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

 

22nd November, 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, 26TH NOVEMBER, 2002 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 22ND OCTOBER, 2002.

 

4           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

5           Mayoral Minutes

 

5.1                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 77/2002 - WAIVING OF FEES-SOUTH MAROUBRA VILLAGE GREEN CAROLS BY CANDELIGHT.

2

 

5.2                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 78/2002 - WAIVING OF FEES - SURF LIFE SAVING AUSTRALIA.

4

 

 

6           General Manager's Reports

 

6.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 20/2002 - PRESENTATION - FINANCIAL REPORTS - YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2002.

6

 

6.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 21/2002 - 2002/2003 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2002.

8

 

6.3                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 22/2002 - SEPTEMBER 2002 QUARTER REVIEW - 2002/04 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

11

 

6.4                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 23/2002 - AFFIXING OF COUNCIL'S SEAL.

12

 

 

7           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

7.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 132/2002 - COOGEE LADIES BATHS’ (MCIVER’S BATHS) - LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN AND STAGE 1 WORKS.

14

 

7.2                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 133/2002 - TENDER 6/02 SUPPLY OF OUT FRONT MOWERS.

16

 

7.3                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 134/2002 - CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAROUBRA BEACH PLAY AREA AND PARKLAND TENDER - 10/02.

20

 

7.4                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 135/2002 - FREQUENCY OF CLEANING COUNCIL'S TOILETS.

25

 

7.5                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 136/2002 - REVISED STREET TREE MASTER PLAN.

27

 

7.6                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 137/2002 - AGGRESSIVE-ROOTED STREET TREE STRATEGY.

36

 

7.7                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 138/2002 - BOWEN LIBRARY - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS.

45

 

7.8                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 139/2002 - TENDER 16/2002 - CONCRETE AND ASPHALT GRINDING WORKS.

54

 

7.9                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 140/2002 - DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDING FOR MAROUBRA BEACH PLAN OF MANAGEMENT WORKS STAGE 5 AND CLOVELLY PROMENADES NORTH SIDE REPAIR FOR THE 2002/2003 FINANCIAL YEAR.

58

 

7.10                      

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 141/2002 - NATIONAL BLACKSPOT PROGRAMME 2002-2003.

62

 

 

8           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 40/2002 - ARRANGEMENTS DURING CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR PERIOD FOR DECISIONS TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL AND SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR YEAR 2003.

64

 

8.2                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 41/2002 - FIXING OF FEES AND CHARGES - DES RENFORD AQUATIC CENTRE AND PARKING METERS AT COOGEE.

71

 

 

9           Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 85/2002 - KENSINGTON TOWN CENTRE - DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN (AMENDMENT NO. 27) AND DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN 2002

72

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 86/2002 - DONCASTER VILLAGE MASTER PLAN 240 - 268 ANZAC PARADE AND 101 - 105 DONCASTER AVENUE, KENSINGTON.

117

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 87/2002 - MOVERLY CHILDREN'S CENTRE FEE INCREASE

168

 


 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 88/2002 - DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN AND DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLAN - PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AND COUNCIL PLANS

171

 

9.5                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 89/2002 - DCP - DWELLING HOUSES AND ATTACHED DUAL OCCUPANCIES, SOLAR ACCESS, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND CARPARKING

174

 

9.6                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 90/2002 - AFFIXING COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION - LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY SCHEME.

179

 

9.7                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 91/2002 - AFFIXING COUNCIL SEAL TO REGIONAL HOUSING COORDINATOR (RHC) FUNDING AGREEMENT

181

 

9.8                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 92/2002 – 239 CLOVELLY ROAD, CLOVELLY.

183

 

9.9                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 93/2002 - 1 DOVE LANE, RANDWICK.

192

 

9.10                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 94/2002 – 210 - 212 CLOVELLY ROAD, RANDWICK.

252

-=]+

9.11                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 95/2002 – 567 MALABAR ROAD, MAROUBRA.

316

 

9.12                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 96/2002 - 22 GREGORY STREET, SOUTH COOGEE.

333

 

9.13                      

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 97/2002 - DRAFT LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 32 - 15 BUMBORAH POINT ROAD, MATRAVILLE.

377

 

 

10         Petitions

 

11         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

11.1                        

By Councillor Matthews – Plaques Erected at Malabar and Coogee.

382

11.2

By Councillor Matthews – Fire Hazard at Anzac Rifle Range. 

382

11.3

By Councillor White – Installation of Calming Devices in Yarra Road and Canara Avenue, Philip Bay.

382

11.4

By Councillor Schick– Additional Funding for the Kensington Town Centre DCP.

382

11.5

By Councillor Notley-Smith – The Supplement or Replacement of the Randwick City Council Waste Calendar. 

382

11.6

By Councillor Matson – Response to Community Concern over Recent Street Tree Removals in George Street

383

11.7

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Installation of Ashtrays on Garbage Bins in the City of Randwick.

383

11.8

By Councillor Matson – Adverse Media Coverage of Water Pollution at Randwick’s Beaches. 

383

11.9

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Replacing of Footpath on Western Side of Belmore Road, between High and Arthur Streets, Randwick

383

11.10

By Councillor Matson – Presenting the Opportunity for Local Debate on Preserving N.S.W Forest and Woodland’s Issue. 

383

11.11

By Councillor Matson – General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). 

384

11.12

By Councillor Notley-Smith – Replacing the Council Garbage Bins on Coogee Bay Road, Coogee. 

384

11.13

By Councillor Matson – Maroubra Bay Hotel. 

384

11.14

By Councillor Seng – Establishing a Selection Committee for Appointment of new General Manager. 

385

11.15

By Councillor Seng – Energy Australia to review street lighting levels in Houston Road, Kingsford. 

385

11.15

 

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 77/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES-SOUTH MAROUBRA VILLAGE GREEN CAROLS BY CANDELIGHT

 

 

DATE:

13 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1720

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter and Notice of Intent Application Form has been received from Mr Richard Walsh, Proprietor of Walsh’s Village Pharmacy advising that he is currently planning his annual community event of  “Carols by Candelight” to be held on Monday, 23rd December, 2002, at the South Maroubra Village Green, Meagher Avenue, South Maroubra.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Walsh has asked Council to give support to this major community event and seeks Council’s approval in the waiving of fees to hold such an event.

 

Local Approval Application Fee                                                           $   745.00

Supply and remove additional bins (based on 8 by 240L bins)   $   400.00

Administration Fee                                                                                $     64.70

 

                                                                        TOTAL:                      $1,209.70

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that Mr. Walsh’s Carols by Candelight is a non-profit event and to assist with the event, that costs be allocated to cover the associated fees.  There is no allocated budget for this type of activity therefore it is required that Council allocate funds for waiving the fees.  The estimated cost involved will be approximately $1,209.70.  Funds are available in the Councilor Requested Works Vote for this purpose.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council vote $1,209.70 to cover the fees associated with the event and funds be allocated from the Councillor Requested Works Vote.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 78/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - SURF LIFE SAVING AUSTRALIA

 

 

DATE:

18 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1411 xr 98/s/1137 xr 98/S/1318  

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from Mr Ian Toll, Chief Executive Officer of Surf Life Saving Sydney Branch Inc. requesting exemption of payment for four major surf carnivals in the Randwick City Council area:

 

1. Coogee Beach – Open Carnival – 1st February, 2002.

2.  Coogee Beach – Sydney Branch Junior Championships – 9th February, 2002

3.  South Maroubra Beach – Branch Championships – 15th February, 2002.

4

  Maroubra Beach – Metropolitan Championships – 22nd February, 2002.

 

ISSUES:

 

These championships are a major event for Surf Life Saving and Randwick City Council.  It has been the practice to assist charities or non–profit organisations 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 $1,869.00 for all the above carnivals.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that Surf Life Saving Sydney Branch Inc. is a non-profit organisation and, in keeping with common practice, Randwick City Council should waive associated fees for this event.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council vote $1,869.00 to cover the fees associated with all four (4) carnivals and funds be allocated from the Councillor Requested Works Vote.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

 

DOMINIC SULLIVAN

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 20/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

PRESENTATION - FINANCIAL REPORTS- YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2002

 

 

DATE:

19 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0043

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Under the provisions of the Local Government Act Council is required to present its Financial Reports together with the Auditors’ Report to the public.

 

ISSUES:

 

At its meeting held on Tuesday 22 October 2002 the Council, in accordance with Section 418 of the Local Government Act, 1993 fixed 26 November 2002 as the date on which it proposed to present its audited Financial Reports to the public.

 

As required by Section 418, public notice of the meeting as well as a summary of the Financial Reports was inserted in the “Southern Courier”. The public notice indicated, as required by Section 418 (4), that copies of the Council’s audited Financial Reports, together with the Auditors’ report were available for public inspection at Council’s Administration Office and at the Bowen Library.

 

Copies of the Auditors’ Report together with the audited Financial Reports have been forwarded to the Department of Local Government and to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as required by Section 417(5) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

A copy of the Financial Reports together with Auditors Report has been tabled.

 

Members of the public could make written submissions on the reports up until 18 November 2002. No submissions were received

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That the General Manager’s Report together with the Financial Reports for the year ended 30 June 2002 be received and noted.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER

DIRECTOR gOVERNANCE mANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 21/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

2002/2003 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2002

 

 

DATE:

20 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4403

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2002/03 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for 2002/2003.

 

 

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 2002/2003 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)         SEPTEMBER 2002 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 2002/2003 as at 30 September  2002:

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of September 2002 Quarter Budget Variations

By Principal Activity

 

 

 

 

 

Variations

 

 

Expenditure

Income

Net

 

Increase

(Increase )

 

 

( Decrease)

 Decrease

 

 

$

$

$

Principal Activity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Management of Natural & Built Assets

(1,153,312)

1,119,022

(34,290)

 

 

 

 

Waste Services

0

0

0

 

 

 

 

City Services

(3,310)

8,443

5,133

 

 

 

 

City Planning & Development

(909)

(101,215)

(102,124)

 

 

 

 

Corporate Governance

394,395

(269,336)

125,059

 

 

 

 

Executive Strategy

11,000

0

11,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

(752,136)

756,914

4,778

Original Budget (Surplus)/Deficit

 

 

(4,778)

Net (Surplus)/Deficit

 

 

0

 

 

Details of the budget variations, comments on the variations and reserve funds balances as at 30 September 2002 are tabled.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

Council’s projected financial position is satisfactory.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        the report in relation to the September 2002 budget review be received and noted; and

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

September Budget Review 2002/2003 Financial Year - under separate cover

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 22/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

SEPTEMBER 2002 QUARTER REVIEW - 2002/04 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

DATE:

20 November, 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 2002/2005 Management Plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

This is the September Quarter Review of the 2002/2005 Management 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. There are six principal activities, which reflect the grouping of activities that share a common focus as seen by the community, being reported on.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the Report on the September Quarter Review – 2002/2005 Management plan be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

September 2002 Quarter Review - 2002/2005 Management Plan. (under separate cover)

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 23/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF COUNCIL'S SEAL

 

 

DATE:

20 November, 2002

FILE NO:

D/0223/2002 xr P/001615 xr 98/S/1165

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 48 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulations 1993 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the signing of a licence agreement between Council and –

 

1.         Gay Marie Carnegie for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 34-38 Belmore Road, Randwick.

 

2.         Eli Lees for the purpose of Outdoor Dining at 135-137 Dolphin Street Coogee.

 

It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the signing of the deed of agreement between Council and –

 

3.         Randwick Petersham Cricket Club for the purpose of the management of the maintenance of the cricket wickets at Kensington, Snape and Coogee ovals and their outfields

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 48 of the Meetings Regulation required that the Council pass a resolution authorizing the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities being completed.

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council’s seal be affixed to the licence agreements between Council and-

 

1.   Gay Marie Carnegie for the purpose of outdoor dining at 34-38 Belmore Road, Randwick

2.   Eli Lees for the purpose of outdoor dining at 135-137 Dolphin Street Coogee

 

That Council’s seal be affixed to the deed of agreement between Council and –

 

3.   Randwick Petersham Cricket Club for the purpose of the management of the maintenance of the cricket wickets at Kensington, Snape and Coogee ovals and their outfields.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 132/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

COOGEE LADIES BATHS (MCIVERS BATHS) - LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN AND STAGE 1 WORKS

 

 

DATE:

21 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/s/1032

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday September 2002 the Council resolved to;

 

(a)  Council complete a land survey within 3 months of the Coogee Ladies Baths and landscape documentation, so that a status of works report can be presented to November meeting of Council;

 

In response to the above resolution a surveyor was engaged and a land survey has been completed of the Ladies Baths. Mather and Associates, Landscape Architects have completed a Landscape Master Plan, a Stage 1 Works drawing and cost estimate for the Baths.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Randwick Coogee Ladies Swimming Club Committee (LC) has met with Council officers and the Consultants to discuss the draft Landscape Master Plan, Stage 1 priority works.

 

In discussions with the Ladies Committee it was established that the following issues were of high priority and needed repair/construction as soon as funds were made available:

 

·    Reconstruction of steep entry into Sea Pool

·    Implementation of long-term solutions to minimise water seepage across pedestrian paths and turfed areas

·    Creation of terrace grassed areas to increase available turf areas for seating/ sunbaking.

 

A draft Master Plan (Refer Att 1) has been completed it includes a broad range of proposals for landscape improvements to the Ladies Baths. It is proposed that the Master Plan be the guiding document for future capital works improvements to the baths. The total cost estimate for this work is $227 032.30.

 

Further to the Master plan, a Stage 1 Works (Refer Att 2) drawing has been completed. The major components of the Stage 1 works are as follows:

 

·    Creation of grass terraces

·    Construction of a catch drain to minimise water seepage

·    Construction of new western entry steps into the pool

·    Planting of local species

 

The cost estimate for completion of Stage 1 works is $ 85 000.

 

The Randwick and Coogee Ladies Committee have reviewed the Master Plan and Stage 1 Works drawing and concur with the components of the Plan.

 

Council officers will also investigate suitable grants under the Dept. of Sport and Recreation - Capital Assistance Programme (grants up to $20000) and Regional Facilities Programme ($40 000 to $400 000) grants. Council are required to be meet these grants dollar for dollar.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         The Ladies Baths Landscape Master Plan be exhibited at the baths for public comment.

 

2.         Subject to receipt of submissions, Council adopt the Randwick Coogee Ladies Baths Landscape Master Plan (Att 1) and Stage 1 works drawing (Att 2) as the guiding documents for capital works improvements to the Baths.

 

3.         That Council consider providing an amount of $ 85 000 in the 2003/2004 Budget to complete the Stage 1 priority landscape works.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Under Separate Cover - 

1.  Master Plan.

2.  Stage 1 Works  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PARKS & RECREATION CO-ORDINATOR


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 133/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Tender 6/02 Supply of Out Front Mowers

 

 

DATE:

21 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4566

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Tenders closing on the 15 October 2002 were called for the supply of four only 72” Out Front Ride on Mowers as replacements for units identified in the 2002 /2003 Plant Replacement Programme.

 

Background

 

Council owns and operates seven out front mowers as a key function of the parks and open space maintenance program. This style of mower by virtue of design is able to mow both maintained and unimproved grass covered areas and still provide a finish of acceptable quality.

 

Experience has shown that this style of mower is both effective and relatively easy for operators to use as the steering and controls are similar to those used when driving a conventional vehicle.

 

In an effort to reduce the likelihood of Public Liability claims arising from the operation of these units they were specified as rear discharge as the possibility of debris being sprayed out from the discharge chute and striking pedestrians and or property would be greatly reduced as the debris from a rear discharge unit is directed back to the ground and speed substantially reduced.

 

Funding

 

The cost of the four replacement units has been allocated in the plant replacement programme for 2002 / 2003.

 

Selection Panel

 

The selection panel for the evaluation of the tenders was

Plant and Equipment Officer

Area Co-ordinators representative

Team leader Mechanical trades

 

In addition to the selection panel input and comments were obtained from an experienced operator of these units.

 

The Manager Contracts and Purchasing did not participate directly in the evaluation and delegated the Plant and Equipment Officer to represent him and report any commercial or policy issues.

 

ISSUES:

 

In addition to meeting the basic technical specifications relating to suitability for purpose the mowers tendered had to address these issues.

 

·    Construction had to be robust to withstand the rigors of heavy usage and the dema

·    nds placed on the units by a multi skilled workforce.

·    Operation needed to be relatively simple to enable multi skilled workers with limited operating experience to adjust to the machine and reach acceptable levels of skill and productivity.

·    Basic maintenance and inspections should be within the capabilities of multi skilled workers to ensure that the machines would not suffer premature failure if daily maintenance were not carried out if it was too difficult for multi skilled workers and neglected.

·    Spare parts and fast moving consumables needed to be reasonably priced and readily available.

·    Training for both operators and maintenance technicians needed to be readily available.

·    OH&S issues had to be addressed and all risks involved in operating the unit must be acceptable.

·    It was important the mowers have proven track records and industry acceptance.

 

Technical evaluation

 

Owing to the current drought conditions Council employees had the opportunity for a static viewing of the Iseki and Jacobsen units. The New Holland unit was unavailable for viewing and an assessment of this unit was made by comparing specifications. The Toro unit offered is currently in operation and has proven to be both reliable and effective.

 

 

RESPONSES TO TENDER

 

G.W.S. Machinery Pty Ltd suppliers of the Iseki range of equipment manufactured in Japan tendered the SF300 and SF330 units from their product line offering rotary and flail style cutter units on both units.

 

The base units offered differed only in horsepower and comments made about these units are valid for both models.

 

The Iseki traction unit based on agricultural tractors are robustly constructed with a direct drive power take off utilising a propeller shaft driving a transfer case connected to the blade spindles via vee belts. This drive system is effective with losses of power limited to the spindle drive belts.

 

The rear discharge rotary cutter decks offered on these units are manufactured in Australia by Superior Equipment Australia Pty Ltd and more susceptible to damage than the deck offered with the Toro unit as they lacked the strength on the leading edge of the cutting deck.

 

The flail units also manufactured by Superior were considered by the selection panel to have the potential for damaging well maintained areas and tree roots as the level of cut can be adjusted to zero. The maintenance requirements on these units is likely to be higher due to the number of hammers on the rotating drum. This style of mower is better suited to clearing poorly maintained areas and small teams of operators who are familiar with their operation.

 

The panel had concerns over the complexity of the operating controls and were also concerned about introducing a machine that is more suited to a designated operator than into a system reliant on a large pool of operators as required in a multi skilled operating environment.

 

Macarthur Mowers agents for the extensive Toro range of grounds care equipment manufactured in the USA tendered to supply the Toro Groundsmaster 328-4WD units, two of which are currently operated by Council.

 

The units offered are purpose built mowers and have not been derived from agricultural tractors. The operation of this unit is easy with a limited number of controls and adjustments for multi skilled workers to worry about. Daily maintenance is limited to lubricating the spindle bearings and the usual checks associated with operating motorised equipment.

 

The cutting decks on these mowers were substantially upgraded when the rear discharge deck was introduced to this model. The leading edge has been redesigned and is heavily reinforced and able the handle the bumps experienced in Council’s operating environment. Maintenance is relatively simple and the quality of finish is high.

 

FSR Equipment agents for the New Holland range of tractors and ride on mowers tendered the MC28 and MC35 side discharge out front mowers. The specification called for rear discharge cutter decks to reduce the likelihood of Public Liability claims arising from debris being thrown on to members of the public and damaging property. As rear discharge decks were not offered Council should not consider these units as a suitable replacement.

 

Turf Link Australia Pty Ltd tendered the Jacobsen Turf Cat 600 with either a rear discharge or flail cutting attachment. The Jacobsen units are larger than the Toro’s currently in operation and Council would need to upgrade the trailers being used to float the mowers around the LGA. The operating systems are predominantly hydraulic, this feature adds the cost of the units and is potentially a cause for increased down time, as the hoses are susceptible to damage especially when operated in areas that are mown infrequently.

 

The rotary cutter deck offered with this unit is not as well designed as the Toro and is likely to sustain more damage from the bumps experienced in Councils operating environment. The flail mower option is only 1.5 metres wide and the productivity loss is unacceptable.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The selection panel were united in their support for the purchase of the Toro 328D Groundsmaster. The decision to recommend the purchase of the Toro Units is based on

·    Heavy duty cutting deck construction designed to handle heavy duty operations.

·    Simple operating system that is suitable for an organisation that has multiple users.

·    Operator maintenance and inspection requirements that are not too onerous.

·    Reasonably priced and an acceptable service levels for supply of spare parts.

·    Training is available for both operators and maintenance staff and a company representative is available to discuss any concerns and assist Council in achieving the best results from their investment.

·    OH&S safety features of these machines meet industry standards and appropriately trained operators should be secure in a work environment that poses no unacceptable risks.

·    Toro have a proven track record in the supply of grounds maintenance equipment and are the current market leaders in the USA.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council resolve to purchase four (4) only Toro 328D Out front mowers from Macarthur Mowers for the sum of $130,396 including GST and that the existing units be sold at public auction.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER. -

Evaluation Scoring Guideline

Evaluation Scores

Cost/Needs Analysis

Price Summary -

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TERRY RILEY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PLANT AND EQUIPMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 134/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAROUBRA BEACH PLAY AREA AND PARKLAND TENDER - 10/02

 

 

DATE:

21 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4606 Pt 2

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In accordance with the General Manager’s approval, public tenders were invited for the construction of the Maroubra Beach Play Area and Parkland, at Maroubra.

 

These works form a significant component of the Plan of Management Works.  The major components of the project include:

·      erection of temporary fencing ;

·      demolition of paving;

·      construction of new concrete pavements and edging;

·      construction of wet pour rubber soft fall playground pavement;

·      construction of retaining walling;

·      installation of sandstone edging and pavement blocks;

·      installation of play equipment;

·      construction of a timber bridge;

·      installation of a major shade sails/structure;

·      soft landscape works;

·      mature tree planting;

·      supply and install timber bench seating; and

·      install and commission irrigation system.

·     

 

After a 3-week tendering period, the tender closed on Tuesday 12th November 2002.  At the close of tenders, five (5) tenders had been received, consisting of all the following: 

 

1.   Civil Systems Engineering

2.   Glascott Group

3.   North Shore Paving

4.   TCL Contracting Pty Ltd

5.   Fitout and Refurbishment Pty Ltd

 

BACKGROUND

 

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 1993. Tenderer’s were also given an indication of the selection criteria, (see below) to be referred to in the evaluation:

 

(a)        Price

(b)        Time period to complete the Work

(c)        Financial capacity to carry out the Work

(d)        Experience and ability to complete Work

(e)        Compliance with the Specification.

(f)         Quality Management System of the Tenderer

(g)        Occupational Health and Safety

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.

Selection Committee

A thorough and detailed evaluation of all tender submissions, was conducted by a panel comprising, Council’s Manager Contracts and Purchasing, Adrian O’Leary, Ms Kerry Colquhoun – Project Officer, Assets & Infrastructure and Mr. Brian Jacobs – RCC Project Manager.

 

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. 

2.   The schedule information 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 final evaluation scores were then transferred to the “Cost / Needs Analysis” sheet and related to the Fixed Lump Sum Tender Prices’. 

4.   The results of this assessment are provided in Attachment 2.

 

SUMMARY OF TENDER

 

Lump Sum Price

 

The pre-tender estimate for the project was in the range of $450,000 to $550,000.

 

Tender lump sum prices were as follows: (in apparent order of price):

 

CONTRACTORS

LUMP SUM AMOUNT

1. TCL Contracting Pty Ltd

$ 443 972 ($448 712) *

2. Fitout and Refurbishment Pty Ltd

$ 518 000

3. Glascott Group

$ 539 701

4. North Shore Paving

$ 607 547

5. Civil Systems Engineering

$ 620 000

 

*NOTE: TCL Contracting were requested to clarify some information provided in their submission and as a consequence their tender price increased by $ 4,740, therefore the total lump sum price submitted was $448,712

 

Accumulated Scores

The Tenderers accumulated scores in order of merit were as follows:

 

CONTRACTORS

ACCUMULATED SCORES

1.Glascott Group

88.8%

2. North Shore Paving

79.6%

3. TCL Contracting Pty Ltd

75.2%

4. Fitout and Refurbishment Pty Ltd

69.3 %

5. Civil Systems Engineering

47.6%

 

Tenderer précis

 

Glascott Group

Glascott Group submitted a quality bid and scored the highest in terms of the accumulated score for the submission provided.  Glascott were the third most expensive being $ 90 989 more expensive than TCL Contracting Pty Ltd. 

 

Glasscott offered the shortest construction period of 60 calendar days.

 

Northshore Paving

Northshore Paving submitted a quality bid and scored second highest in terms of the accumulated score.  Their lump sum price of $ 607 547 was $158,535 greater than the lowest tender price submitted by TCL Contracting Pty Ltd.  Because of this variance in the price the team decided not to proceed further in evaluation of Northshore Paving tender.

 

TCL Contracting Pty Ltd

The tender submitted by TCL Contracting Pty Ltd was the lowest priced offer at $ 443,972.  This amount was later adjusted for by $ 3,490 for changes to the design of the concrete driveway and $ 1,250 for additional establishment costs.  This company scored third highest at 75.2 % in the accumulated scores.

 

The Selection Committee did request further information from the Tenderer for compliance in the requirements for OH& S and Quality Assurance.  The team discussed these issues with TCL and they have committed to providing site-specific plans for this project.  The Committee deemed this to be acceptable.

 

TCL offered a construction phase of 77 calendar days, which fits suitably into the program required by Council.

 

Fitout and Refurbishment

Fitout and Refurbishment had the second lowest price of $ 518,000, and a construction period of 95 calendar days.  Because of these factors and a perceived lack of recent job experience in similar projects the team decided not to proceed further with this evaluation.

 

Civil Systems

Civil Systems did not submit the required information in the Tender Schedules. They were also the most expensive Tender at $620 000 and because of this relative high price the team decided not to proceed further with evaluation of their offer.

 

ISSUES:

Project Funding

The works fall within the scope of the Maroubra Beach Plan of Management Works for which Council has allocated funds in the 2001-2002 budget. 

 

Project Commencement Date

The recommended construction start date is February 3rd 2003. This date is appropriate as it avoids the busy School Holiday period (Friday 20th December 2002 to 29 January 2002). The construction of the playground will disrupt pedestrian access in the beachfront area and involve use of large machinery.

 

Further to this Council is arranging an Australia Day Celebration and specifically wish to utilise the grass area were the playground is to be constructed.

 

TCL Contracting are able to comply with a February 3rd start date. It will be extremely difficult to get the preferred Tenderer to gear up and obtain materials for an earlier start date.

 

CONCLUSION:

The tenders submitted by, Glascott Group and TCL Contracting were considered by the Evaluation Committee, as having the capability to undertake the construction of Maroubra Beach Play Area at a cost representing value for money to the Council.

 

Evaluation of Tenders against the specified evaluation criteria indicates that TCL Contracting Pty Ltd has submitted the tender representing the best value to Council for this project. This assessment conclusion was based on their low tender price and an assessment of their capability to undertake the work.

 

TCL Contracting Pty Ltd have demonstrated experience in civil works and has good references, they are best positioned to deliver a best value result for this project.

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

1.   Council accept the tender submitted by TCL Contracting Pty Ltd of 1 Gregory Street, Ermington for the Construction of the Play Area and Parkland Maroubra Beach works, for the Lump Sum amount of $ $448 711.72 excluding GST.

 

2.   That the commencement date for the project be in early February 2003.

 

3.   The unsuccessful tenderers are notified of the tender result.

 

4.   The Mayor and General Manager be authorised to sign as necessary, contract and other documents pertaining to the scope of works and that Council’s Seal be affixed as required.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

UNDER SEPARATE COVER  - Attachment A - Assessment Matrix -

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PARKS & RECREATION CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 135/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

FREQUENCY OF CLEANING COUNCIL'S TOILETS

 

 

DATE:

21 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0178 xr  98/S/0707

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES       

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 22 October, 2002, resolved that:

 

(a)  A report be brought to Council as to the frequency in which Council’s toilets are cleaned, in particular public toilets and restrooms over the summer months; and

 

(b)  This report to the next meeting of Council, also outline the state of repair and

cleanliness of all public toilet facilities in the City of Randwick. Further, the report is to also contain the specifications and schedules currently used for the cleaning and maintenance of such facilities, and to detail what immediate action is required to be taken to bring the amenities up to an acceptable standard. 

 

ISSUES:

 

There is the perception that the frequency in which Council’s toilets are cleaned, in particular public toilets and restrooms over the summer months, is inadequate. There are seventeen public toilets spread throughout the City with the majority being located along the coastal fringe.

 

All toilets are cleaned once daily with the exception of the toilets situated at Clovelly Beach, Coogee Beach and Maroubra Beach which are all cleaned up to three times a day during peak periods and in the summer months. All of the toilet facilities are cleaned to Aus-Spec specifications and standards (Aus-Spec-6B). Council’s public toilet facilities are therefore cleaned to or above the frequency requirements stated in the specification.

 

All toilet facilities are also painted regularly and inspected for any defects, however, a major problem of our City’s toilet system is graffiti, which gives the perception that the facility is ‘not maintained’.

 

Attached to this report is an extract from the specifications used by Randwick City Council for Sanitary Cleaning (Aus-Spec-6B). This extract outlines activities including inspecting all sanitary facilities in accordance with the frequency nominated in checklists, and covers all procedures necessary for the routine cleaning of sanitary facilities designated for public or staff use located in a separate building or within buildings and facilities.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

All of Council’s toilets are cleaned to or above specifications and are functional, however, there is a perception that the toilets are not maintained to these standards due to the unsightliness of graffiti which is often expensive and difficult to remove. It must also be noted that our public toilets receive a high level of abuse from people often not from the City, who are not concerned with the condition of the public facility after they have finished with it.   

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council note that the cleaning the City’s toilets are to or exceed the frequency requirements stated in Council’s cleaning specifications (Aus-Spec-6B).

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

UNDER SEPARATE COVER  - Attachment 1- Extract Specification - Aus-Spec-6B -

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TREVOR STOLZ

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ACTING MANAGER INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCITON

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 136/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

REVISED STREET TREE MASTER PLAN

 

 

DATE:

21 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4688

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 April, 2002, resolved to place the revised Street Tree Master Plan on public exhibition for a period of six weeks, following which a report would be prepared for consideration by Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Street Tree Master Plan was originally revised because of concerns by Council’s tree management staff about a number of proposals and recommendations contained in the document.

 

Of most concern was the proposed strategy for reinforcing existing plantings of a variety of tree species that were considered inappropriate as street trees and which were causing an escalating amount of damage to both public infrastructure and private property.

 

Most notable of these tree species were Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs), Melaleuca quinquenervia (Swamp Paperbark), Casuarina glauca (She Oak) and Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir plum).

 

Although all these tree species are significant for a variety of reasons and are an integral part of the vegetative ‘identity’ of the Randwick City area, their roots are responsible for an unacceptable and increasing amount of damage throughout the entire City.

 

Liability for the damage caused by the roots of Council-owned street tree assets has been clearly established (Victorian Supreme Court – Scantelbury – v – City of Richmond [1991] V.R. 38). If Council has planted the tree, then a strict liability for tree root damage attaches itself to Council.

 

This is particularly the case where a species is known to cause damage, and it has been suggested that planting a tree species that is known to cause damage may result in a Council being uninsured for losses caused by the tree and Council will in fact need to self-insure the risk (Statewide Best Practice Manual – Trees and Tree Roots).

 

As well as having concerns about this particular aspect of the masterplan strategy, there are several existing street tree species planted throughout the City that are diseased and are dying in large numbers (Metrosideros excelsa – NZ Xmas tree) or that are coming to the end of their Safe Useful Life Expectancy (S.U.L.E.) (Melaleuca armillaris – Bracelet Honey Myrtle).

 

The regrettable but necessary removal of these dying and/or problematic trees will have a profound impact on the existing streetscape city-wide and a masterplan containing appropriate replacement species and an action plan for removal and replacement is therefore timely and necessary.

 

At the conclusion of the public display period there were a number of issues and concerns raised by residents regarding the Street Tree Master Plan and its contents and these are addressed below.

 

One concern raised was the origin of the masterplan and its apparent lack of clarity. The masterplan document was originally prepared by the landscape architect firm Spackman and Mossop Pty Ltd in 1995 and includes elements such as tree species, design options and strategies, precinct designs as well as an implementation strategy and associated action plan.

