Liu v Sydney City Council
[2010] NSWLEC 1329
•1 December 2010
Land and Environment Court
of New South Wales
CITATION: Liu v Sydney City Council [2010] NSWLEC 1329
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.PARTIES: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
Chris Liu
Sydney City CouncilFILE NUMBER(S): 10690 of 2010 CORAM: Morris C KEY ISSUES: DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION - DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN - HERITAGE :- Demolition of a dwelling outside heritage conservation area. LEGISLATION CITED: Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979
Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 26 – City WestDATES OF HEARING: 23-24 November, 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
1 December 2010LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT
Ms H Irish
SOLICITOR
Susan Hill & AssociatesRESPONDENT
Ms M Carpenter
SOLICITOR
Ms K Morrin, Sydney City Council
JUDGMENT:
The Land and
Environment Court
OF NEW SOUTH WALESMorris C
1 December 2010
10690 of 2010 Chris Liu v Sydney City Council
JUDGMENT
1 Commissioner: This is an appeal against the deemed refusal by Sydney City Council (the council) of Development Application No. D/2010/891, which seeks the demolition of an existing dwelling house at No. 9 Burren Street, Erskineville.
2 The main contentions in the matter are whether consent should be granted for the demolition of the dwelling due to its heritage significance and whether the heritage significance of the dwelling is such that it should be retained and incorporated into any new development. A further concern of the council is whether consent for demolition should be granted in the absence of plans for redevelopment of the site.
3 During the course of the hearing the parties agreed that I issue a preliminary determination as to whether the heritage significance of the building is such that it should not be demolished. In the event that I find that it should be retained then the question of whether it can be retained will need to be addressed at some later stage. This latter decision requires further consideration of engineering, quantity surveying and valuation evidence. In accordance with the need to provide a just, quick and cheap resolution to the proceedings, I have agreed to proceed on the basis of a preliminary decision.
The site and its context
4 No. 9 Burren Street (the site) is a wedge shaped allotment at the southern end of the street on its eastern side. The railway line borders the site to its east and the dwelling is the last residential building on the east side of Burren Street with railway infrastructure buildings located immediately to the south of the site.
5 Burren Street contains a mix of single and two storey dwellings in various condition. The majority of the dwellings are attached and have been built in groups. A number have been the subject to extensive alterations and additions however the streetscape remains typical of the original pattern of development. A modern townhouse development is the exception and is located to the north of the site at No. 31-35 Burren Street.
6 The site has a frontage of 12.19m, depth of 24.505m (south) and 32.315m (north) and area of 333.4m2. It contains a single storey, weatherboard clad dwelling with single storey brick and concrete additions to its rear and a metal shed. A timber fence defines the rear property boundary and a high acoustic fence is located beyond that fenceline to attenuate the noise from the Eveleigh rail precinct and train line however trains remain audible at the site and in Burren Street.
7 Two large grevillea robusta trees are located within the front setback area and, according to the information included in the form submitted with the development application, these are to be retained.
The proposal
8 The application is for the demolition of the dwelling house, metal shed and associated site works.
9 The application does not include any plans for redevelopment of the site.
The planning controls
10 The site is located within the Eveleigh precinct of the Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 26 – City West (the REP) and is zoned residential pursuant to the provisions of that plan.
11 The aims of the REP are:
- to establish planning principles of regional significance for City West as a whole with which development in City West should be consistent, and
- to establish planning principles and development controls of regional significance for development in each Precinct created within City West by this plan and by subsequent amendment of this plan, and
- to promote the orderly and economic use and development of land within City West.
12 Part 2 of the REP describes the role and land use activities appropriate to the Eveleigh precinct and those relevant to the application are:
- Development is to provide affordable housing which will supplement the existing housing within the Precinct.
- Development is to allow the continued use of land within the Precinct for railway purposes by the State Rail Authority.
13 Objectives of the residential zone relevant to the application are:
- to protect existing residential areas and identify future residential areas, and
- to ensure that land within the zone is primarily used for residential purposes.
14 The REP contains heritage provisions at clauses 29-32. Those clauses apply to development of a heritage item, development in the vicinity of a heritage item, and development within a conservation area. The site is not within a conservation area nor is the dwelling identified as an individual heritage item under the provisions of the REP or any other planning instrument.
15 A heritage item, referred to in Map 4 Sheet 2 of the REP as a Gasometer and Pumps, is located to the north east of the site. The parties agree that whilst the site is within the vicinity of that heritage item, the proposed development has no impact on its heritage significance. No other consideration of heritage matters is required pursuant to the provisions of the REP.
