Administrative Centre

30 Frances St

Randwick 2031

Tel: 02 9399 0999

Fax 02 9319 1510

DX 4121 Maroubra Junction

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

INCORPORATED

AS A MUNICIPALITY

22 FEBRUARY 1859

PROCLAIMED AS

A CITY JULY 1990

 

24 May 2002

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 28TH MAY 2002 AT 6:00 PM

 

 

1           Council prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 23RD APRIL, 2002.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 30TH APRIL, 2002.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 14TH  MAY, 2002.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

5.1                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 32/2002 - FILMING OF COMMERCIAL FOR THE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCATION - WAIVING OF FEES.

2

 

5.2                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 33/2002 - ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION.

3

 

5.3                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 34/2002 - SOUTH MAROUBRA SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - SEEKING WAIVING OF FEES.

7

 

5.4                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 35/2002 - SOUTH MAROUBRA SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - ACCESS ROAD.

8

 

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 8/2002 - 2001/2002 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT 31 MARCH 2002.

9

 

6.2                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 9/2002 - MARCH QUARTER REVIEW 2001/04 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

12

 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 54/2002 - FRENCHMANS BAY - PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

13

 

7.2                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 55/2002 - PART OF MACQUARIE STREET, CHIFLEY - PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE.

16

 

7.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 56/2002 - LOCAL DISASTER PLANS - EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT.

33

 

7.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 57/2002 - CIGARETTE BUTT LITTER.

35

 

7.5                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 58/2002 - TENDER 8/02 - REPLACEMENT OF OFFSHORE RESCUE VESSEL AND TRAILER.

42

 

7.6                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 59/2002 - TENDER FOR PROVISION OF POWER FOR PUBLIC LIGHTING.

47

 

7.7                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 60/2002 - EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FOR THE THIRD STOREY ADDITION TO BOWEN LIBRARY.

59

 

7.8                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 61/2002 - MAROUBRA BEACH IMPROVEMENT WORKS PROJECT.

63

 

7.9                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 62/2002 - TENDER 01/02 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT & ASSOCIATED SERVICES.

65

 

7.10                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 63/2002 - MAROUBRA BEACH SKATE PARK FACILITY.

74

 

7.11                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 64/2002 - SEABREEZE KIOSK, CLOVELLY.

76

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 16/2002 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL – DETERMINATIONS

78

 

8.2                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 17/2002 - SUBURB BOUNDARIES - 349 TO 373 AVOCA STREET.

80

 

8.3                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 18/2002 - PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO & INTERACTION BETWEEN COUNCILLORS & STAFF.

83

 

8.4                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 19/2002 - DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY - WAIVING OF FEES.

94

 

 

 

 

 

 

9           Director Planning & Environment's Reports

 

9.1                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 26/2002 - 11 CAIRO STREET, COOGEE  2034

96

 

9.2                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 27/2002 - 33 MERMAID AVENUE, MAROUBRA  NSW  2035

102

9.3

DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT'S REPORT 28/2002 - KENSINGTON TOWN CENTRE URBAN IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PEER REVIEW GROUP.

135

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1

By Councillor P. Schick - Council’s Signage Strategy.

141

11.2

By Councillor P. Schick – Coastal Walkway Access.

141

11.3

By Councillor M. Matson – Transfer of Parking Responsibilities to Local Government.

141

11.4

By Councillor M. Matson – Resident Preferred Parking Schemes.

141

11.5

By Councillor M. Matson – Response to Failure by Commonwealth to Accept Health Risks at South Maroubra.

141

11.6

By Councillor J. Greenwood – Tree Policies and Sydney Coastal Councils.

142

11.7

By Councillor J. Greenwood – Rezoning of a Section of Cowper Street.

142

11.8

By Councillor J. Greenwood – Council’s Policy on Tree Pruning.

142

 

 

12         Urgent Business

 

13         Confidential Reports

 

14         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

15         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

…………………………….

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 32/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

FILMING OF COMMERCIAL FOR THE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCATION - WAIVING OF FEES.

 

DATE:

6 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0636

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR      

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter dated 11 April, 2002, has been received from Ms C Downing, Producer, Window Productions Pty Ltd seeking Council’s assistance by waiving associated fees incurred when filming a television commercial recently in Randwick.

 

Ms Downing advises that Window Productions were approached by an advertising agency on behalf of their client, The Muscular Dystrophy Association of NSW to donate their time and equipment to shoot a television commercial for an awareness campaign. Window Productions did not charge the Muscular Dystrophy Association for the filming of the commercial and crew donated their time.

 

ISSUES:

 

It has been the practice to assist charities or non–profit organizations on a needs basis. There is no allocated budget for this type of activity so Council needs to allocate funds required for waiving the fees amounting to $792.00.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that as Window Productions donated their time in the making of the commercial for an awareness campaign, that Council waive the associated fees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council waive fees and charges of $792.00 associated with the filming of a commercial on behalf of the Muscular Dystrophy Association of NSW.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 33/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

ABORIGINAL RECONCILIATION

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4658

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This week (27th May – 3rd June) is National Reconciliation Week.  This is a time when those who want to make reconciliation with indigenous Australians can participate in a range of activities to advance the reconciliation process.  This year the theme for National Reconciliation Week is “Walking the Talk”.

 

The dates for National Reconciliation Week are significant with 27th May being the Anniversary of the 1967 Referendum in which 90% of Australians voted to remove clauses in the Australian Constitution, which discriminated against indigenous Australians.  June 3rd is the date that the High Court of Australia handed down its judgement in the Mabo case.  This year marks the 10th anniversary since the historic Mabo case judgement was delivered.

 

National Reconciliation Week was first held in 1996 as an initiative of the former Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. The Council’s vision statement is for:

 

“A united Australia which respects this land of ours; values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage; and provides justice and equity for all”.

 

In December 2000 the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation completed its brief and published its final report to the Federal Parliament.  As the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation completed its aims, Reconciliation Australia was then established to maintain a national leadership focus for reconciliation.

 

ISSUES:

 

Local Government was viewed by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation as a most valued partner in the reconciliation process.  This was due to our on the ground presence and our potential for local leadership particularly as managers of local social and physical infrastructure.

 

Randwick City Council has a significant role to play in the local reconciliation process with the City’s strong historical links to local Aboriginal communities particularly with La Perouse being of just not local importance but having considerable importance on a National level.

 

In February 2000 the Executive of the Australian Local Government Association adopted a Statement of Commitment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

 

This statement is underpinned by the eight principles of reconciliation and ALGA encourages Council’s across the country to adopt and support the commitment.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The framework of this commitment is presented tonight in a draft format with the view to working with the local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in producing a final commitment that has acceptance and support on a local level.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that this type of Statement is not an indication that reconciliation has been achieved it is a most important tool in commencing a local reconciliation process.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council accept the Draft Commitment to Reconciliation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Residents of the City.

 

That in keeping with the principles of reconciliation, Council’s Community Development Team work together in consultation with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organizations and communities to seek feedback and input into the Draft Statement of Commitment.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Randwick City Council's Statement of Commitment to Reconciliation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Residents of the City

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


DRAFT

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL’S STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT TO RECONCILIATION TO THE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER RESIDENTS OF THE CITY

 

Randwick City Council supports the principles of reconciliation and is committed to working together with all members of the community towards the achievement of a reconciled nation.

 

This draft statement outlines ways that as a community we can build on progress towards reconciliation. Council acknowledges though that reconciliation can only be achieved through the commitment and efforts of Australians in their everyday life. This statement is a start in the reconciliation journey … our actions will speak louder than words.

 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGES AND RECOGNISES:

 

          Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of

Australia.

 

          The loss and grief held by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders caused by alienation from traditional lands, loss of lives and freedom, and forced removal of children.

 

◊    The customs and traditions of indigenous Australians and their spiritual relationship with the land.

 

◊    The rights of indigenous Australians to live according to their own beliefs, values and customs and the vital importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples contribution to strengthening and enriching the heritage of all Australians.

 

◊    The need for a partnership approach with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as part of addressing the needs of whole communities throughout Australia.

 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL SUPPORTS:

 

◊    The visions as expressed by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation of a “united Australia that respects this land of ours, values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage and provides justice and equity for all.”

 

◊    Indigenous and non-indigenous groups of Australians working together for a national agreement or other instruments of reconciliation.

 

◊    The need to improve non-indigenous understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues.

 

◊    The need to find new ways to work together in partnership to ensure access for all members of the Indigenous community to culturally appropriate services and programs.

 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL COMMITS TO:

 

◊    Developing and promoting, as appropriate, indigenous involvement in events and celebrations of significance which respect the dignity and protocols of the local indigenous community.

 

◊    Taking effective action on issues of social and economic concern as identified in the National Commitment to Improved Outcomes in the Delivery of Programs and Services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders where they lie within the sphere of interest and responsibility of Randwick City Council.

 

◊    Participating in education processes which enhance the increased knowledge, understanding and appreciation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and heritage and the needs of indigenous communities.

 

◊    Developing strategies that improve the level of participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in local government in Randwick City.


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 34/2002

 

SUBJECT:

SOUTH MAROUBRA SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - SEEKING WAIVING OF FEES  

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1137

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from the South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club Inc seeking exemption of Council fees of $315.70 when the Club hosted a surf  boat carnival on 16 February, 2002.

 

The letter states that they are a volunteer charity organization serving the community and the surf boat carnival was not a fund raising event for the Club in fact no financial gain was made from hosting the prestigious surf boat grant final, just promotion of Maroubra Beach and its surrounding community

 

ISSUES:

 

It has been the practice to assist charities or non-profit organizations on a needs basis. There is no allocated budget for this type of activity so Council needs to allocate funds required for waving the fee amounting to $315.70

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that as the surf boat carnival was a community event, $315.70 be allocated to cover the associated fees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That council vote $315.70 to cover the fees associated with the boat carnival held on 16 February 2002, at South Maroubra Beach.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 


  

MAYOR'S MINUTE 35/2002

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

SOUTH MAROUBRA SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - ACCESS ROAD

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1609

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from the Hon Secretary, South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club Inc dated 15 May, 2002, requesting that a meeting be arranged between Council and the South  Maroubra SLSC Executive to discuss the possibility of naming the South  Maroubra SLCS access road off Fitzgerald Avenue, South Maroubra.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Club has suggested the naming of this access road in the memory of Bernie Kelly, one of the Club’s must committed lifesavers and  a 37 year resident of Randwick who passed away in January, 1998, after performing a lifesaving rescue at South Maroubra Beach.

 

Bernie Kelly dedicated his life to lifesaving at South Maroubra and the Club has made this suggestion as a fitting way to honour his memory. This coming January, 2003  will be the 5 year anniversary of Bernie’s passing and with this in mind the Club seeks Council’s assistance.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council agree to the request of the South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club to rename the access road in honour of Bernie Kelly.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 8/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

2001/2002 Budget - Review as at 31 March 2002

 

 

DATE:

8 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3562

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2001/2002 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for 2001/2002.

 

ISSUES:

 

a)         LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) REGULATION 1999

 

Part 2 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999 requires that at the close of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2001/2002 year, based on current trends. The statement must be prepared on an accrual basis and must also show the original estimates as adopted in the Management Plan.

 

The regulation also requires that the budget review statement must include or be accompanied by:

 

I.    A report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the

   Statement indicates that the financial position of the Council is satisfactory,

   having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure; and

 

II.         If that position is unsatisfactory, recommendations for remedial action.

 

 

b)         MARCH QUARTER BUDGET REVIEW STATEMENT

 

Subject to Council’s formal adoption of the changes contained in this report, the following table summarises the projected budget position for 2001/2002 as at 31 March 2002:

 

 

 

 

Variations

 

 

Expenditure

Income

Net

 

Increase

(Increase)

 

 

(Decrease)

 Decrease

 

 

$

$

$

Principal Activity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment & Regulatory Services

(92,561)

(122,830)

(215,391)

 

 

 

 

Environmental Planning

0

(44,000)

(44,000)

 

 

 

 

Community Development & Communications

19,752

(31,971)

(12,219)

 

 

 

 

Library Services

45,416

(64,429)

(19,013)

Assets Management

(156,549)

156,549

    

     0

 

 

 

 

Waste Management

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

Governance, Management Support & Information

710,708

(420,085)

290,623

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

526,766

(526,766)

0

 

 

 

 

 

The figures shown in the table above incorporate the proposed transfers to reserves of savings from staff vacancies together with other savings and increases in revenues.  These funds will be held in reserves.

 

Details of the budget variations, comments on the variations and reserve funds balances as at 31 March 2002 are tabled.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s Financial Services Manager as the responsible accounting officer advises that: -

 

Council’s projected financial position is satisfactory.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1          That the report in relation to the March 2002 budget review be received and noted.

 

2          That the budget variations referred in paragraph (b) in this report be adopted

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

March Quarterly Budget Review 2001/2002 - under separate cover.

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 9/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

MARCH QUARTER REVIEW 2001/04 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

DATE:

22 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0555

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors on the implementation of the 2001/04 Management Plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

This is the March Quarter Review of the 2001/04 Plan.

 

Under the Local Government Act 1993, there is the requirement that a Report must be provided after the end of each quarter, detailing the extent to which performance indicators and targets set by Council’s Management Plan have been achieved during the quarter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Each department has reviewed those targets not being achieved, and comments on those matters are included in the Report. Currently there are seven Principal Activities being reported on.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the Report on the March Quarter Review – 2001/04 Management Plan be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.         MARCH QUARTER REVIEW 2001/04 MANAGEMENT PLAN - under separate cover

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 54/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

FRENCHMANS BAY - PLAN OF MANAGEMENT

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1281

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Mayor’s Minute 55/98 recommended that a draft Plan of management be prepared for Frenchmans Bay and the surrounding foreshore area. The draft Plan was completed by GHD Pty Ltd in November 2001. At the Council meeting of the 27th November 2001, Council resolved to exhibit the draft for comment according to the provisions of the Crown Land Act.  The draft Plan of Management was exhibited publicly and the final plan is now ready for adoption. 

 

BACKGROUND:

 

In May 2000 Council engaged GHD to prepare a draft Plan of Management (POM) for Frenchmans Bay area. This draft Plan was completed in November 2001 and was exhibited from the 14 December 2001 to 15 February 2002.  The Plan was exhibited at RCC Administration Centre, Bowen Library and Matraville Library. A newsletter was also produced and delivered to the local community. The newsletter provided a “Have your Say” form to allow for an easy response.

 

In total 9 submissions were received from the public in response to the exhibition of the draft Plan. These submissions are included in Attachment 1.

 

The comments received were evaluated by the Consultant to assess the need to vary the Plan.The evaluation is included in Attachment 1. It is considered that none of the submissions raised significant issues relevant to the content of the draft Plan, such that amendments or changes are required.  Submissions included general comments about Frenchmans Bay, similar to those raised in submissions at the beginning of the project; some comments about Council management of the area; and a number of comments that will require consideration during future detail design of landscaping and improvements in this area. GHD (Consultants) recommend that the comments received do not justify any change to the Plan.

 

The Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) reviewed the draft Plan and require the following additions before adoption of the POM.

 

In regards to Management and use of Crown Land (Section 2.2 p 8 ):

 

 Any new lease or licence will be subject to a 15% levy payable to the Public Management Fund (PRFM) which provides for the equitable distribution across the Crown Reserve system on a statewide basis of proceeds raised in areas of high land/commercial value to those areas where income producing opportunities are limited or do not exist.

 

In regards to the Development Application for Pete’s Boatshed (Section 2.3.1 p 10 ):

 

Council as Trust Managers will give full consideration to DLWC Food and Beverage Policy Circular No 2001/03 including the following characteristics:

 

-     ensure that the outlet is as described in the Food and Beverage Policy on Crown Reserves

-     allows equity of access in opening times and level of dining

-     the range of dining shall not exclude any public from access

-     exclude licensed bar areas from the Reserve

-     no specific areas should be set aside for functions

-     the reserve remains the dominant attraction

 

These amendments have been made to the draft POM and the attached Plan includes these changes. (Attachment 2) After Council adopts the plan it will be forward to DLWC for adoption.

 

Therefore it is proposed that the draft Plan be adopted as the Frenchmans Bay Plan of Management (adopted May 2002) refer Attachment 2.

 

 RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.   That the draft Frenchmans Bay Draft Plan of Management (November 2001) be adopted as the Frenchmans Bay Plan of Management May 2002 with the amendments required by DLWC. 

 

2.   That the adopted POM (May 2002) be forwarded to DLWC for adoption by the Minister.

 

3.   That works identified as high priority be commenced in the 2002-03 financial year in accordance with the provision of funding identified in Council’s 2002-03 Capital Works Program.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Summary of submissions in response to Newsletter 2 - copy of submissions

2. Frenchmans Bay Plan of Management adopted May, 2002. (under separate cover)   

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

tim mccarthy

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

manager assets

 

 

 

 

 

 


  

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 55/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

PART OF MACQUARIE STREET, CHIFLEY - PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE.

 

 

DATE:

20 May, 2002

FILE NO:

R/0491/00

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held in 9th October, 2001, Council considered the attached Director’s Report and resolved:

 

            “That Council apply to the Department of Land and Water Conservation to close the section of Macquarie Street from Mitchell Street in a northerly direction to the Chifley Public School while allowing for a 5 metre wide laneway as shown on the Attachment B for access purposes to both the school and No. 71 Mitchell Street, Chifley.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Council submitted the application to the Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) and, as part of the process, contacted the adjoining owners and advised them of Council’s plans in relation to the matter.  A number of objections were received and are attached as Attachment C.  The Department of Land and Water Conservation have asked Council whether or not it is possible to satisfactorily address the concerns of the complainants.  Copies of all of the objections are attached.

 

Councillors Daley and White contacted the Principal of Chifley Public School who was one of the complainants and arranged an on-site meeting at 8.00 am on the 9th May, 2002, to discuss the relevant issues of the road closure.   The Principal of Chifley Public School invited a representative from the Department of Education and the Principal of Matraville High School to also attend the meeting.

 

At the meeting, Council’s Design Manager demonstrated that any access issues could be satisfactorily resolved and still provide Council with a saleable block of land.

 

The representatives from the schools and the Department of Education indicated that the construction of a house and fence at this location would cause potential problems with respect to security, natural lighting to the Chifley Public School buildings and, in general, devalue the works that the Government was doing in developing Matraville High School into a Sports High School.

 

The school representatives were advised that Council had previously suggested that this section of Macquarie Street should have been transferred to the Department of Education when it was still a Crown Road and before it became a dedicated public road under Council’s control.

 

The school representatives asked if the above offer was still an option and it was agreed that this possibility be put to Council to determine.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This section of Macquarie Street is adjacent to Chifley Public School, Matraville High School and No. 71 Mitchell Street.  Objections have been received from these adjacent owners, as well as the Department of Education.  While Council could pursue the closure and sale of the land since adequate access could be provided, it may be difficult to gain the required closure since the Department of Land and Water Conservation are the determining authority.

 

If the Department of Education can take over the land on its closure and negotiate appropriate rights-of-way to the two (2) schools and No. 71 Mitchell Street, Council would at least no longer be responsible for the maintenance of this portion of roadway and be seen to be providing an input into the local community by giving over this land for a community purpose not under Council’s control.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

Subject to the Department of Education

 

(a)        Accepting the section of land shown in Attachment A as part of its school holding; and

(b)        Negotiating with the other objectors to remove their objections by providing rights-of-way, easements and/or other mechanisms.