 

The City was divided into seven separate precincts based on distinctive topographical features and these were further broken down into broadscale precinct types according to slope, aspect, existing vegetation and exposure to coastal influences, etc.

 

One resident raised the point that a person should be able to select a particular street and be able to identify which tree species are to be retained and/or which species are available to replace any that might be removed.

 

Within the strategy section of each precinct area are listed species of trees considered appropriate to reinforce existing plantings. Listed beneath them are species to be utilised for special planting purposes, followed by a range of tree species to be used for informal/formal avenue planting (general street use).

 

Where appropriate within a particular precinct, a list of species to be used in shrubland grove plantings (where canopy trees are either unachievable or undesirable) is also included.

 

It has been suggested that, like a number of other Sydney Councils, Randwick City Council’s Street Tree Master Plan should designate specific tree species for each street within the City.

 

This format was not adopted, however, because it was felt it did not allow any real latitude in the selection of street tree species and this was particularly important in the implementation of Council’s Community Street Tree Planting Program and in streets where it was possible to plant a variety of tree species.

 

Generally, Council officers select an appropriate tree species for any particular street after taking into account such things as existing tree species and their significance, topography, climate, aspect, presence of powerlines, heritage considerations, etc.

 

One complaint was that the range of species contained within the masterplan was too limited and that there needed to be a greater concentration of native plant species. This issue has been addressed and the street tree species list has been increased from fifty-four to ninety-three. Of these ninety-three species, seventy-seven are Australian natives and only sixteen are introduced exotics.

 

It was also requested by one particular precinct committee that nothing but native species be planted throughout the Kensington area.

 

However, because Kensington is a suburb with significant heritage value, it was viewed as entirely appropriate to continue planting exotic tree species with a heritage association throughout that precinct – in association with native species.

 

The revised species list for planting throughout the Northern Swamp Valley Floor precinct (Kensington, Kingsford, Randwick) now contains eighteen tree species - including six new additions. Of these, twelve are Australian native species and six are deciduous exotics.

 

This is seen as an appropriate palette mix for these areas that will reinforce appropriate existing plantings while at the same time introducing a variety of new species that will provide a much greater proportion of glossy, broad-domed canopy cover than at present.

 

Two tree species have now been deleted from this particular precinct, either because respondents objected to their inclusion (Ulmus parvifolia) or because they were viewed as inconsistent with the ‘theme’ of the precinct (Tibouchina granulosa). 

 

However, Ulmus parvifolia will continue to be planted in both the Remnant Dune and Central Swamp Valley Floor precincts because they are an easily grown and appropriate tree species and because there are numbers of existing specimens already growing in both precincts. 

 

There were in fact a number of tree species which respondents felt were inappropriate for consideration throughout the entire City, either because they were introduced species or because they had the potential to become environmental weeds at some stage.

 

Closely associated with this issue was the concern expressed that Council was not committed to the objectives of the Action Plan for Local Government, Green Web – Sydney, and in particular connecting currently fragmented areas of remnant bushland into larger, continuous areas of connecting habitat corridors.

 

In order to properly address these issues, Council’s bushland management team was asked to provide information and recommendations on potential weed species, Green Web Sydney Vegetation Management Plan commitments, impact of selected tree species on local provenance propagation material and the potential loss of genetic biodiversity, as well as updating Council’s working draft of fauna corridors throughout the City.

 

After careful consideration of these issues by those officers, it was recommended that only Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date palms) and Sapium sebiferum (Chinese Tallowwood) not be used as street trees because of their weed potential.

 

Phoenix palms are not being planted anywhere within the City because of their susceptibility to the fungal disease Fusarium oxysporum.

 

However, the planting of Sapium sebiferum will continue, as these trees are planted in large numbers throughout certain precincts and they are a very manageable and appropriately-sized deciduous tree species.

 

In line with the recommendations made by bushland management officers regarding a number of other tree species which were considered by some respondents to be inappropriate (Olea, Ulmus, Schinus, Gleditsia, Jacaranda, among others), these species will not be planted near bushland or vacant land due to their weed potential in those areas.

 

It was also recommended that Kunzea ambigua, Melaleuca nodosa and Melaleuca squamea be deleted from the masterplan entirely, due to their widespread natural occurrence in the local area and the inability to guarantee local provenance stock (original heritage stock naturally occurring), and this has been acceded to.

 

A number of other local native tree species were also recommended by bushland management officers not to be planted in particular areas and this will be complied with wherever possible. This “Restrict From” list will be referred to by Council officers prior to any street tree planting being undertaken in those nominated areas.

 

As a result of re-assessing these native habitat issues, the number of remnant vegetation and remnant buffer areas has been revised and expanded upon considerably and these changes have been incorporated into the masterplan.

 

The majority of these remnant bushland areas are contained within either the Exposed Coastal Strip or Southern Swamp Valley Floor precincts. The coastal strip precinct contains twenty-three species, of which twenty-two are Australian native trees, and the southern swamp valley precinct contains seventeen species, of which sixteen are native.

 

To illustrate how the masterplan would be utilised to provide and enhance corridor planting, we can use the example proffered by a respondent who cited the linking of Popplewell Park and Jack Vanny Memorial Park with Trennery Reserve, Coogee.

 

At present the streets that connect all three areas are being planted out with a mixture of Banksia integrifolia, Banksia serrata and Banksia ericifolia as well as a small number of Metrosideros ‘Thomasii’.

 

In areas within this precinct where canopy trees are either unachievable or undesirable, shrubland grove species will be planted to further increase the amount of native vegetation present. These species include a range of indigenous Banksia, Melaleuca and Leptospermum shrubs as well as species such as Angophora hispida and Eucalyptus obtusiflora.  

 

Another matter to consider when revising the masterplan was EnergyAustralia’s recently published Draft Tree Safety Management Plan. A number of the elements contained in this plan will have a profound impact on existing street trees within the City of Randwick as well as on the selection of species for planting under powerlines.

 

Although the list of species recommended in that document for planting under powerlines is totally inadequate and restrictive, all appropriate tree species have been incorporated into the masterplan wherever possible. This has meant an increase in the number of species for planting under powerlines, which was one of the main deficiencies highlighted by some respondents.

 

That same EnergyAustralia document also contains an extensive list of tree species which the corporation considers inappropriate for planting under powerlines and this includes a number of the species contained in Council’s masterplan.

 

Many of these species are included in Council’s Main Road Planting Species list because of their size and visual impact at maturity as well as their ability to be directionally pruned around powerlines, and it is seen as entirely appropriate by Council officers that they continue to be used.

 

One significant species to be deleted from the masterplan is Eucalyptus scoparia (Wallangarra White gum), which was found to be suffering from severe and increasing attack from plague-like numbers of the sap sucking insect Thaumastocoris australicus.

 

Control of this insect pest is difficult and involves the use of relatively strong chemicals. It was therefore considered that the amount of effort involved in attempting to control this pest did not warrant the retention of this particular species.

 

Another species to be omitted from the Masterplan is Hymenosporum flavum along the northern side of Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra. It was found that this situation was far too exposed and hostile for this species to do well and it is to be replaced with Cupaniopsis anacardioides.

 

It was also felt by some people that there should be more information about the actual species included in the masterplan document. To facilitate this, the revised list of street tree species contains information such as whether the tree is evergreen or deciduous, native or exotic, as well as its average mature dimensions.

 

It is also anticipated that all species listed in the Masterplan will not only have the Latin name of the tree but will also have the Common name included. This should allow a better understanding of what species are to be planted.

 

All photographs within the Masterplan document are to be captioned under the photographs themselves with common names of the relevant species.

 

A far more comprehensive description of all these tree species will be contained in Council’s Street Tree Identification manual, currently being revised and reformatted in-house by Council’s tree management staff. This booklet will contain a detailed description of the tree species itself, complemented by a series of photographs showing mature dimensions, leaf shape and colour, fruit, bark, etc.

 

CONCLUSIONS:

 

In order to clarify the aims and objectives of the street tree masterplan as they relate to each particular precinct within the City, a brief description of each is set out below.

 

Exposed Coastal Strip – this precinct is characterised by very poor, shallow, water-repellent, nutrient-deficient sandy soils and is constantly buffeted by strong prevailing, salt-laden winds. Topography and harsh environmental considerations mean there is a strong emphasis on the planting of native and indigenous plant stock within this precinct.

 

The largest number of remnant bushland areas and potential wildlife corridors are situated within this area and it has the largest number (23) of native and indigenous tree species for street tree planting of any of the masterplan precincts.

 

The aim of street tree planting within this precinct is to create a very strong and distinctive coastal character while at the same time providing a cohesive habitat corridor between the north and south of the City.

 

Coogee Bay and Maroubra Bay Coastal Slopes – these palettes consist broadly of the hillside areas from Clovelly to Maroubra immediately behind the Exposed Coastal Strip. They are still characterised by poor soils but salt-laden winds are less influential.

 

The objective for these two precincts is to develop two distinct palettes by reinforcing plantings of appropriate existing street tree species while incorporating additional species. The primary aim is to progressively develop a comprehensive canopy cover by utilising a blend of broad-domed native and exotic tree species.

 

Coastal Valley Floors – the Coogee Bay and Maroubra Valley floors are broadly defined as the relatively flat ground behind the coastal strip.

 

The objective of street tree planting in these precincts is to take advantage of the more sheltered nature of the valley floors. There is a greater emphasis on planting rainforest tree species in these precincts, particularly in the Coogee Bay Valley Floor.

 

Plateau – this precinct is defined by the elevated area of flat to undulating topography that takes in the Randwick CBD and surrounds.

 

The strategy for this precinct is to create a planting palette of greater scale using closed forest and rainforest species that exhibit a darker, glossier canopy cover that is distinct from the surrounding slopes.

 

Leeward Facing Slopes – these precincts are basically the three areas to the west of the major ridgelines – taking in Randwick in the north, the centre of the City to the west of South Coogee and the areas adjacent to Anzac Parade on both sides, south of Matraville.

 

The soil in these areas is still relatively poor but they are more sheltered from the wind. There is a strong emphasis on open forest native tree species mixed with an array of broad-domed exotics that will maximise the visual impact of these three highly visible slopes. There is also an emphasis on distinguishing each sub-precinct with subtle variations in species within each palette.

 

Swamp Valley Floor – this precinct is defined as the large undulating to flat land mass to the west of the three leeward slopes and is divided into three distinct sub-precincts.

 

Northern Swamp Valley Floor consists primarily of the Kensington area and is planted out with large numbers of significantly sized exotic tree species.

 

Central Swamp Valley Floor takes in Kingsford and parts of Matraville to the west of Anzac Parade. This precinct is far more ‘open’ than the Northern Swamp Valley Floor and contains a mix of native and exotic tree species of far less significance.

 

Southern Swamp Valley Floor is made up of the area south of Beauchamp Road and to the west of Anzac Parade and takes in a large part of Matraville, Chifley, Phillip Bay, and Port Botany.

 

Because of the strong heritage component within the Northern Swamp Valley floor precinct, there continues to be a concentration on exotic, deciduous and glossy, broad-domed tree species.

 

There is a gradual decrease in the number of exotic tree species as you move into the Central Swamp Valley floor area, which is more open and exposed, and there is a corresponding increase in the number of native tree species to be planted.

 

Because of the sparse, exposed topography of the Southern Swamp Valley Floor and the large number of remnant bushland areas contained within this precinct, there is an increased emphasis on the planting of local native tree species.

 

Remnant Dune Structures – this precinct consists of the two small elevated formations that occur within the middle of the Northern Swamp Valley Floor that run north-south between the Raleigh Park development in the north and the Australian Golf Course in the south.

 

Soils in this precinct are free draining and of the same relatively poor quality as those in the surrounding areas. Tree species to be planted in this small precinct will create a strong sense of vegetation in association with existing large-scale unit development.

 

Although the aim of the masterplan is to create distinctive planting palettes wherever possible, there will certainly be some overlapping of species within each precinct. This will be concentrated primarily along common boundary areas so that where appropriate some planting cohesion can be achieved as you move from one precinct to another.

 

In conclusion, the major concerns expressed by respondents relating to Council’s revised Street Tree Master Plan involved issues such as the formatting and style of the document, lack of species numbers, creation of native vegetation corridors and buffer zones, predisposition to the planting of native tree species and a need to provide more information on proposed tree species.

 

Every attempt has been made to make the format and style of the masterplan document as ‘user friendly’ as possible, with all maps and drawings being redrawn prior to the document being redrafted.

 

The number and range of tree species has been increased considerably, with a variety of species being re-assessed for their appropriateness as street trees. Where it was found there was a legitimate reason for a particular species not to be realistically considered, it has been deleted.

 

The issue of the association between existing remnant bushland areas and proposed tree planting in surrounding streets has also been addressed, with an emphasis not only on Council’s Green Web obligations but also on how any proposed planting will impact on the integrity of local provenance propagation material.

 

There are a number and range of constraints involved in the selection and use of appropriate tree species for planting as street trees. Issues to consider range from soil type, amount and type of maintenance required, root structure, growth habit, etc, to such things as necessity to wire prune, native or exotic species and ongoing availability of plant stock.

 

The majority of tree species selected for general avenue planting range from five-ten metres in height at maturity and four-six metres in canopy width. It was felt that trees of this size generally provide the maximum number of benefits to the community while allowing significant streetscapes to be planned and achieved.

 

It was felt that trees which attain heights above ten-twelve metres at maturity sometimes exhibit a propensity to drop large branches during unseasonably high wind periods and they were therefore generally not considered.

 

All the above issues have been addressed in the selection of plant species for the masterplan, to ensure not only site suitability but also that they conform to the overall strategy of the document.

 

In conclusion, the revised Street Tree Master Plan not only deals with all the public submissions lodged, but the format of the document itself and the range of planting species within have been clarified and expanded upon in an effort to make it a much more comprehensive and cohesive document.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Randwick City Council adopts the Randwick Street Tree Master Plan.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER -

Revised Street Tree Master Plan

Revised list of tree species for each Masterplan precinct

Alphabetic list of street tree species for Randwick City

Example of format and content for proposed Street Tree Identification manual

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 137/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

AGGRESSIVE-ROOTED STREET TREE STRATEGY

 

 

DATE:

21 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1847  98/S/4689

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 April, 2002, resolved to place the Strategy for Managing the Damage Caused by Aggressive-rooted Street Trees on public exhibition for a period of six weeks, following which a report would be prepared on the strategy for further consideration by Council.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

As a result of concerns about the process for assessing damage caused by tree roots to sewerage systems and stormwater pipes not providing the best value to Council, an efficiency project was established in 2001 to assess this process.

 

This project, however, revealed a much more serious and complex problem – the growing financial cost to Council of ongoing physical damage caused by street tree roots to the urban environment.

 

The project therefore extended its focus, with the aim of identifying a range of possible cost savings resulting from the more appropriate and efficient management of its street tree assets.

 

The study found that the majority of damage to both public infrastructure and private property throughout the City was caused by the following species – Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping figs), Casuarina glauca (She Oaks), Melaleuca quinquenervia (Swamp Paperbarks) and Harpephyllum caffrum (Kaffir Plums).

 

Although all these tree species are significant for a variety of reasons and are an integral part of the vegetative ‘identity’ of the Randwick City area, their roots are responsible for an unacceptable and increasing amount of damage throughout the entire City. By far the most serious and costly damage is caused specifically by the species Ficus microcarpa var. ‘Hillii’.

 

Liability for the damage caused by the roots of Council-owned street tree assets has been clearly established (Victorian Supreme Court – Scantelbury – v – City of Richmond [1991] V.R. 38). If Council has planted the tree, then a strict liability for tree root damage attaches itself to Council.

 

Significant and ongoing tree root damage is an issue that affects a number of eastern suburbs Councils and Woollahra Council is currently also assessing the progressive removal and replacement of some six-hundred-and-forty Ficus ‘Hillii’ (among other tree species) as part of its development of a vegetation management strategy for that municipality. 

 

The range of problems associated with these particular tree species are becoming both financially unsustainable and impossible to successfully manage in the longer term. The cost to Council to clear and/or repair blocked and damaged sewer pipes alone increased from approximately $80,000 per annum in 1997 to $305,173 in 2001.

 

The cost of undertaking this work between 1 July, 2001, and 30 June, 2002, has been calculated at $313,000. West Area alone, where the predominant number of Ficus ‘Hillii’ are growing, accounted for $204,500 of this amount.

 

Regrettably, during that period the cost to undertake necessary repairs to damaged/blocked sewer systems ran over budget in all three areas of the City

 

In an effort to minimise the cost to Council of repairing damage to sewerage/stormwater systems caused by street tree assets, while at the same time providing an equitable repair service to all residents, a sewerage/stormwater drain blockage policy has now been adopted by Council.

 

However, this deals with only one aspect of the damage caused by the roots of these trees and does not include damage to kerb and gutters, footpaths, external driveways, roadways, stormwater pits and drains, sewer mains, private property (fences, paving, driveways, garages, buildings), underground services, etc.

 

It is not uncommon for the roots of Ficus ‘Hillii’ to travel some 50-60 metres underneath a residence and to then push the tiles from bathroom walls in the rear of the property.

 

Over a period of several years a number of properties in Tedwin Avenue, Kensington, had their domestic sewerage systems replaced in PVC plastic between the residence and the Sydney Water mains because of damage caused by the roots of Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’.

 

Due to the ongoing intrusion of Ficus ‘Hillii’ tree roots into the mains itself, Sydney Water then installed an impermeable sleeve along the inside of the mains to prevent roots impacting on the functioning of the mains.

 

Within a relatively short period Ficus ‘Hillii’ roots had entered damaged joints in the old mains, travelled between the mains and the sleeve and had re-entered newly-installed PVC domestic sewer lines.   

 

Previous Council estimates were quoted as indicating these four tree species caused approximately $1,670,000 in recurrent damage and maintenance costs throughout the City annually – this figure included all costs associated with both damage to Council infrastructure and private property and maintenance of the subject trees.

 

Specifically, in the period between 1 July, 2001, and 30 June, 2002, figures show that the roots of these particular tree species caused approximately $1,126,800 in damage and maintenance costs throughout the City.

 

It should be noted that in just three months since 1 July, 2002, rectification works in West area (where the predominance of Ficus ‘Hillii’ are situated) directly attributable to the damage caused by aggressive-rooted street trees has been calculated at approximately $170,000.

 

There will obviously be fluctuations in any given period in the amount of money expended on infrastructure repairs associated with tree root damage compared with routine rectification works.

 

A variety of suggestions were made in public submissions lodged with Council for dealing with the problems associated with aggressive-rooted street trees and these are addressed below.

 

Tree root pruning – This option is always assessed wherever the roots of any Council tree asset are causing damage. However, in most cases it is only ever a temporary solution and within a relatively short period of time most tree roots regenerate and in fact become denser and potentially more problematic.

 

In the majority of situations involving the four subject tree species, root pruning is not considered to be a worthwhile exercise. These trees are usually growing in confined nature strip/footpath areas and the severing of major roots would not only compromise their stability but would also have a serious impact on their health and long-term viability.

 

It should be noted that the majority of tree roots grow within the top 500mm of soil and this is inevitably the area that needs to be excavated or trenched, etc, to be able to rectify the damage caused by tree roots.

 

It has been shown that in situations where root pruning has been carried out adjacent to these tree species, within two-five years recurrent damage to footpaths, driveways, kerb, etc, has once again become such a public liability concern that further remedial action is required – this is particularly the case with the Ficus ‘Hillii’ species.

 

Root pruning involving the four subject tree species cost Council approximately $34,000 last financial year and it is an area of expenditure that is increasing annually. Council’s tree gang now spends close to thirty percent of its time either trenching and/or root pruning and the amount of time spent on this activity is progressively increasing as well.

 

This work is both time-consuming and costly and it has a serious impact on Council’s tree gang being able to undertake a wide range of other tree maintenance tasks.

 

Tree root barriers – Where it is possible to prune the roots on trees that are causing major damage it has been suggested that the corresponding installation of a tree root barrier would ensure that any associated problems could be nullified.

 

When dealing with species such as Melaleucas, Casuarinas and Harpephyllums this is sometimes possible – provided there is enough space available to root prune and install the barrier without compromising the health and stability of affected trees.

 

With the Ficus species, there may be a small number of situations where there are only relatively small-diameter roots involved and the severing of those roots would not compromise either the health or stability of the tree.

 

In such cases, the installation of a solid concrete root barrier adjacent to the footpath might be possible and roots may be deflected laterally along the edge of the path and they would hopefully not extend into neighbouring dwellings.

 

This technology could also be utilised in situations where there is a very wide nature strip area (such as Bunnerong Road) and tree roots could be severed quite safely. In such cases the installation of a solid concrete root barrier would allow the retention of some trees but this would be applicable in only a very small number of cases. 

 

Experience, however, has shown that even if a tree root barrier is installed adjacent to a mature Ficus ‘Hillii’ species, the roots often simply re-grow and travel over, under or around the barrier. This even occurred where a chemically impregnated tree root barrier was installed to a depth of two metres and the roots of a nearby Ficus ‘Hillii’ travelled down and underneath the barrier.

 

The recent removal of a section of heritage brick footpath along Day Avenue, Kensington, also revealed that Ficus ‘Hillii’ roots had simply travelled over the top of a section of chemically impregnated root barrier and had then proceeded to dislodge the bricks as they travelled towards the brick fence of the adjacent property. 

 

Even if a root barrier is installed it generally does not effectively deal in the long-term with damage to footpaths, kerb and gutter, external driveways or the roadway. This type of infrastructure is usually too close to allow a barrier to be installed adjacent to a large street tree without adversely affecting its stability and/or health.

 

Woollahra Council has installed root barriers for a number of years where possible but discussions with its Manager – Parks and Streetscapes have simply reinforced the view that they are only ever employed as a temporary solution to some of the problems associated with particular tree species.

 

Footpath damage – One of the most common and ongoing problems associated with aggressive-rooted street trees is damage to footpaths and the accompanying public liability risk. This can be perfectly demonstrated in George Street, Randwick, and Wansey Road, Randwick. These two streets show the potential extent of root damage caused by Ficus ‘Hillii’ if their root growth is allowed to go unchecked.

 

There was outrage expressed by a number of Kensington residents recently when two mature Ficus ‘Hillii’ street trees were removed from outside 64-66 Balfour Road, Kensington. It appeared that the only damage that was obvious was the uplifting of sections of pavers adjacent to where the trees were growing.

 

However, once the trees were removed and stump ground, the paving contractors who were engaged by Council to re-instate the footpath found large numbers of tree roots up to 200mm in diameter travelling under the front brick fences and into adjoining properties and had the trees not been removed it would only have been a matter of time before they would have caused structural damage to those properties.

 

One respondent suggested that where footpath damage is being caused by significant street trees that perhaps the construction of the footpath over the roots should be considered. If this were the only problem that had to be dealt with this may be a reasonable suggestion.

 

However, this is only one of a number of problems usually associated with large street trees that are obviously inappropriate for growing in confined urban situations.

 

The cost to Council to undertake footpath repairs directly attributable to the damage caused by the four subject tree species between 1 July, 2001, and 30 June, 2002, has been calculated at $320,800. The cost of footpath restorations where damage was directly linked to tree roots has been calculated at approximately $150,000 for the last financial year.

 

Sewer/stormwater damage – As mentioned previously, Council has identified this as an area of increasing expenditure, and adopted a sewerage/stormwater policy and procedure on 27 August, 2002.

 

While acknowledging that Council-owned tree assets may be contributing to the damage caused to domestic sewerage systems, this policy also recognises that these systems are often quite old and in a deteriorating state and that the maintenance of these systems in a serviceable condition is the responsibility of the property owner.

 

There are a variety of measures contained in this policy that should ensure that Council reduces its costs in relation to damage caused to domestic sewer systems by the roots of its tree assets while at the same time minimising its long-term risk exposure by encouraging property owners to upgrade their existing sewer systems to PVC plastic wherever possible.

 

As has already been stated, the cost to Council of clearing sewerage pipes and repairing sewer/stormwater damage in the 2001/02 financial year was $313,000.

 

Damage to private property – A number of respondents to this strategy who are directly affected by ongoing damage to their properties caused by Council tree assets (primarily Ficus ‘Hillii’) have expressed their desire to have the relevant trees removed and replaced with more appropriate tree species.

 

This is certainly the case with property owners in streets that are planted out with the four previously mentioned species and in particular avenues planted with Ficus ‘Hillii’.

 

It should be pointed out, however, that the removal of large established street trees is an issue that certainly polarises people and residents who are not directly impacted upon by damage caused by these assets are often strenuously opposed to their removal.

 

The type of structural damage caused to private property by street trees ranges from damage to front fences, driveways, carports/garages, garden areas to far more serious damage to residences themselves.

 

The extent of damage to residences can range from minor cracks and insignificant structural movement to tree roots pushing off rendering and tiles in bathrooms, to major cracking and structural movement in the buildings themselves.

 

The direct cost to Council for damage to private property in the period 1 July, 2001, to 30 June, 2002, was $230,000.

 

Development Applications – Another area of growing impact on significant, established street trees is an increase in the number of property owners who are making application to Council for approval to build garages/carports and/or to add extensions to their residences.

 

These types of building and construction works usually involve significant excavation operations that impact dramatically on the root systems of large, established trees.

 

Where possible root pruning may allow these building works to be undertaken but it is highly likely that if the subject tree is retained in conjunction with these works that at some stage tree roots will subsequently damage those buildings.

 

Obviously, as people buy into the area and renovate their properties the problems associated with the root growth patterns of some tree species will increase. This is particularly the case in some of the older areas of the City where there is a concentration of semi-detached dwellings in avenues planted out with Ficus ‘Hillii’.

 

It is often simply not possible to realistically retain these street tree species while at the same time accommodating the legitimate desire of property owners to renovate and improve their properties.

 

Other issues - There is also the problem with these four particular tree species of their roots protruding above ground level and creating not only very real trip hazards but also impeding people from opening car doors and alighting from their motor vehicles.

 

Although this may seem like a relatively trivial matter, it is an issue that is raised on a regular basis and it particularly impacts on the elderly. Another matter that affects the elderly perhaps more than other groups is the issue of tree roots restricting and even prohibiting their ability to utilise the front garden areas of their properties. This is often one of the only pleasures afforded people in their twilight years and Ficus roots particularly can make any sort of gardening exercise difficult, if not almost impossible.

 

Another issue of particular concern to the elderly is the seasonal production and dropping of fruit and/or seed pods from Ficus ‘Hillii’ and Casuarina glauca. Fig trees drop copious amounts of very fleshy berries onto the ground and She Oaks drop large numbers of round seed capsules.

 

Although only a seasonal issue, both constitute a very real trip hazard, particularly for the elderly and the disabled.

 

Of perhaps less importance is the copious and continuing amount of leaf/needle drop associated with both Ficus ‘Hillii’ and Casuarina glauca.

 

Ficus leaves are continually blocking street gutters and often block stormwater pits as well. They then simply lie and rot on the roadway – often assisted by the fact that water is ponding in the road as a consequence of infrastructure damage caused by tree root activity.

 

Casuarina glauca needles take an inordinate period of time to break down and residents often complain about being unable to park underneath this tree species because of the amount of debris that falls between their car bonnet and the windscreen wiper area.

 

This tree species is also renowned for sending up large numbers of suckers in lawn and nature strip areas and this is often exacerbated by lawn mowing, edging, etc.

 

It should also be noted that in addition to the damages costs identified above, the cost to Council for the annual maintenance (pruning, root pruning, etc) of these four species throughout the City is in the vicinity of $75,000.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

From a tree management perspective it is simply not possible to effectively deal with the myriad number of problems associated with the four tree species referred to over the longer term. It is often possible to temporarily deal with one or two of these issues, but this is generally only a temporary solution.

 

Up until now, Council has dealt with the damage caused by these trees in a fairly ad hoc manner.

 

Temporary measures such as root pruning, footpath restoration, clearing blocked sewer pipes, repairing front fences, etc, are undertaken by Council until ongoing problems become so serious that the only realistic and cost-effective option that remains is the removal and replacement of an offending tree.

 

The serious problems associated with the intrusive roots of Ficus ‘Hillii’ were recognised by Council some years ago and were highlighted in its Tree Policy document drafted in 1992. With the passage of time these problems have become markedly worse to the point that they are now simply unmanageable.

 

That same 1992 policy document recommended the implementation of a progressive removal and replacement program for all Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing within the City and any such program should also include Melaleuca quinquenervia, Casuarina glauca and Harpephyllum caffrum species.

 

There are basically four options for ‘dealing’ with the damage caused by these four tree species.

 

The first is that Council officers continue to ‘patch up’ the damage caused by these trees and that they are retained for as long as possible.

 

The second option would be to progressively remove them on an individual basis as soon as a justifiable case could be mounted for such action – i.e., DA approval, scope and severity of root damage, public liability, declining health of tree, etc.

 

The third option would involve removing every second or third tree at a particular point in time and planting replacement trees wherever existing trees are removed. These would become established over a twenty-odd year period and a second wave of trees could then be removed and replaced.

 

This course of action would allow for the removal and replacement of the most problematic tree species over a sixty-year timeframe.

 

The most dramatic course of action would be a program of removal and replacement of the 2000-odd identified problematic street trees over a much shorter period of time. This would certainly be the preferred tree management option and would be the best long-term solution for effectively dealing with the problems associated with the subject tree species as well as minimising recurrent costs.

 

However, this would have a profound effect on the character of the entire City and would result in the removal of large numbers of highly significant tree assets. Even if they were replaced with super-advanced replacement species, it would be decades before the existing significant avenue plantings could be replicated.

 

This action could also have a detrimental effect on property values and could certainly make buying into streets where these trees are to be removed a far less attractive idea to prospective purchasers.

 

If Council is to effectively address this issue, these problematic street trees should be progressively removed and replaced over a relatively short timeframe that would allow the establishment of streetscapes of more appropriate tree species that will cause very little damage to either public infrastructure or private property.

 

Should the systematic removal and replacement of the Ficus ‘Hillii’ not be supported by Council, I would ask that the removal of the other three species over an agreed-to timeframe be approved.

 

 

 

 

 

These trees are of far less historic and heritage value than the Ficus ‘Hillii’ but their root structures still cause an inordinate amount of serious damage to both private property and public infrastructure.

 

In conclusion, these four tree species are completely inappropriate for growing in confined nature strip/footpath areas and for as long as they are retained the problems associated with them will persist.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Randwick City Council adopts a ten-year program to remove all Ficus microcarpa var. Hillii, Melaleuca quinquenervia, Casuarina glauca and Harpephyllum caffrum street tree assets and that they be replaced with more appropriate tree species – as per Council’s Street Tree Master Plan.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 138/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

BOWEN LIBRARY - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS

 

 

DATE:

21 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4519

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In accordance with Councils resolution of the 25th of June 2002 selected tenders were called for the Bowen Library: Alterations & Additions Project. This project basically involved the addition of a third floor and building associated upgrades.  After a four (4) week tendering period, the Tender closed on 5 November 2002.

All of the four (4)  pre-qualified tenderers’ submitted bids that generally conformed to the requirements of the Tender Specification.  Discussion and evaluation of these Tenders are set out in this report.

 

BACKGROUND

An expression of interest was sought from Architectural consultants for the Design and Documentation of the new third floor (and later to include rectification of the now degradation façade). Stephenson & Turner International (S&TI) was selected.

The Bowen Library is Council’s principal Library and accommodates, among others, Council’s sponsored /assisted Community Services Groups. Council’s objective is to provide additional accommodation for four (4) community service groups and organisations in a central and co-coordinated environment to achieve a synergy of community services providing timely & efficient delivery.

The accommodation needs could be met by constructing an additional third floor on the Bowen Library (Randwick HACC facility). In May 1997, the Aging & Disability Department contributed $673,052 towards the construction of the Randwick HACC facility.

The original tender estimate for the proposed HACC facility being $1.2M but changes were required as part of the Maroubra Townscape DCP by Councils planning consultants (Urban Design Consulting Services part of Planning NSW). As such significant changes to S&TI’s design were required and consequently the construction costs were re-estimated at $1.4M.

An expression of interest was called to pre-qualify Builders for the Project. In accordance with Council resolution from Ordinary Council Meeting of 25th June 2002, five (5) pre-qualified Builders were selected for the proposed Randwick HACC facility; subsequently one withdrew due to other commitments.