16 Clause 52 requires that the consent authority seek the views of listed government bodies where appropriate and consider those views in determining any application. The council sought the views of RailCorp and its requirements, as relevant to demolition, have been incorporated in the draft conditions of consent tendered in the proceedings.
17 The western side of Burren Street is included within the Burren Estate Conservation Area (the CA).
18 The parties agree that the Sydney City Council is the consent authority for development on the site.
19 Clause 120 of Schedule 6 to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act) now provides that regional environmental plans are taken to be state environmental planning policies (SEPP).
20 Despite the provisions of s74B of the Act, it is also agreed that the site is subject to the provisions of the City of Sydney Heritage Development Control Plan 2006 (the DCP). Clause 1.6 of the DCP defines the area to which the plan applies and states “the controls apply to land within the City of Sydney local government area (LGA) as shown on Figure 1 where the City of Sydney or Central Sydney Planning Committee (the committee) is the consent authority. The map included as Figure 1 applies to the whole LGA and identifies those areas where the council, the committee or the Minister is consent authority.
21 Clause 1.4 of the DCP relates to the application of the DCP and states:
- Heritage items (including landscape and archaeological items, and building elements) as identified in the State Heritage Register or any applicable Local Environmental Plan;
- Buildings and sites within heritage conservation areas and heritage streetscapes as identified in any applicable LEP; and
- Properties older than 50 years requiring a heritage impact statement.
- The DCP applies to all heritage buildings, sites and elements including:
22 The council maintain that the DCP applies to the application. Ms Irish, for the applicant, takes the view that whilst the DCP applies to the site, it does not apply to this application. She notes that heritage buildings, sites and elements are defined in Appendix A of the DCP. Those definitions are as follows:
Heritage buildings, sites and elements means heritage items (including landscape and archaeological items, and building elements), and buildings, works, relics, trees and sites within heritage conservation areas and heritage streetscapes.
Building elements includes doors, windows, gutters, downpipes, chimneys, security grills, roofs, shopfronts.
Ms Carpenter for the council took the view that the word including in clause 1.4 should be construed as meaning “includes but not limited to”. I do not accept this is correct and I consider the proper statutory construction of the clause is limited to development which falls within the defined term. She further relied on the third dot point to the clause, that relates to buildings older than 50 years which require a heritage impact statement and took the view that this was a global application of the DCP and would apply to all buildings within the LGA.It is her view that the development does not fall within the provisions of clause 1.4 as that clause relates to development of a defined term i.e. heritage buildings, sites and elements only. As the building is not a heritage item or a building, work relic, tree or site within a heritage conservation area, she argues that the DCP does not apply.
23 I note that Appendix A also contains a definition of Heritage Impact Statement which also includes “statement of heritage impact” and is as defined in the relevant LEP. The LEP includes the following definition:
- in accordance with the provisions of the publication “Statements of Heritage Impact” published by the NSW Heritage Office and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning as a guideline document to the NSW Heritage Manual, or
- in the case of a place of Aboriginal heritage significance, in accordance with any guidelines for the time being notified to the consent authority by the Director-General of National Parks and Wildlife, or
- in the case of a place of non-Aboriginal archaeological significance, in accordance with the publication “Archaeological Assessments” published by the NSW Heritage Office and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning as a companion document to the NSW Heritage Manual.
- statement of heritage impact means a document which contains a statement which identifies the significance of the heritage item, place, heritage conservation area, streetscape or relic to which it relates, assesses the impact the proposed development will have on this significance and outlines measures that are proposed to minimise this impact. The document is to be prepared:
24 The LEP also contains a clause, clause 23B, which is specific to buildings older than fifty years. This states:
- The consent authority may decline to grant a development application that proposes building work relating to a building older than fifty years until it has considered a statement of heritage impact, so as to enable it to fully consider the heritage of the building and the impact of the proposed development on the significance of the building and its setting.
25 It was agreed that the site does not fall under the provisions of the LEP. In view of the above provisions, I do not agree that the third dot point of clause 1.4 applies to the application.
26 The council advises that the draft Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2010 intends to remove those residential properties on the eastern side of Burren Street from the REP and include it within a general residential zone and within a heritage conservation area. That plan has not been the subject of public consultation and accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) of the, it is not a matter that is to be taken into consideration when determining the application.
