pdf


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012





Note: Section 257 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 provides that ―the occupier of

premises at or from which any pollution occurs is taken to have caused the pollution‖.

Warning: Irrespective of this condition any person occupying the site may be subject to proceedings under the

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 where pollution is caused, permitted or allowed as the result

of the occupation of the land being developed whether or not they actually cause the pollution. Standard Condition: E15

E.6 Placement and use of Skip Bins

The principal contractor or owner builder must ensure that all waste storage containers,

including but not limited to skip bins, must be stored within the site unless:

a) Activity Approval has been issued by Council under section 94 of the Local

Government Act 1993 to place the waste storage container in a public place, and

b) Where located on the road it is located only in a positions where a vehicle may lawfully

park in accordance with the Australian Road Rules to the extent they are adopted under

the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999.

Note: Waste storage containers must not be located on the footpath without a site specific activity approval.

Where such site specific activity approval is granted a 1.5m wide clear path of travel is maintained free of

any trip hazards. Standard Condition: E21

E.7 Dust Mitigation

Dust mitigation must be implemented in accordance with ―Dust Control - Do it right on site‖

published by the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils.

This generally requires:

a) Dust screens to all hoardings and site fences.

b) All stockpiles or loose materials to be covered when not being used.

c) All equipment, where capable, being fitted with dust catchers.

d) All loose materials being placed bags before placing into waste or skip bins.

e) All waste and skip bins being kept covered when not being filled or emptied.

f) The surface of excavation work being kept wet to minimise dust.

g) Landscaping incorporating trees, dense shrubs and grass being implemented as soon as

practically possible to minimise dust.

Note: ―Dust Control - Do it right on site‖ can be down loaded free of charge from Council’s web site

www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au or obtained from Council’s office.



DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


Note: Special precautions must be taken when removing asbestos or lead materials from development sites.

Additional information can be obtained from www.workcover.nsw.gov.au and www.epa.nsw.gov.au .

Other specific condition and advice may apply.

Note: Demolition and construction activities may affect local air quality and contribute to urban air pollution.

The causes are dust, smoke and fumes coming from equipment or activities, and airborne chemicals when

spraying for pest management. Precautions must be taken to prevent air pollution. Standard Condition: E23

F. Conditions which must be satisfied prior to any occupation or use of the building (Part

4A of the Act and Part 8 Division 3 of the Regulation)

F.1 Occupation Certificate (section 109M of the Act)

A person must not commence occupation or use of the whole or any part of a new building

(within the meaning of section 109H (4) of the Act) unless an occupation certificate has been

issued in relation to the building or part.

Note: New building includes an altered portion of, or an extension to, an existing building.

Standard Condition: F1

G. Conditions which must be satisfied prior to the issue of any Subdivision Certificate

Nil.

H. Conditions which must be satisfied prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate

(s109C(1)(c))

Nil.

I. Conditions which must be satisfied during the ongoing use of the development

Nil.

J. Miscellaneous Conditions

Nil.

K. Advisings

K.1 Criminal Offences – Breach of Development Consent & Environmental laws

Failure to comply with this development consent and any condition of this consent is a

criminal offence. Failure to comply with other environmental laws is also a criminal offence.

Where there is any breach Council may without any further warning:

a) Issue Penalty Infringement Notices (On-the-spot fines);

b) Issue notices and orders;

c) Prosecute any person breaching this consent; and/or

d) Seek injunctions/orders before the courts to restrain and remedy any breach.

http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


Warnings as to potential maximum penalties

Maximum Penalties under NSW Environmental Laws include fines up to $1.1 Million and/or

custodial sentences for serious offences.

Warning as to enforcement and legal costs

Should Council have to take any action to enforced compliance with this consent or other

environmental laws Council’s policy is to seek from the Court appropriate orders requiring

the payments of its costs beyond any penalty or remedy the Court may order.

This consent and this specific advice will be tendered to the Court when seeking costs orders

from the Court where Council is successful in any necessary enforcement action.

Note: The payment of environmental penalty infringement notices does not result in any criminal offence being

recorded. If a penalty infringement notice is challenged in Court and the person is found guilty of the

offence by the Court, subject to section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a criminal

conviction is recorded. The effect of a criminal conviction beyond any fine is serious. You can obtain

further information from the following web sites:

http://www.theshopfront.org/documents/ConvictionsCriminalRecords.pdf and the Attorney General’s

www.agd.nsw.gov.au. Standard Advising: K1

K.2 Builders Licences and Owner Builders Permits

Section 81A of the Act requires among other matters that the person having the benefit of the

development consent, if not carrying out the work as an owner-builder, must appointed a

principal contractor for residential building work who must be the holder of a contractor

licence.

Further information can be obtained from the NSW Office of Fair Trading website about how

you obtain an owner builders permit or find a principal contractor (builder):

http://www.dft.nsw.gov.au/building.html .

The Owner(s) must appoint the PCA. The PCA must check that Home Building Act

insurance is in place before the commencement of building work. The Principal Contractor

(Builder) must provide the Owners with a certificate of insurance evidencing the contract of

insurance under the Home Building Act 1989 for the residential building work. Standard Condition: K5

K.3 Workcover requirements

The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 No 40 and subordinate regulations, codes of

practice and guidelines control and regulate the development industry.

Note: Further information can be obtained from Workcover NSW’s website:

http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/Industry/Construction/default.htm or through their head office:

Location: Workcover NSW, 92-100 Donnison Street, GOSFORD 2250 Postal address: WorkCover

NSW, Locked Bag 2906, LISAROW 2252, Phone (02) 4321 5000, Fax (02) 4325 4145. Standard Condition: K7

http://www.theshopfront.org/documents/ConvictionsCriminalRecords.pdf

http://www.agd.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.dft.nsw.gov.au/building.html

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/summarize/inforce/s/1/?TITLE=%22Occupational%20Health%20and%20Safety%20Act%202000%20No%2040%22&nohits=y

http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/Industry/Construction/default.htm


DA 588/2011/1 5 March 2012


K.4 Building Standards - Guide to Standards and Tolerances

The PCA does not undertake detailed quality control inspections and the role of the PCA is

primarily to ensure that the development proceeds in accordance with this consent,

Construction Certificates and that the development is fit for occupation in accordance with its

classification under the Building Code of Australia. Critical Stage Inspections do not provide

the level of supervision required to ensure that the minimum standards and tolerances

specified by the ―Guide to Standards and Tolerances©‖ ISBN 0 7347 6010 8 are achieved.

The quality of any development is a function of the quality of the principal contractor’s or

owner builder’s supervision of individual contractors and trades on a daily basis during the

development. The PCA does not undertake this role.

The NSW Office of Fair Trading have published a ―Guide to Standards and Tolerances©‖

ISBN 0 7347 6010 8. The guide can be obtained from the Office of Fair Trading by calling

13 32 20 or by Fax: 9619 8618 or by post to: Marketing Branch, PO Box 972, Parramatta

NSW 2124.

The Guide can be down loaded from:

http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/pdfs/corporate/publications/dft242.pdf

Council, as the PCA or otherwise, does not adjudicate building contract disputes between the

principal contractor, contractors and the owner. Standard Condition: K6

Mr Simon Taylor Mr David Waghorn

ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER





Item No: D3 Delegated to Committee

Subject: Register of Current Land and Environment Court Matters and

Register of Court Proceedings for Building Control,

Environmental Control & Health Control

Author: Patrick Robinson, Manager – Development Control

Timothy Tuxford, Manager – Compliance

Council, at its meeting of 17 August 1994 resolved in the following terms:

THAT the Register of current Land and Environment Court Matters for Development

Applications presented in the Development Applications Summary be transferred to the

Development Control Committee to be considered at each meeting.

Further, the Development Control Committee at its meeting of 29 March 2010 resolved in the

following terms:

THAT a 'Register of Court Proceedings for Building Control, Environmental Control and

Health Control' be presented to the Development Control Committee at least once a month to

highlight the prosecution activities being undertaken by Council's Compliance section.

Please find attached a copy of the current registers.

Recommendation:

A. THAT the attached register of current Land and Environment Court Matters for

Development Applications be received and noted.

B. THAT the attached register of Court Proceedings for Building Control, Environmental

Control and Health Control be received and noted.

Patrick Robinson

Manager Development Control

Timothy Tuxford

Manager Compliance

DA 282/1979/2 Woollahra Council Development Control Committee

9 Vickery Avenue, Rose Bay 5 March 2012

H:\Development Control Committee\AGENDAS\2012\Working Agenda\R1.docx

1

SECTION 96 APPLICATION ASSESSMENT REPORT

ITEM No.

R1

FILE No.

DA282/1979/2

ADDRESS:

9 Vickery Avenue (Lyne Park), Rose Bay

EXISTING CONSENT: New clubhouse for the Woollahra Sailing Club

DATE OF CONSENT: 25 May 1981

PROPOSED

MODIFICATION:

The deletion of Condition 6 of the development consent which

restricts the rigging of sailing boats to the area leased from Crown

Lands by the Woollahra Sailing Club to permit the rigging and

unrigging of boats within adjoining Council trust managed sections

of Lyne Park.

DATE S96 LODGED: 06/07/2011

CONSENT AUTHORITY

Council

APPLICANT: Woollahra Sailing Club

OWNER: Crown Land (NSW Government). Woollahra Council is the Trust

Manager of the adjoining sections of Lyne Park that are the subject

of the proposal.

AUTHOR: D Booth-Senior Assessment Officer

1. SUMMARY

Reason for report

As the subject s96 Application involves an intensification of an existing use of community land of

more than 10% (42%), the matter is required to be determined by the full Council (in accordance

with the provisions of s47E Development of Community Land of the Local Government Act 1993)

as an R-item via the Development Control Committee.

Issues

Excessive proposed area of use of the Council trust managed, publicly accessible section of

Lyne Park; and

Unauthorised use.

Objections

Nil.




2

Recommendation

The proposed modification to the development consent is recommended for conditional

retrospective approval as subject to conditions:

It is considered to be consistent with the relevant provisions of SREP (Sydney Harbour

Catchment) 2005, WLEP 1995, Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area DCP 2005

and the Lyne Park Plan of Management;

The consent, as proposed to be modified, is considered to be substantially the same as that

originally granted;

The amenity of the public domain or adjoining properties will not be adversely affected to

such an extent that refusal is justified; and

Retrospective consent for the unauthorised use is facilitated by the provisions of s96 and

s109A (1) (b) of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act.

LOCALITY PLAN

Area currently leased by the

Woollahra Sailing Club from

Crown Lands

(approx.. 3630 m2)

North

Locality

Plan

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINALLY APPROVED PROPOSAL

DA 282/1979 for a new 8.4 m high clubhouse for the Woollahra Sailing Club was granted consent

by the full Council on 25 May 1981. Condition 6 of the consent states:

6. The rigging of boats being restricted to that area formerly leased by the Woollahra Sailing

Club.




3

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION

The deletion of Condition 6 of the development consent to permit the rigging and unrigging of

sailing boats beyond the area currently leased by the Woollahra Sailing Club onto adjoining

northern and eastern Council managed sections of Lyne Park totalling approximately 1530 m2 of

additional land area; an increase of approximately 42%. A plan of the proposed areas is attached as

Annexure 1.

The Woollahra Sailing Club has been using the adjoining northern and eastern sections of the

Council trust managed, publicly accessible portion of Lyne Park for the rigging and unrigging of

sailing boats without authorisation including the manoeuvring and parking of associated vehicles

and trailers.

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND LOCALITY

The Woollahra Sailing Club currently exclusively leases an area of approximately 3630 m2 of the

eastern section of Lyne Park under a Special Lease from Crown Lands which consists of a two-

storey brick clubhouse, four single-storey boat storage structures and open boat storage/rigging

areas. Vehicular access to the site is via Vickery Avenue to the south.

Council trust managed, publicly accessible sections of Lyne Park adjoin the Woollahra Sailing Club

leased area on all sides. On the opposite (southern) side of Vickery Avenue are the Rose Bay Scouts

Club and the Rose Bay RSL Club.

Proposed additional areas

(approx. 1530 m2)




4

5. REFERRALS

Council's Team Leader-Open Space & Recreation Planning has provided the following comments

in relation to the proposal:

The Woollahra Sailing Club has a lease with Crown Lands under Special Lease 1980/1 and are a

stated user in the Lyne Park PoM 2003. The applicant seeks the removal of Condition 6 of the

Development Consent dated 26 May 1981 which restricts the rigging of boats by Woollahra Sailing

Club.

Lyne Park is valued for its recreational opportunities including water and land based sports and

open grassed areas where the community can partake in active and passive recreation. Lyne Park is

also a major Sydney Harbour Foreshore area with the Regional Trail 4.2 of the Regional

Recreation Trails Framework (Sydney CBD to Gap Harbour Foreshore) passing through the park

along the foreshore. At the south eastern end of the park the pathway adjoins the Woollahra Sailing

Club and links the park to the Rose Bay shops. Council will be upgrading the pathway which is still

dependent on funding opportunities.

Should the approval be granted to utilise sections of Lyne Park for rigging purposes it should not

open up the opportunity for more intensification of the leased area for storage purposes. The

grassed area inside the Club’s boundary was originally designed for rigging purposes however

with the intensification of storage and the development of the Club this is now not the case.

Furthermore, Council is in the process of upgrading the Lyne Park playground which will extend

into the open space abutting the Woollahra Sailing Club and existing playground. This area is part

of the open space requested by the Woollahra Sailing Club for utilisation for rigging purposes. This

Area currently leased by

the Woollahra Sailing

Club from Crown Lands

(approx.. 3630 m2)




5

area will be unavailable for rigging purposes and means that the area requested will be minimised

to the open space left after the playground extension.

Lyne Park Plan of Management

The Lyne Park Plan of Management states that leases and licences can be approved and must be in

compliance with Crown Land objectivities for land dedicated for public recreation. It is necessary

that any new leases or licences are subject to relevant development approvals being granted and

appropriate agreements being entered into between Council and lessees and licensees subject to

Ministers Consent.

Council's Team Leader-Open Space & Recreation Planning considers the proposal to be satisfactory

subject to the following conditions relating to the use of sections of the Council trust managed,

publicly accessible portion of Lyne Park in order to maintain sufficient area for the expansion of the

existing playground, to maintain adequate foreshore access and to physically protect the parkland:

Use of Lyne Park

The Woollahra Sailing Club Club must consider the publics’ general and uninterrupted use of the

park and pathways as a thoroughfare. The Club must at all times keep the pathways clear and free

of boats and infrastructure. Any major events hosted by the Woollahra Sailing Club which would

impact upon Lyne Park, other than the normal rigging/unrigging of sailing boats in the approved

areas, are required to be approved by Council.

The club shall only use the areas of Lyne Park for the rigging/unrigging of sailing boats as

specified by the hatched areas in the diagram below:




6

Vehicles in Lyne Park

No vehicles are permitted to enter the Vickery Avenue entry to Lyne Park. All vehicle entry shall be

via the driveway off Vickery Avenue and not through Lyne Park.

Storage of Boats in Lyne Park

Storage of boats within Lyne Park is not permitted unless prior written approval has been obtained

by Council’s Open Space and Trees Department.

Protection of Parkland

Any damage caused to Lyne Park associated with the rigging/unrigging of boats shall be repaired

and made good by the Applicant to Council specification.

21. Council Park Staff

The applicant is required to follow any instruction made by a Council Staff member in relation to

Lyne Park and the approved rigging/unrigging areas.

22. License Agreement

The Applicant must enter into a license agreement with Council to utilise Lyne Park if Development

Consent is granted. An initial one year term would be available as a trial and reviewed thereafter.

The license agreement would outline specific regulations and conditions relating to the utilisation

of Lyne Park by the Woollahra Sailing Club. In this respect, contact should be made with Council’s

Property Officer, Mr Anthony Sheedy on 9391 7019. The Council reserves the right to vary or re-

determine the annual rental payable under the license in accordance with the approved

modifications.

These conditions are implemented via Conditions 17-22 of the recommended modifications to the

consent.

Condition 22, stipulating the permitted rigging/unrigging areas, reduces the proposed total area

from 1530 m2 (a proposed increase of approximately 42%) to approximately 800 m

2 (a

recommended increase of approximately 22%). The areas permitted for the rigging of boats under

this condition maintain the existing public pedestrian access through Lyne Park and to the harbour.

The referral response is attached as Annexure 2).

ASSESSMENT UNDER S96

6.1 S96 (2) Other modifications

As the proposed modification (current unauthorised use) involves significant adverse public access

and vehicle associated damage impacts upon the Council trust managed, publicly accessible portion

of Lyne Park, the subject s96 application is deemed to fall within this category.




7

6.2 Substantially the same development

The proposed modification to the development consent is the first. The development consent, as

proposed to be modified, is considered to be substantially the same as the originally approved

development.

6.3 Threatened species

It is considered that the rigging of boats on the grassed areas of Lyne Park will not impact adversely

upon any threatened species.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C

The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 as required by Section 96 (3) of the Act are assessed under the following

headings:

7.1 SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 and Sydney Harbour Foreshores and

Waterways Area DCP 2005

The following provisions of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 are relevant to the proposal:

Clause 22 Public access to, and use of, foreshores and waterways

Clause 22 of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 requires Council to consider impacts upon

public pedestrian access along the foreshore and access to the harbour for recreational purposes.

Clause 24 Interrelationship of waterway and foreshore uses

Clause 24 of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 requires Council to consider issues of

equitable use of the waterway including use by passive recreation craft, minimising congestion of

traffic along the foreshore and minimising conflict between the various uses along the foreshore.

Clause 25 Foreshore and waterways scenic quality

Clause 25 of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 requires Council to consider the visual

impact that a development proposal will have upon Sydney Harbour and adjoining foreshore areas.

Clause 26 Maintenance, protection and enhancement of views

Clause 26 of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 requires Council to consider the impact that

a development proposal will have upon available views to and from Sydney Harbour.

Clause 29 Consultation required for certain development applications

Clause 29 of SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 requires Council to take into consideration

any submission received from the Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development Advisory

Committee in relation to the proposal.




8

The Committee considered the matter on 23 September 2011 and recommended that Council take

into consideration the impact of the proposal upon public access to the pedestrian pathway along the

foreshore and all relevant matters under the Sydney Harbour Foreshores and Waterways Area DCP

2005 (see Annexure 3).

Subject to the above-mentioned Conditions 17-22 recommended by Council's Team Leader-Open

Space & Recreation Planning, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to the above-

mentioned matters for consideration. These recommended conditions will achieve the following

with regard to the public open space section of Lyne Park:

Reduce the proposed area from 1530 m2 (a proposed increase of approximately 42%) to

approximately 800 m2

(a recommended increase of approximately 22%). The areas permitted for

the rigging and unrigging of boats under this condition maintain the existing public pedestrian

access through Lyne Park and to the harbour;

Prevent the entry of vehicles;

Prevent the storage of boats; and

Require any damage to be repaired.


8.1 Permissibility of use and objectives of WLEP 1995 and zone (Clause 8(5))

Lyne Park is zoned 6 Open Space-General Recreation. A recreational area is a permissible use

under the zoning. The subject proposal is considered to fall within the definition of recreational

area which includes:

(c) an area used for sporting activities or sporting facilities.

The following objectives of the zone are relevant to the assessment to the proposed modifications:

(a) To identify existing publicly and privately owned land used or capable of being used for

recreational purpose.

(d) Enable development for the purpose of public and private recreation and community facilities

sympathetic to the environmental characteristics of the land and surrounding areas.

(e) To protect the visual and environmental attributes of the foreshores.


Space & Recreation Planning, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this regard.

8.2 Clause 19 Harbour Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Clause 19 requires Council to consider the visual impact of the proposed modification upon Sydney

Harbour. Subject to the above-mentioned Conditions 17-22 recommended by Council's Team

Leader-Open Space & Recreation Planning, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this

regard.

8.3 Clause 24 Land adjoining public open space

Clause 24 requires Council to consider the impact of the proposed modification upon the amenity of

any adjoining public open space area and whether it is in conflict any plan of management of that

public open space.




9

The Lyne Park Plan of Management states that leases and licences can be approved and must be in

compliance with Crown Land objectivities for land dedicated for public recreation. It is necessary

that any new leases or licences are subject to relevant development approvals being granted and

appropriate agreements being entered into between Council and lessees and licensees subject to

Ministers Consent.


Space & Recreation Planning, the proposal is considered to be satisfactory in this regard.

8.4 Clause 27 Development in the vicinity of heritage items

Clause 27 of Woollahra LEP 1995 requires Council to take into consideration the impact of a

development proposal upon the heritage significance of any Heritage Item in the vicinity of the

development proposal. The site is in the vicinity of heritage items, being the Norfolk Island Pines

on Vickery Avenue. The proposed modifications will not have any adverse impact on the heritage

significance of the heritage listed trees.

9. Enforcement Policy (Unauthorised Use)

The Woollahra Sailing Club has been using the adjoining northern and eastern sections of the

Council trust managed, publicly accessible portion of Lyne Park for the rigging and unrigging of

sailing boats without authorisation including the manoeuvring and parking of associated vehicles

and trailers.

Council has discretion in deciding whether to take any one or more of the following enforcement

action on the basis of the available evidence and the circumstances of the individual case (there is

photographic evidence of the unauthorised use):

• Take no action;

• Counsel the alleged offender;

• Issue a formal letter of warning;

• Commence criminal proceedings; and

• Commence civil proceedings.

Subject to compliance with the recommended conditions of consent, it is recommended that no

further action be taken in the absence of any significant adverse environmental impact.

With regard to disciplinary action, Part B of the recommendation facilitates the referral of the

matter to Council's Manager-Compliance to take appropriate action under Part 6 of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Retrospective consent for the unauthorised use is facilitated by the provisions of s109A (1) (b) of

the Environment Planning and Assessment Act which states:

109A Uses unlawfully commenced

(1) The use of a building, work or land which was unlawfully commenced is not rendered lawful

by the occurrence of any subsequent event except:

(a) the commencement of an environmental planning instrument which permits the use

without the necessity for consent under this Act being obtained therefor, or

(b) the granting of development consent to that use.




10

Further, the Council's solicitors had advised that case law has established that Council is able to

grant retrospective approval to s96 applications for development that has already been carried out if

it is acceptable on merit and is substantially the same as the original development consent. It is

considered that subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the unauthorised use satisfies

both considerations and therefore it is recommended that Council approve the use retrospectively.

10. SUBMISSIONS

The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council’s Advertising and

Notifications DCP. No objections had been received.

11. CONCLUSION

The proposed modification has been assessed under the provisions of s79 C and s96 of the

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and is considered to be satisfactory, subject to

conditions.

12. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to s96 of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act, 1979

A. THAT Council, as the consent authority, modify development consent to Development

Application 282/1979/2 for a new clubhouse for the Woollahra Sailing Club on land at 9

Vickery Avenue (Lyne Park), Rose Bay, in the following manner:

The deletion of Condition No. 6

addition of the following conditions:

17. Use of Lyne Park

The Woollahra Sailing Club Club must consider the publics’ general and uninterrupted use of

the park and pathways as a thoroughfare. The Club must at all times keep the pathways clear

and free of boats and infrastructure. Any major events hosted by the Woollahra Sailing Club

which would impact upon Lyne Park, other than the normal rigging/unrigging of sailing boats

in the approved areas, are required to be approved by Council.

The club shall only use the areas of Lyne Park for the rigging/unrigging of sailing boats as

specified by the hatched areas in the diagram below:




11

18. Vehicles in Lyne Park

No vehicles are permitted to enter the Vickery Avenue entry to Lyne Park. All vehicle entry

shall be via the driveway off Vickery Avenue and not through Lyne Park.

19. Storage of Boats in Lyne Park

Storage of boats within Lyne Park is not permitted unless prior written approval has been

obtained by Council’s Open Space and Trees Department.

20. Protection of Parkland

Any damage caused to Lyne Park associated with the rigging/unrigging of boats shall be

repaired and made good by the Applicant to Council specification.

21. Council Park Staff

The applicant is required to follow any instruction made by a Council Staff member in

relation to Lyne Park and the approved rigging areas.




12

22. License Agreement

The Applicant must enter into a license agreement with Council to utilise Lyne Park if

Development Consent is granted. An initial one year term would be available as a trial and

reviewed thereafter. The license agreement would outline specific regulations and conditions

relating to the utilisation of Lyne Park by the Woollahra Sailing Club. In this respect, contact

should be made with Council’s Property Officer, Mr Anthony Sheedy on 9391 7019. The

Council reserves the right to vary or re-determine the annual rental payable under the license

in accordance with the approved modifications.

B. THAT this matter be referred to the Manager – Compliance to take appropriate action under

Part 6 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in accordance with Council’s

Enforcement Policy for failure to obtain Council approval prior to the unauthorised use of the

adjacent (to the area leased by the Woollahra Sailing Club from Crown Lands) northern and

eastern sections of the Council Trust managed, publicly accessible portion of Lyne Park for

the rigging of sailing boats and associated manoeuvring and parking of vehicles and trailers.

Mr D Booth Mr N Economou

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER

ADVISINGS

1. Appeal

Council is always prepared to discuss its decisions and, in this regard, please do not hesitate to

contact David Booth, Senior Assessment Officer on (02) 9391 7119.

However, if you wish to pursue your rights of appeal in the Land & Environment Court you

are advised that Council generally seeks resolution of such appeals through a Section 34

Conference, site hearings and the use of Court Appointed Experts, instead of a full Court

hearing.

This approach is less adversarial, it achieves a quicker decision than would be the case

through a full Court hearing and it can give rise to considerable cost and time savings for all

parties involved. The use of the Section 34 Conference approach requires the appellant to

agree, in writing, to the Court appointed commissioner having the full authority to completely

determine the matter at the conference.

2. Lyne Park Plan of Management

The Lyne Park Plan of Management states that leases and licences can be approved and must

be in compliance with Crown Land objectivities for land dedicated for public recreation. It is

necessary that any new leases or licences are subject to relevant development approvals being

granted and appropriate agreements being entered into between Council and lessees and

licensees subject to Ministers Consent.




13

ANNEXURES

1. Plan of proposed rigging/unrigging areas.

2. Council's Team Leader-Open Space & Recreation Planning’s comments.

3. Foreshores and Waterways Planning and Development Advisory Committee’s comments.


751-755, 757 and 759 New South Head Road, Monday 5 March 2012

and 12 and 14 Richmond Road, Rose Bay


DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ASSESSMENT REPORT

ITEM No. D4

FILE No. DA 845/2008

PROPERTY DETAILS

751-755, 757 and 759 New South Head Road, and 12 and 14

Richmond Road, Rose Bay

Lot & DP No.: LOT: 5 SEC: 1 DP: 976493

LOT: 1 SEC: 1 DP: 776799

LOT: 7 SEC:1 DP: 976493

LOT: 89 DP: 1086615

LOT: 2 DP: 776799

Side of Street: South Eastern

Site Area (m²): 2132.6

Zoning: General Business 3(a)

PROPOSAL The adaptive use of No. 751-755 (former car showroom) and No.

757 (former Post Office) New South Head Road for a retail use as a

Woolworths supermarket, and the demolition of the pair of semi-

detached dwellings at No. 12 and No. 14 Richmond Road to

provide off-street car parking for 25 vehicles, with egress for

service vehicles via 759 New South Head Road (Crystal Car Wash).

TYPE OF CONSENT:

Local

APPLICANT:

Fabcot Pty Ltd

OWNER:

Lenjade Pty Ltd

DATE LODGED:

19/12/2008 (original)

24/06/2009 (first amendment)

23/08/2010 (second amendment)

26/08/2011 (third amendment)

25/11/2011 (fourth amendment)

AUTHOR: Mrs E Killey

DOES THE APPLICATION INVOLVE A SEPP 1 OBJECTION? YES NO

1. RECOMMENDATION PRECIS

The application is recommended for approval because, subject to conditions, it:

1. is satisfactory with regard to the relevant matters for consideration stipulated under Section 79C

of the EP & A Act 1979 including the provisions of Woollahra LEP 1995 and the Rose Bay

Centre DCP, and

2. will not adversely effect the amenity of adjoining properties and the public domain such that

refusal is justified.





2. PROPOSAL PRECIS

The proposed development consists of the adaptive use of No. 751-755 (former car showroom) and

No. 757 (former Post Office) New South Head Road for a retail use as a Woolworths supermarket,

and the demolition of the pair of semi-detached dwellings at No. 12 and No. 14 Richmond Road to

provide the associated off-street car parking for 25 vehicles, with egress for service vehicles via 759

New South Head Road (Crystal Car Wash).

Condition A.1 requires the deferred commencement of the development until a right of

carriageway is created upon the title of 759 New South Head Road (Crystal Car wash) benefiting

the subject site.

3. LOCALITY PLAN

Subject

Site

Objectors

North

Locality Plan

4. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

On 19 December 2008, the original application was lodged, which comprised of the adaptive use of

No. 751-755 (former car show room) and No. 757 (former Post Office) New South Head Road for a

retail use as a Thomas Dux greengrocers, and the demolition of the pair of semi-detached dwellings

at No. 12 and No. 14 Richmond Road to provide the associated off-street car parking for 28

vehicles, with egress for service vehicles via 759 New South Head Road (Crystal Car Wash).

167 letters of objections were received.

6 petitions of objection were received containing approximately 3187

signatures.

7 letters of support were received.

No. 12 -14 (proposed

car park).

No. 751-755

(former car

show room).

No. 12 -14

proposed car

park

No. 759 (Crystal

car wash – providing egress

for service

vehicles).

No. 757

(former Post

Office).





On 24 June 2009, amended plans were received which included the following revisions:

A greater retention of the original fabric of the heritage listed former Post Office.

Modifications to the rear addition.

The provision of an acoustic barrier to the roof top plant equipment.

The retention of the existing entry and steps to the former Post Office.

On 23 August 2010, amended plans were received which included the following revisions:

A change in the proposed tenancy from a Thomas Dux Greengrocer to a Woolworths

supermarket.

Additional deep soil landscaping within the car park area, resulting in the loss of three car

parking spaces (25 car parking spaces retained).

Modifications to the southern corner of the rear addition to reduce the height by 2.3m.

A greater retention of the original fabric of the heritage listed former Post Office. Comprising of:

The retention of the existing roof form.

A greater retention of the south western and south eastern elevations.

The re use of the entry doors.

The retention of the existing floor.

The full or partial retention of the existing window openings.

On 26 August 2011, amended plans were received which included the following revisions:

The provision of acoustic fences to the eastern and western side boundaries of the proposed car

parking area. The acoustic fences comprise of a 1.8m high vertical fence on the boundary with a

canopy extending into the subject site at an angle of 40 degrees to the horizontal (a total height

of 3.1m). The acoustic fences are constructed of a steel frame structure, sound absorbent lining,

vertical colourbond panels and a clear polycarbonate sheet canopy.

Acoustic measures to the loading dock comprising of: rubber impact flooring, 3m high vertical

insulation to the loading dock walls, perforated reinforced foil faced glass wool to the loading

dock ceiling, and an awning to the loading dock entry.

Acoustic measures to the roof top plant comprising of: timber batten panelling and acoustic

treatment to the plant room walls.

On 25 November 2011, amended plans were received which included the following revisions:

The provision of revised acoustic fences to the eastern and western side boundaries of the

proposed car parking area. The acoustic fences comprise of:

Two 1.81m high acoustic fences on the boundary with a canopy extending into the

subject site at an angle of 45 degrees to the horizontal (a total height of 3.1m).

A 2.11m high acoustic fence adjacent to the boundary with a canopy extending into the


A 2.5m high acoustic fence located on the boundary.

Two 1.8m-2.5m acoustic fences located on the boundary.

The acoustic fences are constructed of a steel frame structure, sound absorbent lining,

and vertical colourbond panels. The canopies are constructed of clear polycarbonate

sheeting.

The enlargement of the area of the roof top plant from approximately 45m2 to 109m

2, an increase

of 64m2. The provision of a timber screen wall to the plant area with an RL of 12.630.

The modification of the disabled car parking space to comply with the relevant Australian

Standard.

It should be noted, that all sets of amended plans were renotified in accordance with Council‘s

Advertising and Notification Development Control Plan.





The amended proposal comprises of:

The adaptive use of No. 751-755 (former car showroom) and No. 757 (former Post Office) New

South Head Road for a retail use as a Woolworths Supermarket.

The connection of the former Post Office and car showroom through the introduction of a

recessed addition which extends to the rear of the existing buildings and incorporates a first floor

rear mezzanine storage area.

The demolition of the pair of semi-detached dwellings at No. 12 and No. 14 Richmond Road to

provide a car park area containing 25 off street car parking spaces, associated landscaping and a

single customer entry and exit point to Richmond Road.

The proposed supermarket would comprise of a trading area containing cashiers, shelving,

refrigeration units, food displays, fruit and vegetable displays, and a back of house area which

includes preparation, loading, service, storage, staff, and plant areas.

The statement of environmental effects states that the proposed supermarket would have a gross

floor area of 1363.5m2. The floor area is broken down as follows:

Trading floor area 812.3m2.

Ground floor back of house area 235.8m2.

First floor mezzanine storage area 144.1m2.

First floor staff area 171.3m2.

The floor area calculations have been verified by Council staff. It is noted that the architectural

plans incorrectly identify the trading floor area as 1025m2.

Associated landscaping.

Associated signage.

The proposed trading hours are 7am to 10pm Monday to Sunday (seven days a week).

All customer vehicle movements (entry and exit) are proposed via Richmond Road.

All service vehicle movements are proposed to enter via Richmond Road and exit through a

shared driveway at Crystal Carwash onto New South Head Road. Condition A.1 requires the

deferred commencement of the development until a right of carriageway is created upon the title

of 759 New South Head Road (Crystal Car wash) benefiting the subject site.

The acoustic report, prepared by Aecom, dated 23 November 2011, identifies that the proposed

service deliveries comprise of: Monday to Sunday an average of 8.6 deliveries each day.

The acoustic report, prepared by Aecom, dated 23 November 2011, identifies that the proposed

waste collection would occur between 9am and 3pm. There would be an average of 10.5 waste

collections per week.

In accordance with the advice dated 04 May 2011, prepared by Colston Budd Hunt and Kafes on

behalf of the applicant, the maximum size delivery vehicle would be a 8.8m long medium rigid

truck.

A covered loading dock is proposed to the rear of the building.

Acoustic barriers are proposed to the eastern and western side boundaries of the proposed car

park.

5. SUMMARY

Reasons for report Issues Submissions

The DA does not satisfy the criteria for

determination under staff delegation:

The proposal involves construction

works to a Heritage Item.

The proposal has a stated cost of

works which is greater than three

million dollars.

Public interest.

Traffic and parking.

Building envelope.

Retail frontage width.

Deep soil landscaping.

Solar access.

Acoustic.

Signage.

Urban design.

Village and streetscape character.

Heritage impacts.

Objector‘s concerns.

167 letters of objections were

received.

6 petitions of objection were

received containing

approximately 3187 signatures.

7 letters of support were

received.





6. ESTIMATED COST OF WORKS

Council adopted (DCC 6 June 2005) administrative changes for determining DA fees based on the

estimated cost of work. Where the estimated cost of work is greater than $750,000 or where the

applicant‘s estimate is considered to be neither genuine or accurate, the applicant has to provide a

Quantity Surveyor‘s report.

A Quantity Surveyor‘s report was provided with this DA which estimates the cost of the proposed

development at $3,900,000.00.

7. DESCRIPTION OF SITE OF LOCALITY

THE SITE AND LOCALITY

Physical features

The site comprises of the following allotments:

751-755 New South Head Road which comprises of a former car show room.

757 New South Head Road which comprises of the heritage item former Post Office with a

parking area and outbuildings to the rear.

12 and 14 Richmond Road which comprise of a pair of semi-detached dwellings.

759 New South Head Road, which comprises of Crystal Car Wash, would provide egress for

service vehicles.

The site (excluding Crystal Car Wash) has an area of 2132.6m2. The north western frontage to New

South Head Road is a length of approximately 32m. The southern frontage to Richmond Road is a

length of approximately 11.4m.

No. 12 -14 Richmond Road

(proposed car park)

No. 757

(former Post

Office)

No. 751-755

(former car

show room)

No. 759 (Crystal

car wash –

providing egress for service

vehicles only)

11 -19

Newcastle St.

21 Newcastle St Street

23 Newcastle St.

10 Richmond Rd.





Topography

The subject site is relatively flat. The only vegetation is a small lawn area to the front of 12 and 14

Richmond Road. The remainder of the site comprises of buildings, concrete, or bitumen

hardstanding. The site has two vehicular accesses from New South Head Road; one which is

located between the former Post Office and former car show room, and a second which provides

vehicular access into the former car showroom building. There is a further vehicular access point

from Richmond Road.

Existing

buildings and

structures

The site comprises of the following buildings and structures:

751-755 New South Head Road which comprises of a former car show room. The building is a

two storey rendered building with a single storey addition to the rear.

757 New South Head Road, which comprises of the former Post Office, is listed as a heritage

item within the Woollahra Local Environmental Plan (WLEP). The former Post Office is a

single storey brick building with a hipped Marseille tiled roof. There are a number of single

storey outbuildings to the rear of the former Post Office.

12 and 14 Richmond Road are a pair of single storey semi-detached dwellings.

Environment

The subject site is located within a 3(a) General Business zone. The site is surrounded by a mix of

commercial premises, residential flat buildings, and residential dwelling houses.

The adjoining properties to the east consist of:

759 New South Head Road, which is occupied by the Shell service station integrated with the

Crystal Car Wash.

11-19 Newcastle Street, which is occupied by a 4 storey mixed development.

21 Newcastle Street, which is occupied by a 3 storey residential flat building.

23 Newcastle Street, which is occupied by a 3 storey mixed development.

The adjoining properties to the west consist of:

10 Richmond Road, which is occupied by a 2 storey residential flat building.

745-749 New South Head Road, which is occupied by a 3 storey residential flat building.

8. PROPERTY HISTORY

PROPERTY HISTORY

Current use The former use of the subject site comprised of:

A car show room.

A Post Office.

Two residential dwellings.

Egress for service vehicles from the subject supermarket is proposed across Crystal Car Wash

(no. 759 New South Head Road). The car wash approved hours of use are restricted to Monday –

Friday 7.00am to 7.00pm and Weekends and Public Holidays 8.00am to 7.00pm.

Condition A.1 requires the deferred commencement of the development until a right of

carriageway is created upon the title of 759 New South Head Road (Crystal Car wash) benefiting

the subject site.

Previous relevant

applications

DA 598/2006 was approved by the Development Control Committee (DCC) on 03 September

2007, for the demolition of the outbuildings to the rear of the former Post Office, and the

demolition of the pair of semi-detached dwellings at No.12-14 Richmond Road, and the use of

this area as a car park. The statement of environmental effects identified that the car park was to

provide interim car parking comprising of 31 spaces to be used by customers of Crystal Car

Wash/Shell service station and the Westpac Bank Building. The proposed car park was proposed

as an interim use of the subject site pending the future re-development of the subject site and

adjoining sites.

Conditions imposed upon the consent included:

C.2 Requiring existing street parking to be retained, adequate sight lines to be provided and the

approval of the Woollahra Traffic Committee to ensure that the entry/exit movements to/from the

carpark via Richmond Road are enforced.

I.4 The hours of use were restricted to Monday –Friday 7.00am to 7.30pm and

Weekends and Public Holidays 8.00am to 7.30pm.

This consent has not been enacted.

Pre-DA None.





Requests for

additional

information

07 January 2009:

Preliminary Acid Sulphate Investigation (Received 18.03.09).

Stormwater Management Plan (Received 18.03. 09).

Flood Study (Received 18.03. 09).

Construction Management Plan (Not required subject to condition).

Landscape Plan (Received 18.03. 09).

31 March 2009:

Further acoustic investigation (Received 27.05.09).

13 May 2009:

Amended plans to address concerns relating to urban design, traffic, heritage,

building envelope and acoustics. (Received 24.06.09).

08 September 2009:

Turning circle diagram (Received 10.09.09).

25 September 2009:

Amended plans to address heritage, acoustic, traffic, landscaping, building envelope

issues (Received 23.08.10).

22 September 2010:


22 October 2010:


05 January 2011:


28 April 2011:

Turning circle diagram for a 8.8m truck (Received 04.05.11).

On street car parking diagram indicating the impact of the proposal upon the car

parking to New South Head Road (Received 04.05.11).

24 May 2011:


09 August 2011:

A service delivery schedule (Received 19.08.11).

22 August 2011:

Amended plans to address concerns relating to acoustics. (Received 26.08.11).

30 August 2011:

Further acoustic investigation. (Received 12.10.11).

20 and 23 September 2011:

Traffic and parking detail clarification . (Received 23.09.11).

17 October 2011:


19 and 31 October and 11 November 2011:






Amended plans/

Replacement

Application

See section 4 above.

Land & Environment

Court appeal

None.

9. REFERRALS

9.1 The following table contains particulars of internal referrals.

INTERNAL REFERRALS

Referral Officer Comment Annexure

Development Engineer

Council's Development Engineer has determined that the proposal is

satisfactory subject to the following conditions: A.1, A.4, A.5, C.2, C.3,

C.4, C.6, C.7, C.13, C.14, C.15, C.16, D.2, D.3, D.4, D.5, D.6, D.8, E.3,

E.7, E.8, E.9, E.10, E.13, E.17, F.3, F.4, F.6, G.1, H.4, H.5, H.6, I.5, and

I.6 .

2

Landscaping Officer

Council's Landscaping Officer has determined that the proposal is

satisfactory subject to the following conditions: A.4, B.5, B.6, B.7, C.3,

C.9, C.12, E.22, E.23, F.2, H.1, H.3, and I.8.