 

Council apply to the Department of Land and Water Conservation to close the section of Macquarie Street from Mitchell Street in a northerly direction to Chifley Public School (Attachment B) and transfer this land to the Department of Education, provided that all of the above negotiations, application fees, etc, result in no further cost to Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Attachment A - DAIS Report 87/2001 dated 9th October 2001

2. Attachment B - Plan of area

3. Attachment C - List of objectors

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER - DESIGN

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 87/2001

 

 

SUBJECT:

MACQUARIE STREET, CHIFLEY - PROPOSED CLOSURE

 

 

DATE:

27 September, 2001

FILE NO:

R/0491/00

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The unmade portion of Macquarie Street from Mitchell Street to Chifley Public School was previously a Crown public road and was transferred to Council’s ownership under the provisions of Section 151 of the Roads Act, 1993 by the Minister for Land and Water Conservation.  This action was notified in the government gazette of 27 October 2000.

 

ISSUES:

 

In 1999 the Premier, the Hon. R J Carr received representations from Mrs Sharon Harrison, President of the Parents and Citizens Association, Chifley public School seeking the maintenance of this portion of roadway.  The Department of Land and Water (DLWC) indicated that since road construction and maintenance was a local government function, and it appeared that some work had already been undertaken on this section of road and the adjoining roads, it would be appropriate to transfer the Crown Road to Council’s ownership.

 

A number of oral discussions took place between Council’s officers and DLWC officers following this correspondence.  Council’s officers suggested that since this parcel of land only provided access to the school and a garage at the rear of No.71 Mitchell Street, it would be preferable to close this road and add this land to the school and provide a right–of-way as access to No 71 Mitchell Street’s garage.

 

In a letter dated 14 September, 2000 the Minister for Land and Water Conservation advised the Mayor that following a request by the Premier, this section of Macquarie Street would be transferred to Council pursuant to the provisions of Section 151 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

The Mayor responded in a letter dated 27 September, 2000 that Council was not in a position to maintain this section of road now or in the future and that it would be more appropriate to close this road and add this land to the school’s property and provide a right-of-way to the sole property which gains access from this road.

 

The DLWC responded to the Mayor in a letter dated 4 December 2000 that the transfer of the road was gazetted on 27 October 2000 prior to the Minister considering the Mayor’s correspondence.  The letter suggested that the Department did not regard the amalgamation suggestion as appropriate but suggested that Council could if it wished discuss the matter with the Department of Education and Training.

 

PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE

 

Council’s officers have now investigated this situation from a different perspective.  The parcel of land is quite large and is only used to provide pedestrian and vehicular access to the school and vehicular access to a garage at the rear of No. 71 Mitchell Street Chifley.

 

In a letter dated 11 April 2001, Council officers sought clarification on whether or not there was any legal impediment to the closure and disposal of road subject to compliance with Part 4 Division of the Roads Act 1993.  It should be noted that the DLWC is the determining authority for road closures.

 

In a letter dated 25 April 2001, the DLWC have responded as follows:

 

“It was understood before actual transfer was effected from the Crown to Council that this road was required for access purposes.  In view of this, it would seem futile for the Department to accept and process an application to close this section of road without provision of definitive information from users to the road that they no longer need it for access.”

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This letter does not indicate any legal impediment to closing this road provided that the access issues involved can be suitably satisfied.

 

An examination of dimensions of this road indicate that it should be possible to accommodate all reasonable access requirements for the school and No 71 Mitchell Street by the provision of a 5 metre wide laneway and still have a saleable block of land whose area would be in excess of 600 square metres. 

 

Attachment A indicates the existing situation of this site and Attachment B indicates a possible proposed situation including the 5 metre wide lane and the vehicular and pedestrian accesses involved. The cost of constructing the laneway and additional works relating to access to the school, provision of a new fence and gates and relocation of services would be under $120,000.  This should still leave Council with a credit in funds, which could be utilised to resurface other roads in this area.

 

It is considered that Council should apply to the DLWC to close the section of Macquarie Street from Mitchell Street in a northerly direction to the Malabar Public School while allowing for a 5 metre wide laneway as shown on the attached plan for access purposes to both the school and No 71 Mitchell Street Chifley.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council apply to the Department Land and Water Conservation to close the section of Macquarie Street from Mitchell Street in a northerly direction to the Malabar Public School while allowing for a 5 metre wide laneway as shown on the Attachment B for access purposes to both the school and No. 71 Mitchell Street, Chifley.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachments A & B

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN

 

 

 

 

 

 













  

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services'

 Report 56/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

LOCAL DISASTER PLANS - EMERGENCY RISK MANAGEMENT

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1474

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Assistant Commissioner Dick Adams, who is the Commander City East Region and District Emergency Operations Controller for the South East Emergency Management District, wrote to Council on 16 April 2002, requesting that Council undertake the Emergency Risk Management process as a community and public safety activity.

 

ISSUES:

 

Within NSW, the aim of the Emergency Risk Management process is to identify, analyse and evaluate risks with potential to require a significant and coordinated multi-agency response.   The process is derived from the NSW State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989 (the SERM Act) and parallels risk management as outlined in Australian/New Zealand Risk Management Standard 4360:1999.

 

The process includes three component steps of Process Documentation, Multi-agency Planning and Stakeholder Consultation.   Coronial inquests such as the Thredbo landslip inquiry have illustrated the need to maintain a documentation trail of the hazard analysis and contingency planning process.

 

Consultation with stakeholders including the community will be required at each step and will be particularly important in the determination of risk acceptance.  Risk acceptance is an informed decision to accept the consequences and likelihood of a particular risk.

 

A course in Implementing Risk Management has been conducted for the Councils and combat agencies.  The nominations for the Risk Management Issues Working Party are:

 

Russell Wade               Chair                            Randwick City Council

Darryl Ussher               SEMC Rep                  NSW Police Service

Darryl Irvin                   Insp                              Maroubra Police

Gaye Cameron Security                        UNSW

Sandra Foley                Controller                     SES

Dave Gray                    Commander                 NSW Fire Brigade

 

 

It is intended to conduct this process over the next six months and Council will be advised when stakeholder consultation is planned.    It is suggested that Precinct Committees could be used to assist in this process. Council is required to report the results of the process to the NSW State Emergency Management Committee as this relates to resource planning for the combat agencies.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The recent security threat reports have heightened the need for risk and hazard analyses and contingency planning for previously unforeseen situations and events.   This process enables the community to engage in the assessment and planning process, which will heighten awareness of emergency response networks and procedures.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council support the Emergency Risk Management process to be conducted over the next six months.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

RUSSELL WADE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services'

 Report 57/2002

 

SUBJECT:

CIGARETTE BUTT LITTER

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3917

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 26th March 2001, Council resolved that, due to the recent State Government legislation of “No Smoking” in restaurants and enclosed public areas, and the fact that there has been an increase of discarding cigarette butts onto public footpaths, a report be prepared for Council to address this issue, including the compulsory installation of a cigarette butt disposal unit by proprietors outside each of their premises.

 

Council has been addressing the issue of cigarette butt litter in a number of areas.  This report addresses a range of response measures that are being applied in order to achieve workable solutions for various litter situations.

 

ISSUES:

 

Limits of the legislative framework

 

In April  2000, the State Government amended the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, to provide for fines of $60 for discarding small item litter such as an extinguished cigarette butt or lolly wrapper and $200 for discarding a lit cigarette from a car window.    The EPA conducted training for Council enforcement officers in approaching and cautioning potential offenders to put cigarette butts into litter bins.

 

The issuing of on-the-spot fines for littering requires name and address details to be obtained by Council’s enforcement officers.  This is time consuming and can lead to confrontation. In the event of such an incident, at issue would be the availability of litter bins.

 

Conversely, littering from vehicles offences and in particular cigarette butts thrown from vehicles are easier to detect, record and issue litter infringement notices.   A proforma is available for authorized officers to record details of such offences.

 

Research into smokers habits

 

Approximately 20% of Australians are smokers.   Smokers believe that their first responsibility is to extinguish the cigarette and reduce the potential for fire, but do not see that the disposal of the butt is of equal importance, while many smokers believe that the butt is biodegradable and 80% of one survey respondents believed that a cigarette butt was not litter.   Smokers are often reluctant to put an extinguished cigarette butt into a litter bin, for fear of setting fire to the bin.

 

This behaviour is exhibited in the use of the top of the Decaux litter bins as a stubbing point. The design of the top of the bin provides gaps where butts can be left.   Decaux has manufactured a “spider” plate to cover these gaps, but this has been observed in the Sydney CBD to be ineffective as a prevention measure.  Butts can be blown off these bins and end up in stormwater drains.

 

The facility approach - cigarette butt receptacles

 

The Decaux litter bin is completely unsuited to being a receptacle for cigarette butts.  In the CBD, Sydney City Council has had one of the three Decaux bin compartments converted into a cigarette stubbing point and receptacle.  This has also been observed to be ineffective, as despite prominent signage, people put litter into the cigarette receptacle.

 

Council has had installed 30 serviced ashtrays at peak transit points in order to provide a facility at locations where people are usually standing or sitting when smoking.  These locations are in Belmore Road, Anzac Parade Kingsford, The Spot and Coogee Bay Road.   The ashtrays are pole mounted and incorporate a stubbing grill arranged so the butt drops into the ashtray.  The ashtray is emptied fortnightly.   This solution is suited to areas with high pedestrian traffic.

 

There is a range of other cigarette butt receptacles on the market and several have been observed in the Sydney CBD.   The design of some receptacles does not ensure the butt goes inside and some receptacles are small in capacity, leading to stuffing and littering around the receptacle.  Sydney Council’s outdoor staff service these receptacles.

 

The provision of additional cigarette receptacles at a frequency that would allow walking smokers to readily access a cigarette disposal receptacle, together with the additional cost of servicing, replacing and maintaining these units, would be an impost on the funds provided in the general budget for the cleaning of the public place.   There would also be an additional time factor in emptying these units, which would impose a delay in traffic flows according to location.   There are currently no funds allocated for this purpose and there are no sources of grant funds available for capital items and recurrent costs.

 

In 1998, Keep Australia Beautiful NSW (KABNSW) conducted research funded by the major cigarette manufacturers.  The research highlighted the need for a total community approach for ongoing issues of litter reduction.  This means the community footing the bill.   The KABNSW media release also promoted the Butt OutTM bins as a means of capturing cigarette butt litter.  These bins are available on a supply only basis and would require servicing at an additional cost.

 

Invoking individual responsibility

 

Council has been evaluating the use of individual personal ashtrays and was one of the first Councils to trial a batch of these products.   A picture of the personal ashtray is shown at Attachment 1.   The intention was for enforcement officers and lifeguards to make the ashtrays available during discussion with smokers in order to encourage responsible behaviour, especially at beaches.  

 

The EPA incorrectly publicised this initiative as a broad scale local government action to hand out personal ashtrays and the initiative was curtailed.   This was a trial and the supply of personal ashtrays is not considered an ongoing function for local government.   The aim is to encourage individual responsibility for butt disposal when away from fixed facilities, such as on beaches and in parks.   There are now competing personal ashtray products on the market. 

 

Following the Coastal Councils Group launch of the “preventing Cigarette Butt Littering” package at Coogee Beach in October 2001, the promoters of one product called BUTTsOUT©  approached Council through the Coastal Councils Group seeking support for a local launch of this product.   A copy of their letter is shown at Attachment 2.  The promoters intend to secure sponsorship to launch the product and then place it in the market for sale alongside cigarettes.  

 

The launch event would require the assistance of Council officers to promote the use of personal ashtrays to reduce the environmental impact of cigarette butts and the risk of fines.   This is considered to be a reasonable approach and has been supported in Mosman and Manly Councils.  The promoters have advised that there has been a high level of interest since the product was mentioned on a Channel 10 program in April this year.  

 

The invoking of personal responsibility for cigarette butt litter management also extends to proprietors of restaurants with footway café licences.   The conditions imposed on a footway café licensee require that cigarette butt receptacles must be provided and serviced by the proprietor and that the licensed area must be maintained. 

 

While the type of receptacle is not specified, mandating the compulsory installation of a cigarette butt disposal unit is a specific solution, which would have limited success due to the following reasons:

 

1.   There would be limited space on the wall of the café to mount the unit and it would neither be desirable to allow patrons to smoke near doorways, nor encourage passers-by to use these units, nor allow passive smoke to concentrate where café staff are working;

 

2.   The only other mounting space would be on poles that are located on the other side of the 2.5 metre clearance in the footway that must be preserved as a condition of the footway licence;

 

3.   A pole-mounted disposal unit would allow patrons to congregate in the clearway space to smoke, creating offence to passers-by;

 

4.   Other smokers would use the unit, making it contestable as to who should empty the unit;

 

5.   Research shows that smokers do not move more than three metres to get to an ashtray; 

 

6.   Café patrons should be encouraged to confine their smoking to the one place and use ashtrays that are provided or encourage patrons to use personal ashtrays; and

 

7.   Pole or wall mounted units can be targets for vandalism, particularly where they are located in the vicinity of licensed premises.

 

The conditions of a footway café licence can be further strengthened to nominate the performance requirements for ashtrays in addition to the management of smokers and smoking, so as to ensure greater compliance with legislated health and OHS requirements.

 

Extended measures beyond Council’s jurisdiction

 

The EPA has mounted a successful “Don’t be a Tosser” campaign, which has included high cost prime-time television advertising and promotion of campaign materials.    No funds have been made available for facilities for smokers and this stands as another example of the transfer of cost liability to local government.

 

If the issue of cigarette butt litter is as important to the environment as the issue of health effects of smoking, then a more appropriate long-term solution would be for the cigarette manufacturing industry, under its own environmental improvement obligations, to enter into a voluntary agreement with the EPA to include environmental warnings on the labels or pull-out linings of packets.

 

The availability of funding from State resources needs to be addressed.   KABNSW wrote to Council on 2 May 2002 advising the Grants for Local Litter Prevention Education Activities 2002, which provides for grants of up to $5,000 for community groups, not Councils.  The objectives are to support community groups who have established a partnership arrangement with a local council in their efforts to undertake litter prevention and build community awareness.   Applicants also have to propose litter prevention measures rather than litter collection measures.   Cigarette butt litter is one of the target areas for this program.  

 

Councils are expected to provide in-kind support to the community organisation.   Promoters of these Grant schemes make no allowance for the cost of a council’s support to a community group.   Representation should be made to KABNSW and the EPA that Grants should be for fully costed activities.

 

CONCLUSIONS:

 

Council has been active in pursuing a number of solutions for minimising litter from cigarette butts, including enforcement where practicable, facility improvement and invoking individual responsibility for correct disposal of cigarette butt litter.   The management of smoking within footway café licence areas should be prescribed within the conditions of the licence, while not prescribing the type of receptacle, so as to ensure that Council is not exposed to claims in relation to health and OHS outcomes. 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

That Council:

 

1.   Note the report on Cigarette Butt Litter;

2.   Agree in principle to Council supporting the launch of the BUTTsOUT© personal ashtray, without exclusive favour to this product;

 

3.   Note that footway café licence conditions are the appropriate method of prescribing outcomes in relation to the management of smoking; and

 

4.   Write to the Environment Protection Authority and Keep Australia Beautiful NSW and propose further measures to increase smokers’ individual responsibilities for correct disposal of cigarette butts and to access grant funding for litter prevention measures.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Picture of Stelco pattern personal ashtray

2. Copy of BUTTsOUT letter dated 7 December, 2001 with embedded picture 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

RUSSELL WADE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER WASTE

 

 

 

 

 

 




 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 58/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 8/02 - REPLACEMENT OF OFFSHORE RESCUE VESSEL AND TRAILER.

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4567

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council currently owns and operates a 6 metre Noosa Cat rescue boat powered by twin 130 hp Yamaha outboard engines in conjunction with Randwick District Executive of Surf Life Saving. This vessel has been in operation for 10 years and is due for replacement in accordance with Councils Plant Replacement Policy.

 

This craft and the volunteers have played a significant role in offshore rescues for the last 10 years. The craft has been involved in offshore rescues and Police search and rescue operations and are a valued community resource supporting and protecting the public utilising the beaches and coastline of the City of Randwick.

 

Council and the Randwick District Executive of Surf Life Saving each provided 50% of the net cost of the existing vessel and trailer. The replacement vessel and trailer are to be funded on the same basis.

 

Council has set aside funds annually in the Plant Replacement Reserve.

 

ISSUES:

 

Several vessel construction options were considered before going to tender. Mono hull vessels were deemed to be less stable than multi hull vessels and inflatable craft were unsuitable due to exposure to the elements of the crew and patients. The multi hull design of the current vessel has proven itself in the field and the decision was made to replace the vessel with a similar design.

 

Council had limited options for the size of the vessel due the restrictions imposed by the storage facility at Fisherman’s Road Malabar and the need for the vessel to be legally transported by trailer.

 

It was important that the vessel selected have a proven track record and is suited to off shore rescue work. The vessel must to be fitted with two engines to be suitable for joint operations with the NSW Water Police.

 

To identify potential replacement craft with proven records in offshore rescue operations investigations were carried out by both the members of the Surf Life Saving Branch and Councils Plant and Equipment Officer. Investigations conducted over the Internet and by searching industry journals failed to identify a significant number of manufacturers in Australasia with suitable craft in their product lines. Due to the difficulties in identifying suitable suppliers the decision was made to call tenders.

 

There were several enquiries to the tender advertisement but when presented with more information relating to the specification most companies were not in a position to submit a complying tender.

 

Noosa Cat based in Queensland was the only company to respond with a complying tender. The quoted price is unable to be compared with any other complying tender. The tendered price for the engines was compared to an alterative supplier and is 87% of the alternate quoted price. The trailer price was compared to the current trailer purchased 18 months ago, although more expensive it includes upgrades to the suspension, wheels and tyres that are required due to the increase in vessel weight resulting from foam filled hulls.

 

The vessels manufactured by Noosa Cat have been sold to many rescue groups, water police units and commercial operators e.g. Hervey Bay Volunteer Marine Rescue, Victorian and Brisbane Water police and exported to Zimbabwe and Tahiti. The acceptance of these vessels by these groups indicates that they are suited for the Councils operation.

 

The tendered price for the vessel and trailer is $110,391 exclusive of GST. The adjusted price after evaluation by the Plant and Equipment Officer and Mr George Shales from the Offshore Rescue Group is $104,473 exclusive of GST.

 

Council was able to reduce the tendered price by deleting items that can be transferred from the existing vessel e.g. life jackets, flares, portable bilge pump, accessories and options that were not required. We also deleted the remote fillers for oil and upgraded steering after discussion with Noosa Cat that indicated that these options might result in contamination of the oil system and increased maintenance costs and down time due to a more complex steering system. Noosa Cat confirmed that the deletion of these items in no way compromised the performance and reliability of the vessel.

 

The option for a canopy was deleted after discussions with the representative of the Offshore Rescue Group as they have a sponsor prepared to supply a suitable canopy.

 

The estimated net cost to Council after the disposal of the current rescue vessel assuming a return of $35,000 after GST is estimated to be $34,736. Minor variations may increase the price by $3,000.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The net cost of the vessel is to be met by the Council and the Randwick District Executive of Surf Life Saving has confirmed its acceptance of the tender. Before proceeding with the purchase of the vessel Council will seek written confirmation from the Sydney District Executive that they are in a position to meet the financial commitment and transfer funds.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That subject to confirmation from the Randwick District Executive of Surf Lifesaving (Sydney) that they are prepared to meet their share of the cost, the tender submitted by Noose Cat Australia Pty Ltd for the supply of a 2300 Services Cuddy Noosa Cat and trailer be accepted

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

Summary of Noosa Cats tended prices and  adjustments

  

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TERRY RILEY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PLANT AND EQUIPMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 




 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 59/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER FOR PROVISION OF POWER FOR PUBLIC LIGHTING

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0791

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The subject of this report is the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) model report to participating councils dated 13 May 2002 RE: energy tender for public lighting.