The issues
27 The matters of contention are:
- Whether the building should be retained due to its heritage significance;
- The impact of the demolition on the streetscape;
- Whether consent to demolition should be granted in the absence of an application for a replacement building.
Site view
28 The hearing commenced on site and included an inspection of Burren Street in the company of both parties and their experts.
29 Evidence was heard from the owner of a property opposite the site who expressed her concern about the loss of a building she considered, like the majority of buildings within the suburb to be over 100 years old, and to be a lovely original building which should be retained. Her other concern was that no plans for a replacement building were available.
30 The owners of No. 25 Burren Street spoke of their experiences in obtaining approval from the council to alter their dwelling and how they had been required to retain the façade of the original dwelling. It is unclear as to the extent of the original fabric which remains from original other than the front door, some of the framing and verandah posts. That dwelling is a single fronted property and the front room of the dwelling is the only portion of the building that the approval required to be retained. Their main concern is to the aesthetics of the street and in particular the need to maintain the façade of the dwelling however they would accept demolition as long as the new building was similar in style to the current building. They were less concerned about what happened behind the façade and were keen to see a development which attracted a family to the area rather than what they say, is an itinerant population in the multi-unit housing development. Their final concern was in relation to the potential impact on the available street parking should redevelopment of the site increase parking demand.
31 The owner of No. 68 Burren Street also explained the extent of work that he was currently carrying out to his property and his opinion of the importance of maintaining the streetscape. His concern was also to what form any replacement building would be and the loss of one of the few remaining double fronted weatherboard cottages in the area.
32 During the inspection, my attention was drawn to a pair of two-storey weatherboard dwellings at Nos. 76 and 78 Burren Street which were said to be rare and warrant heritage listing. I observed the general streetscape, the range of housing within the street and those houses that had been referred to in a report by a valuer Mr Wootton. That report was not admitted to evidence in this preliminary hearing.
33 A recently built multi-unit housing development at Nos. 33-35 Burren Street was also viewed. At the conclusion of the view I walked around the surrounding streets to gain an appreciation of the CA.
The evidence
34 Expert evidence was heard from:
- For the applicant:
Mr Moody, planner
Mr Brooks, heritage
And for the council:
Mr Quinn, planner
Mr Smith, heritage
35 The planners agree that it is possible to assess an application for demolition in the absence of plans for a new building on the site and that there is no statutory obligation for an applicant to prepare such plans. They also agreed that the site is not within a CA, nor does it have any heritage protection and that there are a number of permissible uses for the site beyond the retention of the existing cottage.
36 Mr Moody considers that a suitable replacement building could be designed to address the streetscape issues and noted that draft condition 1 requires that both development consent and a construction certificate for a new building is obtained prior to demolition occurring. Mr Quinn supports the imposition of the condition. Based on the position papers of the structural engineers and their understanding of the matter, both planners agree that retention of the existing dwelling (unaltered) would be unstainable due to flood risk and the current condition of the dwelling.
37 Mr Brooks and Mr Smith agree that the cottage on the site was erected sometime around 1880, is not a heritage item and it is opposite the CA. They consider that the majority of the houses on the eastern side of Burren Street are contemporary with, and of similar architectural character to the buildings on the western side of the street within the CA. For that reason they accept that the council intends to include, subject to the approval by the Minister, the eastern side of Burren Street within the CA.
38 They agree that the building on the site has been built in a number of stages and that the front four-roomed section is the most significant. Both agree that the rear additions could be demolished. The also agree that the front part of the building has been extensively altered over time although its Burren Street presentation is largely intact.
39 Mr Brooks and Mr Smith note that the current siting of the building has made it liable to flooding and there is evidence of extensive deterioration due to water damage. They have considered the need to raise the floor level of the building by some 730mm so that it is 300mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level and concluded that, if this can be achieved, the works would not adversely affect its contribution to the character of the area.
40 Mr Smith considers that the existing weatherboard building is characteristic of the Burren Street subdivision and makes a positive contribution to its heritage significance. He says the weatherboard construction is becoming rare in the City of Sydney and it is important to conserve those remaining in order to adequately represent the original building mix of the area. He considers that it is possible to raise and conserve timber buildings of this type and incorporate them as part of new developments and anticipates that this could be achieved on the site.
41 Mr Brooks considers that the extensive deterioration and lack of original integrity of the building fabric means that any conservation works would result in almost total replacement of the existing fabric, demeaning its contribution to the CA. Accordingly, he believes that a suitable replacement building can readily make a positive contribution to the character and significance of the locality and the CA to the west of the site.