3

Environmental Health

Officer

Council's Environmental Health Officer has determined that the proposal is

satisfactory subject to the conditions recommended by the Council

appointed independent acoustic expert. The following conditions relate to

acoustic mitigation conditions: A.4, B.8, B.9, C.2, C.4, C.14, C.18, C.19,

C.20, C.21, F.6, F.7, F, 8, I.1, I.2, I.3, I.4, I.5, I.13, I.14, I.15, I.16, and,

I.18

The following conditions relate to all other environmental health issues

conditions: A.4, B.3, B.4, C.5, C.17, E.6, E.18, E.19, E.20, E.21, E.25,

F.5, and I.11 .

4

Heritage Officer Council's Heritage Officer has determined that the proposal is satisfactory

subject to the following conditions: B.2, C.2, and E.24.

5

Urban Design Planner Council's Urban Design Planner has determined that the proposal is

satisfactory subject to the following condition: C.2.

6

Fire Safety Officer Council's Fire Safety Officer has determined that the proposal is satisfactory

subject to the following conditions: C.22 and I.10.

7

Advertising and

Signage Officer

Council's advertising and Signage Officer has determined that the proposal

is satisfactory subject to the following conditions: C.2 and I.7.

8

9.2 The following table contains particulars of external referrals.

EXTERNAL REFERRALS

External Referral

Body

Reason for

referral

Comment

Roads and Traffic

Authority

s.138 of the

Roads Act 1993

The RTA stated that:

„no new driveway is provided to New South Head Road. Therefore the

development does not require referral to the RTA as an „integrated

development‟ or concurrence under Section 138 of the Roads Act.

However, the RTA has reviewed the development application and provides

the following advisory comments:

1. It is noted that service vehicles will egress the site via the adjacent car

wash development site. This is not ideal as it creates vehicular conflict

with the adjacent car wash operation. In addition, if the adjacent car

wash is under separate ownership in the future, this exit facility could

be denied. This issue should be addressed to Council satisfaction.





EXTERNAL REFERRALS

External Referral

Body

Reason for

referral

Comment

2. The largest vehicle entering and existing the subject site, as well as

manoeuvrability through the site, shall be in accordance with

AUSTROADS. In this regard, a swept path plan shall be submitted to

Council illustrating compliance with this requirement.

3. Off streetparking shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.1-

2004 and AS 2890.2-2002.

The full referral response is attached as Annexure 9.

The advisory comments have been considered as part of the assessment.

Conditions: A.1, C.14, and C.13 of the recommendation require:

The deferred commencement of the development until a right of

carriageway is created upon the title of 759 New South Head Road

(Crystal Car wash) benefiting the subject site. The right of carriageway

must enable service vehicles to egress the site in accordance with

drawing 1 ‗8.8m Medium Rigid Vehicle Swept Paths‘, dated 02 May

2011, prepared by Colston, Budd, Hunt and Kafes Pty Ltd.

A Transport Delivery Management Plan to be submitted to and

approved in writing by Council.

The off streetparking to be designed in accordance with AS2890.1-

2004 and AS 2890.2-2002.

9.3 Council Commissioned Independent Peer Reviews

Both the applicant and objectors have provided acoustic and traffic reports. These reports reached

conflicting conclusions in relation to the impacts of the proposal.

In response, Council staff commissioned a peer review of: the DA submission including the

accompanying specialist reports, the objectors‘ traffic and acoustic reports, and the Council‘s

internal referral responses. The independent acoustic peer was carried out by Mr Louis Challis of

Challis Consulting Pty Limited. The independent traffic peer review was carried out by Mr Graham

Pinder of Traffix, Traffic and Transport Planners.

Independent Acoustic Peer Review

The independent acoustic peer review, prepared by Mr Challis, concluded that the proposal in its

initial form was unsatisfactory. In response to the concerns raised by Mr Challis, amended

architectural plans and a new acoustic report were submitted on 25 November 2011. Following a

review of the amended plans and new acoustic report, Mr Challis confirmed that the proposal was

satisfactory with regards to acoustic impacts subject to a number of conditions. These conditions

form part of the recommendation. The full independent acoustic peer review responses are attached

as Annexure 10.

Independent Traffic Peer Review

The independent traffic peer review, prepared by Mr Pinder, concluded that the proposal was

satisfactory with regards to traffic and parking impacts subject to a number of conditions. These

conditions form part of the recommendation. The full independent traffic peer review response is

attached as Annexure 11.





ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT UNDER S.79C

The relevant matters for consideration under section 79C of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 are assessed under the following headings:

10. STATE/REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS AND LEGISLATION

10.1 SEPPs

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 (SEPP 55)

Under clause 7 (1) (a) of SEPP 55-Remediation of Land, consideration has been given as to whether

the land is contaminated. A Stage 1 Preliminary Site Investigation provided with DA 598/2006/1

indicated that the land contains contamination and required further consideration under clause 7(1)

(b) and (c) of SEPP 55.

Clause 7(1) (b) and (c) requires that where the land is contaminated, Council must be satisfied that

the land is suitable in its contaminated state or will be suitable after remediation for the purpose for

which the development is proposed. If the land requires remediation Council must be satisfied that

the land will be remediated before the land is used for that purpose.

Council‘s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the proposal and confirmed that Clause 7 (1)

(a), (b) and (c) of SEPP No. 55 could be addressed by conditions of consent requiring:

An assessment of groundwater quality, and the field investigations and results of the ground

water sampling being forwarded to Woollahra Council prior to the commencement of any

demolition, excavation, or construction works (Condition B.3).

Any new information which comes to light during demolition or construction works in relation

to site contamination being notified to Woollahra Council (Condition E.19).

Any proposed disposal of soil from the site must be tested and classified in accordance with the

provisions of both the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the NSW EPA

Guidelines: Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid and Non-Liquid Wastes

(1999) (Condition E.21).

The principal contractor must maintain water pollution, erosion and sedimentation controls.

(Condition E.25).

Subject to these conditions the proposal is satisfactory with regards to SEPP 55.

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Infrastructure) 2007

Schedule 3 of the Infrastructure SEPP sets out the traffic generating developments which must be

referred to the RTA. The proposed commercial premises has a greater floor area than 1,000m2 and

site vehicle access (for service vehicles exiting the site) is provided from New South Head, which is

a Classified State Road. Accordingly the development has been referred to the NSW Roads and

Traffic Authority (RTA).

The RTA determined that the proposal does not require RTA approval or concurrence as the

proposal does not create a new driveway to New South Head Road. The RTA have provided a

number of advisory comments, which have been considered as part of the assessment. The full RTA

referral response is attached as Annexure 9. The issues raised in the RTA referral response are

addressed by conditions A.1, C.14, and C.13 of this recommendation.





State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 64-Advertising and Signage

Council must not grant development consent to an application to display advertising signage unless

it is satisfied:

a) that the signage is consistent with the objectives of the Policy as set out in clause 3(1)(a), and

b) that the signage the subject of the application satisfies the assessment criteria specified in

Schedule 1.

The objectives of the SEPP are to ensure that signage:

(i) is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii) provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

(iii) is of high quality design and finish.

The proposal incorporates the following signage:

New South Head Rd elevation

A flush wall sign, with approximate dimensions of 3500mm x 700mm, located above the

entry doors on the former Post Office building, displaying the word ―Woolworths‖ and the

Woolworths logo.

An awning fascia sign on the former car showroom building, displaying the word

―Woolworths‖ and the Woolworths logo on the outer ends of the awning and each awning

return.

A flush wall sign, with approximate dimensions of 3000mm x 500mm, located on the first

floor facade, displaying the word ―Woolworths‖ and the Woolworths logo.

New graphic inset panels to the windows to the front elevation of the former Post Office

South East elevation

A flush wall sign, with approximate dimensions of 4300mm x 3800mm, located on the rear

wall adjacent to the loading dock, displaying the word ―Woolworths‖ and the Woolworths

logo.

North West elevation

A flush wall sign, with approximate dimensions of 3500mm x 2000mm located on the side

wall (ground floor) of the former car showroom, featuring the Woolworths logo and the

words ―Rose Bay‖.

An under awning sign, with approximate dimensions of 2000mm x 400mm located under

the side entrance to north west elevation, displaying the word ―Woolworths‖ and the

Woolworths logo.

A flush wall sign, with approximate dimensions 1200mm x 1200mm located adjacent to the

rear entrance, featuring the Woolworths logo and the words ―Rose Bay‖.

A flush wall sign to the loading dock, featuring the words ―Loading Dock‖.

The proposal was referred to Council‘s Signage Officer – Michelle Easton who has determined that

the proposal is satisfactory subject to conditions C.2 and I.7 of the recommendation. The full

referral response is attached as Annexure 8.





The relevant assessment criteria specified in Schedule 1 of the SEPP are as follows:

1 Character of the area

is the proposal compatible with the existing or desired future character of the area or locality

in which it is proposed to be located?

2 Special areas

does the proposal detract from the amenity or visual quality of any environmentally sensitive

areas, heritage areas, natural or other conservation areas, open space areas, waterways,

rural landscapes or residential areas?

Condition C.2, forms part of the recommendation, which requires the deletion of the flush wall

sign and the new graphic inset panels to the windows to the front elevation of the heritage item

former Post Office. Subject to this condition, the proposed signage is compatible with the existing

and desired future character of the locality and the heritage significance of the former Post Office.

3 Views and vistas

does the proposal obscure or compromise important views?

does the proposal dominate the skyline and reduce the quality of vistas?

The subject signage does not obscure or compromise existing private or public views and does not

dominate the skyline.

4 Streetscape, setting or landscape

is the scale, proportion and form of the proposal appropriate for the streetscape, setting or

landscape?

does the proposal contribute to the visual interest of the streetscape, setting or landscape?

does the proposal protrude above buildings, structures or tree canopies in the area or

locality?

Subject to condition C.2, the proposed signage would have a satisfactory streetscape outcome.

5 Site and building

is the proposal compatible with the scale, proportion and other characteristics of the site or

building, or both, on which the proposed signage is to be located?

does the proposal respect important features of the site or building, or both?

does the proposal show innovation and imagination in its relationship to the site or building,

or both?

Subject to condition C.2, the proposed signage is compatible with the site and subject building.

6 Associated devices and logos with advertisements and advertising structures

have any safety devices, platforms, lighting devices or logos been designed as an integral part

of the signage or structure on which it is to be displayed?





The subject signage is considered to be satisfactory in this regard.

7 Illumination

would illumination result in unacceptable glare?

would illumination affect safety for pedestrians, vehicles or aircraft?

would illumination detract from the amenity of any residence or other form of

accommodation?

can the intensity of the illumination be adjusted, if necessary?

is the illumination subject to a curfew?

Condition I.7 of the recommendation, prohibits the illumination of any signage between 10pm and

7am. Subject to this condition of consent the proposal is satisfactory in relation to illumination.

8 Safety

would the proposal reduce the safety for any public road?

would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians or bicyclists?

would the proposal reduce the safety for pedestrians, particularly children, by obscuring

sightlines from public areas?

The proposed signage is satisfactory in terms of traffic and pedestrian safety.

Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposed signage is consistent with the objectives of

the Policy as set out in clause 3(1)(a), of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 64-

Advertising and Signage.

10.2 REPs

SREP (Sydney Harbour Catchment) 2005 and accompanying DCP

The provisions of this instrument and the accompanying DCP for SREP (Sydney Harbour

Catchment) 2005 require Council to consider the visual impact that a development proposal will

have upon Sydney Harbour and adjoining foreshore areas, and the likely impact upon available

views to and from Sydney Harbour.

The proposal will not have any adverse visual impact upon Sydney Harbour and adjoining foreshore

areas, and will not adversely affect views to and from the Harbour. As such, the proposal is

considered to be satisfactory with regard to the provisions of this instrument.

10.3 Section 94 contribution

Section 94 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) contains provisions

that allow Council to impose conditions of consent on a development application to require the the

payment of a monetary contribution or both, in order to meet demand for public amenities and

public services the demand for which would be generated by the proposed development. The

Woollahra Section 94 Contributions Plan 2002 applies to the proposal.





Car parking contributions

The proposal provides 25 off street car parking spaces and creates 3 new on street car parking

spaces.

On 23 March 2010, the Parking Development Control Plan 2003 (Parking DCP 2011) came into

force. The Parking DCP 2011 repeals the current car parking plan, the Woollahra Development

Control Plan For Off-Street Car Parking Provision and Servicing Facilities 1995.

The notable difference between the two documents is that the Parking DCP 1995 has a supermarket

car parking generation rate of 4.6 spaces per 100m2 and the Parking DCP 2011 has a car parking

generation rate of 3.5 spaces per 100m2. The car parking requirement under the Parking DCP1995

is 44 car parking spaces, whereas the car parking requirement under the Parking DCP 2011 is 34 car

parking spaces. The proposal provides 25 off street carparking spaces and creates 3 new on street

car parking spaces. This represents a shortfall of 6 car parking spaces under Parking DCP 2011 as

opposed to a shortfall of 16 car parking spaces under the Parking DCP 1995.

It is acknowledged that the savings and transition arrangements of the Parking DCP 2011 (clause

1.6) state that outstanding development applications shall be assessed under the Woollahra

Development Control Plan for Off-Street Car Parking and Servicing Facilities 1995 (Parking DCP

1995). However, the Parking DCP 2011 has undergone extensive public consultation and provides a

review of Council‘s existing parking requirements, and where appropriate, provides amendments to

ensure that Council‘s objectives for car parking are achieved. Given that the Parking DCP 2011

provides up to date policies which reflect Council‘s current objectives, notwithstanding clause 1.6,

it is appropriate to give considerable weight to the provisions contained within the Parking DCP

2011.

Furthermore, the Contributions Plan also provides for a degree of flexibility in levying

contributions. Clause 3.14 of the Contributions Plan states as follows:

The provisions of this Plan are intended to achieve consistent and equitable levying of new

development that generates increased demand for public facilities. Council recognises,

however, that there may be circumstances where payment of the full contribution assessed in

accordance with the provisions of the Plan would not be appropriate because of the

development history of the property or the extent to which a development proposal would

achieve an adopted planning objective. In these circumstances, Council may reduce or waive

the contribution that would otherwise be required.

Under cl 3.14, the Council is authorised to reduce the contribution otherwise specified by the Plan

having regard to the extent to which a development proposal 'would achieve an adopted planning

objective.'

The Parking DCP 2011 sets out an 'adopted planning objective' with respect to the car parking

requirements for developments such as that proposed which differs considerably in relation to this

development compared to that specified by the earlier Parking DCP 1995. Applying cl 3.14 of the

Contributions Plan, Council may reduce the contribution required in respect of the parking deficit as

calculated under the Parking DCP 1995, having regard to the extent to which the proposed

development achieves the 'adopted planning objective' with respect to on-site parking as set out in

the Parking DCP 2011.





Condition C.3 requires a car parking contribution, under Council's Section 94 Contributions Plan

2002, in accordance with the car parking requirements contained within the Parking DCP 2011. The

car parking contribution is $112,560.00, which comprises of 6 car spaces at $18,760/space.

Civic Improvement contribution

A civic improvement contribution under Council's Section 94 Contributions Plan 2002 is required

under Condition C.3. The civic improvement contribution is calculated at $14 per m2 of additional

floor area. With an additional gross floor area of 395.5m2 this equates to $5,537.00

10.4 Other legislation

None relevant.


11.1 Aims and objectives of the land use zone (Clause 8(5))

The proposed use is permissible under the General Business 3(a) zone.

The objectives of the General Business 3(a) Zone are:

(a) to define the main commercial areas within the Council's area which provide for a wide

range of retail and commercial uses, ancillary light industrial uses, entertainment,

social and recreational uses, tourist accommodation and residential development mixed

with non-residential uses,

(b) to encourage employment generating uses in accessible localities,

(c) to allow for residential development in the form of mixed development so as to

encourage urban consolidation and promote the vitality of business centres, and

(d) to control the physical and functional characteristics of business centres in order to

minimise their impact on neighbouring residential lands.

The following comments are made with regards to the objectives of the General Business 3(a)

Zone:

The proposal would improve the provision of retail uses within the Rose Bay Centre by

providing a new supermarket. Furthermore the proposal would provide up to 20-30 additional

full and part time employment positions.

Some impact upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring residential lands inevitable.

However, subject to conditions, the proposal adequately minimises the impact of the proposed

commercial use upon neighbouring residential lands. This is discussed in greater detail within

the remainder of the report.

11.2 Transitional Zones:

A zone interface occurs between the subject site (zoned 3(a) General Business Zone) and the

properties to the south which front Richmond Road (zoned 2(b) Residential Zone). Consideration

has been given to the planning principle set out in the Seaside Property Developments Pty Ltd v

Wyong Shire Council [2004] NSW LEC 117 (30 March 2004). This states that:





„As a matter of principle, at a zone interface as exists here, any development proposal in one

zone needs to recognise and take into account the form of existing development and/or

development likely to occur in an adjoining different zone. In this case residents living in the

2(b) zone must accept that a higher density and larger scale residential development can

happen in the adjoining 2(c) or 2(d) zones and whilst impacts must be within reason they can

nevertheless occur. Such impacts may well be greater than might be the case if adjacent

development were in and complied with the requirements of the same zone. Conversely any

development of this site must take into account its relationship to the 2(b) zoned lands to the

east, south-east, south and south-west and the likely future character of those lands must be

taken into account. Also in considering the likely future character of development on the other

side of the interface it may be that the development of sites such as this may not be able to

achieve the full potential otherwise indicated by applicable development standards and the

like.

The northern side of Richmond Road is zoned General Business. In accordance with the planning

principle above, the residents living on the southern side of Richmond Road, within the 2(b)

residential zone, must accept that commercial uses are permissible within the subject site. However,

the proposal must take into account the residential zoning to the south and any impacts must be

reasonable. The following comments are made with regards to the zone interface:

The siting and design of the building and ancillary structures ensure that the proposed built

form would not result in any unreasonable visual impacts to the neighbouring properties

located within the residential 2(b) zone.

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent which relate to signage, landscaping and

heritage conservation, the proposal would have a satisfactory streetscape outcome.

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the proposal would maintain reasonable

acoustic privacy to the neighbouring residential properties. The recommended conditions

require:

- Compliance with the DA Acoustic Assessment, prepared by Aecom, dated 23

November 2011.

- Noise objectives during demolition works.

- The neighbour notification of high noise generating activities during construction.

- The car park to be surfaced to minimise noise.

- The construction of a new footpath link to minimise noise.

- The resurfacing of a section of Richmond Road.

- Barriers must be provided to close the car park outside of trading hours.

- The acoustic barrier to the roof top plant to be of solid construction with no gaps.

- Restrictions to the hours of delivery and size of service vehicles.

- Restrictions to the hours of waste collection.

- Restrictions to the hours of operation.

- Restrictions to the loading dock operating hours.

- The provision of briefing notes to all service vehicle drivers.

- The provision of level adjusting broadband reversing beepers to all Woolworths owned

vehicles.

- The closure of the car park outside of the operating hours.

- The prohibition of large articulated trucks.

- A trolley management plan.

- The certification of the acoustic barriers by a structural and acoustic engineer.

- Restrictions on noise emissions.

- The certification of the mechanical plant by an acoustic engineer.

- The maintenance of a waste collection log.





- The provision of a Noise Management Plan.

- Details of the acoustic mitigation measures.

The issue of acoustics is discussed in greater detail within the ‗visual and acoustic privacy

performance criteria‘ section of the report.

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the proposal would maintain an adequate

level of residential amenity to the neighbouring residential properties. This is discussed in

greater detail within the remainder of the report.

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent in relation to traffic movements and

parking, the proposal is satisfactory with regards to traffic and parking impacts. The

recommended conditions require:

- The creation of a vehicular access easement across 759 New South Head Road (Crystal

Car wash).

- Compliance with the traffic and parking report and supplementary information prepared

by Colston Budd Hunt and Kafes Pty Ltd.

- The prohibition of service vehicles from exiting the site to Richmond Road.

- Service vehicles to be no greater than 8.8m in length.

- Restrictions on the number of heavy vehicles (over 7.5m in length) which access the

site.

- All heavy service vehicles must enter the subject site by turning right into the site from

Richmond Road.

- A management procedure for delivery truck movements, including a member of staff

supervising reversing vehicles.

- Signage and barriers must be located within the site to prevent customers from entering

or exiting via New South Head Road.

- A Transport Delivery Management Plan.

- Compliance with a delivery and waste collection schedule.

- Measures to ensure service and delivery vehicles do not enter the subject site until the

driveway/carpark is clear and safe for the vehicles entry.

- A construction management plan.

- A Section 94 contribution for 6 car parking spaces.

- Detailed plans and specification for the car parking layout.

- A traffic signal system for the car park which indicates when the car park is full.

- The use of the car park must be restricted to customer use.

- The removal of the existing driveways to New South Head Road to create three new on

street car parking spaces.

- Traffic calming measures in Norwich Lane to minimise impact to the surrounding road

network.

- Car park signage.

The issues of traffic and parking are discussed in greater detail within the remainder of the

report.

11.3 The aims and objectives of the WLEP 1995

The following objectives under Clause 2 of the LEP are relevant to the application:





(b) in relation to retailing and commerce:

(ii) to consolidate and improve established centres so that they remain both commercially

attractive and viable,

(iii) to ensure that new development in the commercial centres does not unduly affect the

amenity of adjoining residential areas by virtue of the use, design, bulk and scale of the

development and traffic generation,

(iv) to allow for a diversity of suitable retail uses within the established centres, and

(v) to ensure that consideration is given to providing adequate levels of access when

alterations and additions to existing buildings and new developments for commercial or retail

uses are proposed.

The following comments are made with regards to Clause 2, objective (b) of the LEP:

The proposal promotes the consolidation of the Rose Bay centre by providing an additional retail

premise.

The proposal would maintain a wide variety of retail uses.

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory in terms of providing adequate levels of access. In

this regard, the proposal will provide an external wheelchair accessible ramp, level finished floor

levels and an accessible toilet.

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the proposal would not unreasonably impact

on neighbouring residential land as a result of the additional traffic generation in accordance

with clause (iii). This is discussed in greater detail within the remainder of the report.

(d) in relation to traffic and transport:

(i) to encourage the development of a balanced transport system, including the provision of

safe and convenient facilities for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users and other

road users,

(ii) to implement a rational and efficient distribution of vehicular traffic throughout the area

of Woollahra by establishing a hierarchy of roads to service various transport

functions,

(iii) to ensure the adequate provision of car parking and servicing facilities within

commercial areas,

(iv) to improve the provision of car parking and reduce conflict between resident and visitor

demands for car parking space in residential areas,

(v) to minimise conflict between pedestrians and vehicles,

(vi) to minimise conflict between transport and land use activities,

(vii) to minimise the impact, on adjoining residential areas, of traffic and parking generated

by commercial areas,

(viii) to allow for contributions towards the provision of car parking and traffic management

measures necessitated by any new development,

(ix) to reserve land for the improvement of traffic flow,

(x) to encourage the provision of adequate access for older people and people with a

disability to safe and convenient car parking, footpaths and access to public transport

facilities

The following comments are made with regards to Clause 2, objective (d), of the LEP:

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the proposal is satisfactory with regards to

the provision of car parking.





Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the impacts of the additional traffic upon the

amenity of the neighbouring properties will be reasonably mitigated and would not warrant

refusal of the development application.

Whilst it is anticipated that there will be additional traffic volumes in the surrounding road

network, subject to the recommended conditions of consent, this would not significantly impact

upon the surrounding road network.

The issues above are discussed in greater detail within the remainder of the report.

(f) in relation to the landscape:

(i) to protect and enhance the natural landscapes throughout the area of Woollahra,

(ii) to promote the retention of trees and the planting of suitable new trees in appropriate

locations,

(iii) to control or minimise the impact of future development upon natural features such as

significant trees or stands of trees, ridgelings or land within view of any waterway,

(iv) to protect and enhance the environmental quality of the area of Woollahra through the

appropriate management and conservation of the existing pattern of vegetation, and

(v) to protect the native flora and fauna,

The proposal generally accords with Clause 2, objective (f), of the LEP for the following reasons:

There is currently no substantive landscaping within the subject site.

Condition C.12 of the recommendation requires the provision of two new street trees to the New

South Head Road frontage in accordance with Council‘s Rose Bay Centre Public Domain

Improvement plan.

Subject to conditions including a Tree Security Bond and tree protection measures the proposal

would maintain the existing street trees to the Richmond Road frontage.

The proposal incorporates approximately 183.5m2 of deep soil landscaping within the site. This

includes a landscape buffer to the Richmond Road frontage which incorporates screen planting at

street level.

(g) in relation to heritage conservation:

(i) to identify heritage items and heritage conservation areas and to provide measures for

their conservation, protection and enhancement,

(ii) to ensure that new development is undertaken in a manner that is sympathetic to and does

not detract from the heritage significance of heritage items and their settings and of heritage

conservation areas,

(iii) to encourage the restoration or reconstruction of buildings or works which are heritage

items or buildings and works that contribute to the character of heritage conservation areas,

(iv) to enable the adaptation of existing non-residential buildings of heritage significance in a

manner which is compatible and sympathetic with the fabric and character of the building or

works and the use and fabric of neighbouring lands,

(v) to provide for the detailed control of development associated with or in proximity to

heritage items and heritage conservation areas,

(vi) to require, when considered necessary, the consideration of a statement of heritage

significance or a conservation plan before consent is granted for development relating to a

heritage item or development within a heritage conservation area, and

(vii) to protect sites of archaeological significance,

The proposal generally accords with Clause 2, objective (g), of the LEP for the following reasons:





The proposal includes the adaptive re-use and refurbishment of the former Post Office building,

which is identified in the WLEP as a heritage item.

Whilst the proposal will remove the existing internal entry area and sections of the southern and

western elevations these changes are necessary for the supermarket interior to function. The

amended proposal retains the existing building form and a sufficient level of the existing

building fabric to ensure the heritage significance of the Post Office Structure is adequately

retained.

The former Post Office is currently being used as an office for the adjacent car wash. Minimal

maintenance, restoration or improvement works have been carried out to the building since the

relocation of the Post Office use to Dover Road. The proposal ensures the conservation of the

heritage item.

(k) in relation to urban design:

(i) to promote the creation and upkeep of an attractive and comfortable public environment,

(ii) to retain and enhance the existing elements of the physical environment of the area of

Woollahra that, in the opinion of the Council, contribute to the attractive public environment,

(iii) to require that design and siting of new development enhance the attributes of its site and

improve the quality of the public environment, and

(iv) to ensure that consideration is given to providing adequate levels of access, useability

and enjoyment of public facilities and places to all people in the community, including older

people and people with a disability,

The proposal generally accords with Clause 2, objective (k), of the LEP for the following reasons:

The proposal has been amended to retain the form of the two existing buildings on New South

Head Road. These buildings both contribute to the existing physical environment of the area.

The recommended conditions of consent would preserve the existing street trees to Richmond

Road and ensure the provision of two new trees to the New South Head Road frontage, thus

contributing positively to the public environment.

The proposal provides equitable access to the subject building through the provision of

wheelchair access.

(m) in relation to outdoor advertising:

(i) to convey advertisers‟ messages and images while complementing and conforming to both

the buildings on which they are displayed and the character of the locality, and

(ii) to ensure that it does not adversely affect the locality in terms of appearance, size,

illumination or overshadowing or in any other way, and

(iii) to ensure that it does not lead to visual clutter through the proliferation of signs.

The recommended conditions of consent ensure that the proposed advertising accords with the

above objectives.

In conclusion, subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the proposal would uphold the

aims and objectives of WLEP.





11.4 Statutory compliance table

Site Area (2132.6m²) Existing Proposed Control Complies

Overall Height (metres)

Former Post Office 7.7m (ridge) 7.7m (ridge) 12m YES

Former Car Showroom

8.3m (parapet)

11.8m (flag staff)

8.3m (parapet)

11.8m (flag staff)

12m

12m

YES

YES

Rear Addition

N/A

3.8m-8m

12m

YES

Dwellings (to be demolished) 6.2m

1.8m-3.4m

(acoustic barriers)

12m YES

Floor Space Ratio (m²) <4265.2m

2

(2:1)

1363.5m2

(0.64:1)

4265.2m2

(2:1) YES

11.5 Height

The overall height of the proposed alterations and additions (the parapet height) is 8.3m. This is

3.7m below the 12m maximum height control which applies to the site. It is noted that the proposed

flag staff to New South Head Road has a height of 11.8m which also fully accords with the 12m

maximum height control. The proposal satisfies the height objectives stipulated under Clause 12AA

of WLEP 1995.

11.6 Floor space ratio

Clause 11 of WLEP 1995 stipulates that a building shall not be erected on land to which this plan

applies if the floor space ratio would exceed the ratio indicated for that land on the density map, in

the case of two floor space ratios being indicated for that land on the density map, the greater of the

two ratios is applicable, which is 2:1 (4265.2m2).

The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.64:1 or 1363.5m2, which would fully comply

with the maximum floor space ratio and satisfy the objectives of the floor space ratio requirements

under Clause 11AA of WLEP 1995.

It is noted that the statement of environmental effects states that floor area is broken down as

follows:

Trading floor area 812.3m2.

Non trading floor area 551.2m2:

- Ground floor back of house area 235.8m2.

- First floor mezzanine storage area 144.1m2.

- Staff area 171.3m2.

The floor area calculations have been verified by Council staff. It is noted that the architectural

plans incorrectly identify the trading floor area as 1025m2.





11.7 Other special clauses/development standards

Clause 18 Excavation: The provisions of Clause 18 require Council, when considering a

development application involving excavation, to have regard to how that excavation may

temporarily or permanently affect:

(a) the amenity of the neighbourhood by way of noise, vibration, dust or other similar

circumstances related to the excavation process

(b) public safety

(c) vehicle and pedestrian movements

(d) the heritage significance of any heritage item that may be affected by the proposed excavation

and its setting

(e) natural landforms and vegetation and

(f) natural water run-off patterns

The extent of excavation associated with the proposal includes the following:

Minor excavations for footings and services.

Minor excavations for the landscaping works including the provision of the car parking and

landscaping areas.

Having regard to the above-mentioned heads of consideration, the following comments are made in

relation to the impact of the proposed excavation upon the local environment:

(a) the amenity of the neighbourhood by way of noise, vibration, dust or other similar

circumstances related to the excavation process

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the amenity of the adjoining residential

properties would be maintained. Specifically conditions C.8, C.10, C.11, D.2, D.3, D.4, D.8, E.8,

E.9, and E.16 require: soil and water management plan, certification of the structural adequacy of

the existing buildings, engineering details, dilapidation reports for existing buildings, dilapidation

reports for public infrastructure, provisions for adjoining buildings located on loose foundations,

erosion and sediment control, maintenance of environmental controls, erosion and sediment

controls maintenance, and dust mitigation measures.

(b) public safety

(c) vehicle and pedestrian movements

Issues relating to public safety and pedestrian movements during the excavation phase are inter-

related and are addressed by the following conditions: D.5, D.6, E.3 and E.7, these require: a

construction management plan, security fencing, compliance with the Construction Management

Plan, and the maintenance of vehicular and pedestrian safety and access.

(d) the heritage significance of any heritage item that may be affected by the proposed excavation

and its setting

Subject to the conditions of consent outlined above, the proposal would not unreasonably impact

upon the heritage significance of the subject heritage item. Furthermore, any other heritage items in

the vicinity of the site are located beyond the zone of influence associated with the proposed

excavation and will not be adversely affected in this instance.





(e) natural landforms and vegetation

The proposal involves only minor excavation works for the proposed footings and services. This

ensures that the site‘s topography is adequately maintained.

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent the proposal is satisfactory with regards to trees

and landscaping.

(f) natural water run-off patterns

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, which require: the discharge of stormwater from

a single pipe outlet to a new pit and pipe system in New South Head Road, a stormwater

management plan, flood protection measures, compliance with Council‘s specifications for

drainage, commissioning and certification of flood protection measures and stormwater drainage

systems, and the commissioning and certification of public infrastructure works, the proposal is

satisfactory with regards to stormwater and runoff.

Clause 19 HFSPA: The proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 19(2).

Clause 25 Water, wastewater and stormwater: Clause 25(1) and (2) of WLEP 1995 requires

council to consider the provisions of adequate stormwater drainage and the provisions of adequate

water and sewage services.

Subject to the recommended conditions of consent, the proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause

25(1) and (2).

Clause 25D Acid Sulfate Soils:

Council‘s Environmental Health Officer concludes that the preliminary acid sulfate soils assessment

lodged by the applicant is acceptable. The assessment concludes that an acid sulfate soils

management plan is not required. Therefore, consent for the proposed works under clause 25D is

not required. However, it is recommended that conditions requiring: an assessment of the ground

water quality prior to any demolition or construction works, Council notification if any new

information comes to light, and requirements for the disposal of soil from the site, form part of the

recommendation. These form Conditions A.4, B.4, and E.20. Subject to these conditions, the

proposal is satisfactory with regards to Clause 25D.

Clauses 26-33 Heritage and conservation area provisions:

No. 757 New South Head Road (the former Post Office) is listed as a heritage item within the

WLEP 1995.

A heritage survey of the former Post Office was carried out by the National Estate Grants Program

in 1992. Due to the date of the existing survey, Council‘s former Strategic Heritage Officer - Susan

O‘Neil inspected the interior and exterior of the Post Office and prepared a detailed heritage

inventory. This identified the significance of the interior and exterior of the building fabric of the

former Post Office and ancillary buildings.

The recommendations of the heritage inventory stated:





Adaptive re-use of the former Rose Bay Post Office should retain the principal building form.

The rear toilet and store additions and side phone booth additions could be removed. The

building could be adapted internally and linked, in a pavilion type arrangement, to adjacent

new structures. The adaptive re-use of this building should retain its external integrity, the

vestibule entry open to the street and the panelled joinery doors with etched glass in their

existing location. The damaged window joinery should be conserved or reinstated internally

and the external grilles removed and damaged brickwork restored and repointed. The

spalling sandstone should be conserved and the moulded rosettes reinstated. The following

intrusive elements should be removed or replaced; the rockery garden at the street front and

replaced with a garden in keeping with the style of the building or similar to the original

landscaping and the tiles in the vestibule and on the front stairs.

The original proposal was referred to Council‘s Heritage Officer. It was concluded that the amount

of demolition and the incompatible form and scale of the proposed addition did not represent a

successful re-use of the former Post Office building. Specifically the proposal would:

Result in an unacceptable loss of fabric.

Remove the principal building form.

Remove the original entry steps.

In response, the applicant submitted the first set of amendments to the proposal which:

Retained a greater extent of the building form.

Provided a recessed area between the former Post Office and former car show room to provide a

greater understanding of the original building forms.

Retained the original entry steps.

The revised proposal was referred to Council‘s Heritage Officer who concluded that the revisions

failed to address all of the heritage concerns. Specifically, the following revisions were required:

A greater retention of the south western and south eastern elevations to enable a sense of the

former Post Office internally. This could include the reuse of the existing window openings.

The retention of the original roof form.

In response, the applicant submitted a second set of amendments to the proposal which included:

The retention of the existing roof form.

A greater retention of the south western and south eastern elevations through the reuse of the

existing window openings.

The reuse of the entry doors.

The retention of the existing floor.

Below are internal and external photomontages of the second revision to the proposal.





The second revision to the proposal was referred to Council‘s Heritage Officer – Sara Reilly. The

comments are summarised as follows:





The proposal has been amended and improved substantially by the adoption of Council‘s

heritage recommendations.

There is still some serious loss of heritage significance, as the entry area which would be of high

significance, along with the existing postal boxes would be removed. Windows to the south and

west will be mostly removed, with two windows to the west being removed, and two windows

plus a door to the south being removed. These changes are necessary for the supermarket interior

to function.

All the existing window arches to the south and west are being retained over the new steel

openings, which will allow some interpretation of the former openings.

The retention of the former car showroom building is positive, as it contributes its solid masonry

façade and commercial character to the street front.

Subject to a number of conditions the application complies with the relevant provisions of the

statutory and policy documents associated with the site.

Council‘s Heritage Officer recommended the following conditions of consent:

- There is some concern over the height of the timber batten screen to the plant area.

However, this is set back from the street and may not be highly visible. The timber

batten screen serves as a visual device to mediate between the two-storey section at the

rear and the single-storey Post Office building. It would be desirable to reduce the

height of the batten screen by approximately 500mm, which is approximately half way

in height between the rear service area and the metal clad shop area.

- All ceilings and cornices to the Post Office are to be retained.

- All brick arches and round head openings to the existing windows of the south and west

elevations are to be retained. Infill material of round arch window frames is to be in new

timber.

- Skirtings are to be retained where existing, and to be reconstructed and reinstated to

the remainder of original walling being retained in the Post Office.

- More ephemeral elements of the former Post Office should be retained. The black

railings to the front steps are to be retained, along with the former Post Office white

lettering ‗Rose Bay 2029‘ to the façade.

- The sandstone base is to be properly conserved and repaired by a heritage conservation

specialist.

- Sandstone is not to be painted.

- The brickwork where required is to be repaired. Unsympathetic repairs are to be

reversed and properly repaired (such as the damage to the brickwork and mortar

associated with the addition of the security bars to the windows).

- The timber arch windows are to be conserved and continue to be painted white.

- The security bars to the windows are to be removed, and the associated brickwork

repaired.

- The timber eaves soffits are to be repaired and repainted to match existing colour.

- The yellow metal plates to the corners of the building are to be removed, and the

brickwork repaired as necessary.

The fourth revision to the proposal was referred to Council‘s Heritage Officer – Sara Reilly. The

comments are summarised as follows:

The increase in height of the batten acoustic screens is unfortunate, and as previously

recommended the height should be reduced not increased, in order to reduce visual

dominance over the one-storey heritage item.

The heritage item of the former Post Office is being for the most part conserved, as the

principal building form of the Post Office is being generally retained where visible from the

streetscape.





The conditions set out in this referral require retention, conservation and repair of many

significant elements of the Post Office principal building.

The new development allows for a new and ongoing use for the Post Office principal

building, which is suffering from what appears to be years of neglect. The exterior is in need

of maintenance and the interior is cluttered with intrusive elements. There are repairs and

general maintenance required.

The proposal by Woolworths allows the building to be partially conserved and adaptively

reused, which is generally positive.

The larger scale elements of the proposed development are set back from the single-storey

Post Office, and a reduction in height of the acoustic battens is recommended if possible to

reduce the scale of the development behind in relation to the retained Post Office building.

The contemporary materials for the rear buildings are acceptable.

The former Post Office building should not have signage installed, especially where ample

opportunities exist elsewhere on the site to advertise the new business.

A statement of heritage impact was submitted as part of the development, and was found to be

acceptable.

Council‘s Heritage Officer recommended the inclusion of the conditions above plus the

following additional

- New graphic panels are not to be applied to existing windows of the heritage item.

- Signage as proposed is not to be installed above the sandstone-framed former entry door.

- The Post Office principal building form is to retain its current colour scheme, that is:

unpainted facebrick where existing is to remain unpainted

stone is to remain unpainted

timber joinery is to remain white

external ‗cornice‘ and external ‗skirting‘ are to remain existing white/off-white

colour

eaves soffits are to remain existing white/off-white colour

where currently external brickwork becomes internal it is to remain unpainted.

Council‘s Heritage Officers‘ full referral responses are attached as Annexure 5.

The comments provided by Council‘s Heritage Officer are concurred with, with the exception of the

requirement to reduce the height of the acoustic screen to the plant area. The reduction to the height

of the acoustic screen is not supported for the following reasons:

The screen would help to ensure that the plant area does not unreasonably impact upon the

acoustic privacy of the neighbouring properties.

The screen is setback by approximately 19m from the front boundary of the subject site and

would therefore not unreasonably impact upon the streetscape or the prominence of the

former Post Office heritage item

The recommended conditions form conditions B.2, C.2 and E.24 of the recommendation. Subject

to these conditions the proposal is acceptable in terms of Clause 26-33 of the WLEP.

12. DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO STATUTORY CONTROLS

12.1 Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Competition) 2010

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Competition) 2010 applies.





Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the Act requires that in determining a development application, a consent

authority is to take into consideration any draft environmental planning instrument "EPI" that is

or has been placed on public exhibition and details of which have been notified to the consent

authority.

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy (Competition) 2010 ("the proposed SEPP") was publicly

exhibited from 27 July 2010 to 26 August 2010. In considering how much weight should be placed

upon an exhibited draft environmental planning instrument under section 79C of the Act one must

assess how likely it is that the draft EPI will commence, in what form it is likely to commence and

consider what effect the instrument would have if applied.

At the time of writing the report no information was available regarding whether or not the

proposed SEPP will commence and in what form.

The draft SEPP proposes:

o The commercial viability of a proposed development may not be taken into consideration

by a consent authority, usually the local council, when determining development

applications;

o The likely impact of a proposed development on the commercial viability of other

individual businesses may also not be considered unless the proposed development is

likely to have an overall adverse impact on the extent and adequacy of local community

services and facilities, taking into account those to be provided by the proposed

development itself; and

o Any restrictions in local planning instruments on the number of a particular type of retail

store in an area, or the distance between stores of the same type, will have no effect.

Source: NSW media release ‗Proposed planning changes to support competition‘, dated 27 July 2010.

If the instrument were applied, it is considered that the effect would not be significant for the

following reasons:

Whilst s79C (1) (b) (b) of the EP & A Act 1979, requires the evaluation of the proposal in terms

of the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural

and built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality, existing case law

clearly states that competition between a proposed use of a building and other businesses within

the same locality is not a matter for consideration under the EP & A Act 1979.

Carrying out a recent inspection of Rose Bay centre revealed that the centre provides a wide

variety of retail and business uses. These include Motor Vehicle Services (fuel retailing,

automotive services, etc), Commercial retail (banking, real estate, etc), Personal services

(hairdressers, laundrettes, cafes, restaurants, etc) Personal and Household Goods retail (clothing,

stationary, pharmaceuticals, etc) and food retailing (food shops, takeaways, etc). Many of the

services and facilities which are provided by the existing retail and business outlets would not be

provided by the proposed supermarket. This will ensure that the proposal would not have an

overall adverse impact on the extent and adequacy of local community services and facilities.

