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

 

20th August, 2004

 

 

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, 24TH AUGUST, 2004 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 27TH JULY, 2004.

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FRIDAY, 13TH AUGUST, 2004.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

6.1                        

MAYOR’S MINUTE 61/2004 – FUN RUN/OKTOBERFEST AND MARKET DAY.

2

 

 

7           Acting General Manager's Reports

 

7.1                      

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 20/2004 - SNAPE PARK TENNIS CENTRE.

4

 

7.2                      

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 21/2004 - NEW FEE - DES RENFORD AQUATIC CENTRE.

8

 

7.3                      

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 22/2004 - JUNE QUARTERLY REVIEW 2003/2006 MANAGEMENT PLAN .

10

 

7.4                      

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 23/2004 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

12

 


 

8           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

8.1                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 58/2004 - BUNNERONG GYMNASTICS’ ASSOCIATION - HEFFRON PARK.

14

 

8.2                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 59/2004 - GRANT RESERVE CLIMBING NET.

17

 

8.3                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 60/2004 - 1 BYNG STREET, MAROUBRA - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE PROPERTY.

19

 

8.4                        

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 61/2004 - 3 QUAIL STREET, COOGEE - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE PROPERTY.

23

8.5

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 62/2004 - TENDER NO 016/04 - RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL RELCYCLING FACILITY. (Report to be separately circulated.)

 

 

 

9           Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 23/2004 - ANNUAL REPORTING OF CONTRACTS FOR SENIOR STAFF.

29

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 24/2004 - CODE OF MEETING PRACTICE - TAPE RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENT.

31

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 25/2004 - AMENDMENT TO PRIVACY MANAGEMENT PLAN - HEALTH RECORDS & INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT, 2002.

51

 

 

10         Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

10.1                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 59/2004 - CELEBRATING CYCLING - BIKE WEEK 2004.

66

 

10.2                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 60/2004 - 1 GARNET STREET, SOUTH COOGEE.

75

 

10.3                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 61/2004 - 707-745 ANZAC PARADE, MAROUBRA.

86

 

10.4                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 62/2004 - 73 FERN STREET, CLOVELLY.

119

 

10.5                        

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 63/2004 - 56 CARR STREET COOGEE.

138

 

10.6                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 64/2004 - 313 BUNNERONG ROAD, MAROUBRA.

145

 

10.7                      

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 65/2004 - DISCUSSION PAPER "TOWARDS A STRATEGY FOR BOTANY BAY".

163

10.8

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 66/2004 – CITY OF SYDNEY MASTERPLAN87-103 EPSOM ROAD, ROSEBERY.

176

 

 

11         Petitions

 

12         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

12.1                        

By Councillor Nash – Request for Council Submission on the Masterplan Application for the Dolina Site - Rosebery.

180

12.2

By Councillor Bastic – Request for Stairs at 29 French Street

180

12.3

By Councillor Bastic – Update on the Proposal from Randwick Hockey Club. 

180

12.4

By Councillor Procopiadis – Removal of Ficus ‘Hilli’ trees on Todman Avenue

180

12.5

By Councillor Seng – Proposal for a Working Group to help combat Council’s Parking Problems. 

180

 

 

13         Urgent Business

 

14         Confidential Reports

 

15         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

17         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

…………………………….

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 61/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

FUN RUN/OKTOBERFEST AND MARKET DAY

 

 

DATE:

5 August, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/0740

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An application has been received from Mr Richard Walsh on behalf of the Maroubra and Districts Chambers of Commerce, Maroubra Lions Club, Rotary Club of Maroubra and the South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club to hold their annual Fun Run/Oktoberfest and Market Day on Sunday 24th October, 2004. Mr Walsh has requested that Council’s fees regarding all activities and food vendors attending the event be waived.

 

ISSUES:

 

An assessment of the applicable fees are as follows:

 

Hiring of Stage                                                              $1,300.00

Six mobile food vans & food stalls                                           $   310.00

Hiring of Arthur Byrne Reserve                                     $   220.00

Administration Fee                                                                    $   300.00

Bin Hire x 12 (supply and remove)                                            $   594.00

 

                                                Total:                                        $2,724.00

 

It is considered that the Maroubra Fun Run, Oktoberfest and Market Day is a non-profit organisation and that funds be allocated to cover the costs of hiring a stage and other fees associated with the event.

 

Often in the conducting of large events such as this Council’s property is damaged.  It is necessary that the organiser of the event Mr Richard Walsh, on behalf of the Maroubra and Districts Chambers of Commerce, Maroubra Lions Club, Rotary Club of Maroubra and the South Maroubra Surf Lifesaving Club be advised in writing that should Council property be damaged in any way the organisers of the event are liable and that the organisers acknowledge this in writing prior to the event.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Given that the level of support being offered by Council is substantial, it would be appropriate that Council be treated as the other co-operative partner and included in the event promotion.  This will ensure Council is acknowledged for its support of local community events in the eyes of the community.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

a)   Council vote $3,734.00 to cover the costs associated with Council’s contribution towards the organising of the Maroubra Fun Run, Oktoberfest and Market Day to be held on Sunday 24th October, 2004, and that funds be identified at the next Quarterly Review.

 

b)   Council advise the organisers of the Maroubra Fun Run, Oktoberfest and Market Day, that Council be given adequate and appropriate acknowledgement for its contribution to the running of this event.  Such acknowledgement to include Council’s logo for inclusion on promotional literature and Council’s banner is displayed at the event.

 

c)   The organisers be advised that Council requires an acceptance in writing that should Council property be damaged in any way the organisers of the event will compensate Council for the repair or replacement of the damaged item(s).

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 20/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

SNAPE PARK TENNIS CENTRE

 

 

DATE:

19 August, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2734

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the 16 December 2003 Extraordinary Council Meeting, it was resolved to finalise the Snape Park Tennis Centre Tender (T4/03) and not enter into a contract. Council also resolved to consider the allocation of funding in 2004/05 to undertake a capital upgrade programme.

 

It is now appropriate for Council to decide on an investment strategy for the Snape Park Tennis Centre.

 

ISSUES:

 

The tennis centre is located within Snape Park, Maroubra. The land is owned by Randwick Council. The Centre covers an area of approx 4021 square metres and comprises six outdoor floodlit hard court/ bubblecrete tennis courts, a building that includes a hall, kitchen, office and store, a female change room & amenities and a male change room & amenities.

 

The previous lease has lapsed and that tenant’s lease has reverted to a month to month basis. The lessee is Gibbins Thompson Pty Ltd (trading as Sportsmax Management).

 

Management and operation of the Snape Park Tennis Centre was put out to tender in August 2003. Council at the 16 December 2003 Extraordinary Meeting decided not to enter into a contract because only two offers were made at a low annual rental and with minimal capital works being offered to be undertaken.

 

Enquiries regarding the poor response to the tender suggest that, due to the necessary investment needed to upgrade the courts and the building, the risk was too high for a reasonable return on investment over the five year period. Independent advice from a tennis court construction company concurs that all six courts were constructed in the 1970s and all need to be upgraded to synthetic grass.

 

Capital Works funding was requested in the Draft Budget process, however Council has decided not to allocate funding in 2004/05. It is estimated that the Snape Park Tennis Centre needs about $200,000 to be spent on new synthetic courts, fencing repairs, lighting, maintenance and minor renovation of the existing old building and removal of all asbestos roofing.

 

As it is important that the Centre be appropriately leased and that the necessary works be undertaken, it is proposed that the Snape Park Tennis Centre be leased through the tender process for the operation and management of the facility.

 

There are three options for Council to consider.

 

a)   Option A. Go to tender to lease the Centre for a period of five years. Council to fund the capital investment of $200,000 and source the funding from unbudgeted land sales that will occur during 2004/05.

 

The capital investment of $200,000 would have an asset life of ten to fifteen years. Since there would be no risk of obtaining a return on investment to the tenderer, then it would be appropriate for Council to limit the leasing period. This would provide Council with a mechanism to obtain a market appraisal after each five year period and receive a reasonable market return for the life of the facility.

 

The advantages of Option A are

 

·    A higher revenue stream to Council when compared to Option B.

·    The facilities are improved.

·    The community are able to continue to enjoy the use of the tennis centre.

 

The disadvantage is that

 

·    Council will be required to make a capital investment.

 

b)   Option B. Go to tender to lease the Centre for a period of up to twenty years (10+5+5 years). Tenderer will be required to provide facility concepts and fully fund the capital investment.

 

Under this option it is possible that some tenderers may wish to develop a new facility concept and would be willing to invest considerable funds. This type of investment could also involve the replacement of the existing building with a new building. As an investment of this amount would involve some risk and would require a longer timeframe to receive a return on investment, it would be more appropriate to amortise the investment over a longer period of between ten and twenty years.

 

The length of the lease (ten years, fifteen years or twenty years) would depend on the amount of investment in the facility. Over the life of a longer term lease, it is expected that the tennis court surfaces would need to be completely replaced by the end of  a longer lease, and would therefore involve a further capital investment.

 

The advantages of Option B are

 

·    No capital investment required by Council

·    The facilities are improved

·    The community are able to continue to enjoy the use of the tennis courts

 

The disadvantage is 

 

·    That there is a lower revenue stream to Council (when compared to Option A).

 

c)   Option C. Demolish the courts, demolish the club house and return the area to open space.

 

The advantage of this option is

 

·    That there would be no ongoing maintenance cost to Council.

 

However, the disadvantages are

 

·    The community will no longer have a tennis centre for use.

·    Council loses an asset

·    No revenue stream for Council

·    There is likely to be public concern expressed by the current users of the tennis centre.

·    Will cost Council money to demolish courts and buildings, and to restore the area back to open space.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is proposed that the tender process will be advertised in October, and that the tender will target advertisements in the local newspaper, tennis journals and the Sydney Morning Herald.

 

Option B may be the preferred option in terms of the long term. This would provide for the development of the centre at no cost to Council and continue to provide a tennis facility for the community.

 

Council will need to evaluate the three Options and decide on which investment strategy is appropriate for the Snape Park Tennis Centre.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.   That Council:-

 

Approves the Snape Park Tennis Centre going to tender and to lease the Centre for a period of up to twenty years (10+5+5 years). Tenderers are to provide facility concepts and fully fund the capital investment.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

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

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 21/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

NEW FEE - DES RENFORD AQUATIC CENTRE   - 2004/05

 

 

DATE:

18 August, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/0555

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Administration and Finance Committee Meeting on 13 July 2004, Council resolved to place on public exhibition the draft fees for a three month and a twelve month DRAC membership for concession card holders.

 

Council also resolved that at the conclusion of the exhibition period on 17 August 2004, that a report be prepared for consideration by Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

The proposed fees were advertised  in the Southern Courier on 20 July 2004. The following fees were advertised 

 

Three month membership – concession card holder                   $95.00 incl GST

Twelve month membership – concession card holder     $250.00 incl GST

 

At the conclusion of the exhibition period on 17 August 2004, no submissions were received from the public.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

No submissions have been received. It is recommended that the new fees are adopted.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         That the draft fees of a Three month membership for concession card holder for $95.00 incl GST and a Twelve month membership for concession card holder for $250.00 incl GST be adopted

 

2.         That the Schedule of Fees and Charges 2004/05 be amended as detailed.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 22/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

JUNE QUARTERLY REVIEW 2003/2006 MANAGEMENT PLAN  

 

 

DATE:

16 August, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/0555

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors on the implementation of the 2003/06 Management Plan

 

 

ISSUES:

 

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.

 

This is the June Quarterly Review of the 2003/06 Plan and represents the final report against this Plan. The review against the performance targets provides a clear indication of whether or not the targets were met during 2003/2004. In situations where the targets were not met, some background to the variation is provided.

 

Council’s performance over the year 2003/2004 will now be consolidated into the Annual Report which must be provided to the Department of Local Government by 30 November.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the Report on the June Quarterly Review – 2003/06 Management Plan be received and noted.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.         June Quarterly Review 2003/2006 Management Plan under separate cover.   

 

 

 

 

 

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

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 23/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

19 August, 2004

FILE NO:

P/10060 xr P/00738 xr P/003528 xr 98/S/1256  

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING 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 singing of agreements between Council and –

 

1.         Mr Paul Snaith (T/As Randwick Tum Thai) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 167 Alison Road, Randwick.

2.         Junyi Du (T/As La Casa De Spaghetti) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at Shop 3, 190 Arden Street, Coogee.

3.         Coogee Bowling Club Ltd in relation to a variation of lease for part of Reserve No. D500150 known as J.V Dick Reserve.