On 8 October 2002 Tenders were called with Tender closure being 5 November 2002; All four (4) of the pre-qualified builders submitted tenders with Beach Constructions Pty Ltd being the lowest price Tender ($1,756,248.00 ex. GST) and excludes additional $50,000.00 for insurance cover.

 

 

TENDER ASSESSMENT

1. General

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 1993.  Tenderer’ were also given an indication of the selection criteria, (see below) to be referred to in the evaluation:

(a)        Price;

(b)        Period of time to complete the Work;

(c)        Financial Capacity to carry out the Work;

(d)        Experience and ability to complete Work;

(e)        Compliance with the Specification;

(f)         Quality management system of the tenderer’; and

(g)        Occupational Health and Safety.

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.

2. Evaluation Team

A thorough and detailed evaluation of all tender submissions, was conducted by a panel comprising, Council’s Manager Contracts and Purchasing, Adrian O’Leary, Stephenson & Turner International (S&TI), Geoff Larkin and Project Manager, Brian Jacobs.

 

3. 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 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 Final” sheet. 

3.   The Final evaluation scores were then transferred to the “Cost / Needs Analysis” sheet and related to the tenderers‘ Fixed Lump Sum Tendered Price adjusted as may have been required for conformance with the tender specification. 

4.   After the initial evaluation of the tenders received, the Team agreed that the Tender from Beach Constructions Pty Ltd represented the best “value for money”.

5.   The results of this assessment are attached.

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

Criteria

Weighting

Compliance with Specification

10%

Programme

20%

Environmental, OH&S and Quality

20%

Technical

25%

Rates

20%

References

5%

TOTAL

100%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF TENDERERS

 

1. Evaluation Summary

 

ITEM

COMPANY

AMOUNT $ (ex. GST)-refer Tender Evaluation

EVALUATION SCORE (%)

COMMENT

Actual

Adjusted

1

Beach Constructions Pty Ltd

1,756,248

1,806,248

78.1%

Adjustment for conformance (Works Insurance) -$50,000

2

Infinity

2,113,160

2,140,150

79.7%

Adjustment for conformance –(aluminium sunscreens) $26,894

3

Brodyn Construction Pty Ltd

2,268,427

-

75.9%

-

4

Fugen Pty Ltd

2,825,043

-

69.5%

No allowance for Propping of wet concrete to Level 2 –not estimated here

No Professional Indemnity Insurance

 

2. General

Beach Constructions Pty Ltd

Beach Constructions has been in business for over 10 years and is a medium sized concern with twelve (12 ) office staff and eleven (11) site supervisory staff. Turnover of up to $30M per annum. Projects range in size from $1M to $15M. A broad spectrum of completed projects, which include Commercial, industrial, Educational, retail.

Beach had the lowest cost $1,806,248.00 (adjusted) and the second highest Evaluation Score of 78.1%.

Infinity Pty Ltd

Infinity is a medium sized company, which commenced trading in 1992. Infinity has completed a number of School, University and Government projects ranging from $1.1M to $10.0M. The company operates under a full Quality Assurance system.

Infinity had the second lowest Tender price $2,140,150.00 (adjusted) and the highest Evaluation Score of 79.7%; however their adjusted price is approx. 16% greater than Beach Constructions Pty Ltd.

 

Brodyn Pty Ltd (T/as Time Cost & Quality)

Medium sized company that employs twenty eight (28) staff and has been in operation for twenty (20) years. Company turnover is $14M per annum and operates under full Quality Assurance.  Projects completed to date are mainly institutional projects and this included a level 4 extension to a Prince of Wales Hospital building.

Brodyn’s price of $2,268,427.00 is approx. 20% higher than Beach Constructions Pty Ltd and Brodyn have the third lowest Evaluation Score of 75.9%.

 

Fugen Pty Ltd

Fugen Constructions was incorporated in 1995 and have completed over 160 projects. A medium sized company employing thirty (30) staff with projects ranging from $0.5M to $7.0M. Fugen have had considerable Public Sector project experience.

Fugen’s price of $2,825,043 is the highest and the Evaluation Score is the lowest Score i.e. 69.5%. Also, Fugen have excluded pricing Professional Indemnity Insurance and “back propping wet concrete load down to Level 2 floor slab”.

 

                             

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Project Cost

 

Should Council accept a tender for this project additional costs will be incurred as part of the project. Based on the tender for beach constructions the total project cost is detailed below. These additional costs will be similar for all tenders.

 

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

AMOUNT ($) ex. GST

ESTIMATE ($)

1

Adjusted Contractor Tender Price (Beach Constructions Pty Ltd)

1,806,248

 

2

Variations (say approx. 5% of contract sum)

 

90,273

3

Council IT –New Microwave etc.

53,000

 

4

Temporary Awning rectification

 

3,000

5

Stephenson & Turner Fee

 

 

 

   Base Fee

 

22,080

 

   Daily Site Visit & Review Shop Drawings & Request For Information / Design Change Requests. Review “As built drwgs”

 

30,360

 

6

Relocate furniture (i.e. tables, shelving)

 

 

   From 2nd to 1st

           Floor

 

4,000

   From 1st to 2nd

     Floor

 

4,000

   Temporary IT

 

5,000

7

Resources

 

 

   Safety Audits (4hrs/week)

 

 

13,000

8

Construction Certificate (DA Fees)-Stage 1 only

 

 

 

 

 

   Cl. 5.Townscape improvements

19,359

 

 

   Cl. 5.Car parking

33,375

 

 

   Cl. 5. Admin. fee

425

 

 

   Cl. 6. Construct Mini-bus

Drop-off bay

N/A

 

 

   Cl. 13 Trees

880

 

 

   Cl.15 Landscape deposit

5,000

 

9.

*Risk Assessment

 

10,000

FUNDS (approx.) REQUIRED TO COMPLETE PROJECT –TOTAL = $2,100,000

(as at 20/11/02)

*refer Attachment J4 –Risk Register

 

OPTIONS

As part of the project evaluation process five Options for the project were considered:

1. “Do nothing”

2. Maintenance only

3.Reduce Scope of Works

4. Source alternative accommodation

5. Proceed with Project

 

 

1.“Do nothing”

 

Expenditure:

   Cancel Project

   Tidy plastic covering on temporary awning-                                $3,000

Total cost:                     $3,000

 

Notes

   Façade degradation not addressed in this option

   Council will need to return Grant of $673,052.00 to Government (previously Aging & disability Department)

 

2.Maintenance only

   Cancel Project

   Fix Façade degradation & remove Awning                          $250,000

Total cost:                $250,000

 

Notes:

   Council will need to return Grant of $673,052 to Government (previously Aging & Disability Department)

 

3.Reduce Scope of Works

   Construction [Re-design & reduce scope

      of works by $406,248.00]                                                        $1,400,000

   Other necessary costs (DA, IT etc)                                           $323,479

 

Total cost:        $1,723,479

 

Notes:

   State Government (Planning) requirements may need to be reviewed

   Re-negotiate with tenderers for reduced Scope of Works

 

 

4. Source alternative accommodation

A study would need to be commissioned to review costs of alternative accommodation including purchasing an existing facility or building new accommodation; the cost of this study is estimated at $50,000 (if out-sourced).

 

     Notes:

   Council would still need to expend funds to purchase/build/lease a facility

   Council would need to check viability of utilizing Section 94 funds towards selected solution

 

                                                                                   

5.Proceed with Project

 

   Construction                                                                             $1,806,248

   Other necessary costs (DA, IT etc)                                              $293,752

 

Total cost:                    $2,100,000

 

 

FUNDING

 

1. General

   Section 94 Contributions for this project was previously at $350,000 based on an estimated cost  of $1.4M. However, the cost is now increased to approx. $2.10M; accordingly the Section 94 contribution, being 25% of the cost, would increase to $525,000.00.

 

2. Funding Sources (based on Project Out-turn cost of $2.1M ex. GST)

ITEM

FUNDS AVAILABLE

AMOUNT (EX. GST)

$

1

Grant: Department of Aging & Disability

673,052

2

Section 94 Contributions

525,000

3

2002/03 Budget

489,972

4

Reserve for Future Works

411,976

 

TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS

$2,100,000

     

CONCLUSION:

1.   The Evaluation Team considered all the four (4) tenders; it was agreed that the tender received from Beach Construction Pty Ltd for an amount of $1,806,248 was the preferred Tender.

2.   Project cost is $2,100,000.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.   Council accept the Tender of Beach Constructions Pty Ltd for the (adjusted) Tender price of $1,806,248 (ex. GST).

 

2.   Funds from the following sources be allocated to the Project:

 

ITEM

FUNDS AVAILABLE

AMOUNT (EX. GST)

$

1

Grant: Department of Aging & Disability

673,052

2

Section 94 contributions

525,000

3

2002/03 Budget

489,972

4

Reserve for Future Works

411,976

 

TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS

$2,100,000

 

 

3.Council amend the Section 94 Contributions Plan to reflect the current Project cost of $2.1M (ex. GST).

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER 

J1   Evaluation Scoring Guidelines.

J2  Final Scores

J3  Needs Vx Costs Analysis

J4  Risk Register -

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRIAN JACOBS

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

PROJECT MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 139/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

TENDER 16/2002 - CONCRETE AND ASPHALT GRINDING WORKS.

 

 

DATE:

21 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2435

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In accordance with the General Manager’s permission, tenders were called for a preferred supplier of footpath and road grinding services to reduce trip hazards throughout the city of Randwick. The services tendered for are as follows:

 

§ Footpath Grinding

§ Road Grinding

 

It was specified that the contract period would be for 2 years with an optional extension for a further year. 

 

Tenders closed on Tuesday 24th September 2002, with four (4) submissions received for categories within the list.  Discussion and evaluation of the Tenders received are set out in this report.

 

ISSUES:

 

BACKGROUND

 

Presently, Council replaces sections of footpath where there is a variation in level at either a control joint or a crack.  The process of replacement is time consuming, repetitive and does not necessarily provide the best value for money required by the Council.

 

To address this inefficiency it was decided to undertake a tender process for grinding of footpaths and roads to remove trip slabs and on determination of a supplier offering the greatest value for money, enter into a “Preferred Supplier” agreement with them for a defined period of time.

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 1993. Tenderers were also given an indication of the selection criteria (see below), which would be used in the evaluation process:

(a)        The rates;

(b)        Quality Management;

(c)        Occupational Health and Safety;

(d)        Experience

(e)        Capacity to undertake the works.

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 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, was conducted by a panel comprising:

§ Mr. Shane Cooke – Technical Officer, Assets& Infrastructure

§ Mr. Brian Longbottom – Coordinator, Coastal

§ Mr. Simon Parbery – Administration Assistant, Governance Management & Information Services

Evaluation Process

The process of Evaluation was:

1.   The evaluation committee undertook an objective quantative assessment of the completed schedules, 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 Scoring” sheet. 

3.   The tenderers rates, submitted in Schedule B3 “Tender Submission” were used to determine the best rates score on the basis that the highest rates got the lowest score and conversely the lowest rates got the highest score.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As was the structure of works set out in the tender document, all tenderers submitted rates for all specified categories. All categories were collated and assessment of rates was structured on an average calculation, which then enabled the committee to assess highest to lowest rate.

 

The tender rates submitted by North Shore Paving Company Pty Ltd and A & C Group Pty Ltd, appeared extremely high in relation to the outlined scope of works compared to the other two companies. A closer examination of their tenders in relation to the machinery that they have nominated to carry out the works indicates an over-resourcement of plant for the required operation. This is the reason that their prices are so high. Because of the high rates tendered, no further consideration was given to these 2 companies.

 

Sydney Mini Profilers Pty Ltd submitted by far the cheapest rates for the works but scored badly in the OH&S section of the evaluation where they themselves noted in B13 of their submission that they had received an infringement from Workcover. Their system of collecting waste materials allowed the escape of materials in some instances and their

 reference checks were not impressive.

 

The offer from The Australian Grinding Company (AGC) was evaluated to meet the specification requirements in all aspects. The response time for commencement of work offered by AGC was not as good as the other tenderers but was considered satisfactory and the rates offered were second to those submitted by Sydney Mini Profilers.

Their environmental and OH&S records were excellent and the reports from referees were good. AGC offered a system for collection of waste materials that vacuumed whilst grinding was undertaken, minimising any risk to the environment. This system was considered by the team to be superior to that offered by Sydney Mini Profilers.

To further evaluate the capabilities of AGC they were engaged to undertake some sample works. This test showed that AGC possessed the strong operational, environmental and OH&S capabilities required by the Council.

 

The Selection Committee independently scored the tenders based on the scoring guideline and The Australian Grinding Company Pty Ltd is the Selection Committee’s recommendation as preferred supplier for the grinding of roads and footpaths for the removal of trip hazards where this treatment is evaluated by Council officers as the appropriate treatment.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.       That Council accept the Tender submitted by the Australian Grinding Company Pty Ltd for Concrete and Asphalt Grinding Works.

 

2.       The Mayor and General Manager or their delegated representative be authorised to enter into an agreement for preferred supplier status with the successful tenderer for a period of 2-years with the option of extending the period of the agreement for a further 1-year. 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

UNDER SEPARATE COVER  - Evaluations -

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

SHANE COOKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ACTING OPERATIONAL RESOURCES CO-ORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 140/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUNDING FOR MAROUBRA BEACH PLAN OF MANAGEMENT WORKS STAGE 5 AND CLOVELLY PROMENADES NORTH SIDE REPAIR FOR THE 2002/2003 FINANCIAL YEAR

 

 

DATE:

21 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/2579

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council submitted the following projects for funding under the Department Land and Water Conservation’s (DLWC) Coastal Management Program for the 2002/2003 financial year.

 

Priority Project Title                                                                              Value

1.                     Maroubra Beach Plan of Management Works Stage 5  $1,000,000

2.                     Clovelly Bay north side promenade repair                                 $2,750,000

3.                     Malabar Beach Redevelopment Works Stage 4                        $200,000

4.                     Frenchman’s Bay Plan of Management Works Stage 1  $162,500

5.                     Eastern Beaches Coastal Walk                                     $100,000

 

           

The DLWC (attachment No 1) has advised that all Randwick City Council’s projects have been unsuccessful in attracting funding under the Coastal Management Program for the 2002/2003 financial year.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The full break up of Councils budget allocations for these projects is listed below for consideration of Councillors

 

Project

Budget

Grant

Sec 94

Reserve

Revenue

Maroubra Beach

$2,000,000

$500,000

$375,000

$1,125,000

$

Malabar Headland

$425,000

$100,000

$50,000

$225,000

$50,000

Clovelly promenade

$2,160,000

$1,080,000

$540,000

$0

$540,000

Frenchmans Bay POM

$325,000

$0

$50,000

$125,000

$150,000

Coastal Walkway

$410,000

$80,000

$40,000

$250,000

$40,000

 

The implication as a result of the lack of funding for these projects is discussed below.

 

Maroubra Beach:

Programmed Works at Maroubra beach this year were to include the redevelopment of McKeon Street and the construction of a regional playground facility adjacent to the Maroubra Surf Club. The lack of funding this year will not affect this project as the department has previously brought forward fund last financial year to facilitate the construction of the skate park and works on McKeon Street.

 

Clovelly Promenade

It was proposed as part of this years works program that the full reconstruction of the Northern Promenade would be carried out. Due to the extent of this work it was proposed that the works continue over two budget periods. The full extent of works on the northern promenade will not be able to be completed unless funds from the state government are guaranteed, or Council fully funds the project. The additional cost of fully funding the project would be in excess of $1 Mill.

 

Significant planning for this project has already commenced including wave modelling of the new promenade, structural design and public consultation.

 

Malabar Beach Redevelopment Works Stage 4

It was proposed that works for this financial year would include rehabilitation of the Northern headland. This part of the headland adjacent to the new parkland was used to dump construction waste in previous years. Council has undertaken works in relation to proposals to rehabilitate the area and options for the works are being developed. Council was seeking a grant of $100,000 to proceed with this works. The works will be reduced in scope. Officer are will review options for continuation of this project once final consultancy reports have been received and the matter reported separately to Council.

 

Frenchman’s Bay Plan of Management Works Stage 1

Council has recently adopted the Frenchmans Bay POM and have budgeted $325,000 for works this year. Funding for this project was not expected to be granted as Council currently has three projects (listed above), which have been continuing over a number of years. As such the lack of funding will not affect works programmed for this financial year.

 

Eastern Beaches Coastal Walk.

Funding for this project was not expected to be granted as Council currently has three projects (listed above), which have been continuing over a number of years. As such the lack of funding will have a minor affect on the extent of works programmed for this financial year.

 

The continuation of Councils ongoing coastal projects will be significantly affected the reduction in funding by the state government. Council will need to either identify additional sources of funding or cut and delay funding projects to continue with the current program.

 

Of these projects the only project, which cannot continue in its current state, is the Clovelly promenade project. Council may wish to reallocate its now surplus contribution for the Clovelly promenade replacement (being $540,000 revenue and a portion of the Section 94 Contribution) to another project or put this money aside for works in another financial year.

 

Unfortunately given the advise of the department it would seem unlikely that funds for large projects such as Clovelly and Maroubra will be available next financial year. It would seem probable that projects such as Clovelly would need to be fully funded in future years, as such it would seem appropriate that these funds be put aside now and that consideration be given to fully funding this project in the 2003/2004 budget.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As stated previously in this report works can continue on Maroubra Beach, Malabar headland, Frenchmans Bay POM works and the Coastal Walkway projects. However works on projects such as Clovelly promenades may need to be deferred and funds put aside until additional funding can be secured.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That: the report be noted.

 

2.         That $540,000 be put in reserve for the funding of the Clovelly promenade replacement in the 2003/2004 budget.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Letter from B. Dooley-Manager, Resource Access & Compliance Sydney/South Coast, Department of Lane & Water Conservation.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER - ASSETS

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 141/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

NATIONAL BLACKSPOT PROGRAMME 2002-2003

 

 

DATE:

18 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1257

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Advice has been received from the Roads and Traffic Authority that projects under the National Black Spot Programme have been approved by the Federal Minister for Transport & Regional Services.

 

 

ISSUES:

 

The following projects have been approved for 100% funding under the programme:

 

TREATMENT

LOCATION

COST

Install pedestrian kerb extensions

Maroubra Road at Flower Street, Maroubra

$30,000

Install roundabout and resurface intersection

Doncaster Avenue at Ascot Street, Randwick

$100,000

 

The above projects were nominated under the programme due to their poor accident history and their eligibility under the programme criteria of at least three casualty crashes in the most recent 5 years of crash data, and a safety Benefit Cost Ratio of 2.0 or greater.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

If Council wishes to participate in the National Black Spot Programme 2002-2003, acceptance of grant and its associated conditions is required.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

 That Council accept the National Black Spot Programme funding for 2002-2003

 

for the installation of pedestrian kerb extensions in Maroubra Road at Flower Street, Maroubra in the amount of $30,000; and for the installation of a roundabout and resurfacing of the intersection of Doncaster Avenue at Ascot Street, Randwick in the amount of $100,000.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

MALCOLM HILL

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASEET ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 40/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

ARRANGEMENTS DURING CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR PERIOD FOR DECISIONS TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL AND SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR YEAR 2003.

 

 

DATE:

7 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/1738 xr 98/S/1078

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report outlines a method for matters to continue to be processed during the Christmas/New Year period and to advise Councillors of the proposed meeting schedule for the forthcoming calendar year.

 

ISSUES:

 

As has been customary for several years, a list, detailing the meeting schedule for the forthcoming year, has been prepared and is attached for information purposes.

 

Should a necessity arise for any meeting dates to be altered, the provisions of the Council’s Policy No. 2.01.06 will prevail.

 

It has been the practice for many years for the Council to take a recess following the last Ordinary Meeting in December to give Councillors and Officers the opportunity to either take holidays or to finalise the year’s activities and plan for the following twelve months.  During the previous recess periods, the Council’s Policy No. 1.01.11, which provided a means of obtaining decisions on urgent or important matters, prevailed. Over the past Christmas/New Year period (2001/02), no items of business were dealt with under this Policy.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council may proceed during the Christmas/New Year period, without the requirement for formal Committee and Council Meetings to be conducted, with the utilisation of Policy No. 1.01.11 during that time.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That the Council recess following its Ordinary Meeting on Tuesday, 10th December, 2002 and thence resume meetings in the new year commencing with Committee Meetings on Tuesday, 11th February, 2003, and during this period the provisions of Policy No. 1.01.11 prevail, subject to the need for any Extraordinary Meetings to be held in the intervening period to consider pressing matters; and

 

(b)        That the Meeting Schedule for the Year 2003 be adopted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Policy No. 1.01.11

2. Policy No. 2.01.06

3. Council and Committee dates for Year 2003 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 


 

                                                 RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

                                                          POLICY REGISTER

 

 

 

               PART 1 - COUNCIL MATTERS, MAYOR, COUNCILLORS AND STAFF

 

 

Review Date:   /   /19                                                                                        Policy No:  1.01.11

 

 

POLICY TITLE:          COUNCIL IN RECESS - PROCEDURE.

 

 

File No.                        98/S/1738 xr 98/S/1078

 

 

                                                                 OBJECTIVE

 

To provide a means of obtaining decisions on important or urgent Council matters at times of Council recess.

 

 

                                                        POLICY STATEMENT

 

That subject to other policies of the Council and to Section 377 of the Local Government Act 1993:-

 

The Mayor, the Deputy Mayor, the General Manager and, if required, the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson of the relevant Committee (and in any event a minimum of three (3) persons) jointly be authorised to make decisions which would otherwise be made by the Council and any such decisions are to be unanimous and circulated to Councillors for their information.

 

 

 

Minute No:  386/1986                                                             Meeting Date:  12 August, 1986.

Amended:    386/1993                                                             21 September, 1993.

                    582/1993                                                             14 December, 1993.

                    566/1994                                                             18 October, 1994.

                    577/1994                                                             22 November, 1994.

                    381/1996                                                             10 December, 1996.

                    264/1998                                                             24 November, 1998.

                    163/2000                                                             5 September, 2000.

                    219/2000                                                             28 November, 2000.


 

RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART 2 – GENERAL MANAGER’S OFFICE

 

 

Review Date:          /      /20                                                                  Policy No: 2.01.06

 

 

 

POLICY TITLE: COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS – AUTHORITY TO VARY DATES AND TIMES.

 

 

File No:                        C-16-7

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

To allow flexibility in complying with the schedule of meeting dates and times for Council and Committee Meetings.

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

That the General Manager is authorised to vary the schedule of meeting dates and times for meetings of Committees and the Council, when it is not practicable or desirable to hold meetings on a particular designated night to ensure that one meeting of each general committee and an Ordinary meeting of the Council is held each month, except for the month of January (289/1989 – 19/9).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Minute No:       427/1987                                 Meeting Date:   27 October, 1987.

Amended:         289/1989                                                         19 September, 1989.

General Manager’s Del. Auth.               Revised legislation-

Policy No. 2.01.04 [No. 14 (ii) ]                      Local Government Act, 19


COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETING DATES FOR 2003

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

 

JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

 

MON

 

 

 

 

 

 

MON

TUE

 

 

 

1

 

 

TUE

WED

1 New Years Day

 

 

2

 

 

WED

THU

2

 

 

3

1 Deadline: Committees 13/5

 

THU

FRI

3

 

 

4

2

 

FRI

SAT

4

1

1

5

3

 

SAT

SUN

5

2

2

6

4

1

SUN

MON

6

3

3

7

5

2

MON

TUE

7

4

4

8 Committees

6

3

TUE

WED

8

5

5

9

7

4

WED

THU

9

6

6

10

8

5

THU

FRI

10

7

7

11

9

6

FRI

SAT

11

8

8

12

10

7

SAT

SUN

12

9

9

13

11

8

SUN

MON

13

10

10

14

12

9 Queen’s Birthday

MON

TUE

14

11 Committees

11 Committees

15 Deadline: Council 22/4

13 Committees

10 Committees (incl. Man. Plan)

TUE

WED

15

12

12

16

14

11

WED

THU

16 

13

13

17

15

12

THU

FRI

17 

14

14

18 Good Friday

16 

13

FRI

SAT

18

15

15

19 Easter

17 

14

SAT

SUN

19

16 

16 

20 Easter

18

15

SUN

MON

20

17 

17 

21 Easter Monday

19

16 

MON

TUE

21

18

18

22 Council (Incl. Man. Plan)

20

17 

TUE

WED

22

19

19

23

21

18

WED

THU

23

20 Deadline: Council 25/2

20 Deadline: Council 25/3

24

22 Deadline: Council 27/5

19 Deadline: Council 24/6

THU

FRI

24

21

21

25 Anzac Day

23

20

FRI

SAT

25

22

22

26

24

21

SAT

SUN

26 Australia Day

23

23

27

25

22

SUN

MON

27

24

24

28

26

23

MON

TUE

28

25 Council

25 Council

29

27 Council

24 Council

TUE

WED

29

26

26

30

28

25

WED

THU

30 Deadline: Committees 11/2

27 Deadline: Committees 11/3

27 Deadline:  Committees 8/4

 

29 Deadline: Committees 10/6

26 Deadline: Committees 8/7

THU

FRI

31

28

28

 

30

27

FRI

 

JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

 

 

SAT

 

 

29

 

31

28

SAT

SUN

 

 

30

 

 

29

SUN

MON

 

 

31

 

 

30

MON

COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETING DATES FOR 2003

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

 

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

 

MON

 

 

1

 

 

1

MON

TUE

1

 

2

 

 

2 Committees

TUE

WED

2

 

3

1

 

3

WED

THU

3

 

4

2 Deadline: Committees 14/10

 

4 Deadline: Council 9/12

THU

FRI

4

1

5

3

 

5

FRI

SAT

5

2

6

4

1

6

SAT

SUN

6

3

7

5

2

7

SUN

MON

7

4

8

6 Labour Day

3

8

MON

TUE

8 Committees

5

9

7

4 Committees

9 Council

TUE

WED

9

6

10

8

5

10

WED

THU

10

7

11

9

6

11

THU

FRI

11

8

12

10

7

12

FRI

SAT

12

9

13 Local Govt Election

11

8 LGAC

13

SAT

SUN

13

10

14

12

9 LGAC

14

SUN

MON

14

11

15

13

10 LGAC

15

MON

TUE

15

12 Committees

16

14 Committees

11 LGAC

16 

TUE

WED

16 

13

17 

15

12 LGAC

17 

WED

THU

17  Deadline: Council 22/7

14

18

16

13

18

THU

FRI

18

15

19

17 

14

19

FRI

SAT

19

16 

20

18

15

20

SAT

SUN

20

17 

21

19

16 

21

SUN

MON

21

18

22

20

17 

22

MON

TUE

22 Council

19

23

21

18

23

TUE

WED

23

20

24

22

19

24

WED

THU

24

21 Deadline: Council  26/8

25 Deadline: Extraordinary Council  30/9

23 Deadline: Council 28/10

                     Committees 4/11

20 Deadline: Council 25/11

                    Committees 2/12

25 Christmas Day

THU

FRI

25

22

26

24

21

26 Boxing Day

FRI

SAT

26

23

27

25

22

27

SAT

SUN

27

24

28

26

23

28

SUN

MON

28

25

29

27

24

29

MON

 

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

 

 

TUE

29

26 Council

30 Extraordinary Council (Elect Mayor & C’ttees)

28 Council

25 Council

30

TUE

WED

30

27

 

29

26

31 New Year’s Eve

WED

THU

31 Deadline: Committees 12/8

28

 

30

27

 

THU

FRI

 

29

 

31

28

 

FRI

SAT

 

30

 

 

29

 

SAT

SUN

 

31

 

 

30

 

SUN

Meeting Times:

Community Services Committee

Works Committee

Administration & Finance Committee

5.30 p.m.

6.00 p.m.

6.00 p.m.

Council Meetings:

6.00 p.m.

 

Health, Building and Planning Committee

6.30 p.m.

Deadlines Close:

12.00 noon

G:\ADM\WP\GENERAL\STAN\MEETINGDATES-JAN-DEC 2003.doc    

7 November 2002


 

Director Governance Management & Information Services' Report 41/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

FIXING OF FEES AND CHARGES - DES RENFORD AQUATIC CENTRE AND PARKING METERS AT COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

20 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/0999

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council, at its meeting held on 17 September 2002 considered a report on the fixing of fees for the Des Renford Aquatic Centre and parking meters at Coogee.

 

ISSUES:

 

The report indicated that Council was required under the provisions of s 612 of the Local Government Act to give a minimum of twenty-eight (28) days public notice of the proposal to fix these fees.

 

The proposal to fix the fees was advertised in the Southern Courier and the closing date for submissions was 5 November 2002.

 

No submissions were received and a copy of the proposed fees is tabled.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the proposed fees and charges for the Des Renford Aquatic Centre and the metered parking fees at Coogee be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

BRIAN GREGAN

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

MANAGER FINANCIAL SERVICES


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 85/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

Kensington Town Centre - Draft Local Environmental Plan (Amendment No. 27) and Draft Development Control Plan 2002

 

 

DATE:

4 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/4343; 98/S/3849; 98/S/3784

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT           

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

As part of an Urban Improvement Program, Kensington town centre’s planning and design controls are being reviewed via the preparation of a draft Local Environmental Plan (LEP) Amendment No 27 and draft Development Control Plan (DCP) 2002. These draft plans have been publicly exhibited several times and revisions made to improve their application since their preparation commenced in May 2001. The draft plans were most recently revised and endorsed by Council on 17 September 2002 for re-exhibition.

 

The draft plans were exhibited from 30th September to 1 November 2002 and a shopfront exhibition was opened throughout this period to supplement the public consultation process. A total of 141 submissions were received and have been reviewed, assessed and revisions made to the draft plans to address these issues, where appropriate.

 

The draft plans have been endorsed by the Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS, a business unit of Planning NSW). They have also been referred to members of the Peer Review Group, with no objections received: Russell Olsson  (“several controls including the treatment of the Contributory Buildings/Mews Style Development are extremely innovative”); Stephen Buzacott (“seems much more strategic and achievable (than the previous) if it goes through intact – what they are trying to achieve is laudable”).

 

David Chesterman, of Jackson Teece Chesterman Willis Pty Ltd (a consultancy that prepared the 1998 Kensington town centre study) has also reviewed the draft plans in relation to his earlier study. He has advised that the draft DCP ‘is thorough and provides a sound framework within which good redevelopment is likely to occur’ (See copy of letter at Attachment C).

 

The draft plans are now considered to provide a best practice approach to planning and design of mixed-use developments in a medium density town centre. The draft DCP will be one of the first, if not the first, DCP in NSW to specifically incorporate the design requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 – ‘Design Quality of Residential Flat Development’ as well as the provisions of the recent Residential Flat Design Code prepared by Planning NSW, in accordance with the Premier and State Government initiatives for encouraging high quality design in all new development.

 

The draft LEP has been amended only in accordance with the requirements of the NSW Parliamentary Counsel for minor wording changes, with no change in the meaning or intent of the draft LEP. The Parliamentary Counsel has given its opinion that the draft LEP may be legally made. The draft DCP has been amended in response to submissions and government authority comments, by refining and improving the content of the draft DCP without, again, sufficient changes to its intent that would warrant its re-exhibition. 

 

This report reviews the issues raised in submissions and explains revisions/enhancements made to the draft documents in response.

 

The report recommends that the Council endorse the draft LEP (at Attachment H) and draft DCP (at Attachment I), as amended, and that the draft LEP be forwarded to the Minister for Planning requesting that he make the draft LEP in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (the Act).

 

LOCATION AND PLANNING CONTEXT

 

The current planning controls for the town centre are contained in LEP 1998. These provide a blanket approach across the centre via a 3B local Business Zone, permitting a range of retail, commercial and multi-unit housing development to a maximum height of 12 metres and Floor Space ratio of 1.5:1. Some sites in the centre are zoned 2C Residential land, with a maximum height of 12 metres and FSR of 0.9:1. A number already contain retail/commercial uses, which may involve existing use rights issues. The centre comprises primarily 2 storey development. Land surrounding the centre is also zoned 2 C Residential, comprising many 3 and 4 storey walk-up flats.

 

A key aim of the UIP project is to plan and provide for a sustainable long-term future for Kensington town centre as a local centre and the gateway to Randwick City. The town centre has a limited catchment of approximately 10,680 people (Census 2001), which increased by 425 since the 1996 Census primarily due to the growth of Raleigh Park. In the past financial year, only one additional dwelling (a dual occupancy) was completed in Kensington. This minimal change in population and low level of development activity raises issues for the future of the town centre, particularly given declining household sizes in Randwick City and across Sydney in general.