Council‘s local planning instruments do not contain any restrictions relating to the number of a

particular type of retail store in an area, or the distance between stores of the same type.

The issue of competition is addressed in greater detail within section 16.2 of the report.





Given the above, it is considered that the application of draft State Environmental Planning Policy

(competition) would not alter the assessment of the proposal when compared to an assessment of

the proposal under the current policy.

13. ROSE BAY URBAN DESIGN STUDY

The Rose Bay Urban Design Study 1999 covered a wide range of issues which are pertinent to Rose

Bay such as topography, public facilities, landscape, pedestrian amenity, parking, traffic, social and

economic context, drainage, heritage and built form. Information from the study was consolidated

to form guidelines for the Rose Bay Centre Development Control Plan and the Rose Bay Centre

Public Domain Improvements Plan.

The relevant findings of the Urban Design Study are outlined below:

Parking Summary

There is a perceived shortfall in public parking on a demand basis although the actual

quantity of public parking satisfies Council‟s restrictive parking code rates. The Centre lacks

improved circulation of parking areas and regular enforcement of time restricted spaces.

The study identified that Rose Bay has capacity for further retail capacity.

It is recommended that 80% to 100% of the retail parking demand should be made by an off

site contribution.

Retail Supply

Rose Bay has 0.06m2 of supermarket floor space per capita which is well below the Sydney

Metropolitan average of 0.22-0.3m2 per capita. This would indicate a desire for operators to

increase floor space provision but the high cost of land is most likely the factor limiting this

achievement.

Potential Development Sites

No. 751-751, the former car showroom, which forms part of the subject, site was identified in the

study as an underdeveloped site with potential for amalgamation.

It is acknowledged that the Rose Bay Urban Design Study was undertaken in 1999. The date of the

study has been taken into consideration.





14. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANS

14.1 Compliance table - Rose Bay Centre DCP (RB DCP)

Site Area (2132.6m²) Existing Proposed Control Complies

Max depth of Occupiable Area 40.2m 40.2m 27.6m NO*

Building Articulation Depth (metres)

Front: <2.4m

Rear: <1.2m

Front: Existing

façade retained

<2.4m

Rear: <1.2m

Front: 2.4m

Rear: 1.2m

NO*

NO

No. 751-755 Building Line 0m 0m 0m YES

No.

751-755

Setback

(metres)

Side (north east and south

west) 0m 0m 0m YES

Rear (south east) 0m 0m 12.4m NO*

Maximum Retail Frontage per

Tenancy (metres)

16m

(car showroom)

12m

(Post Office)

30.8m 15m NO*

Maximum Internal Plan Depth

(Above Ground Level) (metres) 10.7m (front)

N/A

10.7m (front)

6.9m (rear) 12m

YES

NO*

Continuous Awning Not provided Provided Required YES

Minimum Awning Soffit Height

(metres) N/A >3.2m 3.2m YES

Maximum Ground Floor Street

Frontage (Site Amalgamation)

(metres)

N/A 32m 40m

YES

Maximum Area of Advertising

Signage (m²)

<0.5m² for each

1m of Building

Width at Street

Frontage

<0.5m² for each 1m

of Building Width

at Street Frontage

0.5m² for each 1m of

Building Width at

Street Frontage YES

Minimum Soft Landscaping Area

(%)(m²) <183.5m

2 183.5m

2

50% of Required

Landscaped Area

(343m2)

NO*

Location of Car Parking Structures

Behind Front

Building

Alignment

Behind Front

Building Alignment

Incorporated Within

the Building and

Behind Front Building

Alignment

YES

Solar Access to Habitable Rooms

and Private Open Space of Adjoining

Properties (Hours in Mid-Winter)

4 Hours Between

9am and 3pm in

Mid Winter

<4 Hours Between

9am and 3pm in

Mid Winter

4 Hours Between 9am

and 3pm in Mid Winter NO

Minimum % of Required Car

Parking to be provided On Site

(Commercial Development)

N/A 25

20%

(9 Spaces under the

1995 Car parking DCP) YES

N/A 25

20%

(7 Spaces under the

2011 Car parking DCP) YES

Maximum Driveway Width (metres) <6.5 <6.5 6.5 YES

*Existing non-compliance





Urban structure – objectives

The subject site is located within a transition area at the edge of the core area of the Rose Bay

centre. The RB DCP states that:

The Transition Areas lie outside the Core in the vicinity of the recreational areas and

residential zones, and are an important buffer to these areas. They do not contain the same

level of retail activity as the Core but provide residential and commercial uses. They are

generally characterised by less continuous building frontage and a stronger landscape

presence. The Transition Areas should provide a gradation in development intensity from the

Core to the residential and recreational areas.

The proposed level of retail activity is considered appropriate for this location for the following

reasons:

The level of commercial activity is similar to a number of existing commercial uses within the

transition areas.

Specific consideration has been given to the recent Land and Environment Court approval (Parisi

v Woollahra Council [2008] NSWLEC 1269) for the Parisi‘s greengrocers in Dover Road, Rose

Bay. The Parisi‘s development has a greater gross floor area than the current proposal, and like

the subject site, the Parisi‘s development is also located within a transition zone within the Rose

Bay centre. The scale of the proposed retail establishment is not considered to be inappropriate

given the surrounding context.

The previous uses of the existing buildings, as a former car showroom and a Post Office, would

have resulted in customer and delivery movements to and from the subject site.

The proposal provides a stronger landscape presence than currently exists at the subject site.

The proposal largely provides the existing building frontage which retains the ‗small shop‘

character of the Centre.

The proposed development has been designed to be well below the height and FSR standards

which apply to the subject site. The proposal presents an acceptable intensity of development for

the subject site.

The relevant objectives for the Rose Bay Centre include:

3.2.1 To retain and enhance the urban village quality of Rose Bay

(i) To encourage contiguous ground floor retail frontage to ensure liveliness of the centre;

(ii) To limit the width of street frontage of individual shops to preserve the „small shop‟

characterof the Centre;

(iii) To promote a coherent building scale and high quality development;

(iv) To retain and improve the pedestrian environment by encouraging through block

pedestrian connections at nominated locations, and requiring continuous awnings in

nominated areas;

(v) To employ Traffic and Parking Strategies to improve traffic and parking management in

the Centre and reduce vehicular and pedestrian conflicts;

(vi) To enhance the Public Domain of Rose Bay Centre by applying a Co-ordinated Public

Domain Improvement Plan and Streetscape Design Manual; and,

(vii) To encourage the provision of community services and facilities as part of site

redevelopments.

With regards to the objectives of section 3.2.1the following comments are made:





The removal of the existing driveway located between the former car show room and the former

Post Office would provide additional on street car parking spaces to New South Head Road.

Furthermore, the removal of the driveway would improve the quality of the public domain.

The proposal involves the re-adaptive reuse of the existing buildings within the site. Whilst this

involves the connection of the two buildings to New South Head Road, the individual form of

these buildings will be retained. This ensures the preservation of the ‗small shop‘ character of the

Centre.

The proposal incorporates a through block pedestrian connection during opening hours.

Subject to conditions, the traffic generated by the proposal would be appropriately managed to

ensure that the proposal would not unacceptably impact upon the surrounding road network or

detrimentally impact upon road safety.

The proposal represents an appropriate response to the subject site and surrounding area in terms

of building scale and design.

Subject to condition, the proposal would contribute positively to the character of the public

domain through the provision of new street trees to New South Head Road.

3.2.4 To improve the Rose Bay Centre’s Public Domain

(i) Implement a Co-ordinated Public Domain Improvement Program using the Streetscape

Design Manual to enhance the Public Domain of Rose Bay;

(ii) To improve pedestrian amenity throughout the Centre; and,

(iii) To retain the important role that public transport plays in the Rose Bay Centre.

With regards to the objectives of section 3.2.4 the following comments are made:

Whilst it is currently physically possible to walk from New South Head Road to Richmond Road

via the site, the access to Richmond Road is across the shared driveway to the residential

dwellings at 12 and 14 Richmond Road, where no public right of way appears to exist.

The proposal would improve pedestrian amenity throughout the centre by incorporating a

through block pedestrian connection through the supermarket during opening hours.

Subject to condition, the proposal would contribute positively to the character of the public

domain through the provision of new street trees to New South Head Road.

3.2.5 To foster the diverse mix of uses in the Rose Bay Centre

(i) To retain and enhance the combination of retail, commercial, public and residential

uses that characterise Rose Bay

The proposal would improve the provision of retail uses within the Rose Bay Centre by providing a

new supermarket.

3.2.6 To conserve and enhance the visual & environmental amenity of all buildings and

places of heritage significance in the Centre

(i) Conserve properties which are listed as heritage items in Woollahra LEP 1995 (the

LEP);

(ii) To adopt the heritage controls contained in the LEP; and

(iii) To ensure that alterations and additions to heritage items are compatible in scale, form

and material with the heritage items and adjoining developments





Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal would adequately conserve and enhance the

heritage significance of the subject heritage item and Rose Bay centre.

3.2.7 To improve traffic & parking management in the Centre & reduce vehicle and pedestrian

conflicts

(i) To implement comprehensive Traffic and Parking Strategies;

(ii) To optimise efficiency of use of existing parking areas and on street spaces; and,

(iii) To better match the traffic volumes with the function and character of each street.

The following comments are made with regards to the objectives set out under section 3.2.7:

Condition C.3 of the recommendation requires a S94 parking contribution of $112,560.00,

which comprises of a contribution for 6 car spaces at $18,760/space. The S94 contribution

combined with the proposed 25 off street car parking spaces, and the creation of three new on

street car parking spaces to New South Head Road, ensures that adequate provision has been

made for parking.This issue is discussed in greater detail within the remainder of the report.

To ensure a comprehensive traffic and parking strategy, conditions A.1, C.14, and I.5 of the

recommendation require:

- The creation of a vehicular access easement across 759 New South Head Road

(Crystal Car wash).

- The prohibition of service vehicles from exiting the site from Richmond Road.

- Service vehicles to be a maximum of 8.8m in length.

- Restrictions on the number of heavy vehicles (over 7.5m in length) which access

the site.

- A Transport Delivery Management Plan.

- The provision of appropriate signage relating to access and parking.

Condition C.4 requires: traffic calming measures to be implemented in Norwich Lane. This

comprises of a Watts profile speed hump and the provision of a footpath to narrow the width of

Norwich Lane. These works are subject to neighbour consultation and approval from the Local

Traffic Committee. The traffic generated from the proposal would not unacceptably impact upon

the surrounding road network or significantly impact upon road safety. The proposal generally

accord with Objective 3.2.7, part (iii).

3.3.9. To enhance the diverse character of streets in the Rose Bay Centre

(i) To carry out Public Domain Improvements to preserve and enhance the unique

character of the individual streets in the Centre; and,

(ii) Formulate specific design criteria for both public and private domain to allow for and

enhance the character of individual streets.

The proposal would:

Subject to condition, provide two additional street trees to the New South Head Road frontage in

accordance with the provisions of the Rose Bay Public Domain Improvements Plan.

In conclusion, the proposal generally accords with the urban structure objectives for the Rose Bay

Centre.

Street character strategies





New South Head Road Transition area – Section 4.2

The front section of the site (fronting New South Head Road) is identified as being part of the

―Transition area” under the Rose Bay Centre DCP. The strategy for the Transition Area is to create

a transition between the Rose Bay Centre core and the recreational / landscape area towards Lyne

Park, with a portion of street defined by street trees and a discontinuous wall of buildings on the

harbour side.

The rear section of the site is identified as part of the Richmond Road Street Character. The strategy

for Richmond Road is to retain the unique character of this predominantly residential street on the

periphery of the Centre, defined by mature street trees and a discontinuous wall of buildings.

Built form – Urban design envelopes – Section 5.8

The built form section of the RB DCP contains control drawings which show building envelopes for

every site in the Rose Bay Centre. The envelopes have been tailored to each site, taking into

consideration its particular characteristics.

Control Drawing 5 in section 5.8 applies to the subject site. In summary:

o No envelope controls apply to the former Post Office site as it comprises of a Heritage Item.

o The controls which apply to the remainder of the subject site aim to ensure that development

relates successfully to the character of the street, is appropriate in size, provides sufficient deep

soil landscaping and does not adversely impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties.

The following sections assess the proposal against the urban design envelope controls identified in

Control Drawing 5.

Use – Section 6.2

Relevant design principles:

Encourage the maintenance of retail and commercial uses at street level in the Rose Bay

Centre.

Discourage large scale retail establishments, by limiting the frontage of individual retail

tenancies.

Encourage activities that achieve an appropriate level of environmental performance, such as

appropriate noise levels.

Relevant guidelines and controls:

Design for a mix of uses within buildings.

Design durable and adaptable buildings, spaces and places.

Design for retail, commercial and community uses at ground floor.

The maximum retail frontage for individual tenancies is 15 metres.

The maximum ground floor street frontage for site amalgamations is 40 metres.





The ground floor street frontage of the amalgamated site (the front boundary width) is

approximately 32m and comprises of a retail use which accords with the street frontage guidelines.

However, the proposal comprises of an individual tenancy with a retail frontage of 30.8m. This is

greater than the 15 metre maximum retail frontage control which is applicable to individual

tenancies.

Development Control Plan design principles and guidelines are not prohibitive, and whilst the

proposal fails to accord with the guidelines for the width of individual retail tenancies, the proposal

upholds the wider objectives of the RB DCP for the following reasons:

Village character:

The proposal comprises of a high quality architectural design which maintains the form of the

existing buildings to the New South Head Road frontage. This ensures the retention of the ‗small

shop‘ character and enhances the village atmosphere of the Rose Bay centre. Subject to conditions,

the proposal is supported by Council‘s Urban Design Officer.

Retail character and use:

Linking the two properties to New South Head Road; removing the existing vehicular access to

New South Head; and the provision of a new awning to the New South Head Road frontage, would

improve the retail character of this street edge. In addition, the removal of the driveway would

provide additional on street car parking.

Heritage: Subject to conditions, the proposal would adequately conserve the former Post Office

heritage item, and is supported by Council‘s Heritage Officer.

The scale of the proposed retail use:

The proposal is substantially less than the relevant LEP floor space ratio standard. The

proposal provides a floor space ratio of 0.64:1 or 1363.5m2, which is less than half of the

permissible floor space ratio of 2:1 (4265.2m2).

The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 0.64:1 or 1363.5m2.

Council‘s Rose Bay Urban Design Study 1999 identified that Rose Bay has 0.06m2 of

supermarket floor space per capita which is well below the Sydney Metropolitan average of

0.22-0.3m2 per capita. The proposal would improve the provision of retail uses within the

Rose Bay Centre by providing a new supermarket.

The scale of the proposed supermarket is not considered to be inappropriate:

- The proposal provides a supermarket with a gross floor area of 1363.5m2, which

comprises of a trading floor area of 812.3m2 and a non trading floor area of 551.2m2.

- The following table compares the gross floor area of the proposal with surrounding

retailers within a 3km radius of the subject site. The figures are taken from the original

DA files for each property.

Retailer Approximate

Gross floor area

Approximate

Trading Floor area

Approximate Non

Trading Floor area

Woolworths Supermarket, New South

Head Road, Double Bay

2636m2 1416m

2 1220m

2

Parisi‘s Greengrocers, Dover Road Rose

Bay

1640m2 828m

2 812m

2

Proposed Woolworths Supermarket,

New South Head Road, Rose Bay

1363.5m2 812.3m

2 551.2m

2

Coles Express Supermarket, Old South

Head Road, Rose Bay North

1327m2 Not available Not available

Franklins Supermarket, Dover Road,

Rose Bay

851.7m2 Not available Not available





- The proposal is considered to represent a small scale supermarket.

- The proposed supermarket is smaller in gross floor area than the recently approved Parisi‘s

greengrocers, in Dover Road, Rose Bay. The Parisi‘s development has a greater gross floor

area than the current proposal, but is located on a long narrow plot and therefore fully accords

with Council‘s 15m maximum retail frontage control. Like the subject site, the Parisi‘s

development is also located within a transition zone within the Rose Bay centre. The scale of

the proposed retail establishment is not considered to be inappropriate given the surrounding

context.

The proposal incorporates acoustic barriers to the eastern and western side boundaries of the

proposed car park. Five types of acoustic barriers have been provided, these comprise of:

Two 1.81m high acoustic fences on the boundary with a canopy extending into the subject site

at an angle of 45 degrees to the horizontal (a total height of 3.1m).

A 2.11m high acoustic fence adjacent to the boundary with a canopy extending into the


A 2.5m high acoustic fence located on the boundary.

Two 1.8m-2.5m acoustic fences located on the boundary.

The acoustic fences are constructed of a steel frame structure, sound absorbent lining, and

vertical colourbond panels. The canopies are constructed of clear polycarbonate sheeting.





Objections have been received in relation to the impact of the proposed acoustic barriers upon the

residential amenity of the neighbouring properties and the public domain. Specifically, that the

barriers would result in an adverse visual impact, a loss of solar access, and a sense of enclosure.

The acoustic barriers are considered to be satisfactory for the following reasons:

The Rose Bay DCP has no height restrictions for side or rear boundary fences. Furthermore a

12m height limit and a 1m side setback control applies to the rear section of the site, therefore

a building in this location could have a significantly greater impact in terms of loss of sunlight

and sense of enclosure than the proposed barriers.

The barriers with canopies would not result in any unreasonable impacts in terms of

overshadowing due to the angle of the canopy, and the use of the clear polycarbonate

sheeting.

The orientation of the 2.5m high barrier to the eastern boundary, and the existence of a

number of neighbouring outbuildings adjacent to the eastern boundary of the subject site,

would ensure that the proposal would not result in any unreasonable impacts in terms of loss

of solar access.

The location of the 1.8-2.5m high barriers would ensure that these elements would not result

in any unreasonable impacts in terms of overshadowing.

The rear of the subject site is currently enclosed by a variety of fencing that includes

colourbond fencing with barbed wire above, painted timber fencing, and unpainted timber

fencing with barbed wire above. The proposed barriers comprise of colourbond and

polycarbonate sheeting. This will ensure a uniform boundary fence presentation, which will

have a satisfactory visual presentation from the neighbouring properties and the public

domain.





The 3.1m high barriers with canopies would not result in any unreasonable impacts in terms

of enclosure due to the angle of the canopy, and the use of the clear polycarbonate sheeting.

The 3.4m high barrier with canopy would not result in any unreasonable impacts in terms of

enclosure as the barrier is separated from the boundary with No. 10 Richmond Road by a

landscaping strip.

The 2.5m high barrier to the eastern boundary would not result in any unreasonable impacts in

terms of sense of enclosure, as the barrier would be largely screened by the existing pitched

roofed neighbouring outbuildings.

It is noted that the acoustic barrier adjoining vehicle space No. 9 extends to approximately

800mm short of the end of the space. Condition C.2 requires the end of the barrier to be

splayed to ensure there is an adequate sight distance to approaching traffic for a vehicle

reversing out of the space.

In addition Condition C.2 requires a 2.0m by 2.0m visibility splay to be provided to either

side of the driveway.

Urban Character – Section 6.3

Building envelopes (6.3.1)


Enhance the urban village character of the Rose Bay Centre by encouraging a coherent street

character with appropriate and consistent building types built to or parallel to the street

alignment.

Retain and promote the pattern of perimeter block development to ensure a high level of

environmental amenity to all new development.

Eastern boundary





Accommodate retail and commercial uses by allowing deep building footprints at the ground

floor level only.


Development may only occur within the building envelopes shown on the control drawings

(refer Sections 5.2-5.7).

The total floor space allowed is controlled by the floor space development standards set out

in Woollahra LEP 1995.

The maximum height of buildings in the Rose Bay Centre is defined in Woollahra LEP 1995

as 12m. Council may consider a variation to this limit where bonus incentives apply. Well-

designed buildings which achieve the maximum height are encouraged, to enhance the

definition of the street edge.

The maximum permissible internal plan depth above ground level is 12 metres.

The proposed building envelope is satisfactory for the following reasons:

The proposal is for the adaptive use of two existing buildings to New South Head Road.

At ground floor level, the proposal retains the existing former car showroom building and

former Post Office by providing a new addition to link the two buildings and a new parapet

and roof to the rear of the car showroom. At first floor level, the proposal retains the existing

first floor level to the car showroom building and provides a mezzanine storage level to the

rear of the extended buildings.

No building envelope controls apply to the portion of the site which contains the heritage

listed former Post Office. Whilst the building envelope controls apply to the portion of the site

containing the former car showroom building, the proposal retains the same building footprint

as the existing building.

With an FSR of 0.64:1 (1363.5m2), the proposed gross floor area is significantly below the

maximum FSR development standard of 2:1 (4265.2m2) which applies to the site. The

proposal fully accords with the floor space development standard objectives contained within

the Woollahra LEP.

With a parapet height of 5.6m-8.3m, the height of the proposal is significantly below the

maximum height development standard of 12m. The proposal fully accords with the

maximum height development standard objectives contained within the Woollahra LEP.

The mezzanine floor level to the rear of the extended buildings fails to accord with the upper

level building envelope controls. However, the mezzanine floor level would have a

satisfactory impact in terms of the visual form and scale of the upper level, and would

maintain the amenity of the neighbouring properties. This is due to the fact that the mezzanine

level:

- Is setback 5.6m from the southern boundary with No. 10 Richmond Road, which makes

it visually recessive.

- Has a maximum height of 8.1m.

- Respects the existing rear setback pattern.

The following building envelope controls apply to the former car show room site: a maximum

building height of 12m, 0m side setbacks, and 0m front setback and 12.4m rear setback. A

complying proposal could have significantly greater visual impacts upon the amenity of the

neighbouring properties and streetscape than the subject proposal.

Setbacks (6.3.2)

Relevant design principle:





Retain and enhance the predominant pattern of party wall buildings only in the Rose Bay Core,

and row and free-standing buildings in the Transition Areas.


Building alignment should comply with the building lines shown on the control drawings (refer

Sections 5.2-5.7.)

Front setbacks are identified as building lines on the control drawings (refer Sections 5.2-5.7).

Front setbacks should:

- define a coherent alignment to the public domain;- accentuate significant street corners;

- accommodate contiguous front gardens in identified areas.

Side setbacks should:

- protect privacy to adjoining buildings;

- protect access to natural light and ventilation;

- facilitate views from the public domain to the harbour.

Rear setbacks should:

- provide consolidated landscaped areas at the centre of blocks adjoining residential areas;

- facilitate natural infiltration of stormwater;

- protect privacy to adjoining buildings and gardens;

- facilitate solar access.

The proposed building setbacks are satisfactory for the following reasons:

The proposal has been amended to retain the form of the two existing buildings on New South

Head Road which both contribute to the existing built environment of the area. Whilst this

involves the connection of the two buildings to New South Head Road, the individual form of

these buildings will be retained. This ensures the preservation of the ‗small shop‘ character of

the Centre.

It is noted that there are no requirements for side setbacks within the front section of the site

where the adapted buildings are located.

Whilst the proposal does not accord with the rear building alignment, the proposal accords with

the relevant objectives of the rear setback control. The proposal, maintains the existing building

footprint, retains an adequate level of residential amenity to the neighbouring properties, and

increases the level of deep soil landscaping and permeable surface within the site.

The proposal includes a mezzanine level which is located to the rear of the extended buildings.

The plans have been amended to ensure that the mezzanine level is setback 5.6m from the rear

boundary of the site. The proposal maintains an adequate level of privacy and sunlight access to

the neighbouring properties.

The proposal retains the existing front setback to New South Head. The proposal removes the

existing vehicular access which is located between these two buildings. This provides three to

four new on street car parking spaces. In addition the proposal provides a new/reinstated awning

and a castellated parapet to the former car showroom building. This ensures the retention and

improvement of the existing buildings, thus contributing to the character of the Rose Bay centre.

Building articulation (6.3.3)

Relevant design principle:

Promote buildings of articulated design and massing, with building facades that contribute to

the character of the street, and provide usable private external spaces.





Encourage buildings to respond to environmental conditions, and promote energy efficient

design principles.

Utilise building articulation elements of appropriate scale to their use and context.

Reinforce the more open streetscape quality in the Transition Areas.

The proposal accords with the building articulation design principles for the following reasons:

The proposal predominantly retains the existing building presentation to New South Head Road.

The existing buildings make a positive contribution to the streetscape.

The proposal improves the articulation to the New South Head Road frontage by providing a

new awning to the former car show room, removing the existing vehicular access and

reinstating the castellated parapet.

The proposal has been amended to relocate the proposed entry ramp to the eastern side of the

building. This enables the retention of the existing Post Office entry, stairs and deep soil

landscaping which are located to the front of the former Post Office.

The rear of the building is over 45m from Richmond Road. This ensures that the proposed

building would not adversely impact upon the Richmond Road streetscape.

Heritage & conservation (6.3.4)


Protect and enhance items of environmental and heritage significance, including contributory

buildings, (refer Figure Heritage Items and Contributory Buildings).

All new developments and works to existing developments are to be designed to be compatible

with the heritage significance of listed heritage items and nominated contributory buildings.


Proposed developments involving heritage items must comply with the heritage provisions

contained in LEP 1995.

When submitting an application in respect of a heritage item, the onus is on the applicant to

demonstrate that the heritage significance of the item would not be compromised by the

proposal.

When submitting an application in respect of a contributory building, the onus is on the

applicant to demonstrate that the architectural and streetscape value of the building would be

retained or enhanced by the proposal.

Where a development involves a heritage item or contributory building, Council requires that a

statement of heritage impact be lodged with a development application. That statement must set

out the heritage significance of the place and the effect the proposed works will have on the

significance of the heritage item.

The proposal accords with the heritage and conservation design principles for the following

reasons:

The proposal was referred to Council‘s Strategic and Development Application Assessment

Heritage Officers. A detailed analysis of the heritage significance of the heritage item, and the

effect of the proposed works upon the significance of the heritage item was carried out.

In response to the heritage concerns raised by Council staff, the applicant amended the proposal

on two occasions to address these concerns.

Council‘s Heritage Officer reviewed the amended proposal and determined that, subject to

conditions, the proposal is satisfactory with regards to Heritage impact.





The proposal ensures the long term conservation of the heritage item through its re-adaptive re-

use.

Conditions C.2 and E.24 form part of the recommendation, which require the conservation and

restoration of the significant elements of the former post office. Subject to these conditions the

proposal would be sympathetic to the heritage significance of the heritage listed former Post

Office and would accord with the heritage provisions contained in LEP 1995. This is assessed in

greater detail under section 11.7 of the report.

Architectural resolution (6.3.5)


Promote high quality architectural design throughout the Rose Bay Centre to create a desirable

living and working environment.

Encourage a more coherent streetscape.

The proposal accords with the architectural resolution design principles for the following reasons:

The proposed pedestrian entries are well defined.

Whilst the proposal includes alterations to the southern and western elevations, the retention of

the existing window arches will allow some interpretation of the former openings.

The proposed conditions include the conservation of the existing materials and the reversal of

the existing unsympathetic works and repairs.

The proposed ‗linking‘ addition has been designed to highlight the original heritage fabric of the

building. The ‗linking‘ addition is clad in metal and timber to ensure the addition is compatible

with both buildings.

The design of the addition ensures that it will compliment rather than mimic the character of the

existing buildings.

The proposal retains all of the existing glazed openings to the New South Head Road frontage.

Roof design (6.3.6)


Encourage roof design to create a distinctive silhouette to buildings.

The proposal accords with the roof design principles for the following reasons:

The proposal has been amended to ensure the retention of the original roof form to the former

Post Office.

The proposal reinstates/enhances the castellated parapet to the former car showroom building in

order to present a unified roof form to the street.

The rear mezzanine level has been setback from the rear boundary to ensure that the proposal

would not unreasonable impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring properties in terms of

bulk or overshadowing.

The rear mezzanine is setback by approximately 28m from the front boundary, which ensures

that the mezzanine level would not be unduly prominent within the New South Head Road

streetscape.





Awnings (6.3.7)


Retain and supplement the existing awnings to provide discontinuous awning cover along

footpaths in the Rose Bay Centre Transition Areas to accommodate new street tree planting.

The proposal accords with the awning design principles for the following reasons:

Control Drawing 5 in section 5.8 requires an awning to be provided to the former car showroom

frontage. The proposal incorporates an awning which extends across the full frontage of the

former car shown room.

Condition C.12 forms part of the recommendation. This requires the amendment of the awning

to be discontinuous to accommodate two new Harpullia pendula (Tulipwood) street trees on the

road reserve to New South Head Road.

Visual & acoustic privacy (6.3.8)

Design principles, guidelines and controls:


Ensure adequate visual and acoustic privacy to residential apartments in the Centre and private

open spaces.

Protect the privacy of adjacent residential neighbours.

The proposal accords with the visual privacy design principles for the following reasons:

The existing boundary fences and the location and design of the proposed windows will ensure

a satisfactory level of visual privacy is retained to the neighbouring properties.

Relevant guidelines and controls with regards to acoustic privacy are:

Acoustic Privacy

Buildings are to be sited to minimise the transmission of external noise to other buildings on

the site and on adjacent land.

The internal layout of rooms, courtyards, terraces and balconies, the use of openings, screens

and blade walls, and choice of materials, should be designed to minimise the transmission of

noise externally.

Noise impact associated with goods delivery and garbage collection, particularly early

morning, should be minimised.

Council may require a Noise Impact Assessment Report to accompany a Development

Application.

Developments are to comply with Council‟s Code for Control of Noise on Building Sites.

Acoustic reports and peer reviews:

The second amendment to the application which revised the proposal from a Thomas Dux

Greengrocers to a Woolworths supermarket was accompanied by a revised Noise Impact

Assessment Report prepared by Aecom Australia Pty Ltd, dated 11 August 2010. Further acoustic

information was received from: Aecom Australia Pty Ltd, dated 24 September 2010, Aecom





Australia Pty Ltd, dated 29 November 2010, Aecom Australia Pty Ltd, dated 28 January 2011 and

Aecom Australia Pty Ltd, dated 26 May 2011.

A Noise Impact Assessment Report peer review was provided on behalf of a number of objectors,

prepared by Renzo Tonin and Associates, dated 28 September 2010 (hereby referred to as the

objector‘s peer review).

The Noise Impact Assessment Report peer review, prepared by Renzo Tonin and Associates, dated

28 September 2010, which was provided on behalf of a number of objectors, raised a number of

concerns with the acoustic information submitted by the applicant prior to September 2010. It was

requested that Council commission an independent acoustic report.

Council staff subsequently commissioned a peer review of: the DA submission and accompanying

specialist reports, the objectors peer review, and the Council‘s Environmental Health referral

responses. Council‘s peer review, reference 8249-1-811, prepared by Challis Consulting Pty

Limited, dated 19 August 2011(Council‘s peer review), concluded that:

The applicant‘s acoustic information incorrectly concluded that the development and its

peripheral facilities would fulfil the relevant acoustical requirements, in the DECCW‘s

Industrial Noise Policy.

In response to this concern, a further acoustic report, reference DA Acoustic Assessment

Woolworths Rose Bay, prepared by Aecom, dated 23 November 2011, was submitted by the

applicant (applicant‘s acoustic report). The applicant‘s acoustic report forms one concluding report,

which assesses the acoustic impacts of the proposal. It is noted that this acoustic report was

prepared over a three month period. The methodology and content was determined in consultation

with the Council appointed acoustic engineer.

Council‘s acoustic assessment:

The applicant‘s acoustic report, the objectors peer review, and Council‘s peer review, all identify

six main areas of noise concerns. These are:

1. Appropriate Noise Criterion & Measurement Locations.

2. Road Traffic Noise.

3. Loading Dock Activity Noise.

4. Car Park Activity Noise.

5. Roof Top Mechanical Plant & Services.

6. Noise Management Plan

The application along with the objector‘s peer review was referred to Council‘s Environmental

Health Officer. The full referral responses are attached as Annexure 4. The following comments

are made in relation to the acoustic impacts:

1. Noise Criteria and Measurement Locations:

Noise monitoring was carried out adjacent to the subject site in November 2008. At the request

of the Council appointed acoustic engineer, further noise monitoring was carried out in

September 2011. The September 2011 noise monitoring was carried out at the ‗most, or

potentially, most affected noise sensitive locations‘ in accordance with the NSW Industrial

Noise Policy.





Council staff are satisfied that the recorded background and ambient noise levels presented in

Table 7 of the applicant‘s acoustic report now accurately indicates the existing ambient noise

within the area of the proposed development.

2. Road Traffic Noise:

The road noise criteria for traffic movements to and from the site, which included truck and car

movements were assessed using the NSW DECCW document titled Environmental Criteria for

Road Traffic Noise (ECRTN). To accord with the Environmental Criteria, the traffic generated

by the proposed development should not lead to an increase in existing noise levels by more

than 2 dB(A).

The applicant‘s acoustic report shows that the development is unlikely to increase traffic noise

levels by more than 2 dB(A).

The road traffic noise levels contained within the acoustic report are based upon the traffic

levels contained within the applicant‘s traffic report. Council‘s Traffic Engineer has formed the

view that the traffic levels contained within the applicant‘s traffic report underestimate the

traffic generation from the proposal.

Notwithstanding the above, the additional traffic movements, suggested by the Council‘s Traffic

Engineer are approximately 35 additional movements per hour during the Thursday afternoon

peak period above that estimated in the applicant‘s traffic report and this would not significantly

impact upon road traffic noise assessment.

It is noted that the Traffic Engineer carrying out Council‘s Traffic peer review, has formed the

view that the the applicant‘s traffic report only underestimates the traffic generation from the

proposal by 25 additional movements per hour during the Thursday afternoon peak period.

3. Loading Dock Activity:

The acoustic report proposes the following measures to mitigate the noise impacts from the use

of the loading dock.

o All Woolworths vehicles would be fitted with level adjusting broadband beepers. The

sound power level of the beepers will be 20dB lower than the standard beepers.

o Acoustic barriers to the north eastern and south western sides of the car park.

o Acoustic lining to the underside of the loading dock roof.

o Acoustic lining to the vertical side of the loading dock.

o The provision of a rubber based impact absorbing surface to the loading dock floor.

o The provision of an additional staff member to supervise reversing delivery trucks.

Subject to these measures, the acoustic report identifies that the noise levels would comply with

the environmental noise emission criteria at all nearby receivers with the exception of the first

floor level at 11 Newcastle Street. The exceedance is 1dB, and is negligible and unlikely to be

perceptible, particularly given the restriction of the loading dock hours discussed below.

The loading dock activity would maintain an adequate level of acoustic privacy to the

neighbouring properties subject to the following conditions:

o The use of the loading dock area by trucks, refrigerated vans and other vehicles for the

purpose of goods deliveries and the movement of such goods shall be strictly restricted

to the following hours:

7:00 am - 6:00 pm from Monday to Saturday.

8:00 am – 6:00 pm on Sunday

o The noise control measures detailed in the acoustic report, reference DA Acoustic

Assessment Woolworths Rose Bay, prepared by Aecom, dated 23 November 2011,

being fully implemented.





o No trucks, refrigerated vans or any other vehicles shall be parked within the vicinity of

the loading dock area awaiting delivery or accepting of goods prior to or after the hours

listed in (1) above. Similarly, no trucks, refrigerated vans or any other vehicles shall

leave engines idle when delivering or accepting goods within the loading dock area.

o Large articulated truck deliveries to the loading dock are not permitted at the proposed

development.

o The use of the loading dock must accord with the proposed delivery schedule referenced

in section 1.4 of the acoustic report.

Concern has been raised that the noise control measures to the loading dock contained within

the acoustic report are not indicated on the architectural plans. The recommended conditions of

consent will ensure that the noise measures are fully implemented.

The conditions recommended above form conditions A.4, C.14, C.20, I.2, and I.13 of the

recommendation. Subject to these conditions, the noise from the use of the loading dock would

be satisfactory.

4. Car Park Activity Noise:


of the car park:

o The provision of acoustic barriers to the north eastern and south western sides of the car

park.

o The incorporation of an acoustically effective surface to the car park.

o Reimbursement of costs involved with constructing a low noise section of footpath to

link the proposed car park and Richmond Road.

o The provision of low noise shopping trolleys.

o A management procedure for the return of shopping trolleys to the proposed store to

minimise noise.

o Barriers to be provided to close the car park outside of trading hours.

The noise analysis has been conducted on traffic flows with peak vehicle movements of 100

trips per hour.

The measured ambient noise levels and the potential noise impacts arising from car park activity

noise have been based on the intrusiveness noise criterion, which is in line with the

requirements of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy. The intrusiveness criteria is based on a Rating

Background Level (RBL) calculated over an entire day, evening and night period for the entire

week. The methodology used by Aecom Australia to assess potential noise emissions from the

proposed development is not in dispute by Council‘s peer review.

The acoustic report looks at predicted car park noise levels for Thursday and Friday as these are

the expected peak periods for traffic movements within the car park (in accordance with the

RTA guidelines).

Detailed acoustic analysis of car parking activity has been completed. Iteration of the

calculations has confirmed the optimal height of the noise barriers to ensure that the car park

noise emissions comply with the intrusive criterion at all times.

The traffic noise levels contained within the acoustic report are based upon the traffic

movements for 25 car parking spaces taken from the applicant‘s traffic report.

The noise analysis has been conducted on traffic flows with peak vehicle movements of 100

trips per hour within the car park. This figure has been reviewed and agreed by Council‘s

Traffic Engineer.

The noise emissions associated with the car park activity will not result in any unreasonable

noise impacts, subject to the following conditions:





o Condition F.6 requires the provision of a traffic signal system for the car park. This

will minimise traffic congestion within the car park during peak operating periods by

indicating to approaching drivers that the car park is fully occupied.

o The noise control measures detailed in the acoustic report, reference DA Acoustic

Assessment Woolworths Rose Bay, prepared by Aecom, dated 23 November 2011,

being fully implemented.

o Condition 1.4 restricts the use of the car park to be within the supermarket opening

hours.

o The measures detailed in the Noise Management Plan to manage potential noise

emissions from the operation of the car park being fully implemented. These include,

restrictions on car park access, signage, a complaints procedure, and an acoustic review.

5. Roof Top Mechanical Plant and Services:


of the roof top mechanical plant and services:

o The construction of an acoustic barrier to the north eastern and south eastern sides of the

plant deck. The top of the barrier is to have an RL of 12.63.

o The construction of an acoustic barrier to the north eastern and south eastern sides of the

trading area AC unit. The top of the barrier is to have an RL of 12.63.

o All acoustic barriers should be of solid construction and free from gaps.

With the proposed barriers, noise emissions from the roof top plant would not exceed the

background noise levels in accordance with Council‘s requirements.

The roof top mechanical plant and services area would maintain an adequate level of acoustic

privacy to the neighbouring properties subject to the following conditions:

o The noise level measured at any boundary of the site at any time while the mechanical

plant and equipment is operating must not exceed the background noise level. Where

noise sensitive receivers are located within the site, the noise level is measured from the

nearest strata, stratum or community title land and must not exceed background noise

level at any time. The background noise level is the underlying level present in the

ambient noise, excluding the subject noise source, when extraneous noise is removed.

o The Construction Certificate plans and specification required to be submitted pursuant

to clause 139 of the Regulation must be accompanied by a certificate from a

professional engineer (acoustic engineer) certifying that the noise level measured at any

boundary of the site at any time while the proposed mechanical plant and equipment is

operating will not exceed the background noise level. Where noise sensitive receivers

are located within the site, the noise level is measured from the nearest strata, stratum or

community title land and must not exceed background noise level, at any time. The

background noise level is the underlying level present in the ambient noise, excluding

the subject noise source, when extraneous noise is removed. Where sound attenuation is

required this must be detailed.

6. Noise Management Plan:

The acoustic report incorporates a noise management plan which details the following measures

to mitigate the noise impacts from the ongoing use of the development:

o Signage highlighting acoustic issues.

o A procedure for complaints handling.

o Requirements for shopping trolley construction, maintenance and collection.

o Requirements for car park maintenance.

o Restrictions on car park access.





o No external speakers or music.

o Requirements for mechanical services design and maintenance.

o Staff training on acoustic issues.

o Restrictions on the number and hours of cleaning staff.

o An acoustic review to be carried out after three months of opening. This will include

noise monitoring. If noise complaints have been received, Woolworths supermarket

management will review the Operational Noise Management Plan together with an

Acoustic Consultant and a representative resident to modify the plan so as to address

their noise concerns. If changes are required, further noise monitoring will be carried

out after an additional 3 months. This process should continue until a satisfactory

outcome with respect to noise has been achieved.

o It is noted that as an extra precaution, Condition I.1 provides a trial period for the

proposed hours of use. The applicant will need to submit a s96 application and

demonstrate that the operation of the supermarket maintains the acoustic privacy and

residential amenity of neighbouring properties in order to continue to operate between

7pm and 10pm after the 12 month trial period.

The noise management plan is satisfactory subject to the following conditions:

o The recommendations of the noise management plan must be complied with during the

ongoing use of the development.

In addition to the above, the following conditions are proposed to ensure that waste collection at the

subject site would not result in any unreasonable acoustic impacts:

o Woolworths shall maintain a log to be kept on the premises which details the name/s of

waste contractors and dates/times that they have entered and left the site in the case that

noise complaints are received.

o The provision of the glass bin within the proposed building structure be mandatory with

the bin being emptied to the refuse bin area only once per day to minimise noise

associated with the transfer of glass.

o The collection of waste materials/recyclables; the collection of fat oil; and grease trap

servicing shall occur in accordance with waste collection details set out under section

1.5of the acoustic report, reference DA Acoustic Assessment Woolworths Rose Bay,

prepared by Aecom, dated 23 November 2011.

Council commissioned review of the applicant‘s concluding acoustic report:

The Council commissioned a peer review of the applicant‘s acoustic report, prepared by Challis

Consulting Pty Limited, which provides the following comments:

The revised DA now addresses most, but not all of our concerns and presents analyses, which

appear to confirm that the future vehicular noise impacts in the car park should be capable of

'nearly fulfilling' the guidelines outlined by the INP at the facades of the multiple apartments,

which are located at the rear of 11 Newcastle Street, as well at the facade of 10 Richmond Road.