4.         Maroubra Soccer Club Incorporated in relation to a licence for the Kiosk and storage area, Coral Sea Park, Part Lot Z in DP 36839.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the agreements between Council and –

 

1.   Mr Paul Snaith (T/As Randwick Tum Thai) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 167 Alison Road, Randwick.

2.   Junyi Du (T/As La Casa De Spaghetti) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at Shop 3, 190 Arden Street, Coogee.

3.   Coogee Bowling Club Ltd in relation to a variation of lease for part of Reserve No. D500150 known as J.V Dick Reserve.

4.   Maroubra Soccer Club Incorporated in relation to a licence for the Kiosk and storage area, Coral Sea Park, Part Lot Z in DP 36839.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

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

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 58/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

BUNNERONG  GYMNASTICS ASSOCIATION - HEFFRON PARK

 

 

DATE:

17 August, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/4262

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES        

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Bunnerong Gymnastics Association has a licence with Randwick City Council for part of Heffron Park Reserve including land and a building on the south western side. Currently they pay an occupation fee of $22,000 per annum.

 

The association has put a submission to Council seeking assistance in the providing a new gymnastics facility within Heffron Park.

 

ISSUES:

 

Over a 12 month period the Association has had meetings with both Councillors and staff in relation to the development of a new facility. Details of the proposed development are outlined in the attached submission. The association has also provided a promotional DVD which has been circulated to all Councillors under separate cover.

 

The Director-General, Tourism, Sport and Recreation, Mr Bill Healey has suggested that the Association should seek a longer lease on the site as this would support any future request for funding. In May 2004 the Bunnerong Gymnastics Association made a formal submission to Council in relation to the development of the new facility. This new licence has now been prepared.

 

In summary the Submission states:

 

·    The current facility is in need of major repair and the roof construction and height is not ideal for gymnastics.

·    The expansion of the facility is required due to the growing demand from the community and local schools and the need for an elite gymnastics centre which is capable of holding local, regional and national events.

·    Bunnerong Gymnastics Committee has held discussions with NSW Department of Sport and Recreation in relation to the development of a new centre.

·    The Association was told by officers from the Department Tourism, Sport and Recreation (TSR) that they could not get funding for the project until the Association had development approval from Randwick City Council for the construction of the new centre which they estimate will cost between $1.5 million and $2 million.

 

The Bunnerong Gymnastics Association is seeking the following financial contribution and assistance from Council to facilitate the proposed development.

 

1.   Waiver of fees for licence preparation. ($884)

2.   Council to provide an officer to prepare and lodge development application (Estimated cost $50,000 2.5% of estimated construction cost)

3.   Wavering of fees for lodging a development application (Estimated cost $5525)

4.   Cost of consultant to assess DA (essential if Council officer prepares the DA) (Estimated cost $4000 )

5.   Preparation of all construction plans (Estimated cost $250,000 12.5% of estimated construction cost)

6.   Project management of construction (Estimated cost $50,000 2.5% of estimated construction cost)

 

At this stage the only cost to Council has been the fees for licence preparation. The total estimated contribution requested of Council is approximately $360,000.

 

This is one of a number of proposals from various sporting groups looking to improve and expand facilities within Heffron Park.

 

Council has previously prepared a Plan of Management for Heffron Park. In conjunction with this Council also prepared a Master Plan for the development of the park. The Master Plan document proposed a radical change to the existing facilities within the park but failed to gain wide spread support from either the public or sporting groups.

 

Before serious consideration can be given to the redevelopment of Heffron Park both the Plan of Management and the Master Plan for Heffron Park should be reassessed, so that any further development of the park is completed in an orderly and planned manner that meets the needs of the both community and sporting bodies.

 

Adhoc development not in-accordance with an adopted Master Plan would not only be considered poor infrastructure planning but would also be contrary to Councils LEP requirements for a Master Plan.

 

In light of the increased interest in Heffron Park an internal review committee is being set up to reassess the Plan of Management and to undertake the Master Plan for Heffron Park. Interested sporting groups will be called provide information and advice to the committee, as required.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

While Council acknowledges the merits of the proposed new facility and the benefits that this would deliver to the current and new patrons, the submission details an extensive request for direct and indirect funding from Council estimated to be approximately $360,000.

 

A draft Master Plan for Heffron Park was prepared but it failed to receive the support from the community and local sporting groups. As a consequence, funding for works in Heffron Park is not included in Council’s current Management Plan.

 

Therefore before serious consideration can be given to this proposal from the Bunnerong Gymnastics Association the Plan of Management and the Master Plan for Heffron Park both need to be revisited and adopted by Council. Adoption and consensus on both these documents is important to allow for the structured long term planning of the Park which will benefit all sporting bodies and the community as a whole.

 

At the same time the major strategic budgetary focus for Council is on increasing the funding allocation to the maintenance of Council assets and infrastructure.  There is a priority list of projects to be undertaken and the five year financial plan does not provide for funds for a new major capital project. It is considered that future funding for projects such as the Heffron Park development would need to look at alternate funding and financing arrangements to enable that projects of this nature are to proceed.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)   Council not support the request for funding assistance of from the Bunnerong Gymnastics Association at this time; and

 

b)   The submission be brought back to Council for consideration once the review of the current Plan of Management and Master Plan documents for Heffron Park is completed.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

UNDER SEPARATE COVER -

Attach A Bunnerong Gymnastics'  letter

Attach B Grant Admin & Facility Design's letter

Attach C NSW Dept Sport & Recreation Fact Sheet  

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

TIM MCCARTHY

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER ASSETS


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 59/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

GRANT RESERVE CLIMBING NET

 

 

DATE:

19 August, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1219

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At Council Meeting of 27th July 2004, it was resolved that -

 

“A report be tabled at the next Council meeting:

 

a)         Detailing the reasons for delay in refurbishing the climbing net in the Grant Reserve playground; and

b)         Providing a detailed programme for its immediate reconstruction.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The existing climbing net structure in Grant Reserve playground was vandalised late last year, rendering it unsafe for further use, and as a matter of public safety, it was immediately barricaded off and signposted, advising park users that a replacement would be provided as soon as possible.

 

In order to ensure Council was purchasing the best product for the best possible price, quotations were sought from several companies but a number of companies indicated that they did not carry this type of equipment. Of the 2 companies that did, it was decided that the Australian company, Kompan Pty Ltd’s product was superior because it allowed for the individual elements of the climbing net to be repaired should it be damaged in the future. The fittings and hardware for the net are made in Australia while the net itself is imported from Germany. The other company’s product was similar to the existing net in that damage of the type recently encountered, necessitates replacement of the entire net. 

 

Once Council’s requirements were met and since Kompan can supply the product under State Government Contract conditions, an order dated 1 June, 2004, was issued to Kompan Pty Ltd and arrangements were made for installation in June/July 2004. However, close to this date, the contractor advised they were experiencing delays in arranging the necessary labour and machinery for the job, which delayed installation by approximately 2 weeks.

 

The contractor then advised Council that the size of the existing play area and the location of the in ground footings may be unsuitable for the type of net originally proposed. They were advised that this was unacceptable as they had already confirmed they could provide the net required for the job, and that an order number had been issued on that basis. The existing net is 7 metres high. Kompan indicated that the footings were only capable of accommodating a smaller net, 5.5metres high.  It was agreed that since the setbacks for the higher net from the play border were marginal, the smaller net would be more suitable for this area.

 

The contractor has now been instructed to make the necessary arrangements to have the new net installed and informed that the provision of a new net to the playground was considered a priority. He has advised that the net will be installed in 6-8 weeks.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Although the supply of a replacement net has been a protracted exercise, negotiations have been ongoing with the issue close to being resolved. As indicated above, the contractor has advised that the net will be installed in 6-8 weeks.

 

Council staff are in constant contact with the supplier in an attempt to ensure that the promised time frame is delivered.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the Director, Asset and Infrastructure Services ‘ Report dated 19 August, 2004, in relation to the climbing net at Grant Reserve, be noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 60/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

1 BYNG STREET, MAROUBRA - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE PROPERTY

 

 

DATE:

19 August, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0138/03

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its Works Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 10 August, 2004, resolved that the recommendation to remove and replace the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside that property be deferred until a report on the options for either removing or retaining the subject tree is brought before Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

This tree has been root pruned in the past by Council’s tree gang as a result of root damage that was being caused to both private property and to Council’s footpath outside 1 Byng Street and adjacent to 962 Anzac Parade, Maroubra.

 

Council has already repaired a section of the fence at 962 Anzac Parade, Maroubra, that was damaged by tree roots and there is currently a claim with Council lodged by the owner of 1 Byng Street, Maroubra, for damage to his front fence.

 

Council’s insurance officer estimates that it will cost in the vicinity of $3000 to repair the existing damage to the fence.

 

A valuation of the subject tree using the Draft Australian Standard – Amenity Valuation formula estimates the tree’s amenity value at $25,562.50.

 

Council’s tree trimming contractors have provided a quotation of $1750 to remove and stump grind the fig tree.

 

Although the tree was root pruned only two-three years ago, tree roots have regrown and are once again beginning to damage the front of both adjacent properties.

 

The installation of a tree root barrier is only ever a temporary option in relation to the roots if any Ficus species and this is why they are not a feasible long-term option.

 

The owners of both affected properties support the removal and replacement of this tree and because it is the only example of this species in a street that is planted out on both sides with far more appropriate and less damaging street tree species, its removal would have a negligible impact overall.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

There are no feasible long-term management options available that will negate the range of damage caused by the roots of this tree.

 

Council could asphalt the footpath adjacent to the tree in order to avoid major root pruning but this would only be a temporary measure. The same applies to root pruning and this has been undertaken only recently with very little success.

 

The tree is the only one of this species in the street and as such is quite incongruous in an established streetscape of Eucalyptus haemastoma and Hibiscus tileaceus.

 

The tree could be removed for a very reasonable cost and two replacement species planted that will cause little or no damage to either private property or public infrastructure.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 1 Byng Street, Maroubra, be removed and replaced with more appropriate tree species, as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment - Works Report of 10 August, 2004  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 51/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' OUTSIDE 1 BYNG STREET, MAROUBRA

 

 

DATE:

28 July, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0138/03

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

There is a very large, healthy Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside the above property which has caused ongoing damage to the two adjacent properties.

 

ISSUES:

 

The roots of this tree have caused ongoing damage to both the properties at 1 Byng Street and 962 Anzac Parade, Maroubra, as well as the adjacent roadway, kerb and gutter. The type of damage caused by the roots of this tree has been occurring over a prolonged period.

 

The owners of both affected properties have expressed a desire to have the tree removed and replaced with more appropriate trees.

 

It is a very large tree but is the only one of this species growing within the street. The street is planted out with Hibiscus tileaceus on one side and Eucalyptus haemastoma on the other.

 

As such, this fig tree is quite incongruous in the situation in which it is growing and its removal would not in any way compromise the integrity of the streetscape.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The only effective long-term method of dealing with the range of problems associated with this tree would be to remove it and this would comply with the intent of Council’s recently adopted strategy for dealing with aggressive-rooted street trees.

 


RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 1 Byng Street, Maroubra, be removed and replaced with more appropriate tree species – as nominated in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan..

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 61/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

3 QUAIL STREET, COOGEE - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE PROPERTY.

 

 

DATE:

19 August, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0629/03

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its Works Committee meeting held on 10 August, 2004, resolved that the recommendation to remove and replace the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing outside 3 Quail Street, Coogee, be deferred until it was determined exactly which of the two Ficus ‘Hillii’ trees outside that property is proposed for removal.

 

ISSUES:

 

There are two Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing on the nature strip outside the subject property and the roots of both are causing ongoing damage to surrounding infrastructure and private property.

 

However, the western-most of the two trees is situated directly over the sewerage system into the property and is directly over the Sydney Water mains.

 

The owner of the property has repeatedly requested that the tree be removed and that he is no longer prepared to tolerate the damage and inconvenience it is causing.

 

He has provided correspondence to Council that states that to repair existing damage to his sewer pipes whilst retaining the tree would cost between $15,000-20,000 but to repair that same damage once the tree were removed would only cost between $2,000-3,000.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The tree is one of eight growing in the street and their total canopy mass covers approximately 50 percent of the street. As such they are highly significant.

 

However, the subject tree is planted between two others of the same species and because of this its removal would not have a profound impact on the streetscape.

 

As long as the tree remains its roots will continue to cause the range of problems typically associated with this tree species.

 

Several other street trees of the same species have had to be removed within Quail Street because of the range and seriousness of the damage caused by their roots.