42 In relation to the heritage significance of the cottage, Mr Smith considers that it would have a similar status to that of a contributory building within a heritage conservation area and did not warrant listing as a heritage item. He made reference to a 2004 study conducted on behalf of the former South Sydney Council in relation to weatherboard buildings and noted that this study, and subsequent council resolutions, had identified the cottage on the site, along with a number of other similar buildings, to have sufficient heritage significance to be included as a contributory items in the extension of the CA. He advised that it was still the council’s intention to include the site within the CA as a contributory item however, to date this has not occurred.
43 Mr Brooks did not consider the cottage to be a rare building and that its location, at the end of the street, does not affect the streetscape. He considers that visually, the cottage makes a modest aesthetic contribution to the streetscape, has been subjected to alterations and additions post-construction and does not demonstrate a high degree of creative or technical achievement in New South Wales or the local area. He concludes that the existing building does not have any items of significance that warrant retention and that the amount of intervention that would be required to raise the building along with the loss of fabric, deteriorated condition due to flood impacts and prior termite infestation are such that demolition is appropriate.
Conclusions and findings
44 I accept that the eastern side of Burren Street is a unique area in that, whilst it is part of the land to which the REP applies, its relationship to that area is limited to the fact that it is bound by the Eveleigh railway precinct.
45 It is clear that the council intends to include the area within the CA and, if agreed by the Minister, bring it back into the area to which the LEP applies. There is however, no certainty that this will occur.
46 The evidence provided to me by the experts demonstrates that the dwelling has no greater significance than that of a contributory item within a heritage conservation area. The council has not seen the need to accelerate the inclusion of the site into the CA for five years and accordingly, the site should not be the subject of de facto heritage controls.
47 It is apparent that the council has allowed major redevelopment of dwellings in the vicinity of the site without requiring the retention of the original building structure. Whilst these developments have ensured that the character of the street is maintained, the works involved have been extensive and the original heritage significance of the dwellings has been reduced.
48 Given the substantial alteration to the original building fabric, lack of original integrity, the extent of water damage due to the affects of a significant overland flow path that inundates the site, the impacts of termite damage to the structure, the need to raise the building to address flooding impact and its general deteriorated condition, I do not consider that the building has sufficient heritage significance to warrant its retention.
49 Accordingly, I find that it is appropriate to allow demolition of the dwelling and shed. I do not consider that it is necessary to know what form any redevelopment of the site will take however, it is important to state that any such redevelopment must be responsive to the Burren Street character and streetscape and also the adjoining CA.
50 Therefore, the orders of the Court are:
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. Development Application No. DEV/891.2010/DP14 for the demolition of an existing dwelling house, metal shed and associated site works at No. 9 Burren Street, Erskineville is approved subject to the conditions in Annexure A.
3. The exhibits are returned.
_______________________
Sue Morris
Commissioner of the Court
(1) NO DEMOLITION PRIOR TO A REPLACEMENT BUILDING APPROVEDConditions of approval for demolition of dwelling and metal shed and associated siteworks at No. 9 Burren Street, Erskineville.
- Demolition of the existing building on the site may not commence until the Applicant has obtained a development consent and construction certificate for the construction of a replacement building(s) on the site.
- (a) Development must be in accordance with Development Application No. D/2010/891 dated 11/6/2010 and as amended by the conditions of this consent.
(b) In the event of any inconsistency between the approved plans and supplementary documentation, the plans will prevail.
- All demolition works involving the removal and disposal of asbestos cement must only be undertaken by contractors who hold a current WorkCover Asbestos or “Demolition Licence” and a current WorkCover “Class 2 (Restricted) Asbestos Licence and removal must be carried out in accordance with National Occupational Health and Safety Commission ( NOHSC): “Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos” and the City of Sydney Asbestos Policy.
- Standard commercially manufactured signs containing the words “DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS” measuring not less than 400mm x 300mm are to be erected in prominent visible positions on the site.
- Prior to the exportation of waste (including fill or soil) from the site, the waste materials must be classified in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of the 'Environment Operations Act 1997 and the NSW DECC Waste Classification Guidelines, Part1: Classifying Waste (April 2008)'. The classification of the material is essential to determine where the waste may be legally taken. The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 provides for the commission of an offence for both the waste owner and the transporters if the waste is taken to a place that cannot lawfully be used as a waste facility for the particular class of waste. For the transport and disposal of industrial, hazardous or Group A liquid waste advice should be sought from the EPA.