 

BACKGROUND - UIP:

 

The Urban Improvement Program for Kensington town centre commenced in February 2001 with a $385,000 grant from the State Government Planning NSW, to be matched by Council over this 3-year program. The UIP aims to revitalise Kensington town centre via a planning and design review, master planning for public domain improvements, liaison with all stakeholders, marketing and promotion of the town centre.

 

Previous reports to Council on the UIP, in summary, are as follows:

 

§ 23 October 2001 – Planning and design study

§ 4 December 2001 – Draft DCP

§ 26 February 2002 – Draft LEP/DCP

§ 28 May 2002 – Peer Review of the Doncaster and Lorne Ave sites

§ 25 June 2002 – Doncaster and Lorne Ave sites

§ 27 August 2002 – Update on Class 4 Application

§ 17 September 2002 – Revised draft LEP/DCP

§ 22 October 2002 - Mayoral Minute – Public Domain improvements

 

BACKGROUND – EARLIER INVESTIGATIONS:

 

In 1997, Council resolved to commence a planning study for Kensington town centre, in response to an application to rezone the Doncaster Plaza site, a recommendation from Cr Simpson  (arising from a S68 hearing on Randwick LEP 1998) and given funding from the Chamber of Commerce.

 

The study was undertaken by Jackson, Teece, Chesterman, Willis, Annand and Assoc and Leyshon Consulting (1998) (JTCW). This study noted three general options for the town centre as follows:

 

1.       Existing controls (Retain) (FSR 1.5:1, Height 4 storeys)

2.       Modest development (FSR 2:1 to 2.5:1, Height 4-6 storeys)

3.       Significant development (FSR 3:1, Height 8 storeys)

 

The JTCW study recommended a mix of options 1 and 2, with an FSR of 2:1 and building height of 4 storeys, and 6 storeys on the Doncaster Plaza site.

 

This study led to Council’s preparation of a draft LEP No 4 and draft DCP, recommending an FSR of 2:1 and height of 12 metres across the centre (4 storeys), with 18 metres (Council later reduced this to 15m) for the Doncaster plaza site.

 

The JCTW study noted that ‘taking into account existing site values in Kensington, it appears that an FSR of 3:1 would be required to achieve development in core retail areas where the amalgamation of a significant number of small properties is required’.

 

The study noted elsewhere that under these proposed controls ‘it is our opinion that much of the existing town centre will not redevelop’.

 

‘Proposed development of generally 4 storeys at FSR of 2:1 would provide some (although not excessive) incentive for redevelopment of non-core sites. Small core sites are unlikely to amalgamate and redevelop at this FSR’.

 

The earlier draft LEP No 4 was forwarded to the Minister in 1999. However, given the State Government’s concerns that the proposed changes would have limited (if any) impact on development activity in the centre and given also an increasing Government emphasis on high quality design in planning controls, the draft LEP was not made and draft DCP not finalised.

 

 

 

BACKGROUND - CURRENT INVESTIGATIONS

 

A key task of the UIP was to review previous research and extend these investigations to determine the optimal planning/design controls which would provide sufficient incentive for new high quality development to replace and/or enhance the existing, largely poor quality built form, to respond to State Government initiatives on good design guidelines, and to provide housing to expand the local market and improve the centre’s long term commercial viability and attractiveness.

 

In May 2001, Council commissioned independent consultants Civitas Partnership to undertake a detailed planning and design review. This review took a more detailed approach than the previous JTCW study, by examining each block and specific sites within the town centre, rather than taking a blanket centre-wide approach to planning/design controls.

 

A background study, draft DCP and draft public domain improvement strategy were prepared and exhibited on several occasions and in conjunction with the draft LEP (see Council reports of 23 October 2001, 26 February 2002, 21 May 2001 and 25 June 2002). An extensive community consultation process was undertaken throughout the preparation, as noted in Council’s 17 September 2002 report.

 

In the meantime, Council engaged a new Place Manager, Ilona Van Galen, supported by Joseph Rega, both of Regalia Consulting, and with expertise in architecture, retail and marketing. The Place Manager in conjunction with staff undertook a review of the submissions and draft documents, with particular attention to retail and design best practice. The draft plans were revised and refined for the recent public exhibition.

 

The Doncaster Plaza and Lorne Ave sites generated specific concerns throughout the draft LEP/DCP preparation process. These were revised in detail and Council resolved, on 26 February, to establish a Peer Review Group to further review the building envelopes for these sites. The Peer Review considerations and recommendations were reported back to Council on 28 May 2002 and 25 June 2002 and provided significant groundwork for defining the envelopes in the recently exhibited draft DCP/LEP.

 

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION:

 

An extensive consultation process has been undertaken throughout the UIP process and in the recent public exhibition of the draft plans (see Summary at Attachment A).

 

The draft LEP and draft DCP were most recently publicly exhibited for 5 weeks from 30 September 2002 to 1 November 2002.

 

Public notification included notices in the local newspaper on 24 September and the 2nd, 8th, 15th and 22nd October 2002.

 

A total of 1246 written notices were sent to land owners within and surrounding the town centre, and to people who had made submissions to the previous draft LEP/DCP exhibitions.

 

The draft plans were available for viewing at the Council’s Administration building, the Randwick and Bowen libraries, and on Council’s web site.

 

As a further initiative to assist people to view and discuss the draft plans, Council opened a shopfront exhibition in Kensington town centre itself, at 91-93 Anzac Parade. The shopfront was open on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays throughout the exhibition.

 

Over 300 people visited the shopfront and 135 signed the guest book. The comments from the guest book were overwhelmingly positive, particularly regarding the proposed public domain improvements (as detailed later in this report and guest book to be available for Councillors to view at meeting). A shopfront survey was also completed by 43 people (as detailed later in this report).

 

Council also circulated a UIP newsletter throughout the Kensington suburb (5000 in total) during the exhibition period, providing a summary of the key elements of the draft plans and a reminder of the shopfront exhibition.

 

Meetings were held throughout the exhibition period in the shopfront with stakeholders, including the Stakeholder Advisory Panel, residents, landowners, students and business proprietors in the area.

 

The elderly resident sisters of the Karmalinda hostel who were largely unable to visit the shopfront due to lack of mobility, were given a special briefing on 30 October 2002.

 

The Kensington Precinct Committee was offered no fewer than 17 optional dates/times for special briefings at Council’s shopfront (outside the standard opening hours). This invitation was declined by Dr Gatt, the Precinct Chair, who advised that people would be happy to visit individually.

 

The National Trust’s Urban Conservation Committee was also briefed on the draft plans and were interested in the overall vision for an improved town centre, the building envelope approach, the Mews developments and in particular, efforts that may enhance Anzac Parade as one of Sydney’s grand boulevards.

 

PUBLIC AUTHORITY CONSULTATION

 

Public authorities were consulted on the draft LEP and DCP under S62 of the Act prior to the previous public exhibition. Their comments (contained in the LEP file 98/S/4398) were incorporated into the draft LEP and DCP where relevant. While further consultation under S62 for the revised draft LEP and DCP was not considered necessary, Council referred the exhibited draft plans to these authorities once again for any further comments, and also to the Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) for feedback.

 

The authorities included the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), the Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC), State Transit Authority (STA), Department of Transport (DOT) and the NSW Heritage Office. Authority responses and steps taken to address relevant matters are summarised as follows:

 

RTA

The RTA’s earlier advice of 18 April 2002 remains relevant: namely, support for the draft DCP given the RTA’s position that vehicular access to developments fronting Anzac Pde will not be permitted via Anzac Pde and should be provided via rear lanes and side streets, and that road capacity should be maintained.

 

The RTA (Mr Charles Wiafe) contacted Council on 13 November 2002 to confirm that:

-     the draft plans appear reasonable,

-     the DCP reference to RTA’s noise guidelines is sufficient,

-     Council’s current car parking requirements could be reconsidered as maximums rather than minimums with a view to moderating car parking provision; based on the new RTA Guidelines (when finalised),

-     stack/tandem parking arrangements could be considered in the draft DCP, where suitable management arrangements are made.

 

Council is currently undertaking citywide transport and a Citywide parking studies, which will consider parking issues in a comprehensive way. It is appropriate that any variation on parking standards be reviewed when these studies are completed and on area-wide basis, with consideration to any new State Government requirements.

 

Performance criteria for stack parking have been incorporated into the draft DCP.

 

DLWC

The key issues of interest remain groundwater and flood considerations. All suggestions have been incorporated in the draft DCP, using the wording suggested by DLWC for the following sections of the draft DCP:

 

4.5.2 (On site Parking) – could include an additional item required by DLWC for its assessment purposes, for any licence approvals (DLWC wording now included)

4.5.2 (On-site Parking) – could include further reference to flooding and risk management

(DLWC wording now included)

4.5.2 (On-site Parking) could include a new objective relating to groundwater (DLWC wording now included)

4.8.7 (Storm water management) – could include a new reference to treating stormwater run-off (DLWC wording now included)

4.8.7 (Stormwater Management) – could include a new reference to the NSW Government’s Food Policy (DLWC wording now included)

 

In relation to the draft LEP, DLWC suggested an additional objective ‘to ensure all new development does not significantly affect the groundwater system’. This objective has merit, however, is considered to be sufficiently addressed in the LEP objectives for the town centre ‘to require and encourage environmentally sustainable approaches to future land use and development’. As primarily a design issue, the matter should be addressed upfront in the design of any development. It has thus been included as a requirement in the Site analysis (4.1.2).

 

NSW Heritage Office

-     noted earlier advice incorporated in the previous draft LEP/DCP, noted the changes including the Contributory buildings with rear Mews, and raised no objection to the content and intent of the draft LEP regarding heritage issues.

 

DOT

-     has not provided any comments (as per the earlier S62 consultation, they did not provide comments but requested to be kept informed of the process).

 

STA

-     pleased to be part of the planning process, ‘moving forward successfully’,

-     noted no specific LEP objective promoting transit-oriented development. One of the draft LEP’s aims is to ‘introduce new planning and design provisions for Kensington town centre to promote its urban renewal’. The draft LEP detailed objectives then includes (i) ‘to ensure that public transport and associated facility needs are considered and promoted with any development proposals and public domain improvements in the town centre’. It is considered that these aims/objectives sufficiently address this matter and that an additional objective is not required;

-     noted that the draft DCP vision could say how bus services could be improved. (While this is more appropriately the role of STA than for Council or a DCP the DCP Vision has been expanded to clarify the intention to encourage public transport and other more sustainable forms of transport than the private car, such as cycling and walking);

-     Artists impressions could include buses/bus stops rather than emphasising parking (Noted – will consider for any future artists’ drawings);

-     Reiterated previous advice that outdoor dining facilities and street furniture can benefit public transport by providing passive surveillance to passengers, but should also avoid conflict with access to bus stops (Included in 4.6.6 – Outdoor eating);

-     Proposed pavement upgrades endorsed - tactile street paving should address the newly legislated DDA provisions ‘Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport’, to avoid confusion for people who rely on tactile tiles to access public transport. (Relevant to Council’s detailed planning and design of the public domain works - to be considered in the public domain improvement strategy);

-     Awnings play an important role in sheltering passengers at bus stops (4.6.2 – Awnings already incorporates requirements for awnings, however, in review, a setback requirement from the curb line has been included to ensure that awnings do not obstruct buses manoeuvring to/from the curb edge).

 

The draft DCP has been amended to further recognise and incorporate these best practices for integrating land uses and transport (in Vision, 4.2.5 - Building Zone, and 4.6.1 - Active frontages in the draft DCP).

 

This reflects the draft DCP’s consideration of SEPP 66 – Integration of Land Use and Transport and its associated ‘Improving Transport Choice’ guidelines (Planning NSW) in its preparation. The guidelines note that best practice is achieved for example when:

Þ      highest densities of housing and employment are within walking distance of major public transport nodes

Þ      a mix of compatible uses is permitted, such as shops and restaurants, on the ground floor of residential or commercial buildings

Þ      shopping centres, and entertainment and recreational facilities are encouraged to locate in activity centres within acceptable walking distance of public transport

Þ      major investments in public transport infrastructure are supported by planning and implementing new urban development or redevelopment to maximise the effectiveness and productivity of the infrastructure

Þ      every development has convenient and prominent pedestrian entrances, in terms of design, signage, lighting and gradient,

Þ      expanses of ground level blank walls, large driveways/entrances are avoided

Þ      pedestrian‑only links are short, well lit and offer surveillance from adjacent uses

Þ      parking requirements are reduced in concentrated activity centres with good public transport access

Þ      shared parking is encouraged for land uses with staggered peak periods of demand (eg offices and restaurants)

Þ      building setbacks are minimised for natural surveillance of footpaths, bus stops etc

 

SEDA

-     responded by congratulating Council on a DCP that ‘clearly and comprehensively addresses solar access, energy efficiency and water efficiency’;

-     further improvements suggested to the energy measures for clothes drying and house energy ratings (incorporated in the draft DCP sections 4.8.1 and 4.8.2).

 

Councils

Adjoining Councils at Botany Bay, South Sydney and Waverley were consulted. South Sydney has responded, commending Council for clearly articulating a planning vision that embraces high quality urban design and sustainability principles.

 

PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL

 

The draft LEP was referred to the Parliamentary Counsel, as required in the preparation of Local Environmental Plans. The Parliamentary Counsel has examined the draft LEP Amendment No 27 and given its opinion that the draft LEP may legally be made.

 

SUBMISSIONS/RESPONSES:

 

Submissions

In response to the exhibition period, Council has received a total of 141 submissions. This includes 84 Precinct Committee form letters of objection, and 57 individual (or joint) or organisation responses (33 of which were opposed, 18 supported and 6 were neutral over the draft plans). A petition of 142 signatures objected to various issues in the draft plans. (See summary of individual submissions at Attachment B and form letter issues at Attachment D).

 

Two submissions requested, under S68 of the Act, that a public hearing be held. Under this section of the Act, if a Council considers that the issues raised in the submission are of such significance that they should be the subject of a hearing before the council decides whether and, if so, what alterations should be made, Council shall arrange such a public hearing. One submission (J Buchanan) raised the suggested that the draft LEP is uncertain, given that it does not describe zonings and explicit standards in the ordinary way.

 

The second submission (R Mackenzie) suggest a range of issues as a basis for a public hearing, including a suggestion that the draft plans are invalid, development standards, building heights, one way and blocked streets, S94 Plan, Anzac Pde State road regional impacts, traffic impacts, unsustainable development – traffic noise, and public transport.

 

The Parliamentary Counsel (who must provide an opinion on all LEPs in NSW) has provided the opinion that the draft LEP may be legally made. The draft LEP is not reliant on the draft DCP, rather the draft DCP is supportive of the draft LEP and both have been prepared in accordance with the normal practice and procedures required under the Act.

 

Given that all other issues noted in these 2 submissions have been appropriately addressed and/or revised in the draft plans (as discussed in more detail later in this report), it is considered that a public hearing is not required.

 

Shopfront exhibition

Council’s shopfront exhibition within the town centre at 91 to 93 Anzac Parade was an innovative approach to make the draft plans as accessible a possible and to give people a chance to discuss these directly with council staff and the Place Manager.

 

Feedback from visitors was overwhelmingly positive. Council estimates that just over 300 people visited the shopfront, with several visiting on a few occasions, of which 135 signed the guest book. Council staff spoke directly to approximately 242 visitors and recorded their comments. Of these, 142 were positive about the draft plan proposals, 27 were concerned/objected, 8 saw positive and negative aspects in the proposals, and 26 did not provide any point of view.

 

The 142 visitors were positive or very positive about the proposals, and in particular the revitalisation of the centre, proposed public domain improvements, having something happen soon, the Mews development, and strategic and coordinated planning approach.

 

Common feedback in the guest book was:

 

“Can’t wait for the new look”

“Welcome and positive changes to Kensington”

“About time – hope it happens soon”

“Long overdue, great to see it finally happening”

“Support the plan and new ideas. Great!!”

“Plans look ok and reasonable”

“Marvellous scheme”

“ The development of Kensington especially the greenery and cafes looks positive”

“Plans appear to be very good”

“Council, the various consultants are to be congratulated on finally getting a balance for the long overdue revitalisation..”

“Proposed retail is expected to be sympathetically expanded”

“Very well done – excellent work”

“Sounds good esp the Mews. Bring back light rail”

“We must move ahead”

“Good to see some modern planing for an area in need of renewal..”

 “Best of both worlds?”

“I am one happy resident after seeing this grand scheme”

“Very useful to inspect the design, impact and implications”

“Great concept and ideas. First coordinated and integrated planning from the council”

“It’s about time to do something for Kensington. Don’t’ stop”

“Great – esp if artists impression is to happen, with a cosy small back streets with eateries, it will add vibrancy to the community…has been stagnant over last decade or so”

 

The improvements to the draft plans were noted:

 

“A vast improvement to previous DCPs. A positive and refreshing step forward’”

“An improvement on previous plans. Glad to see Council trying to comply with people’s wishes and greatly improve Kensington”

“Getting there”

“I am very much happier with the plans”

 

Many also noted that the shopfront was a great idea and staff was helpful:

 

“New proposals have been very well explained”

“ Great to have all the information”

“Excellent staff – a pleasure to have Council there. Outstanding display and assistance”

“Informative and well presented”

 

Approximately 27 visitors expressed concern or objection to the draft plans. The main issues raised were building heights, peer review advice, more residential development, room sizes, rear lane access, traffic and parking, and heritage. Comments included the following:

 

“Need the traffic flow information”

“Need more parking in backstreets”

“ Share the vision..but very concerned about heights and departure from Peer review advice”

 “Too much residential development..”

“Too high, too bulky, not enough parking”

“Still too high, seems to be a developers dream, we don’t want Kingsford…”

“.. should be 2 plus 3 storeys and build to heritage facades heights with 3 setback”

“Good display – still some concerns about building height, public car parking, rear lane access and room sizes”

“ Anzac Parade a significant memorial road – it will become enclosed by a dual row of high-rise..”

 

Approximately 7 people expressed both positive comments about some elements of the plans and concerns about other aspects of the plans.

 

“The area just needs a tidy up and to be maintained. Keep the horses too”.

“Interesting presentation and possibilities, although density worrying if liveability not carefully defined…”

 

39 people were neutral about the proposals:

 

“The town plan may work if we can address the parking and development concerns..”

“Request proceed with caution. Student housing ca becomes slums of the future”

 

Another 26 people either did not express any viewpoint when discussing the issues, or raised issues related to other council matters such as rubbish dumping.

 

The shopfront provided officers with significant feedback which has assisted in reviewing the draft plans and also in considering opportunities to improve the centre in terms of public domain works, traffic and parking, and marketing of the centre as the next steps in the UIP project.

 

Shopfront Survey

A shopfront survey was filled out by 43 people, with overwhelming support for the draft DCP proposals (see Attachment E for survey form and summary of responses). Of these 43 responses, 26 were Kensington residents and 17 were from elsewhere in Randwick City or the eastern suburbs.

 

The survey asked for feedback on the key elements of the draft DCP. The majority (no less than 39) were in favour of all elements of the draft DCP.  All of the surveys in fact supported the majority of the draft DCP elements. Those elements that some did not favour were the block by block approach (1 person), the building heights of 4/set back to 6 storeys (2 people), the transitional building heights of 3/set back to 5 storeys (2), the requirement for underground parking (4), public domain art proposals (2), proposed minimum apartment sizes (2), higher floor to ceiling heights (1) and balcony provision (1)

 

The respondents noted that they would shop in Kensington more frequently if there was:

Ö       Greater variety of retail outlets

Ö       A supermarket

Ö       A bank

Ö       More markets with fresh produce

Ö       More parking, including disabled

Ö       More bus stops

Ö       Appearance of town centre wasn’t so run down and depressed

Ö       More cafes with outdoor seating

 

They also noted that Kensington could be improved by:

 

Þ      Cleaning up local streets

Þ      Removing the clearway to allow for parking

Þ      Providing more parking

Þ      Reducing high rise density residential developments

Þ      Better planning sensitivity to environmental concerns

Þ      More buses

Þ      A more attractive Anzac Pde by better maintaining buildings, footpaths, landscaping

Þ      Retaining all heritage buildings/provide incentives to upgrade them

Þ      Providing student services

Þ      Encouraging more people to live in the centre

Þ      Stricter controls on building approvals

Þ      Not pursuing a similar form to Kingsford

Þ      Providing more open space on the Doncaster site

Þ      Upgrading/adding landscaping along Anzac Pde median strip

 

These comments will assist in the UIP project overall in trying to achieve desired outcomes for the local community and visitors to the centre.

 

DRAFT LEP – REVISIONS AT A GLANCE

 

Ö       Minor wording and grammatical changes were made to the draft LEP, which did not change its intent, and were in compliance with the changes required in the opinion provided by the Parliamentary Counsel.

 

DRAFT DCP– REVISIONS AT A GLANCE

 

Ö       Public Open space – the values of Centennial Park were clarified (3.7 and 4.6.7)

Ö       Site amalgamation - performance criteria reworded/strengthened to ensure that adjacent/nearby sites are not sterilised and can achieve their identified development potential (4.1.1)

Ö       Public transport and land use integration requirements were strengthened on the advice of the STA (Vision – Part 2, Building Zone – 4.2.4, Active Frontages – 4.6.1, Building Use – 4.7.5, Awnings – 4.6.2)

Ö       Ground water & stormwater management – additional objectives and performance criteria included, based on DLWC advice (4.1.1 – Site Analysis, 4.5.2 – Onsite parking, 4.8.7 – Storm water management)

Ö       Articulation Zone – performance criteria strengthened (4.2.3)

Ö       Contributory Buildings – reworded to better explain (4.2.6)

Ö       Mews developments – the internal laneways were clarified as pedestrian-only (4.2.7)

Ö       Vehicle Access – clarified further - rights of carriageway are below ground (4.5.1)

Ö       On-site parking – driveway entrance design requirements to maximise pedestrian safety were incorporated; and stack/tandem parking requirements included, on RTA advice (4.5.2)

Ö       Habitable roof space - performance criteria reworded/strengthened to clarify the intention that these do not allow for an additional storey (4.6.9 (a))

Ö       Acoustic Privacy  - additional performance criteria included relating to construction and design techniques and use of a building to minimise noise (4.7.1)

Ö       Student Accommodation – performance criteria expanded to require an operational management plan with any student accommodation proposal, to be prepared by a qualified Social Planner or equivalent (4.7.3)

Ö       Floor-to-ceiling heights – table redrawn for clarify and some height measures corrected (4.7.6)

Ö       Natural Ventilation  - performance criteria (vii) reworded to clarify the DCP intent that dual aspect apartments are be provided unless design difficulties arise from specific site conditions and only if innovative natural ventilation technologies are provided (4.8.4)

Ö       DA checklist - Pre-lodgement information expanded

Ö       Definitions – some additions and clarifications made

Ö       Blocks 2 and 4  - Transitional Building envelopes on streets adjacent to Kokoda Park and Kensington public school have been revised with setbacks from the 3rd storey (storeys 4 and 5)

Ö       Block 4 - Building envelope for the site at the corner of Anzac Pde and Bowral St – revised to better address the proposed laneway to Anzac Pde and to correct the Coptic Church envelope (additions at rear)

Ö       Block 6 – the envelopes for the cnr site at Anzac Parade and Darling Street and the adjacent site to Darling Lane were refined and confirmed as a ‘Defined Parcel’

Ö       Block 6 – Doncaster Plaza site – the performance criteria were refined to ensure that development relates well to the Doncaster hotel and meets the DCP standards

Ö       Block 8 – Cnr Addison St and Anzac Pde – the proposed easement in this location was further clarified

Ö       Block 10 – the future of the rear car park was clarified, by noting that the residential uses may continue to be permissible

Ö       Block 10 – Specialist concept retail provisions were also permitted on this block and the Peters of Kensington envelope reviewed to allow retail/commercial to 3 levels

Ö       Clothes drying – energy performance criteria enhanced, on SEDA advice (4.8.1)

Ö       Energy efficiency – performance criteria enhanced, on SEDA advice (4.8.2)

Ö       Rain water tanks  - performance criteria included (4.8.8)

 

 

ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS:

 

Key issues raised in the submissions are summarised in Attachment C and in the Table at Attachment D for the Kensington Precinct form letter. These issues are addressed below under the headings of GENERAL, DRAFT LEP and DRAFT DCP ISSUES. Any amendments made in relation to the submissions or further review work are also explained (unless minor, typographical matters or clarifications).

 

GENERAL ISSUE: CONSULTATION

 

Matter raised in submissions:

Consultation inadequate/Flawed           

Petition

Dianne Thian – Cottenham Ave, R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave

 

Council officers should have been permitted to attend precinct meeting

B Kelly – Doncaster Ave (2 submissions)

 

Council staff should not have focused on the street furniture (in shopfront discussions)

J Eather  - Elsmere St

 

Balanced approach/minority views opposing change do not represent all residents

A Alexandrou – Anzac Pde, M Alexandrou – Anzac Pde, C Alexandrou – Anzac Pde,

 

Comment:

Council has complied with all statutory requirements for notification and exhibition of the LEP and DCP. The consultation process was enhanced with a shopfront exhibition within the town centre itself, an initiative to maximise people’s opportunity to view and discuss the draft plan. The intention was to ensure that all stakeholders had ample opportunities to view and comment on the draft plans, whether, residents, owners, developers, shopkeepers, shoppers, or users of local institutions/facilities. The shopfront contained information and displays relating to both the draft LEP and DCP and also the proposed public domain improvements to be undertaken early in 2003. The UIP is more than simply a review of the planning controls for the town centre – it recognises that a range of measures and improvements are required to revitalise Kensington town centre. The shopfront displayed the proposals for upgrading the footpaths, including new curb and gutters, paving, street furniture, plantings and lighting. 

 

Council officers were invited to the Kensington Precinct’s October meeting, however were unable to attend given the short notice (of the 3 letters of invitation sent, 2 arrived 3 working days ahead and one arrived 4 days after the meeting) given prior engagements. Council officers did not refuse to attend nor were they prevented from attending by anything other than prior professional engagements. In providing apologies in writing, Council invited the Precinct members to no fewer than 17 optional dates/times for special briefing sessions at Council’s shopfront exhibition (outside the standard opening hours). This invitation was declined by Dr Gatt, the Precinct Chair, who advised that people would be happy to visit individually. 

 

GENERAL ISSUE – S94 PLAN

 

Matters raised in Submissions:

No Section 94 Plan

Form Letters

Petition

Dianne Thian – Cottenham Ave, J & J Ironside – Villiers St, K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, M Reid – Kensington Rd, R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave, R Rowley – Anzac Pde, TA and PA Regan – Doncaster Ave

 

Comment:

The statement that there is no S.94 Contributions Plan is incorrect. Council’s current S.94 Plan for Randwick City applies to the whole City of Randwick including the Kensington Town Centre. It requires contributions for any additional residential or commercial development in relation to parking, open space and community facilities provision; and contains separate requirements for major development such as the Doncaster Plaza site.

 

Council has also resolved, however, to prepare a new Contributions Plan incorporating townscape improvement works for Kensington Town centre. This work is currently underway and a new Contributions Plan incorporating a revised schedule of works is to be presented to Council shortly.

 

Council, at its meeting of 22 October 2002, resolved to bring forward its work program for townscape improvements for 2 blocks within the centre, using separate funding already allocated by the State Government and by Council under the UIP (approximately $500,000), and it is proposed to commence these works as early as January 2003.

 

GENERAL ISSUES – PUBLIC DOMAIN

 

Matters Raised in Submissions:

Developers should be required to underground the power to new development

R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions)

 

Centennial Park draft Management plan should be referred to/range of issues for the park

Centennial Park, Moore Park Trust (CPMPT)

 

Green open space and recreational space should be provided for

CPMPT

 

Comment:

One submission noted that all future power should be provided underground. Council is currently refining a public domain improvement strategy, for upgrading the footpaths. It is proposed to include underground conduits to provide for the future replacement of the existing overhead power lines. Any new development will need to provide links to this conduit.

 

The Centennial Park and More Park Trust have noted that the Centennial Parklands is listed on the NSW Heritage Register and provides important environmental, recreational and economic benefits to the local and regional community. It also notes that a draft Conservation Management Plan for the Parklands has been prepared and should be referenced in the draft LEP/DCP to ensure that any town centre development, street furniture and advertising enhance the character of the Parklands. The draft DCP has been amended at 3.7 (Parks and Public Open Space) and 4.6.7 (Public Art) to include reference to consideration of impacts of the values of the Centennial Parklands.

 

CPMPT also notes that cumulative impacts of increased residential densities where open space is inadequate will place pressure on the parklands and notes that increased green space should be provided in the plans. The draft DCP provides requirements for communal open space to the rear of new developments, as well as private open space in the form of large balconies, terraces, and/or roof gardens. Mews developments will also provide publicly accessible and pleasant outdoor areas. The draft DCP also makes provision for Kokoda Park to be better integrated with the town centre and for better linkages with other recreational opportunities such as at the UNSW, Racecourse and Centennial/Moore Parks.  These initiatives are considered appropriate for the draft plans.

 

Given the proximity of Kensington to Centennial Parklands, it is appropriate for Council to work with the CPMPT to promote use of the Parkland by local residents, particularly in sustainable ways such as walking and cycling rather than driving to the park. Pedestrian and cycle linkages with the Centennial parklands are being considered as part of the public domain improvement strategy.

 

GENERAL ISSUE  - NO NEED TO CHANGE CONTROLS

 

Matters Raised in Submissions

Town Centre only needs a facelift

B Kelly – Doncaster Ave (2 submissions), Dianne Thian – Cottenham Ave

 

Run down condition of Town Centre self inflicted by property owners

R Mackenzie, PO Box 283,

 

Will not revitalise Kensington

Form Letter, C Crook and J Eather (Elsmere St), B and B Brenac (Cottenham Ave)

 

Comment:

Council’s approach towards revitalisation of the town centre (improved planning and design controls to encourage new investment in high quality developments and more attractive retailing, increasing the number and accessibility of residents to the centre, and public domain improvements separate to these draft plans) is a direct result of strategies devised by Planning NSW to attract investment and resources in order to make local areas better places to work, live in and enjoy. There has been no significant investment in the Town Centre in the last 10 years. (Of 123 DA’s lodged with Council, 99 were minor such as change of use, alterations/additions, advertising and subdivision). It is recognised that this combination of efforts is required to work towards revitalisation of the town centre, and to encourage owners to invest in their properties, whether redeveloping or upgrading existing buildings.

 

GENERAL ISSUE – REVITALISATION/BETTER SHOPPING

 

Matters raised in Submissions:

Kensington needs revitalising/recapture former glory/ banks and supermarkets/congratulations to Council

X Yan (Anzac Pde), C Francis (Boronia St), S Stubbs (Grosvenor St), G Lawrence (Milroy Ave), A James (Cottenham Ave), C Nelan (Milroy Ave), P Nelan (Lorne Ave), F Alexandrou (Anzac Pde), M Keogh (Kensington Rd), A Alexandrou (Anzac Pde), C Alexandrou (Anzac Pde), E Coulpasis (Anzac Pde), South Sydney Council, SEDA

 

Comment:

As noted above, the UIP aims to take a place-based approach to focus on the opportunities and constraints of the town centre to encourage improvement to both the public and private infrastructure of the town centre. Provisions to encourage a supermarket in the centre responded to comments throughout the entire UIP consultation process that the centre lacks a good supermarket for people to shop locally. The draft LEP and draft DCP establish the parameters for revitalisation and any return of a bank to the town centre, would then of course be up to market forces and bank policies.

 

GENERAL ISSUE – LEP/DCP PROCESS/LEGALITY

 

Matters raised in submissions:

DCP should not be made before an environmental impact assessment of adjoining areas

P Jenkin – Doncaster Ave

 

DCP/LEP unlawful

J Buchanan – Beach St, Coogee (2 submissions), R Mackenzie PO Box283 (2 submissions)

 

Documents not prepared at 'arms length' or only in favour of greedy developers and property owners

D Malanos – Grosvenor St, J Newell – Mooramie Ave, R Rowley – Anzac Pde

 

Comment:

The draft LEP/DCP have been prepared and exhibited in accordance with all relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment (EPA) Act 1979 and EPA Regulation 2000. It should be noted, again, that the draft LEP has been reviewed by the Parliamentary Counsel who has advised that the draft LEP can be legally made.