 

ISSUES:

 

The NSW electricity market has been de-regulated and consequently opened to competition, effective 1 January 2002.  Early in April 2002, the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) invited tenders on behalf of member councils and Burwood Council for the provision of energy for public lighting for a two-year period commencing 1 July 2002.  Burwood’s inclusion in the tender process came about as a result of that Council’s request. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The detailed report prepared by SSROC is attached for Council’s consideration. The conclusions and recommendations contained in that report are fully supported.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

In accordance with the recommendations contained in the Director Asset and Infrastructure Services Report No. 59/2002, that

 

1.   That Council receive and note the report on the tender for energy for public light;

2.   that Council accept the offer tendered by Maps and Energex Retail Pty Ltd for a period of 24 months

3.   That Council enter into a contact with Maps and Energex Retail Pty Ltd for a 1 July, 2992 start up.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. SSROC Model Report dated 13 May, 2002

2. Tender Scores and Weightings

3. Cost Evaluation  

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

DON MANN

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PURCHASING AND CONTRACTS CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

ENERGY TENDER FOR PUBLIC LIGHTING

 

Model Report to Participating Councils

 

13 May 2002

 

 

 

1.         INTRODUCTION

 

The NSW electricity market has been de-regulated and consequently opened to competition, effective 1 January 2002.  Early in April 2002, the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) invited tenders on behalf of member councils and Burwood Council for the provision of energy for public lighting for a two-year period commencing 1 July 2002.  Burwood’s inclusion in the tender process came about as a result of that Council’s request. 

 

SSROC appointed a multi-disciplinary tender panel comprising representatives from a range of participating councils:

 

•           David Mathieson - Design and Investigation Engineer, Marrickville Council

•           Phil Crutchley - Supply Manager, Hurstville City Council

•           Fred Heslin - Supply Manager, Rockdale City Council

•           Michael Craven - Manager Special Projects, South Sydney City Council

•           Brian Leake - Supply Manager, Sutherland Shire Council

•           Brian Coustley – Manager Fleet, Stores, Supply and Depots, Sutherland Shire Council

•           Melissa Gibbs - Executive Director, SSROC

 

The tender panel produced a tender document, complete with specifications, and advertised the tender in the Sydney Morning Herald on 3 April 2002.

 

To demonstrate to retailers that SSROC was serious in its intention of obtaining the best overall value for participating councils, and to make the tender process as easy as possible for licensed retailers, the tender panel emailed the tender document directly to each of the 19 licensed retailers. 

 

 


2.         BACKGROUND

 

2.1       Components of Street Lighting

 

Together, participating councils spend around $10 million per annum on public lighting, with the cost of energy accounting for approximately 20% of this expenditure.  The remaining 80% represents network costs, services, and maintenance of the infrastructure. 

 

Member councils of SSROC are participating in a separate project to address the services and maintenance aspects of street lighting.  Council should be aware that the retailing arms of energy companies have no say or influence over the maintenance or management of infrastructure, including tree-trimming practices.  Vegetation management is, however, being addressed in the separate project dealing with services and maintenance.

 

2.2       Energy for Public Lighting

 

SSROC councils encompass over one million residents and are served by over 78,000 street lights that consumed some 46.5 GWh in 2001.  This load is distinguished by being:

 

•           unmetered (with a profile being deemed according to metrology, load and inventory tables agreed between each council and its distribution network service provider);

•           highly predictable (changes in lighting energy use last year for each council in the tender request were less than 1%); and

•           a largely off-peak load.

 

Together, the councils participating in the tender currently spend approximately $1.9 million per annum on energy for public lighting.  Participating councils confirmed their total commitment to the open tender process, and tenderers were requested to structure their bids accordingly.

 

Tenderers were advised that if the proposal currently before the NSW Boundaries Commission to change the South Sydney Council area proceeds, the energy consumption for street lighting in South Sydney Council would reduce by approximately 45%.

 

 

3.         TENDER CLOSE AND EVALUATION

 

Tenders closed at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 23 April 2002. 

 

3.1       Weighting the Selection Criteria

 

The tender panel met one hour before tender close to discuss and agree on the weighting for each of the criteria.  Prior to discussing the weightings, members of the tender panel signed a declaration of pecuniary interest and confidentiality declaration form. 

 

The agreed weightings were:

 

Criteria                                                                                                                         Weighting

Proven track record                                                                                                                10%

Competitive pricing and price basis                                                                                          50%

Implementation plan                                                                                                                 20%

Billing, invoicing and other account management                                                                         5%

Environmental considerations                                                                                                   15%

 

The tender panel agreed on a series of questions and bands to ensure objective justification for arriving at the score.  A copy of the tender panel’s evaluation and scores is at Attachment 1.

 

3.2       Environmental Questionnaire

 

As a matter of course in all its supply arrangements, SSROC requires tenderers to complete an environmental questionnaire to assess supplier performance, and environmental performance is included as part of the selection criteria in every invitation to tender or quote.  In the case of the energy tender, tenderers were asked to provide detailed information about their environmental performance, including:

 

•           Details of the organisation’s environmental policy statements.

•           Details of any accredited quality and environmental management systems.

•           Details of the organisation’s waste audits, environmental audits and monitoring programs.

•           Details of actions taken to address breaches of environmental legislation.

•           Copies of information provided to staff explaining procedures to be taken in the event of an environmental incident/accident.

•           Details of staff training to allow the proper application of the organisation’s environmental management plan and environmental incident/accident procedures.

•           Copies of pollution licenses and license conditions with relevant regulatory bodies.

 

 

4.         TENDER SUBMISSION

 

4.1       Summary of Tender Submission

 

On this occasion, only one tender was received.  SSROC received a late tender on 29 April 2002.  As the tender was submitted well past the closing date, it was not considered.

 

The Maps Group and Energex Retail Pty Ltd submitted the sole tender. 

 

Energex - is a top 100 Australian Company based in Brisbane.  Energex retails and distributes energy to more one million customers throughout Australia and New Zealand.  Energex is currently supplying energy for public lighting to 60 councils in Victoria and NSW as well as the Melbourne Docklands Authority.  In NSW, Energex is supplying energy for public lighting to North Sydney, Penrith, Baulkham Hills and Hornsby Councils. 

 

Maps Group – is a public company, which negotiates and facilitates contracts for common use goods and services on behalf of its members. 

 

Briefly, the tender submission is as follows:

 

•           Participating councils will be required to enter into a supply agreement with Energex Retail covering scopes, risk allocations, performance and payment terms.

 

•           Schedule of prices:

 

            a.         $0.0315 per kWh of electricity supplied, based on the estimated Base Lighting Energy Profile detailed in the tender document.

 

            b.         No additional charges within 10% of annual contracted load. If the contracted load exceeds 10%, the consumption over 110% will be re-negotiated.  There would be no need to re-negotiate if the load fell under 90%.

 

            c.         $0.030 premium per kWh for Green Power supplied through a SEDA accredited scheme.  There are no limits on the quantity of Green Power available.

 

            Price is:

            -           Firm for duration of the 24 months contract from 1 July 2002

            -           Not available for the 60 day validity period requested due to the volatility of the energy market and associated risk to the retailer.  The validity period is extended on a fortnightly basis

            -           Inclusive of Generator Force Majeure and Value of Loss Load (VoLL)

            -           Inclusive of REC (Renewable Energy Charge)

            -           Volume variance of +/- 10% of contracted load

            -           Exclusive of losses

            -           Excludes regulated and market pass through charges

            -           Excludes GST

            -           Subject to Energex’s standard Terms and Conditions.

           

            Other associated costs/conditions:

            -           Inclusion of Operation Maintenance Replacement (OMR) pass through charges on payment terms of 14 days

            -           Market Administration Fee of $250 per annum per NMI

            -           Data Warehousing Fee of $110 per annum per NMI

            -           Meter Data Provision Fee (not yet set by the NSW Regulator).

 

4.2       Comparison to Other Known Offers

 

Maps Offer to Councils in Victoria and NSW

 

The tendered price of $0.03150 per kWh is firm for the two-year contract period, whereas it has only been offered to other councils for a period of twelve months.  All other two-year contract arrangements currently on offer incorporate an increase after the initial twelve months.  This, coupled with information gleaned from an analysis of the energy market, suggests that the energy price will increase in twelve months’ time.  There are obvious advantages, then, in accepting a firm offer for a two-year term.

 

The Green Power premium offered to SSROC of $0.030 per kWh is slightly lower than the previous offer from Maps/Energex of $0.035 per kWh. 

 

The total estimated saving to the twelve participating councils under the SSROC tender with Energex is in excess of $300,000 per annum.

 

State Government Contract Offer

 

NSW Supply has negotiated with EnergyAustralia to extend the current energy contract to include power for public lighting.  The NSW Local Government and Shires Associations presented details of the negotiated price to councils in February 2002.  Council should note that the State Government contract price was obtained as a result of a direct negotiation with the current contractor and in the absence of competition, leaving the other 18 licensed retailers no opportunity to bid for the business.

 

The offered rate is $0.03225 per kWh, available until 30 June 2003 only.  The Energex rate of $0.03150 per kWh for two years compares favourably with that offer.  A comparison of the SSROC rate with the NSW Supply offer and anticipated savings for each council is at Attachment 2. At this time, the NSW Supply/EnergyAustralia rate for Green Power is not known.

 

Conclusion

 

Overall, SSROC has obtained the best deal offered so far in an open tender process. 

 

 

4.         ISSUES REQUIRING CLARIFICATION

 

4.1       Presentation to Participating Councils

 

The tender panel submitted details of the tendered offer to a joint meeting of the SSROC Public Works Management Group (comprising director-level representatives) and the SSROC Supply Management Group on Tuesday 30 April.  At that meeting, it was resolved to nominate Energex Retail Pty Ltd as the preferred tenderer, and to ask the tender panel to enter into immediate discussions with the preferred tenderer to clarify a number of points, including:

 

•           the procedure for changing retailers;

 

•           the additional charges referred to in the tender submission;

 

•           pricing validity.

 

4.2       Clarification

 

The tender panel met with the preferred tenderers to seek clarification of these points.  These points were clarified in a written response, and the tenderers attended a further joint meeting of the SSROC Public Works Management Group and Supply Management Group on Wednesday 8 May 2002 to answer specific questions.  In summary, the Maps response to these points is as follows.

 

Procedure for Changing Retailers

 

There are legal requirements for the transfer of customers in the de-regulated market.  The procedure for transferring from one retailer to another is controlled by the National Electricity Market Management Company (NEMCO).  The process is reliant on the signing of a valid contract and Transfer Consent Form by the customer with the retailer of choice.  With public lighting, the customer must also:

 

•           Supply unconditional agreement to the Inventory and Load Tables to the host distribution business (in this case, EnergyAustralia);

 

•           Have a National Metering Identifier (NMI) number issued;

 

•           Be declared as contestable by the local distribution business before a transfer can occur.  (This declaration is automatic following satisfactory completion of the preceding steps).

 

It is important to note that, even in the event Council wished to stay with the current retailer (EnergyAustralia) under the price negotiated with NSW Supply, it would still need to be declared contestable and complete the steps listed above.  If these steps are not taken, Council would remain a “franchise customer” and continue to pay the current high price.

 

Additional Charges

 

The tendered price is exclusive of a number of regulated fees, which cannot be avoided.  These fees are levied equally by all retailers.  These include:

 

•           NEMCO energy fee

•           NEMCO ancillary fee

•           Loss factors

•           Renewable energy levy

•           Meter data agent fee

•           Network charges

•           Value of loss load

•           Generator force majeure

 

The SSROC Public Works Management Group and the Supply Management Group are satisfied that, as all retailers levy these charges, they are not exceptional in the tendered offer.  Attachment 2, which shows an estimation of cost savings for participating Councils, includes these charges.

 

Pricing Validity

 

The electricity market is extremely volatile, and subject to rise and fall every 30 minutes.  Retailers are therefore unable to offer extended, unconditional validity due to the risk taken by the retailer in the market.

 

The Energex offer is currently open for acceptance until 24 May 2002.  Energex will review the market, and extend the offered price on a fortnightly basis.  Council should note that the current price of $0.03150 per kWh has stayed secure since October 2001, and although not certain, it is not likely to rise before the end of June.  The tendered price will be immediately secured upon Council signing a letter of intent to take up the offer. 

 

Inventory and Load Tables

 

As a result of the project to address service and maintenance aspects of street lighting, it has become evident that the inventory and load tables may not be entirely accurate.  As a result, some councils may have been overcharged for lights that do not exist, or on the basis of globes that are not fitted.

 

On this basis, it may be unwise to sign unconditional acceptance of the load and inventory tables.  However, until the tables are accepted, councils will remain “franchise customers” and therefore unable to secure the lower pricing on offer.  Successful resolution of this dilemma would be an explicit condition placed on the retailer to agree to re-negotiate the load contracted in the event that major discrepancies are discovered.  It is in Energex’s interest to agree to this condition, and an appropriate clause has been submitted to Energex for its consideration.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

1.         That Council receive and note the report on the tender for energy for public lighting.

 

2.         That Council accept the offer tendered by Maps and Energex Retail Pty Ltd for a period of 24 months.

 

3.         That Council enter into a contract with Maps and Energex Retail Pty Ltd for a 1 July 2002 start up.

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

 

Attachment 1 - Tender Scores and Weightings

 

Attachment 2 - Cost Evaluation

 

 

 




 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 60/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST FOR THE THIRD STOREY ADDITION TO BOWEN LIBRARY

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4519

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has obtained development consent and a construction certificate to allow commencement of the third storey addition to Bowen Library. Expressions of Interest were called to allow experienced building contractors to lodge their interest to undertake the building additions and allow council to short list the most suitable building contractors to undertake the construction works. Eighteen expressions of interest received by Council.

 

This report compares all eighteen expressions of interest received by Council and evaluates the submissions against the evaluation criteria. A shortlist of the five most competent building contractors is provided in the recommendation.

 

ISSUES:

 

Project Background and Funding

 

The original project budget is $1,190,000, which is funded by the community development section 94 contributions and a grant from Home and Community Care, State Government Agency. A design and development application for the third storey addition was prepared by Council’s consultant architects strictly in accordance with the Community Services design brief and the original project budget of $1,190,000.

 

After the development prelodgement meeting held on 13 December 2000 Council’s town planners considered that the Bowen Library, being a prominent building at the northern entry of the Maroubra Central Business District, should enhance the Streetscape, set a standard for other developments within the Maroubra CBD and recognise the observations of the NSW Premier with respect to encouraging better building and streetscape aesthetics. Council’s Town Planners then engaged the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning to prepare a Townscape Master Plan for the Maroubra CBD and identify building design features on the Bowen Library that would achieve the town planning objectives mentioned above.

 

Once the Townscape Master Plan had been prepared, Council’s consultant architects were rebriefed to redesign the third storey in accordance with the Townscape Master plan and that the Director of Community services would make funding provision for the expected increase in construction costs. The anticipated increase in construction cost to meet the Townscape Master Plan objectives is in the order of $310,000. Once tenders are submitted to Council the final tender price will be known.

 

Tender Time Frame

 

It is anticipated that the selected tenderers will submit tenders in early July 2002 and the contract awarded in August 2002.

 

Discussion of Expressions of Interest submissions.

 

Council received 18 expressions of interest for the construction of the third storey addition to Bowen Library. All expressions of interest were assessed against the evaluation criteria tabled below with the objective of short listing the best builders to be selected to submit a tender for the construction works.

 

The evaluation criteria used to assess the competencies of the builders were as follows:

1.   Demonstration that the Builder is qualified with a Builders Licence

2.   Experienced in constructing projects valued in excess of $1Million

3.   Successful experience in local government and other public sector projects

4.   Client satisfaction in projects of similar size and nature with the provision of references

5.   Demonstration that the builder has appropriate resources to undertake the project.

6.   Demonstration that the builder is compliant with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

7.   Demonstrated environmental management policies and procedures

8.   Financial capacity to carryout a project of this magnitude with the submission of an audited balance sheet and profit and loss account for the last financial year.

9.   Demonstration of the builders working quality system in accordance with ISO 9001.

 

 

Those building contractors who scored a fail either did not comply with the evaluation criteria or did not submit evidence that demonstrated compliance with the evaluation criteria and thus cannot be further considered as a potential selected tenderer.

 

Richard Crooks Constructions fulfilled all the evaluation criteria to the highest level and is the most experienced building contractor to carryout similar works to very high standards.

 

Beach Constructions also demonstrated superior experience and capability in building similar projects to a high standard of quality.

 

TCQ Builders demonstrated similar competencies to Richard Crooks Constructions and Beach Constructions in meeting all of the evaluation criteria.

 

Fugen Constructions again demonstrated high competency level and demonstrated excellent client satisfaction with their references.

 

Infinity Constructions demonstrated similar experience in public sector project with provision or good references however had a lower level of resource availability and capability than the four-abovementioned builders. Nevertheless Infinity Constructions demonstrated that they are very capable of undertaking a project of this nature.

   

All other building contractors who achieved a score could reasonably undertake the construction works commensurate with their respective levels of experience and expertise. The five top scoring building contractors, Richard Crooks Constructions, Beach Constructions, TCQ Builders, Fugen Constructions and Infinity Constructions have all demonstrated superior competencies in all evaluation criteria.  

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The short-listing of tenderers from the call for expressions of interest for the construction of the third floor addition to Bowen Library has been very successful with a good number of competent builders submitting their interest in this project. Council can be confident that detailed and competitive tenders will be submitted from the proposed short listed building contractors.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.   Council invite Richard Crooks Constructions, Beach Constructions, TCQ Builders, Fugen Constructions and Infinity Constructions to submit tenders for the construction of the third storey addition to the Bowen Library; and.

 

2.   All other contractors be advised that their submissions have been unsuccessful on this occasion.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN EARLS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

DRAINAGE CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Builder

Licenced Builder Yes/No

Experienced similar works in excess of $1Million Yes/No

Experienced in similar public sector projects 40%

Client satisfaction references for similar projects 40%

Resource availability and capability 20%

Compliant with Occupational Health and Safety Act Yes/No

Environmental Management Policies and Procedures Yes/No

Financial Capacity Yes/No

Demonstrated Quality Systems to ISO 9001

Yes/No

Score 100%

Richard Crooks Constructions

Yes

Yes

38

38

20

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

96%

Beach Constructions

Yes

Yes

35

38

18

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

91%

TCQ Builders

Yes

Yes

35

35

18

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

88%

Fugen Constructions

Yes

Yes

32

35

16

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

83%

Infinity Constructions

Yes

Yes

29

35

15

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

79%

Brisland

Yes

Yes

29

30

15

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

74%

Cordukes

Yes

Yes

34

18

18

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

70%

Austruct Constructions

Yes

Yes

25

30

14

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

69%

St Hilliers Interiors

Yes

Yes

27

25

16

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

68%

Axis Building Group

Yes

Yes

21

30

14

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

65%

Safin

Yes

Yes

22

22

12

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

56%

Haslin

Yes

Yes

25

18

10

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

53%

AMFM Constructions

Yes

Yes

20

20

10

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

50%

Barker Construction Services

Yes

Yes

21

17

10

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

48%

Steve Watt

Yes

Yes

19

26

13

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Fail

Commercial Building Group

Yes

Yes

19

20

13

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Fail

Wintertons

Yes

No

5

5

2

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Fail

Equitibuild

No

No

0

0

0

No

No

No

No

Fail


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 61/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

MAROUBRA BEACH IMPROVEMENT WORKS PROJECT

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0730

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Acceptance of Offer of Financial Assistance for the Maroubra Beach Project by DLWC

On 20th July 2001, Council Officers and the Mayor met with Mr David Howse from the Minister for Land & Water Conservation’s office to discuss opportunities to accelerate funding from the Department towards the Maroubra Beach POM project.  The accelerated funding would enable the new car park, facilities building/bus terminus building in Broadarrow Reserve, road works and the skateboard facility to be completed by the end of the 2001/02 financial year.