Notwithstanding, there are many assumptions and multiple issues, which have neither been

confirmed, nor adequately specified, which I believe should be reviewed, prior to the opening of the

proposed Woolworths Rose Bay supermarket. Accordingly, I am presenting a supplementary

Draft Set of Conditions of Consent for Council's consideration.





Draft Set of Conditions of Consent

1. The proposed car park's surface finish shall be sufficiently smooth so that it will preclude the

generation of unacceptable noise emission, when either empty, or loaded shopping trolleys are

wheeled into, or across the car park.

2. Two samples of the proposed plastic and/or the plastic coated steel framed shopping trolleys,

shall be provided to Council for its assessment within 90 days of receipt of these Conditions

being received. [It is noted that this forms part of condition F.7. The timeframe for the

provision of the samples has been amended to prior to the use of the development].

3. Samples of the sound absorptive material, which is being proposed for the internal surfaces of

barrier walls type A, B1 and B2, together with a copy of the NATA Laboratory test certificate,

which confirms its acoustical performance characteristics, shall be provided, prior to the

installation of the barrier walls.

4. Provide precise details of the impact noise control measures, which will be provided for all

drainage grates, which are to be installed, at either the entrance to, or within the main area of

the car park.

5. A report from a qualified structural engineer shall be provided, confirming that the proposed

acoustical barrier walls, Type A, B1 and B2, have each been designed to withstand gale force

winds. The structural engineer shall subsequently present a report to Council confirming that

he/she has conducted an appropriate number of inspections of each of the specified

classifications of walls, during their installation, and is satisfied that the walls, which have been

installed, are compliant with their original design intent.

6. Seven days prior to the [physical] commencement of any demolition, or significant excavation

activities, the builder (or specialised subcontractor) shall inform the owners, or tenants, of both

11 Newcastle Street, and 10 Richmond Road, by letter of his,( or of its ) schedule of demolition,

excavation and subsequent construction activities. Any very noisy activities involving the use of

hydraulic hammers, or pneumatic hammers, shall be identified, so that the occupants of those

apartments may plan to be away from the site, should they so choose.

7. Provide copies of the briefing documents that Woolworths intends to issue to its own drivers, as

well as the document which it intends to issue to those companies, which will be supplying it

with bread, milk, and other groceries, or services, and which will specify the precautions, which

shall be implemented during their drivers deliveries to the Rose Bay supermarket. The

instructions shall comprehensively outline the sensitivity of the Rose Bay site, the need to enter

and depart in a manner which generates the minimum degree of noise. Each driver, who will

make such deliveries, shall be required to sign a copy of those instructions to confirm that

he/she has read the instructions and agrees to strictly follow those instructions.

8. Where a large delivery vehicle is equipped with either a two way radio, or where the driver has

a mobile phone, then the driver shall be instructed by his/her written instructions, to contact the

Woolworths' loading dock supervisor, prior to the truck entering Richmond Road, in order that

the supervisor may thereby ensure that a member of his/her staff may be present to ensure that

the driveway is clear and safe for the truck's entry.

Furthermore in, an email dated 11 December 2011, the following comment and recommended

condition were provided:





I am not completely satisfied that the submission, which Aecom have prepared, dealt transparently

with the key issue of car park noise emission, and I was not entirely happy with the concept of

adopting a 'performance goal', which was (and will be) +1dB(A) higher than the criterion, which

is nominated by the INP.

In such circumstances, I strongly recommend that Council should add one further item to its

existing list of Draft Conditions of Consent.

The NSW Land and Environment Court routinely includes an almost 'standard' Condition for most

Licensed Premises, when issuing its judgements, which deals with Hours of Operation of those

premises. Accordingly, I recommend that Council should follow that lead and also adopt the

following Clause:-

"The hours of operation of the supermarket shall be 7AM to 10PM, Monday to Sunday.

Following a period of 12 months of operation, Council will again review those hours to assess the

magnitude of that operational regime on the adjacent residential properties and will thereafter

specify what hours will be adopted in the future."

These conditions are generally concurred with. The wording of these conditions has been modified

to ensure that the conditions accord with section 80A of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979. The conditions form conditions B.9, C.2, C.11, C.14, C.20, F.7, I.1 of the

recommendation.

On 14 December 2011, a peer review of the acoustic report was provided on behalf of an objector,

prepared by Renzo Tonin and Associates, reference TE329-05F01 (rev 0) (hereby referred to as the

objector‘s second peer review).

In response to the objector‘s second peer review, the applicant has provided responses from Aecom,

dated 15 December 2011, and from Steven Cooper of the Acoustic Group, also dated 15 December

2011.

The issues raised in the objector‘s second peer review, are largely addressed above with the

exception of the following:

The applicant has proposed level adjusting broad band beepers to all Woolworths service

vehicles. The sound power levels for these beepers will be 20dB lower than the existing

standard beepers. Woolworths cannot provide broadband beepers to service vehicles which are

not owned by Woolworths. Notwithstanding this, the noise emissions from service vehicles are

considered to be satisfactory, subject to the recommended conditions, which require the

following:

- Restrictions on the hours of use of the loading dock to the daytime period.

- The provision of acoustic barriers.

- The provision of sound attenuation measures to the loading dock.

- The provision of broad band beepers to all Woolworths owned service vehicles.

Steven Cooper has provided the following comments in relation to the reversing beepers:

It is appropriate to consider the noise characteristics of reversing beepers at night yet I am

unable to find a Renzo Tonin and Associates report that considers reversing beepers during

the day in terms of any annoying and intrusive impact to neighbouring residences, bearing in

mind the reversing beepers would be in use in the loading dock area and not the car park.





The accuracy of the applicant‘s delivery schedule (contained within the acoustic report) has

been questioned. Condition C.14 requires all deliveries to be undertaken in accordance with the

submitted delivery schedule.

The objector‘s second peer review has raised concerns with the assessment of the loading dock

noise emissions, as in a worst case scenario a truck may potentially enter, unload and leave the

loading dock within a 15 minute period, if this occurs then exceedances of the noise emission

criteria of up to 2dB(A) would be predicted.

Steven Cooper has provided the following comments in relation to the assessment of the loading

dock noise emissions:

The assessment provided by Aecom for loading dock operations is identified as occurring for

the large trucks operating at Woolworths facilities. Persons who have conducted similar

acoustic assessments would be aware that it is impossible to unload such large trucks within

15 minutes. The size of trucks that could undertake a turnaround time of less than 15 minutes

will be significantly smaller and therefore quieter.

The objector‘s second peer review has raised concerns that the acoustic report has adopted a

method of assessing car park noise based on hourly noise levels assessed against hourly noise

criteria established from hourly background levels. This is said to be contrary to the

requirements of the Industrial Noise Policy.

Steven Cooper has provided the following comments in relation to the assessment of the car

park noise emissions:

[The above approach is consistent with the approach undertaken by] Dr Tonin in the ROI

matter where Dr Tonin considered acoustic modelling for a car park utilising both 2 hour and

1 hour periods (RTA ref TE794-04F03). The Aecom report goes to a finer resolution by

considereing the lowest background level in each of the one hour period and therefore is

more conservative in its assessment than undertaken by Dr Tonin.

The objector‘s second peer review has raised concerns that the traffic volumes presented for the

assessment of traffic along public roads as a result of the supermarket are in conflict with the

traffic volumes presented for the assessment of the car park.

Aecom has provided the following comments in relation to the traffic volumes:

The traffic volumes as detailed in the report are correct. The overall traffic volume of 100

vehicles per hour comprises traffic generated by the development (80 vehicles per hour) and

traffic already passing the site (20 vehicles per hour) as advised by Colston, Budd, Hunt and

Kafes.

Condition F.7 which requires a Trolley Management Plan would ensure a satisfactory acoustic

outcome with regards to trolley management.

For the reason set out above, subject to conditions, it is concluded that the proposal would maintain

an adequate level of acoustic privacy to the neighbouring properties.

Signage & advertising (6.3.9)


Ensure that signage and advertising structures are unobtrusive, informative and compatible

with an attractive shopping environment.

Avoid physical and visual clutter of the public domain.

Ensure there is no conflict between advertising signs and any nearby safety, public directional

or traffic signs.

Protect the amenity of residential development.

Preserve the existing and future roofscapes and protect views.





The following comments are made with regards to the proposed signage and advertising:

In accordance with the signage guidelines contained within the RB DCP:

- The proposal includes integrated signage, which includes suspended under awning

signage.

- No roof signs are proposed.

- The parapet and façade signs only comprise of building identification.

- The proposed signage will consist of Woolworths branded signage to ensure a

coordinated presentation for all signs.

- The permissible sign area would not exceed a factor of 0.5 square metre for each metre

of the building width at its frontage to a public road.

As set out under section 11.1 of this report, subject to conditions, all advertising signs and/or

structures would generally accord with the objectives relating to advertising contained within

Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995.

Condition C.2 forms part of the recommendation which requires the deletion of the flush wall

sign, and the new graphic inset panels to the windows, located to the front (New South Head

Road) elevation of the heritage item former Post Office. In addition condition I.7 restricts the

level of advertisement illumination.

The proposal was referred to Council‘s Signage Officer who determined that the proposed

advertising is satisfactory subject to conditions. The full referral response is attached as

Annexure 8.

Soft landscaping (6.4.1)


Maintain and enhance landscape quality on private land.

Encourage contiguous rear garden areas in the middle of blocks to enable retention of existing

significant trees and to allow new planting of tall trees.

Encourage contiguous front garden areas to strengthen the street character and allow street

surveillance.

Assist in stormwater control by maximising on-site infiltration through the use of permeable

surfaces, and providing stormwater detention in the consolidated landscape areas.

Encourage the use of planting to assist in energy conservation in buildings and comfort of

outdoor living areas, and to protect privacy through screening.

The following comments are made with regards to the soft landscaping design principles and

guidelines and controls:

The area of soft landscaping should be at least 50% of the area nominated on the control

drawing. This equates to approximately 343m2.

The proposal provides 183.5m2 of soft landscaping.

The existing site comprises of minimal soft landscaping, and no significant trees. The site is

predominantly covered with bitumen and concrete with the exception of a small garden area to

the front of No. 12 and 14 Richmond Road.

The proposal significantly increases the level of landscaping within the site, thus improving its

landscape quality.

The soft landscaping shortfall is supported as the proposal provides substantial landscaping

areas within the car parking area. These landscape areas enhance the landscape quality of the

site and form buffer zones between the proposed parking areas and the adjacent properties.





The proposal maintains a landscaped area to Richmond Road which provides screening to the

proposed parking area and maintains the character of Richmond Road. The provision of low

level screen landscaping within this area would strengthen the street character.

Conditions have been included as part of the recommendation which would ensure the provision

of:

- Adequate deep soil landscaping.

- Two new street trees to the New South Head Road frontage in accordance with

Council‘s Rose Bay Centre Public Domain Improvement plan.

- A Tree Security Bond and tree protection measures.

Concern has been raised by a number of neighbouring properties with regards to service

vehicles entering Richmond Road causing damage to, or requiring the removal of, the existing

street trees. Condition C.14 requires service vehicles to be a maximum of 8.8m in length. This

ensures that no street trees will need to be removed in order for the service vehicles to access the

site. Furthermore, with a maximum length of 8.8m the service vehicles will be smaller than the

garbage trucks which currently service the street. It is therefore considered that the subject to

conditions, the service vehicles would not result in any unreasonable impacts upon the street

trees.

Front fences (6.4.3)


Encourage the design of front fences which enrich the streetscape.

Ensure street surveillance is possible to assist safety.

The proposal provides no detail with regards to any front fence or advertising structure to

Richmond Road. Condition C.2 of the recommendation states that no approval is given for any

front fence or advertising signs to the Richmond Road frontage.

Energy efficiency – Section 6.5

The proposal is considered to be satisfactory with regard to energy efficiency. The first floor office

areas are all provided with windows to ensure natural light and ventilation. At ground floor level

natural light will be provided to the retail area via the twelve windows to the front and side

elevations.

Solar access & natural daylight (6.5.1)

Relevant Design principles:

Minimise overshadowing of adjoining properties or publicly accessible spaces.


Where already existing, access to sunlight should be substantially maintained or achieved for a

minimum period of 4 hours between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm on June 22nd to windows of habitable

rooms and to the private open space of adjoining properties.

The overshadowing effect of new buildings on public domain areas are to be considered for the

hours of 10 am to 2 pm on March 21, June 22 and September 24.





The proposal would cast additional shadows upon the north eastern side elevation and private open

space of No. 745-749 New South Head Road, and the north western rear elevation and private open

space of No. 10 Richmond Road.

The proposal generally accords with the solar access & natural daylight principles for the following

reasons:

A 12m height limit applies to the subject site. The front section of the existing building

(approximately 8.3m high) is proposed to be retained, the rear section of the proposed building

has a maximum height of 8m, and the middle section of the building is substantially lower with

a maximum height of 5.5m. It is noted that a proposal which attained a height of 12m could

have a significantly greater impact, in terms of loss of sunlight access, to the neighbouring

properties.

The proposal maintains sunlight access to all of the habitable room windows to the north

western rear elevation and north eastern side elevation of No. 10 Richmond Road.

The proposal will maintain sunlight access to between 35m2 and 90m

2 of the rear private open

space of No. 10 Richmond Road for four hours between 9am and 3pm on June 22nd.

The proposal would not result in any significantly greater impacts in terms of overshadowing to

the east facing windows of No. 745 New South Head Road, than the level of overshadowing

which would occur from a building within a complying building envelope.

The rear private space of No. 745 New South Head Road is already significantly overshadowed

by existing development. The proposal would not result in any significant impacts in terms of

loss of solar access to this area.

The design and location of the proposed acoustic barriers would ensure that these elements

would not result in any unreasonable impacts in terms of overshadowing.

Stormwater (6.5.8)


Ensure that stormwater does not affect the quality of the harbour by controlling the amount and

quality of urban runoff from the Centre into the bay.

Protect the existing drainage system in the Rose Bay Centre and the adjacent residential areas.

Relevant Guidelines and controls:

Development must comply with Council‟s private stormwater code

Minimise runoff into the existing stormwater system by implementing design measures to

reduce, and where possible, reuse and recycle site stormwater.

Provide required soft landscaping in Transition Areas where indicated on the control drawings

to assist with on site drainage.

Developments shall provide for the on-site retention of stormwater in accordance with

Woollahra Council‟s design guidelines.

Development must not be carried out on land to which this plan applies until arrangements

satisfactory to Sydney Water have been made for the provision of water and sewerage services

to that land.

The application was referred to Council‘s Development Assessment Engineer who provided the

following comments with regards to stormwater. Council‘s Technical Services Division is satisfied

that adequate provision has been made for the disposal of stormwater from the land it is proposed to





develop and complies with the provisions of Clause 25 (2) of WLEP 1995, subject to the following

conditions C.2, C.15, C.16, E.17, F.3, and F.4. These conditions require: the discharge of

stormwater from a single pipe outlet to a new pit and pipe system in New South Head Road, a

stormwater management plan, flood protection measures, compliance with Council‘s specifications

for drainage, commissioning and certification of flood protection measures and stormwater drainage

systems, and the commissioning and certification of public infrastructure works.

The above conditions have been included as part of the recommendation, subject to these conditions

the proposal would accord with the stormwater design principles.

Access, Parking and Servicing – Section 6.6

Access and mobility (6.6.1)

Subject to conditions, the proposal would comply with the provisions of the Building Code of

Australia and Australian Standard AS1428.1 1993 Design for Access and Mobility. The proposal

provides a 1:14 entry ramp, level access within the trading area and one disabled car parking space.

This ensures that the proposal provides adequate access for persons with disabilities.

On-site parking (6.6.2)

Rose Bay DCP Parking provisions:

Section 6.6.2 of the Rose Bay DCP addresses on-site parking. The explanation to section 6.6.2

states that:

On-site parking includes surface parking areas, car parking structures, semi-basement and

underground parking areas.

The opportunity for on-site parking is restricted in many areas of the Rose Bay Centre. The

narrow width of some lots makes it impossible to accommodate more than two spaces onsite,

and site excavation for underground parking is made difficult by the level of the existing

water table in the Centre.

This Plan aims to satisfy the parking demand likely to be generated by future development,

whilst facilitating the redevelopment of narrow sites and discouraging over-reliance on cars.


Facilitate the redevelopment or incremental development of narrow sites by implementing a

parking contributions scheme to provide public car parking.

Ensure the impact of car parking on the site and streetscape is handled discretely.

Ensure the design of on-site car parking is safe and efficient, and integrated with the overall site

and building design.

Maximise natural light and ventilation to parking areas where possible.

Relevant Guidelines and controls:

General

Car parking provision must comply with the Woollahra Development Control Plan for Off-

Street Car Parking Provision and Servicing Facilities, except where detailed below.

Car parking should be incorporated within the building, behind the building alignment.





Consolidated parking areas should be provided below ground or screened from the street and

concentrated under building footprints, to maximise the area for soft landscaping.

Geotechnical, Structural and Hydraulic Reports must accompany any proposal for underground

parking.

Opportunities for natural ventilation to basement car parking should be maximised.

Retail component

Retail development is required to provide a minimum of 80% of the required parking (in

accordance with the Woollahra Development Control Plan for Off-Street Car Parking and

Servicing Facilities) as an off-site contribution with the balance of the spaces provided on-site as

private parking. The provisions for the off-site contribution are detailed in the Woollahra Section

94 Contributions Plan.

Parking DCPs:

On 23 March 2010, the Parking Development Control Plan 2011 (Parking DCP 2011) came into

force. The Parking DCP 2011 repeals the current car parking plan, the Woollahra Development

Control Plan For Off-Street Car Parking Provision and Servicing Facilities 1995.

It is acknowledged that the savings and transition arrangements of the Parking DCP 2011 (clause

1.6) state that outstanding development applications shall be assessed under the Woollahra

Development Control Plan for Off-Street Car Parking and Servicing Facilities 1995 (Parking DCP

1995). However, the Parking DCP 2011 has undergone extensive public consultation and provides a

review of Council‘s existing parking requirements, and where appropriate, provides amendments to

ensure that Council‘s objectives for car parking are achieved. Given that the Parking DCP 2011

provides up to date policies which reflect Council‘s current objectives, notwithstanding clause 1.6,

it is appropriate to give considerable weight to the provisions contained within the Parking DCP

2011.

Furthermore, section 1.3 of the Parking DCP 1995 states:

The Council reserves its right to exercise discretion to vary the standards where exceptional

circumstances warrant variation. The applicant will be required to demonstrate, to the

satisfaction of the Council, the exceptional circumstances relating to a particular application

which would warrant variation of the DCP requirements.

The following figures in relation to off street car parking and the subsequent traffic

generation figures (contained under section 16.1) have been calculated on the gross floor area

of the proposed building in accordance with the gross floor area definition contained within

the WLEP 1995. This is not consistent with the gross floor area definition contained within

section 2.0 of the Parking DCP 1995. It should be noted that the gross floor area definition

contained within section 2, of the Parking DCP 2011, is generally consistent with the WLEP

1995.

Applying the strict interpretation of the gross floor area definition contained within section

2.0 of the Parking DCP 1995 equates to a car parking requirement of 36 car parking spaces.

Using the correct gross floor area definition, the car parking requirement for the proposed

development under the Parking DCP 1995, is two car parking spaces greater than the car

parking requirement under the Parking DCP 2011.





The notable difference between the two documents is that the Parking DCP 1995 has a supermarket

car parking generation rate of 4.6 spaces per 100m2 and the Parking DCP 2011 has a car parking

generation rate of 3.5 spaces per 100m2. The car parking requirement under the Parking DCP1995

is 44 car parking spaces, the car parking requirement under the Parking DCP 2011 is 34 car parking

spaces. The proposal provides 25 off street carparking spaces and creates 3 new on street car

parking spaces. This represents the provision of 82% of the car parking required under the Parking

DCP 2011 as opposed to 63% of the car parking required under the Parking DCP 1995.

Development Control Plan controls are not prohibitive, and whilst the proposal fails to accord with

the car parking requirement set out under the Parking DCP 1995 the proposal upholds the wider

objectives of the Parking DCP 1995. The objective of the Parking DCP in relation to car parking

generation is as follows:

To ensure that development generating vehicular traffic make adequate provision off the

public street for car parking and servicing needs of its occupants and users, including visitors

employees and deliveries.

This is discussed in greater detail below.

Council‘s Traffic Engineer Referral Response:

The proposal was referred to Council‘s Traffic Engineer. The full referral response is attached as

Annexure 2. The following is a summary of the Council‘s Traffic Engineer‘s comments with

regards to parking:

Three traffic reports have been provided to Council, one prepared on behalf of the applicant, one

prepared on behalf of the owner of the subject site, and one prepared on behalf of a number of

the objectors.

Each of the submitted Traffic Reports has presented alternate estimates of parking demand and

considerations on these variations. These are summarised as follows:

1. The applicant‘s traffic report estimates a parking demand of 15-25 car parking spaces.

This is based upon a parking survey of a Woolworths store in Crows Nest, which has a

similar floor area (1385m2) to the proposal with a parking facility adjoining the site.

2. The owner‘s traffic report states that the proposed 25 off street car parking spaces fully

complies with Councils Rose Bay DCP control which requires a minimum 80% of the

site‘s parking demand to be made as a Section 94 contribution. As such the proposal

complies with Councils controls and objectives.

3. The objector‘s traffic report estimates a parking demand of 44 car parking spaces if

Council‘s Parking DCP 1995 is applied and 57-83 car parking spaces if the parking

demand rate provided by the RTA‘s “Guide to Traffic Generating Developments” is

applied.

On review of the applicant‘s traffic report, Council‘s Traffic engineer has concluded that the

Woolworths store in Crows Nest does not provide an appropriate comparison to the subject site

for the following reasons:

- The Crows Nest store is more accessible via public transport.

- The parking lot adjoining the Crows Nest Woolworths is a multi-storey carpark with

capacity for 122 vehicles and free parking for the first two hours. Whilst the car park

would appear to have ample parking availability, access to the carpark is difficult for

westbound traffic on Falcon Street (due to a ―No Right Turn‖ restriction) and

northbound traffic on the Pacific Highway (due to an uncontrolled right turn into Falcon





Street at a major intersection). There are routes around this, however these present a

circuitous route to the store.

On review of the objector‘s traffic report, Council‘s Traffic engineer has concluded that the RTA

rates are likely to be higher than the anticipated parking demand of the proposed development

for the following reason:

- The RTA parking demand rates have been derived from large shopping centre

complexes where there is a large pool of available parking. This would obviously favour

the motor vehicle as a mode of transport and the incidence of multipurpose trips would

be very high.

Council‘s Traffic engineer has concluded that it is most appropriate to apply the parking demand

rates found in Councils Car Parking DCPs. This equates to 44 car spaces under Parking DCP

1995 and 34 car spaces under the Parking DCP 2011.

Council‘s Traffic engineer has been advised by Council‘s Planning Department that the new

Parking DCP is to be given weight in the consideration of the proposed development. It is

conceded that the argument for the higher rate given by the previous DCP has been diminished

by Council‘s adoption of the lower parking rate contained in the new DCP.

The applicant has stated that additional on street parking capacity in New South Head Road will

be provided at the front of the site, as two existing driveway crossovers will be removed by the

proposal. The applicant‘s supplementary report, prepared by Colston Budd Hunt and Kafes Pty

Ltd, dated 04 May 2011, details that three to four additional car spaces will be provided.

The applicant has indicated that they would be prepared to provide a Section 94 Contribution

equivalent to the shortfall under the new Parking DCP 2011.

Under the Parking DCP 2011 the number of off street parking spaces required is 34. The

proposal provides 25 off street parking spaces and creates 3 new on street parking spaces, which

equates to a shortfall of 6 parking spaces.

The parking shortfall is accepted given the degree of non-compliance is relatively minor and the

parking shortfall can be addressed by a section 94 contribution.

Assessment Officers comments:

The retail component guidelines set out under section 6.6.2 of the Rose Bay DCP states that a

minimum of 80% of the required parking is to be provided as an off-site contribution with the

balance of the spaces provided on-site.

Given the potential for the purchase of large quantities of goods at supermarkets it is considered

that whilst it is inappropriate for 80% of the required supermarket car parking to be provided

off-site (in accordance with section 6.6.2) it is considered that a providing 18% (6 off site car

parking spaces) via a contribution is appropriate for the following reasons:

o With a trading floor area of approximately 789m2 and a further 586m

2 of non trading

area, the proposal represents a small to medium scale supermarket. For comparison, the

approximate trading floor areas of a number of local retail stores, have been provided on

under the ‗Use‘ section of this report, within section 14.1.

o The Economic Impact Assessment prepared by the applicant states that ‗typically, most

supermarkets which serve the weekly food and grocery shopping needs of local

residents are around 3,000m2 or greater in size‘.

o Given the size of the trading floor area (789m2), the proposed supermarket would have a

smaller range of goods than a large scale supermarket. The proposed supermarket is

therefore likely to experience a higher level of convenience shopping than a larger full

line supermarket. Consumers undertaking convenience shopping are less likely to be

dependant on private vehicles to travel to and from the supermarket. The provision of

18% of the parking to be provided as a Section 96 contribution for off site parking is

therefore supported.





o Sydney buses operate a number of services along New South Head Road, which provide

service seven days a week to Watsons Bay, Vaucluse, Dover Heights, and the CBD. The

subject site is therefore provided with a reasonable level of access to public transport

services.

o Whilst each application must be assessed on its own merits consideration has been

given to the Land and Environment Court Appeal judgement for the Parisi‘s

Greengrocer on Dover Road, Rose Bay (Parisi V Woollahra Council [2008] NSWLEC

1269. It is acknowledged that the appeal related to a greengrocers and the subject site

benefited from abutting an existing public car park. However, the traffic experts for the

applicant and Council and the presiding Commissioner concluded that it was

appropriate to apply a lower car parking traffic generation rate to the non trading floor

area which comprised storage, office space and staff facilities. If this approach was

applied to the subject site it would result in a reduction to the required number of car

parking spaces at the subject site.

Condition C.3 forms part of the recommendation and requires a car parking contribution under

Council's Section 94 Contributions Plan 2002 of $112,560.00, comprising of 6 car spaces at

$18,760/space.

Other parking issues:

Loss of on street parking:

Concern has been raised that the swept path required for service vehicles to enter the site would

result in a loss of on street parking to Richmond Road. The proposal would not result in a loss of on

street parking to Richmond Road for the following reasons:

The applicant has confirmed that the site can be serviced by vehicles with a maximum length of

8.8m.

The applicant‘s supplementary traffic report, prepared by Colston Budd Hunt and Kafes Pty Ltd,

dated 04 May 2011, demonstrates that swept paths can be provided for an 8.8m long medium

rigid truck without removing any existing on street parking within Richmond Road.

Loss of existing off street parking:

A number of objectors have raised concerns that the proposal would remove a number of car

parking spaces (approved under DA 598/2006) which are designate to a number of existing

businesses within close proximity to the subject site. DA 598/2006 was approved by the

Development Control Committee (DCC) on 03 September 2007, for the demolition of the

outbuildings to the rear of the former Post Office, and the demolition of the pair of semi-detached

dwellings at No.12-14 Richmond Road, and the use of this area as a car park. The car park was to

be a free private car park providing 31 spaces to be used by customers of the local commercial

premises owned by the applicant (including Crystal Car Wash/Shell service station and the Westpac

Bank Building). The proposed car park was proposed as an interim use of the subject site pending

the future re-development of the subject site and adjoining sites. DA consent 598/2006 has not been

enacted upon. The approved hours of operation of the car park were 7am to 7:30pm Monday to

Friday and 8am to 7:30pm on weekends and public holidays.

The redevelopment of the site would not result in any unreasonable impacts, in terms of loss of

parking, to the businesses which were to benefit from the parking approved under DA 598/2006 for

the following reasons:

The commercial premises which were to benefit from the approved parking (including Crystal

Car Wash/Shell service station and the Westpac Bank Building) were all in operation prior to

the approval of DA 598/2006.





The new 31 spaces were therefore not required in order for these businesses to operate. Instead

the proposal provided additional parking over and above what was required.

The proposed parking was to be provided on a temporary basis pending the future re-

development of the subject site and adjoining sites.

There is no obligation for the DA consent to ever be inacted.

For the reasons set out above, subject to conditions included as part of the recommendation

requiring: a s94 parking contribution, the removal of the driveways to New South Head Road, the

provision of plans and specifications for all car and commercial vehicle parking, and the restriction

of the size of service vehicles, the proposal is satisfactory with regards to parking provision.

Independent traffic peer review - Parking

The applicant‘s traffic report and the objector‘s traffic report reach differing conclusions with

regards to whether the proposal provides sufficient parking. Due to the contrasting positions,

Council staff commissioned an independent traffic engineer to carry out a peer review of: the DA

submission, the objectors‘ traffic report, and the Council‘s Traffic Engineer‘s referral responses.

With regards to parking impacts, the independent peer review, reference 11 266, prepared by

Traffix, Traffic and Transport Planners, dated 20 August 2011(hereby referred to as the independent

traffic peer review), concludes that:

Parking Provision

We share the opinion of Council officers that parking for the development should be assessed

with significant weight given to the new DCP 2011, which reflects Council‟s current planning

objectives. Conversely, the outdated DCP which applied at the time of DA lodgement does not

represent current best practice and is outdated. It only arises as a matter for consideration in

the context of a technical (legal) procedural matter; so that little weight should be attached to

it in relation to a merit based assessment.

With an area of 1,365m2 GFA and based on the application of the rate under the current

DCP 2011 of 2.45 spaces/100m2 (3.5 spaces/100m2 x area multiplier of 0.7) the development

requires 34 spaces (rounding up as required). We note that this is the minimum level of

provision and that Council has discretion to vary the rate depending upon the circumstances,

as set out in Section 1.8 of the DCP. This includes consideration of the constraints imposed by

heritage buildings where these reduce the ability of a development to provide the requisite

parking. The site contains the Rose Bay Post Office and it is possible that this has resulted in

a design solution that might otherwise have permitted additional parking to be provided.

Nevertheless, this has not been explored by the applicant and in the circumstances it is

considered that 34 spaces should be accepted as the appropriate level of provision.

In response to this, the development proposes 25 spaces. We note that the development also

results in the removal of existing driveways in New South Head Road and that this results in a

net increase of 4 parking spaces based on Figure 2 attached to the CBHK letter of 4 May

2010. In our view, this additional parking provides a measurable public benefit as it

effectively increases the amount of parking available within the commercial centre. It is also

parking that will be available at the times of peak trading of the development, which is

expected to be on a Thursday and Friday evening; and on a Saturday morning. This will

therefore reduce the „shortfall‟ from 9 spaces (34 less 25) to 5 spaces (34 less 29). In our

view, the payment of a Section 94 contribution for a shortfall of 5 spaces would be

appropriate. This would be the maximum contribution, reflecting circumstances where the

applicant gains no advantage of the heritage status of the existing buildings within the site.

The full independent traffic peer review is attached as annexure 11.





In response to the independent traffic peer review:

The CBHK letter dated 04 May 2011 states that, in practice the increase in on street parking

would be three spaces. Therefore Condition C.3, requires the payment of a Section 94

contribution for a shortfall of 6 spaces.

Vehicular access (6.6.3)


Encourage discrete access to car parking and servicing.

Maximise retail frontage in nominated streets.

Maximise pedestrian safety and amenity by minimising conflict with vehicles.


In the Transition Areas vehicular access must be via a rear lane, rear right of way, or side

street where such access is available.

Driveway widths should be kept to minimum dimensions.

Allow up to one two-way driveway per development. Two single driveways may only be

provided where the distance between crossings exceeds 30 metres.

Driveways to underground car parks should be designed with minimal visual impact on the

street, and maximum pedestrian safety. Pedestrian access to the development should be

separate and clearly defined. Garage doors should be set back. Access ways to underground car

parking should not be located in direct proximity to doors or windows to habitable rooms.

Driveways and kerb crossings must be sited to have minimum impact on the root zone of

existing street trees, and be designed in accordance with the Public Domain Improvements Plan

and Streetscape Design Manual.

Driveways must be located in alignment with the garage. They must occupy a minimum

proportion of any front garden area, up to a maximum width of 6.5 metres, or a maximum area

of 50% of the front garden, whichever is the lesser.

The following comments are made with regards to vehicular access:

The proposal results in the removal of the existing vehicular access to New South Head Road.

This ensures that the retail frontage to New South Head Road is maximised and the public

domain is improved.

The proposed landscape buffer to the Richmond Road frontage, and the landscaping within the

proposed car park area, would ensure that the proposed access and car parking would have a

satisfactory streetscape outcome.

The proposal is satisfactory with regards to vehicle access subject to the following conditions

which have been included as part of the recommendation:

- The creation of a vehicular access easement across No. 759 New South Head Road (Crystal

Car Wash) to enable service vehicles to exit to New South Head Road.

- The prohibition of service vehicles from exiting the subject site via Richmond Road.

- All road and public domain works to be carried out in accordance with Council approval.

- The provision of a traffic (parking signal) system to be installed and operated.

- The provision and approval of a Transport Delivery Management Plan.

- Service vehicles restricted to a maximum length of 8.8m.

- Restrictions on the number of heavy vehicles visiting the site.

- Tree preservation measures to the Richmond Road street trees.





Independent peer review – vehicular access

With regards to vehicular access, the independent peer review, reference 11 266, prepared by

Traffix, Traffic and Transport Planners, dated 20 August 2011(hereby referred to as the independent

traffic peer review), comments have been summaries as follows:

Site Access

It is noted that the RTA has raised no objection to the development and that there is no

proposal to create a new driveway crossing onto New South Head Road, so that the RTA‟s

concurrence is not required. It is noted however that with the constraints associated with the

site the only feasible access for the vast majority of traffic associated with this development is

via the proposed Richmond Road access driveway. This is however entirely consistent with

RTA policy, which seeks to avoid access onto a main road where there is alternate access

available.

The issue arises therefore as to whether the alternate access (i.e. via Richmond Road) is a

suitable access in the circumstances; and whether its use by this development will not create

unacceptable impacts. This is discussed further below but in principle, the proposed access

arrangements are considered the optimal for the site.

Internal Design Aspects

We have reviewed the DA plans prepared by as well as the swept paths provided by CBHK

and we consider that the design is generally supportable, subject to the traffic management

measures addressed in Council‟s assessment report being implemented. These include the

installation of an electronic sign to advise when the car park is full; and the formulation and

implementation of a Loading Dock Management Plan which can be conditioned, subject to

the clarification discussed in the following section.

It is noted that the single disabled parking space (Space 1) does not comply with AS 2890.6 as

required under DCP 2011 and this requires attention by the applicant. That is, if the

applicant is to rely on DCP 2011 in relation to parking supply, then it follows that the DCP

should be adhered to generally.

The full independent traffic peer review is attached as annexure 11.


The disabled parking space has been amended to comply with AS 2890.6.

Site facilities (6.6.4)


Ensure adequate provision of site facilities.

Ensure site facilities are accessible, functional and unobtrusive.


Loading facilities must be provided via a rear lane or side street where such access is available.

Adequate garbage and recycling areas must be provided. These areas are to be visually

integrated with the development to minimise their visibility from the street. Such facilities must





be located away from openable windows to habitable rooms to avoid amenity problems

associated with smell. They must be located close to rear lanes where such access is available.

Note: Information relating to specific requirements for garbage and recycling is contained in

Annexure 10 of Council‟s DA Guide. This note does not form part of the approved DCP, but is

provided for guidance.

The following comments are made with regards to site facilities:

The proposal makes adequate provision for garbage and recycling, which are sited away from

neighbouring properties and are fully enclosed.

Concern has been raised by a number of objector‘s in relation to the potential for service

vehicles to conflict with the operations of the car wash and with pedestrians entering the

supermarket.

A condition has been imposed upon the consent which requires a Transport Delivery

Management Plan to ensure that all service deliveries are conducted in a safe and efficient

manner. The management plan must include a delivery schedule and measures to be

implemented for service vehicles reversing into the site.

Council‘s Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal, and subject to conditions, raises no issues

in relation to the location and function of the proposed site facilities.

Subject to conditions, the proposed service vehicle arrangements are satisfactory.

Application of bonuses – Section 6.7

The aim of a bonus system is to encourage the provision of public benefits as part of the

redevelopment of privately owned sites. In return Council will offer certain concessions with regard

to development standards and controls.

The Rose Bay Urban Design Study identified the need for better pedestrian and vehicular

circulation within the Centre. Council encourages the inclusion of ‗through block connections‘, in

specific areas, in private developments. These may include arcades, through shop links, shareways,

laneways and rights of way.


Improve the pedestrian circulation in the Centre by providing arcades, through shop links, and

shareways in key locations, as identified in figure „Areas Designated for Through Block

Connections‟ and „Detailed Location Plan‟.

Facilitate rear site access for car parking and servicing to avoid vehicular crossings on

principal streets by providing new laneways and rights of way as identified in figure „Areas

Designated for Through Block Connections‟ and „Detailed Location Plan‟ .

The following comments are made with regards to through block connections:

The amended scheme provides a through site link through the shop and car park. This provides

an unobstructed pedestrian access between New South Head Road and Richmond Road during

opening hours.

With regard to development standards and controls, no specific concessions have been

requested by the applicant or provided by Council as a result of the provision of a through block

connection.

14.2 Car Parking Development Control Plans

Car Parking DCP 1995:





The proposal generally accords with the objectives of the now superseded car parking development

control plan 1995.

Car Parking DCP 2011:

This is addressed within the on-site parking section of the report above, with the exception of the

following issues:

Section 8.1 ‗Location of parking areas‘ states that where more than 20 car parking spaces are to be

provided on site, Council will require the car parking spaces to be accommodated undercover or in

a basement area. Notwithstanding the proposed non-compliance with section 8.1 the proposal is

satisfactory for the following reasons:

Enclosing the parking area would present additional bulk and mass to the streetscape and

neighbouring properties.

The level of the existing water table makes the provision of basement parking in Rose Bay

difficult.

Subject to conditions the proposed car park area would not result in any unreasonable

impacts in terms of loss of acoustic privacy to the neighbouring properties.

The design of the proposed car park, vehicular access and deep soil landscaping would

ensure that the proposed car park area would have a satisfactory streetscape outcome.

Section 8.3 ‗Signposting‘ requires parking areas to be well signposted. Condition C.14 ensures that

adequate signage is provided to indicate customer parking and entry and exit points.

Subject to conditions the proposal generally accords with the Car Parking Development Control

Plan 2011.

14.3 Woollahra Access DCP

The provisions of Council's Access DCP require the provision of adequate access to the

development by all people in the community including people with disabilities. The proposal

provides for an internal disabled access ramp adjacent to the main entrance, and a disabled car

parking space. The recommended conditions of consent would ensure compliance with the

provisions of the Australian Standard AS1428.1 1993 Design for Access and Mobility and the

Building Code of Australia. Subject to these conditions, the proposal could provide adequate

pedestrian access including persons with disabilities.

14.4 Other DCPs, codes and policies

No other controls apply.

15. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS

The proposal would comply by condition.

16. THE LIKELY IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL

All likely impacts of the proposal have been assessed elsewhere in this report with the exception of

the following:





16.1 Traffic generation

The following objectives set out under Clause 2, point d) of the LEP 1995 are applicable:

(v) to minimise conflict between pedestrians and vehicles,

(vi) to minimise conflict between transport and land use activities,

(vii) to minimise the impact, on adjoining residential areas, of traffic and parking generated

by commercial areas,

The proposal was referred to Council‘s Traffic Engineer. The full referral response is attached as

Annexure 2. The following is a summary of the Council‘s Traffic Engineer‘s comments with

regards to traffic generation:

Guidelines for assessing the impacts of additional traffic generation:

The impact of the proposed traffic generation has been assessed against the RTA guidelines

“Guide to Traffic Generating Development”.

The RTA guidelines address:

- Road capacity which relates to the efficiency of a roadway. For local roads this is typically

defined by the serviceability of the bounding intersections. The RTA provides grades of

intersection performance based on delay periods and queue lengths and refers to this

classification as the Level of Service (LOS).

- Environmental Capacity which relates to the impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

This can be defined as the maximum level of traffic volume that can be accommodated until

it becomes detrimental to the standard of living of surrounding residents (including such

factors as noise, vibration and pollution) and on road safety and amenity (including both

vehicle and pedestrian traffic).

- Section 4.3.5 of the RTA document ―Guide to Traffic Generating Development‖ provides

two levels of performance standards which stipulate maximum vehicles per hour based on

the classification of the roadway and typical speed environment. These limits define an

environmental goal (which is desirable) and maximum. In accordance with this Guide,

Richmond Road has an environmental goal of 200 vehicles per hour (vph) and a maximum

level of 300 vph. It is pertinent to note however that the RTA guide states that tolerance

levels to increased traffic volumes vary greatly amongst residents and further notes that

there is no particular level where problems begin to emerge. The document also goes on to

state the environmental capacities may vary due to road width and the composition of traffic

(e.g. % of heavy vehicle traffic).

Estimated Traffic Generation:

Three traffic reports have been provided to Council, one prepared on behalf of the applicant, one

prepared on behalf of the owner of the subject site, and one prepared on behalf of a number of

the objectors.

Each of the submitted Traffic Reports has presented alternate estimates of traffic generation

essentially based on the traffic generation rates provided in the RTA's Guide to Traffic

Generating Developments. The traffic reports all acknowledge some discount should apply to the

RTA's traffic generation rate as it is based upon developments having unrestricted access to

parking. In respect of this, each of the reports has alternate opinions in relation to the size of the

discount. These are summarised as follows:





1. The applicant‘s and owner‘s traffic reports present a traffic generation rate of vehicle

trips per hour, derived from the proposed 25 car spaces. This is calculated by utilising

the RTA‘s traffic generation rate divided by the RTA‘s parking demand estimate (57 car

spaces). The resulting rate has been multiplied by the proposed 25 car spaces, producing

a vehicle trip generation rate of 90 vehicle trips per hour for the Thursday peak period.