 

These draft plans are the result of the studies and investigations on the town centre, which commenced in 1997 with the JTCW Study (1998) through to the current work. The study was sued as a basis for the Civitas study of 2001. These investigations have provided a sound base of understanding on all environmental, social and economic issues. Further detailed assessment of environmental impacts is required to be submitted with all Master plan and Development applications.

 

A Class 4 Application was submitted to the Land and Environment Court in May 2002, alleging that the draft DCP was in breach of the procedural requirements of the Act. After protracted delays in submitting Points of Claim to support the Application, the Applicant subsequently requested a discontinuance, given that there was no basis for any Court action. The Court discontinued the procedure in August 2002.

 

The draft plans were prepared by independent consultants retained by Council with no connection to any landowner, community group or other stakeholder. The draft plans were prepared in a professional and objective manner, with input from all stakeholders relevant to the process. Those who visited the shopfront and have made submissions to the process include residential and commercial property owners, residential and commercial tenants, professionals acting on behalf of property owners, user and non-users of the Kensington town centre, public authorities and organisations representing special interest groups such as the National Trust. These stakeholders are entitled to participate in the consultation process, as are any other interested persons or organisations.

 

One submission noted that an environmental study had not been prepared. An environmental study was not required in this instance for this draft LEP Amendment. This is in accordance with the relevant sections 57, 61 and 74 of the Act. S74 of the Act notes that Sections 57 and 61 (requiring the preparation of an environmental study with any LEP) do not apply where a subsequent LEP is being prepared to amend in whole or part a LEP. In this case, draft LEP Amendment No 27 is amending Council’s LEP 1998 and an environmental study is not required. Nevertheless, earlier studies including the JTCW Study 1998 and Civitas Partnership Background report have provided background research upon which the draft LEP is based.

 

An ‘environmental impact assessment’ of adjoining areas is not required (as one submission suggested) under the Act or Regulation prior to the making of the draft DCP, nor is one necessary as the draft DCP has specifically considered the issue of integration of the town centre with the surrounding neighbourhood and has incorporated transition elements in the Block-by-Block controls. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is only required when Schedule 3 of the EPA Regulation 2000 is triggered (for major, industrial and agricultural proposals such as marinas, piggeries, mines, etc),

 

A submission noted that the draft LEP does not comply with State policy SEPP No 6 – ‘Number of Storeys in a Building’. This SEPP does not apply in Randwick City, as per the clauses of Randwick LEP 1998.

 

A submission noted that the RTA’s previous submission had requested a clause in the draft LEP requiring a Noise and Vibration assessment for proposed residential development near arterial roads. This was included in the exhibited draft DCP, to the RTA’s satisfaction.

 

DRAFT LEP ISSUE – OBJECTIVES/PROVISIONS

 

Matters raised in submissions

LEP objectives for public transport and sustainable approaches strongly supported – complement State policy and UNSW travel demand management policy

UNSW

 

LEP should adopt Model Provisions for public utilities

Energy Australia

 

Comment:

Energy Australia noted that Council should adopt the State Government’s Model Provisions in this LEP Amendment, which exempt public utility authorities from the need to lodge a Development Application for carrying out public utility undertakings. This is not required in the draft LEP as Council’s LEP 1998 already specifically permits public utility undertakings to be undertaken without consent.

 

DRAFT LEP/DCP ISSUE – EXTENT OF TOWN CENTRE/RETAIL COMMERCIAL AREAS

 

Matters raised in submissions

Town Centre boundaries have expanded

Form Letters

Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe Ave, E Matsos – Mooramie Ave, J & J Ironside – Villiers St, K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, P Jenkin – Doncaster Ave, P Jolliffe, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions), TA and PA Regan – Doncaster Ave

 

Retail/Commercial space has been reduced on Doncaster site

Petition

R & J Wood - Brompton Road

 

Comment:

The draft LEP/DCP before Council for adoption covers the same area as exhibited. When the draft plans were considered for exhibition by Council at its on 17 September 2002 meeting, adjustments were made to recognise existing business zone boundaries; provide a more appropriate relationship to other blocks and sites; ensure a better transition from the centre to adjacent residential and/or strengthen the commercial viability of the core area of the centre. The area of change was small in comparison to the overall town centre area.

 

The main changes in the exhibited draft LEP/DCP were to extend blocks 2 and 4 on the eastern side of Anzac Parade.

 

Block 2  was extended east to the edge of Kokoda Park. The intention was to better link the centre to the park and to enhance Ascot Street as a significant link between the town and Racecourse. (This is further discussed for Block 2 later in this report).

 

Block 4 was also extended east to the boundary of the public school. The intention was to better link this block to the town centre boundary on the Block 3 to the north and to provide an opportunity for new road arrangements (a shared access road) that could improve the safety and efficiency of the school drop-offs. The Dept of Education has give in-principle support for this concept (see also further comments for Block 4 later in this report).

 

The draft LEP requires a retail analysis of any proposed new retail use in these and other sites within the town centre that are zoned residential 2C (many of which have existing retail/commercial uses). This is consistent with investigations including the JTCW study that noted that given the town centre’s estimated 13,400 sq m (Gross leasable area); no significant increase in retail floor space is required. The draft LEP/DCP reflect these considerations of the JTCW Study. The JTCW Study also noted the lack of a supermarket and that commercial uses (possibly arising from the Fox studios development) could be attracted to the town centre given suitable redevelopment. The draft DCP provisions for a neighbourhood supermarket and specialty retailing draw upon these conclusions.

 

DCP ISSUE – BUILDING HEIGHT

 

Matters raised in Submissions:

Block 6 controls unacceptable (too high, over development)

Petition

Mentioned in individual letters from Dianne Thian – Cottenham Ave, B Kelly – Doncaster Ave (2 submissions),          E Matsos – Mooramie Ave, J Newell – Mooramie Ave,  M Carolan – Doncaster Ave, R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave,  F Thorvaldson Doncaster Ave, R Mackenzie PO Box283

 

Block 7 controls unacceptable (too high, overdevelopment, not enough open space, social problems from hotel patrons)

Petition

Mentioned in individual letter from Dianne Thian – Cottenham Ave, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions), R Mackenzie – Addison St (2 submissions)

 

Habitable Roof an excuse for another storey     

Form Letter

Dianne Thian – Cottenham Ave, E Matsos – Mooramie Ave, K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, M Carolan – Doncaster Ave, M Reid – Kensington Rd, P Jolliffe, R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions), Cr Whitehead  - Inglethorpe Ave, R Rowley – Anzac Pde, R Mackenzie – Addison St (2 submissions)

 

Controls will result in a canyon, overdevelopment         

B Brenac Cottenham Ave, F Thorvaldson Doncaster Ave, Rowley – Anzac Pde

 

DCP should express FSR's and traditional heights        

J & J Ironside - Villiers St, J Buchanan – Beach St, Coogee (2 submissions), R Rowley – Anzac Pde

 

Don’t want another Kingsford/ NIDA is grotesque enough

B Kelly – Doncaster Ave (2 submissions), C Crook & J Eather – Elsmere St, Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe Ave, J Newell – Mooramie Ave, K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, M Reid – Kensington Rd, R & J Wood - Brompton Rd, R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave, R Rowley – Anzac Pde, TA and PA Regan – Doncaster Ave

 

Height/Scale/density inappropriate for Kensington

Form Letter

Petition

B and B Brenac – Cottenham Ave, B Kelly – Doncaster Ave (2 submissions), C Crook & J Eather  - Elsmere St, E Matsos – Mooramie Ave, F Thorvaldson Doncaster Ave

J & J Ironside – Villiers St, K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, M Carolan – Doncaster Ave, P Jenkin – Doncaster Ave, P Jolliffe, R & J Wood - Brompton Rd, R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave, R Rowley – Anzac Pde, F Thorvaldson Doncaster Ave, R Mackenzie (2 submissions)

 

High-rise will change character of Area/create social problems

Form Letter

E Matsos – Mooramie Ave, M Carolan – Doncaster Ave, M Reid – Kensington Rd, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions), C Crook & J Eather – Elsmere St

 

Leave Doncaster as it is now

J Buchanan – Beach St, Coogee (2 submissions)

 

Maintain Kensington as a suburb of pitched roofs, boundary setbacks and gardens

F Thorvaldson Doncaster Ave

 

No demonstrated need for high rise development

Petition

 

No real height limit because height measured to underside of ceiling

B Kelly – Doncaster Ave (2 submissions), Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe Ave, K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, R Rowley – Anzac Pde

 

Overshadowing, lack of privacy & solar access

Petition

R Rowley – Anzac Pde

 

Six stories inappropriate adjacent to Coptic Church

H Couirguis, Coptic Church – Bowral St

 

Site amalgamation will lead to high rise development

Form Letter

E Matsos – Mooramie Ave

 

Suggest 2 storeys setting back to five

M Carolan – Doncaster Ave

 

Suggest 6 storeys western side only

B and B Brenac – Cottenham Ave

 

Proposed heights are acceptable

M Alexandrou – Anzac Pde

 

Transition zone setbacks and heights unacceptable

K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions), R Rowley – Anzac Pde

 

Comment:

The proposed height of development in the town centre raised by far the most comments in submissions. These also related to habitable roof space and Mews development and development on Blocks 6 and 7 (discussed in more detail later in this report).

 

The draft DCP proposes 6-storey development (4 storey at the street edge) in an area where 4 storeys is already permitted. The proposed heights relate to the width of Anzac parade and the adjoining areas, which are zoned Residential 2C with a height of 12m.  Past studies, and Urban Design Advisory Service (UDAS) general reasoning, suggests that the width of Anzac Parade can actually support building heights of up to around 40 metres (almost double the proposed controls).  Council has already resolved to reject past professional advice in favour of local sentiment requesting lower heights.

 

The width of Anzac Parade, together with controls to retain many 2 storey Contributory buildings at the street edge, ensures that any feared canyon effect will be avoided.

 

Most dwellings adjacent to the Town Centre are already in buildings of 3 storeys or more (around 12m). The transition buildings recognise this with 3 storey building envelopes (10.1-10.5m at the street edge) set back to 5 storeys. These have a zero setback to the street to encourage commercial development on the ground floor, with a direct relationship to the street front.

 

The draft DCP proposes different controls for the Doncaster plaza site given its location, size and configuration, requiring 5 storeys at the street front (consistent with the 5 storey Doncaster hotel), set back to 8 storeys on 2 parts of the site only (and limited to 50% of any frontage).

 

The draft DCP proposes the retention of many Contributory Buildings dating from the early 20th century at their current height of 2 stories.

 

One submission suggested that FSR and heights be used, similar to the current LEP 1998, which provides a blanket FSR of 1.5:1 for the town centre. The draft LEP/DCP does provide for a maximum height for all building envelopes. In moving away from an FSR to a Building Envelope, the draft DCP seeks a more detailed and block/site specific approach to better control the scale and bulk of buildings within site specific conditions. It also aims to address privacy and overshadowing of the adjoining properties. Blanket FSRs do not necessarily promote good development outcomes – many resident objections are based on the current built form in Kingsford, a built form that has resulted, in part from the traditional FSR approach.

 

Concerns were raised that the draft DCP/LEP will promote similar scales and quality of development as Kingsford. A comparison of Kingsford developments over recent years (see Attachment F) shows that the scale of buildings in Kingsford (zoned ‘General Business’) is significantly greater than being proposed for Kensington town centre (as a ‘Local Business’ zone). Kingsford heights at the street edge range from 23 to 28m (8 storeys), while for Kensington the maximum height at the street edge will be 13.6 m to 15m (4 storeys), and will step back to 19.4 - 21.6m (6 storeys). For Contributory buildings, the street edge heights would be 7.2 - 8.2m (2 storeys). For the Doncaster plaza site, the maximum street edge would be 16.5 -18.3m (5 storeys), stepping back at least 6 m from the street edge to 25.2-27.4m (8 storeys) for 2 internal buildings only and for a maximum of 50 % of any frontage.

 

See Height Analysis at Attachment G for a comparison of existing and proposed height for the town centre and surrounds, including Kingsford.

 

A key element of building appearance is the façade treatment and building bulk. While the draft DCP proposes slim buildings with a maximum depth of 22 m (inc a 2.5m articulation zone on each frontage), Kingsford buildings are generally significantly greater depth, mostly over 30m in depth and up to 51m in one case, being more than double the draft DCP proposals. The draft DCP proposes significant articulation of frontage to create interesting buildings that address the street well. The Kingsford developments have, in general, provided minimal detailing and been dominated by continuous balconies across the frontages.

 

A number of submissions noted that the measurement of the height to the ‘underside of the roof’ in effect removes any height limit. This definition of height was suggested by the Peer Review Panel, as a means of encouraging interesting roof forms. The previous draft DCP maximum heights were thus reduced, from 22.6m to 21.6m (6storeys) and from 28.4m to 27.4m (8 storeys) to recognise this change in definition. The section 4.6.9 ‘Roof Forms’ contains a Performance Criteria requiring that bulk and mass of roofs be minimised and that the roof scale relate to the ‘building, the building elevation and the 3 dimensional built form’. These requirements will suitably ensure that any resulting roof form will not be out-of-scale with the building nor significantly increase the height of the building.

 

DCP ISSUE – JACKSON TEECE CHESTERMAN WILLIS ET AL STUDY (1998)

 

Matters Raised in Submissions:

Support JTCW (heights/FSR)

Form Letter

Petition

B Kelly – Doncaster Ave (2 submissions), E Matsos – Mooramie Ave, J Buchanan – Beach St, Coogee (2 submissions), K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, M Reid – Kensington Rd, P Jolliffe, R & J Wood, R & J Wilson – Doncaster Ave, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions), Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe Ave, R Rowley – Anzac Pde

 

JTCW study was previously rejected/should not be relied on

C Alexandrou

 

Comment:

The petition (142 signatures), form letters (84) and 11 letters recommended that Council should adopt the JTCW study recommendations (4 storeys across the centre, and 6 on the Doncaster Plaza site, with an FSR of 2:1). While the current LEP 1998 controls already provide for 4 storeys, the only site that has developed to 4 storeys is the Peters of Kensington store. Most other sites remain at 2 storeys and are unlikely to develop given site constraints such as the lack of parking.

 

The outcomes of the JTCW Study have been important guides to the current work. The JTCW Study noted that its proposed controls would be unlikely to generate much if any development activity - ‘ it is our opinion that much of the existing centre will not redevelop’. The study went further to note that ‘there is little economic incentive for large scale redevelopment, particularly in the retail core’. It nominated potential redevelopment of the Doncaster plaza site, the (now) Simplicity Funerals site, the service station sites, the Goodwood to Ascot St block and 89 to 93 Anzac Pde, but also that ‘while other sites may amalgamate and redevelop, it is quite likely that some of those nominated will not’.

 

In effect, the JTCW Study provided for redevelopment of the Doncaster plaza site and some of the corner sites, given that these could more easily address parking/access issues (rear lanes or rights-of-way were recommended). The Study noted that a response to some local concerns about height would result in piecemeal redevelopment of a limited number of non-core sites in the town centre, with little or no change for the core retail or the centre as a whole.

 

The draft LEP/DCP have taken a more holistic approach to the town centre, providing a vision that addresses the preferred future scenario for each block and particularly for encouraging the core retail to remain viable and central to the town’s functions.

 

A copy of the draft plans were forwarded to Mr David Chesterman for any feedback in relation to his consultancy’s 1998 JTCW Study. His letter of response (see Attachment C) advises that:

 

‘ As the 1998 study concluded, I believe that the Kensington Town Centre would benefit from redevelopment which retains key parts of its present fabric, concentrates retailing, provides opportunities for the establishment of small businesses and professional offices and increases local population.

 

As you have noted in your letter, it was our stated view that the FSRs proposed in our 1998 report may not be adequate to stimulate redevelopment, given the constraints and difficulties which developers would have to overcome. Experience over the last 5 years would seem to support this.

 

I have reviewed the currently proposed DCP and am of the view that it is thorough and offer a sound framework within which good development is likely to occur.

 

Development controls, and in particular procedures for obtaining good design outcomes, have become much more sophisticated since 1998. Consequently, I believe that concerned residents have far less need to fear that redevelopment will result in the unpleasant looking buildings that were constructed along Anzac Parade in Kingsford, than they had in 1998.’

 

DCP ISSUE – HABITABLE ROOF SPACE

 

Matters raised in Submissions:

Habitable Roof an excuse for another storey     

Form Letter

Dianne Thian – Cottenham Ave, E Matsos – Mooramie Ave, K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, M Carolan – Doncaster Ave, M Reid – Kensington Rd, P Jolliffe, R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions), Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe Ave, R Rowley – Anzac Pde, R Mackenzie - Addison St 

 

Comment:

Whether or not roof spaces are habitable, all buildings require a roof. The Peer Review Group’s recommendation to change the method of measuring building height was specifically included to encourage interesting roof forms which could conceal mechanical plant and lift overruns. The most likely response to controls requiring the concealment of these structures would be a small (but interesting) structure to conceal plant and lift overruns.

 

This provision for a habitable roof provides incentive for applicants to design more appropriate roofs, covering their roof plant within the roof form and, if space allows, to use any additional space within the roof (for a total of not more than 40% of the floor below, being a floor already set back from the street edge). The notion of a habitable space within the roof form also provides additional design flexibility to ensure that there is no excuse for apartments on the uppermost storey to be single aspect and not achieve cross ventilation, nor to be so small that they do not meet minimum apartment size requirements.

 

It is likely that appropriate designs involving habitable roof spaces will offer a sleeping area in the roof space, similar to the traditional attic style spaces found in many older single and two storey dwellings throughout Sydney.

 

The proposed controls for habitable roof spaces unequivocally state that they should not be regarded by applicants as an excuse to achieve an additional storey in the development.

All DA’s proposing habitable roof space will be subjected to analysis by a Design Review Panel, to ensure they: optimise apartment mix; result from interesting roof forms; and do not simply represent an additional storey. 

 

Of the professionals who reviewed the draft DCP (David Chesterman, Russell Olsson, Stephen Buzacott and UDAS), none expressed any concern that the proposed controls for Habitable Roof Space could be misinterpreted to allow an additional storey of development.

 

A preliminary assessment of the Doncaster Plaza masterplan by Keith Cottier of Allan Jack Cottier is evidence that the controls are strongly worded and cannot be misinterpreted – ‘it is difficult to see how any reading of 4.6.9 (a) of this DCP could give rise to this large amount of additional habitable space’ (see full assessment in the report on the Doncaster Plaza Master Plan in this Business Paper).

 

Nevertheless, Section 4.6.9 (a) has been reworded to further strengthen the Performance Criteria and to ensure that these intentions for the roof forms will be met.

 

DCP ISSUE – DESIGN QUALITY

 

Matters raised in Submissions

DCP/LEP will result in urban consolidation of the lowest quality

Form Letter

 

Site coverage excessive

Form Letters

C Kimber – Milroy Ave, J & J Ironside – Villiers St, M Reid – Kensington Rd, P Jolliffe, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions)

 

DCP not committed to design quality because building depth has increased

E MatsosMooramie Ave, K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions)

 

Frontages should be limited

Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe Ave

 

Minimum frontages penalise owners with less, and those sterilised between 20 m parcels

BDO Properties (for Anzac Pde owners)

 

Existing subdivision pattern should be preserved

BDO Properties

 

Site amalgamation has some merit in creating sensible development

R Rowley – Anzac Pde

 

A 12m separation of habitable rooms in buildings is insufficient for privacy

Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe Av

 

Merit of colonnades queried

BDO Properties

 

View along Alison Rd southwest across Racecourse to Sacred Heart Monastery should not be obscured

John Stinson – Tunstall Ave

 

Comment:

The draft DCP incorporates best practice design and sustainability guidelines throughout the document to encourage the highest standards of design in all new development. Concerns raised in submissions appear to relate largely to fears of new development reflecting poor past design outcomes in Randwick City and elsewhere in Sydney. The draft DCP provides stringent performance criteria to raise the standard for all new development. It includes relevant elements of the State Governments recent initiatives, the State Policy SEPP 65 – ‘Design Quality of Residential Flat Developments’ the Residential Design Pattern Book and the new Residential Flat Design Code (2002). The draft DCP incorporates 10 key design principles set out in SEPP 65 and its requirement for a registered architect for all developments of 3 or more storeys (and more that 4 apartments). The draft DCP is likely to be the first to specifically incorporate these requirements of the SEPP, which was only recently gazetted on 26 July 2002.

 

The draft DCP also incorporates the initiatives in SEDA’s Energy Smart Homes Model Policy, to ensure energy efficient homes through the design and construction, choice of appliances, maximum use of renewable energy sources (such as solar access) and using less energy more efficiently. Suggestions by SEDA have been incorporated to further improve energy efficiency with clothes drying ad home energy in general. Provisions to encourage the provision of water tanks have also been added to the draft DCP, upon the suggestion of a visitor (N Hall) to the shopfront.

 

Some submissions raised concerns that the depth of the building envelopes/site coverage is excessive. The envelopes, originally proposed at 18m were reviewed at Council’s request to investigate the appropriateness of this depth for all sites (Meeting of 26 February 2002). The draft exhibited DCP generally altered the depths from 18 m to 22m for 2 floors only, in recognition that dual aspect apartments could be appropriately achieved in this width and also to provide for a generous articulation zone of 2.5m on both the front and rear of building (for a total articulated area of 5m). As noted in the above discussions on Kingsford town centre, the depth of a building is an important element in its overall bulk. Kingsford building details show depths well beyond the 22m proposed for Kensington town centre, being more than 30m in most cases and up to 51m for one site (see Attachment F).

 

The draft DCP Block–by–Block controls (4.3) provide diagrams of both the existing buildings on the blocks and the proposed envelopes. It should be noted that in many cases the proposed site coverage is less than what already exists eg Block 1, Block 2, Block 7, Block 9, Block 10, and most of Block 11. In other cases, while site coverage has not been reduced, there is also no significant increase from what now exists.

 

An analysis shows that across the town centre, existing site coverage is approximately 44.54%. Should the town centre be fully redeveloped under the draft DCP, future site coverage would be approximately 41.9%.

 

By comparison, the average site coverage in a historic area of attached terrace houses such as Paddington is 65%, and the average site coverage for low-rise walk-up flats at Eastlakes is 60% (UDAS publication, ‘Residential densities’).

 

Additional requirements in the draft DCP for privacy, solar access and setbacks to other buildings will ensure that the relationship of new buildings will be appropriate to existing.

 

The draft DCP requires a minimum frontage of 20m, which, in a number of cases, will require site amalgamations for development to occur in accordance with the building envelopes. This is intended to ensure that the site is of sufficient size to enable a high quality well designed building. Some submissions raised concerns that this may sterilise other sites. While the amalgamation provisions do require adjacent owners to work together, the draft DCP also provides a requirement that developments cannot adversely affect the development potential of other sites with below 20m frontage (4.1.1). The wording in 4.1.1 has been reviewed and further strengthened to ensure this.

 

Taking another viewpoint, one submission raised concern to limit the total frontage of any one development, while another noted the current subdivision patterns should be retained The draft DCP maps show that the subdivision patterns do vary significantly throughout the town centre, including narrow allotments (usually containing the contributory buildings) and larger allotments scattered throughout the centre which are more predominant in the northern and southern parts of the centre. The draft DCP addresses these matters through design requirement for buildings to provide appropriate scale and detailing along a street frontage, with recognition of the existing environment via sections on Site Amalgamation (4.1.1 – ‘ensure that lot dimensions contribute to the built form grain and rhythm along the street’), Site Analysis (4.1.2), New Built form (4.2.1), Architectural Character (4.2.2) Articulation (4.2.3 and 4.6.4), Building Zone (4.2.5), and Setbacks (4.2.10). These provide sufficient requirements for addressing an appropriate scale of development, for any length of frontage, without unnecessarily restricting the potential for good design. The QVB building in Sydney’s CBD, for example, has a street frontage of more than 200m and yet provides a wonderfully detailed and interesting design that enhances the street.

 

One submission noted that a 12 m separation between habitable rooms is insufficient. This is a best practice requirement set out in the 2002 Planning NSW Residential Flat Design Code and is considered a satisfactory requirement. (The current requirement for multi-unit housing within Randwick City is 8 metres, being an average of 4m at side boundaries).

 

As one submission raised, the view to the Kensington Monastery of the Missionary of the Sacred Heart has already been considered in the preparation of building envelopes for each block and maintaining public views to the buildings is noted as a specific objective in the DCP Section 4.2.4 (Building Heights).

 

DCP ISSUE – MEWS DEVELOPMENT/CONTRIBUTORY BUILDINGS/HERITAGE

 

Matters raised in Submissions:

 

Contributory buildings not sufficiently protected

Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe Ave

 

Heritage/conservation/character of area not properly considered

Form Letter,

P Jenkin – Doncaster Ave, Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe Ave, C Crook and J Eather – Elsmere St, J Buchanan – Beach St (2 submissions), B and B Brenac – Cottenham Ave

 

Mews Style development ludicrous facadism

F Thorvaldson Doncaster Ave

 

Pathways should be wider for trees, grass, etc; setback ends of building

Cr Whitehead –Inglethorpe Ave

 

Comment:

While Kensington as a whole does have a number of conservation areas with fine heritage characteristics, the town centre itself includes only 2 items of heritage significance (Doncaster hotel and the Masonic hall), within a context of many buildings of little or no architectural merit. In a detailed analysis of the town centre blocks, the draft DCP identified two previously unrecognised potential heritage items (Blocks 3  - a stables building and block 4 – a chapel) and proposed controls are specifically designed to ‘release’ these buildings from their current hidden and landlocked state into a more public appreciation of their value.

 

The draft DCP identifies a number of buildings as Contributory to the Kensington town centre, although these may not pass rigorous heritage scrutiny as buildings worthy of heritage listing. However, they do hold sentimental value to the Kensington community and reflect the history of Kensington’s gentrified origins. The proposed Mews style development in the draft DCP will provide sufficient commercial incentive to ensure appropriate retention and care of these Contributory buildings in a 3 dimensional form similar to their original built form. This approach is based on current conservation practice, which rejects the retention of ‘facades only’ and encourages a three-dimensional approach if a building is worth keeping at all.

 

During the shopfront exhibition, public response in favour of the Mews style development was overwhelming (‘Love the Mews!’ – Dr S Gatt’, ‘Sounds good, especially the Mews’ S and M Little’). The approach was considered innovative by the Urban Conservation Committee of the National Trust, and was noted as one of the draft DCP’s innovative features by Russell Olsson of the Peer Review Group.

 

The draft DCP has been amended to clarify access within the Mews is for pedestrians only (4.2.7). One submission noted that the Mews pathways should be wider, for trees/lawn etc and Mews should be setback more. The Mews pathways should reflect cobbled walkways of historic Mews developments, creating an intimate open space that links with the ground floor commercial uses, rather than wide parks/lawns. The Mews have a minor setback from the street, considered appropriate to maintain continuity along the street while allowing for articulation/detailing of the street front elevation.

 

DCP ISSUE – APARTMENT MIX

 

Matters raised in Submissions

Apartment mix will attract transients/too many students

Form Letter

Mentioned in individual letters from B Brenac Cottenham Ave, E Matsos – Mooramie Ave, J & J Ironside – Villiers St,  John Stinson – Tunstall Ave, M Carolan – Doncaster Ave, M Reid – Kensington Rd, P Jolliffe, R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions), Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe Ave, R Rowley – Anzac Pde

 

Apartment Mix - Council should enforce the existing code

R Rowley – Anzac Pde

 

Comment:

Council does not have any existing code that provides for any specific apartment mix. The draft DCP is a first for Randwick City Council in that it proposes a limit on all developments of 40% studios/one bedrooms in order to ensure a mix of apartment types and thus to cater to a range of household types. 1996 Census data shows that 36% of all Kensington families are ‘couple only’ and 24% of household types are ‘Lone Person’ households.

 

Household type or family type is not an indicator of design quality. The draft DCP is based on achieving quality urban design, in line with SEPP 65, the new Residential Flat Design Code and the Residential Flat Design Pattern Book. Local data suggests that new development will attract home ownership rather than investment.  For example, 54% of apartments in Raleigh Park are fully owned or being purchased.  By comparison, 42% of all dwellings in the Kensington Postal Area are fully owned or being purchased.

 

As a Town Centre near the University of New South Wales, Kensington has a role to play in providing a high standard of amenity for students. In any event, even if so desired, there are no development controls that Council could impose which would prevent any citizen from renting rather than from buying a residence.  Nor can Council prevent any student from choosing to live in Kensington.

 

DCP ISSUE – STUDENTS AND KENSINGTON

 

Matters Raised In Submissions:

Increased numbers of students could lead to social problems e.g. Cabramatta

John Stinson – Tunstall Ave

 

Off campus student accommodation should not be encouraged

C Crook & J Eather – Elsmere St, E Matsos - Mooramie Ave, John Stinson – Tunstall Ave

 

Students won't contribute to the local economy

E MatsosMooramie Ave

 

Comment:

As noted above, the location of the University of NSW within the suburb of Kensington will mean that students will continue to be a part of the local community. While students live in a variety of housing types in the town center and surrounding suburbs, concerns have been raised regarding purpose-built off-campus student accommodation.

 

The draft DCP does not specifically encourage off-campus student accommodation. However it does recognise that the accommodation market may include demand for long stay visitors such as business people or students.  In this regard, the draft DCP requires a ‘comparable level of amenity to residential buildings’ and requires serviced apartments or student accommodation to ‘permit future adaptation to conventional apartments in terms of mix, amenity and all other design provisions’.

 

Where student accommodation is proposed, the draft DCP (4.7.3 – Apartment mix) requires that it must be reviewed by an organisation with expertise in this type of housing. In consideration of concerns about amenity and social impacts of this type of accommodation when off-campus, and recognising that student accommodation should be managed appropriately, this section of the draft DCP has been amended to require that student accommodation proposals are accompanied by an operational management plan prepared by an appropriately qualified Social Planner or equivalent. It is considered that this is a responsible approach to ensuring amenity and equity in the provision of a range of housing within the town centre.

 

Some submissions raised concerns about social problems that may arise. Kensington town centre already has a high proportion of students, without any notable social problems. Cabramatta, by comparison, has an extremely low proportion of university students (3% according to the 2001 Census). The draft DCP is designed to encourage development which will attract a variety of householders, family types, age groups, occupations and home ownership rates. Local evidence (Raleigh Park Census data) suggests that quality new development is more likely to attract higher rates of home ownership particularly among 35 to 45 plus professionals, managers and administrators on relatively high incomes than it is to attract students. It is anticipated that new residents in the town centre (regardless of occupation) will generate a variety of demands for change to the local business mix, and will contribute to the local economy.

 

DCP ISSUE – NEIGHBOURHOOD SUPERMARKET

 

Matters Raised in Submissions:

Shopping centre needed - more convenient for living

X Yan – Anzac Pde Kingsford

Y Rainio – Boronia St (Blocks 4 & 9 better than 10)

 

Supermarket in Duke St raises traffic issues 

P Smith – Duke St

 

Comment:

The draft DCP includes provisions for a neighbourhood supermarket and 3 optional blocks for which a supermarket may be considered. These sites are located in the heart of the commercial centre (retail core). The JTCW study noted the lack of a significant supermarket in the centre. The Civitas study also noted the lack of a supermarket as a deficit for the centre’s retail. Throughout all consultations, a high degree of interest has been shown for a supermarket, mixed with some concern that it should be located in the core of the centre. The DCP contains provisions to permit one supermarket only and to require evidence of leasing arrangements with a recognised supermarket retailer.

 

Some submissions noted that the proposed location in Block 10 may create traffic and parking issues in the residential streets. The proposed site shows the proposed access to below ground parking from Duke Street, which would improve the current situation of retail/commercial traffic/parking in the residential streets accessing the existing rear car park at Boronia Street. Nevertheless, any traffic and parking impacts would need to be addressed in traffic impact analyses in any development application. It is considered that the site remains potentially appropriate as a supermarket site given it redevelopment opportunities including large allotment sizes, few ownerships, location within the retail core, good access to public transport and a site configuration that would be conducive to a supermarket and range of specialty stores.