 

ISSUES:

 

The amount of accelerated funding sought was $1,000,000.  This would supplement the previous application for $500,000.  The basis for the accelerated funding was that Council would then match the accelerated component in the 2002/03 financial year.

 

By letter dated 14 May 2002, the Premier of New South Wales advised Council that its request for accelerated funding for the Maroubra Beach Project had been successfully considered, bringing the State’s contribution to $1,500,000 for 2001/02.

 

The DLWC has now requested that Council formally advise it of Council’s acceptance of the Offer of Financial Assistance in order for payments to be forwarded to Council.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The accelerated funding for 2001/02 has enabled Council to substantially complete works identified in the Maroubra Beach POM Overview and subsequent Maroubra Beach Promenade and Environs Master Plan.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.   That Council accept the Offer of Financial Assistance for the Maroubra Beach POM Works project in the amount of $1,500,000 from the DLWC.

 

2.   Council formally advise the DLWC of its acceptance of the Offer of Financial Assistance for the Maroubra Beach POM Works.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PARKS AND RESERVES CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 62/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 01/02 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT & ASSOCIATED SERVICES.

 

 

DATE:

24 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4558

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In accordance with the General Manager’s permission, and following the Council’s approval of 6 Selected Tenderer’ in response to an earlier call for expressions of interest, Tenders were called for the provision of Property Management and Associated Services for a significant part of the Council’s property portfolio for a period of 3 years.  After a 3-week tendering period the Tender closed on 9 April 2002.

Five of the six selected tenderers’ submitted bids that conformed to the requirements of the Tender Specification.  Carl Wilson Real Estate Pty Ltd did not submit a tender.  Discussion and evaluation of these Tenders are set out in this report.

 

BACKGROUND:

The Council’s property portfolio is currently managed internally by a staff of 2 Council Officers’ and externally by local real estate agents.  Sometimes up to 5 agents can be employed by the Council at any one time.  Due to the workload some aspects of the internal management can be random and the service provided externally can differ from agent to agent, as there is usually no formal agreement detailing the scope of the service or level of expected performance. 

On occasions this has resulted in poor communications, inadequate maintenance and security on vacant properties, loss of rental income and missed opportunities on property matters such as reletting of vacant properties. 

 

ISSUES:

 

Property Management Expenditure

For the period July 2000 to June 2001, the recorded cost of property management to the Council was approximately $32,000.  In the same period Council has lost actual and potential revenues due uncollected rents and vacant dwellings earning no income.  Although there is no current estimate for the full quantum of the loss it is believed to be significant. 

Tender Assessment

The Tender Specification Part A ‘Conditions of Tendering’ advised that the evaluation, negotiation and selection of Tenders would be in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999 under the NSW Local Government Act 1999.  Tenderer’ were also given an indication of the selection criteria, (see below) to be referred to in the evaluation:

(a)        The fees and other charges;

(b)        Capability of the Tenderer to undertake the work;

(c)        Compliance with the Requirements Document;

(d)        Experience of the Tenderer in human relationship management; and

(e)        management of risk.

The criteria were not listed in any particular order and it was emphasised that they would not be accorded equal weight in the assessment process. It was also pointed out that the criteria were intended to give Tenderers a general indication of the Council’s priorities and that Council reserved the right to disregard any of the above-listed criteria or to apply any other criteria. 

Evaluation Team

A thorough and detailed evaluation of all tender submissions, (except one tender where the estimated cost was considered to high too be successful) was conducted by a panel comprising, Council’s Manager Contracts and Purchasing, Adrian O’Leary, Acting Property Officer Stephen Dawe, and Acting Property Compliance Officer Janine Rew.

Evaluation Process

The process of Evaluation was:

1.   The evaluation committee undertook an objective quantative assessment of the completed schedules, (but not pricing information) submitted as part of each tender.  In particular Schedule B17 asked a number of specific questions drawn from the Part E “Requirements Specification”. 

2.   The schedule information and the specific questions were listed under the relevant criteria and weighted in order of importance to the overall evaluation.  Team members’ scored the criteria individually with reference to the “Scoring Guideline” structured prior to the tender closing date.  Individual scores were then averaged into a final team score and recorded on the “Evaluation Score” sheet. 

3.   The tenderer’ fees submitted in Schedule B2 “Tender Submission” were compared by calculating a basic annual cost using the costing information provided in the Attachment A “Property Portfolio” of the Requirements Specification.  This basic cost was then adjusted with additional costs indicated by the tenderer for a final ‘estimated annual adjusted cost’.

4.   The Final evaluation scores were then transferred to the “Cost / Needs Analysis” sheet and related to the ‘estimated annual adjusted cost’. 

5.   The results of this assessment are attached.

Based on this initial assessment the team invited 4 of the 5 tenderers’ to a second stage interview for the purpose of further evaluation of the tenders.  The 4 invited tenderers’ were:

·    James & Fear;

·    Preston Rowe Paterson;

·    Laing & Simmons; and

·    Raine & Horne.

The interviews were held at the Councils office on 1 May 2002 with all 3 team members in attendance.  The agenda for the interviews was the criteria and the questions contained within the criteria and listed in the Evaluation Score Sheet.  After these interviews’ the team again met and undertook a process of review of the initial assessment and modified the scores and ‘estimated annual adjusted cost’ of each of the 4 remaining tenderer’ based on the additional information obtained.  Reference checks were then undertaken for Laing and Simmons and Preston Rowe Paterson. 

The final evaluation criteria and a breakdown of their corresponding percentage weightings are set out below:

Criteria

Weighting

General Requirements;

2.5%

Capability of the Tenderer

50.00%

Rates Comparison

2.5%

Indemnity and Relationship Issues

40.00%

Tenderer OH&S Capability

5.00%

TOTAL

100%

Summary of Tenderer’:

Richard Wills

The office of Richard Wills is located in Bondi Junction.  The tenderer supplied detailed information about its Property Management expertise, staffing and knowledge of the local area. 

Of all the tenders this tenderer offered the highest basic annual cost at approx $179,000. 

The evaluation team concluded that although the tenderer complied with the tender specification the relatively high annual cost did not merit further evaluation. 

James & Fear

James and Fear currently manage 18 commercial and residential properties.  These properties are covered in the scope of this tender. 

 

The tenderer is experienced with the Councils property portfolio and is based close to the Council office in Randwick.  The tenderer indicated that unlike some other tenderers’ it specialised in property management. 

Of all the tenders evaluated, this tenderer offered the lowest basic annual cost at approx $44,000 which was later adjusted for conformance to approx $54,000.  Initial scoring for this tenderer was lower than for the other tenderers’. 

Based on the low annual cost the tenderer was invited to the second stage interview.  At the second review undertaken by the team after the interview it was agreed that no significant adjustment to the initial scoring was required.  It was the team’s evaluation that the tenderer had not demonstrated any additional understanding of the Council’s needs, than presented in the tender.   Criteria areas of indemnity, public relations, warranties required in clause E1 of the Requirements Specification and other parts of the capability criteria scored significantly lower than the other tenderers’.

Preston Rowe Paterson

Preston Rowe Paterson is based in the Sydney CBD and is the only tenderer who nominated experience in the management of a local government, (North Sydney) property portfolio. 

This tenderer achieved the highest evaluation score and offered the 2nd lowest ‘estimated annual adjusted cost’ of approximately $73,000. 

At the second stage interview Preston Rowe demonstrated a deep understanding of the needs of the Council in relation to property management.  This included criteria areas such as outdoor dinning, public relations, indemnity protection for the Council and maintenance of the Councils assets. 

The evaluation team were satisfied that the tenderer’s CBD location would not effect the high level of service needed to be provided.  The tenderer confirmed that their service was available 7 days per week and that any reasonable need of the Council and tenants could be satisfied within 15 minutes of a request. 

The team was impressed by the tenderer’s reporting structure and offer to alter that structure to suit the Councils specific needs. 

Referees were contacted and questioned on the tenderer’s overall performance and any experience of additional or hidden costs being imposed by the tenderer.  The referees reported that the overall performance was excellent and that there was no experience relating to additional or hidden costs.

Laing & Simmons

Laing and Simmons offer includes management of the Councils’ portfolio from its base in the Sydney CBD and operational activities to be undertaken from a franchise close to the Council office in Randwick.  A representative of the franchise agent was not present at the second stage interview.

This tenderer achieved the 3rd highest evaluation score and offered the 3rd lowest ‘estimated annual adjusted cost’ of approximately $83,000. 

At the second stage interview Laing and Simmons demonstrated a satisfactory understanding of the needs of the Council in relation to property management. 

The evaluation team was not satisfied that the tenderer’s proposal to split the management and operational scopes of the service was the optimum solution.  There was a concern that communications between the parties could be confused by this arrangement. 

Referees were contacted and questioned on the tenderer’s overall performance and any experience of additional or hidden costs being imposed by the tenderer.  The referees reported that the overall performance was excellent and that there was no experience relating to additional or hidden costs.

Raine & Horne

The office of Raine and Horne is located at Maroubra. 

This tenderer achieved the 2nd highest evaluation score and offered the 2nd highest ‘estimated annual adjusted cost’ of approximately $89,000. 

At the second stage interview Raine and Horne demonstrated an understanding of the needs of the Council in relation to property management similar to Preston Rowe.  This included criteria areas such as outdoor dinning, public relations, maintenance of the Councils assets and the role of the Council in the local community. 

It was calculated that there was a $16,000 difference between the ‘estimated annual adjusted cost’ of Raine and Horne and Preston Rowe.  This premium was considered too high to justify checking of references. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The 4 tenders considered by the evaluation team, (excluding Richard Wills) all demonstrated an ability to undertake the Scope of Services.

The evaluation team agreed that the tender received from Richard Wills could not succeed in being recommended to the Council because of its high basic cost.  Adjustment for additional costs was not calculated and the tender received no further consideration.

The tender received from James and Fear did not demonstrate sufficient ability to deliver the level of service required.  As the lowest cost tenderer they were invited to the second stage interview.  After the interview the team agreed that the low cost did not properly justify further consideration of their tender.

The evaluation score received by Raine and Horne was second only to Preston Rowe.  The $16,000 ‘estimated annual adjusted cost’ difference between Raine and Horne and Preston Rowe was considered too high to justify a recommendation to the Council and further evaluation was not undertaken.

The highest evaluated score was awarded to Preston Rowe.  Their initial tenderer was at least equal in quality to any other tender received.  At the second stage interview Preston Rowe impressed the evaluation team with its understanding and knowledge of the critical issues facing local government in regards to property management.  They capably demonstrated their ability to provide a high level of service to the Council at a cost that represented the best value for money.  Later reference checks fully supported the team’s opinion. 

The ‘estimated annual cost of the service’ calculated for Laing and Simmons and their evaluation score were judged to be the closest alternative to Preston Rowe.  Later reference checks again supported the team’s opinion that this tenderer would provide a high level of service.  In summary the team determined that it could not recommend this tenderer as its ‘estimated annual adjusted cost’ did not represent better value than the bid from Preston Rowe.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.   That Council accept the Tender submitted by Preston Rowe Paterson Pty Ltd for a period of three (3) years; and

2.   That the Mayor and General Manager be given delegated authority to sign the agreement and that the Council seal be affixed to any necessary document.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Evaluation Scores

Evaluation scoring guideliens

Cost/Needs Analysis 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

STEPHEN DAWE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ACTING PROPERTY OFFICER

 





 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 63/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

MAROUBRA BEACH SKATE PARK FACILITY

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0740

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on Tuesday 23rd April resolved that:

 

“A report be prepared for the next meeting of Council in respect of the management of the Maroubra Beach Skate Park, including but not limited to the following: -

 

lighting;

security and fencing;

hours of operation;

organising of competitions;

first aid;

rules of operation; and

 

the proposed Youth Advisory Committee have an input into the management and operation of Maroubra Beach Skate Park.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The Community Services Youth Worker together with the Parks & Recreation Coordinator and other Council Staff have held preliminary discussions concerning the operation of the Maroubra Beach Skate Park.  A Skate Park Advisory Committee meeting has subsequently been organised and is to be held on Tuesday 28th May to further examine the operation of the Skate Park  Key stake holders have been invited to attend the meeting including nominees of the Youth Advisory Committee, Council’s Insurance Officer, the Mayor as well other representatives from the local area.

 

The topics listed above will be discussed and one of the other aims of the meeting will be to discuss and develop a draft Code of Conduct for the use of the facility.  It should be noted at this time that it is not intended to provide lighting at the facility nor is it intended to completely fence off the facility.  Some fencing will be required on the eastern and western edges of the skate park as a safety measure to prevent direct access to the half pipe and the bowl portions of the skate park.

CONCLUSION:

 

Some skate enthusiasts describe their sport as an extreme sport.  There is no doubt that substantial skill is required to perform some of the more difficult stunts and that risk taking and injury are an inherent part of the sport.  Nonetheless, the new facility will provide opportunities for skate board users to partake in their sport in the local area.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the above update Director’s Report No. 63/2002 be noted and that a further report be prepared outlining the outcome of the Forum being held on Tuesday 28th May 2002.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PARKS AND RESERVES CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 64/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

SEABREEZE KIOSK, CLOVELLY

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1017

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In May 1997 the then tenants of the Sea breeze Kiosk at Clovelly vacated the premises. As a result Council called tenders for the operation of a kiosk / Café on the site in August and November of 1997.

 

In December of 1997 Council resolved to accept the tender of Parks and Cafes for one year with a five-year option.

 

ISSUES:

 

On being successful in the tender process, Parks and Cafes raised concerns about the condition of the building in particular concrete cancer of the old crab style arms of the building.

 

Council on structural engineering advice proceeded to demolish the arms of the building.

 

As a result of on going discussions with the successful tenderer regarding both the lease agreement and the restoration of the building it appeared that the agreement was being delayed. The successful tenderer was proposing works, which were generally not in accordance with the tender nor the draft Plan of Management for Clovelly, which was in place at the time.

 

As such Council resolved on 12 May 1998 to withdraw the offer of a license to Nancore Trading Co (Trading as Parks & Cafes), and that the remainder of the existing kiosk building be demolished.

 

As a result of Council’s resolution of 12 May 1998 Nancore Trading Co  notified Council that they may consider taking action against Council. Council sought legal advice in relation to this matter. That advice indicated that Council was in a strong position legally.  

 

Subsequentially Nancor took action action against Council in the District Court of NSW. Judge Rolfe heard the matter on the 26, 27, 28 and 29 June 2001.

 

On the 21st of August Judge Rolfe gave verdict and judgment for Nancor in the sum of $469,506.46 and that Council pay Nancor’s costs up to 24 May 2001 on a party / party basis and thereafter on a solicitor / client basis.

 

Council sought senior counsels advise in relation to the judgment of Judge Rolfe. Senior Counsel advised that Council would have three grounds for appeal, and the prospects of that appeal on two of the three grounds were reasonably good.

 

In consideration of Senior Counsel, advise Council proceeded to appeal.

 

The appeal was heard on 27 February 2002 and judgment handed down on 1 May 2002.

 

The appeal was allowed in part with judgment being reduced from $469,506.46 to $407,061.00 and that the appellant (Council) pay 80% of the cost of the appeal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Report No. 64/2002 be received and noted

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS

 

 

 

 

 

 


  

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 16/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL - DETERMINATIONS

 

 

DATE:

22 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1092 xr 98/S/0090

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 INTRODUCTION:

 

The Local Government Remuneration Tribunal has handed down its Report and Determinations on fees for Councillors and Mayors for 2002/2003.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The Tribunal has awarded an increase in Councillor fees in recognition of the increasing responsibilities placed upon Mayors and Councillors over the previous 12 months. The change was assessed taking into account national economic indicators, such as the inflation rate and the Wage Cost Index.

 

The Tribunal increased all minimum and maximum fees by three (3) percent for Councillors and for Mayors. The revised fee structure covers the period 1st July, 2002 to 30th June, 2003.

 

Randwick City Council is in Category 1 and the following remuneration ranges are available:

 

Councillor’s Annual Fee:                       Minimum $ 8,265 – Maximum $15,430

Mayor’s Annual Fee:                            Minimum $16,995 – Maximum $39,655

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is necessary each year for the Council to set the Councillors’ and Mayor’s Annual Fees and it is considered that the maximum fees should be applicable for the forthcoming financial year.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That a Councillor’s Annual Fee of $15,430 and a Mayor’s Annual Fee of $39,655 be set for the financial year July, 2002 to June, 2003 in accordance with the range stipulated by the Local Government Remuneration Tribunal.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 17/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

SUBURB BOUNDARIES - 349 TO 373 AVOCA STREET.

 

 

DATE:

13 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0064

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has previously reviewed the matter of house numbers 349 to 373 Avoca Street being re-designated from the suburb of Kingsford to the suburb of Randwick.

 

ISSUES:

 

As a result of receipt of a petition, the Council, at its meeting held on 26th February, 2002, resolved that in respect to Nos. 349 to 373 Avoca Street, Council prepare a draft map of changes to suburb boundaries, write to the affected residents and place the draft on public exhibition and undertake public consultation, in order for the final draft to be referred to the Geographical Names Board for endorsement and gazettal.

 

Public notice of the proposed change of boundaries was inserted in the Weekly Southern Courier in March, 2002 and submissions were invited up until 19th April, 2002. The emergency services, etc., and the affected residents were also individually written to by Council and the draft map was on exhibition at the Administrative Centre, the Bowen Library and the Randwick Branch Library.

 

As a result, a number of telephone calls from affected residents were received with callers verbally indicating their support for Council’s proposal, but no actual written submissions were received.

 

As all the primary affected persons were original signatories to the petition seeking Council to remedy the issue, it is not surprising that Council’s on-going action, which supported the subject of the petition, did not generate further responses.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In view of the fact that no adverse feedback has been forthcoming, it is now appropriate for Council to continue with its original course of action and progress the matter of the suburb boundary change further.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council adopt the proposed change of suburb boundary to “Randwick” for properties numbered 349 to 373 Avoca Street, being Lot 1 D.P. 708566, Lots 3,6,7,8,9& 14 D.P. 8785 and Lots A,B,C,D,E & F D.P. 439521, noting that there were no submissions received and that Council was acting specifically on the request of the affected parties, and forward the proposal to the Geographical Names Board for endorsement and gazettal.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Map of properties affected by proposed boundary change (as exhibited)

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 18/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO & INTERACTION BETWEEN COUNCILLORS & STAFF.