 

Council recently paid more than $20,000 to repair damage caused by the roots of three of these trees to the sewer pipes at 52 Mount Street, Coogee.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the western-most Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing on the nature strip outside 3 Quail Street, Coogee, be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tree species, as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment - Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 54/2004

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

BRYAN BOURKE

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 54/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' OUTSIDE 3 QUAIL STREET, COOGEE DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

DATE:

28 July, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0629/03

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The owner of 3 Quail Street, Coogee, Mr T M Heavener, has once again written to Council requesting the removal and replacement of the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside his property.

 

Mr Heavener has written to Council on a number of occasions detailing major sewer problems caused by the roots of the Hill’s Weeping fig growing outside his property and he has now forwarded correspondence to Council indicating that it will cost between $2000-3000 simply to repair existing damage to his sewer network and to make it temporarily servicable.

 

ISSUES:

 

The subject tree is a relatively healthy specimen approximately ten metres in height and around five-six metres across the canopy. It is one of a number of Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing in the street and as such is highly significant.

 

It has been extensively pruned on a number of occasions to clear overhead powerlines and is growing immediately adjacent to a power pole and street light.

 

The roots of the tree are extensive and have damaged the footpath, are protruding above the nature strip and have blocked the underground Sydney Water mains on a number of occasions over a protracted period.

 

The owner has also highlighted the fact that the roots of the tree constitute a public liability issue and that he will hold Council responsible for any damage or injury caused by those roots.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The nature and extent of tree root damage being caused by this tree are such that any type of root pruning or root barrier installation are not in any way feasible options for dealing with the range of problems associated with the tree.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing on the nature strip outside 3 Quail Street, Coogee, be removed and that it be replaced with an appropriate number of most suitable  trees, as per Council’s Street Tree Master Plan.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Correspondence dated 6 July, 2004

Memo to Manager Assets dated 26 May, 2004 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

 

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 23/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

ANNUAL REPORTING OF CONTRACTS FOR SENIOR STAFF

 

 

DATE:

16 August, 2004

FILE NO:

Personnel

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Section 339 of the Local Government Act, 1993 states:

 

“The General Manager must, at least once annually, report to the Council on contractual conditions of senior staff”.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The following information is provided in accordance with Section 339 of the Act:

 

 

Position Title

Occupant

Total Remuneration Package as at 30 June 2004

General Manager

Mr Gordon Messiter

$233,998 pa *

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services

 

Mr Michael Savage

 

$159,027 pa *

Director Planning & Community Development

 

Mrs Sima Truuvert

 

$158,500 pa

Director Governance Management & Information Services

 

 

Mr Mark Hummerston

 

$150,000 pa *

(* Note: Excludes F.B.T.)

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director Governance, Management & Information Services Report No. 23/04 entitled “Annual Reporting of Contracts for Senior Staff” be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 24/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

CODE OF MEETING PRACTICE - TAPE RECORDING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS & OTHER MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENT

 

DATE:

21 July, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1078 xr 98/S/1738 xr 98/S/2731

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Privacy NSW has published a User Manual entitled “The tape recording of Council meetings”. The manual has implications in respect to Council’s current practice in this regard and to its Code of Meeting Practice.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council presently uses information collected on taped records of proceedings of the Council (and/or Committee) Meetings for two purposes. Firstly, its main purpose is to verify what is to be or was recorded in the minutes and its second and lesser purpose is to allow members of the public to access the tapes under Section 12 of the Local Government Act for that or other purposes.

 

The Council’s Code of Meeting Practice currently specifies:

 

“66.      Tape Recording of Council and Committee Meetings by Council.

 

            Meetings of Council and Committees, which have full delegation to determine items on their agenda, shall be tape recorded by the Council, except for those portions which the Committee or the Council has resolved to close in accordance with Section 10A (2) of the Local Government Act. (131/1998-23/6) (145/2001-24/7)

 

            (Policy)”

 

A number of other Councils have asked Privacy NSW for advice on whether tape recordings of proceedings of Council Meetings may be in breach of the Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (the PPIP Act). As a result, Privacy NSW prepared a User Manual, with the assistance of the Department of Local Government and the State Records Authority of New South Wales, to help Councils interpret the requirements of the PPIP Act.

 

As detailed in the Manual:

 

“Personal information is defined in Section 4(1) of the PPIP Act as:

 

            information or an opinion (including information or an opinion forming part of a database and whether or not recorded in a material form) about an individual whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information or opinion.

 

The types of personal information collected at Council meetings could include:

 

·    The identities of any speakers and personal opinions held by them that they express in the meeting – this includes Councillors, staff and members of the public who address the meeting

·    Information or opinions about other people – this is where a speaker talks about a third party whose identity is apparent or is reasonably ascertainable.

 

The tape recording of meetings must therefore comply with the information protection principles (IPPs) in sections 8-19 of the PPIP Act.

 

The information protection principles that relate to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information are particularly relevant. These are IPPs 1,2,3,4,10,11 and 12.

 

The information protection principle that relates to the retention and disposal of personal information are also relevant. This is IPP 5.

 

Some of the issues Councils need to consider are:

 

·    Is the personal information collected for a lawful purpose ?

 

·    Is the collection of the information reasonably necessary ?

 

·    Is the information about people other than the speaker ?

 

·    Is disclosure of the information in the public interest ?

 

·    Does the person know the information has been collected ?

 

·    How long will the tapes be kept ?”

 

A full examination of the Information Protection Principles in respect to tape recording of Meetings and any necessary actions recommended for Councils to undertake are outlined in Privacy N.S.W’s publication which is attached for Councillors’ guidance.

 

Randwick Council’s Code of Meeting Practice contains some specific requirements in relation to minutes and the recording of meetings which are not fully recognised in the User manual prepared by Privacy NSW. Clause 62 (3) of the Code requires that “Movers and seconders of motions, amendments, etc., are to be recorded in the Minutes of Meetings of Council and Committees which have full delegation to determine items on their agenda. In addition, Clause 66 of that Code states that  “Meetings of Council and Committees, which have full delegation to determine items on their agenda, shall be tape recorded by the Council, except for those portions which the Committee or the Council has resolved to close in accordance with Section 10 A (2) of the Local Government Act”. Finally, Clause 55 (7) of the Code specifies that “For Committees which do not have delegated authority and which only make recommendations to Council, their minutes shall contain the movers and seconders and text of motions and amendments and whether those motions or amendments were passed or lost”. Clause 39 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulation, 1999 also supports this Clause in Council’s Code.

 

It is granted, however, that the recording of the entire meeting, including the initial public addresses, gathers far more information than is required for the accurate compilation of minutes. The situation regarding collection of personal information may create a breach of the Privacy Principles when speakers convey personal information about other people at Meetings and that information is recorded (collected) on tape. The PPIP Act generally only permits the collection of personal information directly from the individual to which it relates, unless that individual has authorised such collection.

 

Privacy NSW also considers that Councils need to be mindful of possible breaches of Information Protection Principles by recording (collecting) excessive information. Councils must ensure that the information is also relevant to the purpose, accurate, up to date and complete and that such collection does not intrude to an unreasonable extent on the personal affairs of the individual to whom it relates. Privacy NSW considers that “the recording of a speech or a debate about a particular individual or individuals may mean that a Council is found to have breached this provision.”

 

A primary thrust of the PPIP Act relates to the limit on the use of personal information. Councils that hold personal information must not use that information for a purpose other than that for which it was collected, unless the relevant individual has consented to the use of the information for another purpose, or the purpose for which the information is used is directly related to the purpose for which it was collected. Accordingly, in respect to the recording of Meetings, the only valid use of that information can relate to the compilation of accurate minutes and such information can not be used for other purposes.

 

Further constraints on the use of personal information arise with respect to its disclosure. Privacy NSW is of the view that even release of personal information under Section 12 (6) of the Local Government Act, which requires the exercising of the “public interest” test, needs to take into account the additional restrictive qualifications already imposed under Privacy Principles Nos. 11 & 12. In other words, there needs to be a balance established between the public interest in privacy protection against the public interest in ensuring openness and accountability of government decision-making. Council would, if it proposed to continue to grant public access to tapes of Meetings, need to establish that in the entire content of those tapes there would be no disclosure of personal information which would not comply with those Privacy Principles.

 

The reality of this situation is that if a member of the public sought access to any tape of any Meeting, Council staff could not guarantee that no information of a personal nature was going to be contained on that tape. In many cases, staff will have no prior knowledge about any of the debate/addresses contained on the tapes as they were not present at those meetings, or even if they were present they could not possibly remember all details of all meetings. It would therefore seem reasonable to preclude access to tapes of Meetings to all persons other than those responsible for the compilation and confirmation of Minutes of Meetings, namely relevant staff and Councillors.

 

A further issue is canvassed by Privacy NSW in the User Manual relating to the retention and security of personal information in the context of tape recordings of Meetings. One of the Privacy Principles deals with this issue and outlines that personal information is to  be kept for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used. In addition, that Principle places an obligation on Council to ensure that the information is protected with security safeguards to prevent loss, unauthorised access, disclosure, misuse, etc. and that it is disposed of securely, in accordance with relevant retention and disposal guidelines. Under the General Disposal Authority – Local Government Records, voice and video recordings used to prepare for meetings and produce Council and Committee minutes are permitted (but not required) to be destroyed three months after action was completed or after the last action, whichever is the later. A further State Records Authority publication “Destruction of Records – A Practical Guide” does make additional provision with “Reasons for longer retention of a records can include legal requirements, administrative need……” and “A public office must not dispose of any records required for current or pending legal action or where the records may be required as evidence in a court case.” On this basis it would seem reasonable that Council should retain tape recordings of meetings for a period of three (3) months, such period providing an opportunity for possible legal action to become evident.

 

Leaving the privacy issue, one miscellaneous element of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice also requires amendment in respect to Clause 55 (5), relating to the raising of General Business at Committee Meetings. Currently, that Clause states:

 

“Any matter raised as an item of General Business at a Committee Meeting be listed on the Business Paper for the subsequent Council Meeting, with the recommendation that a report on the matter be prepared by the appropriate Officer and the matter be considered, with the report, at the next meting of the Committee.” This Clause had relevance when all Committees made only recommendations to Council. For a substantial number of years, Council has granted its General Committees and some of its Special Committees delegated authority to deal with all items on their agenda. Accordingly, the wording of that sub-clause should be amended to reflect current practice and provide for a report on the issue to be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee, in lieu of a Council Meeting.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Based on the views of Privacy NSW in respect to the tape recordings of Meetings and the publication of its User Manual on this subject, Council needs to amend its Code of Meeting Practice to specify the reason for taping of those Meetings. It also needs to limit access to tapes of those Meetings and to agree to a schedule for the disposal of those tapes.

 

Finally, a minor amendment is required to Council’s Code of Meeting Practice, in respect to the raising of General Business items at Committee Meetings, to reflect current practice.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That Clause 66 of the Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (Policy No. 1.01.02) be amended by the insertion of an additional paragraph which reads “The purpose of tape recording meetings of Council and Committees is to allow the accurate compilation of Minutes of those Meetings and to verify their accuracy upon confirmation of those Minutes”;

 

(b)        That access to the tape recordings of Meetings be restricted to those staff engaged in the compilation of Minutes and Councillors involved in the confirmation of Minutes;

 

(c)        That tape recordings of Meetings not be made available to the public or disclosed to any third party under Section 12 (6) of the Local Government Act, except as allowed under Section 18 (1) (c) or Section 19 (1) of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by other law, including the F.O.I Act;

 

(d)        That tape recordings of Meetings be destroyed as soon as their original purpose is served or three (3) months after their creation (whichever is the later), except where retention for a longer period is otherwise required or recommended under the State Records Act 1998;

 

(e)        That appropriate signage be displayed at the public gallery entrance of the Council Chamber and verbal statements be made at the start of each Meeting, notifying the public of matters required under Information Protection Principle No. 3 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act relating to the fact that information is being tape recorded (collected), the purpose of such recording (collection), the intended recipients of such information, etc.

 

(f)         That Clause 55 (5) of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice (Policy No. 1.01.02) be amended to read “Any matter raised as an item of General Business at a Committee Meeting be listed in the Minutes of that meeting with the recommendation that a report on the subject matter be prepared by the appropriate Officer and the matter be considered, with the report, at the next meeting of the Committee.

 

(g)        That the Policy Register be updated accordingly.

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Privacy NSW User Manual - The tape recording of Council meetings - May 2004

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 




 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 25/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

AMENDMENT TO PRIVACY MANAGEMENT PLAN - HEALTH RECORDS & INFORMATION PRIVACY ACT, 2002.