2. The objector‘s traffic report has presented the RTA generation rate for the Friday peak

period (188 vehicle trips per hour) and discounted this by the ratio of Council‘s Parking

DCP (1995) (44 car spaces) from the RTA‘s 57 car spaces. This results in a peak traffic

generation rate of 145 vehicle trips per hour.

On review of the applicant‘s traffic generation approach, Council‘s Traffic engineer has

concluded that this approach underestimates traffic generation from the development as it

precludes traffic accessing the parking area despite all spaces being occupied. Furthermore, it

precludes any traffic that may elect to utilise on street parking on route to the store.

Council‘s Traffic engineer has concluded that the RTA‘s traffic generation rates would be

overestimated for the site, for the same reasons stated previously in relation to the RTA‘s

parking demand estimates. The RTA‘s rates include potential for multipurpose trips and assume

there is ample parking availability in these centres thereby encouraging motor vehicle use.

Council‘s Traffic engineer has concluded that it is, most appropriate to apply the RTA traffic

generation rate discounted by the ratio of Councils car parking DCP car parking requirements.

This is presented in the CHA report as 145 vehicle trips per hour for the Friday afternoon peak

period.

It is to be noted that as the estimate is based upon Council‘s parking requirements, it will

consequently be reduced should Council‘s Planning Department place any weight on the

application of the new Car Parking DCP 2011. Based on the reduced parking demand rate of this

control, the resulting traffic generation estimate is then 112 vehicle trips per hour for the Friday

afternoon peak period.

The estimated traffic generation rate is a Friday afternoon peak period. The Thursday afternoon

period is expected to be higher. Utilising the same approach accepted above the peak period

traffic generation is estimated at 162 vehicle trips/ hour under the Car parking DCP 1995 and

125 vehicle trips per hour based on the new car parking DCP 2011

The distribution of the additional traffic:

The application and impact of the estimated traffic generation level on the surrounding road

network is complex given there are a number of variables and conditions that influence parking

habits of customers and traffic flows.

With regards to the distribution of the traffic generated by the proposal, Engineering Services

considers that a great majority of customer traffic for the afternoon peak will be commuting from

the city and may either approach from Norwich Road or Newcastle Street (pending on the state

of the traffic signals in New South Head Road). However there will be a greater trend to exit to

Newcastle Street given the majority of customers would be outward bound from the city.

Assuming this trip distribution and applying the estimated traffic generation of 145 vehicle trips

per hour under the Car parking DCP 1995, and 112 under the car parking DCP 2011, the

following table is provided (in part reproduced from the objector‘s traffic report (Table 3.1)).





Road

Friday Afternoon (Vehicle Per Hour)

Existing

vehicles

per hour

Applicant’s estimation

of additional vehicles

per hour generated by

the development

Council’s Engineering Services

estimation of additional vehicles

per hour generated by the

development

Car Parking

DCP 1995

Car Parking

DCP 2011

New South Head Road

- east of Newcastle Road

- west of Newcastle Road

- west of Norwich Road

1985

2030

2195

+30

+0

+40

+40

+15

+51

+31

+12

+39

Newcastle Road

- south of New South Head

Road

- south of Richmond Road

505

475

+30

+20

+55

+29

+43

+22

Richmond Road

- east of Newcastle Road

- west of Norwich Road

215

215

+50

+40

+94

+51

+73

+39

Norwich Road

- south of New South Head

Road

- south of Richmond Road

285

90

+40

+0

+51

+0

+39

+0

Traffic Generation Impacts:

General traffic generation:

The projected traffic volumes during the Friday afternoon peak hour for the eastern end of

Richmond Road are estimated to be a total of 309 vehicles per hour under the Parking DCP 1995

and 288 under the Parking DCP 2011. Under the Parking DCP 1995 the proposal will be above

the maximum environmental capacity level as defined by the RTA‘s Guide to Traffic Generating

Developments. However, under the Parking DCP 2011 the proposal will be within the maximum

environmental capacity level.

Council‘s Planning Department have indicated that a major point of objection to the

development from residents surrounding the site is the opinion that Richmond Road will be

unable to accommodate the resulting traffic volumes after the development is completed. It is

stated that due to the relatively narrow road width, the prevalence of on-street parking and road

alignment, the roadway is not conducive for two way traffic flow, and significant congestion will

result once the development is completed.

Engineering Services advises that the roadway has sufficient width to allow two vehicles to pass

however traffic significantly slows when there is conflicting vehicle flows. It is unlikely that

there will be extreme congestion such to effect the adjoining road network from the additional

traffic volumes.

The applicant has identified that Richmond Road is used as a ‗rat run‘ (subject to non-local

through traffic) as some city bound traffic utilises this route to avoid delays at the signalised

intersection of Newcastle Road and New South Head Road. The applicant has stated that the

level of non-local through-traffic will be reduced, as additional traffic volumes resulting from the

development will no longer make Richmond Road an efficient detour. Engineering Services

agrees with this position. However, it is foreseeable that some of this through-traffic will be

diverted to Norwich Lane. The applicant has indicated support to implement measures (to be

determined by Council) to address this.





Council‘s Manager of Engineering Services has investigated Norwich Lane and advises that an

appropriate traffic calming measure would include narrowing the carriageway by establishing a

footpath, kerb and gutter and the implementation of a Watts profile speed hump. This would

improve pedestrian safety and act as a traffic calming measure. As these measures are subject to

agreement by the Local Traffic Committee, the condition of consent should make provision for

an alternative measure decided upon by the Local Traffic Committee. This forms condition C.4.

The applicant has noted that similar roads in the Municipality operate effectively with traffic

volumes above the environmental capacity. Furthermore, the applicant is of the view that

Richmond Road cannot be classified purely as a local road, given properties on the northern side

of the roadway are zoned for commercial and retail development.

Council‘s Manager of Engineering Services accepts that whilst the roadway has physical

characteristics of a local road, the zoning of the land on the northern side of Richmond Road is

retail/commercial. As it cannot be classified purely as a local road, it is therefore conceded that

the environmental capacity for Richmond Road would be higher than those specified in the

RTA‘s Guidelines.

Service vehicle generation:

With regards to the impact of service vehicles upon the local road network, the applicant has

advised in the supplementary traffic report, prepared by Colston Budd Hunt and Kafes Pty Ltd,

dated 04 May 2011, that they would be able to undertake service deliveries using service

vehicles with a maximum length of 8.8m. The applicant has also indicated that delivery

schedules can be restricted to no more than 3 heavy vehicles (heavy vehicles being over 7.5m in

length as per NSW Road Rules) a day to address concerns related to the impact on traffic flow

and parking in Richmond Road.

Council‘s Engineering services originally had concerns that heavy vehicles in Richmond Road

would cause congestion and impair the operation of the roadway. Subject to condition C.14

which restrict the size and number of heavy vehicles, the relatively low level of heavy vehicle

activity is unlikely to adversely affect traffic flow or parking conditions in the area.

To ensure that all service vehicles exit the site via New South Head Road rather than Richmond

Road, the applicant is required to establish a right of way over No. 759 New South Head Road

(Crystal Car Wash) to be maintained over the life of the development. This forms deferred

commencement condition A.1.

Assessment Officers comments:

The views of Council‘s Traffic Engineer are generally concurred with.

The subject site is located in a transition zone, in accordance with the transition zone planning

principle referenced in section 11.2 of this report, the residents living on the southern side of

Richmond Road, within the residential zone, must accept that commercial uses are permissible

within the subject site and whilst impacts must be within reason they can nevertheless occur.

With regards to calculating traffic generation Council‘s Traffic engineer has concluded that it is

most appropriate to apply the RTA traffic generation rate discounted by the ratio of Councils car

parking DCP car parking requirements. This is a similar approach to that provided within the

traffic report prepared on behalf of the objectors.

Applying the newly adopted car parking DCP 2011 car parking requirements would result in a

reduction to the traffic generation rate when compared to the application of the superseded car

parking DCP 1995 car parking requirements. Given that the Parking DCP 2011 provides up to

date policies which reflect Council‘s current objectives, consideration has been given to

provisions contained within the Parking DCP 2011.





The projected traffic volumes during the afternoon peak hour for the eastern end of Richmond

Road are estimated to be 288 vehicles per hour when the car parking DCP 2011 is applied. The

projected traffic volumes within Richmond Road are within the RTA‘s maximum environmental

capacity level.

The RTA environmental capacity guidelines provide two levels of performance standards; an

environmental goal (which is desirable) and a maximum. Whilst the proposal may exceed the

desirable capacity goal the proposal is within the maximum capacity level. Given the

commercial zoning of this site this is considered to be reasonable. Specifically, it is not

uncommon for roads within a commercial zone to operate near to capacity given the traffic

generating nature of commercial areas.

The recommended conditions of consent would:

- Restrict the size and number of service vehicles.

- Ensure that all service vehicles exit the site via New South Head Road.

- Provide traffic calming measures to Norwich Lane to ensure that any traffic displaced

from Richmond Road would not adversely impact upon the amenity of Norwich Lane.

Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal accords with the objectives set out under

Clause 2, point d) of the LEP 1995 in relation to traffic and transport. Specifically, the

recommended conditions adequately minimise the impact of the traffic generated by the

proposed commercial use upon the adjoining residential area.

Independent peer review – traffic generation and associated impacts:

With regards to traffic generation and associated impacts, the independent peer review, reference 11

266, prepared by Traffix, Traffic and Transport Planners, dated 20 August 2011(hereby referred to

as the independent traffic peer review), comments have been summarised as follows:

Traffic Generation and External Traffic Impacts

It is evident that in a global sense (within the Rose Bay Commercial Centre generally) the

traffic generation associated with the site will relate to the entire demand of 34 spaces as

derived from the DCP, wherever this demand is met. This includes on-site, on-street or within

public car parks in the locality. In this regard, these 34 spaces are expected to generate a trip

rate of 3.7 vtph per space based on the RTA‟s Guideline (for a Thursday evening peak) and

this equates to an average „dwell‟ time of 32 minutes. This is arguably high but is appropriate

for adoption to assess a worst case for planning purposes and on this basis, the development

will generate a total of 126 veh/hr during a Thursday PM peak (63 in, 63 out)and these will

be dispersed as follows:

93 veh/hr within the site (25 x 3.7);

15 veh/hr on-street (4 x 3.7); and

18 veh/hr associated with public parking provided by way of contribution (5 x 3.7).

We note and agree with the proposition by all experts that these volumes create no external

traffic issues in relation to the capacity of the road network.

Environmental Amenity Impacts

These impacts technically only arise in relation to Richmond Road in the context of the 25

spaces that are accessed via this road. However, there is a reasonable prospect that at peak

times, drivers will arrive at the site in the expectation of finding an available space; and then

have to leave the site via Richmond Road to circulate in search of an available space

elsewhere. In this regard, the proposed electronic signage will not overcome this behaviour

as the sign is to be located within the site and only visible once a driver has committed to

using Richmond Road.





Notwithstanding this, patrons will generally be regular users of the site and it is reasonable to

expect that some of these people will rely on the 9 spaces that are provided external to the site

elsewhere, including on-street in New South Head Road and within public parking areas that

have been partly funded by the development through a Section 94 contribution. Having

regard for this, we consider that a reasonable assumption would be to assume that 50% of

the traffic using these „external‟ spaces will attempt to access the on-site parking, so that the

overall traffic in Richmond Road will be as follows:

93 veh/hr (46 in, 47 out) within the site (i.e. 25 spaces x 3.7);

8 veh/hr associated with „unsuccessful‟ cars on arrival (50% of the balance of 16

arrivals); and

8 veh/hr as these unsuccessful drivers immediately depart the area

That is, there will be a total of 109 veh/hr generated onto Richmond Road (say 110 veh/hr)

during the critical PM peak period. In our view, demands in the AM peak will be moderate

and we accept the general assumption that for planning purposes, AM peak flows will be 60%

of the PM peak flows. Further, as parking demands will be able to be accommodated within

the site in the morning, the resultant 76 veh/hr (60% of 126 veh/hr) will use Richmond Road.

The CBHK traffic report has assumed that 60% of all traffic using the Richmond Road access

will travel to/from the east via Newcastle Street; with 40% travelling to/from the west via

Norwich Road. On this basis, the traffic volume increases on these sections of road will be as

shown in Table 1 below on a typical Friday, based on the CBHK survey results:

It is evident from the Table 1 that traffic volumes on any section on Richmond Road will at all

times remain below the „environmental goal‟ of 300 veh/hr, assuming for the moment that this

is a relevant criteria.

Nevertheless, we note that the surveys undertaken by C Hallam & Associates undertaken

separately resulted in different traffic volumes. Using these survey results, the resulting traffic

volume increases on a typical Friday would be as shown in Table 2 below:





It is evident from the Table 2 that traffic volumes on any section on Richmond Road will still

remain below the „environmental goal‟ of 300 veh/hr, again assuming that this is a relevant

criteria. On this basis, we conclude that the development will create no unacceptable impacts

on the environmental amenity of residents on this street. We also note that while background

traffic volumes on other weekdays may be higher, the supermarket would typically generate

lower volumes on those days.

With regard to the concept of environmental amenity generally, we note that the amenity

thresholds outlined above relate to a residential street and that even with an exclusively

residential street, there are factors that warrant variations to these thresholds. One such

factor is the use of traffic management devices which can increase environmental amenity by

reducing speeds. In our view, the relatively narrow width of Richmond Road, the presence of

kerbside parking, the limited length of the street, and the curvilinear alignment are all factors

that would reduce speeds and thereby increase the environmental capacity threshold.

Arguably of more relevance however is the fact that Richmond Road is not a residential street

as contemplated in the RTA‟s Guideline. It is a street that lies along the southern boundary of

commercially zoned land and it therefore has a legitimate service function, particularly where

the RTA policy would not support direct access onto New South Head Road. In these

circumstances, the environmental capacity is higher and residents in a street such as

Richmond Road should not in our view have the same expectation of amenity as would be

available within an exclusively residential area. Nevertheless, these factors are not brought to

bear in circumstances where the amenity threshold is not exceeded. Rather, it may be

considered to provide a „safety margin‟ in the event that higher traffic generation rates were

to be considered.

Finally, we note that the traffic volumes assessed above are „peak volumes‟ that do not occur

on all weekdays. Conversely, the environmental amenity threshold is associated with traffic

volumes that occur on a daily basis (rather than peak weekday volumes that only occur on

two weekdays) and this therefore provides a further safety margin. We also note that the

above conclusions are not affected by the range of traffic generation assessed by the various

traffic experts.

In summary, we do not consider that the application creates any unacceptable impacts in

relation to environmental amenity on Richmond Road; or any other local road in the vicinity.





External Road Improvements

We note that Council‟s Traffic Engineer has recommended that traffic calming measures be

implemented in Norwich Lane to prevent any increase of non-local through traffic. Such

works are to be implemented following approval by Council‟s Traffic Committee and may be

revised as part of this process. The works are outlined in the response of Technical Services

dated 20th May 2011 to Council‟s Senior Assessment Officer and include:

“Narrowing of the carriageway by establishing a footpath, kerb and gutter and the

implementation of a Watts profile speed hump. The applicant must liaise with Council‟s

Traffic section regarding the location of the new speed hump.”

The proposed development is likely to generate an additional 44 veh/hr in Norwich Road

during the PM peak based on our assessment above, with most of this traffic traversing the

section between Richmond Road and New South Head Road. This is less than one additional

vehicle movement per minute and this increase does not in itself create a need for a traffic

control device to be constructed, particularly where the supermarket has a potential to reduce

rat-running due to „side friction‟ effects in Richmond Road. Nevertheless, such a traffic device

will increase the environmental capacity of Norwich Lane by reducing speeds, as discussed in

Section 4.3.5 of the RTA‟s Guidelines; and this is an appropriate objective. The device may

also of itself remove some rat-running traffic thereby reducing traffic volumes and this is also

a desirable objective. Accordingly, implementation of this device is supported. In our view

there is a shared responsibility for its funding (between Council and the applicant), given that

the device is in part required to address an existing problem (rat-running) which is not

attributable to the proposed development. This is a matter for Council, noting that such a

device may be regarded as a low-cost measure.

Finally, we note that any condition relating to this device needs to have certainty and that the

current intention to accommodate any changes that the Traffic Committee may require is

uncertain. We therefore recommend that Council either describe the works more definitively;

or incorporate a concept plan into any condition that might be contemplated, so that the

nature and scope of the calming attached to any consent works is known.

Service Vehicles

The revised delivery schedule prepared by Scott Carver in its letter dated 19 August identifies

8-10 deliveries per day and this level of activity has been relatively consistently advised by the

applicant, with the CBHK Traffic Report of August 2010 stating (in Para 3.13) that:

“The number of deliveries will be low at some 6 to 8 per day, with the majority of those being

by vans and small trucks.”

This estimate was based on the use of 10.7m trucks once per day. The decision by the

applicant to rely on a maximum 8.8m truck (MRV) appears to have (logically) resulted in a

slight increase in the service volume from 6-8 trucks to 8-10 trucks. The most recent delivery

schedule prepared by Scott Carver has been reviewed and it is evident that on a typical

weekday, there will be about:

6 deliveries by trucks 8.8m or less (2 before 10am); and

4 deliveries by lite van/truck (3 before 10am).





It is probably reasonable to assume that the former (larger) trucks are in the range of 6.4m to

8.8m (SRV to MRV) and that the lite vans/trucks are smaller than a 6.4m SRV. It is unclear

from the application whether all these trucks are to enter the site and access the dock under

supervision; and also whether all these trucks are to exit via New South Head Road and this

requires clarification by the applicant. As there is no waiting area within the site it is also

necessary to ensure that there will be no more than one service vehicles on-site at any one

time and this outcome needs to be essentially guaranteed and demonstrated by the applicant

prior to any approval being granted. In this regard, while Woolworths may be in a position to

control the arrival of trucks from their distribution centre, this may not be possible in relation

to independent suppliers. This situation is also made more critical in circumstances where

there may occasionally be a need for cars to undertake a „U‟ turn manoeuvre in the vicinity of

the dock, in the event that all parking spaces are occupied (for example, two cars may enter

the site together whereas only a single space is available, with the electronic display

indicating that there is available parking).

Construction Traffic Impacts

It is considered that a standard condition of consent should be imposed on the development

requiring the preparation of a detailed Construction Traffic and Pedestrian Management

Plan.


External Road Improvements:

Council‘s Traffic Engineer has provided the following comments in relation to external road

improvements:

The comments regarding the recommended traffic calming measures in Norwich Lane by the

Council engaged Traffic consultant (Graham Pindar – Traffix) have been noted.

Whilst there is a significant level of non-local through traffic (“rat running”) occurring in

Norwich Lane and Richmond Road, the current levels and speeds are insufficient to warrant

traffic calming measures to be implemented. Traffic counts undertaken by Council indicate

both roadways convey relatively low traffic volumes for an inner city urban area and traffic

speeds are within the posted speed limit.

The approval and implementation of such measures are a protracted process warranting

resident consultation and support, Local Traffic Committee approval and Council‟s own

Community and Environment Committee approval. For this reason, the recommended

condition requires some flexibility to accommodate amendments to the works resulting from

this process. It is to be noted that the applicant has also agreed to this arrangement.

Condition C.4 requires traffic calming measures to Norwich Lane, subject to resident consultation

and support, and Local Traffic Committee approval.

Service vehicles:

The applicant has confirmed, in an email dated 23 September 2011, that:

All trucks would access the loading dock under supervision and exit via New South Head

Road.

The vehicles from Woolworths distribution centre can be staggered so that there will be no

more than one service vehicle on site at any one time. The arrival of small vans from external

suppliers cannot be controlled.





There is no objection to a condition which restricts the length of the vehicles to a maximum of

8.8m and an average limit of 3, 8.8m vehicle deliveries per day over a typical week.

Condition C.14 requires the delivery vehicles to be equipped with a two way radio or mobile

phone. The drivers of the delivery vehicles shall be instructed by his/her written instructions, to

contact the Woolworth‘s loading dock supervisor, prior to the truck entering Richmond Road, in

order that the supervisor may thereby ensure that a member of his/her staff may be present to ensure

that the driveway is clear and safe for the truck‘s entry.

The applicant has provided

Construction vehicle traffic impacts:

Condition D.5 requires the preparation of a detailed Construction Traffic and Pedestrian

Management Plan.

On 14 December 2011, a further traffic peer review was provided on behalf of an objector, prepared

by Christopher Hallam and Associates, reference 2839. The issues raised in the objector‘s peer

review, are largely addressed above, with the exception of the following:

In relation to the traffic surveys undertaken in Richmond Road, the objector‘s peer review states

that, the Council commissioned peer review has applied the traffic counts incorrectly. The

objector‘s peer review states that if the existing traffic flows are correctly applied the proposal

would exceed the maximum environmental goal for Richmond Road.

It is noted that, even if this view is supported, it appears that the non-compliance would only

occur for one hour on Friday afternoon, and at all other times the proposal would accord with

the maximum environmental goal. A one hour non-compliance with maximum environmental

goal would not warrant the refusal of the application.

Subject to the above conditions, the proposal is satisfactory with regards to traffic generation.

16.2 Economic Impact

Many of the submissions have raised objections on the basis of increased competition with other

retailers in the locality. Concern has been expressed that the proposed supermarket may put other

shops out of business, and in doing so, reduce the level of service offered to the community.

Whilst s79C (1) (b) (b) of the EP & A Act 1979, requires the evaluation of the proposal in terms of

the likely impacts of that development, including environmental impacts on both the natural and

built environments, and social and economic impacts in the locality, the following case law clearly

states that competition between a proposed use of a building and other businesses within the same

locality is not a matter for consideration under the EP & A Act 1979.

Fabcot v Hawkesbury City Council was a class 1 appeal from the refusal of Hawkesbury City

Council to grant development consent to a development application for a Woolworths supermarket

to be located outside the town centre of Windsor. One of the issues, numbered 5, was whether the

proposed supermarket would have an adverse economic impact on existing and planned retail

supermarkets within the Hawkesbury city local government area. That issue was not considered

under then s 90(1)(d) (superseded by the provisions of s79C).

Lloyd J decided that issue number 5 did not raise a planning or environmental consideration. In so

concluding, his Honour said at p378:





Similarly, economic competition between individual trade competitors is not an environmental or

planning consideration to which the economic effect described in s 90(1)(d) is directed. The Trade

Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) are the appropriate vehicles for

regulating economic competition. Neither the Council nor this Court is concerned with the mere

threat of economic competition between competing businesses. In an economy such as ours that is a

matter to be resolved by market forces, subject to the Trade Practices Act and the Fair Trading Act.

It is not part of the assessment of a proposal under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

for a consent authority to examine and determine the economic viability of a particular proposal or

the effect of any such proposal on the economic viability of a trade competitor. Moreover, it is at

least arguable from the fact that the Trade Practices Act now applies to local government councils,

that if a local council were to refuse or to limit a proposal for development on the ground of

competition with a trade competitor, it could be guilty of anti-competitive conduct contrary to Pt 4

of that Act.

As previously stated, Rose Bay centre provides a wide variety of retail uses. These include Motor

Vehicle Services (fuel retailing, automotive services, etc), Commercial retail (banking, real estate,

etc), Personal services (hairdressers, laundrettes, cafes, restaurants, etc) Personal and Household

Goods retail (clothing, stationary, pharmaceuticals, etc) and food retailing (food shops, takeaways,

etc). Many of the services and facilities which are provided by the existing retail outlets would not

be provided by the proposed supermarket. This will ensure that the proposal would not have an

overall adverse impact on the extent and adequacy of local community services and facilities.

17. THE SUITABILITY OF THE SITE

The subject site is located within a General Business 3(a) Zone. The proposal would improve the

provision of retail uses within the Rose Bay Centre by providing a new supermarket. Furthermore

the proposal would provide up to 20-30 additional full and part time employment positions.

It is acknowledged that the proposal will impact upon the residential amenity of the neighbouring

residential lands, specifically with regards to acoustic, parking and traffic impacts. However,

subject to conditions which have been included as part of the recommendation, the impact of the

proposed commercial use upon neighbouring residential lands will be appropriately managed.

18. SUBMISSIONS

The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council‘s Advertising and

Notifications DCP.

The original proposal attracted the following submissions:

4 letters of support

64 letters of objection

A petition with 419 signatures was tabled at the Council meeting on 09 February 2009.

A petition with 250 signatures was tabled at the Council meeting on 11 May 2009.

The first amended proposal attracted the following submissions:


A petition with 607 signatures was tabled at the Council meeting on 13 July 2009.

The second amended proposal attracted the following submissions:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/epaaa1979389/s90.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fta1987117/




http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/epaaa1979389/



http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/index.html#p4





3 letters of support


A petition with 150 signatures was tabled at the Council meeting on 11 October 2010.

A petition with 440 signatures was tabled at the Council meeting on 01 November 2010.

A petition with 1321 signatures was tabled at the Council meeting on 01 November

2010.

The third amended proposal attracted the following submissions:

8 letters of objection.

The fourth amended proposal attracted the following submissions:

20 letters of objection.

This comprises of a total of:

167 letters of objections.

6 petitions of objection containing approximately 3187 signatures.

7 letters of support.

The objections raised numerous issues with the proposal, seven key issues emerged which

consistently appeared in many of the submissions. These are listed below: A matrix of the

submissions is attached as Annexure 12.

Key issues:

1. Impacts to the Heritage Item (former Post Office).

2. Impacts upon the Rose Bay streetscape and village character.

3. Impact upon the existing shops within the Rose Bay Centre.

4. Impacts upon parking, traffic and pedestrian safety

5. Acoustic impacts.

6. The potential for the proposal to be amended to a Dan Murphy Liquor retailer

7. Environmental Sustainability

The issues raised are addressed as follow:

1. Impacts to the Heritage Item (former Post Office):

a. Fails to retain sufficient significant fabric.

b. Unacceptably impacts upon the heritage significance of the heritage item.

Council Response: These issues are addressed within the ‗Clauses 26-33 Heritage and conservation

area provisions‘ and ‗Heritage & conservation (6.3.4)‘ sections of the report.

2. Impacts upon the Rose Bay streetscape and village character.

Council Response: This is addressed within section 14 of the report.

3. Impact upon the existing shops within the Rose Bay Centre:

a. It will adversely impact upon small businesses.

b. It will reduce the variety of products available in Rose Bay.

c. It will encourage a monopoly within Rose Bay.

Council Response: These issues are addressed within the ‗Draft State Environmental Planning

Policy (Competition) 2010‘ and ‗Economic Impact‘ sections of the report.





4. Impacts upon parking, traffic and pedestrian safety:

a. Insufficient parking.

b. Congestion.

c. Deliveries.

d. There is no waiting zone for delivery vehicles.

e. Pedestrian safety.

f. Conflict with the car wash operations.

g. The inappropriateness of providing a s94 contribution for parking.

h. Access for emergency vehicles.

i. Garbage collection.

j. The proposed car park provides no separate pedestrian access.

k. The proposal removes the parking approved for a number of existing businesses in Rose

Bay.

l. Providing an access for service vehicles from Richmond Road would require the

removal of on street parking.

m. Loss of on street car parking.

n. The inappropriateness of applying the 2011 Parking Development Control Plan.

o. The classification of Richmond Road.

p. Loss of car parking approved under DA 598/2006 at the subject site.

q. The inappropriateness of siting DA consent 598/2006 as justification for the subject

proposal.

Council Response: These issues are addressed within the ‗The aims and objectives of the WLEP

1995‘, ‗development control plans‘ and ‗traffic generation‘ sections of the report.

5. Acoustic Impacts

Council Response: This issue is addressed within the ‗Visual and Acoustic Privacy‘ section of the

report.

6. The potential for the proposal to be amended to a Dan Murphy Liquor retailer.

Council Response: The subject application is for a supermarket. Amending the proposal to a Dan

Murphy Liquor retailer would require a new Development Application. Any new development

application would be assessed on merit. As the subject application does not propose a Dan Murphy

Liquor retailer the impact of such a proposal is not a relevant planning consideration under the

current Development Application.

7. Environmental Sustainability of a supermarket.

Council Response: This issue is addressed within the ‗energy efficiency‘ section of the report.

8. Solar access.

Council Response: This issue is addressed within the ‗Solar access & natural daylight‘ section of

the report.





9. Stormwater runoff.

Council Response: This issue is addressed within the ‗Clause 25 Water, wastewater and

stormwater‘ and ‗stormwater‘ section of the report.

10. The proposal is not appropriate in a transition area as identified in the Rose Bay Centre DCP.

Council Response: This issue is addressed within the ‗Development Control Plan‘ section of the

report.

11. Advertising signage will adversely impact upon the streetscape

Council Response: This issue is addressed within the ‗State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP)

64-Advertising and Signage‘ and ‗Signage & advertising‘ section of the report.

12. Excessive hours of operation.

Council Response: The proposed hours of operation are trading hours of 7am to 10pm Monday to

Sunday (seven days a week). Condition I.1 provides a trial period for the proposed hours of use.

This is to ensure that the proposed use would not adversely impact upon the acoustic privacy, and

residential amenity of the neighbouring properties. For the first 12 months that the supermarket is in

operation, the hours of use are limited to 7am-10pm. After the first 12 months that the supermarket

is in operation, the hours of use are limited to 7am-7pm. If a section 96 application is submitted to

Council to amended condition I.1 to maintain the longer opening hours, Council will review the

hours of use to assess the magnitude of that operational regime on the adjacent residential

properties.

13. Car park lighting – light pollution

Council Response: The issue of light pollution is addressed by condition I.12 of the

recommendation.

14. Customer Vehicle headlights – light pollution to neighbouring residents

Council Response: It is considered that the light from the headlights of customer‘s vehicles entering

and exiting the site would not unreasonably impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring

properties. This view is formed taking into consideration: the commercial zoning of the subject site,

the separation distance to the closest properties to the southern side of Richmond Road (30m), and

the frequency of movements during the evening period. Furthermore condition I.1 provides a trial

period for the proposed hours of use after 7pm. This is to ensure that the proposed use would not

adversely impact upon the acoustic privacy, and residential amenity of the neighbouring properties.

15. Access and mobility.

Council Response: This issue is addressed within the ‗Access and mobility‘ section of the report.





16. Description of site and owners consent.

Council Response: The site address includes all properties which form part of the subject site. This

includes 759 New South Head Road, Rose Bay (Crystal Car wash) which provides egress for

service vehicles. Owners consent has been provided for all of the properties which form the subject

site.

17. The loss of a through site pedestrian connection.

Council Response: This issue is addressed within the ‗Urban Structure‘ section of the report.

18. Trees and landscaping

Council Response: This issue is addressed within the ‗soft landscaping‘ section of the report.

19. Undesirable elements would be attracted to the area which would impact upon safety.

Council Response: The proposal was reviewed by Council‘s Urban Design Planner, which

considered the design of the proposal‘s potential to attract antisocial behaviour. Condition C.2 of

the recommendation requires seating or appropriate landscaping to be provided to the recess to New

South Head Road, between the former post office and former car showroom to prevent this area

from becoming a litter trap or attracting anti-social behaviour. Subject to this condition, the

proposal is satisfactory in this regard.

20. Increases alcohol availability.

Council Response: The proposal does not include the sale of alcohol. For clarity condition A.6

states that: „This approval does not give consent for the sale of liquor at the subject site. A separate

Development Consent will need to be obtained prior to such development work commencing‟.

21. Adequacy of the submitted documentation.

Council Response: The submitted documentation is considered to be satisfactory.

22. The quality of Woolworths suppliers.

Council Response: This is beyond the scope of the current Development Application.

23. Decreases to neighbouring property values.

Council Response: This is beyond the scope of the current Development Application.

24. The proposal would encroach upon the existing right of way within the site.

Council Response: The applicant has provided a letter from Craig and Rhodes Surveyors dated 24

March 2011, which states that:





‗regarding the status of the right of carriage way depicted on Lot 2 in DP776799, we

requested a historical search from the Land Titles Office to determine if there had been any

documentation lodged to cancel the subject Right of Carriage Way….Subsequent to this

application we have received the enclosed copy of Instrument No. 1233780 (denoted „E‟)

notifying of the cancellation of both Rights of Carriage Way over each property plus the

cancellation of the „Easement for support‟.

25. The impact of the acoustic barriers.

Council Response: This issue is addressed within the ‗Use‘ section of the report, which is contained

within section 14.1.

26. The impact of Norwich Lane Traffic Calming measures on residential amenity

Council response: The approval and implementation of traffic calming measures would involve

resident consultation and support, Local Traffic Committee approval and Council‘s own

Community and Environment Committee approval. The recommended condition requires some

flexibility to accommodate amendments to the works resulting from this process. The applicant has

also agreed to this arrangement. It is noted that the Council commissioned independent traffic peer

review identified that the development would result in ‗less than one additional vehicle movement

per minute and this increase does not in itself create a need for a traffic control device to be

constructed, particularly where the supermarket has a potential to reduce rat-running due to „side

friction‟ effects in Richmond Road‟.

27. Accuracy of the floor area calculations

Council Response: This issue is addressed within the ‗Floor Space Ratio‘ section of the report,

which is contained within section 11.6.

28. Nuisance caused by shopping trolleys

Council Response: This issue is addressed within section 14.1 of the report, and by Condition F.7

which requires a Trolley Management Plan to be submitted to and approved by a member of

Council‘s planning staff. The plan must detail: Measures to ensure shopping trolleys shall remain

on the premises of the subject site, the implementation of ―containment‖ systems that encourage the

confinement of trolleys to the retailer‘s premises, and a management program which ensures that

shopping trolleys taken from the retail premises are collected at least daily. In addition samples of

the proposed shopping trolleys shall be provided to Council for assessment and approval.

29. Service vehicles egressing via the adjoining car wash will conflict with condition 5 of NSW

Land and Environment Court Appeal No. 12087 of 2004 Wurley Group Pty Ltd v Woollahra

Municipal Council, at 759-777 New South Head Road, Rose Bay (Crystal Car Wash)

Council Response: Council‘s records indicate that the Wurley Group Pty Ltd v Woollahra

Municipal Council, NSW Land and Environment Court Appeal in 2004 was Appeal No. 10878 of

2004. Condition 5 of this judgment requires the replacement of the existing rear and side metal

boundary fences with 1.8m high painted masonry or lapped timber fencing. The condition was

imposed to improve the visual amenity of the locality. The north eastern side boundary of the

former Post Office site abuts the car wash. Under the subject proposal the land adjacent to the north

eastern side boundary will comprise of: a disabled access ramp, landscaping and hardsurfacing to

enable service vehicles to egress the supermarket. Whilst the proposal will prevent a boundary





fence being located at the point where the service vehicles will egress the supermarket, this will not

adversely impact upon the visual amenity of the locality.

30. The delivery schedule fails to make provision for fruit and vegetable deliveries

Council Response: The applicant has confirmed in an email from Richard Armitage, dated 09

February 2012, that ‗For our small metro stores (i.e. the met centre) we deliver produce (fruit &

veg) in the same vehicle as chilled meat & Deli (also dairy). The schedule is therefore correct‘.

The letters of support raised the following points:

1. The site is suitable for the proposed development.

2. There is an existing Council car park.

3. The proposal would not disadvantage existing shops.

4. The proposal provides an additional retail option for consumers.

5. The proposal may bring additional foot traffic to Rose Bay.

6. The proposal may encourage consumers to shop locally rather than requiring car trips to other

shopping centres.

7. There is a lack of good quality food stores in Rose Bay.

8. Woolworths provide competitive prices.

19. CONCLUSION - THE PUBLIC INTEREST

In determining whether or not the proposal is in the public interest, both the wider public interest (in

this instance, the provision of an additional retail facility and the sectionalised public interest

(protecting the amenity of the owners of surrounding land) must be taken into consideration in a

balanced manner. In the event that the wider public interest outweighs the sectionalised public

interest, the proposal can be determined to be in the public interest.

With regard to the wider public interest, the proposal will improve the provision of retail facilities

within Rose Bay by providing a new supermarket. Furthermore the proposal would provide up to

20-30 additional full and part time employed positions. The proposal will also ensure the adaptive

re-use of the former Post Office building and ensures the conservation of this building which is

listed in the WLEP as a heritage item.

In terms of the sectionalised public interest, whilst it is accepted that the proposal will impact upon

the amenity of the residents and occupiers immediately surrounding the site it is considered that

these impacts can be adequately conditioned to ensure that the proposal will not have any

significant adverse impact upon the residential amenity of the local community. Accordingly, it is

considered that the proposal is in the public interest.

20. DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS

Under S.147 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 there have been no

disclosure statements regarding political donations or gifts made to any councillor or gifts made to

any council employee submitted with this development application by either the applicant or any

person who made a submission.





21. RECOMMENDATION: Pursuant to Section 80(1) of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act, 1979

A. THAT the Council, as the consent authority issue a deferred commencement development

consent to Development Application No. 845/2008 for the re-adaptive reuse of No. 751-755

(former car showroom) and No. 757 (former Post Office) New South Head Road for a retail

use as a Woolworths supermarket, and the demolition of the pair of semi-detached dwellings

at No. 12 and No. 14 Richmond Road to provide the associated off-street car parking for 25

vehicles, with egress for service vehicles via 759 New South Head Road (Crystal Car Wash),

on land at 751-755, 757 and 759 New South Head Road and 12 and 14 Richmond Road, Rose

Bay, as follows:

A.1 Deferred Commencement - (s80(3) of the Act, cl.95 of the Regulation)

Development consent is granted subject that this consent is not to operate until the applicant

satisfies the Council in relation to the following:

a. To ensure that access is maintained throughout the life of the development, the person

with the benefit of this consent must procure an easement for right of carriage way over

No. 759 New South Head Road, Rose Bay NSW 2029 to enable service vehicles to

egress the site, across No. 759 New South Road, in accordance with drawing 1 ‗8.8m

Medium Rigid Vehicle Swept Paths‘, dated 02 May 2011, prepared by Colston Budd

Hunt and Kafes Pty Ltd.

b. Evidence of registration of the easement for right of carriageway benefiting the land

being developed and burdening the title of No. 759 New South Head Road, Rose Bay

NSW 2029 must be provided to Council.

c. Specifically a plan of Torrens title incorporating the right of carriageway pursuant to the

Conveyancing Act, burdening No 759 New South Head Road, Rose Bay NSW 2029 and

benefiting the land being developed is to be created and submitted to Council.

Period within which evidence must be produced

The applicant must produce evidence to Council sufficient enough to enable it to be satisfied

as to those matters above within 365 days (1 year) of the date of determination.

Clause 95(4) of the Regulation:

―The applicant may produce evidence to the consent authority sufficient to enable it to be

satisfied as to those matters and, if the consent authority has specified a period for the

purpose, the evidence must be produced within that period.‖

If the evidence is not produced within 365 days (1 year) of the date of determination this

deferred commencement consent is of no effect, the consent does not operate and no

construction certificate can be issued. No development can lawfully occur under this consent

unless it operates.

Note: Nothing in the Act prevents a person from doing such things as may be necessary to comply with this

condition. (See section 80(3) of the Act)





This consent does not operate until Council has acknowledged compliance with this condition

in writing.

Note: Implementing the development prior to written confirmation of compliance may result in legal

proceedings. If such proceedings are required Council will seek all costs associated with such

proceedings as well as any penalty or order that the Court may impose. No Construction Certificate can

be issued until all conditions including this condition required to be satisfied prior to the issue of any

Construction Certificate have been satisfied. Standard Condition: A3

B. THAT Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent to Development

Application No. 845/2008 for the re-adaptive reuse of No. 751-755 (former car showroom)

and No. 757 (former Post Office) New South Head Road for a retail use as a Woolworths

supermarket, and the demolition of the pair of semi-detached dwellings at No. 12 and No. 14

Richmond Road to provide the associated off-street car parking for 25 vehicles, with egress

for service vehicles via 759 New South Head Road (Crystal Car Wash), on land at 751-755,

757 and 759 New South Head Road and 12 and 14 Richmond Road, Rose Bay, subject to the

following conditions:

A. General Conditions

A.1 Conditions

Consent is granted subject to the following conditions imposed pursuant to section 80 of the

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (―the Act‖) and the provisions of the

Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (―the Regulation‖) such conditions

being reasonable and relevant to the development as assessed pursuant to section 79C of the

Act. Standard Condition: A1

A.2 Definitions

Unless specified otherwise words have the same meaning as defined by the Act, the

Regulation and the Interpretation Act 1987 as in force at the date of consent.

Applicant means the applicant for this Consent.

Approved Plans mean the plans endorsed by Council referenced by this consent as amended

by conditions of this consent.

AS or AS/NZS means Australian Standard® or Australian/New Zealand Standard®,

respectively, published by Standards Australia International Limited.

BCA means the Building Code of Australia as published by the Australian Building Codes

Board as in force at the date of issue of any Construction Certificate.

Council means Woollahra Municipal Council

Court means the Land and Environment Court





Local native plants means species of native plant endemic to Sydney‘s eastern suburbs (see

the brochure titled ―Local Native Plants for Sydney‘s Eastern Suburbs published by the

Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils).

Stormwater Drainage System means all works, facilities and documentation relating to:

The collection of stormwater,

The retention of stormwater,

The reuse of stormwater,

The detention of stormwater,

The controlled release of stormwater; and

Connections to easements and public stormwater systems.

Owner means the owner of the site and successors in title to the site.

Owner Builder has the same meaning as in the Home Building Act 1989.

PCA means the Principal Certifying Authority under the Act.

Principal Contractor has the same meaning as in the Act or where a principal contractor has

not been appointed by the owner of the land being developed Principal Contractor means the

owner of the land being developed.

Professional Engineer has the same meaning as in the BCA.

Public Place has the same meaning as in the Local Government Act 1993.

Road has the same mean as in the Roads Act 1993.

SEE means the final version of the Statement of Environmental Effects lodged by the

Applicant.

Site means the land being developed subject to this consent.