 

DCP ISSUE - TRAFFIC AND PARKING

 

Matters Raised In Submissions:

DCP does not comply with RTA's traffic code

Petition

J & J Ironside – Villiers St

 

Documents misleading because do not show current traffic arrangements

D Malanos – Grosvenor St, R Mackenzie – Addison St (2 Submissions)

 

Light rail corridor should be maintained

R Passey – Carr St

 

New development will increase traffic and reduce safety

D Malanos – Grosvenor St, Dianne Thian – Cottenham Ave, P Jenkin – Doncaster Ave, P Smith – Duke St, R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave, TA and PA Regan – Doncaster Ave

 

No on site parking for shoppers

Form Letter

M Reid – Kensington Rd, P Jenkin – Doncaster Ave, P Jolliffe, R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions), R Rowley – Anzac Pde TA and PA Regan – Doncaster Ave

 

Parking rates should be reconsidered/controlled

UNSW

 

Integrate state policy and council plans inc public domain improvement strategy, pedestrian plan, bike plan, and UNSW travel demand management strategy

UNSW

 

Open Lorne Ave to Anzac Parade

D Malanos – Grosvenor St, John Stinson – Tunstall Ave

 

Parking already a problem and will only get worse

E Matsos – Mooramie Ave, J & J Ironside – Villiers St, M Reid – Kensington Rd, P Jenkin – Doncaster Ave, R Mackenzie, PO Box 283, R Rowley – Anzac Pde

 

Traffic problems should be fixed before approving DCP

R and J Wood – Brompton rd, R Mackenzie – Addison St

 

Comment:

The draft DCP requires developments to comply with Randwick City Council’s Parking DCP for rather the RTA’s code (given that the latter has slightly higher retail parking space rate requirements but lower residential parking rates). This matter was raised in a previous exhibition and Council resolved to agree to resident requests that the draft DCP include Council’s Parking DCP requirements.

 

Council’s parking DCP requires developments to include parking for customers and visitors. Development resulting from the new controls will provide parking for customers and visitors in an area where none currently exists.

 

Council's Parking DCP requirements for Bike parking have also been specifically incorporated into the draft DCP to highlight these requirements.

 

On RTA advice, the draft DCP has incorporated provisions for stack/tandem parking where appropriate, in residential development and for commercial development in limited situations and subject to appropriate management arrangements (Council’s Parking DCP generally permits this only for dwelling houses and dual occupancies). This provision optimises use of below ground parking areas, minimising the depth of underground basements and potential impacts on the water table.

 

All new developments will need to provide an analysis of traffic impacts of their proposals.

 

The suggestion that Lorne Ave should be re-opened to traffic from Anzac Parade is more appropriately addressed by the traffic Committee.

 

The draft DCP is not a traffic study, and no traffic arrangements are included on a Map in the document. However, as part of the UIP project, Council is also reviewing the public domain and potential improvements to the infrastructure, traffic and parking arrangements. Council has employed traffic consultant Chris Stapleton (who is also undertaking the Kensington LATM study), to review the road configuration along Anzac parade and parking situation, to consider possible enhancements to this significant boulevard, to increase on-street parking, maintain road traffic capacities and public transport efficiency, maintain the future potential for light rail and improve safety for all users. While the consultant is still undertaking surveys and modelling work to determine the preferred solution for Anzac parade, the improvement of footpaths can commence shortly.

 

DCP ISSUE – ANZAC PARADE NOISE

 

Matters raised in Submissions

Anzac Parade too much pollution/noise for people to live there, or for café tables on footpath

Petition

Mentioned in individual letters from J & J Ironside – Villiers St, J Buchanan – Beach St, Coogee (2 submissions) P Jenkin – Doncaster Ave, R and J Wood – Brompton rd, R Rowley – Anzac Pde

 

Build earth banks/concrete walls on Anzac Parade to protect residents from noise         

J Buchanan – Beach St, Coogee (2 submissions)

 

Face all residential internally away from traffic noise      

J Buchanan – Beach St, Coogee (2 submissions)

 

DCP does not comply with RTA/EPA noise guidelines

Petition

J & J Ironside – Villiers St, R Mackenzie – Addison (2 submission)

 

Comment:

Anzac Parade extends from the northern boundary of Randwick City throughout the entire local area to the southern boundary of Botany Bay. A substantial number of dwellings are and commercial areas already exist along Anzac Parade and provide appropriate environments for these land use types. The draft DCP has included requirements to optimise the development along this road in terms of noise amelioration – including 4.7.1 (Acoustic Privacy) requirements (one of the performance criteria specifically includes the RTA’s requirement for a noise and vibration assessment, while another refers to the EPA’s criteria for Road Traffic Noise 1999), and other sections requiring design of dual aspect apartments, and design of balconies for partial enclosure and treatments such as shutters and devices to reduce noise impacts.

 

Suggestions that new development along Anzac Parade should only have windows facing away from the street do not accord with the ESD principles that form the basis of this draft DCP. Suggestions that new development along Anzac Parade should be obscured by earth banks or concrete walls do not accord with fundamental urban design principles recommended by Planning NSW and the Minister for Planning.

 

The RTA's Environmental Noise Management Manual notes that it is:

 

'primarily intended as a guide for RTA staff, acoustic consultants and other contractors.  It defines the RTA's guiding principles in managing noise and vibration from the roads it

controls, and details a noise and vibration management framework for: new, upgraded and existing roads and transit ways, individual vehicles and road construction and maintenance works.'

 

While the draft DCP (4.7.1) already requires a noise and vibration assessment with DAs, this section has been amended to specifically refer to the RTA manual.

 

The EPA’s ‘Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise’ (ECRTN) is already specifically included in the draft DCP. The ECRTN Criteria for road noise is an external measure while the draft DCP measures are internal criteria (Laeq). The RTA Manual notes that the ERCTN ‘encourage local approval authorities to develop their own internal noise level criteria (eg to prevent sleep disturbance in residences). In the absence of any local codes for new residential developments, the ECRTN recommend internal levels of 35-40 dB (A) at night’. This is consistent with the requirements already contained in the draft DCP, which were recommended by the UDAS.

 

The ECRTN also recommends that ‘Planning Instrument provisions relating to site layout, building design, building construction methods and building materials should demonstrate consideration of acoustic performance’. The DCP section on Acoustic Privacy, while already detailed, has thus been amended to add requirements relating to construction and design techniques and in the use of buildings to minimise noise (as recommended by the Residential Flat Code, UDAS, Planning NSW).

 

DCP ISSUE – RIGHTS OF CARRIAGEWAY

 

Matters raised in Submissions

Rights of Carriageway inadequate for loading/servicing

K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct

 

Rights of Carriageway unworkable/unlawful/ S88K proceedings of Conveyancing Act

Form Letter

Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe Ave, E Matsos – Mooramie Ave, J & J Ironside – Villiers St, Buchanan – Beach St, Coogee (2 submissions), K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, M Reid – Kensington Rd, P Jolliffe - ?, R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions), R Mackenzie – Addison St (2 submissions)

 

Tunnel effect through Kensington

P Jolliffe, BDO Properties

 

Feasibility of tunnels – Council should provide through rates, S94

BDO Properties

 

Semi-basement will infringe on neighbouring amenity

K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions)

 

Corner blocks and driveway should address driver visibility to pedestrians/cyclists

UNSW

 

Comment:

The Draft LEP and DCP have been formulated with the objective of encouraging a revitalisation of the Kensington town centre, encouraging redevelopment and a greater mix of land uses. Past subdivision and development patterns and current planning controls have resulted in the current static nature of the town centre.

 

The proposed LEP and DCP provisions and controls are supported by the Roads and Traffic Authority and the RTA does not anticipate that the potential redevelopment within the Town Centre will adversely impact the environmental capacity of Anzac Parade. This position however is predicated upon there being no new vehicular access points onto Anzac Parade being created.

 

In order for redevelopment to occur which accommodates the car parking requirements on site, it is necessary for access to be provided to the site. Existing development patterns have resulted in many allotments historically being developed without on site car parking, as no access is available to Anzac Parade or a side street. Some properties have overcome

this by negotiating a right of carriageway across the rear of an adjoining property to obtain access to a side street such as Duke Street and so provide car parking on site.

 

The draft LEP and DCP as exhibited in March/April 2002 proposed that access to side streets be achieved through the creation of new public roads. This involved the nomination of a local Road Reservation under the draft LEP over affected properties, with a requirement that Council acquire the land upon receipt of a request in writing from affected land owner. Such a request could be made at any time following gazettal of the LEP and Council would have been obligated to acquire the land in accordance with the

provisions of the Just Terms Compensation Act and pay the appropriate market value. Whilst it may have been possible for Council to recoup the monies paid in compensation in part or whole through section 94 contributions once development occurred, Council may have been called upon to acquire land well in advance of any funds being available.

 

Redevelopment within the town centre is in part reliant upon site amalgamation to achieve allotment sizes with adequate land area to enable a development to be undertaken which can comply with the development standards and performance criteria contained within the LEP and DCP. Development will be driven by market forces and facilitated by the cooperation and negotiations between adjoining landowners.

 

Some submissions have suggested that the ROC are unworkable, given that they rely on owners to work together to achieve the access. It should be noted that owners are likely to require negotiation in terms of site amalgamations in any case. For most blocks within the town centre, the amalgamation provisions will allow for about 3 to 4 separate developments (2 of which will usually be corner site developments). Negotiations on site access will thus normally involve only one or a few owners only.

 

As no further access points onto Anzac Parade will be permitted by the RTA, vehicular access must be obtained from alternate locations such as side streets. In circumstances where a coordinated development occurs involving the amalgamation of allotments within a development block, the access way will not involve the creation of any rights of carriageway on title of the land, but will simply involve the provision of the access which will form common property as part of the overall development under a strata or community title development scheme.

 

In circumstances where complete block amalgamation does not occur it may be necessary for rights of carriageway to be negotiated across adjoining properties for a development site to achieve vehicular access to a side street. A right of carriage way is a legal right created on the title of land and carries with it certain rights and obligations as negotiated

between the parties to the right of carriage way (which also can include the Council as well as the land owners).  A right of carriageway need not have any different physical appearance than that of a coordinated drive way access passing over common property within a single development as described above.

 

The proposed rights of carriageways will only be necessary where complete block  amalgamation does not occur and will appear simply as part of the access points from the side streets to interconnected semi basement and basement areas. They will not appear as tunnels and will not require significant portions of the sites to be left at ground level for access purposes as currently occurs.

 

Coordination and cooperation will be one of the keys to the successful implementation of the Kensington Urban improvement program. Should situations arise where negotiations between landowners fail to result in the grant of a right of carriageway at reasonable cost and so prevent the orderly development of the land relying on the right of carriageway, then the owner requiring the right of carriageway to enable development to occur

can commence proceedings in the Supreme Court of NSW pursuant to section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919 seeking the Court grant the right of carriageway subject to payment of reasonable compensation. Some submissions raised concerns about this approach.

 

Section 88K of the Conveyancing Act provides a mechanism for landowners to seek a grant of a right of carriageway over adjoining land in circumstances where all negotiations with the adjoining land owner have proved unsuccessful.

 

The first issue raised in such proceedings is whether the right of carriage way is reasonably necessary for the effective use or development of land which is seeking the right of carriage way or in other words would the land effectively be sterilised from future development without the benefit of the right of carriageway.

 

A second matter that must be considered by the Court is whether the use of the land in accordance with a right of carriage way would be inconsistent with the public interest. This issue was addressed in a recent decision of the Supreme Court of NSW McConachie v Manly Council. In this case a landowner sought an extension of a right of carriageway to enable the subdivision of one lot to create two. The right of carriageway was providing access to two dwellings and the section 88K proceedings sought to extend this to providing access to an additional allotment and dwelling to be erected on it. One                  consideration of the Court in terms of public interest was the potential impact on the convenience of the public's use of the right of carriage way or pedestrian access from the additional traffic on that access way. It was viewed by the Court as no more than an intensification of an existing inconvenience.

 

The Court considered the other public interest to be of greater importance and that was "...there not being a sterilisation of a valuable piece of land other wise available for residential use." The Court found that the use of the land the subject of the application for right of carriage way would not be inconsistent with the public interest.

 

The Court in making a determination of such applications under section 88K also considers the question of reasonable compensation and makes directions for the payment of such compensation when it grants a right of carriage way.

 

In making a determination whether to grant a right of carriageway, the Court must also consider whether all reasonable attempts have been made prior to commencing proceedings to negotiate the grant of the right of carriageway on reasonable terms. This is a matter dealt with by way of evidence of the Applicant for the right of carriage way."

 

Rather than the suggestion in some submissions that underground car parks will contribute to traffic chaos, these will simplify traffic management at side streets by providing a single continuous entry/exit point to and from new development.

 

All development proposals must satisfy the requirements of DLWC regarding extraction of groundwater and prevention of future ingress of groundwater (as further strengthened on DLWC advice). All development proposals must also submit a Waste Management Plan as recommended by Resource NSW. 

 

The safety of pedestrians and cyclists in relation to the driveway entries and exists has been re-examined in response to submissions and an additional requirement has been include in 4.5 noting the RTA’s requirement that all new walls adjacent to vehicle crossings must be a height of 600m above the driveway or splayed 1.5 m x1.5m for driver ability to observe people approaching the driveway.

 

DCP ISSUE - SAFETY

 

Matters raised in submissions:

In the event of earthquakes, buildings built to street edge threaten pedestrians and traffic

J & J Ironside – Villiers St

 

Unsafe to build on a high water table

J & J Ironside – Villiers St

 

Rights of Carriageway will encourage criminal activity

Petition

J & J Ironside – Villiers St

 

Rights of Carriageways a site for Terrorist attacks

R Mackenzie, PO Box 283

 

Comment:

The draft DCP devotes substantial consideration to local Groundwater

Conditions, which make building difficult, but not impossible, and certainly

not so unsafe as to preclude development altogether.  References to the

potential for flooding have been strengthened in line with DLWC's comments

on the draft DCP/LEP.

 

According to Emergency Management Australia, (an organisation within the

Attorney‑Generalos Portfolio) the historical record in Australia goes back

only about 210 years. The first reported earthquake lasted about three

seconds at Port Jackson, NSW in June, 1788. In 1837, early settlers in South

Australia experienced an earthquake for 20 seconds. Similarly, in the early

histories of Hobart (1827), Melbourne (1841) and Perth (1849) earthquakes

were felt. The first recorded deaths (although indirect) occurred in 1902 at

Warooka, SA, when two people died of shock after a Richter magnitude 6.0

earthquake, and in 1917 one miner died and 5 were injured in an underground

rock fall triggered by an earthquake at Kalgoorlie, WA.

 

In the last 80 years there have been 17 earthquakes in Australia registering

6 or more on the Richter Scale. This is a rate of about one every five

years, compared to a world average of about 140 per year. Although the

larger Australian earthquakes have caused significant damage, they are, on

the whole, of much smaller strength than the worldos most‑damaging shocks.

The geographically‑oldest western and central parts of Australia, are most

seismically‑active. Compared with many other countries in our region,

Earthquake activity in Australia is low.

 

Neither EMA, nor GeoSciences Australia, nor the State Emergency Service

identify the Randwick Local Government Area as particularly susceptible to

earthquake. 

 

Although the local community has every right to feel particularly vulnerable

to terrorism, given how many members of this community lost their lives in

the Bali Bombings, the Prime Minister himself warned on the day of that

event that 'terrorism can touch anybody, anywhere, at any time’.  The

provision of Rights of Carriageway in association with below ground parking

in the Kensington Town Centre is unlikely to make Kensington any more

vulnerable to terrorism than it is today.

 

DCP ISSUE – DONCASTER PLAZA SITE

 

Matters raised in Submissions:

Proposed 5/8 storeys unacceptable/out of scale with hotel

J Newell (Mooramie Ave), E Matsos (Mooramie Ave), T Ad P Regan (Doncaster Ave), R Cresdee (Doncaster Ave), D Thian (Cottenham Ave), B Kelly (Doncaster Ave), Cr Whitehead (Inglethorpe Ave), J Ironside (Villiers St), R Mackenzie (Addison St), M Carolan (Doncaster Ave)

Open Space diminished and likely social problems with adjacent pub

J and J Wilson (Doncaster Ave), Cr Whitehead (Inglethorpe Ave), M Carolan  (Doncaster Ave)

 

Link Anzac pde and Kokoda Park via a pathway through the block/provide a recreation centre

X Lan

 

Ignores peer review recommendations

Form Letter

E MatsosMooramie Ave

 

Comment:

The draft plans largely adopt the Peer Review Group’s recommendations concerning building height, apart from the Doncaster Plaza site – the majority of the Group had recommended a 10-storey maximum.  Council resolved that a maximum of 8 storeys (on parts of the site only, and for no more than 50% of any frontage) is appropriate (consistent with Dr Gatt’s recommendation).  The envelope for this site then required further review by Council officers within this revised scenario (to avoid a ziggurat design of 4 storeys, setting back to 6, then again to 8 storeys), with expert design advice from Russell Olsson who participated on the Design Review Panel. Members of the Peer Review Group have been asked to comment on the revised draft plans.

 

The Block has been further refined, recognising some of the matters raised in both submissions and in the Master Plan assessment report to Council (12 November 2002). The entrance to the public open space area on Anzac Parade has been expanded to a minimum 7.5m wide entry, requiring the building envelope to be set back from the boundary of the adjacent Doncaster hotel site. The relationship of the 5 storeys along street frontages to the hotel eaves was refined to ensure that any development meets minimum floor to ceiling/floor height requirements while relating well to the architecture and proportions of the hotel. The Master Plan report noted that the specified maximum RL height of 38.8m to the eaves of the hotel may not be achievable given ground level changes and flood level requirements for the development.  The performance criteria have been amended to ensure that all issues are addressed in the final built form, including ensuring that the proportion of 5:8 is met in any development, minimum floor to ceiling/floor/slab heights are met, and heritage, flooding and ground level issues are appropriately addressed.

 

DCP ISSUE – BLOCK 2 (adjacent Kokoda Park)

 

Matters raised in Submissions:

War memorial club now included – no setbacks, overshadowing, overlooking

K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, R Cresdee – Doncaster Ave  (2 submissions)

 

Comment:

Block 2 east of Anzac Pde was extended in the exhibited draft DCP east to the edge of Kokoda Park. The intention was to better link the centre to the park and to enhance Ascot Street as a significant link between the town and Racecourse. Submissions raised concerns regarding setbacks, overshadowing and overlooking of the park.

 

The building envelopes for these sites have been reviewed and revised to include setback requirements for the 4th and 5th storeys of transitional buildings along Goodwood and Ascot streets, for a maximum of 3 storeys (a maximum of 10.1 to 10.5m) at the park edge. Section 4.6.11 of the draft DCP (Solar access, overshadowing and natural daylight) also applies, stating that development proposals must address the amenity of the public domain, by maximising solar access. The performance criteria (xii) in this section has been strengthened to ensure that this objective is met.

 

While the existing club is already built to the boundary of the park, 4.3.2 of the draft DPC was amended to note that any ground level uses should no t encroach on the park.

 

A suggested pedestrian link between the park and Anzac Parade through any consolidated block has also been incorporated into the Block-by-Block plan.

 

DCP ISSUE – BLOCK 3 (including the Coptic Church)

 

Matters raised in Submissions:

Relationship to the Coptic Church

E Coulpasis – Anzac Pde, Coptic Church – Bowral St

 

Council should buy the property at corner of Bowral/Anzac Parade for a park. 

H Couirguis, Coptic Church – Bowral St

 

Relationship of church to corner envelope

H Couirguis, Coptic Church – Bowral St (4 storeys adjacent)

Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe Ave (do not build to boundary)

 

Comment:

Submissions focused on the relationship of the Coptic Church with any new building on the corner of Anzac Pde and Bowral Street. The Coptic Church is located within the town centre on land zoned 3B Local Business. All development within the town centre is preferred to be built to the boundary of adjacent developments, to ensure a strong and consistent street edge. The proposed 4 storeys/set back to 6 storeys remains appropriate for this street corner location and to relate to the building envelope on the opposite corner of Bowral St/Anzac Pde.

 

In reviewing the sites, the Coptic Church’s existing rear building line was corrected (see Block 3 ‘Existing layout’ map – showing a slightly extended rear boundary). The end development of the identified Contributory buildings along Anzac Pde was also identified as a later addition (built on the entry road to the early chapel at the rear of the Coptic church). This prompted a review of the laneway access on the corner block to Anzac Pde and Bowral St (which would view through to the rear of the Coptic church). The access way and envelope has been amended to ensure that this access will better address the Mews, views and access to the chapel, and any outdoor seating area in any development of the corner site. The draft DCP contains requirements for any issues of overshadowing, overlooking and privacy to be satisfactorily addressed at the DA stage.

 

DCP ISSUE – BLOCK 4 (extending to the public school)

 

Matter Raised in Submissions:

 

Kensington public school – no setback, overshadowing, overlooking

K Neilson Chairperson Randwick Precinct, R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave, R Rowley – Anzac Pde, TA and PA Regan – Doncaster Ave

 

School playground should be extended – owners of adjacent stables to sell

Cr Whitehead - Inglethorpe

 

Support share way in principle

Dept of Education

 

Consider overlooking, overshadowing, and solar access o playground

Dept of Education, K Neilson (Randwick Precinct), R and J Wilson – Doncaster Ave, Cr Whitehead – Inglethorpe

 

Comment:

Block 4 east of Anzac Parade was extended east to the boundary of the public school. The intention was to better link this block to the town centre boundary on the Block 3 to the north and to provide an opportunity for new road arrangements (a shared access road) that could improve the safety and efficiency of the school drop-offs. The Dept of Education have give in-principle support for this concept, while noting that any the afternoon sunlight on the playgrounds should be considered and development should not dominate the school. Submissions also raised concern about the setbacks, overshadowing, and overlooking in this location.

 

The building envelope has been reviewed and revised to include setback requirements for the transitional buildings along Bowral St and Todman Ave, so that these will be a maximum of 3 storeys (a maximum of 10.1 to 10.5m) at the school edge. The solar access requirements of 4.6.11 are relevant to any application.

 

DCP ISSUE – Block 6 (See also Doncaster Plaza site separately above)

 

Matter Raised in Submissions:

Clarify controls for corner of Anzac & Darling Street

SPD Town Planners on behalf of landowner

 

Comment:

The draft DCP building envelopes for the Anzac Parade/Darling Street corner property (Simplicity Funerals site) and adjacent Darling Street property were derived with careful consideration to how redevelopment of these properties would relate, which was necessary given their configurations. Based on the envelope and other performance criteria of the draft DCP (such as minimum site frontages and the requirement to ensure that other properties are not adversely affected in their identified development potential), the DCP intention was that these sites should be redeveloped together. The building envelope on the Anzac Parade frontage extends into part of the Darling Street property.

 

The draft DCP did not specifically refer to these two properties as a Defined Parcel. While it is not essential to specifically identify sites as ‘defined parcels’ for these to be required to develop together, the draft DCP has been amended to clarify this situation, by including the two sites as ‘Defined Parcel B’.

 

As part the draft DCP review, the envelope was also reviewed and altered to provide an improved outcome for this defined parcel. The envelope has been widened along Anzac Parade, consistent with the general approach in the draft DCP (22m building depth and 26 metres at corners), and the narrow separate building along Darling Lane has been deleted. This envelope better addresses the relationship to the Doncaster Plaza site’s building envelope and Anzac Parade frontage, and thus the overall Anzac Parade streetscape in this location. It also provides an improved, better defined corner treatment and better relates to the building envelope on the northern corner of Anzac Pde and Darling Street. The rear of the envelope has been stepped back to 4 storeys, recognising the lower scales of development in Darling Street (4 storeys on the southern side of Darling Street) and terraces o the northern side. The envelope better addresses privacy and overlooking issues that required the building separations of the previous envelopes. The configuration of the proposed open space on-site will provide opportunities to enhance the streetscape of Darling St.

 

DCP ISSUE - Block 7 (Lorne Ave site)

 

Matters raised in Submissions:

No logic in repeating the corner treatments of the Anzac parade building onto the Lorne Ave building. There should be no connection between the 2 buildings. What is the corner treatment – a clock tower?

Cr Whitehead

 

Ignores peer review recommendations

Form Letter

E MatsosMooramie Ave

 

Comment:

The draft plans largely adopt the recommendations of the Peer Review group for this site (maximum 6 storeys along Anzac Parade and 4 storeys along Lorne Ave). Following the Peer Review work and as part of the DCP review, the building envelope was further refined to provide for 2 buildings (rather than one), one fronting Anzac Parade and a smaller scale building fronting Lorne Ave, as a better design outcome and approach for achieving dual aspect apartments. The setbacks for the corners of each building were refined from the Peer review’s setback recommendations only in relation to the outcome of two rather than one building. A connection between the buildings is optional and the DCP provides suitable performance criteria if any connection if proposed. These refinements to the building envelope were overseen and endorsed by design expert, Russell Olsson, as a member of, and providing continuity from, the Peer Review Group.

 

Given its prominent Anzac Pde corner, any building here should have an outstanding corner treatment in relation to the street and the building itself. The draft DCP provides preferred dimensions but not the final preferred treatment of this corner e.g. clock tower. This is appropriately a matter for the architect for the site, subject to assessment by a Design Review Panel. No DCP changes were considered necessary for this block.

 

DCP ISSUE – Block 8  (Cnr Addison and Anzac)

 

Matters Raised in Submissions:

Clarify controls for corner of Anzac & Addison Street/easement constrains        /zoning queried

A Bonanno Planning on behalf of corner site owners

 

Addison Street Corner should not be realigned - loss of parking, traffic dangers

Petition

Mentioned in individual letters from J & J Ironside – Villiers St, R Mackenzie, PO Box 283

 

Comments:

The potential inclusion of the council car park in the building envelope on the corner of Anzac Parade and Addison Street was designed to achieve a continuous street edge to the town centre buildings, particularly as Anzac Pde sweeps around this curve of the road, better relate to the Lorne Ave/Anzac Pde corner and to achieve an effective boundary to residences in Addison Street. Regarding concerns over the loss of parking, the draft DCP notes that any realignment and sale of the Council land would need to include suitable offset arrangements for the existing street parking.

 

Concerns were raised on behalf of the owners that development would not be possible (given existing infrastructure below the car park) and that the site was unfairly disadvantaged by comparison with the current planning controls which apply. This matter has been further reviewed and the draft DCP has been amended to clarify the infrastructure services present and to note that the relevant authorities may require relocation of these services to below the new footpath. Investigations have confirmed that this remains a reasonable and achievable envelope for this part of Block 8.

 

The zoning of the car park site was queried. As it is part of the road reserve, the land is ‘unzoned’ under Council’s LEP 1998, which provides that this land may be developed for anything permissible on adjoining land. This is considered appropriate for enabling the site potential as identified in the draft LEP/DCP.

 

DCP ISSUE – Block 10 (re Car park to rear of 89-93)

 

Matter Raised in Submissions:

Rear car park limited to parking only, should have 2C controls

BDO Properties for owner

 

Comment:

 A submission on behalf of an owner of the rear car park fronting Boronia Street noted that the proposed envelope and controls would prevent any use other than a car park on this rear site. This has been reviewed and suitable provisions included in the draft DCP to ensure that residential development may be permitted on the car park site, subject to the existing retail/commercial parking being replaced as part of any redevelopment and also for a pedestrian link between Anzac Pde and Boronia Street to be provide, to optimise accessibility of residents in Boronia street to the town centre.

 

In reviewing this block, the provisions for the Peters of Kensington site was also reviewed. Given its steeply sloping rear, retail/commercial has been permitted (and included in the section on Specialist Retail – 4.2.9) at the first 3 levels of the development which are likely to have an outlook to the rear slope only (and a poor residential outlook/sunlight access, etc). The DCP also requires that any faced presents well to the Balfour lane and that any access to parking on Anzac Pde integrates with the street, with inviting, active edges.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The draft LEP has been prepared and exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Regulation. The provisions of S.66 and S.67 of the Act have been complied with in relation to public involvement in the preparation of the draft LEP. The draft LEP is consistent with all State Environmental Planning Policies, Regional Environmental Plans and Ministerial Directions under S117 of the Act have been taken into consideration. The draft DCP has also been prepared in accordance with the Act and Regulation and relevant State policies and guidelines.

 

The draft LEP and draft DCP have been developed with the benefit of previous and current investigations of the town centre, to provide a comprehensive approach to all opportunities and constraints for future land uses and development. The draft LEP/DCP are now considered to provide a best practice approach to achieving a long-term vision for Kensington town centre.

 

The amendments made to the draft LEP have been minor and did not involve any change in intent of the draft plan. The Parliamentary Counsel has given an opinion that the draft LEP may be legally made. The draft LEP may now therefore be endorsed and forwarded to the Minister for its making.

 

The amendments now proposed for the draft DCP have addressed any concerns or queries raised in submissions. These changes have largely been refinements to the proposed objectives and performance criteria, with clarifications and improvements to the Block-by-Block controls to optimise the proposed development outcomes. While these changes have refined the application of the draft DCP, its approach and content remain substantially the same. It is considered, therefore, that a further exhibition of the amended draft DCP is not warranted and that it is now appropriate to be adopted by Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

(a)          Endorse the draft Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No 27) for Kensington Town Centre and agree to forward the draft LEP to the Minister for Planning requesting that the draft LEP be made;

(b)          Adopt the draft Development Control Plan 2002 for Kensington Town Centre, to commence in accordance with the requirements of the Act and Regulation upon public notification of the LEP gazettal and DCP commencement date;

(c)          Agree that the Director, Planning and Community Development may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical and formatting errors if required, in the finalisation of the DCP; and

(d)          In light of (a) to (d) above, agree that a public hearing under S68 of the Act is not required.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

UNDER SEPARATE COVER -

A. Summary of Communications/Consultations

B. Summary of Individual Submissions

C. Letter from Mr David Chesterman

D. Summary and response to form letter

E. Survey and summary of responses

F. Kingsford town centre - development data

G. Height Analysis

H. Draft LEP

I. Draft DCP          

 

 

 

………………………………

 

 

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ILONA VAN GALEN

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLACE MANAGER

KENSINGTON TOWN CENTRE

 

 

 

………………………………

 

KAREN ARMSTRONG

 

A/MANAGER, STRATEGIC PLANNING

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 86/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

DONCASTER VILLAGE MASTER PLAN 240 - 268 ANZAC PARADE AND 101 - 105 DONCASTER AVENUE, KENSINGTON

 

DATE:

21 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3815 & 98/S/4330

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Health, Building and Planning Committee at its meeting held on the 12 November 2002 resolved that this application be deferred for a period of two weeks pending the adoption of the Draft  DCP Kensington Town Centre. 

 

In accordance with the above resolution, the Director of Planning and Community Development’s Report dated 4 November is resubmitted to Council for its consideration and determination.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Director Planning & Community Development's Report 83/2002

2.  A4 "Design Principles and the development process"  Section of the Doncaster Village Master Plan. (under separate cover)

   

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KERRY KYRIACOU

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 83/2002

 

Refer to item 6.3 on HBPC’s Agenda of

12 NOVEMBER 2002

 

SUBJECT:

DONCASTER VILLAGE MASTER PLAN 240-268 ANZAC PARADE AND 101-105 DONCASTER AVENUE, KENSINGTON

 

 

DATE:

4 November, 2002

FILE NO:

98/S/3815 & 98/S/4330

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 20 September 2002, Carrington Capital submitted an amended Draft Master Plan accompanied by a development application for the ‘Doncaster Village’ site at 240-268 Anzac Parade and 101-105 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington. The applicant is seeking approval to construct a mixed-use development comprised of retail and residential uses. Open space and car parking is also to be accommodated on the site.

 

The Development Application seeks approval for approximately 179 dwellings, basement car parking and retail uses on the site generally in accordance with the Draft Master Plan.  The Draft Master Plan was exhibited for a period of 21 days. The Development Application constitutes Integrated Development and has been notified in accordance with Council’s Policy for 30 days. Referral to relevant external agencies has also occurred. An assessment of the DA against the provisions of this Master Plan will be required and as such the reporting of the Development Application to Council will occur separately at a later date and this report only deals with issues arising from the Master Plan. Council has received a significant number of submissions in relation to this application. These submissions relate to issues in the development application and will be considered when the DA is assessed. These submissions do not form part of the relevant matters for this Master Plan application.

 

A Master Plan application was previously lodged for the site (on 5 November 2001). As a result of community consultation and the amendment of the draft planning controls pertaining to the site this application was abandoned and a revised Draft Master Plan was prepared. This revised document is the subject of the current application (and this assessment).  The revised Master Plan must be determined by Council within 60 days of its lodgement.