 

 

DATE:

13 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0433

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Council, at its meeting held on 23rd April, 2002, resolved that:

 

(a)      A corporate guideline to advise staff of the correct protocols for interactions between Councillors and staff be developed by the Public Officer;

 

(b)        The corporate guideline be included in the induction package given to new employees and maintained on Council’s Intranet site; and

 

(c)        Immediate supervisors explain to new employees the correct protocols for interaction between Councillors and staff.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The Department of Local Government and the ICAC, as a result of a joint project several years ago, published guidelines to define the roles and responsibilities of local Councillors to help improve their conduct of business with Council staff.

 

In view of Council’s resolution, the adoption of the model policy (varied to fit Randwick) would be an appropriate course of action. Supplementary information on Councillors would also be provided to staff, as an adjunct to this process.

 

The proposed policy on Councillors’ Access to Information and their Interaction with Staff has been altered slightly from the model policy with a view to meeting Randwick’s specific requirements, but has not departed to any significant degree from the general thrust or intent of the original document.

 

This draft policy addresses many of the issues in this area which arise at Randwick and other Councils on a daily basis and procedures in the suggested policy will assist considerably in both Councillors and staff having an understanding of their respective roles at Randwick Council. This policy should also obviate some of the uncertainties which Councillors and staff may have with respect to the level of interaction and to the results which may be expected from such interaction. The policy clearly details the correct procedures to be undertaken during any interaction both within the Council Chamber during meetings and outside the Chamber during office hours.

 

Prior to submission of this draft policy to Council it was referred to Manex for endorsement, in accordance with Policy No. 1.01.01.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Following the adoption of the Policy entitled “Provision of Information to and Interaction between Councillors and Staff” both groups should have a clear understanding of their specific roles and responsibilities at Randwick Council and such an understanding can only have a beneficial effect on the Council’s future operations.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That Policy No. 1.04.05.dft entitled “Provision of Information to and Interaction between Councillors and Staff be endorsed and adopted as a policy of the Council;

 

(b)        That a reference to this Policy be included with the notation of other policies on page 6 of Policy No. 3.04.27 (Staff Code of Conduct);

 

(c)        That the Policy Register be updated accordingly;

 

(d)        That the Policy and supplementary information on all individual Councillors be included in the induction package for new employees and maintained by Human Resources on Council’s Internet site; and

 

(e)        That immediate supervisors draw to current staff’s attention to existence of the Policy and the supplementary information on all individual Councillors.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Draft Policy No. 1.04.05dft

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 


 RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

 

PART 1 – COUNCIL MATTERS, MAYOR, COUNCILLORS AND STAFF

 

 

Review Date:        /         /                                                                                                     Policy No:  1.04.05dft

 

 

POLICY TITLE:   PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO AND INTERACTION BETWEEN
                                    COUNCILLORS & STAFF

 

 

File No:                  98/S/0433 xr 98/S/0090

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

To provide a documented process on how Councillors can access Council records;

 

To ensure Councillors have access to all documents necessary for them to exercise their statutory role as a member of the governing body of the Council;

 

To ensure that Councillors receive advice from nominated staff to help them in the performance of their civic duty in an orderly and regulated manner;

 

To provide direction on Councillors’ rights of access to Council building; and

 

To provide a clear and consistent framework for the reporting of and appropriate application of sanctions for breaches of this policy.

 

 

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

 

- As per document following –

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute No:         /                                                                                                   Meeting Date:                               

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO AND
INTERACTION BETWEEN

COUNCILLORS AND STAFF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- Adopted -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO AND INTERACTION

BETWEEN COUNCILLORS AND STAFF

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Based on the provisions in the Local Government Act, Councillors and staff have distinctly different roles to play in Council.  The Council is responsible for the strategic direction and for determining the policy framework of Council.  The Council also has a statutory role as the consent authority, under both the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and the Local Government Act, for applications for development consent and other approvals.  The General Manager, with the senior officers of Council, is responsible for the effective management of the organisation and the carrying out of Council’s policies and strategic objectives.

 

However, the distinction between these two roles may be unclear.  There often needs to be personal interaction between Councillors and senior officers, particularly regarding access to and provision of information to effectively integrate policy making and service delivery.  This has created the need for guidelines that help Councillors and staff to understand fully their respective roles and how they should operate, in order to perform their job effectively.

 

AIMS

 

This policy will:

 

·              Provide clear communication channel to ensure the speedy provision of accurate information;

 

·              Recognise the particular circumstances of the Council;

 

·              Require adequate training of staff and Councillors on the need for the policy and its requirements;

 

·              Provide appropriate sanctions for non-compliance; and

 

·              Be reviewed periodically to monitor its effectiveness and compliance.

 

OBJECTIVES

 

To provide a documented process on how Councillors can access Council records;

 

To ensure Councillors have access to all documents necessary for them to exercise their statutory role as a member of the governing body of the Council;

 

To ensure that Councillors receive advice from nominated staff to help them in the performance of their civic duty in an orderly and regulated manner;

 

To provide direction on Councillors’ rights of access to Council buildings; and

 

To provide a clear and consistent framework for the reporting of and appropriate application of sanctions for breaches of this policy.


 

INAPPROPRIATE INTERACTIONS

 

Council’s policy is that the following interactions are inappropriate:

 

·              Councillors approaching junior members of staff for information on sensitive or controversial matters;

 

·              Members of staff approaching Councillors directly (rather than via their director, staff representative or union delegate) on staffing or political issues;

 

·              Councillors approaching staff outside the Council building or outside hours of work to discuss Council business;

 

·              Staff refusing to give information, which is available to other Councillors, to a particular Councillor because of the staff member’s or Councillor’s political views;

 

·              Councillors who have a development application or other application before Council discussing the matter with the assessing planner or officer in staff-only areas of the Council;

 

·              Staff being asked to answer questions or provide documents to Councillors who are overbearing, threatening or intimidating;

 

·              Councillors directing or pressuring staff in the performance of their work or recommendations they should make; and

 

·              Staff providing advice to Councillors without recording or documenting the interaction as they would if the advice was provided to a member of the community.

 

 

STATUTORY PROVISIONS FOR COUNCILLORS AND STAFF

 

Chapters 9 and 11 of the Local Government Act set out the statutory roles and duties of Councillors and the General Manager.  The introduction to Chapter 9 states that “each Council is a statutory corporation.  The Councillors are the governing body of the corporation and they have the responsibility of directing and controlling the affairs of the Council in accordance with this Act”.  Chapter 9 includes the following provisions:

 

1.             The Governing Body (s.222)

 

The elected representatives called “Councillors” comprise the governing body of the Council.

 

2.             The Role of the Governing Body (s.223)

 

The role of the governing body is to direct and control the affairs of the Council in accordance with this Act.

 

3.             The Role of the Mayor (s.226)

 

The role of the Mayor is:

 

·              To exercise, in cases of necessity, the policy-making functions of the governing body of the Council between meetings of the Council (for example: urgent demolition orders, authority to financially assist the community by the allocation of resources during natural disasters, commencement of urgent legal action);

 

·              To exercise such other functions of the Council as the Council determines (for example, determining the appropriateness of holding a special event such as a fun run, approval of the General Manager’s annual leave);

 

·              To preside at meetings of the Council; and

 

·              To carry out the civic and ceremonial functions of the Mayoral office.

 

(Note:  At Randwick, the Mayor has certain delegations detailed in Policy Nos.  1.02.01A and 1.02.02.)

 

4.             The Role of a Councillor as a Member of the Governing Body (s.232(1))

 

The role of a Councillor is, as a member of the governing body of the Council:

 

·              To direct and control the affairs of the Council in accordance with this Act (for example, input into preparation of Council’s management plan, financial plan and organisational structure);

 

·              To participate in the optimum allocation of the Council’s resources of the benefit of the City (for example, providing input into deciding priorities for construction and maintenance work);

 

·              To play a key role in the creation and review of the Council’s policies and objectives and criteria relating to the exercise of the Council’s regulatory functions; and

 

·              To review the performance of the Council and its delivery of services, and the management and revenue policies of the Council.

 

5.             The Role of a Councillor as an Elected Person (s.223(2))

 

The role of a Councillor is, as an elected person:

 

·              To represent the interests of the residents and ratepayers;

 

·              To provide leadership and guidance to the community; and

 

·              To facilitate communication between the community and the Council.

 

6.             The role of the General Manager (s.335(1))

 

The General Manager is generally responsible for the efficient and effective operation of the Council’s organisation and for ensuring the implementation, without undue delay, of decisions of the Council.

 

7.             The Functions of the General Manager (s.335(2))

 

The General Manager has the following particular functions:

 

·              The day-to-day management of the Council;

 

·              To exercise such of the functions of the Council as are delegated by the Council to the General Manager;

 

·              To appoint staff in accordance with an organisational structure and resources approved by the Council;

 

·              To direct and dismiss staff; and

 

·              To implement the Council’s Equal Opportunity Management Plan.

 

ACCESS TO COUNCIL RECORDS BY COUNCILLORS

 

1.                             Statutory Provisions

 

Section 12 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council must provide access to the current version of certain Council documents free of charge to all members of the public.  These documents are:

 

·              Council’s code of conduct;

·              Council’s code of meeting practice;

·              Annual report

·              Annual financial reports;

·              Auditor’s report;

·              Management plan;

·              EEO management plan;

·              Council’s land register;

·              Council’s policy concerning the payment of expenses incurred by, and the provision of facilities to, Councillors;

·              Register of investments;

·              Returns of the interests of Councillors, designated persons and delegates;

·              Returns as to candidates’ campaign donations;

·              Agendas and business papers for Council and Committee meetings (but not including business papers for matters considered when a meeting is closed to the public);

·              Minutes of Council and committee meetings but restricted (in the case of any part of a meeting that is closed to the public) to the resolutions and recommendations of the meeting;

·              Any codes referred to in this Act;

·              Register of delegates;

·              Annual reports of bodies exercising delegated Council functions;

·              Development applications (within the meaning of the EP&A Act) & associated documents;

·              Applications under Part 1 of Chapter 7 for approval to erect a building and associated documents;

·              Local policies adopted by the Council concerning approvals and orders;

·              Records of approvals granted, any variation from local policies with reasons for the variation and decisions made on appeals concerning approvals;

·              Records of building certificates under the EP&A Act;

·              Plans of land proposed to be compulsorily acquired by the Council;

·              Leases and licences for use of public land classified as community land;

·              Plans of management of community land;

·              Environmental planning instruments, development control plans and plans made under s.94AB  of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 applying to land within the Council’s area;

·              The statement of affairs, the summary of affairs and the register of policy documents required
under the Freedom of Information Act, 1989 and

·              Departmental representatives’ reports presented at a meeting of the Council according to
s.433.

·              The register of graffiti removal work kept in accordance with Section 67A.

 

In addition, Section 12 (6) of the Act provides that Council must allow inspection of its other documents, unless there is a public interest issue. The Council’s Payment of Expenses and Provision of Facilities Policy (No. 1.03.10) makes further specific provision for access to information for Councillors.

 

Sections 15(1) and 16(1) of the Freedom of Information Act, 1989 also include provisions for members of the public to a general right of access to Council documents.

 

2.                             Procedures

 

·              Access to a Council file, record or other document can only be provided according to this policy and Policy No. 1.03.10 to ensure that access is obtained in ways that are legal and appropriate.  This policy does not limit or restrict statutory or common law rights of access.

 

·              Councillors can request the General Manager, a Director or the Public Officer or a person nominated by the General Manager to provide access to a particular Council record.  Access to such documents will be restricted to the Councillors’ Rooms/Mayoral Office/Administrative Building and is to be undertaken in the company of a staff member nominated by the General Manager or a Director.

 

·              Councillors who have a personal (as distinct from civic) interest in a document of Council have the same rights of access as any other person.

 

·              Councillors are entitled to access all files, records or other documents, where that document is identified in s.12 of the Local Government Act or to a matter currently before the Council.

 

·              The General Manager shall not unreasonably decide that a document is not relevant to the performance of the Councillor’s civic duty and deny access to a Council document.  The General Manager must state his/her reasons for the decision if they refuse access.

 

·              Councillors can request access to other documents of the Council either by a Notice of Motion to the Council or a Freedom of Information application.

 

·              The General Manager, Public Officer or a person identified by the General Manager, shall keep a record of all requests by Councillors for access to information (other than those listed in s.12 of the Local Government Act, the Freedom of Information Act or by a Notice of Motion at a Council meeting).  These requests must be reported to the Council.

 

INTERACTION BETWEEN COUNCILLORS AND COUNCIL STAFF

 

1.             During Meetings

 

The interaction between Councillors and staff at Council meetings and committee meetings is regulated by:

 

·              s.360 of the Local Government Act;

 

·              cl.22 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulation;

 

·              Council’s Code of Conduct and

 

·              Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

 

Section 360 of the Local Government Act enables the Council to make regulations in regard to the conduct of meetings, adopt codes of meeting practice and states that meetings must be conducted in accordance with the Code of Meeting Practice.  Randwick Council’s Code of Meeting Practice is detailed in Policy No. 1.01.02.

 

Clause 22 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulation details how, in Council meetings, Councillors can ask questions of other Councillors by going through the Chairperson. The regulation also details the process Councillors must follow if they wish to ask a question of Council staff, by going through the General Manager.

 

Outside of Meetings

 

The Meetings Regulation (cl.22) makes provision for a Councillor to obtain information at a Council meeting or by a Question at a Council Meeting.  (This process is also extended to include Committee meetings as it is incorporated in Council’s Code of Meeting Practice).  In addition, the matter is further addressed in General Business, where a Councillor can move that a report be prepared on a specific matter.

 

·              The General Manager is responsible to the Council for performance and direction of all staff and day-to-day management of Council.  Therefore, it is appropriate that all requests for information and approaches to staff outside the forum of a Council or Committee meetings be directed to the General Manager, the Public Officer or person/s nominated by the General Manager.

 

·              Only those senior officers (as defined in s.332), the Public Officer and managers nominated by the General Manager can provide advice to Councillors.  In addition, Councillors are authorised to liaise with the staff members nominated on the “Councillors/Staff Liaison Listing” of the Council.

 

·              It is within the discretion of the General Manager to require Councillors to make an appointment with a senior officer, to put a request in writing or to put it on notice to the Council to obtain detailed or otherwise time consuming information.  The General Manager must indicate in writing the reasons for refusing a request.

 

·              For all but straightforward advice on administrative matters, Councillors should put their requests for information or advice in writing to be answered by the General Manager or the appropriate senior officer.  These written requests then form part of Council records and can be filed appropriately.

 

·              A senior officer has the discretion to refer any request for information to the General Manager.  The senior officer must indicate to the Councillor their reasons for the referral.

 

·              If a Councillor is concerned about any refusal to provide information, they should firstly raise the matter with the General Manager (or the Mayor if it was the General Manager who refused to provide the advice).  If the Councillor is still dissatisfied they should request the information by way of a Motion Pursuant to Notice to the Council.

 

·              Councillors must not attempt to direct staff as to the performance of their work.  Staff must report all such attempts immediately to their director or the General Manager.

 

·              Councillors must not request staff to undertake work for the Councillor or any other person.

 

·              A Councillor, member of staff or delegate must not take advantage of their official position to improperly influence other Councillors, members of staff or delegates in the performance of their public or professional duties for the purpose of securing private benefit for themselves or for some other person.

 

ACCESS TO COUNCIL OFFICES

 

·              As elected members of the Council, Councillors are entitled to have access to the Council Chamber, Mayor’s Office (for the Mayor), their respective Councillors’ Room and public areas of the Council’s buildings.

 

·              Councillors who are not in pursuit of their civic duties have the same rights of access to Council buildings and premises as any other member of the public.

 

·              A Councillor has no rights to enter staff-only areas without the express authorisation of the General Manager or his nominee or by resolution of the Council.

 

BREACHES OF THIS POLICY

 

For this policy to be effective and meaningful, appropriate reporting of breaches and appropriate sanctions need to be established and consistently applied.  All parties need to have confidence that the policy will be complied with and breaches will be dealt with appropriately.  Any cases of clear breaches of the policy that are not dealt with appropriately will erode confidence in the ability of the Council to deal with complaints and reduce the efficiency of the Council.

 

The policy is linked with Council’s Code of Conduct and breaches will be dealt with in accordance with the reporting and sanction provisions of this Policy (No. 1.04.05) and Policy No. 1.03.11 for Councillors and of this Policy No. (1.04.05) and Policy No. 3.04.27 for staff members.

 

1.             Reporting

 

·              All occasions of a Councillor or staff member not complying with this policy should be immediately reported to the General Manager.

 

·              Where the report relates to the conduct of a Councillor, the General Manager shall immediately report the matter to the Mayor and to the next Council meeting.

 

·              Where the report relates to the conduct of staff, the General Manager shall deal with the matter according to the terms of employment of the staff member.

 

·              Where a Councillor believes that the General Manager has failed to comply with the policy, the Councillor shall immediately report to the Mayor who will report the matter to Council.

 

·              Before a report to Council by the General Manager (or the Mayor), the General Manager (or the Mayor) should undertake preliminary inquiries to establish the facts.  The preliminary investigations may take any form the Mayor and General Manager considers appropriate but must involve discussions with the staff member and Councillor involved.  Natural justice principles need to be satisfied in dealing with an alleged breach.

 

·              The Council must decide whether a matter reported to it under this policy, reveals a breach.  The Council may take any steps provided in this policy or Policy Nos. 1.03.11 or 3.04.27 that it considers reasonable in the circumstances.

 

2.             Sanctions

 

Council, having resolved that a Councillor has failed to comply with this policy, can, by resolution:

 

·              Require the Councillor to apologise to the person concerned;

·              Request a formal apology;

·              Counsel the Councillor;

·              Reprimand the Councillor;

·              Resolve to make its decision on the matter public;

·              Pass a censure motion at a Council or Committee meeting (Councils should not underestimate the power of public censure as a deterrent);

·              Make public disclosures of inappropriate conduct (such as making the community aware of the breach through the media or annual report);

·              Refer the matter to an appropriate investigative body if the matter is serious, and/or

·              Prosecute any breach of the law.

 

Sanctions for staff depending on the severity, scale and importance of the breach, may include:

 

·              Counselling the staff member;

·              Documentation of the behaviour being placed on the personnel file;

·              Non-renewal of an employment contract (if applicable);

·              Instituting Council disciplinary proceedings;

·              Dismissal;

·              Prosecution.

 

(Note:  With respect to staff, in every case the disciplinary procedures set out in the relevant Award or employment contact will apply).


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 19/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY - WAIVING OF FEES.

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1238 xr 98/S/0911

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

During the past year there have been a number of requests coming before Council from local community groups, schools and similar organisations in respect to the waiving of fees for the installation of banners across roads (for fetes, etc.), the use of Council’s stage, application fees for community events and free use of the Town hall or other Council premises.

 

ISSUES:

 

The requests for the waiving of fees have all come before Council and have, in the main, been dealt with by way of late Mayor’s Minutes. On all recent occasions, the Council has approved the requests and the submission of these matters on the Council and Committee agenda has become more of a formality than a necessity.

 

Another example of this type of request is listed as a Mayor’s Minute on this evening’s agenda and relates to the waiving of fees for the filming of a commercial for the Muscular Dystrophy Association. I consider that it would be appropriate for a delegation of authority to be established to allow for the expeditious processing of these requests at an administrative level, with the resultant benefit of streamlining the path of other Council business which requires inclusion on the agenda system for meetings.