 

 

DATE:

19 August, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2731

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002 (the HRIP Act), which commences on 1st September, 2004, created a legal framework to protect the privacy of peoples’ health information in New South Wales. It covers all public and private sector organisations in NSW that provide a health service or that collect, hold or use health information.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council, at its meeting held on 11th December, 2001, adopted an amended Privacy Management Plan following the introduction of the Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIP Act).

 

Up until the present time, the PPIP Act had protected the privacy of all personal information (including health information) held by the Council. With the commencement of the HRIP Act, ‘health information’ will be taken out of the PPIP Act and will be specifically protected by the HRIP Act. Whilst not a ‘health organisation’, Council does collect and hold health information about its employees and some members of the public and their children, for example at childcare centres. Being in possession of this information, Council is required to comply with the provisions of the HRIP Act which governs the way such information is collected, its relevance, access, storage, accuracy, use, disclosure, etc.

 

The advice from Privacy NSW, as Council is already covered by privacy law, is that the best approach for implementation of the HRIP Act is integrated compliance into processes which are already in place to deal with the existing privacy legislation. For Randwick, this means incorporating consideration of the requirements of the HRIP Act into its existing Privacy Management Plan and modifying privacy statements on relevant application forms which are the subject of the HRIP Act.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Accordingly, Council’s Privacy Management Plan has been amended to deal with both personal information and health information and a copy is attached for Councillors’ information.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That Council adopt the amended Privacy Management Plan, based on necessary modifications required by the commencement of the Health Records and Information Privacy Act, 2002; and

(b)        That, in accordance with Clause 33 of the Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act 1998, Council forward the amended Privacy Management Plan to the Privacy Commissioner of NSW.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Privacy Management Plan

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

PRIVACY MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

 

This Plan details how Randwick City Council deals with the personal information and health information it collects to ensure that it complies with the Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and the Health Records & Information Privacy Act 2002.

 

In this Plan a reference to ‘personal information’ is a reference to both personal information and health information.

 

The Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (PPIPA) and the Health Records & Information Privacy Act 2002 (HRIPA) provide for the protection of personal information and for the protection of the privacy of individuals. This Plan has been prepared with regard to Section 33 of the PPIPA, the Privacy Code of Practice for Local Government and the HRIPA to show how Randwick City Council will incorporate the provisions of both the PPIPA and the HRIPA into its everyday activities.

 

There are five sections to the Plan:

1.     Introduction to the Act and to personal information.

2.     The twelve information protection principles as set out in the PPIP Act and four additional specific health information privacy principles detailed in the HRIP Act

3.     A list of the Registers Council holds that are bound by the Acts and specific purposes relating to their use.

4.     The procedures that Council will use for internal review of privacy complaints.

5.     The role of the Privacy Contact Officers.

 

Council collects, stores and uses a broad range of information. A significant part of that information is personal information. This Plan applies to that part of the Council’s information that is personal information.

 

Definitions

 

Personal Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

Health Information

Personal information is information or an opinion about an individual whose identity is apparent or can reasonably be ascertained from the information or opinion. This information does not necessarily have to be recorded in a material form. Information about an individual that is contained in a publicly available publication is not considered personal information.

 

Health information is information as defined in Section 6 of the HRIP Act.

 

 

Publicly available publications include:-

  An advertisement containing personal information in a local, city or national newspaper.

 

  Personal information on the Internet.

 

  Books or magazines that are printed and distributed broadly to the general public.

 

  Council Business papers, or that part that is available to the general public.

  A public display on view to the general public.

Application of this Plan

 

The PPIPA, the Code, the HRIPA and this Plan apply, wherever practicable, to:

 

  Councillors;

  Council employees;

  Consultants and contractors of the Council;

  Council owned businesses (if any); and

  Council committees (including those which may be established under Section 355 of the LGA).

 

Personal Information Held by Council

 

The Council holds personal information concerning Councillors such as:

  Personal contact information;

  Complaints and associated matters;

  Pecuniary interest returns; and

  Entitlements to fees, expenses, facilities and reimbursements.

 

The Council holds personal information concerning its customers, ratepayers and residents such as:

  Names and addresses;

  Car registration numbers;

  Bank account details; and

  Health history of children at Child Care Centres.

 

The Council holds personal information concerning its employees such as:

  Recruitment material;

  Leave and payroll data;

  Personal contact information;

  Performance management plans;

  Disciplinary matters;

  Pecuniary interest returns;

  Wage and salary entitlements; and

  Health history.

 

2.         INFORMATION PROTECTION PRINCIPLES

 

There are 12 Information Protection Principles in the Privacy & Personal Information Protection Information Protection Act 1998 and they are as follows:

 

Principle 1 – Collection of personal information for lawful purposes.

 

Principle 2 – Collection of personal information directly from the individual.

 

Principle 3 – Requirements when collecting personal information.

 

Principle 4 – Other requirements relating to collection of personal information.

 

Principle 5 – Retention and security of personal information.

 

Principle 6 – Information about personal information held by agencies.

 

Principle 7 – Access to personal information held by agencies.

 

Principle 8 – Alteration of personal information.

Principle 9 – Council must check accuracy of personal information before use.

 

Principle 10 – Limits on use of personal information.

 

Principle 11 – Limits on disclosure of personal information.

 

Principle 12 – Special restrictions on disclosure of personal information.

 



Principles

1

Collection of Information

Randwick City Council will not collect personal information unless:

  the information is collected for a lawful purpose that is directly related to a function or activity of the Council; and

  the collection of the information is reasonably necessary for that purpose.

 

Randwick City Council will not collect personal information by any unlawful means.

 

From 1/7/2000 it may be unlawful to collect personal information from Government Departments in order to pursue debtors unless that Department has a clause allowing this under its management plan.

 

The Council will continue the practice, in accordance with the requirements of the Child Protection and other relevant Acts, of dealing with the NSW Department of Community Services and other Government Departments in relation to personnel and recruitment matters.



 

2

Direct Collection

Randwick City Council will, in collecting personal information, collect the information directly from the individual to whom the information relates unless:

  the individual has authorised collection of the information from someone else, or

  in the case of information relating to a person who is under the age of 16 years, the information is being provided by a parent or guardian of the person, or

  indirect collection is reasonably necessary to confer an award, prize or benefit or similar form of personal recognition on the person to whom the information relates, or

  a direct collection is reasonably likely to detrimentally affect Council’s conduct of any lawful investigation.

  it is unreasonable or impracticable to do so in accordance with the explanation contained in the “Handbook to Health Privacy.”

 

Where Council anticipates that it may otherwise need to collect personal information indirectly it will ensure the collection is permitted under Acts or law, Privacy Code of Practice for Local Government or Investigative Code of Practice.

 

3

Requirements when collecting personal information

If Randwick City Council collects personal information from an individual, it will take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that, before the information is collected or as soon as practicable after collection, the individual to whom the information relates is made aware of the following:

  the fact that the information is being collected;

  the purposes for which the information is being collected;

  the intended recipients of the information;

  whether the supply of the information by the individual is required by law or is voluntary and any consequences for the individual if the information (or any part of it) is not provided;

  the existence of any right of access to, and correction of, the information;

  the name and address of Council as the collector of the information;

 

unless the information is collected about an individual for the purpose of conferring an award, prize, benefit or similar form of personal recognition without prior or subsequent notification, or if compliance with this Principle is reasonably likely to detrimentally affect (or prevent the proper exercise of) Council’s conduct of any lawful investigation.

 

If health information is collected about a person from someone else, Council will take reasonable steps to ensure that the person will be notified.

 

4

Other requirements relating to collection of personal information

If Randwick City Council collects personal information from an individual, it must take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances (having regard to the purposes for which the information is collected) to ensure that:

  the information collected is relevant to that purpose, is not excessive, and is accurate, up-to-date and complete, and

  the collection of the information does not intrude to an unreasonable extent on the personal affairs of the individual to whom the information relates.



 

5

Retention and security of personal information

Randwick City Council will ensure that:

  the information is kept for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used, and

  the information is disposed of securely and in accordance with any requirements for the retention and disposal of personal information, and

  the information is protected, by taking such security safeguards as are reasonable in the circumstances, against loss, unauthorised access, use, modification or disclosure, and against all other misuse, and

  if it is necessary for the information to be given to a person in connection with the provision of a service to the Council, everything reasonably within the power of the Council is done to prevent unauthorised use or disclosure of the information.

 

The culling and destruction of records is carried out by the Records Co-ordinator in accordance with the Council’s approved Records Management Disposal Schedule.

6

Information held by Council

Randwick City Council will take such steps as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to enable any person to ascertain:

  whether it holds personal information, and

  whether it holds personal information relating to that person, and

  if it holds personal information relating to that person:

1.  the nature of that information, and

2.  the main purposes for which the information is used, and

3.  that person’s entitlement to gain access to the information.

 

As a matter of practicality, not every item of personal information will be capable of ascertainment.

7

Access to personal information held by Randwick City Council

Randwick City Council will, at the request of the individual to whom the information relates and without excessive delay or expense, provide the individual with access to the information, unless such action is reasonably likely to detrimentally affect (or prevent the proper exercise of) Council’s conduct of any lawful investigation.

 

8

Alteration of personal information

Randwick City Council will, at the request of the individual to whom personal information relates, make appropriate amendments (whether by way of corrections, deletions or additions) to ensure that the personal information:

  is accurate, and

  having regard to the purpose for which the information was collected (or is to be used) and to any purpose that is directly related to that purpose, is relevant, up-to-date, complete and not misleading.

 

If Randwick City Council is not prepared to amend personal information in accordance with a request by the individual to whom the information relates, it will, if so requested by the individual concerned, take such steps as are reasonable to attach to the information, in such a manner as is capable of being read with the information, any statement provided by that individual of the amendment sought.


Principles

 

If personal information is amended in accordance with this section, the individual to whom the information relates is entitled, if it is reasonably practicable, to have recipients of that information notified of the amendments made by Randwick City Council.

 

Non-compliance of this Principle is permitted if compliance is reasonably likely to detrimentally affect (or prevent the proper exercise of) Council’s conduct of any lawful investigation.

 

9

Council must check accuracy of personal information before use

Randwick City Council will not use the information without taking such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that, having regard to the purpose for which the information is proposed to be used, the information is relevant, accurate, up-to-date, complete and not misleading.

 

10

Limits on use of personal information

Randwick City Council will not use the information for a purpose other than that for which it was collected unless:

  the individual to whom the information relates has consented to the use of the information for that other purpose, or

  the other purpose for which the information is used is directly related to the purpose for which the information was collected, or

  the use of the information for that other purpose is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of the individual to whom the information relates, or of another person, or

  the use is in pursuance of Council’s lawful and proper function/s and Council is satisfied that the personal information is reasonably necessary for the exercise of such function/s, or

  where personal information is to be used for the purpose of conferring upon a particular person, an award, prize, benefit or similar form of personal recognition, or

  compliance with this Principle is reasonably likely to detrimentally affect (or prevent the proper exercise of) Council’s conduct of any lawful investigation.

 

Council will use any personal information for a variety of purposes within its departments, as on most occasions the information was collected with a purpose. For example, the names and addresses of individual owners of property kept on the rate register are used to notify adjoining owners of proposed developments, and other information is used to identify companion animal ownership, evaluate road openings and obstructions, evaluate tree preservation orders, investigate parking controls, evaluate land dedications and laneway status etc.

 

Staff investigating these issues and using personal information for these purposes will not notify individuals for approval to perform these functions. In addition, records will be discussed with Council’s solicitors when the need arises without prior approval of individuals.

 

11

Limits on disclosure of personal information

Randwick City Council will not disclose the information to a person (other than the individual to whom the information relates) or other body, whether or not such other person or body is a public sector agency, unless:

  the disclosure is directly related to the purpose for which the information was collected and Council has no reason to believe that the individual concerned would object to the disclosure, or

  the individual concerned is reasonably likely to have been aware, or has been made aware in accordance with the Act, that information of that kind is usually disclosed to that other person or body, or

  Council believes on reasonable grounds that the disclosure is necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the life or health of the individual concerned or another person.

 

If personal information is disclosed in accordance with this Principle to a person or body that is a public sector agency, that agency must not use or disclose the information for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information was given to it.

Council may disclose personal information to public sector agencies or public utilities on condition that:

  the agency has approached Council in writing, and

  Council is satisfied that the information is to be used by that agency for the proper and lawful function/s of that agency, and

  Council is satisfied that the personal information is reasonably necessary for the exercise of that agency’s function/s, or

  personal information which has been collected about an individual is to be disclosed for the purpose of conferring upon that person an award, prize, benefit or similar form of personal recognition.