 

The Draft Master Plan has been prepared with consideration of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (1998) including Draft Amendment 27 to the Randwick LEP, the Draft Kensington Development Control Plan, Council’s Development Control Plan - Multi-Unit Housing, Development Control Plan – Parking, Contaminated Lands Policy and Outdoor Advertising Development Control Plan.

 

As the Draft Master Plan relies on the changes to controls proposed under draft Amendment 27 to the Randwick LEP and the draft Kensington Town Centre DCP these documents have been used extensively in the assessment of this application. The Draft Master Plan mostly conforms to the general and site-specific controls in the draft Kensington Town Centre DCP. Development applications for the site will have to meet or justify non-compliance with the draft LEP and DCP controls (and any approved Master Plan). Therefore, the primary purpose of the Draft Master Plan document (other than meeting statutory obligations under clause 40(3) of the RLEP) is to clarify, in a site specific document, the intended planning framework and to impose requirements for development of the site that are not already covered in the draft Kensington DCP and other Council policies. With this Master Plan application, these matters are limited due to the extensive work to date on the Kensington Town Centre and the site-specific building envelopes provided in the draft DCP.

 

To provide surety over the future development of a key site in the Kensington Town Centre, this report recommends that Council adopt the Doncaster Village Draft Master Plan subject to variations and inclusion of additional development requirements.

 

1.         THE MASTERPLAN:

 

The Draft Master Plan proposes a mixed-use development and provides for the following on the site:

§   1,150m2 of gross floor area dedicated retail and café uses, located at the ground floor level

§   Approximately 179 dwellings with an unspecified apartment mix

§   18,641m² of gross floor area (FSR of 2.7:1)

§   1,036m² of uncovered public open space

§   2,715m2 of private communal open space, approximately 576m2 of which is covered.

§   2 x car parking floors, at basement and sub-basement level, containing an unspecified number of parking spaces.

 

The Draft Master Plan proposes two building envelopes, each comprised of up to nine (9) storeys. These are both aligned to street frontages and result in a central communal private space, which is mostly open to the sky and a new public plaza to the rear of the Doncaster Hotel, which is also generally uncovered.

 

Pedestrian access is proposed via Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue and via the new mid-block public open space proposed between these two street frontages at the rear of the Doncaster Hotel. Vehicular access to the basement car parking level and access for loading is proposed via Doncaster Avenue.

 

2.         THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is an irregular shape and is bounded by a curved frontage to Anzac Parade to the west and a linear frontage to Doncaster Avenue to the east. The northern boundary adjoins properties that front Darling Street and Doncaster Avenue. The southern boundary of the site adjoins the Doncaster Hotel.

 

The subject site is comprised of several parcels, being Lots A, B and C in DP 439857 (101-105 Doncaster Avenue) and Lot 100 in DP 595570 and Lot 103 in DP 1005785. The subject site has an area of 6,695m² and slopes north to south resulting in a change in level of approximately 1 metre between northern and southern boundaries. The site includes an existing laneway, which gives direct access to Darling Street (to the north of the subject site).

 

The two Anzac Parade parcels are currently occupied by a single level shopping centre and associated car parking area (which is shared with the Doncaster Hotel). The three Doncaster Avenue parcels are each occupied by a single storey house (one detached dwelling and a pair of semi-detached dwellings).

 

Development in the locality is characterised by a mix of uses. To the north, the Kensington Town Centre is comprised of a mix of retail, commercial and residential buildings which display a variety of built forms (from single storey houses which have been converted for commercial uses to multi-storey mixed use developments). Behind Anzac Parade to the west are more residential areas and residential uses also dominate Doncaster Avenue to the east. The site is in close proximity to recreation and education uses at Randwick Racecourse and the University of NSW.

 

Immediately to the northwest of the site, on the corner of Anzac Parade and Darling Street, is a 2-3 storey commercial development. Immediately to the northeast of the site are 3-4 storey walk-up type residential flat buildings which front Darling Street and Doncaster Avenue. Adjacent the site to the south is the four (4) storey Doncaster Hotel.

 

To the west of the site, across Anzac Parade is the Masonic Temple Hall at 199-201 Anzac Parade. This building is a heritage item under schedule 3 of RLEP 98. The site is not located in a heritage conservation area.

 

3.         MASTER PLAN REQUIREMENTS:

 

Under the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan Amendment No.17 Clause 40A, a Master Plan is required for development of sites over 4,000sqm in area.  The Council cannot approve a development application on a site over 4,000sqm unless the Council has adopted a Master Plan for the site and it is satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the Master Plan. Council may grant a waiver to the requirement for a Master Plan, but only if the proposal is minor or ancillary or if adequate controls/guidelines already exist.

 

Master Plans are required to outline long-term proposals for development of sites and explain how proposals address the following matters (but is not limited to them):

 

§ design principles drawn from an analysis of the site and its context;

§ phasing of development;

§ distribution of land uses, including open space;

§ subdivision pattern;

§ building envelopes and built form controls;

§ heritage conservation, including both Aboriginal and European heritage;

§ infrastructure provision;

§ remediation of the site;

§ pedestrian, cycle and road access and circulation and public transport;

§ parking provision;

§ provision of public facilities;

§ impact on and improvements to the public domain;

§ provision of open space, its function and landscaping;

§ identification and conservation of native flora and fauna habitat on the site; and

§ the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

 

The requirements for a Master Plan application include public advertising and notification of the proposal. The assessment is to have regard to any submissions received.

 

4.         STATUTORY CONTROLS:

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55)

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated for rezoning and development applications. Although a comment under SEPP 55 is not required for this master plan application, it is considered to be prudent to consider the provisions of SEPP 55 at this stage.

 

A preliminary site investigation has been undertaken by Douglas Partners P/L. The limited investigations revealed contamination of the site. Excavation is proposed for construction of the basement. Any contaminated material will have to be removed in an appropriate manner and the site retested after excavation has occurred. Council’s Manager Environmental Health has provided a recommendation requiring a detailed site contamination report and remedial action plan be provided with any development application.

 

Further consideration of SEPP 55 will be made at development application stage.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 - Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65)

 

SEPP 65 was gazetted on 26 July 2002. The Policy applies to master plans. Clause 29 of the SEPP requires a master plan to be submitted to a design review panel (if one exists). No panel has been formed for Randwick at this time. Notwithstanding that a panel review of the Draft Master Plan in relation to SEPP 65 has not been undertaken, the applicant has had regard to the recent design work that has been undertaken for the Kensington Town Centre.  Council has also referred the Master Plan to Mr Keith Cottier of architecture and urban design firm Allen Jack + Cottier for comment on the Master Plan (see section 7.4).

 

Regardless of the Draft Master Plan, the principles of SEPP 65 will require detailed consideration in the assessment of all future development on the site.

 

Draft State Environmental Planning Policy 66 – Integrating Land Use and Transport (Draft SEPP 66)

 

This Policy aims to ensure that urban structure, building forms, land use locations, development designs, subdivision and street layouts help achieve the following planning objectives:

 

(a)  improving accessibility to housing, employment and services by walking, cycling, and public transport,

(b)  improving the choice of transport and reducing dependence solely on cars for travel purposes,

(c)  moderating growth in the demand for travel and the distances travelled, especially by car,

(d)  supporting the efficient and viable operation of public transport services,

(e)  providing for the efficient movement of freight.

 

The policy generally applies to development having a gross floor space of more than 1,000 square metres. Clause 8 of the Policy also requires that Master Plans be consistent with the Policy and have regard to its objectives.

 

The proposed increase in dwellings on a major public transport route such as Anzac Parade fulfils the planning objectives for improved accessibility and promoting the viability of public transport. The Draft Master Plan also dictates improvements to the street and public domain to encourage walking. A recommendation has been included to ensure the Draft Master Plan also addresses the encouragement of cycling as a preferred mode of transport.

 

The Draft Master Plan, subject to revisions, is consistent with Draft SEPP 66.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP)

 

The site is currently subject to two separate zoning provisions under RLEP98. The two allotments which address Anzac Parade are zoned Local Business (Zone No. 3(B)) under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. The three parcels which front Doncaster Avenue are zoned Residential 2(C). Retail and commercial uses are generally prohibited in the 2(C) zone. Draft LEP Amendment 27 proposes to add permissible uses to the 2(C) zone in Kensington to allow commercial activity.

 

Clause 31(2) of the RLEP 98 requires landscaping of 50% of the total site area for development in 2(C) zones. The combined area of the parcels that are zoned 2(C) is 775.5m2. The Draft Master Plan proposes landscaping over the basement car parking of over 3,500m2 which more than complies with this provision. The Draft Master Plan does not comply with the requirement under clause 31(3) that less than 50% of this area be provided over basements or podiums.

 

The 3(B) zoning allows a FSR of 1.5:1. The 2(C) zoning allows an FSR of 0.9:1. The proposed FSR of 2.7:1 under the Draft Master Plan does not comply with these standards.

 

The allowable height under both the 2(C) and 3(B) zoning is 12 metres. The maximum external wall height for buildings within these zones is 10 metres. The Draft Master Plan does not comply with these provisions.

 

Draft Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (RLEP) (Amendment 27)

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No.27) seeks to implement changes to the RLEP to allow development that is consistent with the Draft Kensington Town Centre DCP (DCP). The draft DCP represents the culmination of a detailed planning study regarding the future of Kensington. The draft LEP simply seeks to provide the statutory framework to allow for the implementation of the DCP and for development that is consistent with the Council approved direction for Kensington.

 

The Draft Amendment has relevance for this application in terms of the proposed additional allowable uses under the 2(c) zoning within the Kensington Town Centre (as for the 3(b) zone at the ground and first floor levels) and the removal of the FSR, height and landscaping standards (within the Kensington Town Centre) from the RLEP.

 

The Draft Amendment also seeks to replace these standards with the maximum number of storeys, height and minimum frontage and allotment size standards as provided in the Draft Kensington Town Centre DCP. If gazetted, Amendment 27 will also result in the inclusion of the Doncaster Hotel (adjacent to the site) as a heritage item within Schedule 3 of the RLEP98. A summary of the compliance of the proposal with the new standards contained within the Draft is provided below:

 

Draft Clause No.

REQUIREMENT

PROVIDED

COMPLIANCE

42B(4)(a)

No. Storeys (max)

8 storeys

8-9 storeys

No

42B(4)(b)

Height (max)

27.4m

27.4m

Yes

42B(4)(c)

Minimum Frontage

20m

100m Anzac Pde

61m Doncaster Ave

Yes

42B(4)(d) Minimum allotment size

900m2

6,695m2

Yes

 

5.         POLICY CONTROLS:

 

Draft Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan (KDCP)

 

The Kensington Town Centre DCP (if adopted) will be a relevant consideration for any development application submitted under the approved Master Plan.

 

The majority of controls contained within the Draft Kensington Town Centre DCP are related to the detailed design of buildings. The table below has been limited to the more general built form, density and apartment mix provisions of the Draft Kensington DCP, which have relevance to the Draft Master Plan. The table has been organised to separate the site specific ‘block’ controls, and the ‘general’ controls in the Draft DCP.

 

Control

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

BLOCK 06 CONTROLS

Storeys

8 (27.4m)

8-9 (27.4m)

No (Yes)

Height Anzac Pde/ Doncaster Ave

5 Storeys (RL38.8)

5 storeys (RL38.8)

Yes (Yes)

Floor to Ceiling (min)

Ground

Storey 2

Other Res.

3.5

2.7

2.6

2.6

2.6

3.4

2.4

2.4 (floors 3-5)

3.0 (floor 6-8)

2.4m (floor 9)

No

No

No

Yes

No

8 storey elements to Anzac Pde

Not to exceed 50% of frontage to ensure it doesn’t dominate streetscape

<50%

Yes

Separation b/w habitable rooms

12m

14m(+)

Yes

Parking

Below Ground

Below Ground/ Under Podium

Portion to public space above ground level but landscaped

Yes

Doncaster Ave

Two way vehicular access

Access indicated with sufficient width for two-way traffic

Yes

Street Connection

Provide visual and pedestrian through links

Apart from plaza at rear of Hotel, not many links provided. Difficult due to change in level between podium and Anzac Pde Improvement to activity & surveillance of through connection required

No

Right of Carriageway

Provide on section to Darling Street

Not Indicated

No*

Ped/Vehicular Access to Darling St

Consider a link to Darling Street to enhance through links

Occasional vehicular access indicated

Yes

Alignment

First five storeys to Doncaster Ave and Anzac Pde to align with Doncaster Hotel

Setback 1.5m

No

Setbacks

6m from northern side boundary on Doncaster Ave for first 5 storeys

6m

Yes

 

12m from northern side boundary on Doncaster Ave for 6-8 storeys

10.5m (+) – not marked up just a scaled indication

No (partial)

 

6m from northern side boundary at Darling St thorough link or 4m if vehicular access underground

4m, vehicles underground

Yes

Rear Colonnade

6.7m high

4m wide

5.6m high

4m wide

No

Yes

Open Space

50% of site area (3,347.5m2)

3,751m2

Yes

Open to Sky

Over 50% of Open Space 1,673.75

2,884m2

Yes

Private Open Space Concession

Applies if 30% of site provided as Communal Open Space (min) (2,008m2)

40.5%

(2,715m2)

Concession applicable

%age apts to have private open space

90%

Not Indicated

No*

GENERAL CONTROLS

Articulation

Physically articulate facades between 600mm and 2.5m within the most extreme points of the building envelope

To be included in revised master plan

Not Indicated*

Setbacks

Anzac Pde

 

 

 

G-3

0m from Anzac Pde and side boundaries

Ground   1.5m

1-3           0m

No

Yes

4-5

4m(+) Anzac Parade and side street boundaries

6m

Yes

5(+)

6m(+) Property boundary

6m

Yes

Accessibility

To comply with AS 1428 (parts 1 & 2)

Provided in DA

No

Right of Carriageway

Provide to Darling Street from site

Not Indicated

No*

Active Frontages

Maximise street level activity, maximise glazing

Retail uses indicated to street

Glazing shown on DA

Yes

Yes

Awnings

To be provided to Anzac Pde and Doncaster Ave

Provided

Yes

Visual Privacy

Min 12m separation

14m(+)

Yes

Apartment Layout

Dual orientation apartments to be provided

Not Provided – Double loaded

No

Apartment Mix

Studio and 1 bed apartments max.40%

Not indicated

(DA 75 = 42%)

No

Accessible Apartments

11

Not indicated

No*

Building Use

Commercial retail to ground and first then residential

Generally commercial, retail and then residential, however

two residential apartments to ground floor facing Doncaster Ave

No*

Ground floor apartments

Floor level to be +1m from the street

Floor level 0.5 to 0.7m below street level on Doncaster Ave Frontage (DA)

No

Max. apartments off a single lift core

40

Approx 12

Yes

Private Open Space

All apartments to have useable private open space accessible from living areas

Not indicated

No*

 

* To be addressed in revised master plan (see Recommendation)

 

Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The DCP – Parking generally provides detailed requirements for Development Applications. Compliance of all future development applications with the DCP – Parking has been included in the Recommendations section of this report (see Recommendation 22.

 

6.         PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND SUBMISSION:

 

The Draft Master Plan was exhibited from September 24, 2002 for a period of 21 days, including advertisements in the local newspaper, notification of local residents and erection of site notices. One hundred and eight (108) submissions were received, some were received after the closing date, as well as a petition.

 

6.1       Objections

 

The following submissions were received objecting to the Draft Master Plan:

 

The following residents each submitted a proforma letter. The issues raised in the letter are listed below the residents’ names.

 

1.         Alex Whitehead, 10 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington

2.             Rodger Stapley, 27 Elsmere Street, Kensington

3.         Diana Robinson, 11 Kensington Road, Kensington

4.         Margery Whitehead, 10 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington

5.         Nicholas Prassas, 12 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington

6.         M. L Moorhead Religious of the Sacred Heart, ‘Karlaminda’ Roma Avenue, Kensington (second letter)

7.         Ian Stuart 4/87-91 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

8.         Leonie and Darryl Mee, 19 Cottenham Avenue, Kensington

9.         V. Leonard 25 Cottenham Avenue, Kensington

10.       Kerry Lynne Newell 45 Shaw Avenue, Kingsford

11.       Giles Milroy Ave, Kensington

12.       J S Heng 5 Milroy Avenue, Kensington

13.       Violet and Alex Penklis 30 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

14.       T. and M. Bouhoutsos 12 Ingram Street, Kensington

15.       Donna Lealand 9/39-45 Kensington Road, Kensington

16.       Rodney Van Beek 2 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

17.       David Putnam 12 Koorinda Avenue, Kensington

18.       G. and L. Pittman 14 Roma Avenue, Kensington

19.       J Jenkins 54 Milroy Avenue, Kensington

20.       John Allen 54 Kensington Road, Kensington

21.       Catherine Aloe 147 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

22.       A. Moriarty (second submission) Religious of the Sacred Heart, ‘Karlaminda’ Roma Avenue, Kensington

23.       Mr and Mrs Kipriotis 8 Villers Street, Kensington

24.       Chris and Mary Kardamis 19 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington

25.       Roger Stapley 27 Elsmere Street, Kensington

26.       Catherine Shand 47 Milroy Avenue, Kensington

27.       Tony Mulheerin 4 McDougall Street, Kensington

28.       Suseela Dur Vasula 16/4-10 Darling Street, Kensington

29.       Emanuel Cassimatis Price Edward Street, Malabar

30.       Soc C Lim 65 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

31.       Richard and Angela Deutsch 6 Tedwin Avenue, Kensington

32.       Susan Pamagoponlos 24 Eastern Avenue, Kensington

33.       Robert Wilson, 202 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

34.       Jane Borg 11A Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

35.       M.I Cruickshanks 4 Tedwin Avenue, Kensington

36.       R.A Purshouse 142 Anzac Parade, Kensington

37.       Catherine Shaud 47 Milroy Avenue, Kensington

38.       Felix Riedl 25 Duke Street, Kensington

39.       John McGuinness 23 Day Avenue, Kensington

40.       Valma Florence Coserove 3/97-99 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

41.       Mary Tennant 2/4-10 Darling Street, Kensington

42.       R.E Greenwell 7 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

43.       Chris and Lin Lin Sevens 7/71 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

44.       Iris Lyons 52 Lenthall Street, Kensington

45.       Nellie Svasti 101/109 Brampton Road, Kensington

46.       Joan Blaylock 6 Ingram Street, Kensington

47.       Thomas Blaylock 6 Ingram Street, Kensington

48.       Rosemary Edwards 4 Inglethorpe Avenue, Kensington

49.       Dr Alan Heng 5 Milroy Avenue, Kensington

50.       John Nagib 1/18 Lenthall Street, Kensington

51.       Catherine Aloe 147 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

52.       Truda Pigani 18/29 Kensington Road, Kensington

53.       Michael-Sandro Smith 91 Todman Avenue

54.       Derek Drew 8/37 Kensington Road, Kensington

55.       Carniela Criscione 87 Todman Avenue, Kensington

56.       L.M Mitchell 6/55 Kensington Road, Kensington

57.       Loretta Watson 19 Ingram Street, Kensington

58.       Paula Smith 5/4 Duke Street, Kensington

59.       Libby Hodgins 11/52 Boronia Street, Kensington

60.       Graham and Melissa Richardson 25 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

61.       Yvoone Satu Rainio 19/52-54 Boronia Street, Kensington

62.       Mark Reid 6 Kensington Road, Kensington

63.       Joe Giordimaina 58 Milroy Avenue, Kensington

64.       Roslyn Welsh 2/1 Salisbury Road, Kensington

65.       Shawn Barry 3/4-10 Darling Street, Kensington

66.       Laura Carolan 186 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

67.       Maria S. Da Silva 7/11 Salisbury Road, Kensington

68.       N. Kaparos 69 Milroy Avenue, Kensington

69.       Kerry Burns Heinecke 23 Cottenham Avenue, Kensington

70.       Sandra Corrick 8 Kensington Road, Kensington

71.       John Manolias 11 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

72.       Mary Vescopoulos 155 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

73.       Ron and Freda Postle 7 Eastern Avenue Kensington

74.       Geoff Postle 2/122 Todman Avenue, Kensington

75.       Keith C. H. Ling 1/26 Boronia Street, Kensington

76.       Dr N Pobner 13/52-54 Beronia Street, Kensington

77.       Joan Newell 43 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

78.       Marina Fuccilli 2/66 Milroy Avenue, Kensington

79.       R. and B. Brenal 4 Cottenham Avenue, Kensington

80.       Lee Simpson 132 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

81.       Maria Lukac 4/4 Duke Street, Kensington

82.       Andrew Trevor Jones and Beryl Marie Jones, 18 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

83.       Sujudi Santoso 1 Tedwin Avenue, Kensington

84.       D. Zavalakis 9 Cottenham Avenue, Kensington

85.       A. Joseph 58 Tunstall Avenue, Kensington

86.       Ronald L. Coleman 1 Duke Street, Kensington

 

§   Should not be approved until the Draft LEP and DCP for the Kensington Town Centre are approved.

§   Should not be approved until the objections by the residents have been considered and evaluated.

§   The bulk and size will have an undesirable impact on the local area and the amenity.

§   Set a precedent for future development in the town centre.

§   The twin towers are taller than the controversial new NIDA building and buildings in Kingsford.

§   The twin towers will have a detrimental effect upon the surrounding residential area.

§   The 5-storey perimeter building is too imposing on the streetscape.

§   The 5-storey building with no setback from the Doncaster Hotel, is out of proportion with the Doncaster hotel and will undermine the heritage value of the hotel.

§   The Master Plan shows that the twin towers are 9 levels, contrary to the draft planning documents (maximum height of 8 storeys).

§   Small amount of open space for the community will be of little benefit.

§   No evidence that the proposed development will contribute to the “revitalisation” of the Kensington Town Centre.

§   Owner of the site has already made substantial gains with the rezoning of the site in RLEP 1998.

§   Jackson Teece Chesterman Architects/Planning recommended that the same height limitations and setback requirements should apply to this site as to all other sites in the Kensington Town Centre.

§   The Master Plan has ignored the work by the Peer Review Group and both the Majority and Minority reports.

§   Can not be approved until there is a Section 94 plan in operation for Kensington.

 

Three copies of another proforma letter were received from the following:

 

87.       W.A Black 16 Villiers Street, Kensington

88.       P. Vogel 1/1C Ingram Street, Kensington

89.       Aulio Cyhelally (name not printed) 4 Villiers Street, Kensington

 

§   Massive overdevelopment on the site.

§   Limited setback will impact on heritage.

§   Dominate landscape.

§   Height is excessive.

§   Size and location of the sub-bedrooms too small and noisy.

§   What about Section 94 Contribution plans?

§   High vacancy rates for flats. No need for any more.

 

90.       Emanuel Matsos 17 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington

 

§   Twin eight storey tower will be higher than the new NIDA building, which has had such a detrimental effect upon the surrounding area.

§   The height of the towers is not appropriate.

§   The five storey perimeter building to the Doncaster has no setback, is out of proportion to the hotel and will undermine the heritage value of the hotel.

§   No evidence that the proposed development will contribute to the “revitalisation” of the Kensington Town Centre.

§   Owner of the site has already made substantial gains with the rezoning of the site in RLEP 1998.

 

91.       T.A and P.A Regan 198A Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

 

§   Twin towers are higher than the NIDA building and development at Kingsford.

§   A 5 storey building extending 96 metres long, with no setbacks and an additional 4 storeys on top is like Kingsford.

§   Lack of community open space.

§   The size of rooms does not comply with the Randwick Residential Flat Code.

§   Little provision for commercial or retail development.

§   The land area to which the draft plans apply has been increased, encouraging more high-rise buildings.

§   The Kensington Public School will be surrounded by high rise buildings.

§   Underground car park will 1.5metres above, will create a loss of privacy.

§   Right of carriageway will be subject to negotiations between neighbours.

§   The proposed developments must not be considered before a comprehensive traffic and parking plan is adopted.

§   Will developers get the benefits of major works without Section 94 contributions?

 

92.       B. Moriarty Religious Order of the Sacred Heart ‘Karlminda’ Roma Avenue, Kensington

 

§   Concern over lack of Council presence at Precinct Committee meetings.

§   Amended Master Plan is an insult to people’s intelligence.

§   Development too high.

§   Size of the units too small.

§   Garage arrangement questionable.

§   Plans do not respect heritage area.

§   Residents’ interests ignored.

§   Council has enclosed the area behind the Doncaster hotel and this is crown land.

 

93.       George J Cotis 4/28 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

 

§   Buildings of 8 storeys are without precedent in the Kensington area.

§   Randwick Council must not be listening to new standards for development of medium density housing.

§   Traffic congestion, especially on race day when the area is declared a ‘no go zone’.

 

94.       M. L Moorhead Religious of the Sacred Heart, ‘Karlaminda’ Roma Avenue, Kensington

 

§   Perimeter building too high.

§   Twin towers should not exceed the height of the NIDA building.

 

95.       C. Kimber 47 Milroy Avenue, Kensington

 

§   The Master Plan should not be approved until the LEP and DCP are finalised.

§   The Master Plan should not be approved until a Section 94 plan applies to Kensington.

§   The twin towers are too high and too imposing.

§   The scale of the building will overshadow the Don caster Hotel and the heritage value will be inappreciable.

§   The towers will set an unsightly precedent in the area.

§   Not offset by appropriate open space.

 

96.       John Buchanan 83 Beach Street, Coogee

 

§   The plan cannot possibly comply with Councils development standards.

§   Noise levels will make the area unsuitable for residential use.

§   The existing development is the only style of building that is practical for the street frontage of the site.

 

97.       Dr Robert Wood 202/91 Brompton Road, Kensington

 

§   Why must Kensington become another Maroubra or Kingsford with buildings higher than four storeys?

§   Traffic noise and construction noise will be a problem.

§   Council has its own agenda based on ‘Urban Consolidation’.

 

98.       John Ironside, 7 Villiers Street, Kensington

 

§   Council lacks the power to approve the Master Plan. It does not comply with LEP 1998.

§   Heights should not exceed 12m and 15m.

§   Rental vacancy is very high, no need for such development.

§   Object to the siting of building fronting Anzac Parade.

§   Does not comply with RTA’s noise management manual.

§   Open space is reduced.

 

99.       Rosemary Mackenzie PO Box 283, Kensington

 

§   Council lacks the power to deal with this Master Plan as it does not comply with the relevant requirements of the LEP.

§   The Master Plan is ineffective to achieve a rezoning.

§   Until amended the heights limits of RLEP 12m and 15m is legally binding and this applies to the site.

§   The Master Plan ignores and offends the RTA’s noise management manual.

§   Traffic movements are not considered.

§   Inadequate infrastructure provisions.

§   Reduction in open space.

§   Impact on the heritage of the Doncaster Hotel.

§   Destruction of line of sight of the Sacred Heart Monastery.

§   Plan has not considered the principles of SEPP 65.

 

100.     Dianne Thian 5 Cottenham Avenue, Kensington

 

§   Consideration of the Master Plan should be deferred.

§   Undermine the traditional character of the buildings in Kensington.

§   Section 94 plan must be introduced.

§   Excessive height in towers and perimeter buildings.

§   Insufficient setbacks.

§   Insufficient public open space.

§   Impact on parking.

 

101.     Paul Caruana 51 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

 

§   The LEP and DCP have not been finalised and the Master Plan should be postponed.

§   Buildings too high.

§   Reject the Master Plan and take into account the recommendation of the Peer Review Group.

 

102.     Kathy Nelson 3 Caerleon Crescent, Randwick

 

§   Does not comply with the Draft DCP or LEP.

§   Massive over development on the site.

§   Limited open space, which will benefit the hotel only.

§   Little opportunity for landscaping.

§   Little retail component.

§   Limited setback.

§   Impact on the heritage value of the Doncaster hotel.

 

103.     Ross Cresdee 65 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

 

§   Impact on the Doncaster building.

§   Overdevelopment of the site.

§   Does not comply with the draft LEP and DCP for the site.

§   Retail is reduced.

§   Open space will benefit the hotel.

§   Traffic impact.

 

104.     A. Caldwell 3 Elsmere Street, Kensington

 

§   Set a precedent for high-rise development.

§   Need to protect heritage areas and not follow Maroubra and Kingsford.

§   Excessive height.

§   Support the recommendations made in the Jackson Teece Chesterman Willis Report (1998).

§   Draft DCP and LEP have not been approved and there is no Section 94 plan.

§   Council has ignored the many of the concerns raised in the Peer Group Review.

 

105.     Shirley and Suzanne Egan 172A Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

 

§   Dwarfs the surrounding buildings.

§   Inadequate provision for parking.

§   Need resident parking.

§   Increase in residents will not be able to be supported with the existing infrastructure.

§   Increase in noise.

§   Impact of over shadowing, significant due to damp area.

§   Damage will be caused to the property from construction.

 

106.     Professor Peter Alexander 20 Eastern Avenue, Kensington

 

§   Excessive numbers of units.

§   Excessive heights.

§   Not in scale with the existing structures.

 

107.     J. C. Ryan 4/57 Kensington Road, Kensington

 

§   Bulk and size undesirable impact.

§   Perimeter buildings and towers too high.

§   Open space is insufficient.

§   LEP and DCP are in draft form these need to be approved first.

 

108.     Joan Newell 43 Mooramie Avenue, Kensington (second letter)

 

§   A development more like Avoca Street.

§   Do not want another Kingsford or Maroubra Junction.

§   Increase in traffic.

§   Limited parking.

 

A petition signed by 177 residents in the Kensington area was also received. The petition raised the following issues:

 

§   Offends the RTA’s noise management manual.

§   Increase in traffic and parking.

§   Open space is reduced.

§   Amenity for future residents is reduced.

§   Excessive heights.

§   Massive overdevelopment.

 

A majority of the issues raised by the submissions related to the size, scale and nature of development envisaged under the draft Kensington Town Centre DCP. An assessment of the Draft Master Plan against the draft Kensington Town Centre DCP has been provided in this report. This assessment has taken account of the extensive consultation that has taken place already in the preparation of the draft DCP and includes consideration of the impacts on surrounding properties and the streetscape in Kensington.

 

Council’s existing Section 94 Contributions Plan applies to Kensington and will be applied to all future development applications, not the master plan application, in accordance with the provisions of that plan. All land included in the proposal is under private ownership of the applicant. There is no Crown Land proposed for inclusion under the provisions of the Draft Master Plan.

 

Many submissions were received in response to the notification period, which referred to the management of the Doncaster Hotel and reported nuisance, noise and other disturbances related to the Hotel use. The Hotel does not form part of this application and  while the ongoing management of the Hotel is outside the scope of this report, it is considered that the future development of this site for residential uses will promote 24 hour surveillance of the Hotel and should result in management practices which protect the amenity of all surrounding residents and Hotel patrons. The submissions relating to this issue have been forwarded to Council’s Manager Building and Regulatory Services.

 

7.         TECHNICAL OFFICER’S COMMENTS:

 

The Master Plan application has been referred to Council’s technical staff for comment. The observations below are provided as an indication to Council and the applicant of the likely issues, which may arise during future development applications. The following issues do not represent an exhaustive list, nor does their inclusion in this report preclude Council’s Department from altering this advice when additional detail is provided or a development application is lodged.

 

7.1       Director, Asset and Infrastructure Services

 

An amended master plan has been received for construction of a retail/residential development containing two residential towers above the retail buildings. A total of approximately 180 residential units and four retail tenancies including a bottleshop are proposed with basement carparking.

 

There are a number of issues which the AIS Department believe have to be resolved prior to assessing any development application for the site as they may greatly affect the height and layout of the development. These are:

 

1)   A flood study, which will determine required high points in internal driveways and establish minimum floor levels for habitable floors and openings.

 

(See External Stormwater Drainage Comments)

 

2)   Waste Management Plan, post development, which addresses the following:

 

Ø Minimum height clearance of 4.30m for waste compactor truck travelling within the site (current details show only a 3.60m height clearance).

 

Ø Travel path from entry thru pick up & exit of waste compactor truck for all waste storage areas.

 

Ø Separate waste/recycling rooms for retail tenants.

 

Ø Sufficient size waste/recycling rooms for the development.

 

(See Waste Management Comments)

 

3)   A redesign of internal driveway ramp down to the basement level carpark to show compliance with Australian Standards in particular in regards to inner radius curves and inner radius ramp gradients.