 

Accordingly, Council’s Policy No. 2.01.04 (Delegation of Authority) should be amended to make provision for a new delegation, Reference No. RF006, to the General Manager to allow him to waive applicable fees and charges imposed by the Council in respect to community groups, schools and other non-profit or charitable orrganisations for the use of Council’s premises or equipment and associated staff wages and application fees for community or other not-for-profit events or activities up to an amount of $5,000.00, subject to the General Manager reporting annually to Council on all fees waived as a result of the exercising of this delegation.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

With a view to expediting requests from various community groups, schools, charitable organisations and associations operating on a not-for-profit basis and facilitating the flow of Council business through its meeting agenda system, I consider that an appropriate delegation of authority should be established to make provision for the waiving of Council fees and charges.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That a new Reference No. RF006 be inserted in Council’s Delegation of Authority Policy, No. 2.01.04, reading as follows:

 

“Title – Finance – Waiving of Fees and Charges.

Delegate – General Manager

 

Delegation – To waive fees and charges imposed by the Council in respect to local community groups and schools and other non-profit or charitable organisations for the use of Council’s premises or equipment (and associated staff wages if applicable) and application fees for community or other not-for-profit events or activities up to an amount of $5,000.00, subject to the General Manager reporting annually to Council on all fees and charges waived as a result of the exercising of this delegation”; and

 

(b)        That the Policy Register be updated accordingly.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 26/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

11 CAIRO STREET, COOGEE  2034

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0002/2002

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Section 96 application for DA No. 2/02 seeking permission to reinstate an existing wall at 11 Cairo Street Coogee for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Application Report dated 23 May 2002

2.  A4 Configuration Plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0002/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification  - To demolish and replace existing brick wall within the rear portion of the dwelling.

PROPERTY:

 11 Cairo Street, COOGEE

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 P & L SWEENEY

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Ordinary meeting for determination at the request of Councillors Matson, Greenwood and Whitehead.

 

The current approval details the demolition of the existing walls in conjunction with the development consent for alterations and additions to the dwelling, DA 360/98. The applicant had sought consent for the reinstatement of the western wall, south eastern wall, eastern wall, removal of the retaining wall and planter box at the south west corner and lower garage floor level. Essentially the building is being rebuilt in part because the existing walls are structurally unsound and are not capable of supporting the loads of the new works. Consent was originally granted for this application on the 26th February 2002.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposed modification adds an additional wall to those that require reinstatement. The existing wall to the eastern elevation is cracked and structurally unsound and it is proposed to demolish this wall and reinstate in exactly the same position and height. The proposed work is in part below the existing ground level and it is setback behind and underneath the cantilevered upper floor levels.

 

It should be noted that there is a subsequent Section 96 modification to carryout the same reinstatement of other walls within the subfloor area, and that application will be dealt with upon expiration of the notification period.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The premises is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection area which contains a mixture of older style and large contemporary dwellings. The subject premises is on the southern side of Cairo Street and has overall dimensions of 10.973m x 40.54m, with an area of 445m5. The site at present is vacant, most to the existing dwelling having been demolished to accommodate alterations and additions to the dwelling as detailed under Development Application 360/98, and the subject development application 2/02.

 

4.    SECTION 96

4.1       Substantially the same development

 

The proposed modifications are minor in that the works do not increase the overall bulk and scale of the building or add any additional elements to the building and merely propose the reinstatement of one structurally unsound wall, and will not result in any additional impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape and therefore the proposed modifications to the original development proposal are considered to represent substantially the same development.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified on 2nd May 2002 in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

M Phillips of 13 Cairo Street South Coogee

 

-   the plans do not represent an accurate indication of the subfloor and the proposed works detail the enlargement of the subfloor area.

-   their home has suffered damage allegedly caused by the excavation of the swimming pool and any further excavation may cause further damage.

 

P & A Spencer of 9 Cairo Street South Coogee

 

-   objects to the demolition and reconstruction of this wall for the same reasons given previously.

 

Comment:

 

The salient point of the application is that the proposal details only the demolition of an existing wall because it is structurally unsound and not capable of supporting the additional loads imposed by the works as approved under Development Consent 960/98. The wall will be demolished and reconstructed in exactly the same location and height as the existing wall.

 

Further, the proposed modification does not alter the extent of the subfloor area approved under Development Consent No.2/02, and will not increase the potential for damage to the adjoining properties.

 

6.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

The proposed modification to the consent does not increase or alter the overall envelope and bulk and scale of the dwelling and will not result in any additional impact to either the adjoining development or to the streetscape.

 

8.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification to the original consent satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in that it will constitute substantially the same development, and in addition the proposed modifications will not result in any significant additional adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape. It is therefore considered that the modifications to the original Development Consent are reasonable.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. 2/02 for permission to reinstate existing walls including modifications to the existing walls and window locations for 11 Cairo Street Coogee in the following manner:

 

        Condition No.1 is altered to read as follows

 

“1. The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A.01- A.07, drawn by GA Design, dated December 2001, received by Council on the 2nd January 2002, as amended by the plan received by Council on 30th April 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.”

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configuration Plans

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 27/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

33 MERMAID AVENUE, MAROUBRA  NSW  2035

 

 

DATE:

23 May, 2002

FILE NO:

D/1168/2001

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Assessment Report for Development Application No.  1168/2001 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house at 33 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra for Councils consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the development application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Development Assessment Report dated 21 May 2002

2.  A4 Configuration Plans 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

MARNIE STEWART

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR of PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

 

DATE:

21 May, 2002

FILE NO:

1168/2001

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house

PROPERTY:

 33 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mark Elmowy and Associates P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee for determination by Councillors Andrews, Bastic and Sullivan and is valued at $250 000.

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house.  On the ground floor, new works include the internal reconfiguration of the dwelling, new bedroom to the front of the dwelling and an addition at the rear of the dwelling containing the master bedroom and 1m deep balcony. On the upper floor, it is proposed to extend the existing garage towards to the front boundary, construct a formal entrance and foyer, internally reconfigure the layout of the upper floor and extend the dwelling at the rear to permit a new living room and a 2m deep balcony.  It is also proposed to landscape the front and rear of the site.

 

The original proposal was notified to adjoining property owners and four (4) submissions were received.  The applicant submitted amended plans to address Council’s and the objectors concerns including a reduction in the length and width of the ground floor balcony, reduction in the length of the upper floor addition at the rear of the dwelling by 1m and a reduction in the width of the rear upper floor balcony.  The proposed amendments have also resulted in an increase in the height of the rear addition.  The amended plans were renotified and two (2) objections were received raising concerns about the rear setback, bulk, scale, floor space, height, overshadowing and view loss. 

 

The assessment indicates that the proposed development satisfies all the relevant provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998 and relevant preferred solutions or performance criteria of Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling house.  On the ground floor, new works include alterations to the internal configuration of the dwelling, new bedroom to the front of the dwelling and a 4m x 6.29m addition at the rear of the dwelling containing the master bedroom.  It is also proposed to construct a 1m x 4.8m balcony from the rear master bedroom. On the upper floor, it is proposed to extend the existing garage by 713mm towards to the front boundary, construct a formal entrance and foyer to the dwelling, internally reconfigure the layout of the upper floor and extend the dwelling at the rear to permit a new living room.  As part of the rear addition, it is proposed to construct a 2m x 4.8m balcony located off the living room.  Landscaping to the front and rear of the site is also proposed as part of the application.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

Currently existing on the subject site is a brick two storey dwelling with tile roof and garage at the front of the dwelling.  The site is located on the northern side of Mermaid Avenue and is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 11.887m, depths of 36.27m and 34.64m and a site area of 366m2.  The site has fall of approximately 8m from the street to the rear boundary. 

 

The area is characterised by two and three storey dwelling houses. The rear of the site has extensive ocean views and the site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

There is no application history on Council’s property information system.

 

Following a preliminary assessment of the application, concerns were raised with the applicant regarding bulk and scale, height of the rear addition, privacy impacts as well as the issues raised by the objectors.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans to address Council’s and the objectors concerns including a reduction in the length and width of the ground floor balcony, reduction in the length of the upper floor addition at the rear of the dwelling by 1m and a reduction in the width of the rear upper floor balcony.  The proposed amendments have also resulted in an increase in the height of the rear addition.  The amended plans submitted to Council on 18 April 2002 are the subject of this report.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Local Environmental Plan 1998. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Submissions received to amended plans notified 8 May 2002

 

W.D and A.C Bye – 31 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

 

·      Bulk and height of the extensions remains substantially the same.

·      While reducing the length of the proposed extension by 1m, the amended plans have increased the height of the wall to 8.4m. which does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP.  The height of the additions at the rear does not comply with the 3.5m preferred solution.

·      The amended rear building line still extends 4m beyond the rear building line of homes in the immediate vicinity.

·      The stated FSR of 236.5m2 is in excess of the permissible 219.6m2, and there are areas on the amended plans which are specified as ‘not used’ which could be used as living space in the future date which would increase the total gross floor area.

·      The height and bulk of the addition to the rear, together with the extension beyond the current building line would ‘box – in’ their property and would adversely effect the amount of sunlight to the rear and side aspect of their home and increase the wind tunnel effect

·      The proposal would also affect the value of their property.

·      The proposal would set a precedent for future development.

·      The proposal would reduce views by 40% and would substantially reduce views from neighbouring properties. 

·      Believes that if the height and extent of the addition could be reconsidered then all could share the view. 

 

J.A. Porter & P.B Nieass – 29 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra.

 

·      Objections and comment have not changed with the amended statement and plans.

·      The amended plans highlight the need for this proposal to be rejected.

·      The wall height has been incorrectly stated at 7.9m, as it is 8.5m, which does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP.

·      Believes that there are numerous mistakes throughout the amended statement. 

·      The locality plans establishes that the setback from the rear boundary is less than that of adjoining properties.

·      When using a similar method to calculate approximate floor space as was used in the additional details submitted to Council by the applicant, floor space would be 340m2 where the proposal states that it is 100m2 less.

·      When comparing the building footprint of no. 27,29,31,33 and 35 Mermaid Avenue, they are similar size.  The additions to number 33 Mermaid would increase this footprint. 

·      The proposal contradicts the intent of the section of the DCP on floor space.

·      The preferred solutions of the DCP have been applied to neighbouring dwellings to preserve privacy, light and views.

·      The proposed addition will project 12m past no 31 and 6m past no. 35 Mermaid Avenue.

·      The proposed addition is not in keeping with surrounding properties rear building line.

·      The additions would dramatically effect the view of neighbouring properties.  No. 31 would lose 30% as would no. 29 Mermaid Avenue.

·      The shadow diagrams are inaccurate and do not depict the actual shadow cast by the additions. 

·      The proposed decks are larger then surrounding decks and the proposal to add louvred screens to the western ends of the balconies would not solve privacy impacts and would create an eyesore.

 

Submissions received on original application notified 18 December 2001

 

·      Dr Soak Fung Foong – 27 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra.

 

·      Impact on the environment – flooding has occurred to surrounding properties and they are concerned that the applicants state that drainage is  by gravity and their swimming pool and garden is located below the site and further bulky development will make it worse. 

·      Invasion of privacy from the rear addition as it will overlook their pool and entertainment area. 

·      The design is bulky and if approved will set a precedent.  Will decrease the open space the area is currently enjoying.

·      Out of character with surrounding neighbouring houses – the proposal will alter the character of the neighbourhood and will devalue some properties.  Their backyard is encroached by the rear extensions.

·      Will result in overshadowing and to their backyard and pool.

 

J. A Porter and P.B. Nieass – 29 Mermaid Street, Maroubra.

 

·      Neighbourhood character – The mass will extend 3m closer to the rear boundary than any adjoining premises resulting in the destruction of vegetation.  The increased bulk of the proposal is out of keeping with adjoining properties, none have the bulk, size and form.

·      Orientation of the shadow diagrams is incorrect.

·      Solar access will be dramatically reduced, in particularly no. 31.

·      Existing views will be affected.

·      There will be acoustic impacts as the proposed additions will increase the effect of aircraft noise pollution by rebounding the noise back at other residents in the street,

·      The additions will lead to an artificial wind tunnel being created which could damage properties.

·      Setbacks – concerned that the setbacks do not relate to drawings supplied as the plans are inaccurately labelled. 

·      The floor space exceeds the preferred solutions and does not include the third level.  Building bulk exceeds that of adjoining premises. 

·      External Design – application does not mention that it will be 3m further back and have a greater bulk and scale than adjoining premises.

 

K Muratore – 5 Waterside Avenue, Maroubra

 

·      Concerned about stormwater runoff as property has suffered flooding.  The area has been neglected with regard to stormwater runoff. 

·      Their property has the only stormwater pit which attempts to serve several properties that are uphill.

·      The increase in the volume of water collected from the larger surfaces will further stress the drainage system.

·      The increase in tiled areas will make their problem more severe and also that of others in Waterside Avenue. 

·      Believes that it is unfair that no one up hill has any control imposed and that they are further made to carry the burden for others at their expense.

 

W.D & A.C Bye – 31 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra,

 

·      Site analysis – the addition extends 6m and cannot be called small as it involves the almost the entire length of the usable garden area at 31 Mermaid Avenue.  They are currently ‘boxed in’ by the existing development and this proposal will severely impact upon their property. 

·      Rear building line – Dwellings at 31- 49 Mermaid Av have maintained a uniform rear building line and the proposed development will extend 6m beyond that current building line.  The rear garden at 31 Mermaid Avenue is shorter than that of 33 Mermaid, so much of the development at 33 Mermaid Ave would extend almost the entire length of the garden of 31 Mermaid Ave.  The proposal will set precedent as other development extends to secure a view.  The proposal should not be permitted because it does not comply with the performance requirements of the DCP. 

·      Wall height – existing wall height does not comply, however should not condone the additional height for the proposed additions.  Does not comply with the preferred solution that requires additions to the rear to not exceed 3.5m. 

·      The height, bulk and rear setback of the addition will impinge upon the sunlight, privacy and views of neighbouring homes.

·      Floor space ratio – The additions would have an enormous visual impact upon adjoining premises.  The proposal does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP for FSR.  The plans do not clearly indicate what the room below the garage is to used for.  Questions whether the room below the garage and existing laundry have been included in the FSR.

·      The existing laundry makes the property three storys in height.

·      Solar access – shadow diagrams are incorrect due to the incorrect location of the north point.

·      Loss of sunlight to the garden and balcony of 31 Mermaid Avenue as well as the windows on the eastern and southern sides of 31 Mermaid Avenue.

·      Wind effect – the addition has the potential to increase a wind tunnel effect as well as increase buffeting effect of the wind.

·      Loss of view – the addition would reduce the view from 31 Mermaid Avenue, which is only 90 degrees by 40%.

·      Open Space – the addition at the rear would set a precedent for future development, thus changing the face of the seaside area.

·      Privacy – the kitchen window and proposed two balconies look directly into the garden area of 31, 29, and 27 Mermaid Avenue.

·      Loss of property value

 

5.2  Support

 

No letters of support were received during the notification process. 

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Engineering Issues

 

Should the application be approved, Council’s Asset and Infrastructure Department have recommended twelve (12) conditions of consent. 

 

 

 

6.2  Landscape Issues

 

There are no trees that will be affected by the proposed works. 

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site is less than 4000m2 in area, therefore a Master Plan is not required for this application.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed development is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Residential

Other Clauses

Effect

Applies

Comment

29

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Yes

Considered satisfactory

 

Under the provisions of Clause 29 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, Council must consider the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore.  In this regard, the proposed additions to the dwelling are considered to be compatible in the streetscape and with the existing dwelling.  The applicant has also submitted a sample board of proposed colours and materials for Council’s consideration.  It is considered that the proposed development, including colours and materials, is sympathetic to the foreshore and will not have any significant effect on the aesthetic appearance of the foreshore area. 

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan No. Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements or preferred solution).

SOLAR ACCESS

P1  New dwellings must achieve (Nathers) rating of 3.5 stars.

 

·      Design minimise  energy  for heating, cooling.

·      High thermal mass materials.

·      Solar hot water systems.

·      Insulated hot water pipes.

·      Hot water tanks and heaters close to rooms where hot water used.

·      Cooking tops located away from windows, fridges and freezers.

·      Task lights.

·      Maximised natural lighting.

·      Ceiling and wall insulation to AS2627.1-1993.

 

P2  Orientation and design maximises solar access to living areas and open space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P3  Design minimises use of mechanical appliances.

 

P4  Roof area suitable for solar collectors and photovoltaic cells.

 

P5 Building materials, appliances minimise  energy requirements.

 

P6  External clothes drying area available.

P7  Landscape design assists microclimate management.

 

P8  Windows sized to reduce summer heat and permit winter sun.

 

P9  Design and siting of buildings, alterations minimises loss of solar access to neighbours.

 

 

P9  Neighbour’s north-facing living area windows receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less is already available the amount is not reduced.

 

P9  Neighbour’s principal outdoor area receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less is already available the amount is not reduced. 

 

P10  Construction materials are energy efficient and recyclable.

S1  New dwellings provide certificate complying with a minimum (Nathers) rating of 3.5 stars or equivalent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2.8  North-facing windows to living areas received at least 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

S2  Private open space

receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S9  Solar access to solar collectors on adjacent buildings maintained between 9.00am and 3.00pm each day.

 

 

S9  North-facing windows to living areas of neighbours receive 3 hours of sunlight over part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less available the amount is not reduced.

 

 

 

 

S9  Neighbour’s principal outdoor receives 3 hours of sunlight over part of its area between 9.00am and 3.00pm on 21 June. If less available the amount is not reduced.

 

 

N/A – alterations only

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

Complies – see section 9.1.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WATER MANAGEMENT

P1  Stormwater disposal systems:

 

·      collect and drain to a suitable disposal system;

·      do not adversely affect existing downstream systems;

·      fit in with hydrology;

·      use on–site stormwater infiltration;

·      maximise opportunities for stormwater re-use stormwater;

·      retain existing trees.

 

P2  Water consumption minimised inside dwelling .

 

P3  Water consumption minimised to landscaping.

 

S1  Stormwater is graded and drained via a gravity system to Council’s street gutter; or to a suitable absorption system.

 

S1  Rainwater tanks or other storage systems collect roof run-off.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S2  Triple A rated fixtures. Dual flush toilets installed.

 

 

S3  Landscaped area: contain low water demand plant species and design.

 

 

Complies via a condition of consent and to be in accordance with BCA for water management.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies via a condition of consent.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1  Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Location and design of private open space:

 

·      allows year-round use

·      minimises impact on neighbours

·      addresses privacy and sun access

·      addresses surveillance, privacy and security.

 

P3  Local indigenous plant species used.

 

P4  Existing trees and shrubs retained.

 

P5  Planting will not obscure or obstruct dwelling entities or personal safety.

 

P6  Unpaved or unsealed landscaped areas are maximised.

S1  40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

S1  252m of useable private open space per dwelling.

 

S1  Minimum dimensions are 3m x 4m.

 

S1  Private open space is located behind the building line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S6  20% of the site area is permeable.

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

FLOOR AREA

P1  Building bulk must be compatible with surrounding built forms, minimise effects on neighbours and streets.

FSR

<300m2            0.65:1

>300 to 450m2    0.6:1

451-600m 0.9-Site Area(m2)

                            1500

>600m2            0.5:1

Preferred solution = 0.6:1.

Proposed =0.646:1

Does not comply with preferred solutions, but satisfies performance requirements and objectives.  

 

HEIGHT, FORM & MATERIALS

P1  Height relates to surrounding streetscape.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Designed to enhance built form and character of street.

 

P3  Design relates to the topography with minimal cut and fill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

P4  Design preserves privacy and natural light access to neighbours.

 

 

 

P5  Second storey of a semi detached dwelling integrates with streetscape and adjoining dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

P6  Design allows view sharing.