- Asbestos to be disposed of must only be transported to waste facilities licensed to accept asbestos. The names and location of these facilities are listed in Part 6 of the City of Sydney’s Asbestos Policy.
- All adjoining properties and those opposite the development must be notified in writing of the dates and times when asbestos removal is to be conducted. The notification is to identify the licensed asbestos removal contractor and include a contact person for the site together with telephone and facsimile numbers and email address.
- No asbestos products are to be reused on the site (i.e. packing pieces, spacers, formwork or fill etc).
- Salvaged traditional building materials surplus to the requirements of this project such as structural timber, staircases, joinery and original bricks are to be sold to an established dealer in second hand heritage building materials. Provide documentation of the salvage methodology for council approval prior to the commencement of demolition.
- (a) A site notice board must be located at the main entrance to the site in a prominent position and must have minimum dimensions of 841mm x 594mm (A1) with any text on the notice to be a minimum of 30 point type size.
(b) The site notice board must include the following:
(i) contact person for the site;
(ii) telephone and facsimile numbers and email address; and
(c) site activities and time frames.
- No asbestos laden skips or bins are to be left in any public place without the approval of Council.
- Prior to a demolition, an archival photographic recording of the building is to be prepared to Council's satisfaction. The recording may be in either digital or film-based form, or a combination of both, prepared in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office guidelines titled "Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture". One copy of the record is to be submitted to Council to be lodged with Council's Archives.
The form of the recording is to be as follows:
(a) In A4 format, placed in archival plastic sleeves in an appropriate archival folder.
(b) The Development Application number must be noted on the front of the folder and in the report.
(c) Include a summary report detailing the project description, date and authorship of the photographic record, method of documentation and limitations of the photographic record.
(d) Each negative, slide or digital image is to be cross referenced to a photographic catalogue and photographic base plans.
(e) Include written confirmation, issued with the authority of both the applicant and the photographer that the City of Sydney is granted a perpetual non-exclusive licence to make use of the copyright in all images supplied, including the right to make copies available to third parties as though they were Council images. The signatures of both the applicant and the photographer must be included.
A digital based recording is to include:
(f) CD or DVD containing the report in PDF format and the electronic images saved as JPEG, TIFF or PDF files and cross referenced to the digital catalogue sheets and base plans.
A film based recording is to include:
(g) 35mm film images submitted as contact sheets with equivalent negatives, a selection of black and white prints 200 x 250mm, and 35mm colour transparencies, all labelled and cross-referenced to the catalogue sheets and base plans.
- The proposal must comply with the relevant provisions of Council's Policy for Waste Minimisation in New Developments 2005 which requires facilities to minimise and manage waste and recycling generated by the proposal.
- (a) A separate application under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 is to be made to Council to erect a hoarding and/or scaffolding in a public place and such application is to include:-
- (i) Architectural, construction and structural details of the design in accordance with the Policy for the Design and Construction of Hoarding (September 1997) and the Guidelines for Temporary Protective Structures ( April 2001).
(ii) Structural certification prepared and signed by an appropriately qualified practising structural engineer.
Evidence of the issue of a Structural Works Inspection Certificate and structural certification will be required prior to the commencement of demolition or construction works on site.
Assessment of the impacts of construction and final design upon the City of Sydney’s street furniture such as bus shelters, phone booths, bollards and litter bins and JCDecaux street furniture including kiosks, bus shelters, phones, poster bollards, bench seats and litter bins. The applicant is responsible for the cost of removal, storage and reinstallation of any of the above as a result of the erection of the hoarding. In addition, the applicant is responsible for meeting any revenue loss experienced by Council as a result of the removal of street furniture. Costing details will be provided by Council. The applicant must also seek permission from the telecommunications carrier (e.g. Telstra) for the removal of any public telephone.
(c) The hoarding must comply with the Council’s policies for hoardings and temporary structures on the public way. Graffiti must be removed from the hoarding within one working day.
- Where construction/building works require the use of a public place including a road or footpath, approval under Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 for a Barricade Permit is to be obtained from Council prior to the commencement of work. Details of the barricade construction, area of enclosure and period of work are required to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council.
- Prior to the commencement of demolition/excavation/construction work, an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) must be submitted to and be approved by the Principal Certifying Authority. The ESCP must:
(a) Conform to the specifications and standards contained in Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction (Landcom, 2004); the Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control on Building Sites (City of Sydney, 2004); and the NSW Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.