WLEP 1995 means Woollahra Local Environmental Plan 1995

Work for the purposes of this consent means:

the use of land in connection with development,

the subdivision of land,

the erection of a building,

the carrying out of any work,

the use of any site crane, machine, article, material, or thing,

the storage of waste, materials, site crane, machine, article, material, or thing,

the demolition of a building,

the piling, piering, cutting, boring, drilling, rock breaking, rock sawing or excavation of

land,

the delivery to or removal from the site of any machine, article, material, or thing, or

the occupation of the site by any person unless authorised by an occupation certificate.

Note: Interpretation of Conditions - Where there is any need to obtain an interpretation of the intent of any

condition this must be done in writing to Council and confirmed in writing by Council. Standard Condition: A2





A.3 Approved Plans and supporting documents

Those with the benefit of this consent must carry out all work and maintain the use and works

in accordance with the plans and supporting documents listed below as submitted by the

Applicant and to which is affixed a Council stamp ―Approved DA Plans‖ unless modified by

any following condition. Where the plans relate to alterations or additions only those works

shown in colour or highlighted are approved.

Reference Description Author/Drawn Date(s)

DA Acoustic Assessment

Woolworths Rose Bay.

Acoustic Report. Aecom Acoustic. 23/11/2011

Architectural Plans:

DA 02 DA-F

DA 03 DA-F

DA 04 DA-F

DA 05 DA-F

DA 06 DA-F

DA 07 DA-F

DA 08 DA-D

DA 09 DA-D

DA 10 DA-F

DA 11 DA-F

DA 12 DA-F

Architectural Plans:

Site Plan.

Ground Floor Plan.

Ground Floor Fitout Plan.

First Floor Plan.

First Floor Fitout Plan.

Roof Plan.

Site Demolition Plan.

First Floor Demolition Plan.

Elevations.

Colour Elevations.

Sections.

Scott Carver Pty Ltd. 16/11/2011

16/11/2011

16/11/2011

16/11/2011

16/11/2011

16/11/2011

16/11/2011

20/08/2010

20/08/2010

16/11/2011

16/11/2011

16/11/2011

LDA-001 A Landscape Plan. Scape. 02/2009

7191/1

7906/1

TR/7906/jj

Traffic and Parking Report.

Traffic and Parking Report.

Supplementary Traffic and

.Parking Info.

Colston Budd Hunt &

Kafes Pty Ltd.

12/2008

08/2010

04/05/2011

22724Vrpt Geotechnical Report.

Jeffery & Katauskas

Pty Ltd.

11/03/2009

1683 and 1683/2 Targeted Environmental Site

Assessment and Preliminary Acid

SUlfate Soils Assessment

Aargus Pty Ltd 02/2007

09/0050

C01 Rev 00

C02 Rev 00

Stormwater Report.

Management Plan.3

Richard Ross Pty Ltd. 16/03/09

17/02/09

17/02/09

Note: Warning to Accredited Certifiers – You should always insist on sighting the original Council stamped

approved plans. You should not rely solely upon the plan reference numbers in this condition. Should

the applicant not be able to provide you with the original copy Council will provide you with access to its

files so you may review our original copy of the approved plan.

Note: These plans and supporting documentation may be subject to conditions imposed under section 80A(1)(g)

of the Act modifying or amending the development (refer to conditions which must be satisfied prior to

the issue of any Construction Certificate.)

Standard Condition: A5

A.4 Ancillary Aspect of the Development (s80A(2) of the Act)

The owner must procure the repair, replacement or rebuilding of all road pavement, kerb,

gutter, footway, footpaths adjoining the site or damaged as a result of work under this consent

or as a consequence of work under this consent. Such work must be undertaken to Council's

satisfaction in accordance with Council‘s ―Specification for Roadworks, Drainage and

Miscellaneous Works‖ dated January 2003 unless expressly provided otherwise by these

conditions at the owner‟s expense.





Note: This condition does not affect the principal contractor's or any sub-contractors obligations to protect and

preserve public infrastructure from damage or affect their liability for any damage that occurs. Standard Condition: A8

A.5 Development Consent is not granted in relation to these matters

This approval does not give consent for the sale of liquor at the subject site. A separate

Development Consent will need to be obtained prior to such development work commencing. Standard Condition: A9

B. Conditions which must be satisfied prior to the demolition of any building or

construction

B.1 Construction Certificate required prior to any demolition

Where demolition is associated with an altered portion of, or an extension to an existing

building the demolition of any part of a building is "commencement of erection of building"

pursuant to section 81A(2) of the Act. In such circumstance all conditions in Part C and Part

D of this consent must be satisfied prior to any demolition work. This includes, but is not

limited to, the issue of a Construction Certificate, appointment of a PCA and Notice of

Commencement under the Act.

Note: See Over our Dead Body Society Inc v Byron Bay Community Association Inc [2001] NSWLEC 125.

Standard Condition: B1

B.2 Recording of Heritage Items prior to any demolition

A full archival record of the building and landscape elements to be demolished is to be

submitted, to the satisfaction of Council‘s heritage officer, prior to the commencement of any

work and prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

The archival record is to be completed by a heritage consultant listed by the NSW Heritage

Office or by another suitably qualified consultant who must demonstrate a working

knowledge of archival principles.

The archival record is to include:

a) The submitted heritage report including the heritage assessment undertaken in

accordance with the current guidelines of the NSW heritage office, the statement of

significance, the dilapidation report and the reasons for demolition.

b) A site plan at a scale of 1:200 (or 1:500 if appropriate) of all structures and major

landscape elements including their relationship to the street and adjoining properties.

c) Annotated measured drawings: floor plans, roof plans, elevations and at least one cross

section, each at a scale of 1:100.

d) Photographic archival records must be taken of the building, landscape or item in

accordance with ‗The Heritage Information Series, Photographic Recording of Heritage

Items Using Film or Digital Capture 2006‘ published by the NSW Department of

Planning Heritage Branch.

The archival recode must include:

Context Photographs- A recording of each site, place or movable item or collection in

its context;





Relationship of Buildings on the Site to Each Other;

Individual Building or Structures- Photographs of each façade with details where

appropriate including but not limited to: eaves, soffits, rainwater heads, downpipes,

window reveals and sills, doorways and steps, and balustrades;

Internal Spaces- Images should be taken in a sequence to show all internal elevations,

including floors and ceilings, where possible. Special attention should be placed on

structural elements, fittings and any movable items.

There should be three sets of the photographic report and film materials or digital materials.

The following table summarises the lodgment details for photographic records, depending on

which material is selected. It is satisfactory to supply one material only and digital material is

recommended.

Material Minimum Requirement Repository

Digital Materials 3 copies of photographic

report – paper copy

3 CD-Rs or DVD

1 set of 10.5x14.8cm prints

Woollahra Council

Report (paper) + CD-R or DVD + prints

Local History Centre

Report (paper) + CD-R or DVD

Owner/client

Report (paper) + CD-R or DVD

Black & White Film

(plus any

supplementary colour

film)

3 copies of photographic

report

1 set of negatives

1 sets of proof sheets and

catalogue

Woollahra Council

Report + negatives + 1st set of proof sheets


Report + 2nd set of proof sheets

Owner/client

Report + 3rd set of proof sheets

Colour

Transparencies or

Slides

3 copies of photographic report

1 set of original transparencies and

two sets of duplicates

OR

3 sets of original images taken

concurrently

Woollahra Council

Report + original transparencies


Report + duplicate/concurrent transparencies:

Owner/client

Report + duplicate/concurrent transparencies

The full archival recording is to be submitted be to the satisfaction of Council‘s heritage

officer prior to the commencement of demolition, works and prior to the issue of a

Construction Certificate. The original will be retained by Council and a copy will be provided

to the Woollahra Local History Library.

These photographic records must be submitted to Council prior to the demolition or removal

of any part of the building and landscape elements to be demolished.

Note: The NSW Heritage Office Guidelines can be downloaded free of charge from

http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/info_photographicrecording2006.pdf Standard Condition: B2

http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/docs/info_photographicrecording2006.pdf





B.3 Assessment of groundwater quality (site contamination)

Prior to any demolition, excavation, or construction works, the applicant must assess the

groundwater quality at the proposed site with reference to the ANZECC (2000) ‗Australian

and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality‘ and the Dutch intervention

value (600ug/L) to determine if Trigger Value (TV) concentrations are exceeded that may

indicate a potential environmental problem and ―trigger‖ further investigation. The field

investigations and results of the groundwater sampling shall be forwarded to Woollahra

Council and approved in writing prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or

construction works.

B.4 Assessment of groundwater quality (Acid Sulfate)

Prior to any demolition, excavation, or construction works, a minimum of 4 sampling holes

must be analysed to consolidate the nature and degree of Acid Sulfate Soils present in the

surface and subsurface geology of the proposed development site in accordance with Table

4.1 of the ASSMAC Assessment Guidelines (1998). Soil samples should be collected for

every soil layer or every half (0.5) metres inspection locations conforming to the Australian

Soil and Land Survey handbook (McDonald et al., 1990). The resulting soil sampling and

laboratory analysis shall be forwarded to Woollahra Council and approved in writing prior to

the commencement of any demolition, excavation or construction works.

B.5 Establishment of Tree Protection Zones

Before the demolition of any building or construction, a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) shall be

established around the tree/s to be retained not less than the distance shown in the schedule

below.

a) Tree Protection Zone areas

Council

Ref No

Species Location Radius from

Trunk (Metres)*

1 Cinnamomum camphora

(Camphor Laurel)

Road reserve Richmond Road 3

Note: Where this condition relates to street trees and the fence cannot be placed at the specified radius,

the fencing is to be positioned so that the entire verge (nature strip) area in front of the subject

property, excluding existing driveways and footpaths, is protected.

b) Tree Protection Fencing shall be installed at the perimeter of the Tree Protection Zones

outlined above. The Tree Protection Fence shall consist of 1.8m high temporary chain

wire panels supported by steel stakes. They shall be fastened together and supported to

prevent sideways movement. The fence shall have a lockable opening for access. The

trees‘ woody roots shall not be damaged during the installation of the Tree Protection

Fencing.

c) The area within the Tree Protection Zone shall be kept free of weeds and grass, and

mulched to a depth of 70mm for the duration of works.





d) Tree Protection Signage shall be attached to each Tree Protection Zone and displayed in

a prominent position. The signs shall be repeated at 10m intervals or closer where the

fence changes direction. The signage shall be installed prior to the commencement of

works on-site and shall be maintained in good condition for the duration of the works.

Each sign shall advise the following details:-

i. This fence has been installed to prevent damage to the trees and their growing

environment. Access is restricted.

ii. If access, encroachment or incursion into this Tree Protection Zone is deemed

essential, prior authorisation is required by the Site Arborist.

iii. Name, address, and telephone number of the developer

e) The Tree Protection Zone shall exclude the following activities, except as amended by

the following conditions:

i. Excavations and trenching

ii. Modification of existing soil levels

iii. Cultivation of the soil

iv. Mechanical removal of vegetation

v. Soil disturbance

vi. Movement of natural rock

vii. Storage of materials, plant or equipment

viii. Erection of site sheds

ix. Affixing of signage or hoarding to the trees

x. Preparation of building materials

xi. Disposal of waste materials and chemicals

xii. Movement of pedestrian or vehicular traffic

xiii. Temporary or permanent location of services, or the works required for their

installation

xiv. Any other activities that may cause damage to the trees Standard Condition: B5

B.6 Demolition and Construction Management Plan (Tree protection).

Before the demolition of any building or construction, a Demolition and Construction

Management Plan in relation to existing trees on/adjacent the subject site must be submitted

to Council for written approval. The plan must consider and make allowance for all

construction operations which will be undertaken within the vicinity of existing trees. In

particular the plan is to include:

a) Drawings and method statement showing details of hoarding and scaffold construction

and pruning required to accommodate hoarding and scaffolding;

b) Movement of heavy machinery, lifting cranes, Pier drilling gantry etc.;

c) How trees will be protected from storage and movements of materials;

d) Site construction access, temporary crossings and movement corridors on the site

defined;

e) Contractors carparking;

f) Phasing of construction works;

g) The space needed for all foundation excavations and construction works;

h) All changes in ground level;

i) Space for cranes, plant, scaffolding and access during works;





j) Space for site sheds, temporary latrines (including any drainage) and other temporary

structures;

k) Space for sorting and storing materials (short or long term), spoil and fuel and the

mixing of cement and concrete and

l) The effects of slope on the movement of potentially harmful liquid spillages towards or

into tree protection areas.

B.7 Arborists Periodic Site Inspection and Log

To ensure the condition and health of existing trees are maintained an arboricultural log book

for the subject property is to be prepared by a qualified arborist and retained by the site

foreman. Details of the arborist‘s site inspection are to be recorded in the log during each

visit. At each site visit the arborist must check and monitor the condition of existing trees and

compliance with approved protection measures or recommend action to improve site

conditions. As a minimum the following intervals of site inspections by a qualified arborist

must be made.

B.8 Noise objectives during demolition works

To assist in managing impacts of noise from the demolishing of the existing dwelling and

outbuilding on residences and other sensitive land uses, it is recommended that the NSW

Department of Environment & Climate Change: Construction Noise Guideline be applied to

the site to provide a quantitative and qualitative assessment for evaluating performance and

compliance of resultant noise from demolishing works of the existing buildings. In particular

reference is made to Table 2 of the NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change:

Construction Noise Guideline which sets out management levels for noise at residences and

other sensitive land uses.

B.9 Notification of noise generating activities

Seven days prior to the commencement of any demolition, or significant excavation activities,

the builder (or specialized subcontractor) shall inform the owners, or tenants, of both 11

Newcastle Street, and 10 Richmond Road, by letter, a schedule of demolition, excavation and

subsequent construction activities. Any high activities involving the use of hydraulic

hammers, or pneumatic hammers, shall be identified.

Stage of

arboricultural

inspection

Minimum considerations at each

stage

Additional visits required

determined by arborist

notes/comments

Prior to the demolition

of any building or

construction.

Correct installation of Tree Protection

Zone barriers.

Make additional site visits as deemed

necessary for ongoing

monitoring/supervisory work.

During development

work.

Tree Preservation and approved works

are complied with.

Monitor condition of trees.

Prior to the issue of a

Final Occupation

Certificate.

Supervise the dismantling of tree

protection measures.

Make additional site visits as deemed

necessary for ongoing monitoring of

tree vigour.





C. Conditions which must be satisfied prior to the issue of any construction certificate

C.1 Surrender of consent (s80A(1)(b) & s80A(5) of the Act)

A notice of surrender of DA 598 of 2006 dated 03 September 2011 must be provided to

Council in writing by the owner of the land in compliance with Clause 97 of the Regulation.

No Construction Certificate must be issued until Council has acknowledged in writing that

this condition has been satisfied. Standard Condition: C1

C.2 Modification of details of the development (s80A(1)(g) of the Act)

The approved plans and the Construction Certificate plans and specification, required to be

submitted to the Certifying Authority pursuant to clause 139 of the Regulation, must detail the

following amendments:

Signage:

a) To ensure the proposed signage is compatible with the existing and desired future

character of the locality and the heritage significance of No. 757 New South Head Road

(the former Post Office), the flush wall sign above the sandstone-framed former entry

door to the north western elevation to the former post office, and the new graphic inset

panels to the windows of the former Post Office, shall be deleted.

Heritage:

b) To ensure the proposal adequately retains the heritage significance of the subject

heritage item at No. 757 New South Head Road (the former Post Office):

- All ceilings and cornices to the former Post Office are to be retained.

- All brick arches and round head openings to the existing windows of the south

and west elevations are to be retained. Infill material of round arch window

frames is to be in new timber.

- Skirtings are to be retained where existing, and to be reconstructed and reinstated

to the remainder of original walling being retained in the former Post Office.

- The black railings to the front steps are to be retained, along with the former Post

Office white lettering ‗Rose Bay 2029‘ to the façade.

- The sandstone base is to be properly conserved and repaired by a heritage

conservation specialist.







repaired.

- The timber eaves soffits are to be repaired and repainted to match the existing

colour.







- The Post Office principal building form is to retain its current colour scheme, that

is:

Unpainted facebrick where existing is to remain unpainted.

Stone is to remain unpainted.

Timber joinery is to remain white.

External ‗cornice‘ and external ‗skirting‘ are to remain existing white/off-

white colour.

Eaves soffits are to remain existing white/off-white colour.

Where currently external brickwork becomes internal it is to remain

unpainted.

Urban Design:

c) To ensure a satisfactory urban design outcome, public seating or landscaping must be

provided to the building recess to New South Head Road which is located between the

former Post Office (No. 757 New South Head Road) and the former car showroom (No.

751-755 New South Head Road). This condition has been imposed to prevent this area

from becoming a litter trap or attracting anti-social behaviour.

Richmond Road frontage:

d) To ensure a satisfactory streetscape outcome, no approval is given for any signage or

fencing to the southern Richmond Road frontage. This condition has been imposed as

no advertising or fencing details have been provided for this frontage.

Stormwater:

e) To ensure that adequate provision is made for the disposal of stormwater, a single pipe

outlet to a new pit and pipe system in New South Head Road shall be provided.

Pedestrian and vehicular safety:

f) To ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety, the acoustic barrier adjoining the length of

car space No. 9 must be splayed no less than 1m by 1m at the entry of the space to

ensure there is adequate sight distance to approaching traffic for a vehicle reversing out

of the space.

g) To ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety, a 2.0m by 2.0m visibility splay shall be

provided to either side of the driveway.

Acoustics:

h) To ensure an adequate level of acoustic privacy is maintained to the neighbouring

properties, the proposed car park‘s surface finish shall be sufficiently smooth so that it

will preclude the generation of unacceptable noise emission, when either empty, or

loaded shopping trolleys are wheeled into, or across the car park. Furthermore, the car

park must be surfaced in a material which minimises tyre squeal.

i) The section of footpath to link the proposed car park and Richmond Road must be

constructed to minimise the noise impacts of vehicles entering and exiting the subject

site.





j) The section of Richmond Road adjacent to the proposed vehicular entrance must be

resurfaced to minimise noise impacts of vehicles entering and existing the subject site.

k) Barriers must be provided to close the car park outside of the trading hours. The details

of the barriers must be approved in writing by Council planning staff.

l) To ensure an adequate level of acoustic privacy is maintained to the neighbouring

properties, the noise control measures to the mechanical services as detailed in section

4.3 of the acoustic report, reference DA Acoustic Assessment Woolworths Rose Bay,

prepared by Aecom, dated 23 November 2011 shall be included on the construction

certificate plans. This includes showing the acoustic barrier to the roof top plant deck to

be of solid construction and free from gaps.

Note: The effect of this condition is that it requires design changes and/or further information to be

provided with the Construction Certificate drawings and specifications to address specific issues

identified during assessment under section 79C of the Act.

Note: Clause 146 of the Regulation prohibits the issue of any Construction Certificate subject to this

condition unless the Certifying Authority is satisfied that the condition has been complied with.

Note: Clause 145 of the Regulation prohibits the issue of any Construction Certificate that is inconsistent

with this consent.


C.3 Payment of Long Service Levy, Security, Contributions and Fees

The certifying authority must not issue any Part 4A Certificate until provided with the

original receipt(s) for the payment of all of the following levy, security, contributions, and

fees prior to the issue of a construction certificate, subdivision certificate or occupation

certificate, as will apply.

Description Amount Indexed Council

Fee Code

LONG SERVICE LEVY

under Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986

Long Service Levy

http://www.lspc.nsw.gov.au/levy_information/?le

vy_information/levy_calculator.stm

Contact LSL

Corporation or use

their online calculator

No

SECURITY

under section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

Property Damage Security Deposit - making

good any damage caused to any property of the

Council

$80,000.00 No T115

Tree Damage Security Deposit - making good

any damage caused to any public tree $9,000.00 No T114

Infrastructure Works Bond - completing any

public work required in connection with the

consent.

$158,500.00 No T113

CONTRIBUTIONS

under Woollahra Section 94 Contributions Plan 2002 (March 2005 update)

This plan may inspected at Woollahra Council or downloaded at www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au .

Rose Bay commercial centre civic

improvements contribution

$5,537.00

+ Index Amount Yes, yearly T94

Rose Bay commercial centre public car

parking contribution

$112,560.00


Administration charge $1,771.46


http://www.lspc.nsw.gov.au/levy_information/?levy_information/levy_calculator.stm

http://www.lspc.nsw.gov.au/levy_information/?levy_information/levy_calculator.stm






INSPECTION FEES

under Section 608 of the Local Government Act 1993

Public Tree Management Inspection Fee $166.00 No T95

Public Road and Footpath Infrastructure

Inspection Fee $406.00 No T45

Security Administration Fee $180.00 No T16

TOTAL SECURITY, CONTRIBUTIONS,

LEVIES AND FEES

$368,120.46 plus any relevant indexed amounts

and long service levy

Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payment

The Long Service Levy under Section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payment Act,

1986, must be paid and proof of payment provided to the Certifying Authority prior to the issue of any

Construction Certificate. The Levy can be paid directly to the Long Services Payments Corporation or to

Council. Further information can be obtained from the Long Service Payments Corporation‘s website

http://www.lspc.nsw.gov.au/ or the Long Service Payments Corporation on 13 14 41.

How must the payments be made?

Payments must be made by:

Cash deposit with Council,

Credit card payment with Council, or

Bank cheque made payable to Woollahra Municipal Council.

The payment of a security may be made by a bank guarantee where:

The guarantee is by an Australian bank for the amount of the total outstanding contribution;

The bank unconditionally agrees to pay the guaranteed sum to the Council on written request by Council

on completion of the development or no earlier than 12 months from the provision of the guarantee

whichever occurs first [NOTE: a time limited bank guarantee or a bank guarantee with an expiry date is

not acceptable];

The bank agrees to pay the guaranteed sum without reference to the applicant or landowner or other

person who provided the guarantee and without regard to any dispute, controversy, issue or other matter

relating to the development consent or the carrying out of development in accordance with the

development consent;

The bank guarantee is lodged with the Council prior to the issue of the construction certificate: and

The bank‘s obligations are discharged when payment to the Council is made in accordance with the

guarantee or when Council notifies the bank in writing that the guarantee is no longer required.

How will section 94 contributions be indexed?

To ensure that the monetary value of the contributions are not eroded over time by increases in costs the

contributions will be increased annually. Clause 3.13 of Woollahra Section 94 Contributions Plan 2002 sets out

the formula and index to be used in adjusting the contributions.

Do you need HELP indexing the contributions?

Please contact our customer service officers on 9391-7000. Failure to correctly calculate the indexed

contributions will delay the issue of any Part 4A Certificate and could void any Part 4A Certificate (construction

certificate, subdivision certificate, or occupation certificate).

Deferred periodic payment of Section 94 contributions under Woollahra Section 94 Contributions Plan

2002

Where the applicant makes a written request supported by reasons for payment of the contribution other than as

required by clause 3.7 of the plan, the Council may accept deferred or periodic payment. The decision to accept a

deferred or periodic payment is at the sole discretion of the Council, which will consider:

The reasons given;

http://www.lspc.nsw.gov.au/





Whether any prejudice will be caused to the community deriving benefit from the public facilities

required by the proposed development;

Whether any prejudice will be caused to the efficacy and operation of this Plan; and

Whether the provision of public facilities in accordance with the adopted works schedule will be

adversely affected.

Where Council accepts periodic payment by way of instalments, it will be on the basis that each instalment is

paid before work commences on the corresponding stage of the development and the amount of each instalment

will be calculated on a pro-rata basis in proportion to the cost of the overall development.

Council may, as a condition of accepting deferred or periodic payment, require the provision of a bank guarantee

where:

The guarantee is by an Australian bank for the amount of the total outstanding contribution;

The bank unconditionally agrees to pay the guaranteed sum to the Council on written request by Council

on completion of the development or no earlier than 12 months from the provision of the guarantee

whichever occurs first [NOTE: a time limited bank guarantee or a bank guarantee with an expiry date is

not acceptable];

The bank agrees to pay the guaranteed sum without reference to the applicant or landowner or other

person who provided the guarantee and without regard to any dispute, controversy, issue or other matter

relating to the development consent or the carrying out of development in accordance with the

development consent;

The bank guarantee is lodged with the Council prior to the issue of the construction certificate; and

The bank‘s obligations are discharged when payment to the Council is made in accordance with the

guarantee or when Council notifies the bank in writing that the guarantee is no longer required.

Any deferred or outstanding component of the contribution will be indexed in accordance with clause 3.13 of the

plan. Under the indexation provisions, if a deferred or periodic payment is made before the next anniversary of

the Plan, there will be no increase in the amount payable. The applicant will be required to pay any charges

associated with establishing or operating the bank guarantee. Council will not cancel the bank guarantee until the

outstanding contribution as indexed and any accrued charges are paid. Standard Condition: C6

C.4 Road and Public Domain Works

A separate application under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 is to be made to, and

approved by Council prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate for the following

infrastructure works, which must be carried out at the applicant‘s expense:

a. New South Head Road

Road & Footpath

Removal the existing footpath and the re-construction of the footpath with pavers

for the full width of the property from boundary to kerb from the existing pavers

at No 755 in accordance with Council‘s standard as shown on ―Rose Bay Centre

Public Domain Improvements Plan‖.

Removal of the existing driveways and laybacks.

Reinstatement of footpath, kerb and gutter to match existing.

Erect new signage as approved by Woollahra Traffic Committee.

Drainage

Construction of a standard gully pit in the kerb to the east of the subject site in

accordance with Council‘s Standard ―Grated Gully Pit with extended Kerb Inlet‖

drawing DR1.

Construction of approximately 40m of 375mm RCP in-ground drainage line under

the road shoulder at standard depth. The line must connect to the existing pipeline

in the road to the east outside No 759 New South Head Road.





It should be noted that RTA is the consent authority for these works.

The developer shall be responsible for carrying out any service investigations to

allow a gravity connection.

b. Richmond Road

Full width vehicular crossing with a width of 6m at the boundary and widened to

8m at the kerb. The driveway is to be constructed to commercial standard in

accordance with Council‘s standard drawing RF2B.

Reinstatement of footpath, kerb and gutter to match existing. The section of

footpath to link the proposed car park and Richmond Road must be constructed to

minimise the noise impacts of vehicles entering and exiting the subject site.

The section of Richmond Road adjacent to the proposed vehicular entrance must

be resurfaced to minimise noise impacts of vehicles entering and existing the

subject site.

Where a grass verge exists, the balance of the area between the footpath and the

kerb over the full frontage of the proposed development must be turfed. The grass

verge must be constructed to contain a uniform minimum 75mm of friable

growing medium and have a total cover of Couch turf.

c. Norwich Lane

Traffic calming measures must be implemented in Norwich Lane to minimise any

increase of non-local through-traffic. These works are subject to approval by the

Local Traffic Committee and may be revised as a result of this assessment

process.

Narrowing of the carriageway by establishing a footpath, kerb and gutter and the

implementation of a Watts profile speed hump. The applicant must liaise with

Council‘s Traffic Section regarding the location of the new speed hump.

d. Bond

A bond of $158,500 (One hundred and fifty eight thousand five hundred

dollars) will be used as security to ensure the satisfactory completion of the

infrastructure works in New South Head Road, Richmond Road and Norwich

Lane. The security or bank guarantee must be the original and not have an expiry

date.

Council may use all or part of the Infrastructure Bond as well as the Property

Damage Security Deposit to meet the cost of removing or completing the works if

they do not meet Council‘s requirements.

The Deposit/Bond will not be released until Council has inspected the site and is

satisfied that the Works have been completed in accordance with Council

approved drawings and to Council requirements.

Note: To ensure that this work is completed to Council‘s satisfaction, this consent by separate condition, may

impose one or more Infrastructure Works Bonds.

Note: Road has the same meaning as in the Roads Act 1993.

Note: The intent of this condition is that the design of the road, footpaths, driveway crossings and public

stormwater drainage works must be detailed and approved prior to the issue of any Construction

Certificate. Changes in levels may arise from the detailed design of buildings, road, footpath, driveway

crossing grades and stormwater. Changes required under Roads Act 1993 approvals may necessitate

design and levels changes under this consent. This may in turn require the applicant to seek to amend this

consent.

Note: See condition K24 in Section K. Advisings of this Consent titled Roads Act Application. Standard Condition: C13





C.5 Waste Storage - Compliance with Approved Site Waste Minimisation and Management

Plan (SWMMP)

Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate a Site Waste Minimisation and Management

Plan (SWMMP) is to be submitted to Council for written approval.

The Construction Certificate plans and specifications, required to be submitted to the

Certifying Authority pursuant to clause 139 of the Regulation, must detail provisions for

waste management in accordance with the approved SWMMP.

Waste Storage Areas must meet the following requirements:

a. Bins must be stored with lids down to prevent vermin from entering the waste

containers.

b. The area must be constructed with a smooth impervious floor graded to a floor waste. A

waste storage area that is located internal to the building must be fitted with both a hot

and cold water supply and hose cocks. Wastewater must be discharged to the sewer in

accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water.

c. Walls and ceilings of the waste storage area must be constructed of an impervious

material with a smooth finish. The junction between the walls and the floor must be

covered with a minimum radius of 25mm to prevent the accumulation of waste matter.

d. The garbage storage area must be well lit to enable use at night. A timer switch must be

fitted to the light fitting to ensure the light is turned off after use.

e. Odour problems must be minimised by good exhaust ventilation.

f. Both putrescible and recycling bins/crates must be stored together. Recycling bins must

never stand alone. They must always be located beside putrescible waste bins.

Putrescible bins must be located closest to the entrance to the waste storage room.

g. Signage on the correct use of the waste management system and what materials may be

recycled must be posted in the communal waste storage cupboard/ room or bin bay. Standard Condition: C19

C.6 Utility Services Generally


Regulation, must demonstrate that all utility services (telecommunications, electricity, gas,

water and waste water) will be provided underground. All service ducts, pipes and conduits

must be provided within the fabric of the building (excluding stormwater down pipes).

Where telecommunications and electricity are provided from existing poles in the road they

must, in accordance with the relevant suppliers‘ requirements, be carried to the site

underground directly to the main switch board within the fabric of the building.

Note: Where adequate provision has not been made for an electrical sub-station within the building, this may

necessitate the lodgement of an application to amend this consent under section 96 of the Act to detail the

location, landscape/streetscape impacts and compliance with AS2890 as applicable.

The location of service poles and substations required by the relevant suppliers must be

shown upon the plans submitted with any Construction Certificate application together with a

letter from each relevant supplier setting out their requirements.





Proposed water pipes, waste pipes, stack work, duct work, mechanical ventilation plant and

the like must be located within the building unless expressly shown upon the approved DA

plans. Details confirming compliance with this condition must be shown on the Construction

Certificate plans and/or detailed within the Construction Certificate specifications. Required

external vents or vent pipes on the roof or above the eaves must be shown on the Construction

Certificate plans.

Note: The intent of this condition is that the design quality of the development must not be compromised by

cables, pipes, conduits, ducts, plant, equipment, electricity substations or the like placed such that they are

visible from any adjoining public place. They must be contained within the building unless shown

otherwise by the approved development consent plans.


Certifying Authority pursuant to clause 139 of the Regulation, must detail the replacement of

all private sewer pipes between all sanitary fixtures and Sydney Waters sewer main where

they are not found by inspection to be UPVC or copper with continuously welded joints.

Note: This condition has been imposed to ensure that where private sewer pipes are old, may leak or may be

subject to root invasion (whether from existing or proposed private or public landscaping) that existing

cast iron, concrete, earthenware or terracotta pipes be replaced with new UPVC or copper continuously

welded pipes between all sanitary fixtures and Sydney Waters sewer main, such that clause 25(1) of

WLEP 1995 be satisfied. Further, leaking sewer pipes are a potential source of water pollution, unsafe

and unhealthy conditions which must be remedied in the public interest Standard Condition: C20

C.7 Provision for Energy Supplies

The applicant must provide to the Certifying Authority a letter from Energy Australia setting

out Energy Australia‘s requirements relative to the provision of electricity/gas supply to the

development.

Any required substation must be located within the boundaries of the site.

Where an electricity substation is required within the site but no provision has been made to

place it within the building and such substation has not been detailed upon the approved

development consent plans a section 96 application is required to be submitted to Council.

Council will assess the proposed location of the required substation.

The Construction Certificate plans and specifications, required to be submitted pursuant to

clause 139 of the Regulation, must detail provisions to meet the requirements of Energy

Australia.

Where the substation is required the Construction Certificate plans and specifications must

provide:

a) A set back not less than 3m from the road boundary and dense landscaping of local

native plants to screen the substation from view within the streetscape,

b) A set back not less than 3m from any other site boundary (fire source feature) and not

within the areas required to be kept clear of obstructions to vehicle visibility pursuant to

clause 3.2.4 of AS2890.1-1993(See: Figures 3.2 and 3.3),

c) A set back to and not within the drip line of any existing tree required to be retained,





d) A setback not less than the 10m from any NSW Fire Brigade booster connection as

prescribed by clause 5.6.3(d)(iii) of AS 2419.1-1994 or be separated from any booster

connections by a construction with a fire resistance rating of not less than FRL 90/90/90

for a distance of not less than 2 m each side of and 3 m above the upper hose

connections in the booster assembly pursuant to clause 5.6.3(c)(ii) of AS 2419.1-1994,

and

e) The owner shall dedicate to the appropriate energy authority, free of cost, an area of

land adjoining the street alignment to enable an electricity substation to be established,

if required. The size and location of the electricity substation is to be in accordance

with the requirements of the appropriate energy authority and Council. The opening of

any access doors are not to intrude onto the public road reserve.

Note: If the substation is not located within the building its location, screening vegetation, all screen walls or

fire separating walls must have been approved by the grant of development consent or amended

development consent prior to the issue of any Construction Certificate for those works. Documentary

evidence of compliance, including correspondence from the energy authority is to be provided to the

Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. The Certifying Authority must be

satisfied that the requirements of energy authority have been met prior to issue of the Construction

Certificate.

Note: This condition has been imposed because the application fails to provide sufficient detail (either by plans

or by the Statement of Environmental Effects) demonstrating that provision has been made to Energy

Australia‘s satisfaction for the provision of electricity supply to the building. Nevertheless, Council has

no reason to believe that provision cannot be reasonably made for electricity to service the development.

Note: Where it is proposed to shield any booster connection or any building from any substation pursuant to

clause 5.6.3(c)(ii) of AS 2419.1-1994 or by fire resisting construction under the BCA respectively and this

construction has not been detailed upon the approved development consent plans such works should be

considered inconsistent with consent pursuant to clause 145 of the Regulation. The Applicant must lodge

with Council details for any such construction pursuant to section 96 of the Act to allow assessment under

section 79C of the Act.

Note: Substations must not be located within the minimum sight distance at driveway entrances under

Australian Standard AS/NZS 2890 (Set)-2004 Parking Facilities Set whether such driveways service the

site or any adjoining land. Standard Condition: C21

C.8 Soil and Water Management Plan – Submission & Approval

The principal contractor or owner builder must submit to the Certifying Authority a soil and

water management plan complying with:

a) ―Do it Right On Site, Soil and Water Management for the Construction Industry‖


b) ―Managing Urban Stormwater - Soils and Construction‖ published by the NSW


Where there is any conflict The Blue Book takes precedence. The Certifying Authority must

be satisfied that the soil and water management plan complies with the publications above

prior to issuing any Construction Certificate.

Note: This condition has been imposed to eliminate potential water pollution and dust nuisance.

Note: The International Erosion Control Association – Australasia http://www.austieca.com.au/ lists consultant

experts who can assist in ensuring compliance with this condition. Where erosion and sedimentation

plans are required for larger projects it is recommended that expert consultants produce these plans.


down loaded free of charge from http://www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au/ .

Note: Pursuant to clause 161(1)(a)(5) of the Regulation an Accredited Certifier may satisfied as to this matter. Standard Condition: C25







C.9 Tree Management Details

The Construction Certificate plans and specifications required by clause 139 of the

Regulation must, show the following information;

a) trees to be numbered in accordance with these conditions,

b) shaded green where required to be protected and retained,

c) shaded yellow where required to be transplanted,

d) shaded blue where required to be pruned,

e) shaded red where authorised to be removed and,

f) references to applicable tree management plan, arborists report, transplant method

statement or bush regeneration management plan. Standard Condition: C30

C.10 Structural Adequacy of Existing Supporting Structures

A certificate from a professional engineer (Structural Engineer), certifying the adequacy of

the existing supporting structure to support the additional loads proposed to be imposed by the

development, must be submitted with the Construction Certificate application.

Note: This condition is imposed to ensure that the existing structure is able to support the additional loads

proposed.


C.11 Professional Engineering Details


Regulation, must include detailed professional engineering plans and/or specifications for all

structural, electrical, hydraulic, hydro-geological, geotechnical, mechanical and civil work

complying with this consent, approved plans, the statement of environmental effects and

supporting documentation.

Detailed professional engineering plans and/or specifications must be submitted to the

Certifying Authority with the application for any Construction Certificate.

Note: This does not affect the right of the developer to seek staged Construction Certificates. Standard Condition: C36

C.12 Amended Landscape Plan

An amended Landscape Plan, prepared by a qualified Landscape Architect or Landscape

Designer, in accordance with Councils DA Guide Annexure 8 and conforming to the

conditions of this Development Consent is to be submitted to Council for written approval

prior to issue of the Construction Certificate. The amended landscape plan must include the

following:

The installation of a minimum of four (4) Elaeocarpus reticulatus Blueberry Ash within

the garden beds.

The installation of a minimum four (4) Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) within the

garden beds.





The installation of two (2) Harpullia pendula (Tulipwood) on the road reserve of New

South Head Road. The awning should be discontinuous to accommodate these trees.

C.13 Bicycle, Car and Commercial Parking Details

The Construction Certificate plans and specifications required by clause 139 of the

Regulation, must include detailed plans and specifications for all bicycle, car and commercial

vehicle parking in compliance with AS2890.3:1993 Parking Facilities - Bicycle Parking

Facilities, AS/NZS 2890.1:2004 : Parking Facilities - Off-Street Car Parking and AS

2890.2:2002 – Off-Street Parking: Commercial Vehicle Facilities respectively and to include.

A Right Of Way (easement) must be established over the neighbouring property No.

759 New South Head Road (Crystal Car wash) to permit service vehicle egress.

Service vehicles must not exit to Richmond Road.

A Traffic (Parking) Signal System which indicates when the car park is full, is to be

installed and operated.

Access levels and grades must comply with access levels and grade required by Council

under the Roads Act 1993.

The Certifying Authority has no discretion to reduce or increase the number or area of car

parking or commercial parking spaces required to be provided and maintained by this consent. Standard Condition: C45

C.14 Transport Delivery Management Plan (TDMP)

To ensure that all traffic movements associated with service deliveries are conducted in a safe

and efficient manner without adversely impacting on the surrounding road network, the

applicant is to prepare and submit a Transport Delivery Management Plan (TDMP) containing

the following;

The TDMP must state;

The size and quantities of service delivery vehicles. Vehicles longer than 8.8m in length

will not be accepted.

Outline a daily delivery schedule.

Outline a waste collection schedule.

Measures to be implemented for service vehicles reversing into the site.

Specify vehicle routes associated with these operations.

Any additional requirements arising from Council‘s Engineering Services review of the

plan.

The TDMP must comply with the following requirements;

No service vehicles with a length greater than 8.8m shall enter the subject site.

The number of heavy vehicles (being a vehicle over 7.5m in length as per NSW Road

Rules) utilising Richmond Road to access the site must be no greater than 3 vehicles on

any single day.

All heavy service vehicles must enter the site by turning right into the site from

Richmond Road to ensure the retention of on street parking. This requirement must be

included in the briefing notes which are issued to all service vehicle drivers who will be

entering the site.





A management procedure to ensure members of the public are adequately warned of

delivery truck movements.

A Woolworth employee must be present to supervise reversing delivery and service

vehicles within the subject site. Any form of traffic or pedestrian control related to

vehicles reversing into the loading dock area must be undertaken by personnel having

RTA accreditation.

The Plan is to be formatted for implementation by Management of the development.

All service vehicles are to enter the site from Richmond Road, and exit the site to New

South Head Road via the adjoining site of 759 New South Head Road. Signage must be

located in the site to advise service delivery drivers of this arrangement. The TDMP

must nominate the wording and location of sign(s).

Signage and barriers must be located in the site to prevent customers from entering or

exiting the site via New South Head Road.

The use of the loading dock must be undertaken in accordance with the delivery

schedule contained with the section 1.4 of the acoustic report, acoustic report, reference

DA Acoustic Assessment Woolworths Rose Bay, prepared by Aecom, dated 23

November 2011.

The waste collections must be undertaken in in accordance with the waste collection

schedule contained with the section 1.5 of the acoustic report, acoustic report, reference

DA Acoustic Assessment Woolworths Rose Bay, prepared by Aecom, dated 23

November 2011.

Provide copies of the briefing documents that Woolworths intends to issue to its own

drivers, as well as the document which it intends to issue to the independent companies

which will supply goods or services to the supermarket at the subject site, which will

specify the precautions, which shall be implemented during their drivers deliveries to

the supermarket at the subject site. The instructions shall comprehensively outline the

sensitivity of the supermarket at the subject site, the need to enter and depart in a

manner which generates the minimum degree of noise.

The delivery vehicles must be equipped with a two way radio or mobile phone. The

drivers of the delivery vehicles shall be instructed by his/her written instructions, to

contact the Woolworth‘s loading dock supervisor, prior to the truck entering Richmond

Road, in order that the supervisor may thereby ensure that a member of his/her staff

may be present to ensure that the driveway is clear and safe for the truck‘s entry.

Electronic signage must be located at the Richmond Road entrance to the subject site.

The signage must notify approaching delivery vehicles when the loading dock is full. In

this situation, drivers are not permitted to enter the site, or wait in the vicinity of the site.

All Wooworths owned servicing vehicles shall be fitted with level adjusting broadband

reversing beepers in accordance with the DA Acoustic Assessment Woolworths Rose

Bay, prepared by Aecom, dated 23 November 2011.