S1  Maximum 7m external wall height for house or attached dual occupancy.

 

 

 

 

 

S1  Maximum 3.5m external wall height of buildings or additions to the rear.

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

 

S3  No excavation within 900mm of side boundary.

 

S3  No excavation within 3m of rear boundary.

 

S4  Length of second storey portion is not greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

 

 

S5  Second storey potion of a semi is confined within a existing roof space or setback from the front elevation and respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi.

 

Proposed – 8.1m

Does not comply with preferred solutions, but complies with performance requirements.

 

Proposed – 5.3m

Does not comply with preferred solutions, but complies with performance requirements.

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

N/A – not a semi-detached dwelling

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

BUILDING SETBACKS

Front Setback

 

P1  Generally conforms with adjoining development or dominant setback along street.

 

Rear Setback

 

P2  Allow neighbours adequate access to natural light, view sharing and retains trees and vegetation.

 

Side Setback

 

P3  Allow occupants and neighbours adequate access to natural light, daylight and fresh air.

 

Side setbacks on corner allotments must integrate with established setbacks of both streets and maintain the streetscape.

Front Setback

 

S1  The average of adjoining dwelling or 6m setback where no adjoining dwelling.

 

 

 

Rear Setback

 

S2  No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Side Setbacks

 

S3  900mm for any part over 1m above ground level up to one level in height.

 

1.5m for any part of a building, two levels at that point.

 

3.0m for any part of a building more than two levels at that point.

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

N/A

VISUAL & ACOUSTIC PRIVACY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

P1  Overlooking neighbouring internal living areas and private open spaces is minimised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Balconies provide adequate privacy for occupants.

 

P3  Dwellings close to noise sources such as busy roads or industry designed to provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 P1  Buildings provide comfortable living and sleeping environment.

 

 

 

 

P2  Entries are readily identifiable.

 

P3  Front fences, landscape areas and driveways promote safety and security.

S1  Habitable room windows with direct outlook to others windows within 9m are offset by more than 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing or sill height to 1.5m.

 

S1  Direct view into the private open space of adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m.

 

S1  Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more above floor level or fixed obscure glazing to any part of the window less than 1.5m above floor level.

 

 

 

 

 

S3  Buildings comply with

•AS-2107: Acoustics – recommended design sound levels and reverberation times for building interiors.

 

S1,2,3  Front doors visible from street.

 

S1,.3  At least one habitable room window overlooks the street.

 

S2  Street number displayed.

 

 

 

S3  Fences comply with fencing requirements.

 

Complies with performance requirements – see section 9.1.4

 

 

 

Complies with performance requirements – see section 9.1.4

 

 

Complies with performance requirements – see section 9.1.4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Complies via a condition of consent

 

Complies

 

GARAGES, DRIVEWAYS & CAR PARKING

Note:  Council’s car parking DCP requirements:

 

1-2 bedroom 1 space

3 bedroom    2 spaces

 

P1  Are located  and designed for convenience and safety.

·      enable the efficient use of car spaces.

·      safe, efficient, adequate manoeuvrability.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P2  Do not breach the predominant building line.

 

 

P3  Do not detract from the streetscape and are compatible with the dwelling.

 

 

P4  Car parking areas and access ways facilitate stormwater infiltration on site.

 

P6  Uncovered parking areas suitably landscaped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S1  Car parking spaces have minimum dimensions of 5.5 metres x 2.5 metres.

 

·      Driveways have a minimum width of three metres and are set back at least one metre from the side boundary (max width 3m at boundary).

·      Driveway gradients have a maximum of 1 in 6. The gradient for the first 5m from street not more than 1 in 8.

 

·      Garages and carport to a rear lane are 1m setback.

 

 

S2  Carports and garages located behind the building where rear access available, or behind building line where front access available.

 

S3  Driveways, car parking facilities <35% of frontage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies

 

 

 

Driveway is existing

 

 

 

 

Driveway is existing

 

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

 

 

Complies with performance requirements – see section 9.1.6

 

Complies with performance requirements – see section 9.1.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FENCES

P1  Front fences are integrated with streetscape.

S1  Sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

 

Solid front fences in front of the building line no higher than 1.2m.

 

Fences in front of the building line no higher than 1.8m with upper two thirds at least 50% open. (Not applicable in Heritage Conservation Areas).

N/A

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complies via a condition

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1     Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

9.1.1    Floor Space Ratio

 

The objective and performance requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale, compatible with the existing character of the locality and also minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 applies.  The proposed FSR of the development is 0.64.6:1, which does not comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP. 

 

In considering the proposed FSR and performance requirements and objectives of the DCP, the proposed additions are not excessive in bulk and scale and it is considered that the proposed development is compatible with surrounding built forms. In order to minimise the impact of bulk upon the adjoining premises, the applicant amended the plans to reduce the length of the additions to 5m and increase the side setbacks of the balconies. Condition are also recommended that a privacy screen not be provided to the rear balconies, the balustrade be of open design and landscaping be provided to the site to further minimise bulk from the proposed development.  Furthermore, as detailed in Section 9.1.2 of this report, it is recommended that the floor to ceiling heights of the upper floor living room be reduced to 2.4m to ensure that the external wall heights are minimised. 

 

The objector from 31 Mermaid Avenue has raised issue with the length of the proposed additions along their garden area. In this regard, the proposed additions have been reduced in length to 5m and setback 1.69m to 2.4m from the objector’s side boundary and 1.75m to 2.4m to the south eastern side boundary.  It is considered that the addition provides adequate separation to the adjoining properties to ensure that the bulk and scale of the development is not adverse.  The site inspection also revealed that there is extensive existing landscaping along the boundary of 31 and 33 Mermaid, which assists in minimising bulk impacts of the development upon the adjoining property at 31 Mermaid Avenue.  An objector also raised concerns that the balconies may be enclosed increasing the floor space.  To ensure that this does not occur a condition of consent has been imposed prohibiting enclosure of the balconies.

 

It is considered that the proposed bulk and scale of the development is compatible with the existing character of the locality and satisfies the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for floor area. 

 

It should be noted the existing area under the ground floor at the rear of the dwelling and area adjoining the laundry on the ground floor are not intended to be used as habitable areas and the plans indicate that they will not be able to be accessed.  Therefore, the areas have not been included in the FSR calculations.

 

9.1.2    Height, form and materials

 

The objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality, and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

The relevant performance requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandas, eaves and parapets.

 

Preferred solutions include that the external wall height of the building not exceed 7m, the length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a side boundary, and that the second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and further, the design respect the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

The proposed external wall height is 8.1m and the rear external wall height is 5.3m which do not satisfy the preferred solutions of the DCP.  The non-compliance of the wall height is due to the slope of the site.  To minimise impacts of the wall height, the applicant has provided a flat roof to the additions and amended the plans to stagger the building form at the rear.  To ensure that the wall height is minimised, it is recommended that the floor to ceiling heights of the upper floor living room be reduced to 2.4m. 

 

In considering the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP, the height and scale of the development relates to the topography of the site and in the context of the locality, with the amended plans, the external wall is not considered to be excessive.  The on-site is inspection also revealed that the proposed wall height will not be incompatible with the external wall height of surrounding properties, and as detailed below, it is considered that the proposed development will not result in adverse view loss, privacy or overshadowing impacts to surrounding properties.

 

It is considered that the proposed external wall height and wall height at the rear relates to surrounding dwellings, will not unreasonable impact upon the adjoining premises and satisfies the performance requirements and objectives of the DCP for height, form and materials. 

 

9.1.3    Building Setbacks

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that there is adequate access to sunlight, daylight and fresh air to building occupants and neighbours, and with respect to front boundary setbacks that the proposal generally conform with the adjoining or dominant streetscape.

 

Preferred solutions include that side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level and 1.5m at first floor level, and that no part of the building is closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary.

 

The proposed ground additions are setback a minimum 900mm from the side boundaries and the upper floors are setback a minimum1.5m from the side boundaries, which comply with the preferred solutions of the DCP.  At the rear, no part of the building is closer than 4.5m from the rear boundary which satisfies the preferred solutions of the DCP. 

 

In regard to the objectors concerns that the additions extend further towards the rear than adjoining and surrounding dwellings, the proposed additions satisfy the preferred solutions.  It is considered that the setbacks will ensure that the adjoining dwellings received adequate access to natural light and share of views.  The survey locality plan of residences submitted by the applicant also depicts the rear setbacks of surrounding dwellings no. 29 – 37 Mermaid Avenue.  This plan illustrates that while the additions do extend further towards the rear than the adjoining no. 31 Mermaid Avenue, the proposed setback is not incompatible with other existing buildings.  As detailed above, to ensure that the proposed development does not adversely impact upon 31 Mermaid Avenue, the applicant has staggered the rear additions and increased the setbacks of the additions.  Furthermore, the site inspection revealed that there is extensive existing landscaping along the side boundary between 33 and 31 to assist in screening the development. 

 

The proposed development satisfies the preferred solutions of the DCP for setbacks. 

 

As noted above, the area under the ground floor is not intended to be utilised as habitable area and a condition of consent is recommended to this effect. 

 

9.1.4    Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

The objective of the DCP is to ensure that new buildings and additions meet the occupant and neighbours requirements for visual and acoustic privacy.

 

The performance requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

 

On the north-western elevation ground floor, it is proposed to install fixed obscure glazing to bathroom and ensuite and locate windows to bedroom 4 and laundry area.  On the upper floor, it is proposed to install fixed obscure glazing to the two family room windows and new windows to the garage and living room.  In regard to the living room window, to minimise overlooking impacts, it is recommended that this window be converted to a highlight window with a sill height of 1.5m or fixed obscure glazing be provided to any part of the window less then 1.5m above the floor level. 

 

On the south eastern elevation ground floor, windows are proposed to bedroom 2, stair, bedroom 3 and master bedroom, including the robe area.  The new window to bedroom 2 is a highlight window and the remaining windows are to passive use areas.  On the upper floor, windows are proposed to the stair, kitchen, dining room and living room.  The window to the stair is to be obscure glazing.  Given the location of the upper floor living room window in relation to the rear yard of the adjoining premises, it is recommended that this window be converted to a highlight window with a sill height of 1.5m or fixed obscure glazing be provided to any part of the window less then 1.5m above the floor level. 

 

The new windows to the front of the dwelling will overlook the street and will not result in adverse overlooking impacts to adjoining premises.  The new windows and doors in the rear elevation of the dwelling will generally overlook the rear yard area of the subject site. 

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed window arrangement is acceptable and will not result in any greater overlooking impact to the adjoining premises above that currently existing. 

 

At the rear of the dwelling, it is also proposed to construct a new 1m x 4.8m balcony off the ground floor master bedroom.  On the upper floor, it is proposed to construct a new 2m x 4.8m balcony off the living room.  In regard to the ground floor balcony, given its depth and that it is located off a passive use area, it is anticipated that it will not result in adverse overlooking impacts.  In regard to the proposed upper floor balcony, the applicant has indicated on the amended plans a 1.7m privacy screen.  Objectors have raised concern that the screen will add additional bulk and will result in view loss.  It is considered that the privacy screens are not required for the upper floor balcony due to the size of balcony and the existing degree of overlooking from the dwelling and density of the surrounding development and slope of the site. 

 

The objector from 27 Mermaid Avenue, raised concerns that the proposed additions would result in adverse overlooking of their garden and pool.  It is considered that there is adequate separation between the additions and rear boundary to ensure that overlooking are not unreasonable. 

 

9.1.5    Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

 

The overall objectives of the DCP seek to ensure that development promotes and has regard to the concept of Ecologically Sustainable Development. In this respect the objectives promote energy efficiency in design and construction, the use of appropriate resources, encourage the use of passive solar design, and protect solar access enjoyed by the adjoining premises.

 

As a general guide new dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies must demonstrate that they have been designed to achieve an energy efficiency, NatHERS, rating of 3.5 stars and buildings are orientated and internally configured to take advantage of and maximise solar access.

 

The preferred solutions of the DCP include that private open spaces, outdoor recreation areas and north facing windows to the subject and adjoining premises receive at least 3 hours of sunlight over at least part of their surface between 9.00am and 3.00pm during the winter equinox. If less than the preferred solution is currently available access to sunlight should not be reduced.  

 

It should be noted that the Draft Amendment to the DCP which is on exhibition from the 2nd May to the 31st May 2002, seeks to delete, amongst other items, the performance requirement that 3 hours of sunlight be available over at least part of the surface of the adjoining premises between 9.00am to 3.00pm and replace it with as follows;

 

The design and siting of new buildings, alterations and additions to existing buildings and landscaping minimises loss of solar access to neighbouring properties.  Solar access is to be maximised to the north facing windows of living areas and the principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings”

 

The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant indicate that the proposed development will permit 3 hours of sunlight over the private open space of the adjoining premises between 9.00am and 3.00pm on June 21.  In regard to the north facing living room windows of the adjoining south eastern premises, it is considered that the proposed development will not result in a loss of significant sunlight to the windows in the north eastern elevation and the development is satisfactory in relation to the DCP requirements.  

 

9.1.6    Garages & Driveways

 

The objectives and performance requirements of the DCP include that car parking and driveways are not visually obtrusive and do not detract from the appearance of the dwelling and the street scape, and structures are compatible in scale, form, materials and finishes with the associated dwelling.

 

Preferred solutions include that car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m, driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary, parking is located behind the building line and driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment. Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 there after.  It should be noted that Council has passed a Draft Amendment to the DCP, which deleted performance requirement P2, which reads;

 

“ P2    -Not breach the predominant building alignment

-Not become an undesirable precedent”.

 

Also the following note it to be included in the DCP:

 

“Hardstand parking areas before the building line may be permitted and considered preferable to a garage or carport where it may demonstrate that it does not dominate or detract from the appearance of the existing development and the local streetscape”.

 

The absence of the prescriptive Performance Requirement will provide a greater degree of flexibility for the Preferred Solutions and will place more reliance on merit assessment of streetscape impact, and generally allow for hardstand areas in the front of the building. This Draft Amendment is currently on exhibition and therefore Council may include the draft amendment in the assessment criteria of this application.

 

Currently existing on the site is a garage in front of the dwelling.  It is proposed to create an entrance adjoining the garage and extend the garage 713mm towards the front boundary.  It is considered that the proposed minor extension of the garage will not detract from the appearance of the dwelling or streetscape and is satisfactory in relation to the DCP requirements.

 

9.2     Additional issues raised in the submissions

 

9.2.1  Views 

 

The objectors at 29 and 31 Mermaid Avenue stated in their objections that the proposal would result in view loss.  A site inspection from both premises was undertaken to ascertain the extent of the view loss from the proposed additions.  The site inspection revealed that both properties have extensive views of the ocean to the north-east.  The proposed development will permit the retention of a significant portion of the primary existing views of the ocean from both premises. 

 

In considering the potential view loss, the applicant has amended the design to reduce the bulk and scale of the development and on balance the proposal satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the principle of view sharing.  It is considered that the proposed development does not represent a significant increase in the building line of  buildings in the area. 

 

9.2.2. Wind tunnel effect and noise impacts from planes

 

The objectors raised concerns that the proposed additions would result in an artificial wind tunnel.  However, there is no evidence to support this contention. 

 

In relation to the concerns that the additions will result in possible acoustic impacts from the rebounding of aircraft noise, again there is no evidence presented to suggest the proposed additions will rebound the noise back at other residents.

 

9.2.3  Drainage

 

To ensure that the site is adequately drained, a condition is recommended that all site stormwater shall be either discharged through a private drainage easement at the rear of the site; and/or discharged to the kerb and gutter in Mermaid Avenue via a pump out system. It is noted that the pump out system shall be designed by a suitably qualified Hydraulic Engineer who shall certify the works on completion. All pump out water must go through a stilling pit prior to being discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter.

 

9.2.4  Loss of property value

 

Concern has been raised by objectors regarding the perceived loss of property value as a consequence of the proposed development.  The objector has not, however, submitted evidence from a property valuer to confirm that the anticipated devaluation will occur.  In any case, it is not considered that the proposed development will unreasonably adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, and as such it is unlikely that a loss of property value will result. 

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed development has been assessed in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies and Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The assessment of the application indicates that the proposed development generally satisfies the relevant assessment criteria. Submission were received objecting to the proposal and have been addressed within the body of the report.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 1168/2001 for alterations and additions to an existing dwelling at 33 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra  subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the amended plans numbered 223/01B and 223/02A, dated 04/2002 and received by Council on 18 April 2002, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

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

 

The proposed colours, materials and textures of the development shall be in accordance with the sample board submitted to Council on 10 December 2001.

 

3          The consumption of water within the building shall be minimised by the use of triple A rated water efficient plumbing fixtures (taps and shower roses) and water efficient dual flush toilets.  Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans or specifications.

 

4.         The privacy screens to the rear balconies shall be deleted to reduce building bulk and permit viewing though the balconies.  Full details to be included in the Construction Certificate plans. 

 

5.         The sill height of the north west and south east upper floor living room windows are to be increased to be a minimum height of 1.5m above floor level, or alternatively, the windows are to be fixed and provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below 1.5m above floor level.  Full details to be included in the Construction Certificate plans.

 

6.         There must be no encroachment of any part of the structure/s onto the adjoining premises or onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place.

 

7.         The floor to ceiling height of the upper floor living room shall be reduced to 2.4m.  Full details to be included in the Construction Certificate.

 

8.         The area adjoining the laundry on the ground floor and area under the master bedroom shall not be used as a habitable area.

 

9.         The enclosure of balconies is prohibited by this consent.

 

10.       Street numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

11.       The infill panels between the piers of the front fence shall be a minimum 50% open.  Full details to be included in Construction Certificate plans

 

12.       Landscaping shall be provided to the site to reduce the impact of the development upon the amenity of the environment and a landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning & Environment, in accordance with section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the commencement of any works.

 

The following group of conditions have been applied to ensure that adequate drainage is provided from the premises and to maintain adequate levels of health and amenity in the locality:

 

13.       All site stormwater shall be either:

 

i.    Discharged through a private drainage easement at the rear of the site; and/or

ii.    Discharged to the kerb and gutter in Mermaid Avenue via a pump out system. It is noted that the pump out system shall be designed by a suitably qualified Hydraulic Engineer who shall certify the works on completion. All pump out water must go through a stilling pit prior to being discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Environment prior to commencement of works.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations:

 

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

 

15..      In accordance with clause 98 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition, that in the case of residential building work, a contract of insurance must be obtained and in force, in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

Where the work is to be done by a licensed contractor, excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA):

 

·          has been informed in writing of the licensee’s name and contractor number; and

·          is satisfied that the licensee has complied with the insurance requirements of Part 6 of the Home Building Act 1989, or

 

Where the work to be done by any other person (i.e. an owner builder), excavation or building work must not be carried out unless the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·          has been informed of the person’s name and owner-builder permit number, or

·          has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $3,000.

 

Details of the builder and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, on the notice of appointment of the PCA / Intention to commence building work.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies relevant standards of construction, and to maintain adequate levels of health, safety and amenity during construction:

 

16.       All demolition work is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of AS2601-1991.  The Demolition of Structures, as in force at 1 July, 1993.

 

17.       Prior to the commencement of any building works, a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

18.       Prior to the commencement of any building work, a principal certifying authority must be appointed and Council is to be notified accordingly and, at least 2 days notice of the intention to commence building work must be given to Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

19.       A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be available to the Council officers upon request.

 

20.       The building works are to be inspected by the principal certifying authority (or other suitably qualified person on behalf of the applicant) to monitor compliance with Council’s approval and the relevant standards of construction.