 

A redesign of the ground floor carpark is required as it indicates that a high proportion of spaces will be tandem parked and in some cases up to 3 vehicles parked one behind the other. Such configurations are not in compliance with Council’s DCP-Parking. This floor is designated for non-resident parking comprising of Hotel, visitor and retail parking. The proposal suggests the use of Valet Parking in order to utilise the parking spaces. This is not considered appropriate for the land uses it serves and thus it will be deficient in the number of carspaces it is to supply.

 

The traffic report states that ‘A loading bay suitable for a large rigid truck is proposed adjacent to the bottle shop. This will cater for deliveries plus garbage collection’. The loading dock facility does not comply with Council’s DCP-Parking in relation to the number of large vehicles it can cater for. Further clarification is required regarding manoeuvres into and out of the loading dock. Concern is raised regarding conflict between service vehicles and general parking.

 

The right of carriageway is to be maintained as 2-way trafficable and the entrance to the right of carriageway from the basement carpark is to also be maintained as 2-way trafficable. This will require the redesign of the ground floor carpark at his location.

 

(See Traffic Comments)

 

4)   Details from a suitably qualified landscape designer with relevant qualifications in landscape architecture or horticulture will be required to be submitted prior to approval being given for the development application, showing proposed soil depths and proposed plant sizes. The details from the qualified landscape designer are to be submitted and be appropriate to facilitate the planting of at least 6 x 400 litre replacement trees within the site

 

(See Landscape Comments)

 

Landscape Comments

 

·      Prior to the issuing of a construction certificate for the proposed development the applicant must submit to Council’s Landscape Architect and have approved a pavement and landscape design for both the Anzac Parade & Doncaster Avenue frontages.

 

·      This is one Eucalyptus botryoides (Bangalay) and one Eucalyptus citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum) located within the existing car park that are considered to be significant trees, important as a food source and habitat for native bird life and as a corridor link between Centennial Park and points south. Although it would be preferable to retain these trees, a basement car park is proposed, covering the majority of the site and thus requiring the removal of both trees. Council would give permission for the removal of these trees, subject to the planting of a number of super advanced native tree species within the site.

 

The landscape plans submitted with the development application show proposed planting of large trees over the basement car park area. Further details from a suitably qualified landscape designer with relevant qualifications in landscape architecture or horticulture will be required to be submitted prior to approval being given for the development application, showing proposed soil depths and proposed plant sizes. The details from the qualified landscape designer are to be submitted and be appropriate to facilitate the planting of at least 6 x 400 litre replacement trees within the site.

 

·      There are several other trees within the site, covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, that will be required to be removed as part of this application. Permission would be given for the removal of all other trees within the development site.

 

Stormwater Drainage Comments

 

The development site is burdened by a 5 metre wide drainage easement that contains an existing brick arch culvert. The culvert drains southwards through the adjacent Doncaster Hotel site, across Anzac Parade and to eventually discharge to the Botany Wetlands adjacent to Gardeners Road. 

 

This is a major trunk stormwater culvert and drains an extensive catchment area, which includes the Randwick Race Course, the northern portions of Randwick and the pond system in Centennial Park (and its associated catchment area) and as such any relocation / reconstruction works that is carried out to this culvert must be carefully designed as there maybe adverse flooding impact on the upstream and downstream properties and road systems.

 

The applicant has proposed 2 concepts for dealing with the relocation / reconstruction of the stormwater culvert and these are as follows:

 

Concept 1 -

 

To divert the Council culvert which burdens the north-eastern end of the site to along the Council road reserve adjacent to the Doncaster Avenue site frontage and then reconnect to the existing culvert at its south-eastern side boundary prior to the culvert travelling under the Doncaster Hotel.

 

(See stormwater drainage engineers, Keependos PTY LTD, submitted concept plans 0216-H01, H02, H03, H04, H05 dated August 2002)

 

Council’s engineers gave consideration to the concept plans and advised the applicant’s engineers that Council would not permit relocation of the pipeline in accordance with the above concept plans for the following reasons:

 

The proposed relocation would greatly increase the pressures within the pipe particularly where the new pipe joins onto the old brick culvert pipe under the northern footing of the Doncaster Hotel. The increase in risk to the structural security of the Hotel is unacceptable particularly when consideration is given to the enormous failures that have occurred over the years when large areas of Doncaster Avenue is washed away into Botany Bay. These demonstrate severity of risk posed by this highly pressurised stormwater drainage system.

 

The tight bends proposed at this location will increase water pressure and cause stormwater surcharge out of any pit connected upstream of the tight bends. This surcharge of stormwater would cause flooding and nuisance to nearby properties, roads and the Doncaster Plaza Development (as basement car parking is proposed on site).

 

Council’s Engineers recognise the difficulty of the hydraulic analysis of this stormwater pipe system. There were errors in the hydraulic analysis submitted with this proposal, which has made the proposed concept look better than the reality. Regardless of the errors made, the errors had little bearing upon Council’s Engineering assessment that the proposed concept is unacceptable.

 

It is also noted that the submitted development application plans do not represent Concept 1 as the architectural design of the basement level carparks do not show the reconnection of the Council culvert at the south-eastern side boundary.

 

Concept 2 –

 

Concept to divert to Council culvert along Doncaster Avenue and reconnect to he existing culvert in Anzac Parade

 

 (See stormwater drainage engineers, Keependos PTY LTD, submitted concept plans 0216-H03 dated September 2002 and lodged with DA 897/02)

 

 

Subject to some amendments to improve the hydraulics, the proposed concept is considered acceptable to the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services. Compared to the original submission, this proposal will greatly reduce the structural and flooding threats to nearby property and buildings.

 

Recommendation

 

The following stormwater issues will need to be addressed and submitted to Council before any development application can be fully assessed by the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services:-

 

Stormwater Flood Study

 

·    The 1 in 100 year flood levels in Doncaster Avenue and Anzac Parade shall be determined with the pond system within Centennial Park full. The applicant’s engineer should liase with John Gann from the PWD for the determination of the flow stormwater within the trunk stormwater pipeline and the overflow in Doncaster Ave.

 

Notes:

o The driveway crest/s (and any vents windows opens etc) to the basement car park should be a minimum of 150 mm above the adjacent stormwater level.

o The bottleshop floor should be a minimum of 300 mm above the adjacent stormwater level.

o allowance should be made for part of the overland flow in Doncaster Avenue to be directed down Ascot Street and Todman Avenue to Anzac Parade.

 

·    Plans showing the location of the longitudinal and cross-sections for the “HEC RAS” computer modelling.

 

·    All input and output data files on a floppy disk for the determination of the “RAFTS” and “HEC RAS” computer modelling flood study. Note a hard (paper) copy is also required of the data input and output files for the “RAFTS” computer model for Council records.

 

·    A plan of the total catchment area that shows the quantity of stormwater during a 1 in 100 year storm in the culverts system and the overland flow routes

 

·    The applicant shall bear all costs for Council to obtain the services of a hydraulic engineer to check the stormwater study as: -

 

o the submitted stormwater study has been completed using the “RAFTS” computer model.

o Council does not have the associated computer software nor are staff suitably experienced to check the submitted “RAFTS” study. 

 

·    The plans to be amended to show the stormwater culvert reconnected to the existing  box culvert (located to the south of Anzac Parade) via a suitable radius.

 

Ground Water

 

Any development application lodged with Council is to be referred to the Department of Land & Water Conservation for comments and shall detail the following:

 

·    Plans and details (determined by a geotechnical engineer’s) indicating the proposed method of reinjection of the water to the ground water. Note that:

 

o any recharge ground wells should be located within the site and not within the Council road reserve.

o the geotechnical engineer shall demonstrate that any proposed injection of groundwater will not adversely affect the road or footpath pavements.

o assessment on the impact of dewatering on the adjacent sites.

 

·    Geotechnical Engineers calculations to demonstrate adequate provision has been made for the ground water to drain under or through the basement carpark (to ensure that the basement will not dam, raise or slow the movement of the ground water through the development site). Note that the Geotechnical Engineers is to assume that other sites will eventually construct a similar basement car park.

 

·    Bore logs to including the location of the water table.

 

On-site Detention Requirements/Comments

 

On-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 10 year storm of 1-hour duration for the existing site conditions.  All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur..

 

Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

All site stormwater leaving the site must be discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter or drainage system at the front of the property.

 

The applicant must provide for a detention volume of up to the 1 in 100 year, plus an additional 50% of storage volume should no overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm.

 

Any seepage/groundwater water must be drained directly into an absorption pit within the site. Seepage/groundwater water must not be drained from the site.

 

Tanking basement carpark

As the above site may be present within a fluctuating water table the basement carpark or similar structures are to be suitably tanked and waterproofing. A Structural Engineer\Geotechnical Engineer shall certify that the tanking & waterproofed has been carried out to an acceptable standard and a copy of the certification is to be forwarded to Council.

 

Notes:-

 

a)   Any subsoil drainage is to be disposed of within the site and is not to be charged to Council’s kerb & gutter and/or underground drainage system.

 

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

 

Traffic Comments

 

Any development application lodged with Council is to be referred to the Roads & Traffic Authority for comment.

 

All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre so that a driver of a stopped vehicle 2 metres behind the street boundary line can observe pedestrians up to 2 metres from the crossings. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

Ground Floor Car Park

 

The ground level plan indicates that a high proportion of spaces will be tandem parked and in some cases up to 3 vehicles parked one behind the other. Such configurations are not in compliance with Council’s DCP-Parking. This floor is designated for non-resident parking comprising of Hotel, visitor and retail parking. The proposal suggests the use of Valet Parking in order to utilise the parking spaces. This is not considered appropriate for the land uses it serves.

 

Loading Dock

 

·    DCP Requirements

-     Multi Unit Housing requires 1 space/ 50 dwellings

Supermarket/Shops/Restaurant requires 1 space /400m2 GFA

Hotel requires 1 space/50 bedrooms plus 1 space /1000m2 GFA for tavern/lounge and restaurant area.

 

The traffic report states that ‘A loading bay suitable for a large rigid truck is proposed adjacent to the bottle shop. This will cater for deliveries plus garbage collection’. The loading dock facility does not comply with Council’s DCP-Parking in relation to the number of large vehicles it can cater for. Further clarification is required regarding manoeuvres into and out of the loading dock. Concern is raised regarding conflict between service vehicles and general parking.

 

Ramp Grades

 

The ramp which provides access to the Basement Floor does not comply with AS 2890.1 –1993 for curved ramps.

 

Right of Carriageway – Off Darling Street

 

The right of carriageway is to be maintained as 2-way trafficable and the entrance to the right of carriageway from the basement carpark is to also be maintained as 2-way trafficable. This will require the redesign of the ground floor carpark at his location.

 

Car-washing bay Comments

 

A minimum of nine (9) covered car-washing bays shall be provided for this development.

 

a)         The car washing bays must be drained to sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water and proof of compliance is to be submitted to the certifying authority, prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

b)         The car washing bays must be located outside any required/approved stormwater detention system and must be suitably signposted.

 

c)         The car washing bays must be constructed with a minimum 20mm bund around the perimeter of the car washing bay/s (or equivalent)

 

A water tap shall be located adjacent to the car washing bays.

 

Civil Works Comments

 

The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to carry out civil works along both the Anzac Pde & Doncaster Ave frontages which shall include:

 

i)    Construction of heavy duty vehicular crossings and laybacks at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance/exit points to the site.

 

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

 

iii)  Reconstruct kerb and gutter for the full site frontages except opposite the vehicular entrance and exit points.

 

iv)  Carry out a full depth road construction in front of the reconstructed kerb and gutter along the full site frontage.

 

v)   Reconstruct the existing Council footpath along both site frontages.

 

Note:         This may require full width paved/concrete footpath, the removal of the existing street tree planting and there replacement with more suitable species as well as any street furniture required (tree grates, seats etc) 

 

Alignment Level Comments

 

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 be as follows:

 

Doncaster Ave Frontage – 3.0% above the existing Council kerb levels along the full Anzac Parade site frontage.

 

Anzac Parade Frontage – 3.0% above the existing Council kerb levels along the full Anzac Parade site frontage.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Assets & Infrastructure Services Department on 9399 0923.

 

Service Authority Comments

 

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

 

The applicant must meet the full cost for Telstra, 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.

 

Any electricity substation required for the site as a consequence of this development shall be located within the site and shall be screened from view. The proposed location and elevation shall be shown on all detailed landscape drawings and specifications. The applicant must liaise with Sydney Electricity prior to lodging either a development application or the construction certificate whether or not an electricity substation is required for the development.

 

Waste Management Comments

 

Prior to submitting a development application the applicant is to address the following matters in relation to Waste Management post development:

 

The applicant is to submit to Council and have approved by Council’s Manager of Waste the Council document known as “Randwick City Council, Waste Management Plan – Part A”. The document can be obtained by contacting Council’s Manager of Waste, Russell Wade, on 9399 0945.

 

The Waste Management Plan should generally conform to guidelines stout  in the document “Better Practice Guide for Waste Management in Multi-Unit Dwellings – Resource NSW – February 2002” 

 

A separate garbage area will have to be constructed for the proposed retail tenancies. The applicant is to liaise with Council’s Manager of Waste regarding the required size of this garbage area. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted for the development application

 

The garbage storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to an approved floor waste to the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

7.2       Heritage Comments

 

Council’s Heritage Officer has provided the following comment:

 

The subject site is currently occupied by single storey retail development and open car park and is adjacent to the Doncaster Hotel, a draft heritage item under Randwick LEP Amendment No.27.  The Heritage Assessment Report prepared in December 1996 by Noel Bell Ridley Smith and Partners, includes a Heritage Statement, Significance Assessment and Conservation Policies for the building.  The Heritage Assessment notes that the “Doncaster Hotel occupies a unique position in the history and development of the Kensington area as a ‘free house’ hotel which has remained in the one ownership for more than 70 years and as a dominant local landmark representing the important stage of development for the suburb in the 1920s.  The building is given added prominence by its corner position and relative isolation from other significant development.”

 

The Conservation Policies included in the Heritage Assessment make a number of recommendations in relation to the existing building and any adjoining new development.  In relation to new development, the HA recommends as follows:

 

·    Adjoining new development should be scaled to form a transition to the Hotel with a visual gap separating the bulk of development from the Hotel structure.

·    When viewed from the south any new development should form a uniform backdrop to the Hotel to allow it to be read as a separate identity with its own distinct character defining the corner.

 

The draft Kensington Town Centre Development Control Plan provides Block by Block Development and Design Controls which cover the Doncaster Plaza site.  Part of the vision for the site is for a vibrant mixed use precinct that reinforces the heritage values, visual appearance and importance of the adjacent Doncaster Hotel.  Among the site objectives are to ensure that the buildings address the major intersection of Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue and the geometry of the adjacent Doncaster Hotel.  Buildings are not to exceed 5 storeys along Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue, aligning with the eaves line of the Doncaster Hotel (RL 38.8m).

 

The application proposes a mixed development including upper level residential, in the form of a primary building along the Anzac Parade frontage of the site, and a secondary building along the Doncaster Avenue frontage of the site.  The primary and secondary buildings consists of a five storey element along the street frontages, together with 8 storey elements set back from the street.  At the northern end of the Anzac Parade frontage is a 8 storey element also set back from the street.  Two open spaces are proposed on the site, a public open space between the new development and the Doncaster Hotel and a communal open space between the primary and the secondary building.

 

In relation to the separation between the Doncaster Hotel and the proposed development, it is noted that the setback between the main bulk of the Hotel and the main bulk of the new building will generally be between 21 and 24m at the closest points adjacent to both Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue.  This setback is considered to be very generous, but it is noted that the form of the new building sweeps away from the Hotel to define a public open space between the three buildings having a maximum dimension of around 43m.  At ground level and first floor level, the additions which have been made to the Doncaster Hotel reduce the setback between the buildings.  The first two levels of the proposed development however, have been set in from the upper levels to provide a setback of between 10 and 14m, providing a reasonable separation between the buildings and access to the public open space.

 

In relation to the scale of the proposed development in relation to the Hotel building, it is noted that the scale of the buildings which define Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue matches the eaves line of the Doncaster Hotel.  The upper levels of these buildings are set back from the street frontage by a distance of 6m reducing their prominence in the streetscape of Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue.  The treatment of the lower levels of the development with more solid masonry walls with traditionally sized openings reinforce the relationship between the new development and the Hotel building.

 

In relation to the backdrop to the Doncaster Hotel formed by the proposed development, it is noted that the treatment of the walls of the new building are of a fairly neutral appearance and will not compete with the facades of the Doncaster Hotel.  The new development which sweep away from the Doncaster Hotel forms not so much a flat wall or backdrop to the Hotel building, as a pair of wings which enlarge the space between the new and existing development.

 

In relation to the geometry of the proposed development in relation to the Hotel building, it is noted that the form of the new buildings respond to the configuration of the intersection of Anzac Parade and Doncaster Parade which define the footprint of the Doncaster Hotel.  The result is a pair of pointed buildings which reflect the geometry of the Hotel building.  The open spaces on the site, both public and communal similarly reflect the geometry of the Doncaster Hotel building.

 

It is considered that the proposed development will not detract from the heritage values, visual appearance and prominence of the Doncaster Hotel building.  The provision of a public open space adjacent to the Hotel building enhances its importance.  The design of the proposed development responds to the footprint, scale and detailing of the draft heritage item, resulting in a development which is inclusive of the Doncaster Hotel building.

 

Further detail should be sought on materials and finishes prior to finalisation of any consent.

 

7.3       Manager, Environmental Health and Building

 

The proposal

 

This master plan includes the following:

 

§ Demolition of all existing improvements on the site

§ Construction of 2 perimeter style buildings with a taller central building, containing ground level retail space and 179 residential apartments above

§ Ground level parking covered by a podium, on top of which will be a private communal open space area for the benefit of residents of the site.

§ 1 basement level parking

§ An area of public open space located between the proposed development and the rear of the Doncaster Hotel.

 

Background

 

In recent months, this site has been the subject of numerous complaints about the accumulation of waste material on the site and the general unsightly nature of the site.  This development will alleviate the site being used as a dumping ground.

 

Key Issues

 

Ground water

 

The area is sited over the Botany Basin Aquifer and the construction of a basement car parking level will require investigations in relation to dewatering activities, licensing and possible dilapidation to neighbouring properties. DLWC is to be consulted. Ongoing monitoring (following the completion of the development) may be required.

 

Acoustics

 

The site faces Anzac Pde and Doncaster Ave. The road traffic noise from Anzac parade is considered to significantly high. The development will require to be designed in accordance with the “Kensington Town Centre DCP” specifically, the Development and Design Controls – buildings Interior, Acoustic privacy.  This will require the residential units to be designed in such a way so as to ensure the internal noise level for the residential units meets the set criteria.  Compliance with this will be required to be demonstrated at D/A stage.

 

Design

 

The external design and finishes of the proposal is symmetrical and does not visually harmonise with the surrounding environment in particular the heritage building located beside the proposal.

 

Cooling Towers

 

The proposal does not indicate if the proposed plant will include a cooling tower to service mechanical ventilation. This will need to be identified at D/A stage.

 

Retail outlets

 

This referral does not encompass the retail space. It is anticipated that additional applications will be submitted for the proposed fit out and use of these areas.

 

Swimming pool

 

A swimming pool is proposed in the development. Suitable conditions to maintain public safety and health will be applied at the D/A stage.

 

Site Contamination

 

A preliminary site investigation has been undertaken by Douglas Partners Pty Ltd.  The conclusions of this report are, in summary:

 

§ The investigations are limited and reveal contamination.

§ Further detailed investigations are required to be carried out

§ Excavated material and any contaminated soils be appropriately classified, removed and disposed of from the site.

§ At the completion of all contaminated soils being removed from the site, validation sampling being undertaken to confirm all contaminated materials have been removed from the site.

 

It is necessary to provide a detailed contamination report and a remedial action plan for assessment with the development application.

 

Two recommendations were provided relating to the acoustic and contamination issues, these have been included in the recommendation section of this report (see Recommendations 20-21).

 

7.4       Urban Design

 

Keith Cottier, of Allen, Jack + Cottier has provided the following comment in relation to Urban Design and SEPP 65 issues:

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This report is made in relation to the Master plan submitted by Urbis and MGT Architects on behalf of Doncaster Developments (NSW) Pty Ltd, received at Randwick City Council on 9 October 2002.  The assessment has been made based only on the submitted Master plan documents, in conjunction with the Council's Draft Kensington Town Centre DCP.  The Development Application documents submitted with the Master plan have not been considered in the assessment.

 

CONTEXT AND SCALE

 

The Master plan proposal is generally in accordance with the massing shown in the Draft DCP, which itself seems to have been the result of considerable consultation.  In its context, the proposal sits comfortably with the scale of surrounding development, and promotes the aims of the Draft DCP, contributing to the public domain in a carefully considered manner.  The higher building forms have been positioned to minimise any adverse impact and at the same time emphasise the important intersection of Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue,  However these tall buildings are a full floor above the maximum height set out in the Draft DCP (8 storeys and max 27.4 metres) and it is difficult to see how any reading of Cl 4.6.9 of the DCP could give rise to this large amount of additional habitable space.  The building at the NW corner of the site also rises 2 storeys above the 5 storey base building rather than the single level shown in the Draft DCP.  There is no attempt in the Master plan submission to justify the additional storeys in terms of overshadowing, visual impact etc.  (It is noted that this development, as per the Draft DCP, already permits buildings higher than the rest of the Kensington Town Centre.)

 

BUILT FORM

 

Refer to 'Context and Scale' re the extent of building form shown above the maximum allowable height.  Refer also to 'Density' (below) re the bulk of buildings within the permissible envelopes.  With these exemptions the building forms are in accordance with the Draft DCP.

 

DENSITY

 

The site density is controlled by the maximum envelopes set out in the Draft DCP.  That document does not envisage that these envelopes will be 100% filled (Cl 4.2.1).  In this case the envelope widths of the Draft DCP were generous, presumably to allow façade articulation, balconies etc, but the proposal fills those volumes almost totally and also exceeds the heights, as set out above.  The additional density itself is not considered a problem on this site, but it is achieved at the expense of the amenity of the units generally, in that, few of the apartments have access to any private open space.  (Refer 'Amenity'.)

 

AMENITY

 

Whilst the massing of the built forms on the site is well resolved, the Master plan contains elements that result in major concerns related to amenity and the principles of Environmentally Sustainable Design, as follows.

 

a)   Private Open Space

With the exception of the Courtyard Level units, few of the apartments have any private open space (ie balconies).  Whilst it may possibly be argued that the "full height glazing and operable glazed louvres" allow the whole apartment to be 'outdoors', the lack of any weather and/or sun protection over the openings severely limits the ability to use them, given Sydney's climate and this site's exposure.  The physiological importance of being able to 'step outside' is also overlooked as is the need for some occupants to remain 'inside' whilst others sit 'outside'.

 

b)   Solar Access

The Master plan document contains no north point or sun angle studies but it would appear that all the units fronting Anzac Parade (probably around 40% of the total number) will receive negligible solar access for 6 months of the year.  In addition their single aspect arrangement means that noisy Anzac Parade is their only aspect.  The incorporation of a percentage of dual aspect 'cross-over' apartments in this development could achieve a result where nearly all apartments have living rooms with the courtyard aspect (ie quiet, sunny), together with natural ventilation that was not reliant on a complex and expensive ducting system.

 

c)   Acoustic Privacy

The continuous "fully glazed walls and operable glazed louvres" outlined in the Master plan document (indicated as being the external skin with some adjustable solid louvre behind) do nothing to foster acoustic privacy between units, nor to deal with the relatively high traffic noise levels of both Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue.

 

d)   Ceiling Heights

Floor to floor heights on the lower (podium) levels are only 2.8 m, whilst on the upper levels they average 3.4 m.  (There is an obvious discrepancy in the levels shown.)  As floor to ceiling depth is min 270 mm to achieve BCA acoustic ratings the resultant ceiling height in the lower levels is a nominal 2.5 m.  Any lowered bulkheads to accommodate plumbing services etc will reduce this height to an unacceptable level.  Many councils insist on a min 2.7 m ceiling height.  The lower floor to floor heights may have been kept low to achieve an alignment with the eaves line of the Doncaster Hotel.  It would appear that the section could still be altered to achieve some acceptable visual relationship here, and, in any case, as there is a gap between the Hotel and the new development, 'alignment' does not need to be exact to achieve an acceptable result.

 

RESOURCE, ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY

 

The provision of the full height glass walls to ALL facades of the upper buildings imposes unnecessary summer heat load, winter heat loss conditions on the development.  Cleaning of these walls would also impose a high maintenance cost.  In addition the sectional layout does not, contrary to the claim on p29, "facilitate natural ventilation";  the ventilation envisaged would appear to require sophisticated controls and fire damper mechanisms in a building that already has a double layer of moving louvre systems on the external walls.  Such costly devices in this particular residential market do not seem sustainable.  The lack of any façade articulation in a building 50+ metres long could also be of concern.

 

There is no indication of how stormwater retention is to be addressed.

 

LANDSCAPE

 

The document indicates a simple but quite acceptable approach to the landscaping.  There is however no deep soil planting to terra firma, so that final planting potential is dependent upon soil depths ultimately achievable above concrete slabs.

 

SAFETY AND SECURITY

 

The division between public and private open space is unclear from the document and should be addressed at DA stage.

 

Security arrangements at car park levels are also not clear.

 

SOCIAL DIVERSION

 

The exact mix of apartment types is not scheduled in the Master plan document.  Reference to inclusion of 1 or 2 bedroom units with study is made and, given the proximity to the various tertiary colleges and UNSW this would appear a sensible inclusion.

 

AESTHETICS

 

The external glass skin to the upper building levels has been seriously questioned on environmental grounds but is also questioned aesthetically.  Occupants could easily replace the internal solid vertical louvres with an adhoc array of curtains and blinds; the aesthetic result is quite possibly 'uncontrollable', the very opposite I imagine, of the architectural intent.  It should also be pointed out that the fully glazed wall may not conform with the intent of the BCA fire separation requirements, and its use as proposed may require approval from a qualified specialist consultant.

 

CONCLUSION

 

With the provisos set out previously, this is a well resolved proposal in terms of urban design and general building form.  The cross sectional arrangement of the building and the cladding proposals as outlined should not be embodied in the Master plan however as they do not achieve satisfactory results in many of the areas of concern outlined in SEP 65.

 

Good cross ventilation, solar access and solar control can so easily be achieved on this site and without recourse to the extensive and expensive moveable parts that are required by this proposal.

 

7.5       Sydney Regional Development Advisory Committee (SRDAC)

 

The original Master Plan application was forwarded to the SRDAC for comment. No objection was raised to the Master Plan, subject to Recommendations 23-33. These comments refer to general items, which can be applied equally to the Draft Master Plan currently under consideration.

 

8.         DISCUSSION AND ISSUES:

 

Council is required to consider a number of issues in determining the Draft Master Plan (section 3 of this report outlines the assessment criteria for Master Plans). These issues are discussed below.

 

8.1       General

 

The Draft Master Plan generally discusses the relevant matters provided by Clause 40A of the RLEP. The application acknowledges the development envisaged for the site in Council’s recent planning for the Kensington Town Centre and considers appropriate responses to the draft planning standards and requirements.

 

The document has had regard to a wide range of issues and responds to these in a generally favourable manner. There are several areas where the document does not include provisions, relying on information provided in the development application submitted with the Draft Master Plan document. The Master Plan is to be a stand-alone document and relevant issues not covered by the Draft Master Plan will need to be addressed in a revised document to Council, prior to the consideration of any development application under an approved Master Plan.

 

8.2       Design Principles

 

The Draft Master Plan includes specific design principles, which refer to the building envelope in plan and section, the provision of a public and private open space and the mix of uses to be provided in future development. The underlying principle guiding development on the site is stated as being “to provide a new benchmark for design quality and a commitment to the principles of Environmentally Sustainable Design”.

 

Generic principles relating to the context of the site, the urban structure of the Kensington Town Centre, pedestrian amenity, ESD principles, character and materials and the public interest are also included in the Master Plan document.

 

The diagrams shown under design elements on page 42 of the Draft Master Plan document are inconsistent with the sketches and text throughout the document in terms of public and private open space and the extent of commercial land uses. The inconsistency is particularly apparent in the activities diagram which show an ‘active’ treatment to the private communal open space and refers to restaurants and cafes with no activities adjacent to the new public square to the south of the site. The provision of active uses to the private communal open space is considered to be problematic in terms of visual and acoustic privacy and is inconsistent with the residential uses shown to this level on other plans within the Draft Master Plan.

 

Detailed provisions for the treatment of the public open space have not been included in the draft DCP. It is considered appropriate for the Draft Master Plan to elaborate on the treatments and ancillary uses to this space, which will promote its use and success as a public area. For surveillance, security and streetscape reasons the retail activity provided to Anzac Parade and Doncaster Avenue should turn the corner into the public square. This approach is consistent with the proposal in the Draft Master Plan to have an active frontage to the communal area but is a more important location being the public domain. This is included in Recommendation 1 of this report. The diagrams on page 42 of the Draft Master Plan document which refer to active commercial/ retail uses adjacent to the private communal open space are to be amended to reflect the residential uses shown in the remainder of the document (see Recommendation 16).

 

The broad design principles espoused in the Draft Master Plan are supportable and consistent with the objectives of the RLEP98 and Council’s recent development of the Draft Kensington Town Centre DCP. The specific numeric details of floor space ratio, open space areas, and building envelopes are discussed in more detail below, along with the intended mix of land uses.

 

8.3       Phasing of Development

 

The Draft Master Plan does not address phasing of development. A Site/Construction Management Plan has been submitted with the Development Application for the site. This plan indicates that the development will not be staged, with redevelopment of the entire site occurring as one construction project. Detailed phasing within the Construction Management Plan is provided, but is largely development specific to the DA. As no construction staging is proposed, details of construction phasing should be provided with future Development Applications as per Council’s submission requirements.

 

8.4       Distribution of Land Uses

 

The Draft Master Plan has addressed the distribution of land uses, proposing basement carparking, retail, café and carparking uses and two residential units on the ground floor with residential uses above (Levels 1-8). Private communal open space and public open space uses are also proposed.

 

The two residential units indicated on the ground floor of the building to the Doncaster Avenue frontage are considered inappropriate in terms of amenity, streetscape, surveillance and the commercial objectives of the Town Centre. The units are located adjacent to the Doncaster Avenue residential entry and driveway to the basement carparking and drive-through bottleshop. Residential uses should be deleted from the ground floor level (see Recommendation 4).

 

The current 2(C) zoning of this part of the site prohibits commercial or retail uses within these areas. The use of these areas for commercial or residential activities cannot be considered until draft Amendment 27 to the LEP comes into force, or the land is rezoned.

 

The Draft Master Plan does not limit the number of apartments or the unit mix that is appropriate on the site. The built form controls in the Draft Master Plan are considered to be the primary determinant of the number of dwellings and people that can be accommodated on the site. Future development must meet the minimum room sizes stipulated in the draft Kensington Town Centre DCP, carparking requirements and provide the required number of accessible dwellings for the number of apartments required within the building envelope envisaged in any approved Master Plan.

 

The key provided to the cross section on page 47 of the Draft Master Plan document refers to a supermarket at the basement level. No supermarket has been indicated in the remainder of the Draft document. The draft DCP notes the need for a neighbourhood supermarket shopping centre but indicates that this should be provided closer to the centre of Kensington (blocks 4,9 and 10) rather than on the periphery (block 6). The reference to the supermarket use on page 47 is to be deleted to ensure consistency between the location of uses in the Master Plan and the Draft Kensington Town Centre DCP (see Recommendation 17).

 

Subject to Recommendation 4, the uses proposed in the Draft Master Plan are consistent with the Draft Kensington Town Centre DCP and the provisions of Amendment 27 to the RLEP, which makes allowance for the incorporation of business uses to the lower (ground and first) levels of buildings on sites zoned 2(C).

 

8.5       Building Envelopes and Built Form Controls

 

The Draft Master Plan indicates a building envelope that generally reflects that envisaged for the site by the Draft Kensington Town Centre DCP. Key inconsistencies with the building envelope under the draft DCP are considered to be the number of storeys, the roof level of the sub-basement carparking, the location of residential uses at ground level and their floor level relative to the street, floor to ceiling heights and the 1.5 metre setback of the retail frontage at ground level.

 

A habitable ‘mezzanine’ level to the top floor apartments comprises the ninth storey of the building envelope. The draft DCP stipulates an eight (8) storey limit on this site. This requirement will become a deve