The Transport Delivery Management Plan must be submitted to Council for written approval

prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

C.15 Stormwater management plan Clause 25(2) WLEP 1995)


Regulation, must include a Stormwater Management Plan for the site.

The Stormwater Management Plan must detail:





a. general design in accordance with Stormwater Report, prepared by Richard Ross P/L,

dated 16 March 2009, and Stormwater concept Dwg No C01 and C02 Rev 00, prepared

by Richard Ross P/L, dated 17 February 2009 other than amended by this and other

conditions;

b. the discharge of stormwater, by a single direct connection and the construction of

approximately 40m of 375mm RCP in-ground drainage line under the road shoulder at

standard depth. The line must connect to the existing pipeline in the road to the east

outside No 755 New South Head Road;

c. compliance the objectives and performance requirements of the BCA;

d. any rainwater tank required by BASIX commitments including their overflow

connection to the Stormwater Drainage System, and

e. general compliance with the Council‘s draft Development Control Plan Stormwater

Drainage Management (draft version 1.1, public exhibition copy dated 14/12/2006).

The Stormwater Management Plan must include the following specific requirements:

Layout plan

A detailed drainage plan at a scale of 1:100 based on drainage calculations prepared in

accordance with the Institute of Engineers Australia publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-

off, 1987 edition or most current version thereof.

It must include:

All pipe layouts, dimensions, grades, lengths and material specification,

All invert levels reduced to Australian Height Datum (AHD),

Location and dimensions of all drainage pits,

Point and method of connection to Councils drainage infrastructure, and

Overland flow paths over impervious areas.

Copies of certificates of title, showing the creation of private easements to drain water by

gravity, if required.

Subsoil Drainage - Subsoil drainage details, clean out points, discharge point.

Note: This Condition is imposed to ensure that site stormwater is disposed of in a controlled and sustainable

manner. Standard Condition: C51

C.16 Flood Protection

The Construction Certificate plans and specifications, required by Clause 139 of the

Regulation, must include a Flood Risk Management Plan on the basis of a 1:100 year flood as

defined by the Rose Bay Catchment Flood Study dated September 2010 at RL 4.94m AHD

along New South Head Road (the flood level), and including the following:

The flood depth in the car park is to be limited to 0.3m.

Flood Evacuation Plan is to be prepared for the site.

Suitable signage indicating that the site is flood affected is to be erected.





Note: The revised driveway profile, gradients and transitions must be in accordance with Australian Standard

2890.1 – 2004, Part 1 (Off-street car parking). The driveway profile submitted to Council must contain all

relevant details: reduced levels, proposed grades and distances. Council will not allow alteration to

existing reduced levels within the road or any other public place to achieve flood protection. Standard Condition: C54

C.17 Light & Ventilation


Certifying Authority pursuant to clause 139 of the Regulation, must detail all a lighting,

mechanical ventilation or air-conditioning systems complying with Part F.4 of the BCA or

clause 3.8.4 and 3.8.5 of the BCA Housing Provisions, inclusive of AS 1668.1, AS 1668.2 and

AS/NZS 3666.1. If an alternate solution is proposed then the Construction Certificate

application must include a statement as to how the performance requirements of the BCA are

to be complied with and support the performance based solution by expert evidence of

suitability. This condition does not set aside the mandatory requirements of the Public Health

(Microbial Control) Regulation2000 in relation to regulated systems. This condition does not

set aside the effect of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 in relation to

offensive noise or odour.

Note: Clause 98 of the Regulation requires compliance with the BCA. Clause 145 of the Regulation prevents

the issue of a Construction Certificate unless the Accredited Certifier/Council is satisfied that compliance

has been achieved. Schedule 1, Part 3 of the Regulation details what information must be submitted with

any Construction Certificate. It is the Applicant's responsibility to demonstrate compliance through the

Construction Certificate application process. Applicants must also consider possible noise and odour

nuisances that may arise. The provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 have

overriding effect if offensive noise or odour arises from the use. Applicant's must pay attention to the

location of air intakes and air exhausts relative to sources of potentially contaminated air and

neighbouring windows and air intakes respectively, see section 2 and 3 of AS 1668.2.

Standard Condition C59

C.18 Acoustic Certification of Mechanical Plant & Equipment

The Construction Certificate plans and specification required to be submitted pursuant to

clause 139 of the Regulation must be accompanied by a certificate from a professional

engineer (acoustic engineer) certifying that the noise level measured at any boundary of the

site at any time while the proposed mechanical plant and equipment is operating will not

exceed the background noise level. Where noise sensitive receivers are located within the

site, the noise level is measured from the nearest strata, stratum or community title land and

must not exceed background noise level, at any time.

The background noise level is the underlying level present in the ambient noise, excluding the

subject noise source, when extraneous noise is removed.

Where sound attenuation is required this must be detailed.

Note: Further information including lists of Acoustic Engineers can be obtained from:

1. Australian Acoustical Society—professional society of noise-related professionals

(www.acoustics.asn.au /index.php).

2. Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants—professional society of noise related

professionals (www.aaac.org.au). Standard Condition: C62

http://www.aaac.org.au/





C.19 Amended Noise Management Plan

To ensure an adequate level of acoustic privacy is maintained to the neighbouring properties,

the Noise Management Plan contained within the DA Acoustic Assessment Woolworths Rose

Bay, prepared by Aecom Acoustic, dated 23.11.2011, must be amended to include

management strategies for the noise arising from the loading and unloading of waste from the

trade waste rooms. The amended Noise Management Plan must be submitted to Council, and

approved in writing prior to the issue of the construction certificate.

C.20 Details of Acoustic Mitigation

The following information and samples must be provided to Council staff and approved in

writing prior to the issue of the construction certificate:

a) Samples of the sound absorptive material(s), which is/are being proposed for the

internal surfaces of barrier walls type A, B1, B2, together with a copy of the NATA

Laboratory test certificate, which confirms its acoustical performance characteristics.

b) Precise details of the impact noise control measures which will be provided for all

drainage grates, which are to be installed, at either the entrance to, or within the main

area of the car park.

c) Detailed professional engineering plans and/or specifications, for the acoustic barriers,

must be submitted to the Certifying Authority with the application for any Construction

Certificate as required by condition C.11 of this consent.

C.21 Food Premises – Construction Certificate Plans & Specifications

The person with the benefit of this consent must submit to Council details for the construction

and fit out of food premises. Such details must demonstrate compliance with the Food Act

2003, Food Regulation 2004; the Food Standards Code as published by Food Standards

Australia and New Zealand and Australian Standard AS 4674-2004: Construction and fit out

of food premises.

No Construction Certificate relating to the construction or fitout of food premises must be

issued until Council‘s Environmental Health Officers‘ have advised in writing that the plans

and specification are considered satisfactory.

The details for the construction and fit out of food premises, as considered satisfactory by

Council‘s Environmental Health Officers‘ must form part of any Construction Certificate.

Note: The assessment of food premises fitout plans and specifications is subject to an adopted fee. The

construction and fitout of food premises is not listed under clause 161 of the Environmental Planning &

Assessment Regulation 2000 as a matter that a Certifying Authority may be satisfied as to. Hence, the

detailed plans & specifications must be referred to Council and be to Council‘s satisfaction prior to the

issue of any Construction Certificate for such works. Standard Condition: C65

C.22 Building upgrade (Clause 94 of the Regulation)

Council considers pursuant to clause 94 of the Regulation that it is appropriate to require the

existing building to be brought into total or partial conformity with the BCA.





The Construction Certificate plans and specification required to be submitted to the Certifying

Authority pursuant to clause 139 of the Regulation must detail building upgrade works

required by this condition.

The Certifying Authority must be satisfied that such work, to be implemented as part of the

development, will upgrade the building to bring it into compliance with the following

provisions of the BCA as in force at the date of the Construction Certificate application:

That a system of emergency lighting shall be installed throughout the building to

provide sufficient light in an emergency in accordance with the requirements of Part E4

of the BCA;

That exit signs shall be installed above all required exit doors. Signs shall be

illuminated at all times and generally be of sufficient number that direction of travel to

all exits is clearly visible from any part of the major egress routes. Exit signs shall be

installed to the standard expressed in Clauses E4.5, E4.6 and E4.8 of the BCA;

That hydrants shall be installed throughout the building in accordance with the

requirements of Clause E1.3 of the BCA,

If an internal fire hydrant is required within the building hose reels shall be installed

throughout the building to the standard expressed in Clause E1.4 of the BCA. Hose

reels shall not be located within rooms but rather in common areas such as

passageways, lobbies or foyers, so that their location is obvious and always available to

all occupants. If it is desired to enclose the hose reels, the cabinets shall be of a size with

sufficient clearance between reel and cabinet to allow the hose to be drawn off in any

direction and rewound without difficulty. Cabinets enclosing hose reels shall have a

conspicuously displayed sign fitted to the door, with lettering at least 50mm in height

reading "Fire Hose Reel". All cabinets are to comply with the relevant requirements of

AS1221 and AS 2441;

Note: The Certifying Authority issuing the Construction Certificate has no power to remove the requirement to

upgrade the existing building as required by this condition. Where this conditions specifies compliance

with performance requirements of the BCA the Certifying Authority, subject to their level of accreditation,

may be satisfied as to such matters. Where this condition specifies compliance with prescriptive (deemed

to satisfied) provisions of the BCA these prescriptive requirements must be satisfied and cannot be varied

unless this condition is reviewed under section 82A or amended under section 96 of the Act.

Note: This condition does not set aside the Certifying Authorities responsibility to ensure compliance with

clause 143 of the Regulation in relation to Fire Protection and Structural Adequacy.

Note: AS 4655 Guidelines for fire safety audits for buildings (or any succeeding AS) should form the basis of

any fire upgrade report.


D. Conditions which must be satisfied prior to the commencement of any development

work

D.1 Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under the


For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, the following conditions are prescribed in


a) that the work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building

Code of Australia,






b) in the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires





a) to the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188, subject to the

terms of any condition or requirement referred to in clause 187 (6) or 188 (4),

b) to the erection of a temporary building.

In this condition, a reference to the BCA is a reference to that code as in force on the date the


Note: This condition must be satisfied prior to commencement of any work in relation to the contract of

insurance under the Home Building Act 1989. This condition also has effect during the carrying out of all

building work with respect to compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

Note: All new guttering is to comply with the provisions of Part 3.5.2 of the Building Code of Australia. Standard Condition: D1

D.2 Dilapidation Reports for existing buildings

Dilapidation surveys must be conducted and dilapidation reports prepared by a professional

engineer (structural) of all buildings on land whose title boundary abuts the site and of such

further buildings located within the likely ―zone of influence‖ of any excavation, dewatering

and/or construction induced vibration.

These properties must include (but not limited to):

a. 745 New South Head Road

b. 10 Richmond Road

c. 11-19 Newcastle Street

d. 21 Newcastle Street

e. 23 Newcastle Street

The dilapidation reports must be completed and submitted to Council with the Notice of

Commencement prior to the commencement of any development work.

Where excavation of the site will extend below the level of any immediately adjoining

building the principal contractor or owner builder must give the adjoining building owner(s)

a copy of the dilapidation report for their building(s) and a copy of the notice of

commencement required by S81A(2) of the Act not less than two (2) days prior to the

commencement of any work. Standard Condition: D4

D.3 Dilapidation Reports for Public Infrastructure

To clarify the existing state of public infrastructure prior to the commencement of any

development (including prior to any demolition), the Principal Contractor must submit a

dilapidation report, prepared by a professional engineer, on Council‘s infrastructure within

and near the development site and include the site frontage to New South Head Road and for

the full length and width of Richmond Road.






The dilapidation report must be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of any work

and include:

a) Photographs showing any existing damage to the road pavement fronting the site.

b) Photographs showing any existing damage to the kerb and gutter fronting the site.

c) Photographs showing any existing damage to the footway including footpath pavement

fronting the site.

d) Photographs showing any existing damage to retaining walls within the footway or

road.

e) Closed circuit television/video inspection (in DVD format) of public stormwater

drainage systems fronting, adjoining or within the site.

f) The full name and signature of the professional engineer.

The reports are to be supplied in both paper copy and electronic format in Word. Photographs

are to be in colour, digital and date stamped.

The dilapidation report must specify (with supporting photographic/DVD evidence) the exact

location and extent of any damaged or defective public infrastructure prior to the

commencement of any work. If the required report is not submitted then Council will assume

there was no damage to any infrastructure in the immediate vicinity of the site prior to the

commencement of any work under this consent.

Note: If the Principal Contractor fails to submit the dilapidation report required by this condition and damage is

occasioned to public assets adjoining the site Council will deduct from security any costs associated with

remedying, repairing or replacing damaged public infrastructure. Nothing in this condition prevents

Council making any claim against security held for this purpose Standard Condition: D5

D.4 Adjoining buildings founded on loose foundation materials

The principal contractor must ensure that a professional engineer determines the possibility

of any adjoining buildings founded on loose foundation materials being affected by piling,

piers or excavation. The professional engineer (geotechnical consultant) must assess the

requirements for underpinning any adjoining or adjacent buildings founded on such soil on a

case by case basis and the principal contractor must comply with any reasonable direction of

the professional engineer.

Note: A failure by contractors to adequately assess and seek professional engineering (geotechnical) advice to

ensure that appropriate underpinning and support to adjoining land is maintained prior to commencement

may result in damage to adjoining land and buildings. Such contractors are likely to be held responsible

for any damages arising from the removal of any support to supported land as defined by section 177 of

the Conveyancing Act 1919. Standard Condition: D6

D.5 Construction Management Plan – Approval & Implementation

As a result of the site constraints, limited space and access a Construction Management Plan

(CMP) is to be submitted to Council. Also, due to the lack of on-street parking a Work Zone

may be required during construction.

It should be noted that access by construction vehicles via Richmond Road is to be minimised

and the CMP is reflect this action.





A construction management plan must be submitted and approved by Council‘s Development

Engineer. The plan must:-

a) Describe the anticipated impact of the demolition, excavation and construction works

on:

Local traffic routes.

Pedestrian circulation adjacent to the building site.

On-street parking in the local area.

b) Describe the means proposed to:

Manage construction works to minimise such impacts.

Provide for the standing of vehicles during construction.

Provide for the movement of trucks to and from the site, and deliveries to the site.

c) Show the location of:

Any site sheds and any anticipated use of cranes and concrete pumps.

Any areas of Council property on which it is proposed to install a Works Zone

(Construction Zone).

Structures to be erected such as hoardings, scaffolding or shoring.

Any excavation.

d) Describe the excavation impact on the area including

Number and types of trucks to be used.

Time frame.

Streets to be used.

Routes to be taken.

Directions of travel.

Truck storage areas.

It is recommended that vehicle routes be shared.

Excavation is to only be carried out outside peak and school hours between

9.30am to 2.30pm week days.

e) Protect Trees, Bushland and Public Open Space:

Show the location of all Tree Protection (Exclusion) Zones as required within the

conditions of this development consent.

The Plan must make provision for all materials, plant, etc. to be stored within the

development site at all times during construction. Structures or works on Council property

such as hoardings, scaffolding, shoring or excavation need separate approval from Council.

Standing of cranes and concrete pumps on Council property will need approval on each

occasion.

Note: A minimum of eight weeks will be required for assessment. Work must not commence until the

Construction Management Plan is approved. Failure to comply with this condition may result in fines and

proceedings to stop work. Standard Condition: D9





D.6 Security Fencing, Hoarding and Overhead Protection

Security fencing must be provided around the perimeter of the development site, including

any additional precautionary measures taken to prevent unauthorised entry to the site at all

times during the demolition, excavation and construction period. Security fencing must be the

equivalent 1.8m high chain wire as specified in AS 1725.

Where the development site adjoins a public thoroughfare, the common boundary between

them must be fenced for its full length with a hoarding, unless the least horizontal distance

between the common boundary and the nearest parts of the structure is greater than twice the

height of the structure. The hoarding must be constructed of solid materials (chain wire or the

like is not acceptable) to a height of not less than 1.8 m adjacent to the thoroughfare.

Where a development site adjoins a public thoroughfare with a footpath alongside the

common boundary then, in addition to the hoarding required above, the footpath must be

covered by an overhead protective structure and the facing facade protected by heavy-duty

scaffolding, unless either:

a) The vertical height above footpath level of the structure being demolished is less than

4.0 m; or

b) The least horizontal distance between footpath and the nearest part of the structure is

greater than half the height of the structure.

The overhead structure must consist of a horizontal platform of solid construction and vertical

supports, and the platform must:

a) Extend from the common boundary to 200mm from the edge of the carriageway for the

full length of the boundary;

b) Have a clear height above the footpath of not less than 2.1 m;

c) Terminate 200mm from the edge of the carriageway (clearance to be left to prevent

impact from passing vehicles) with a continuous solid upstand projecting not less than

0.5 m above the platform surface; and

d) Together with its supports, be designed for a uniformly distributed live load of not less

than 7 kPa.





The principal contractor or owner builder must pay all fees associated with the application

and occupation and use of the road (footway) for required hoarding or overhead protection.

The principal contractor or owner builder must ensure that Overhead Protective Structures

are installed and maintained in accordance with WorkCover NSW Code of Practice -

Overhead Protective Structures, gazetted 16 December 1994, as commenced 20 March 1995.

This can be downloaded from:

http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/Publications/LawAndPolicy/CodesofPractice/oheadprotstr

ucts.htm.

Security fencing, hoarding and overhead protective structure must not obstruct access to

utilities services including but not limited to man holes, pits, stop valves, fire hydrants or the

like.

Note: The principal contractor or owner must allow not less than two (2) weeks from the date of making a

hoarding application for determination. Any approval for a hoarding or overhead protection under the

Roads Act 1993 will be subject to its own conditions and fees.

Standard Condition: D11

D.7 Toilet Facilities

Toilet facilities are to be provided, at or in the vicinity of the work site on which work

involved in the erection or demolition of a building is being carried out, at the rate of one

toilet for every 20 persons or part of 20 persons employed at the site. Each toilet provided:

a) must be a standard flushing toilet, and

b) must be connected to a public sewer, or

c) if connection to a public sewer is not practicable, to an accredited sewage management

facility approved by the council, or

d) if connection to a public sewer or an accredited sewage management facility is not

practicable, to some other sewage management facility approved by the council.

The provision of toilet facilities in accordance with this condition must be completed before

any other work is commenced.

In this condition:

accredited sewage management facility means a sewage management facility to which

Division 4A of Part 3 of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993 applies, being a

sewage management facility that is installed or constructed to a design or plan the subject of a

certificate of accreditation referred to in clause 95B of the Local Government (Approvals)

Regulation 1993.

http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/Publications/LawAndPolicy/CodesofPractice/oheadprotstructs.htm

http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/Publications/LawAndPolicy/CodesofPractice/oheadprotstructs.htm





approved by the council means the subject of an approval in force under Division 1 of Part 3

of the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation 1993.

public sewer has the same meaning as it has in the Local Government (Approvals) Regulation

1993.

sewage management facility has the same meaning as it has in the Local Government

(Approvals) Regulation 1993.

Note: This condition does not set aside the requirement to comply with Workcover NSW requirements.

Standard Condition: D13

D.8 Erosion and Sediment Controls – Installation

The principal contractor or owner builder must install and maintain water pollution, erosion

and sedimentation controls in accordance with:

a) The Soil and Water Management Plan if required under this consent;






Note: The International Erosion Control Association – Australasia (http://www.austieca.com.au/) lists

consultant experts who can assist in ensuring compliance with this condition. Where Soil and Water

Management Plan is required for larger projects it is recommended that this be produced by a member of

the International Erosion Control Association – Australasia.


down loaded free of charge from www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au.




Note: Section 257 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 provides inter alia that ―the

occupier of premises at or from which any pollution occurs is taken to have caused the pollution‖

Warning: Irrespective of this condition any person occupying the site may be subject to proceedings

under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 where pollution is caused, permitted or

allowed as the result of their occupation of the land being developed. Standard Condition: D14

D.9 Building - Construction Certificate, Appointment of Principal Certifying Authority,

Appointment of Principal Contractor and Notice of Commencement (s81A(2) of the Act)

The erection of the building in accordance with this development consent must not be

commenced until:

a) A construction certificate for the building work has been issued by the consent

authority, the council (if the council is not the consent authority) or an accredited

Certifier, and







b) The person having the benefit of the development consent has:

Appointed a principal certifying authority for the building work, and

Notified the principal certifying authority that the person will carry out the

building work as an owner-builder, if that is the case, and

c) the principal certifying authority has, no later than 2 days before the building work

commences:

Notified the consent authority and the council (if the council is not the consent

authority) of his or her appointment, and

Notified the person having the benefit of the development consent of any critical

stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in respect of the

building work, and

d) The person having the benefit of the development consent, if not carrying out the work

as an owner-builder, has:

Appointed a principal contractor for the building work who must be the holder of

a contractor licence if any residential building work is involved, and

Notified the principal certifying authority of any such appointment, and

Unless that person is the principal contractor, notified the principal contractor of

any critical stage inspections and other inspections that are to be carried out in

respect of the building work, and

Given at least 2 days‘ notice to the council of the person‘s intention to commence

the erection of the building.

Note: building has the same meaning as in section 4 of the Act and includes part of a building and any structure

or part of a structure.

Note: new building has the same meaning as in section 109H of the Act and includes an altered portion of, or an

extension to, an existing building.

Note: The commencement of demolition works associated with an altered portion of, or an extension to, an

existing building is considered to be the commencement of building work requiring compliance with

section 82A(2) of the Act (including the need for a Construction Certificate) prior to any demolition

work. See: Over our Dead Body Society Inc v Byron Bay Community Association Inc [2001] NSWLEC

125.

Note: Construction Certificate Application, PCA Service Agreement and Notice of Commencement forms can

be downloaded from Council‘s website www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au .

Note: It is an offence for any person to carry out the erection of a building in breach of this condition and in

breach of section 81A(2) of the Act. Standard Condition: D15

D.10 Establishment of boundary location, building location and datum

Prior to the commencement of any work the principal contractor or owner builder must ensure

that a surveyor registered under the Surveying Act 2002 sets out:

a) the boundaries of the site by permanent marks (including permanent recovery points);

b) the location and level of foundation excavations, footings, walls and slabs by permanent

marks, pegs or profiles relative to the boundaries of the land and relative to Australian

Height Datum (―AHD‖) in compliance with the approved plans;

c) establishes a permanent datum point (bench mark) within the boundaries of the site

relative to AHD; and

d) provides a copy of a survey report by the registered surveyor detailing, the title

boundaries, pegs/profiles, recovery points and bench mark locations as established

pursuant to this condition to the PCA.






Note: Where the principal contractor or owner builder notes any discrepancy between the approved

development consent and the Construction Certificate, especially in relation to the height, location or

external configuration of the building (but not limited to these issues) the principal contractor or owner

builder should not proceed until satisfied that the variations as shown are consistent with the consent.

Failure to do so may result in a breach of development consent.

Note: On larger developments, or where boundary redefinition is required, the placement of new State Survey

Marks as permanent marks should be considered by the registered surveyor. Standard Condition: D18

E. Conditions which must be satisfied during any development work

E.1 Compliance with Building Code of Australia and insurance requirements under the


For the purposes of section 80A (11) of the Act, the following condition is prescribed in


a) That the work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Building

Code of Australia,

b) In the case of residential building work for which the Home Building Act 1989 requires





a) To the extent to which an exemption is in force under clause 187 or 188, subject to the

terms of any condition or requirement referred to in clause 187 (6) or 188 (4) of the

Regulation, or

b) To the erection of a temporary building.

In this clause, a reference to the BCA is a reference to that Code as in force on the date the


Note: All new guttering is to comply with the provisions of Part 3.5.2 of the Building Code of Australia.

Standard Condition: E1

E.2 Compliance with Australian Standard for Demolition

Demolition of buildings and structures must comply with Australian Standard AS 2601—

1991: The Demolition of Structures, published by Standards Australia, and as in force at 1

July 1993. Standard Condition: E2

E.3 Compliance with Construction Management Plan

All development activities and traffic movements must be carried out in accordance with the

approved construction management plan. All controls in the Plan must be maintained at all

times. A copy of the Plan must be kept on-site at all times and made available to the PCA or

Council on request.

Note: Irrespective of the provisions of the Construction Management Plan the provisions of traffic and parking

legislation prevails. Standard Condition: E3






E.4 Requirement to notify about new evidence

Any new information which comes to light during remediation, demolition or construction

works which has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination, heritage

significance, threatened species or other relevant matters must be immediately notified to

Council and the Principal Certifying Authority.. Standard Condition: E4

E.5 Critical Stage Inspections

Critical stage inspections must be called for by the principal contractor or owner builder as

required by the PCA, any PCA service agreement, the Act and the Regulation.

Work must not proceed beyond each critical stage until the PCA is satisfied that work is

proceeding in accordance with this consent, the Construction Certificate(s) and the Act.

critical stage inspections means the inspections prescribed by the Regulations for the

purposes of section 109E(3)(d) of the Act or as required by the PCA and any PCA Service

Agreement.

Note: The PCA may require inspections beyond mandatory critical stage inspections in order that the PCA be

satisfied that work is proceeding in accordance with this consent.

Note: The PCA may, in addition to inspections, require the submission of Compliance Certificates, survey

reports or evidence of suitability in accordance with Part A2.2 of the BCA in relation to any matter

relevant to the development. Standard Condition: E5

E.6 Hours of Work –Amenity of the neighbourhood

a) No work must take place on any Sunday or public holiday,

b) No work must take place before 7am or after 5pm any weekday,

c) No work must take place before 7am or after 1pm any Saturday,

d) The following work must not take place before 9am or after 4pm any weekday, or

before 9am or after 1pm any Saturday or at any time on a Sunday or public holiday;

(i) Piling;

(ii) Piering;

(iii) Rock or concrete cutting, boring or drilling;

(iv) Rock breaking;

(v) Rock sawing;

(vi) Jack hammering; or

(vii) Machine excavation,

e) No loading or unloading of material or equipment associated with the activities listed in

part d) above must take place before 9am or after 4pm any weekday, or before 9am or

after 1pm any Saturday or at any time on a Sunday or public holiday.

f) No operation of any equipment associated with the activities listed in part d) above must

take place before 9am or after 4pm any weekday, or before 9am or after 1pm any

Saturday or at any time on a Sunday or public holiday

g) No rock excavation being cutting, boring, drilling, breaking, sawing , jack hammering

or bulk excavation of rock, must occur without a 15 minute break every hour.

This condition has been imposed to mitigate the impact of work upon the amenity of the

neighbourhood. Impact of work includes, but is not limited to, noise, vibration, dust, odour,

traffic and parking impacts.





Note: The use of noise and vibration generating plant and equipment and vehicular traffic, including trucks in

particular, significantly degrade the amenity of neighbourhoods and more onerous restrictions apply to

these activities. This more invasive work generally occurs during the foundation and bulk excavation

stages of development. If you are in doubt as to whether or not a particular activity is considered to be

subject to the more onerous requirement (9am to 4pm weekdays and 9am to 1pm Saturdays) please

consult with Council.

Note: Each and every breach of this condition by any person may be subject to separate penalty infringement

notice or prosecution.

Note: The delivery and removal of plant, equipment and machinery associated with wide loads subject to RTA

and Police restrictions on their movement out side the approved hours of work will be considered on a

case by case basis.

Note: Compliance with these hours of work does not affect the rights of any person to seek a remedy to

offensive noise as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, the Protection of

the Environment Operations (Noise Control) Regulation 2000.

Note: EPA Guidelines can be down loaded from http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/noise/nglg.htm .

Note: see http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/ci_build_sheet7.pdf Standard Condition: E6

E.7 Public Footpaths – Safety, Access and Maintenance (Apply to all development)

The principal contractor or owner builder and any other person acting with the benefit of this

consent must:

a) Not erect or maintain any gate or fence swing out or encroaching upon the road or the

footway.

b) Not use the road or footway for the storage of any article, material, matter, waste or

thing.

c) Not use the road or footway for any work.

d) Keep the road and footway in good repair free of any trip hazard or obstruction.

e) Not stand any plant and equipment upon the road or footway.

f) Provide a clear safe pedestrian route a minimum of 1.5m wide.

g) Protect street name inlays in the footpath which are not to be removed or damaged

during development.

This condition does not apply to the extent that a permit or approval exists under the section

73 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, section 138 of the

Roads Act 1993 or section 94 of the Local Government Act 1993 except that at all time

compliance is required with:

a) Australian Standard AS 1742 (Set) Manual of uniform traffic control devices and all

relevant parts of this set of standards.

b) Australian Road Rules to the extent they are adopted under the Road Transport (Safety

and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999.

Note: Section 73 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 allows the Police to close

any road or road related area to traffic during any temporary obstruction or danger to traffic or for any

temporary purpose. Any road closure requires Police approval.

Note: Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 provides that a person must not:

erect a structure or carry out a work in, on or over a public road, or

dig up or disturb the surface of a public road, or

remove or interfere with a structure, work or tree on a public road, or

pump water into a public road from any land adjoining the road, or

connect a road (whether public or private) to a classified road,

otherwise than with the consent of the appropriate roads authority.

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/noise/nglg.htm

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/ci_build_sheet7.pdf





Note: Section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 provides that a person may carry out certain activities only

with the prior approval of the council including:

Part C Management of Waste:

a. For fee or reward, transport waste over or under a public place

b. Place waste in a public place

c. Place a waste storage container in a public place.‖

Part E Public roads:

a. Swing or hoist goods across or over any part of a public road by means of a lift, hoist or tackle

projecting over the footway

b. Expose or allow to be exposed (whether for sale or otherwise) any article in or on or so as to

overhang any part of the road or outside a shop window or doorway abutting the road, or hang

an article beneath an awning over the road.‖

c. Any work in, on or over the Road or Footway requires Council Approval and in the case of

classified roads the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority. Road includes that portion of the road

uses as a footway. Standard Condition: E7

E.8 Maintenance of Environmental Controls

The principal contractor or owner builder must ensure that the following monitoring,

measures and controls are maintained:

a) Erosion and sediment controls.

b) Dust controls.

c) Dewatering discharges.

d) Noise controls.

e) Vibration monitoring and controls.

f) Ablutions.

Note: See http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/small_business/builders.htm for additional information. Standard Condition: E11

E.9 Erosion and Sediment Controls – Maintenance

The principal contractor or owner builder must maintain water pollution, erosion and

sedimentation controls in accordance with:

a) The Soil and Water Management Plan required under this consent;




Department of Housing 4th Edition (―The Blue Book‖).





http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/small_business/builders.htm





Note: Section 257 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 provides that ―the occupier of

premises at or from which any pollution occurs is taken to have caused the pollution‖.

Warning: Irrespective of this condition any person occupying the site may be subject to proceedings under the

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 where pollution is caused, permitted or allowed as the result

of the occupation of the land being developed whether or not they actually cause the pollution. Standard Condition:

E15

E.10 Disposal of site water during construction

The principal contractor or owner builder must ensure:

a) Prior to pumping any water into the road or public stormwater system that approval is

obtained from Council under section 138(1)(d) of the Roads Act 1993;

b) That water pollution, as defined by the Protection of the Environment Operations Act

1997, does not occur as the result of the discharge to the road, public stormwater system

or other place or any site water;

c) That stormwater from any roof or other impervious areas is linked, via temporary

downpipes and stormwater pipes, to a Council approved stormwater disposal system

immediately upon completion of the roof installation or work creating other impervious

areas.

Note: This condition has been imposed to ensure that adjoining and neighbouring land is not adversely affected

by unreasonable overland flows of stormwater and that site water does not concentrate water such that

they cause erosion and water pollution. Standard Condition: E17

E.11 Filling of site

To the extent that this consent permits filling of the site such fill must be virgin excavated

natural material (“VENM”).

VENM means ―Virgin excavated natural material (such as clay, gravel, sand, soil and rock)

that is not mixed with any other type of waste and which has been excavated from areas of

land that are not contaminated with human-made chemicals as a result of industrial,

commercial, mining or agricultural activities and which do not contain sulphidic ores or

soils.‖

Note: This definition is the same as in Schedule 1 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997,

Appendix IX: Types of waste.

Note: Sulphidic ores and soils are commonly known as Acid Sulphate Soils.

Note: If a person transports waste to a place (the site) that cannot lawfully be used as a waste facility for that

waste: (a) the person, and, (b) if the person is not the owner of the waste, the owner, are each guilty of an

offence under section 143 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Note: A person who is the owner or occupier (principal contractor) of any land that cannot lawfully be used as a

waste facility and who permits the land to be used as a waste facility is guilty of an offence under section

144 of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

Note: Additional information is available from the following websites:

Illegal waste dumping - http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/waste/dumping.htm

Is that fill legal? http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/012648web.epa%20fill.dl%20bro.pdf Standard Condition: E18

E.12 Site Cranes

Site Crane(s) and hoist(s) may be erected within the boundary of the land being developed

subject to compliance with Australian Standards AS 1418, AS 2549 and AS 2550 and all

relevant parts to these standards.

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/waste/dumping.htm

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/resources/012648web.epa%20fill.dl%20bro.pdf





Cranes must not swing or hoist over any public place unless the principal contractor or owner

builder have the relevant approval under the Local Government Act 1993, Crown Lands Act

1989 or Roads Act 1993.

The crane must not be illuminated outside approved working hours other than in relation to

safety beacons required by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority under the Civil Aviation Act

1988 (Cth).

No illuminated sign(s) must be erected upon or displayed upon any site crane.

Note: Where it is proposed to swing a crane over a public place the principal contractor or owner builder must

make a separate application to Council under section 68 of the Local Government Act 1993 and obtain

activity approval from Council prior to swinging or hoisting over the public place.

Note: Where it is proposed to swing a crane over private land the consent of the owner of that private land is

required. Alternatively, the principal contractor or owner builder must obtain an access order under the

Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000 or easement under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 or

section 40 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979 as appropriate. The encroachment of cranes or the

like is a civil matter of trespass and encroachment. Council does not adjudicate or regulate such

trespasses or encroachments. Standard Condition: E19

E.13 Check Surveys - boundary location, building location, building height, stormwater

drainage system and flood protection measures relative to Australian Height Datum

The Principal Contractor or Owner Builder must ensure that a surveyor registered under the

Surveying Act 2002 carries out check surveys and provides survey certificates confirming the

location of the building(s), ancillary works, flood protection works and the stormwater

drainage system relative to the boundaries of the site and that the height of buildings, ancillary

works, flood protection works and the stormwater drainage system relative to Australian

Height Datum complies with this consent at the following critical stages.

The Principal Contractor or Owner Builder must ensure that work must not proceed beyond

each of the following critical stages until compliance has been demonstrated to the PCA‟s

satisfaction:

a) Upon the completion of foundation walls prior to the laying of any floor or the pouring

of any floor slab and generally at damp proof course level;

b) Upon the completion of formwork for floor slabs prior to the laying of any floor or the

pouring of any concrete and generally at each storey;

c) Upon the completion of formwork or framework for the roof(s) prior to the laying of

any roofing or the pouring of any concrete roof;

d) Upon the completion of formwork and steel fixing prior to pouring of any concrete for

any ancillary structure, flood protection work, swimming pool or spa pool or the like;

e) Upon the completion of formwork and steel fixing prior to pouring of any concrete for

driveways showing transitions and crest thresholds confirming that driveway levels

match Council approved driveway crossing levels and minimum flood levels.;

f) Stormwater Drainage Systems prior to back filling over pipes confirming location,

height and capacity of works.

g) Flood protection measures are in place confirming location, height and capacity.





Note: This condition has been imposed to ensure that development occurs in the location and at the height

approved under this consent. This is critical to ensure that building are constructed to minimum heights

for flood protection and maximum heights to protect views and the amenity of neighbours. Standard Condition: E20

E.14 Placement and use of Skip Bins

The principal contractor or owner builder must ensure that all waste storage containers,

including but not limited to skip bins, must be stored within the site unless:

a) Activity Approval has been issued by Council under section 94 of the Local

Government Act 1993 to place the waste storage container in a public place, and

b) Where located on the road it is located only in a positions where a vehicle may lawfully

park in accordance with the Australian Road Rules to the extent they are adopted under

the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) (Road Rules) Regulation 1999.

Note: Waste storage containers must not be located on the footpath without a site specific activity approval.

Where such site specific activity approval is granted a 1.5m wide clear path of travel is maintained free of

any trip hazards. Standard Condition: E21

E.15 Prohibition of burning

There must be no burning of any waste or other materials. The burning of CCA (copper

chrome arsenate) or PCP (pentachlorophenol) treated timber is prohibited in all parts of NSW.

All burning is prohibited in the Woollahra local government area.

Note: Pursuant to the Protection of the Environment Operations (Control of Burning) Regulation 2000 all

burning (including burning of vegetation and domestic waste) is prohibited except with approval. No

approval is granted under this consent for any burning. Standard Condition: E22

E.16 Dust Mitigation

Dust mitigation must be implemented in accordance with ―Dust Control - Do it right on site‖

published by the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils.

This generally requires:

a) Dust screens to all hoardings and site fences.

b) All stockpiles or loose materials to be covered when not being used.

c) All equipment, where capable, being fitted with dust catchers.

d) All loose materials being placed bags before placing into waste or skip bins.

e) All waste and skip bins being kept covered when not being filled or emptied.

f) The surface of excavation work being kept wet to minimise dust.

g) Landscaping incorporating trees, dense shrubs and grass being implemented as soon as

practically possible to minimise dust.

Note: ―Dust Control - Do it right on site‖ can be down loaded free of charge from Council‘s web site

www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au or obtained from Council‘s office.

Note: Special precautions must be taken when removing asbestos or lead materials from development sites.

Additional information can be obtained from www.workcover.nsw.gov.au and www.epa.nsw.gov.au .

Other specific condition and advice may apply.



http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/





Note: Demolition and construction activities may affect local air quality and contribute to urban air pollution.

The causes are dust, smoke and fumes coming from equipment or activities, and airborne chemicals when

spraying for pest management. Precautions must be taken to prevent air pollution. Standard Condition: E23

E.17 Compliance with Council’s Specification for Roadworks, Drainage and Miscellaneous

Works Road works and work within the Road and Footway

All work carried out on assets which are under Council ownership or will revert to the

ownership, care, control or management of Council in connection with the development to

which this consent relates must comply with Council‘s Specification for Roadworks,

Drainage and Miscellaneous Works dated January 2003.

The owner, principal contractor or owner builder must meet all costs associated with such

works.

This condition does not set aside the need to obtain relevant approvals under the Roads Act

1993 or Local Government Act 1993 for works within Roads and other public places.

Note: A copy of Council‘s ―Specification for Roadworks, Drainage and Miscellaneous Works‖ can be down

loaded free of charge from Council‘s website www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au Standard Condition: E24

E.18 Food Premises – Construction & Fitout

The principal contractor or owner builder must ensure that all construction and fitout of the

food premises complies with the details for the food premises submitted to and considered

satisfactory by Council's Environmental Health Officers but no less compliant than with the

Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004; the Food Standards Code as published by Food

Standards Australia and New Zealand and AS 4674-2004: Construction and fit out of food

premises.

This condition has been imposed to protect public health and ensure that food premises are

easily maintained in a clean condition fit for food preparation and consumption. Standard Condition: E29

E.19 Discovery of additional information during remediation, demolition or construction

(contamination)

Any new information which comes to light during demolition, or construction works which

has the potential to alter previous conclusions about site contamination detailed in the

Targeted Environmental Site Assessment and Preliminary Acid Sulfate Soils Assessment

(Ref: 1683 and 1683/2 dated February 2007) prepared by Aargus Pty Ltd, must be notified to

Woollahra Council and the accredited certifier immediately after discovery.

E.20 Discovery of additional information during remediation, demolition or construction

(acid sulfate soils)

Any new information which comes to light during demolition or excavation works which has

the potential to alter previous conclusions about acid sulfate soils on the site or soil

disturbance below a depth of 7m is planned, Environmental Investigation Services should be

contacted for advice.






E.21 Disposal of soil from the site

Any proposed disposal of soil from the site, such soil must be tested and classified in

accordance with the provisions of both the Protection of the Environment Operations Act

1997 and the NSW EPA Guidelines: Assessment, Classification and Management of Liquid

and Non-Liquid Wastes (1999).

E.22 Tree Preservation & Approved Landscaping Works

All landscape works must be undertaken in accordance with the approved landscape plan,

arborist report, tree management plan and transplant method statement as applicable.

a) The following trees must be retained

Trees on Council Land

Council

Ref No

Species Location Dimension

(metres)

Tree

Value

($)

1 Cinnamomum camphora

(Camphor Laurel)

Road reserve Richmond

Road

15 height x

12 spread

9,000.00

Note: The tree/s required to be retained should appear coloured green on the construction certificate

plans.

E.23 Driveways/car parking areas in the vicinity of trees

The driveway/car parking area must be constructed utilising materials/techniques designed to

ensure that the existing water infiltration and gaseous exchange to the trees root system is

maintained. Driveways are to be designed in consultation with a qualified Arborist (minimum

qualification of Australian Qualification Framework Level 4 or recognised equivalent) and are

to utilise such measures as semiporous material.

E.24 Heritage conservation works

To ensure the proposal adequately retains the heritage significance of the subject heritage item

at No. 757 New South Head Road (the former post office) the following works must be

undertaken:

- All ceilings and cornices to the former Post Office are to be retained.

- All brick arches and round head openings to the existing windows of the south and

west elevations are to be retained. Infill material of round arch window frames is to be

in new timber.

- Skirtings are to be retained where existing, and to be reconstructed and reinstated to

the remainder of original walling being retained in the former Post Office.

- The black railings to the front steps are to be retained, along with the former Post

Office white lettering ‗Rose Bay 2029‘ to the façade.

- The sandstone base is to be properly conserved and repaired by a heritage

conservation specialist.











repaired.

- The timber eaves soffits are to be repaired and repainted to match existing colour.