(b) Include a drawing(s) that clearly shows:
- (i) location of site boundaries and adjoining roads
(ii) approximate grades and indications of direction(s) of fall
(iii) approximate location of trees and other vegetation, showing items for removal or retention
(iv) location of site access, proposed roads and other impervious areas
(v) existing and proposed drainage patterns with stormwater discharge points
(vi) north point and scale
- (i) timing of works
(ii) location of lands where a protective ground cover will, as far as is practicable, be maintained
(iii) access protection measures
(iv) nature and extent of earthworks, including the amount of any cut and fill
(v) where applicable, the diversion of runoff from upslope lands around the disturbed areas
(vi) location of all soil and other material stockpiles including topsoil storage, protection and reuse methodology
(vii) procedures by which stormwater is to be collected and treated prior to discharge including details of any proposed pollution control device(s)
(viii) frequency and nature of any maintenance program
(ix) other site-specific soil or water conservation structures.
- The hours of construction and work on the development must be as follows:
(a) All work, including building/demolition and excavation work, and activities in the vicinity of the site generating noise associated with preparation for the commencement of work (eg. loading and unloading of goods, transferring of tools etc) in connection with the proposed development must only be carried out between the hours of 7.30am and 5.30pm on Mondays to Fridays, inclusive, and 7.30am and 3.30pm on Saturdays, with safety inspections being permitted at 7.00am on work days, and no work must be carried out on Sundays or public holidays.
(b) All work, including demolition, excavation and building work must comply with the City of Sydney Building Sites Noise Code and Australian Standard 2436 - 1981 "Guide to Noise Control on Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Sites”.
- This development consent does not extend to the use of appliances which emit noise of a highly intrusive nature (such as pile-drivers and This development consent does not extend to the use of appliances which emit noise of a highly intrusive nature (such as pile - drivers andhammers) or are not listed in Groups B, C, D, E or F of Schedule 1 of the City of Sydney Code of Practice for Construction Hours/Noise 1992 and Australian Standard 2436-1981 “Guide to Noise Control on Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Sites.” A separate application for approval to use any of these appliances must be made to Council.
hydraulic hammers) or are not listed in Groups B, C, D, E or F of Schedule 1 of the City of Sydney Code of Practice for Construction Hours/Noise 1992 and Australian Standard 2436-1981 "Guide to Noise Control on Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Sites". A separate application for approval to use any of these appliances must be made to Council.
A separate approval must be granted from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the operation on site of any Category A appliances (such as pile-drivers and hydraulic hammers), or equipment not listed in Groups B, C, D, E or F of Schedule 1 of the City of Sydney Code of Practice for Construction Hours/Noise 1992 and Australian Standard 2436-1981 "Guide to Noise Control on Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Sites".
- All vehicles involved in the excavation and/or demolition process and departing the property with demolition materials, spoil or loose matter must have their loads fully covered before entering the public roadway.
- The public way must not be obstructed by any materials, vehicles, refuse, skips or the like, under any circumstances. Non-compliance with this requirement will result in the issue of a notice by Council to stop all work on site.
- The following requirements apply:
(a) All loading and unloading associated with demolition activity must be accommodated on site.
(b) A Works Zone may be required if loading and unloading is not possible on site. If a Works Zone is warranted an application must be made to Council at least 8 weeks prior to commencement of work on the site. An approval for a Works Zone may be given for a specific period and certain hours of the days to meet the particular need for the site. The approval will be reviewed periodically for any adjustment necessitated by the progress of the construction activities.
- (a) Prior to the commencement of works on the site a Risk Assessment Management Plan and detailed Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) for the proposed works are to be submitted and approved by RailCorp. A copy of this approval is to be submitted to Council.
(b) No metal ladders, tapes and plant/machinery, or conductive material are to be used within 6 horizontal metres of any live electrical equipment. This applies to the train pantographs and catenary, contact and pull-off wires of the adjacent tracks, and to any high voltage aerial supplies within or adjacent to the rail corridor.
- Prior to the commencement of works on the site a plan showing all craneage and other aerial operations for the development is to be submitted to and approved by RailCorp. A copy of this approval is to be submitted to Council.
- During all stages of the development extreme care shall be taken to prevent environmental harm within railway corridor.
30/07/2012 - removed text - Paragraph(s) Annexure A
0
0
2