 

Where Council is requested by a potential employer, it may verify that a current or former employee works or has worked for Council, the duration of that work and the position occupied during that time.

 

This exception shall not permit Council to give an opinion/s to that person’s suitability for a particular position with any potential employer unless Council is satisfied that the person has provided their consent for Council to provide a reference, which may include an opinion as to that person’s suitability for the position for which he/she has applied.

 

12

Special restrictions on disclosure of personal information

Randwick City Council will not disclose personal information relating to an individual’s ethnic or racial origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership, health or sexual activities unless the disclosure is necessary to prevent a serious or imminent threat to the life or health of the individual concerned or another person.

 

Randwick City Council will not disclose the information to any person or body who is in a jurisdiction outside New South Wales unless:

 a relevant privacy law that applies to the personal information concerned is in force in that jurisdiction, or

 

 the disclosure is permitted under a Privacy Code of Practice (a Code determined by the Privacy Commissioner and published in the Government Gazette.)

 

For the purposes of S19(2) of the PPIPA only, where Council is requested by a potential employer outside New South Wales, it may verify that a current or former employee works or has worked for Council, the duration of that work and the position occupied during that time.

 

This exception shall not permit Council to give an opinion/s to that person’s suitability for a particular position with any potential employer unless Council is satisfied that the person has provided their consent for Council to provide a reference, which may include an opinion as to that person’s suitability for the position for which he/she has applied.

 

Additional Specific Health Information Privacy Principles

 

There are four additional specific Privacy Principles contained in the Health Records & Information Privacy Act 2002 and these are as follows:

 

1. Identifiers

(1) Randwick City Council will only assign identifiers to individuals if the assignment of identifiers is reasonably necessary to enable the Council to carry out any of its functions efficiently.

2. Anonymity

Wherever it is lawful and practicable, individuals must be given the opportunity to not identify themselves when entering into transactions with or receiving any health services from Randwick Council.

3. Transborder data flows and data flow to Commonwealth agencies

Randwick City Council will not transfer health information about an individual to any person or body who is in a jurisdiction outside New South Wales or to a Commonwealth agency unless:

a)  Council reasonably believes that the recipient of the information is subject to a law, binding scheme or contract that effectively upholds principles for fair handling of the information that are substantially similar to the Health Privacy Principles, or

b)  The individual consents to the transfer, or

c)  The transfer is necessary for the performance of a contract between the individual and the Council, or for the implementation of pre-contractual measures taken in response to the individual’s request or,

d)  The transfer is necessary for the conclusion or performance of a contract concluded in the interest of the individual between the Council and a third party, or

e)  All of the following apply:

i)        the transfer is for the benefit of the individual,

ii)       it is impracticable to obtain the consent of the individual to that transfer,

iii)       if it were practicable to obtain such consent, the individual would be likely to give it, or

f)   the transfer is reasonably believed by the Council to be necessary to lessen or prevent:

i)        a serious and imminent threat to the life, health or safety of the individual or another person, or

ii)       a serious threat to public health or public safety, or

g)  the Council has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the information that it has transferred will not be held, or used or disclosed by the recipient of the information inconsistently with the Health Privacy Principles, or

h)  the transfer is permitted or required by an Act (including an Act of the Commonwealth) or any other law.

4. Linkage of health records

 

(1) Randwick City Council will not:

a)  include health information about an individual in a health records linkage system unless the individual has expressly consented to the information being so included, or

b)  disclose an identifier of an individual to any person if the purpose of the disclosure is to include health information about the individual in a health records linkage system, unless the individual has expressly consented to the identifier being disclosed for that purpose.

 

(2) Randwick Council is not required to comply with a provision of this clause if:

a) the Council is lawfully authorised or required not to comply with the provision concerned, or

b) non-compliance is otherwise permitted (or is necessarily implied or reasonably contemplated) under an Act or any other law (including the State Records Act 1998), or

c) the inclusion of the health information about the individual in the health records information system (including an inclusion for which an identifier of the individual is to be disclosed) is a use of the information that complies with Health Privacy Principle (HPP) 10 (1) (f) or a disclosure of the information that complies with HPP 11 (1) (f).

3) In this clause:

 

health record means an ongoing record of health care for an individual.

health records linkage system means a computerised system that is designed to link health records for an individual held by different organisations for the purpose of facilitating access to health records, and includes a system or class of systems prescribed by the regulations as being a health records linkage system, but does not include a system or class of systems prescribed by the regulations as not being a health records linkage system.

 

 

3.         REGISTERS

 

Where personal information is contained in a publicly available publication, that information will not be regarded as personal information covered by the PPIPA or HRIPA.

 

That part of a public register that is not published in a publicly available publication will be treated as a “public register” and the provisions for disclosure will apply.

 

Registers containing personal information will not be published on the Internet.

Members of the public may inquire only in accordance with the primary purpose of any of these registers. The primary purpose for each of these public registers is set out in the list of public registers held by Council, which appears below. Access may be granted under the secondary purpose as this includes provision of access.

 

Specific rules governing disclosure of personal information on Registers:

 

1.     Any person may inspect a publicly available copy of a public register and copy a single entry or a page of the register.

2.     No Statutory Declaration is required to inspect and copy a single entry or page.

3.     Law enforcement and investigative agencies are able to confidentially access personal information contained in public registers.

4.     Substantial parts of the Rates Register may be sold providing all names and addresses of current and previous property owners and sale prices have been deleted from the register, and no Statutory Declaration is required for this.

5.     If a customer wants all the details intact, all or a substantial part of the Rates Register can be sold providing the customer completes a Statutory Declaration and their purpose conforms with the purpose for which the register is kept.

 

Randwick City Council holds the following public registers:

 

Name of Register

Name of Act

Section under the Act

Purpose of the Register

Register held by

Form of Register

Primary Purpose

Secondary Purpose

Land Register

( Council controlled )

LGA

Section 53

To identify all land vested in Council or under its control

Public accountability as to the land held by Council.

Property

Hard Copy

Register of Pecuniary Interests & Other Matters – Councillors & Designated persons.

LGA

Sections 449 – 450A

To detail pecuniary interests & other matters of Councillors & designated persons, including property ownership & dispositions, sources of income & gifts, travel contributions, positions in corporations, trade unions & business associations, nature of debts & any other discretionary disclosures.

Public accountability purpose & third party access.

Public Office

Hard Copy

 

 

 

Name of Register

Name of Act

Section under the Act

Purpose of the Register

Register held by

Form of Register

Primary Purpose

Secondary Purpose

Register of Declarations of Interests at Council & Committee Meetings.

LGA

Sections 451 & 453

To reveal the existence and nature of a pecuniary interest/s by a Councillor or a member of a Council Committee when the actual matter is about to be considered at a Council or Committee Meeting & to show that they left the meeting during the course of discussion & decision-making.

Public accountability purpose & third party access.

Public Office

Hard Copy

Rates Register

LGA

Section 602

To record the value of a parcel of land & rate liability in respect to that land.

Recording the owner or ratepaying lessee of each parcel of land.

Rates

Electronic

Records of Local Approvals

LGA

Section 113

To identify all approvals granted under the LGA.

Public accountability

Planning & Community Development

Electronic

Register of Development Applications, Complying Development Certificates & Part 4A Certificates.

EPAA

Section 100 & Regulation 2000 Part 16.

To identify development applications and consents, complying development certificates and Part 4A certificates.

Public accountability

Planning & Community Development

Electronic

Record of Building Certificates

EPAA

Section 149G

To identify all building certificates

Public accountability

Planning & Community Development

Hard Copy

Public Notices issued under the Act

Protection of Environment (Operations) Act

Section 91

To identify all Public Notices issued under the POE Act.

Public accountability

Planning & Community Development

Hard Copy

Public Register of Licences Held

Protection of Environment (Operations) Act

Section 308

To identify all licences granted under the Act.

Public accountability

Planning & Community Development

Hard Copy

Submission of Tenders

LG Tendering Regulation 1999

(18575) 16(3) (a)

Record the names of tenderers & the amounts tendered for contract.

Public accountability

Purchasing & Contracts

Hard Copy

 

4.         PROCEDURE FOR INTERNAL REVIEW

 

Complaints or requests for an internal review must be made within 6 months of the complainant being first aware of the issue.

 

Complaints must be made in writing and addressed to:

The Privacy Officer

Randwick City Council

30 Frances Street

Randwick NSW 2031

 

When a complaint or request for a review is received by the Privacy Officer, the process for the review is as follows:

 

STEP 1: The Privacy Officer notifies the Privacy Commissioner that a complaint/request for internal review has been received.

 

STEP 2: The Privacy Officer appoints a Reviewing Officer to handle the complaint/request for internal review.

 

STEP 3: The Reviewing Officer investigates the complaint/review and reports the determination back to the Privacy Officer.

 

STEP 4: The Privacy Officer notifies the Complainant and the Privacy Commissioner of the determination.

 

SERVICE GUARANTEE:

1.  The review must be completed within 60 days of the lodgement of the complaint/request for internal review.

2.  The Complainant will be notified in writing within 14 days of the determination.

 

Should a Complainant not be satisfied, he or she may lodge an appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, which will hear the matter and impose its own decision. It may also impose substantial damages for a breach of an information protection principle.

 

5.         THE ROLE OF THE PRIVACY CONTACT OFFICER

 

The role of Privacy Contact Officer/s (Privacy Officer/s) has been delegated by Council to the General Manager who has sub-delegated it to the Director Governance, Management & Information Services, the Public Officer and the Assistant Public Officer.

 

The role carries primary responsibility for the following:

 

1.  Assigning, monitoring and reporting internal review matters.

2.  Liaising with all staff to ensure their needs are met in relation to the PPIPA & HRIPA.

3.  Assisting with training and induction.

4.  Assisting other Managers and staff in developing processes and procedures to enable staff, councillors, contractors and consultants to meet their obligations under the Act.

5.  Acting as a point of contact for enquiries regarding the Act within the organisation.

6.  Reviewing the Privacy Management Plan.

 

APPENDIX 1

 

APPLICATION OF PPIPA TO SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

 

1.   Electoral Rolls

The Electoral Roll is a publicly available publication. Council will provide open access to the Electoral Roll in Council’s library. Council will refer any requests for copies of the Electoral Roll to the State Electoral Commissioner.

 

2.   Access to Information other than that kept on Registers

Randwick City Council requires that an application form be completed for each request for access to personal information. No requests for personal information will be met by telephone.

 

3.   Unsolicited information

Where an individual, group or committee not established by Council, gives Council unsolicited personal information, then that information is deemed not to have been collected by Council and the PPIPA will not be applied. In particular, personal information contained in petitions received by Council will be treated as if it had been published.

 

4.   Complaints

Any personal information contained in complaints and requests for action will not be disclosed. However the nature of the complaint will be released, except under the following circumstances:

  Where the complaint is made under the provisions of the Protected Disclosures Act;

  Where the personal safety of the complainant may be at risk by the disclosure;

  Where the complaint refers to corruption or maladministration currently under investigation.

 

5.   Application for suppression in relation to general information (not public registers)

A person may request that their personal information be removed from publicly available documents if that person considers their safety or the safety of their family may be at risk. An application to suppress the information must be made in writing to the General Manager of Randwick City Council, must give particulars of the risk and must be verified by statutory declaration.

 

APPENDIX 2

 

DECLARATION ON EACH TYPE OF DOCUMENT ISSUED BY RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

1.   Collecting information as a legislative requirement

(PRIVACY: The personal details requested on this form are required under the [name of Act] and will only be used in connection with the requirements of this legislation. Access to this information is restricted to Randwick City Council officers and other people authorised under the Act. Council is to be regarded as the agency that holds the information. You may make application for access or amendment to information held by Council. You may also request Council to suppress your personal information from a public register.)

 

2.   Rates application forms

          (PRIVACY: Personal details requested on these forms are required under the Local Government Act and may be used for a variety of purposes connected with the Randwick City Council’s functions; for example names and addresses kept on the Rates Register may be used to notify adjoining owners of proposed developments, to issue Orders, etc. Access to the information is restricted to Council officers and other people authorised by Council or under the Act. Council is to be regarded as the agency that holds the information. You may make application for access or amendment to information held by Council. You may also request Council to suppress your personal information from a public register.)

 

3.   Application forms where there is no legislative requirement

          (PRIVACY: Personal details requested on this form are being collected and will only be used for the purpose of [processing your application/keeping records/establishing your identity]. The supply of information by you is voluntary. If you cannot provide or do not wish to provide the information sought, the Council may not be able to process your application. Access to the information is restricted to Council officers and other authorised people. You may make application for access or amendment to information held by Council. You may also request Council to suppress your personal information from a public register.)