- The Post Office principal building form is to retain its current colour scheme, that is:

Unpainted facebrick where existing is to remain unpainted.

Stone is to remain unpainted.

Timber joinery is to remain white.

External ‗cornice‘ and external ‗skirting‘ are to remain existing white/off-white

colour.

Eaves soffits are to remain existing white/off-white colour.

Where currently external brickwork becomes internal it is to remain unpainted.

E.25 Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997

During demolition works, no equipment, building materials or other articles are to be used or

placed in a manner on or off the site that will cause or likely to cause a ‗pollution incident‘ as

defined under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

F. Conditions which must be satisfied prior to any use of the development (Part 4A of the

Act and Part 8 Division 3 of the Regulation)

F.1 Occupation Certificate (section 109M of the Act)

A person must not commence occupation or use of the whole or any part of a new building

(within the meaning of section 109H (4) of the Act) unless an occupation certificate has been

issued in relation to the building or part.

Note: New building includes an altered portion of, or an extension to, an existing building.

Standard Condition: F1

F.2 Amenity Landscaping

The owner or principal contractor must install all approved amenity landscaping (screen

planting, soil stabilisation planting, etc.) prior to any occupation or use of the site.

Note: This condition has been imposed to ensure that the environmental impacts of the development are

mitigated by approved landscaping prior to any occupation of the development. Standard Condition: F6

F.3 Commissioning and Certification of Systems and Works

The principal contractor or owner builder must submit to the satisfaction of the PCA works-

as-executed (―WAE‖) plans, Compliance Certificates and evidence of suitability in

accordance with Part A2.2 of the BCA confirming that the works, as executed and as detailed,

comply with the requirement of this consent, the Act, the Regulations, any relevant

construction certificate, the BCA and relevant Australian Standards.

Works-as-executed (―WAE‖) plans, Compliance Certificates and evidence of suitability in

accordance with Part A2.2 of the BCA must include but may not be limited to:





a) Certification from the supervising professional engineer that the requirement of the

Geotechnical / Hydrogeological conditions and report recommendations were

implemented and satisfied during development work.

b) All flood protection measures.

c) All garage/car park/basement car park, driveways and access ramps comply with

Australian Standard AS 2890.1 – ―Off-Street car parking.‖

d) Traffic (parking ) signal system

e) All stormwater drainage and storage systems.

f) All mechanical ventilation systems.

g) All hydraulic systems.

h) All structural work.

i) All acoustic attenuation work.

j) All waterproofing.

k) Such further matters as the Principal Certifying Authority may require.

Note: This condition has been imposed to ensure that systems and works as completed meet development

standards as defined by the Act, comply with the BCA, comply with this consent and so that a public

record of works as execute is maintained.

Note: The PCA may require any number of WAE plans, certificates, or other evidence of suitability as

necessary to confirm compliance with the Act, Regulation, Development Standards, BCA, and relevant

Australia Standards. As a minimum WAE plans and certification is required for stormwater drainage and

detention, mechanical ventilation work, hydraulic services (including but not limited to fire services).

Note: The PCA must submit to Council, with any Occupation Certificate, copies of works-as-executed

(―WAE‖) plans, Compliance Certificates and evidence of suitability in accordance with Part A2.2 of the

BCA upon which the PCA has relied in issuing any Occupation Certificate. Standard Condition: F7

F.4 Commissioning and Certification of Public Infrastructure Works

The principal contractor or owner builder must submit, to the satisfaction of Woollahra

Municipal Council, certification from a professional engineer that all public infrastructure

works have been executed in compliance with this consent and with Council‘s Specification

for Roadworks, Drainage and Miscellaneous Works dated January 2003.

The certification must be supported by closed circuit television / video inspection provided on

DVD of all stormwater drainage together with Works As Executed engineering plans and a

survey report detailing all finished reduced levels. Standard Condition: F9

F.5 Food Premises - Inspection and Registration

Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate or occupation or use of any food premises:

a) The Principal Contractor or owner must arrange an inspection of the fit out of the Food

Premises by Council's Environmental Health Officer;

b) A satisfactory final inspection must have been undertaken by Council's Environmental

Health Officer; and

c) The owner or occupier must have registered the Food Premises (Notification of conduct

under section 100 of the Food Act 2003).

Note: Notification can be done on-line at www.foodnotify.nsw.gov.au

Note: Inspections are subject to payment of the adopted inspection fee.

http://www.foodnotify.nsw.gov.au/





Note: Section 100 of the Food Act 2003 requires:

―100 Notification of conduct of food businesses

(1) The proprietor of a food business must not conduct the food business unless the proprietor has given

written notice, in the approved form, of the information specified in the Food Safety Standards that is to

be notified to the appropriate enforcement agency before the business is conducted. Maximum penalty:

500 penalty units in the case of an individual and 2,500 penalty units in the case of a corporation.‖

Note: Accredited Certifiers are unable to issue Compliance Certificates in relation to compliance with the Food

Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004; the Food Standards Code and the Australian Standard AS 4674-2004:

Construction and fit out of food premises; since these are not matters which an Accredited Certifier can be

satisfied in relation to under Clause 161 of the Regulation. This condition can only be satisfied following

an inspection and sign off from Council‘s Environmental Health Officers. Standard Condition: F15

F.6 Traffic Signal System

To minimise traffic congestion in the car park during peak operating periods, a traffic signal

system indicating to approaching drivers that the car park is fully occupied, must be installed

and operational prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate.

The traffic signal system must:

be operational at all operating hours of the development,

the entire system must be contained within the site and,

the signal must be visible to a driver on Richmond Road approaching the car park entry

from either direction, at any hour of the day.

Details and specifications of the signal system must be submitted to the Accredited Certifier

at the completion of work.

F.7 Trolley Management Plan

In an attempt to preserve both visual amenity and noise amenity of residential areas within the

vicinity of the proposed development from the abandonment of shopping trolleys and to

facilitate shopping trolleys not to be taken from the subject site. Prior to the use of the

development, a Trolley Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by a member of

Council‘s planning staff. The plan must detail:

1. Measures to ensure shopping trolleys shall remain on the premises of the subject site.

2. The implementation of ―containment‖ systems that encourage the confinement of

trolleys to the retailer‘s premises. Containment systems may include:

Coin/token operated systems with refund.

Trolleys with wheel locks activated by a radio signal or magnetic strip.

Cattle grids at carpark entrances and exits.

Any other system which demonstrates a commitment to contain trolleys to the owners

premises, or to within the boundaries of a shopping centre and may include staff

permanently stationed at exits during trading hours.

3. In the event that trolleys are taken outside of the subject site, Woolworths shall have a

management program which ensures that shopping trolleys taken from the retail

premises are collected at least daily.

4. Note: Council may impound trolleys following the procedures under the Impounding

Act 1993 where a shopping trolley has been abandoned or left unattended and





(i) is likely to cause imminent danger to a member of the public and

(ii) the trolley has not been collected by the owner or their collective agent after due

notification has been forwarded by Council of the location of the trolley at least

twenty-four hours previously.

In addition the following must be provided with the Trolley Management Plan

1. Two samples of the proposed plastic and/or the plastic coated steel framed shopping

trolleys, shall be provided to Council for assessment and approval.

F.8 Certification of Acoustic Barriers

Prior to the use of the development, a report prepared by a acoustic engineer shall be provided

to Council. The report must confirm that the barriers accord with the noise control measures

detailed in the acoustic report, reference DA Acoustic Assessment Woolworths Rose Bay,

prepared by Aecom, dated 23 November 2011.

G. Conditions which must be satisfied prior to the issue of any Subdivision Certificate

G.1 Electricity Substations – Dedication as road and/or easements for access

If an electricity substation, is required on the site the owner must dedicate to the appropriate

energy authority (to its satisfaction), free of cost, an area of land adjoining the street

alignment to enable an electricity substation to be established. The size and location of the

electricity substation is to be in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate energy

authority and Council. The opening of any access doors are not to intrude onto the public

road (footway or road pavement).

Documentary evidence of compliance, including correspondence from the energy authority is

to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of the Construction

Certificate detailing energy authority requirements.

The Accredited Certifier must be satisfied that the requirements of energy authority have been

met prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

Where an electricity substation is provided on the site adjoining the road boundary, the area

within which the electricity substation is located must be dedicated as public road. Where

access is required across the site to access an electricity substation an easement for access

across the site from the public place must be created upon the linen plans burdening the

subject site and benefiting the Crown in right of New South Wales and any Statutory

Corporation requiring access to the electricity substation. Standard Condition: G4





H. Conditions which must be satisfied prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate

(s109C(1)(c))

H.1 Landscaping

All landscape work including all planting must be completed by the principal contractor or

owner in compliance with the approved landscape plan, arborist report, transplant method

statement and tree management plan. The principal contractor or owner must provide to PCA

a works-as-executed landscape plan and certification from a qualified landscape

architect/designer, horticulturist and/or arborist as applicable to the effect that the works as

completed comply with this consent.

Note: This condition has been imposed to ensure that all Landscaping work is completed prior to the issue of

the Final Occupation Certificate. Standard Condition: H9

H.2 Removal of Ancillary Works and Structures

The principal contractor or owner must remove from the land and any adjoining public place:

a) The site sign;

b) Ablutions;

c) Hoarding;

d) Scaffolding; and

e) Waste materials, matter, article or thing.

Note: This condition has been imposed to ensure that all ancillary matter is removed prior to the issue of the

Final Occupation Certificate. Standard Condition: H12

H.3 Bush Regeneration

Bush regeneration must be completed in accordance with the approved bush regeneration

plan. The principal contractor or owner must provide to PCA certification from a qualified

bush regenerator that the works as completed comply with this consent.

Note: This condition has been imposed to ensure that bush regeneration work required under the consent have

been completed prior to the issue of any Final Occupation Certificate. Standard Condition: H10

H.4 Road Works (including footpaths)

The following works must be completed to the satisfaction of Council, in accordance with the

Roads Act 1993 approvals and comply with Council‘s “Specification for Roadworks,

Drainage and Miscellaneous Works” dated January 2003 unless expressly provided otherwise

by these conditions at the principal contractor‟s or owner‟s expense:

a) Stormwater pipes, pits and connections to public stormwater systems within the road;

b) Driveways and vehicular crossings within the road;

c) Removal of redundant driveways and vehicular crossings;

d) New footpaths within the road;

e) Relocation of existing power/light pole

f) relocation/provision of street signs





g) New or replacement street trees;

h) New footway verges, where a grass verge exists, the balance of the area between the

footpath and the kerb or site boundary over the full frontage of the proposed

development must be turfed. The grass verge must be constructed to contain a uniform

minimum 75mm of friable growing medium and have a total cover of turf predominant

within the street.

i) New or reinstated kerb and guttering within the road; and

j) New or reinstated road surface pavement within the road.

k) The section of footpath to link the proposed car park and Richmond Road must be

constructed to minimise the noise impacts of vehicles entering and exiting the subject

site.

l) The section of Richmond Road adjacent to the proposed vehicular entrance must be

resurfaced to minimise noise impacts of vehicles entering and existing the subject site.

Note: Security held by Council pursuant to section 80A(6) of the Act will not be release by Council until

compliance has been achieved with this condition. An application for refund of security must be

submitted with the Final Occupation Certificate to Council. This form can be downloaded from

Council‘s website www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au or obtained from Council‘s customer service centre. Standard Condition: H13

H.5 Dilapidation Report for public infrastructure works

The Principal Contractor must submit a follow up dilapidation report, prepared by a

professional engineer, on Council‘s infrastructure within and near the development site to

Council upon completion of the work.

The Final Occupation Certificate must not be issued until Council‘s Civil Works Engineer is

satisfied that the works have been satisfactorily completed and the PCA has been provided

with correspondence from Council to this effect.

The dilapidation report must include:

a) Photographs showing any existing damage to the road pavement fronting the site,

b) Photographs showing any existing damage to the kerb and gutter fronting the site,

c) Photographs showing any existing damage to the footway including footpath pavement

fronting the site,

d) Photographs showing any existing damage to retaining walls within the footway or

road, and

e) Closed circuit television/video inspection (in DVD format) of public stormwater

drainage systems fronting, adjoining or within the site, and

f) The full name and signature of the professional engineer.

The reports are to be supplied in both paper copy and electronic format in Word. Photographs

are to be in colour, digital and date stamped.

The dilapidation report must specify (with supporting photographic/DVD evidence) the exact

location and extent of any damaged or defective public infrastructure. If the required report is

not submitted then Council will assume any damage to any infrastructure in the immediate

vicinity of the site was caused by the principle contractor and owner carrying out work under

this consent.






Note: If the Principal Contractor fails to submit the dilapidation report required by this condition and damage is

occasioned to public assets adjoining the site Council will deduct from security any costs associated with

remedying, repairing or replacing damaged public infrastructure. Nothing in this condition prevents

Council making any claim against security held for this purpose. Standard Condition: H14

H.6 Covenant for Private Works on Council Property

A positive covenant, pursuant to Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act, must be created on the

title of the subject property, providing for the indemnification of Council from any claims or

actions, and the on-going maintenance of any private structures on or over Council property

for which consent has been given, such as steps, retaining walls, access ways, overhang,

balconies, awnings, signs and the like.

The wording of the Instrument must be in accordance with Council‘s standard format and the

Instrument must be registered at the Land Property Information Office prior to the issuance of

any Occupation Certificate.

Note: The required wording of the Instrument can be downloaded from Council‘s web site

www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au . The PCA must supply a copy of the WAE Plans to Council together with

the Occupation Certificate. No Occupation Certificate must be issued until this condition has been

satisfied. Standard Condition: H19

H.7 Fire Safety

To ensure that adequate provision has been made for fire safety, prior to the occupation of the

building, the following works must be completed:

A system of emergency lighting must be installed throughout the building to provide

sufficient light in an emergency in accordance with the requirements of Part E4 of the

BCA;

Exit signs shall be installed above all required exit doors. Signs shall be illuminated at

all times and generally be of sufficient number that direction of travel to all exits is

clearly visible from any part of the major egress routes. Exit signs shall be installed to

the standard expressed in Clauses E4.5, E4.6 and E4.8 of the BCA;

Hydrants shall be installed throughout the building in accordance with the requirements

of Clause E1.3 of the BCA,

If an internal fire hydrant is required within the building hose reels shall be installed

throughout the building to the standard expressed in Clause E1.4 of the BCA. Hose

reels shall not be located within rooms but rather in common areas such as

passageways, lobbies or foyers, so that their location is obvious and always available to

all occupants. If it is desired to enclose the hose reels, the cabinets shall be of a size with

sufficient clearance between reel and cabinet to allow the hose to be drawn off in any

direction and rewound without difficulty. Cabinets enclosing hose reels shall have a

conspicuously displayed sign fitted to the door, with lettering at least 50mm in height

reading "Fire Hose Reel". All cabinets are to comply with the relevant requirements of

AS1221 and AS 2441;





H.8 Consolidation of Allotments

Prior to the Occupation Certificate a final Plan of Survey prepared and certified by a

Registered Surveyor must be submitted and approved by the Accredited Certifier showing the

consolidation of the 3 lots (LOT: 5 SEC: 1 DP: 976493, LOT: 1 SEC: 1 DP: 776799, and

LOT: 2 DP: 776799) into a single lot.

A new deposited plan of the consolidated lot must be registered at the Land Titles Office and

a copy provided to Council with copies of certificates of title, prior to the issue of the

Occupation Certificate.

I. Conditions which must be satisfied during the ongoing use of the development

I.1 Hours of use

This condition provides a trial period for the proposed hours of use. This is to ensure that the

proposed use would not adversely impact upon the acoustic privacy, or residential amenity, of

the neighbouring properties.

For the first 12 months that the supermarket is in operation, the hours of use are limited to the

following:

a) Monday to Friday: 7am-10pm

b) Saturday: 7am-10pm

c) Sunday and Public Holiday: 7am-10pm

After the first 12 months that the supermarket is in operation, the hours of use are limited to

the following:

a) Monday to Friday: 7am-7pm

b) Saturday: 7am-7pm

c) Sunday and Public Holiday: 7am-7pm

If a section 96 application is submitted to Council to amended condition I.1 to maintain the

longer opening hours, Council will review the hours of use to assess the magnitude of that

operational regime on the adjacent residential properties.

Note: Deliveries to or dispatches from the site must not be made outside these hours. Trading Hours may be

more onerous than these general hours of use. This condition does not apply to activities such as cleaning

which takes place wholly within the building and which are not audible within any adjoining residential

dwelling. If internal activities are audible within any adjoining residential dwelling such that they cause a

nuisance to the occupiers of such dwelling than such internal activities must not occur outside these hours

of use. This condition does not restrict the operation of noise pollution laws. Standard Condition: I1

I.2 Loading dock operating hours


the use of the loading dock area by trucks, refrigerated vans and other vehicles for the purpose

of goods deliveries and the movement of such goods shall be strictly restricted to the

following hours:

7:00 am - 6:00 pm from Monday to Saturday.

8:00 am – 6:00 pm on Sunday





I.3 Waste collection hours and requirements


the collection of waste materials, recyclables and the collection of fat oil and grease trap

services shall only occur during the following hours:

9:00am - 3:00 pm from Monday to Saturday.

The occupier shall maintain a log to be kept on the premises which details the names of waste

contractors and dates and times that have entered and left the site.

Any glass bins must be located within the building. The glass bin must be emptied into the

refuse bin area a maximum of once per day to minimise noise associated with the transfer of

glass.

I.4 Car park use

To ensure an adequate level of residential amenity is maintained to the neighbouring

properties, the use of the car park is restricted to the approved hours of use of the

supermarket. The car parking spaces within the car park must be kept available for customer

use.

I.5 Compliance with the Transport Delivery Management Plan (TDMP)

All service delivery and waste collection traffic movements and activities must be undertaken

in accordance with the approved Transport Delivery Management Plan (TDMP).

I.6 Provision of off-street Public and Visitor Parking

The owner and occupier, in compliance with AS/NZS 2890.1:2004: Parking facilities - Off-

street car parking, must maintain unimpeded public access to off-street parking as approved

This condition has been imposed to ensure adequate on site parking is maintained. Standard Condition: I4

I.7 Illumination of signage

To protect the amenity of neighbours and limit the obtrusive effects of signage illumination

on public places, the illumination of any signage between 10pm and 7am is prohibited.

I.8 Maintenance of Landscaping

All landscaping must be maintained in general accordance with this consent.

This condition does not prohibit the planting of additional trees or shrubs subject that they are

native species endemic to the immediate locality.

Reason: This condition has been imposed to ensure that the landscaping design intent is not eroded over time

by the removal of landscaping or inappropriate exotic planting.





Note: This condition also acknowledges that development consent is not required to plant vegetation and

that over time additional vegetation may be planted to replace vegetation or enhance the amenity of

the locality. Owners should have regard to the amenity impact of trees upon the site and neighbouring

land. Further, drought proof vegetation being native species endemic to the immediate locality is

encouraged. Suggested native species endemic to the immediate locality are listed in the Brochure

Titled ―Local Native Plants for Sydney‘s Eastern Suburbs‖ published by Woollahra, Waverley,

Randwick and Botany Bay Councils. Standard Condition: I8

I.9 Waste Management - Commercial

The owner and/or occupier must comply with the approved Site Waste Minimisation and

Management Plan (SWMMP) and with Council‘s Site Waste Minimisation and Management

Development Control Plan 2010.

All waste must be presented for collection in a receptacle. Waste receptacles must be

presented no earlier than the close of business on the day before collection. Waste and

recycling bins/crates must be removed from the road or footpath within 1 hour of collection or

otherwise is accordance with the approved SWMMP.

Receptacles are not to be stored in any public place at anytime. Waste and recycling

receptacles must be stored at all times within the boundaries of the site.

This condition does not apply to the extent that Activity Approval exists under the Local

Government Act 1993 or the Roads Act 1993 and subject that all conditions of such

approval(s) are complied with.

This condition has been imposed to ensure that the provisions of the approved SWMMP and

of Council‘s Site Waste Minimisation and Management Development Control Plan 2010 are

complied with during the ongoing operations of the development.

Note: No waste will be collected by Council that isn‘t presented properly. The waste must be presented with lid

closed to reduce littering. Standard Condition: I15

I.10 Annual Fire Safety Statements (Class 1b to 9c buildings inclusive)

Each year, the owner of a building to which an essential fire safety measure is applicable must

provide an annual fire safety statement to Council and the Commissioner of the NSW Fire

Brigades. The annual fire safety statement must be prominently displayed in the building.

Note: Essential fire safety measure has the same meaning as in clause 165 of the Regulation. Annual fire safety

statement has the same meaning as in clause 175 of the Regulation. Part 9 Division 5 of the Regulation

applies in addition to this condition at the date of this consent. Visit Council‘s web site for additional

information in relation to fire safety www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au. Standard Condition: I22

I.11 Food Premises - Maintenance of Food Premises

The food premises must be maintained in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food

Regulation 2004; the Food Standards Code as published by Food Standards Australia and

New Zealand and Australian Standard AS 4674-2004: Construction and fit out of food

premises.

This condition has been imposed to protect public health.






Note: The provisions of the Food Act 2003 may change over time and irrespective of this condition compliance

with this Act, regulations, food standards and other standards adopted under the Food Act (as amended)

are mandatory. The Food Act and applicable regulations can be accessed free of charge at

www.legislation.nsw.gov.au. Standard Condition: I30

I.12 Outdoor lighting – Commercial

Outdoor lighting must comply with AS 4282-1997: Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor

lighting. The maximum luminous intensity from each luminare must not exceed the level 1

control relevant under table 2.2 of AS 4282. The maximum illuminance and the threshold

limits must be in accordance with Table 2.1 of AS 4282.

This condition has been imposed to protect the amenity of neighbours and limit the obtrusive

effects of outdoor lighting in public places.

Note: Council may consider, subject to an appropriate section 96 application relaxation of this condition where

it can be demonstrated, by expert report, that the level of lighting in the existing area already exceeds the

above criteria, where physical shielding is present or physical shielding is reasonably possible. Standard Condition: I43

I.13 Delivery vehicles


no trucks, refrigerated vans or any other vehicles shall be parked within the vicinity of the

loading dock area awaiting delivery or accepting of goods prior to or after the approved

loading dock operating hours. Similarly, no trucks, refrigerated vans or any other vehicles

shall leave engines idle when delivering or accepting goods within the loading dock area.

Large articulated truck deliveries to the loading dock are not permitted at the proposed

development.

I.14 Noise management plan

The recommendations of the noise management plan must be complied with during the

ongoing use of the development.

I.15 Noise Control

The use of the premises must not give rise to the transmission of offensive noise to any place

of different occupancy. Offensive noise is defined in the Protection of the Environment

Operations Act 1997.

This condition has been imposed to protect the amenity of the neighbourhood.

Note: Council will generally enforce this condition in accordance with the Noise Guide for Local Government

(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/nglg.htm) and the Industrial Noise Guidelines

(http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/industrial.htm) publish by the Department of Environment

and Conservation. Other state government authorities also regulate the Protection of the Environment

Operations Act 1997.

Useful links:

Community Justice Centres—free mediation service provided by the NSW Government

(www.cjc.nsw.gov.au).

Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, Noise Policy Section web page

(www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise).

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/nglg.htm

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/industrial.htm

http://www.cjc.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise





New South Wales Government Legislation home page for access to all NSW legislation, including the

Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Noise Control

Regulation 2000 (www.legislation.nsw.gov.au).

Australian Acoustical Society—professional society of noise-related professionals (www.acoustics.asn.au

/index.php).

Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants—professional society of noise related professionals

(www.aaac.org.au).

Department of Gaming and Racing - (www.dgr.nsw.gov.au). Standard Condition: I50

I.16 Noise from mechanical plant and equipment

The noise level measured at any boundary of the site at any time while the mechanical plant

and equipment is operating must not exceed the background noise level. Where noise

sensitive receivers are located within the site, the noise level is measured from the nearest

strata, stratum or community title land and must not exceed background noise level at any

time.

The background noise level is the underlying level present in the ambient noise, excluding the

subject noise source, when extraneous noise is removed.

This condition has been imposed to protect the amenity of the neighbourhood.

Note: Words in this condition have the same meaning as in the:

NSW Industrial Noise Policy (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/ind_noise.pdf)

ISBN 0 7313 2715 2, dated January 2000, and

Noise Guide for Local Government (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/nglg.htm)

ISBN 1741370671 , dated December 2004. Standard Condition: I53

I.17 Car park area signage

The car park area must include clear signage which indicates customer parking, and customer

entry and exit points. This signage should clearly state that customers are restricted from

entering or exiting the site via New South Head Road.

I.18 Compliance with the Trolley Management Plan

The owner and/or occupier must comply with the approved Site approved trolley management

plan.

J. Miscellaneous Conditions

No relevant conditions.

K. Advisings

K.1 Criminal Offences – Breach of Development Consent & Environmental laws

Failure to comply with this development consent and any condition of this consent is a

criminal offence. Failure to comply with other environmental laws is also a criminal offence.

Where there is any breach Council may without any further warning:

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.aaac.org.au/

http://www.dgr.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/ind_noise.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/nglg.htm





a) Issue Penalty Infringement Notices (On-the-spot fines);

b) Issue notices and orders;

c) Prosecute any person breaching this consent; and/or

d) Seek injunctions/orders before the courts to restrain and remedy any breach.

Warnings as to potential maximum penalties

Maximum Penalties under NSW Environmental Laws include fines up to $1.1 Million and/or

custodial sentences for serious offences.

Warning as to enforcement and legal costs

Should Council have to take any action to enforced compliance with this consent or other

environmental laws Council‘s policy is to seek from the Court appropriate orders requiring

the payments of its costs beyond any penalty or remedy the Court may order.

This consent and this specific advice will be tendered to the Court when seeking costs orders

from the Court where Council is successful in any necessary enforcement action.

Note: The payment of environmental penalty infringement notices does not result in any criminal offence being

recorded. If a penalty infringement notice is challenged in Court and the person is found guilty of the

offence by the Court, subject to section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a criminal

conviction is recorded. The effect of a criminal conviction beyond any fine is serious. You can obtain

further information from the following web sites:

http://www.theshopfront.org/documents/ConvictionsCriminalRecords.pdf and the Attorney General‘s

www.agd.nsw.gov.au. Standard Advising: K1

K.2 Dial before you dig

The principal contractor, owner builder or any person digging may be held financially

responsible by the asset owner should they damage underground pipe or cable networks.

Minimise your risk and Dial 1100 Before You Dig or visit www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au.

When you contact Dial Before You Dig, you will be sent details of all Dial Before You Dig

members who have underground assets in the vicinity of your proposed excavation. Standard Advising: K2

K.3 Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (“DDA”)

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) makes it against the law for public places to

be inaccessible to people with a disability. Compliance with this development consent,

Council‘s Access DCP and the BCA does not necessarily satisfy compliance with the DDA.

The DDA applies to existing places as well as places under construction. Existing places must

be modified and be accessible (except where this would involve "unjustifiable hardship‖).

Further detailed advice can be obtained from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity

Commission (―HEROC‖):

http://www.theshopfront.org/documents/ConvictionsCriminalRecords.pdf

http://www.agd.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au/





a) http://www.hreoc.gov.au/index.html

b) http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/dda_guide/ins/ins.html

If you have any further questions relating to the application of the DDA you can send and

email to HEROC at [email protected]. Standard Advising: K3

K.4 Builders Licences and Owner Builders Permits

Section 81A of the Act requires among other matters that the person having the benefit of the

development consent, if not carrying out the work as an owner-builder, must appointed a

principal contractor for residential building work who must be the holder of a contractor

licence.

Further information can be obtained from the NSW Office of Fair Trading website about how

you obtain an owner builders permit or find a principal contractor (builder):

http://www.dft.nsw.gov.au/building.html .

The Owner(s) must appoint the PCA. The PCA must check that Home Building Act

insurance is in place before the commencement of building work. The Principal Contractor

(Builder) must provide the Owners with a certificate of insurance evidencing the contract of

insurance under the Home Building Act 1989 for the residential building work. Standard Condition: K5

K.5 Building Standards - Guide to Standards and Tolerances

The PCA does not undertake detailed quality control inspections and the role of the PCA is

primarily to ensure that the development proceeds in accordance with this consent,

Construction Certificates and that the development is fit for occupation in accordance with its

classification under the Building Code of Australia. Critical Stage Inspections do not provide

the level of supervision required to ensure that the minimum standards and tolerances

specified by the ―Guide to Standards and Tolerances©‖ ISBN 0 7347 6010 8 are achieved.

The quality of any development is a function of the quality of the principal contractor‟s or

owner builder‟s supervision of individual contractors and trades on a daily basis during the

development. The PCA does not undertake this role.

The NSW Office of Fair Trading have published a ―Guide to Standards and Tolerances©‖

ISBN 0 7347 6010 8. The guide can be obtained from the Office of Fair Trading by calling

13 32 20 or by Fax: 9619 8618 or by post to: Marketing Branch, PO Box 972, Parramatta

NSW 2124.

The Guide can be down loaded from:


Council, as the PCA or otherwise, does not adjudicate building contract disputes between the

principal contractor, contractors and the owner. Standard Condition: K6

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/index.html

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/dda_guide/ins/ins.html

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dft.nsw.gov.au/building.html






K.6 Workcover requirements

The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 No 40 and subordinate regulations, codes of

practice and guidelines control and regulate the development industry.

Note: Further information can be obtained from Workcover NSW‘s website:

http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/Industry/Construction/default.htm or through their head office:

Location: Workcover NSW, 92-100 Donnison Street, GOSFORD 2250 Postal address: WorkCover

NSW, Locked Bag 2906, LISAROW 2252, Phone (02) 4321 5000, Fax (02) 4325 4145. Standard Condition: K7

K.7 Asbestos Removal, Repair or Disturbance

Anyone who removes, repairs or disturbs bonded or a friable asbestos material must hold a

current removal licence from Workcover NSW.

Before starting work, a work site-specific permit approving each asbestos project must be

obtained from Workcover NSW. A permit will not be granted without a current Workcover

licence.

All removal, repair or disturbance of or to asbestos material must comply with:

a) The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000;

b) The Occupational Health and Safety Regulation 2001;

c) The Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos [NOHSC: 2002 (1998)];

d) The Guide to the Control of Asbestos Hazards in Buildings and Structures [NOHSC:

3002 (1998)] http://www.nohsc.gov.au/ ];

e) The Workcover NSW Guidelines for Licensed Asbestos Removal Contractors.

Note: The Code of Practice and Guide referred to above are known collectively as the Worksafe Code of

Practice and Guidance Notes on Asbestos. They are specifically referenced in the Occupational Health

and Safety Regulation 2001 under Clause 259. Under the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation

2001, the Worksafe Code of Practice and Guidance Notes on Asbestos are the minimum standards for

asbestos removal work. Council does not control or regulate the Worksafe Code of Practice and

Guidance Notes on Asbestos. You should make yourself aware of the requirements by visiting

www.workcover.nsw.gov.au or one of Workcover NSW‘s offices for further advice. Standard Advising: K8

K.8 Lead Paint

It is beyond the scope of this consent to provide detailed information about dealing with lead

paint. Painters working in an area containing lead-based paint should refer to Australian

Standard AS 4361.1–1995, Guide to Lead Paint Management—Industrial Applications, or AS

4361.2–1998, Guide to Lead Paint Management—Residential and Commercial Buildings.

Industrial paints, may contain lead. Lead is used in some specialised sign-writing and artist

paints, and road marking paints, and anti-corrosive paints. Lead was a major ingredient in

commercial and residential paints from the late 1800s to 1970. Most Australian commercial

buildings and residential homes built before 1970 contain lead paint. These paints were used

both inside and outside buildings.

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/summarize/inforce/s/1/?TITLE=%22Occupational%20Health%20and%20Safety%20Act%202000%20No%2040%22&nohits=y

http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/Industry/Construction/default.htm






Lead hazards - Lead particles are released when old lead paint flakes and peels and collects as

dust in ceiling, wall and floor voids. If dust is generated it must be contained. If runoff

contains lead particles it must be contained. Lead is extremely hazardous, and stripping of

lead-based paint and the disposal of contaminated waste must be carried out with all care.

Lead is a cumulative poison and even small levels in the body can have severe effects. Standard Advising: K9

K.9 Dividing Fences

The erection of dividing fences under this consent does not affect the provisions of the

Dividing Fences Act 1991. Council does not adjudicate civil disputes relating to the provision

of, or payment for, the erection of dividing fences.

Note: Further information can be obtained from the NSW Department of Lands -

http://www.lands.nsw.gov.au/LandManagement/Dividing+Fences.htm. Community Justice Centres

provide a free mediation service to the community to help people resolve a wide range of disputes,

including dividing fences matters. Their service is free, confidential, voluntary, timely and easy to use.

Mediation sessions are conducted by two impartial, trained mediators who help people work together to

reach an agreement. Over 85% of mediations result in an agreement being reached. Mediation sessions

can be arranged at convenient times during the day, evening or weekends. Contact the Community Justice

Centre either by phone on 1800 671 964 or at http://www.cjc.nsw.gov.au/. Standard Advising: K10

K.10 Appeal

Council is always prepared to discuss its decisions and, in this regard, please do not hesitate to

contact Eleanor Killey, Assessment Officer, on (02) 9391 7090.

However, if you wish to pursue your rights of appeal in the Land & Environment Court you

are advised that Council generally seeks resolution of such appeals through a Section 34

Conference, site hearings and the use of Court Appointed Experts, instead of a full Court

hearing.

This approach is less adversarial, it achieves a quicker decision than would be the case

through a full Court hearing and it can give rise to considerable cost and time savings for all

parties involved. The use of the Section 34 Conference approach requires the appellant to

agree, in writing, to the Court appointed commissioner having the full authority to completely

determine the matter at the conference. Standard Condition: K14

K.11 Release of Security

An application must be made to Council by the person who paid the security for release of the

securities held under section 80A of the Act.

The securities will not be released until a Final Occupation Certificate has lodged with

Council, Council has inspected the site and Council is satisfied that the public works have

been carried out to Council‘s requirements. Council may use part or all of the security to

complete the works to its satisfaction if the works do not meet Council‘s requirements.

Council will only release the security upon being satisfied that all damage or all works, the

purpose for which the security has been held have been remedied or completed to Council‘s

satisfaction as the case may be.

http://www.lands.nsw.gov.au/LandManagement/Dividing+Fences.htm

http://www.cjc.nsw.gov.au/





Council may retain a portion of the security to remedy any defects in any such public work

that arise within 6 months after the work is completed.

Upon completion of each section of road, drainage and landscape work to Council's

satisfaction, 90% of the Bond monies held by Council for these works will be released upon

application. 10% may be retained by Council for a further 6 month period and may be used by

Council to repair or rectify any defects or temporary works during the 6 month period.

Note: The Application for Refund of Security form can be downloaded from

http://www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au/pdf/Forms/Planning/RefundofSecurity.pdf Standard Condition: K15

K.12 Recycling of Demolition and Building Material

It is estimated that building waste, including disposable materials, resulting from demolition,

excavation, construction and renovation, accounts for almost 70% of landfill. Such waste is

also a problem in the generation of dust and the pollution of stormwater. Council encourages

the recycling of demolition and building materials. Standard Condition: K17

K.13 Pruning or Removing a Tree Growing on Private Property

Woollahra Municipal Council's Tree Preservation Order 2006 (TPO) may require that an

application be made to Council prior to pruning or removing any tree. The aim is to secure the

amenity of trees and preserve the existing landscape within our urban environment.

Before you prune or remove a tree, make sure you read all relevant conditions. You can

obtain a copy of the TPO from Council's website www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au or you may

contact Council on 9391-7000 for further advice. Standard Condition: K19

K.14 Dilapidation Report Condition

Please note the following in relation to the condition for a dilapidation report:

a) The dilapidation report will be made available to affected property owners on requested

and may be used by them in the event of a dispute relating to damage allegedly due to

the carrying out of the development.

b) This condition cannot prevent neighbouring buildings being damaged by the carrying

out of the development.

c) Council will not be held responsible for any damage which may be caused to adjoining

buildings as a consequence of the development being carried out.

d) Council will not become directly involved in disputes between the Developer, its

contractors and the owners of neighbouring buildings.

e) In the event that access for undertaking the dilapidation survey is denied the applicant is

to demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the Council that all reasonable steps were

taken to obtain access to the adjoining property. The dilapidation report will need to be

based on a survey of what can be observed externally. Standard Advising: K23

http://www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au/pdf/Forms/Planning/RefundofSecurity.pdf






K.15 Roads Act Application

Works or structures over, on or under public roads or footpaths are subject to Sections 138,

139 & 218 of the Roads Act 1993 and specifically:

Construction of driveways and/or new or alterations to footpath paving

Alteration and/or extension to Council drainage infrastructure

Alteration and/or addition of retaining walls

Pumping of water to Council‘s roadway

Installation of soil/rock anchors under the roadway

An ―Application to carry out works in a Public Road‖ form must be completed and lodged,

with the Application fee, at Council‘s Customer Services counter. Detailed plans and

specifications of all works (including but not limited to structures, road works, driveway

crossings, footpaths and stormwater drainage etc) within existing roads, must be attached,

submitted to and approved by Council under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993, before the

issue of any Construction Certificate.

Detailed engineering plans and specifications of the works required by this Condition must

accompany the Application form. The plans must clearly show the following:

Engineering drawings (plan, sections and elevation views) and specifications of the

footpath, driveways, kerb & gutter, new gully pit showing clearly the connection point

of site outlet pipe(s). Note, the connection drainage lines must be as direct as possible

and generally run perpendicular to the kerb alignment.

Engineering drawings of the new drainage line to be constructed joining the new and

existing drainage pits including services.

All driveways must include a design longitudinal surface profile for the proposed driveway

for assessment. The driveway profile is to start from the road centreline and be along the

worst case edge of the proposed driveway. Gradients and transitions must be in accordance

with Clause 2.5.3, 2.6 of AS 2890.1 – 2004, Part 1 – Off-street car parking. The driveway

profile submitted to Council must be to (1:25) scale (for template checking purposes) and

contain all relevant details: reduced levels, proposed grades and distances.

The existing footpath level and grade at the street alignment of the property must be

maintained unless otherwise specified by Council. Your driveway levels are to comply with

AS2890.1 and Council‘s Standard Drawings. There may be occasions where these

requirements conflict with your development and you are required to carefully check the

driveway/garage slab and footpath levels for any variations.

Note: any adjustments required from the garage slab and the street levels are to be carried out

internally on private property

Drainage design works must comply with the Council‘s draft Development Control Plan

Stormwater Drainage Management (Draft Version 1.1, Public Exhibition Copy dated 14

December 2006), and

Temporary ground anchors may be permitted, in accordance with Council‘s “Rock Anchor

Policy”.





All public domain works must comply with Council‘s ―Specification for Roadworks,

Drainage and Miscellaneous Works‖ dated January 2003 unless expressly provided otherwise

by these conditions. This specification and the application form can be downloaded from

www.woollahra.nsw.gov.au .

Note: To ensure that this work is completed to Council‘s satisfaction, this consent by separate condition, may

impose one or more Infrastructure Works Bonds.

Note: When a large Roads Act is required, then four (4) weeks is to be allowed for assessment.

Note: Road has the same meaning as in the Roads Act 1993.

Note: The intent of this condition is that the design of the road, footpaths, driveway crossings and public

stormwater drainage works must be detailed and approved prior to the issue of any Construction

Certificate. Changes in levels may arise from the detailed design of buildings, road, footpath, driveway

crossing grades and stormwater. Changes required under Road Act 1993 approvals may necessitate design

and levels changes under this consent. This may in turn require the applicant to seek to amend this

consent. Standard Advising: K24

Mrs E Killey Mr N Economou

ASSESSMENT OFFICER TEAM LEADER

ANNEXURES

1. Plans and elevations

2. Development Engineer‘s referral response.

3. Landscaping Officer‘s referral response.

4. Environmental Health Officer‘s referral response.

5. Heritage Officer‘s referral response.

6. Urban Design Planner‘s referral response.

7. Fire Safety Officer‘s referral response.

8. Advertising and Signage Officer‘s referral response.

9. RTA referral response.

10. Acoustic Peer Review.

11. Traffic Peer Review.

12. Submissions matrix.





Matter before Committee or

Council meeting

Did the applicant, owner (if not the applicant) or

someone close to the applicant make a donation in

excess of $1,000 that directly benefited your election

campaign? (Code of Conduct Cl 7.23)

Action

Declare a significant non-

pecuniary conflict of interest,

absent yourself from the meeting

and take no further part in the

debate or vote on the matter

(Code of Conduct Cl 7.17(b))

Did the applicant or someone close to the

applicant make a donation less than $1,000 that

directly benefited your election campaign?

(Code of Conduct Cl 7.23)

Do you believe the political

contribution creates a significant non-

pecuniary conflict of interest for you?

(Code of Conduct Cl 7.24)

Action

Declare a significant non-

pecuniary conflict of interest,

absent yourself from the meeting

and take no further part in the

debate or vote on the matter

(Code of Conduct Cl 7.17(b))

Action

Participate in debate and vote on

the matter

Yes

No

YesYes

No

Is the matter before the

meeting a Planning Matter?Yes

No

Staff to record decision process

(motions/amendments) and Division

of votes for the determinative

resolution or recommendation in the

meeting minutes

Staff to record decision process

(motions/amendments) and

determinative resolution or

recommendation in the meeting

minutes

Action

Consider appropriate action required.

This could include limiting involvement by:

1. participating in discussion but not in decision

making (vote),

2. participating in decision making (vote) but not in

the discussion

3. not participating in the discussion or decision

making (vote)

4. removing the source of the conflict

No

or

POLITICAL DONATIONS DECISION MAKING FLOWCHART

FOR THE INFORMATION OF COUNCILLORS

Documents

Session: One & Two D1 to D3, R1 & D4 · 2012. 2. 28. · H:\Development Control Committee\AGENDAS\2012\Working Agenda\mar5-12dccage.docx Meeting Agenda Session Two - Commencing at