 

Documentary evidence of compliance with Council’s approval and relevant building inspections, is to be maintained by the principal certifying authority.

 

21.       Building and demolition works must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive, between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and public holidays, except with the specific written authorisation of Council’s Manager of Environmental Health and Building Services.

 

22.       A sign must be erected on the site in a prominent, visible position, prior to commencing any demolition, excavation or building works, stating that ‘unauthorised entry to the site is prohibited’ and showing the name of the person in charge of the work site and a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours.

 

In the case of residential building work, the sign is also required to detail the licence number of the building contractor or the permit number of the owner-builder, in accordance with the Home Building Act 1989 and Regulations

 

23        Noise emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must comply with the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 & the Noise Control Manual published by the Environment Protection Authority, except as may be amended by the conditions of this approval.

 

24        Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials or construction equipment must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions at all times.

 

25        Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written consent of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Council’s Local Approvals Policy.

 

26.       Excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and protected to prevent them from being dangerous to life or property. 

 

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

 

Retaining walls and shoring are to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards and details of any proposed retaining walls are to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority for consideration prior to installation.

 

28.       Public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

A temporary safety fence is to be provided to protect the public, located to the perimeter of the site (unless the site is separated from the adjoining land by an existing structurally adequate fence, having a minimum height of 1.5 metres).  Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

Hoarding or fences are to be structurally adequate and be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

The public safety provisions and temporary fences must be in place prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works and be maintained throughout construction.

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that reasonable levels of fire safety are provided in the building:

 

29.       Smoke alarms are required to be installed in each Class 1 building or dwelling in accordance with the relevant provisions of Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Smoke alarms must comply with AS3786 – Smoke alarms and be connected to the consumer mains electric power supply and provided with a battery back-up.

 

The smoke alarms are to be installed in suitable locations on or near the ceiling, in any storey containing bedrooms; located between each part of the dwelling containing the bedrooms and the remainder of the dwelling, or where bedrooms are served by a hallway, the smoke alarms are to be located in that hallway; and smoke alarms are to be installed in any other storey not containing bedrooms, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

Smoke alarms are not to be located in ‘dead-air-spaces’, in the corner junction of walls and ceilings between exposed rafters/joists or at the apex of raked ceilings, as detailed in Part 3.7.2 of the B.C.A. – Housing Provisions.

 

Details of compliance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia must be included in the plans / specification for the construction certificate.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate security against damage to Council’

 

30.       The following vehicular crossing deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for Council or a Council approved subcontractor to construct the vehicular crossing.

 

a)         $1000.00         -           Vehicular crossing deposit

 

The vehicular crossing deposit may be provided by way of cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon the completion of the Council vehicular crossing by Council or a Council approved subcontractor.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for access, transport and infrastructure:

 

31.       The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a)   Remove the existing vehicular crossing and construct a new full width concrete vehicular crossing and layback to suit the modified vehicular entrance to the site.

 

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

 

33.       The applicant shall note that all external work, carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council's Policy for "Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works". An application for the cost of the Council civil works is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council's nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for future civil works in the road reserve

 

34.       The Council’s Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services has inspected the above site and have determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing kerb at all points opposite the kerb, along the full site frontage.


Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department.

 

35.       The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the kerb must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

36.       The above alignment levels have been issued by the Council's Department of Asset & Infrastructure Services at a prescribed fee of $66.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

37.       The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment must be at least 150mm below the alignment level as specified for the vehicular access.  This condition has been attached to accommodate future footpath construction at this location.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate consideration for service authority assets:

 

38.       The applicant must meet the full cost for Testa, Energy Australia, Sydney Water or Natural Gas Company to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for landscaping and to maintain reasonable levels of environmental amenity:

 

39.       That part of the naturestrip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf. Such works shall be completed at the applicants expense prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

40.       The naturestrip upon Council's footway shall be maintained by the applicant in accordance with Council guidelines. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to, watering, mowing, fertilising, and the removal of weeds.

 

41.       In order to visually 'soften' the expanses of hard pavement, brick unit pavers or similar shall be used throughout the driveway and carpark areas on the site. Such details shall be shown on the detailed engineering documentation and shall include all structural design details including pavement/subgrade thickness.

 

Such details shall be in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard and shall be submitted to, and approved by, an Accredited Principal Certifying Authority, prior to the issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

Advisory Conditions

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Plans 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

MARNIE STEWART

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 





 

Director Planning & Environment's Report 28/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Kensington Town Centre Urban Improvement Program Peer Review Group

   

 

 

DATE:

6 May, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3849

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Extraordinary Council Meeting of 26 February 2002, Council considered a report on the Kensington Town Centre Urban Improvement Program Planning and Design Study, including the draft Development Control Plan.  A number of resolutions were made by Council, including the following:

 

“Council agree to delete the bonus provision for the Doncaster Plaza site in the DCP.”

 

“Council agree to delete the bonus provision for the Lorne Avenue site in the DCP.”

 

“That Council agree to a review of the building envelope for the Doncaster plaza site, to be undertaken in conjunction with the Master Plan Review as well as the Lorne Avenue site by a peer review group, and that the following people be approached to participate in this peer review and report back to Council:

            Dr Stephen Gatt- Precinct Committee Representative

            Stephen Harris- Planning Specialist

Jan McCredie of the Urban Design Advisory Service (within PlanningNSW nominated Russell Olsson to represent UDAS on her behalf)

Stephen Buzacott- Vice President NSW Chapter, Royal Australian Institute of Architects

In addition the Director, Planning and Environment or a nominee to convene the group”

 

This report outlines the Peer Review Group’s discussions and recommendations for the two sites, for amendment of the draft DCP.

 

Four meetings of the Peer Review Group were held.  In first meeting, presentations were made by Civitas Partnership and by site owner representatives of the Doncaster Plaza and Lorne Avenue sites.

 

The details of the Group’s discussion are in the attached Minutes of the Group’s meetings (Attachment 6).  The Group agreed to provide its comments on controls applying to the site in a table form (Table 1).  Table 1 details all the controls that were discussed and agreed to by the Group.  The maximum height of buildings on the Doncaster Plaza site was the only issue which the Group did not achieve a consensus.  (See Table 1 at Attachment 1).

 

ISSUES- DONCASTER PLAZA SITE:

 

Building Envelope and Height

The draft DCP proposes:

§ A perimeter building form along Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue and along the southern edge of the site adjacent to the Doncaster Hotel. 

§ A built area proposed by the DCP covers approximately 1/3 of the site, with the remaining 2/3 of the site as public open space. 

§ Two rectangular buildings to a maximum height of 10 storeys.  Council, in its consideration of the draft DCP, did not adopt the 10 storey height, but rather referred it to the Peer Review Group for consideration and advice (See Attachment 2- DCP extracts).

 

The draft Master Plan submitted for the Doncaster Plaza site proposes:

§ Generally the same footprint as the draft DCP in the form of two separate perimeter buildings along Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue. 

§ No built area is proposed to the south adjacent to the Doncaster Hotel.

§ Two diamond shaped building elements to the south of the site along both Doncaster Avenue and Anzac Parade proposed to accommodate higher buildings of up to 14 storeys (See Attachment 3).

 

Peer Review Group response to Building Envelope

The Peer Review Group considered that the footprint suggested in the Master Plan is generally a better solution for the site.  This also included the two diamond shaped building elements.  The Group therefore recommended that the building envelope controls of the draft DCP be amended to reflect the footprint suggested in the Master Plan, subject to some amendments as discussed below (See also Table 1).

 

Peer Review Group response to Height

Stephen Harris, Stephen Buzacott and Russell Olsson considered that the two diamond shaped elements proposed within the site could accommodate a maximum height of 10 storeys.  It was their professional view that this design would work well in townscape terms and it was noted that the buildings would generally not be perceived from the surrounding area.  It was further noted the geometries of the higher elements of the buildings were well considered and related to the surrounding area, particularly to the Doncaster Hotel.  10 storeys offers the opportunity to provide 2/3 of the total site area as public open space, which these members of the Group consider a good design solution for this site.  There is no element of risk that 10 storeys approved for this site will set a precedent for other buildings in the Kensington Town Centre, as the DCP controls are site specific.

 

Dr Gatt did not agree with a maximum height of 10 storeys.  He considered that the maximum height for the Doncaster Plaza site should be limited to 8 storeys.

 

The Peer Review Group considered that the definition of height should be amended to be measured to the under side of the ceiling of the uppermost floor, rather than the topmost part of the roof.  This would provide flexibility for more interesting roof forms and innovative building design.

 

Under Randwick LEP 1998 and the draft Kensington Town Centre DCP the height of a building includes roof forms.  The LEP allows for chimneys, vents and other service installations to exceed the specified height limits, where Council is satisfied that there will be no adverse impact on amenity of adjoining or nearby land.  The draft DCP stipulates both maximum number of storeys and height in metres.  The height for a 6 storey building is stipulated at 22.6m.

 

The Group agreed that a 6 storey height proposed in the draft DCP was appropriate for the buildings along the Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue edges of the site.  The overall height for the street edges of the building should be 21.6m to the underside of the ceiling of the topmost floor, while there should be greater flexibility in height for the courtyard side.

 

It was agreed that the draft DCP should retain its controls over both number of storeys and overall heights (as amended) in metres.

 

Peer Review Group response to Open Space

The Group agreed that any public open space should be at ground level, connected to the public domain, with active edges, and be addressed by a major building façade.  Connections to the open space should be barrier-free, as steps and changes of level discourage use of open space.  There should be direct view lines between the street and the open space allowing visually uninterrupted connections to and from the street.  Links between the street and the open space were marked up by the Peer Review Group on the attached plan (Attachment 4).

 

A link between the open space and the right-of-way to the north of the site, from Darling Street, should be provided.  This link could accommodate vehicles as well as pedestrians.

 

Dr Stephen Gatt advised that the Precinct Committee would prefer no extra height and no public open space.  Dr Gatt felt that a 10 storey height limit could be considered only if the open space was dedicated to Council.

 

Stephen Harris, Stephen Buzacott and Russell Olsson felt that subject to the Master Plan’s proposed provision of 4,000m2 of open space, that a 10 storey height limit was reasonable.  Given that the proposed design and height has townscape merit, the fact that the scheme also offers a public benefit of 4,000m 2 of public open space, maintained by the private sector, is considered a good solution.  They felt that if the open space were accessible to the public over a reasonable spread of hours during the day and night, that it need not be dedicated to Council; and it may be preferable if the costs of maintaining the public open space were the responsibility of the developers.

 

Peer Review Group response to Setbacks and Build to Lines

The development should provide an urban corner with retail uses.  The ground level retail should have a zero setback from Anzac Parade.  The southern section of the building should also have a zero setback from Doncaster Avenue, aligning with the Doncaster Hotel.  The northern section of the building should be set back from Doncaster Avenue to relate to setbacks of neighbouring buildings.  This setback from the street should be for the first 20-25m from the northern boundary.

 

ISSUES- LORNE AVENUE SITE

 

Building Envelope and Height

The DCP proposes:

§ A perimeter building form along Anzac Parade and Lorne Avenue, enclosing a communal open space. 

§ The building along Anzac Parade to a height of 6 storeys with a zero setback from the street.

§ The portion of the building along Lorne Avenue to a height of 4 storeys with a setback from the street to match average setbacks of adjacent buildings. 

§ A higher 7 storey element of limited floor area to mark the corner.

 

Peer Review Group response to Building Envelope

The building footprint as proposed by the draft DCP was considered appropriate.  The building fronting Lorne Avenue should however, have a maximum depth of 12m to allow for allow dwellings to be oriented to the street.

 

Peer Review Group response to Height

In urban design terms, it is important to mark the corner of Anzac Parade and Lorne Avenue.  Flexibility should be provided to allow the building to respond to the corner, without allowing an extra floor.  The proposed seventh floor element in the draft DCP should therefore be deleted.  An additional principle should be included in the draft DCP requiring that the design of the building respond to the corner.

 

Peer Review Group response to Setbacks and Build to Lines

The Group considered that a zero setback along Anzac Parade is appropriate for the lower levels of the building, while the upper levels (above 4 storeys) should have a zero setback for a distance of 15m back from the corner, then 4m for the remainder.  Along Lorne Avenue, the Group considered that the building should have a zero setback for a distance of 15m back from the corner, then the remainder to match the average of setbacks of existing buildings in Lorne Avenue between the site and the end of Lorne Avenue as set out in the DCP (Attachment 5).

 

Peer Review Group response to a Community Facility

The Peer Review Group agreed with Council’s decision of 26 February 2002, that the Lorne Avenue site is inappropriate for a community facility, such as meeting rooms. 

 

Peer Review Group response to other issues

The Group felt that opportunities for landscaping and public art between Anzac Parade and the northern end of Lorne Avenue should be encouraged.

 

Russell Olsson noted that the Lorne Avenue site is a highly visible one.  He encouraged the owners of the site to consider a design competition, as required by the City of Sydney for certain sites.  He advised that the Royal Australian Institute of Architects had developed competition guidelines and that a limited competition may be most appropriate for the site.

 

ISSUES- GENERAL CONTROLS

 

Floor to ceiling heights

 

The Group considered that minimum floor to ceiling heights only, should be provided.  Additional minimum floor to floor heights are unnecessary.

 

Building Height measure

 

Given the Group’s consideration that 21.6m (to the underside of the topmost ceiling) is appropriate, this should also be applied to other heights.  Based on the Background Report details on height, any 8 storey components should be thus be reduced to a maximum of 27.4m and any 10 storey components should be reduced to a maximum of 33.8m (both, again, to the underside of the topmost ceiling).

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Peer Review Group has reviewed the provisions in the draft Development Control Plan for the Kensington Town Centre in relation to the Doncaster Plaza site and the Lorne Avenue site.  The Peer Review Group reached agreement on all of the draft DCP recommendations that it considered, other than on the issue of the maximum height of buildings on the Doncaster Plaza site.  The majority view of the Group in relation to height was that the 10 storey buildings over a portion of the site are appropriate.  Only one member of the Group disagreed with this view.  Given this majority consensus, it is recommended that Council adopt the recommendations of the majority of the Group in relation to the Doncaster Plaza site, and the recommendations of the whole of the Group in relation to the Lorne Avenue site.

 

The Doncaster Village Master Plan was submitted on 5 November 2001 and has not yet been assessed and reported on.  The applicant has agreed to await Council’s decision on the draft DPC if the recommendations of the Peer Review Group in relation to the Doncaster Plaza site are agreed to by Council, then the proposal will need to be amended accordingly.  Given the length of time since the Master Plan was submitted, discussions with the applicant on required amendments should then be expedited.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Peer Review Group’s discussions and recommendations are submitted for Council’s consideration.  Should these recommendations be endorsed, the relevant Part 4 of the draft DCP will be amended in terms of the required changes and insertions, and resubmitted to Council for endorsement.  Should Council propose any adjustment to the recommended envelopes for these two sites, whether major or minor, further design advice should be sought, from either the Urban Design Advisory Service and/or the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, prior to amending Part 4 of the draft DCP.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

A.        Endorse the Peer Review Group recommendations for the Doncaster Plaza site, for amendment of the draft DCP considered by Council on 26 February 2002;

 

B.         Endorse the Peer Review Group recommendations for the Lorne Avenue site, for amendment of the draft DCP considered by Council on 26 February 2002;

 

C.        Agree that the Peer Review Group’s related recommendations in relation to the building height measures and floor to ceiling heights be incorporated into the draft DCP;

 

D.        Support a design competition for the Lorne Avenue site, as a means of encouraging innovative, high quality design for the site;

 

E.         Advise the owners of the Doncaster plaza and the Lorne Avenue sites of Council’s above recommendations, and invite the Doncaster Plaza site representatives to submit any amended proposal; and

 

F.         Express its appreciation to the members of the Peer Review Group for their contribution to the planning and design process for the Kensington Town Centre.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

Under separate cover -

1.  Table 1 - Peer Review Group Recommendations

2.  Relevant extracts from draft DCP (considered by Council on 26 February 2002)

3.  Relevant extracts from Master Plan.

4.  Links to public open space.

5.  Building envelop for Lorne Ave site.

6.  Minutes of each of the four Peer Review Group meetings  

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

LORRAINE SIMPSON

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER


MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

11.1     By Councillor P. Schick – Council’s Signage Strategy. (98/S/0410)

 

That a report be prepared for the June Council Meeting which details the Council’s signage strategy for directing visitors to commercial/tourism/leisure locations, including the design criteria associated with the strategy and the timeline for installation of such signage.

 

11.2     By Councillor P. Schick – Coastal Walkway Access.  (98/S/1015)

 

That in respect to the Coastal Walkway, a report be prepared for the June Council Meeting that outlines the current status and any remedies to the impediment to access in Cuzco Street, South Coogee and the possible future access problem to the pathway adjacent to 30 Marine Parade, Lurline Bay.

 

11.3     By Councillor M. Matson  – Transfer of Parking Responsibilities to Local Government.  (98/S/3684)

 

That the General Manager brings forward a report to the next Administration & Finance Committee meeting detailing:

 

(a)                Council’s state of readiness to receive increased parking enforcement responsibilities;

(b)               the level of staffing that will be necessary to undertake the new responsibilities;

(c)                how Council has assessed the availability of PPOs for potential recruitment; and

(d)               the projected financial benefit over the next five years from assuming the increased benefits.

 

11.4          By Councillor M. Matson – Resident Preferred Parking Schemes.  (98/S/3684)

 

That, upon assumption of full responsibility for enforcing parking restrictions, Council commences a process of community consultation via the Precinct Committees to consider the adoption in East and North Wards of a Waverley Council style system of Resident Preferred Parking Schemes.

 

11.5          By Councillor M. Matson – Response to Failure by Commonwealth to Accept Health Risks at South Maroubra. (98/S/0976)

 

That:

 

(a)                Council will write to the Commonwealth to demand that it admits legal responsibility for the contamination identified by the EPA at South Maroubra and that any Plan of Management that is put into place has a section specifically addressing redemption of the leachate area; and

(b)               Council will write to the Special Minister of State raising concern over comments attributed to him in the Sydney Morning Herald of May 20th that the site “does not impose any immediate risk of harm to human health and the environment”. In doing so Council will ask for clarification as to the Minister’s response to the EPA’s classification of the site’s risk.

 

11.6          By Councillor J. Greenwood – Tree Policies and Sydney Coastal Councils. (98/S/0142)

 

That Randwick City Council make representation to the Sydney Coastal Council Group Inc. to establish a working group to consider the issues of trees in coastal areas.

 

11.7          By Councillor J. Greenwood – Rezoning of a Section of Cowper Street. (98/S/1093)

 

That the remaining detached and semidetached dwellings on the section of Cowper Street bounded by Church Street and Prince Street be rezoned to 2A.

 

11.8          By Councillor J. Greenwood – Council’s Policy on Tree Pruning. (98/S/1100)

 

That Council adopt a tree pruning policy that allows residents to apply for permission to prune Council owned trees in Council’s reserves and nature strips with the following provisions;

 

(a)                the pruning must be done by a qualified arborist at the expense of the applicant;

(b)               the pruning must maintain the character of the tree or shrub. Lopping of single branches will not be permitted;

(c)                that an appropriate application fee be set to cover the cost assessment by Council’s Tree Preservation Officer; and

(d)               an appropriate bond be paid by the applicant prior to pruning to cover the potential cost of repairing inappropriate pruning.