 

4.   Paragraph for Council’s newspaper notification

(PRIVACY: All public submissions on proposed developments will be considered in each Assessment Report prepared by Council. Summaries of submissions and names and addresses of people making submissions may be included in the Assessment Report. Submissions are kept on file and may be accessed by other members of the public under the Local Government Act.)

 

5.   Additional paragraph for notification letters

(PRIVACY: All public submissions on proposed developments will be considered in each Assessment Report prepared by Council. Summaries of submissions, names and addresses of people making submissions may be included in the Assessment Report. Submissions are kept on file and may be accessed by other members of the public under the Local Government Act.)

 

6.   Tenders and Quotations

(PRIVACY: Personal details contained in Tenders and Quotations, and Contracts awarded as a result, will be available to relevant Council staff and Councillors as applicable for the evaluation assessment and, following the awarding of the contract, elements may be made available to the public, if in the “public interest,” in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Acts of Parliament.)


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 59/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Celebrating Cycling - Bike Week 2004

 

 

DATE:

2 August, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1104

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report outlines the Celebrating Cycling event proposed for Sunday 26 September 2004, during NSW Bike Week 2004. This event aims to promote cycling as a sustainable, healthy, and fun activity. It aims to encourage people to get back on their bikes, and encourage the use of bikes for short, local trips, as well as recreation, and journey to work/school.

 

The event will start and finish in Memorial Park Kensington, and comprises a 6.8km off-road course which includes Council’s recently completed cycle path around Centennial Park. Rides for children will be held in the morning, with rides for adults after lunch. All rides will be lead by experienced cyclists, and all members of the community are encouraged to participate and support this exciting event. Council is working with BIKEast to undertake this event. RTA funding of $2,700 for the promotion of the event has been received.

 

The event also links into Council’s Urban Improvement Program for Kensington which is being completed this year. This event will help promote the Kensington Town Centre and its existing businesses.

 

This report recommends that Council resolve to note and support this event.

 

1.         BACKGROUND

 

Planning Context

 

Cycling is a sustainable mode of transport. It is a mode of transport, together with walking, that is likely to become increasingly important in the long term, particularly in large cities such as Sydney, where available space is limited, and traffic volumes expand with population growth. Cycling infrastructure has significantly lower space requirements than vehicular modes of transport, and is particularly suited to facilitating greater integration of land use and transport.

 

Randwick City has a local network of bike routes and Council has a staged, on-going  program of bicycle infrastructure works (both new and upgrade works). The Darlinghurst-Mascot regional cycle route also passes through Randwick City.

 

 

In terms of journey to work trips, the Transport Study (2001-2003) found that bicycles formed a very small proportion, approximately 1%, of all such trips within Randwick City. This was considerably lower than walking, which comprised 5.5%. Thus there is substantial scope to promote cycling as a sustainable mode of transport, and as an alternative to the car, particularly for short trips.

 

In September 2003, Council joined the Cities for Climate Protection program. The Celebrating Cycling event is one of a number of activities and initiatives Council will be undertaking to promote alternative transport within Randwick City and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Transport, particularly alternative modes such as walking and cycling, is a key element of the Randwick City Plan, currently being prepared, which will set the strategic direction for Randwick City over the next 20 years. A review of Council’s 1998 Bicycle Plan is identified as one of the projects under the Environment Levy.

 

In addition to the environmental benefits, cycling has substantial health benefits. Thus the Celebrating Cycling event provides an opportunity to promote cycling as a safe, fun, sustainable and healthy activity.

 

 

Bicycle User Group - BIKEast

 

Council officers meet on a quarterly basis with representatives of the BIKEast group – a bicycle users action group based in Sydney’s eastern suburbs. These meetings provide a two way exchange of information, assist Council officers in planning for new cycling infrastructure within Randwick City, maintaining and improving existing cycling infrastructure, and identifying ‘blackspots’. BIKEast representatives also assist Council officers in seeking external funding from organisations such as the RTA, to assist Council’s budget allocated to cycling infrastructure.

 

Since mid 2003 BIKEast have been looking to hold an event to raise the profile of cycling within the community.

 

 

Event Location and Timing

 

The completion of the cycle path work around Centennial Park, as part of Council’s 2002-2003 capital works program, provided an ideal location for a safe, off road event to promote cycling, as well as celebrating the completion of this infrastructure.

 

Given the proximity of the Darley Road cycle path and Centennial Park (also suited to safe, off-road cycling) to Kensington Town Centre, Kokoda Memorial Park in Kensington provided an ideal place from which to start and finish the event. This has the additional benefit of providing a local focus for the event within the wider Randwick City community, thus providing an opportunity for local businesses to support the event, and drawing people to the Kensington Town Centre.

 

Stage 1 of the public domain works in Kensington Town Centre was successfully completed in 2003 as part of the Urban Improvement Program (UIP). It is proposed to now install bike racks in an appropriate location within the Kensington Town Centre prior to the event (subject to timing), within the Kensington UIP budget. It is noted that one of the specific projects identified under the Climate Protection stream of the new Environment Levy includes a program of installing bike racks in Randwick’s other town centres.

 

Given the lead times associated with organising such an event, it was considered appropriate to hold the event during NSW Bike Week 2004, which falls in September.

 

NSW Bike Week 2004

 

Bike Week is a statewide initiative of the RTA. The aim of Bike Week is to hold events that encourage riding around the local community and incorporate the promotion of safe cycling behaviour. In 2004, Bike Week is from 20-26 September 2004.

 

Events held during Bike Week aim to:

-    involve the participation of schools, RTA regional offices, NSW Police Service, local councils, area health services and Bicycle User Groups;

-    encourage the local people to experience, at a leisurely pace, the sights and facilities their community has to offer;

-    particularly encourage participation from older persons and women (these groups are typically have lower participation rates in cycling activities); and

-    provide the opportunity for business to support cycling as a healthy transport option in their local community.

 

The theme of RTA Bike Week 2004 is ‘Get on your bike’.

 

As part of Bike Week, the RTA makes available funding to assist Councils and other organisations in the promotion of Bike Events during Bike Week. This funding must be used for the promotion of the event only (and not other aspects associated with organising the event), and can only be granted where a proposed event, held in Bike Week 2004, targets the whole community. The funding application criteria also required organisations to demonstrate what strategies would be used to target older persons and women, two groups who are typically under represented in cycling.

 

Randwick City Council has been successful in applying for RTA funding to promote the Celebrating Cycling Event in 2004, and has been granted $2,700.

 

 

2.         CELEBRATING CYCLING – EVENT SUMMARY

 

During Bike Week 2004, Randwick City Council, together with BIKEast, propose to hold an event to raise the profile of cycling within Randwick City, and encourage people to participate in a fun and safe event.

 

The Celebrating Cycling Event involves bike riding for the whole community. It comprises a children’s ride in the morning, followed by lunch in Memorial Park, Kensington, and then a ride for adults in the afternoon.

 

All rides will start and finish in Kokoda Memorial Park, Kensington. The circuit will traverse Council’s new Darley Road cycle path, Centennial Park, Anzac Parade/Alison Road cycle path (refer to table in Attachment 1). The route is predominantly off-road (on designated cycle paths).  All rides, (both children and adult) will be lead by experienced BIKEast Ride Leaders. Participants will cross Anzac Parade at designated traffic light controlled pedestrian crossings to ensure safety. Thus, no road closures are required.

 

The route can be either 4km or 6.8km in length, depending on the age of the group. A consent form signed by parent/guardian will be required for all child participants. As each ride will be limited to a maximum of 20 participants, the number of child and adult rides held on the day will be varied to accommodate the number of child and adult participants.

 

Promotional material (refer to Section 4 of this report) will ask people interested in participating in the event to RSVP their interest to Council officers involved in organising the event, to assist in ensuring the event runs smoothly on the day.

 

BIKEast has indicated that a number of their members will volunteer to act as marshals and will be strategically located along the route on the day (marshal points are identified in Attachment 1).

 

In addition to promoting cycling as a fun, healthy and sustainable activity and marking the occasion of Bike Week 2004, the Celebrating Cycling event will also comprise the formal “opening” of Council’s recently completed cycle path around Centennial Park, and the completion of public domain works and culmination of final promotional work under the Urban Improvement Program (UIP) in Kensington town centre, giving the event a local, community focus.

 

 

3.         EVENT OBJECTIVES

 

Consistent with the objectives of Bike Week 2004, the objectives of the Celebrating Cycling event are to:

 

-    get people back on their bikes, particularly those who have not ridden for some time, in a safe, structured environment;

-    promote the use of bikes as a sustainable alternative to the car, particularly for short, local trips;

-    celebrate the completion of Council’s recently completed cycle path and promote awareness of this key cycle link;

-    promote awareness of Bike Week within Randwick City, and encourage the whole community to participate; and

-    celebrate the recent public domain works (including bike racks) in the Kensington Town Centre.

 

 

4.         EVENT PROMOTION

 

Promotion of the event to encourage the whole community to participate will include:

 

-    details on Council’s website and in the Southern Courier;

-    posters in Council’s 3 libraries, Council community centres, selected bus shelters; and Kensington businesses (where agreeable);

-    letterbox drop of flyers to Kensington residents; and

-    notices in cycling publication Push On (August and September issues).

 

It is noted that the event has a limited budget and the promotion of the event has been designed to meet the budget, whilst maximising community exposure.

 

In order to target the awareness of women and older persons and encourage them to participate in the event, the additional promotion will include:

 

-    contacting the women’s groups that meet at Kooloora Community Centre and as part of the South East Area Health Service health programs,

-    contacting the Coast Centre for Seniors and local Service Clubs.

 

Local businesses and the Kensington Precinct and Chamber of Commerce are also being advised and encouraged to support and sponsor the event.

 

All participants in the event will receive a drink bottle suitable for using whilst riding a bike. The drink bottle will contain the Celebrating Cycling event logo, and the logos of Randwick City Council, BIKEast and the RTA. Any other organisations who agree to sponsor the event may also have their logos and/or business names included on the drink bottle.

 

Drink bottles were selected as the promotional item for participants due to their practicality for uses whilst cycling, and their potential for continued re-use after the event, serving as an on going reminder of the benefits of cycling: namely fun, health, and sustainability. Drink bottles are also cost effective to provide, and are well suited to displaying sponsor logos.

 


 

5.         POST-EVENT FOLLOW UP AND FEEDBACK

 

All participants will be asked to complete a brief survey on the day. The survey will include questions such as:

 

-     demographic information (postcode, age group, M/F)

-     how did you find out about this event?

-     how often do you cycle

-     what is the nature of your cycle trips (ie recreation [individual], recreation [organised/group], journey to work/school, short local trips ie to shops/library etc)?

-     would you like to cycle more often?

-     list 3 reasons why you restrict the frequency of your cycling?

-     what improvements would encourage you to cycle more often? (number in order of priority):

-     safe and clearly marked bike paths/lanes

-     accessible bicycle racks

-     smooth surfaces and bike friendly grates

-     better access to bicycle maps and information

-     access to buddy riders or group rides

 

Participants will not be asked to provide their names or addresses as part of the survey, however they may elect to do so if they wish to receive more information about the BIKEast cycling group.

 

The survey results will be used by Council for a number of purposes, and will provide a good insight into current cycling activity within the community, as well as potential future needs. This information will also guide longer term strategic planning by Council, such as the City Plan, which sets the planning framework within Randwick City for the next 20 years.

 

The results of the survey will be used by both Randwick City Council and BIKEast to assist in planning and prioritising cycling infrastructure, and to better promote cycling as a sustainable and healthy mode of transport within Randwick City and beyond.

 

The results of the survey will also be forwarded to the RTA. One of the requirements of successful applicants awarded RTA funding is that the RTA be provided with an evaluation of the event. The survey results will assist the RTA in continuing to promote cycling as a form of transport, and will also assist them in planning for future grants, both for capital works as well as promotion of future Bike Week events.

 

In addition to Randwick City Council, BIKEast and the RTA, it is considered that a number of other organisations may also find the survey results useful, including:

-     South East Area Health Service                                   

-     Heart Foundation

-     Cycling Promotion Alliance

-     Mass BUG (Bicycle Users’ Group)

-     Bicycle NSW

-     NSW Department of Sport and Recreation

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is anticipated that the Celebrating Cycling event will raise the profile of cycling, promoting it as a safe, fun and healthy activity, and an environmentally sustainable alternative to the car for certain trips. It will assist Council in meeting the Cities for Climate Protection commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and will provide useful feedback to assist in planning for and prioritising Council’s on-going bicycle infrastructure works program. The Celebrating Cycling event is an event for the whole community to embrace.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that Council:

 

 1. Resolve to note and support this event.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Event Route     

 

 

………………………………

………………………………………………………………

KAREN ARMSTRONG

MONICA COLOGNA

A/DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 1

 


Celebrating Cycling 26th September 2004

Route Plan

 

Route Points:

Route Description

Marshals

KM's

Start

Memorial Park - Goodwood Street, Kensington

(to the side of Kensington RSL Club)

Straight ahead along Ellesmere Road

Right into Carlton

Left into Doncaster

Straight ahead until Alison Road intersection.

 

 

Corner of Ellesmere and Carlton

 

0.5kms

2

Alison Road

Turn Right onto designated bike path along Alison Road

Turn Left onto Darley Road following the bike route.

 

 

Crossing of Alison Road and bus lane

 

1.2km

3

Darley Road

At Randwick Gates, young children have an option to turn Left onto Grand Drive (Centennial Park), left onto Robertson and left again onto Anzac Pde and back to the start point.

Main groups will follow the Darley Road bike route alongside Centennial Park towards Govett Street Gates.

 

 

Randwick Gates at Centennial Park

 

Govett Street Gates (busy entrance to park)

 

1.4km

4

Musgrave Avenue Gates

Mayor officially opens the Darley Road Gates at Musgrave Avenue Gates.  Note: Use Right hand gate to avoid congestion and allow for access to park.

Enter Centennial Park via Musgrave Avenue and head towards Grand Drive

 

 

Govett Street Gates

 

2.4km

5

Grand Drive

Follow cycle route round Grand Drive and head towards Robertson Road

Musgrave Ave and Grand Drive (to avoid collision with oncoming cyclists / rollerbladers and to warn motorists turning Left onto Musgrave Ave)

 

6

Old Grand Drive

Note: Remove 2 bollards on Grand Drive at the junction of Old Grand Drive to allow access out of the park.

Exit park via Robertson Road Gate and follow Old Grand Drive towards Anzac Parade.

 

 

Crossing of Roberstson Road

 

4.6km

7

Anzac Parade Cycle Path

Turn left onto designated cycle path parallel with Anzac Parade until Robertson Road.

 

Crossing of the bus lane at Anzac Parade.

5.2

8

Robertson Road Junction

Keep on the bike path as it turns into Alison Road.

 

Crossing of bus lane at Robertson Road

5.7

9

Doncaster Ave

Exit bike route at corner of Alison Road and Doncaster Ave.  Cross over traffic lights and carry on Down Doncaster Road until Carlton Street.  Turn left onto Carlton Street.

 

Cross Alison Road and Abbotsford Street

 

Cross Carlton Street

 

Finish

Memorial Park

Turn left onto Ellesmere Road.  Cross over Ellesmere into Memorial Park.

 

6.8km


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 60/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

1 Garnet Street, South Coogee

 

 

DATE:

17 August, 2004

FILE NO:

955/03

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for a Section 96 application to delete condition 6 regarding privacy screen to deck and condition 7 regarding obscure glazing to new window of Development Consent No 955/03.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Section 96 Application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 17 August, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KAREN ARMSTRONG

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

17 August, 2004

FILE NO:

D/955/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 application to delete Condition 6 regarding privacy screen to deck and condition 7 regarding obscure glazing to new window.

PROPERTY:

 1 Garnet Street, South Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Nigel Stoker

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Bradley Hughes, Murray Matson and Margaret Woodsmith.

 

Development Consent No. 955/03 has been granted for a second storey addition incorporating living, kitchen and dining room with third floor deck area to the existing building.

 

The applicant proposes to delete conditions 6 and 7 of the Development Consent. Conditions 6 and 7 read as follows:

 

“6. A privacy treatment such as a louvered screen with a minimum height of 1500mm is to be provided to the northern elevation along the rear terrace area that extends within the section covered by the pergola, a length of 2500mm from the living room wall. Details are to be submitted as part of an application for a construction certificate.

 

7.   The windows to the northern elevation off the living rooms shall have an obscured glass treatment to 500mm from the lower sill to maintain privacy to the private recreation areas of No. 351 Rainbow St. Details of this are to be submitted as part of an application for a construction certificate’

 

It is recommended to retain Condition 6 as the privacy screen will provide significant privacy benefits to the neighbouring properties.  It is recommended that Condition 7 be modified by raising the sill height of the window to 1.2 metres above the floor level of the upper level.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant is proposing to delete Condition 6 and 7 of Development Consent No 955/03 relating to privacy screens and obscure glazing.

 

Conditions 6 and 7 require:

 

“6. A privacy treatment such as a louvered screen with a minimum height of 1500mm is to be provided to the northern elevation along the rear terrace area that extends within the section covered by the pergola, a length of 2500mm from the living room wall. Details are to be submitted as part of an application for a construction certificate.

 

7.   The windows to the northern elevation off the living rooms shall have an obscured glass treatment to 500mm from the lower sill to maintain privacy to the private recreation areas of No. 351 Rainbow St. Details of this are to be submitted as part of an application for a construction certificate’

 

The applicant has provided the following reasons in support of deletion of the conditions:

 

Condition 6:

 

·    The privacy screen has a ‘big’ impact on the owner of 1 Garnet Street in terms of northern views.

·    The screen is a contradiction of condition 5 which requires translucent balustrades to protect the views of 3 Garnet Street.

 

Condition 7:

 

·    The garden of the neighbouring property will not be visible when sitting on a sofa in the room.

·    The room is elevated 8 metres above the rear yard of the neighbouring property and it is impossible to view the rear garden.  Mature trees restrict the view.

·    Would rather look at the view than the rear garden of  the neighbouring property.

·    The wife of the applicant is only 1.54metres tall and an obscured window will cut all her view when standing.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Garnet St between the two intersecting streets of Rainbow St and Cairo St. The site has a total area of 404sqm with a frontage of 10.06m. The site is occupied by a two storey dwelling house which  due to the sloping site is set lower than the street.  The site falls within the Foreshore Scenic Protection area.

 

The topography of the surrounding area is steep sloping down from Garnet Street to Cairo Street and to the coast line.  Neighbouring the property to the north are a mixture of single, double and tripe storey detached dwelling houses which front Rainbow Street.  Three of these properties (349, 351 and 353 Rainbow Street have rear yard areas which adjoin 1 Garnet Street.  The neighbouring property to the south (3 Garnet Street) contains a 3 storey dwelling house.

 

     

 

Above: Areal view of the surrounding area.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Development Consent No 955/03 has been granted for a second storey addition incorporating living, kitchen and dining room with a deck area partially covered by a pergola to the existing building.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Paul and Irene Dermatis, 351 Rainbow Street Coogee.

 

·    The original development application exceeds many of Councils guidelines and should not of been approved.

 

·    Objects to the deletion of the conditions on the basis that there deletion will have additional privacy impacts.

 

·    Insist that the northern windows be ‘revisited and provisions be made under part 4.5 of the Development Control plan for dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies effective 20 December 2002.’

 

S.G. Tadros, 349 Rainbow Street Coogee.

 

·    Objects to the removal of condition 7 as the northern windows overlook the pool area of 349 Rainbow Street.

 

·    Believes it will also help Mrs Stokers privacy.

 

Vic Puharich, 353 Rainbow Street Coogee.

 

·      Objects to the removal of Conditions 6 and 7.

 

·    Objects to the upper level terrace as it overlooks the rear yard area of number 353 Rainbow Street.

 

·    Request that the upper level terrace be reduced in length by 1.5 metres.

 

5.2  Support

 

John Rock, 3 Garnet Street Coogee.

 

·    Objects to the imposition of condition 6 relating to the privacy screen as the privacy screen impacts upon the view from the third floor northern window of 3 Garnet Street and request that the screen be converted to clear glass.

 

·    Has stated that the privacy screen has taken the remainder of views which will be removed by the construction of the third floor.

 

·    Has stated that privacy impacts are inevitable in the area surrounding the subject site to the terrain and that no other properties in the vicinity have obscured privacy screens.

 

·    Has stated that his privacy has been impacted upon by the approval of developments on neighbouring properties with no consideration for privacy.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

No referrals are required for this application.

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

7.1  Policy Controls

 

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

 

8.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

8.1  Substantially the same

 

The proposed modifications do not significantly alter the nature of the original approval and are considered to represent substantially the same development.

 

8.2  Consideration of submissions

 

Some objections have raised issues which were assessed with the original Development Application report.  These do not form part of the Section 96 Modification and are not relevant to the assessment of this application.

 

Issues relating to view loss and privacy have been addressed in section 9.1 and 9.2 of this report bellow.

 

9.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

9.1   Views

 

Performance Requirement P6 under section 4.3 Height, Form and Materials of the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP requires that “P6 Buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views”. The concept of ‘view sharing’ was further defined in the Land and Environment Court by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004). The Senior Commissioners discussion of the notion of view sharing is provided below as background:

 

25 The notion of view sharing is invoked when a property enjoys existing views and a proposed development would share that view by taking some of it away for its own enjoyment. (Taking it all away cannot be called view sharing, although it may, in some circumstances, be quite reasonable.) To decide whether or not view sharing is reasonable, I have adopted a four-step assessment.

 

26 The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

27 The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

28 The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

29 The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

Northern and eastern ocean views are available from properties to the south of the subject site. The property immediately to the south has northern view form a third floor bedroom/ living area across the top of number 1 Garnet Street and from the third floor balcony which has views to the north and east.  The view loss which the owner of 3 Garnet Street is has mentioned in their submission is from the northern third floor windows which face north.  Photos of this view can be seen below.

 

 

Above: Existing view from upper level of 3 Garnet. (Standing)

Above: Existing view from upper level of 3 Garnet. (Sitting)

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the privacy screen will have some impact upon views across Coogee Bay from the northern window of the third floor room, the owner of the 3 Garnet Street will still retain the view of the northern headland of Coogee Bay (Dolphin Point), from a standing position.  From a sitting position this will view will be obscured.  Views further along the coast up to Ben Buckler at North Bondi will still be retained and views from the third floor deck are retained.

 

Given that the owner of 3 Garnet Street will still retain substantial views from the third floor northern room and third floor deck the owner of 3 Garnet Streets concerns cannot be supported, when balanced against the privacy benefits that the screen provides for properties in Rainbow Street.

 

It is considered that the proposal will not result in significant view loss to living areas of surrounding properties and satisfies the DCP requirements in relation to the reasonable sharing of views.

 

9.2     Impact on adjoining development

 

Removal of the privacy screen to the upper level balcony will have a detrimental impact upon the privacy of the neighbouring dwellings at 349, 351 and 353 Rainbow Street.   The screen provides screening not only from the approved upper level deck but also from the folding doors to the upper living room. As discussed in the previous section substantial views will still be retained from the upper levels of 3 Garnet Street.

 

With regard to the obscured glazing to the northern windows of 1 Garnet Street it is not considered that the imposition of this condition is as necessary.  The window is substantially elevated from the rear yard area of 251 Rainbow Street and any view will be obscured by the existing vegetation which separates 1 Garnet Street and 349 and 351 Rainbow Street.  Notwithstanding, the proposed window’s sill height of 1 metre will increase the potential privacy loss and the condition should be amended so that the window has a sill height of 1.2 metres above the floor level.

 

It is considered that the modified privacy condition will satisfy the requirements of the Councils Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan.

 

10.  CONCLUSION

 

It is recommended to retain condition 6 as the privacy screen will provide significant privacy benefits to the neighbouring properties and will not have as significant impact on view from the neighbouring property to the south.  Condition 7 is to be modified to allow the north facing window to the living room to have a still height of 1.2 metres.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. 599/2003 for 1 Garnet Street Coogee in the following manner:

 

·      Amend Condition No 7 to read:

 

7.              The sill height of the window to the northern elevation off the living room shall be increased to be a minimum height of 1.2m above the floor level.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KAREN ARMSTRONG

SHAUN HEHIR

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 61/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

707-745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

17 August, 2004

FILE NO:

D/255/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for a Section 96 application to modify conditions of Development Consent No 255/02 relating to provision of “Green Street” pedestrian link, paving and street tree details to footpaths and town square.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Section 96 Application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 17 August, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KAREN ARMSTRONG

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

17 August, 2004

FILE NO:

D255/2002

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 application to modify conditions relating to provision of ‘Green Street’ pedestrian link, paving and street tree details to footpaths and town square.

PROPERTY:

 707-745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Clycut Pty Ltd/ Alpine Hotels Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This section 96 application has been referred to Council for determination as the original approval was granted by the Health, Building and Planning Committee on 12 November, 2002.

 

The application proposes modification of conditions relating to the construction of an east-west pedestrian link through the centre of the site, aligned to Green Street (the ‘Green Street’ pedestrian link) and planting and paving to the approved town square and footpaths surrounding the site.

 

The main issues for consideration are the appropriateness of the Green Street pedestrian link to the urban structure and existing pedestrian routes in the Maroubra Junction Town Centre and whether variance of Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Commercial Centre will set a poor precedent and prevent consistency in the paving and detailing of the public domain in the centre.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    DETAILS OF CURRENT APPROVAL:

 

Approval was granted to demolish the existing buildings on the site, excavate and construct two (2.5) levels of basement carparking and a new mixed-use development on the site at 707-745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra by the Health, Building and Planning Committee on 12 November, 2002. The above ground development will comprise 551 residential units in nine (9) separate buildings built over a podium of retail/ commercial uses.

 

Since the original approval there have been several amendments to the proposal:

 

A:

Change of wording of condition 126 which requires certain drainage works in Walsh Ave

Approved 23/05/2003

B:

Section 96 - Changes to wording of Conditions 8, 9, 11 14, 17, 42, 104, 112, 127, 130 145, 150, 153 and deletion of conditions 108, 114-116, 162-165, 173

Approved 08/08/2003

D:

Section 96(1A) - Changes to wording of Conditions 15 and 16 and extension of roof top plant area on Building D.

Approved 27/05/2004

 

3.    DETAILS OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION:

 

The applicant seeks to modify the wording of Conditions 1 and 169 and deletion of Condition 5.  Conditions 1 and 5 relate to the Green Street pedestrian link through the site. Condition 169 relates to the selection of materials and finishes for external areas of the development and requires these to be consistent with Council’s Paving Guidelines and Landscape Specification for Maroubra Junction.

 

The applicant refers to Deferred Commencement Condition 1, which has been satisfied and currently reads:

 

1.   A consolidated set of finalised architectural plans, which reflect the amendments made in sketch form are to be submitted to Council. The plans are to incorporate the following:

§  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures and coloured elevations at a scale of 1:100 of all buildings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning and Community Development. Where details have been provided to the satisfaction of Council previously these are to be included for consistency and to provide consolidation of the approved plans.

§  The ‘Green Street’ link is to be in accordance with sketch plan S6520. The northern edge of the town square is to retain the curve indicated in revision C of the plans dated 25 October, 2002.

§  The sketch plans received on 25 October 2002 numbered S6501-S6503, S6508, S6510, S6514, S6515, S6530, S6531, S6532 and S6533 are to be represented to Council in a finalised architectural drawing format at a scale of 1:300. Where the sketches show part plans only these are to be incorporated into the full sized floorplans for the development as a whole to reduce confusion and provide a single reference to Council.

 

The applicant wishes to delete the second bullet point of this condition, removing the requirement for the Green Street link to be constructed. As this condition has been satisfied, it cannot be modified. Condition 1 of the development consent conditions also refers to the sketch plan S6520 ‘Green Street’ link forming part of the approved plans. In order to remove the Green Street link from the development, reference to plan number S6520 will need to be deleted from this condition.

 

The applicant provides the following argument in support of their request:

 

·    There is no signalised or other form of pedestrian crossing across Anzac Parade on the Green Street axis.

·    There are signalised pedestrian crossings across Anzac Parade at the Maroubra Road and Boyce Road intersections, which facilitate east-west pedestrian traffic routes, neither of which terminate in dead ends.

·    The link will result in conflict between pedestrians and service vehicles/ service activity as it would travel through the Maroubra Mall loading service area.

·    Further conflict will occur in Piccadilly Place, which serves as service and parking access to the Police Station and to the Centerlink buildings as well as service and parking access to Maroubra Mall. Centerlink, in addition to basement carpark access, also has at grade parking spaces for almost its entire frontage to Piccadilly Place. Piccadilly Place is essentially a vehicular environment, was identified as such in the master plan and is not amendable to pedestrian traffic.

·    At the western end of Piccadilly Place pedestrians are confronted by a vehicular roundabout, with no pedestrian crossing. On the opposite side of Bruce Bennetts Place pedestrians are confronted by a large vehicular turning circle/carpark access serving three large entires into the Newington Towers residential carparks.

 

 

Condition 5 currently reads:

 

5. The construction of the ‘Green Street’ pedestrian through link shall occur at Stage 2 of the development due to the construction issues associated with its location in the centre of the site.

 

The applicant requests that this condition be deleted as it would be redundant if the requirement to construct the Green Street link were deleted from the consent. Conditions 1 and 5 were imposed by Environmental Planning and Community Development after negotiations with the applicant and the Urban Deisgn Advisory Service (UDAS).

 

Condition 169 currently reads:

 

169. The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the Anzac Parade, Maroubra Road, Piccadilly Place, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road street frontages of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Commercial Centre. The landscape design shall include pavements, seat, bin and bus shelter retention/relocation and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0786.

 

The Landscape Design plans shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director A & I Services in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the certifying authority issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

The applicant shall note that the approved landscape works carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council’s requirements for Civil Works on Council property. An application for the cost of the landscape works on Council property is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design checking and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council’s nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $6,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the construction of the approved landscape works along the Anzac Parade, Maroubra Road, Piccadilly Place, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road site frontages.

 

The applicant proposes amended condition wording as follows:

 

169. The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the Anzac Parade, Maroubra Road, Piccadilly Place, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road street frontages of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Commercial Centre as modified by the streetscape, planting and paving principles described in the applicant’s sketches Nos 001,002 and 003 dated April 2004.  The landscape design shall include pavements, seat, bin and bus shelter retention/relocation and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect – 9399 0786.

 

The Landscape Design plans...Maroubra Road, Piccadilly Place, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road site frontages

 

The applicant suggests that an alternative response to the landscape treatment of the street frontages was considered by Council officers at a meeting in late 2003 and received a positive response. The applicant argues that the modification from clay pavers to limestone and concrete paving will have the benefits of providing a transition to the Town Square, easy maintenance and simple and robust finish. The applicant argues that the Brushbox street trees are preferable to Yellow Gum because of their regular form, availability in larger sizes and dense evergreen canopy. Condition 169 was imposed by Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Services Department.

 

Although the modifications relate to conditions only and would not normally require referral to Council, the changes proposed have the potential to modify the relationship of the development to the Maroubra Junction precinct. Given the history of the development these modifications are put forward for the consideration of Council.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

Council granted consent to a Master Plan for redevelopment of the site at its extraordinary meeting on 7 August 2001. The Master Plan was subsequently amended by Council on February 26, 2002.

 

Approval was granted for development in accordance with the approved Master Plan on 12 November, 2002. This is the approval the applicant wishes to modify with this application.

 

A separate development application incorporating changes to the southern stage of the development to include the parcel of land at the corner of Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade (751 Anzac Parade) into the Maroubra Mall development was approved by Council at its meeting on 25 May 2004.

 

Several development applications for use of the approved retail tenancies on the site have also been lodged and determined under delegated authority. These are not relevant to the current application.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The owners of adjoining properties were not required to be notified of the proposed modification as it will have not have a significant impact on the form of the building and is classified as a section 96(1A) application.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1  Assets and Infrastructure Services

 

The Director, Assets and Infrastructure Services has provided comment in relation to the application as Condition 169 was originally proposed by the AIS. The AIS also administers the Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Commercial Centre which includes provisions for paving, street furniture and planting within the town centre.

 

With regard to street tree planting, the following comment has been made:

 

A section 96 application has been received for the above site, seeking amendments to the selection of previously approved street trees along the Maroubra Road, Anzac Parade and Boyce Road frontages.

 

The applicant has proposed Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Weeping Elm) along the Maroubra Road and Boyce Road frontages, with Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) along the Anzac Parade frontage. Although identified in Council’s Street Tree Masterplan for this precinct, these two species are not favoured at this location for the following reasons:

 

·      Their width at maturity, as well as their proximity to the kerb once planted, will result in a need for constant pruning away from the roadway and possibly the building envelope, especially given the volume and type of vehicular traffic (buses) that is experienced in this area

·      These two species have not been used extensively as street trees in the immediate vicinity, and will therefore not provide an effective ‘link’ with adjoining public areas

·      The deciduous nature of the Elm will result in excessive leaf fall, especially during winter, which is considered an undesirable feature in this location

 

After detailed discussions with Council’s Tree Management Officer, the decision to use Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Yellow Gum) was reached as the selection of this species along all three frontages is in accordance with Council’s Street Tree Masterplan, and is also in keeping with Council’s long term strategies for street trees in this area, which is to provide a visual ‘link’ between street tree plantings and the adjoining Anzac Parade median which contains a large number of established and stately Gums.

 

The selection of Yellow Gum is considered to be a positive choice for the reasons outlined above, as well as the fact that its upright habit and open canopy style will reduce the level of maintenance required in such a location.

As such, the DPCD is advised of the following:

 

·      The AIS Department does not support the applicant’s proposed selection of Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Weeping Elm) along the Maroubra Road and Boyce Road frontages.

·      The AIS Department does not support the applicant’s proposed use of Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box) along the Anzac Parade median.

·      Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Yellow Gum) is the nominated street tree for the Maroubra Road, Anzac Parade and Boyce Road frontages.

 

The AIS held a meeting with the applicant to discuss the opportunities for introducing alternative paving to the footpath areas around the Maroubra Mall site. As a result the following comments were provided:

 

The EPCD has advised that a section 96 application has been received for the above site, seeking amendments to the paving guidelines specified for the Maroubra Road, Anzac Parade, Boyce Road, Bruce Bennetts Place and Piccadilly Place footpaths.

 

A meeting was held on Tuesday 27 July 2004 with Council’s Director of Assets & Infrastructure, Design Manager, Parks and Assets Coordinator and Landscape Architect and the applicant’s consultants to discuss an alternative concept to the Landscape Design Guidelines for Maroubra as it affects their site. The applicants requested special consideration for this alteration on the basis that their development covers the majority of the block bounded by Anzac Parade, Maroubra Raod, Boyce Road and Bruce Bennetts Place and therefore virtually stands alone as the centre of the Maroubra Business District. They also argued that the use of pavers is not consistent with their development and their wish to provide a higher quality pavement for the surrounds of their development. 

 

Council officers agreed that due to the size of the development, it was possible to alter the Landscape Design Guidelines for the Maroubra Junction Precinct as a “one off” approval subject to the chosen pavement being sympathetic to what Council is proposing for the remainder of the precinct. Council officers suggested that to integrate the proposed scheme with the existing paving within Maroubra Junction the limestone unit paving shall be changed from blue to brown. Further it was suggested that the corners at the intersections of Anzac Parade with Boyce and Maroubra Roads should complement the existing scheme. Also, the paving layout (albeit in different materials) shall be in accordance with Council’s paving guidelines with existing paving areas within Maroubra Junction, including banding/trim along the pavement, kerb line and around tree grates.

 

The developer should also liaise with all of the public utility authorities to ensure that any possible future upgrading of their plant is allowed for with conduits during the construction phase of the footpath pavement so that minimum excavation occurs on the footpath in the future.

 

As such, the following revised Condition 169 shall state:

 

“The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the Anzac Parade, Maroubra Road, Piccadilly Place, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road street frontages of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Commercial Centre as modified by the streetscape and paving principles described in the applicant’s landscape drawings dwg no. 001 and dwg no. 002 dated July 2004. The landscape design shall include pavements, seat, bin and bus shelter retention/relocation and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect.

 

The Landscape Design plans...Maroubra Road, Piccadilly Place, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road site frontages”

 

The following conditions should also be added as a consequence of this section 96 application.

 

a)     The developer shall liaise with all of the public utility authorities to ensure that any possible future upgrading of their plant is allowed for with conduits during the construction phase of the footpath pavement so that minimum excavation occurs on the footpath in the future.

b)     The owners of the Pacific Square Development shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the footpath pavement adjacent to their site, shall make provision for sealing the pavement following construction and continue to seal this pavement during its reasonable life in compliance with the sealant manufacturers specifications.

c)     Any restorations required to this pavement shall be carried out by the owners of the Pacific Square Development during the life of the pavement, at no cost to Council.

 

Notwithstanding that the use of an alternative solution for the paving is supported by the AIS due to the large size of the site which extends for almost a full block, concern has been raised in relation to maintenance of the footpath if an alternative solution is used. The AIS has negotiated with the applicant and agreed on a condition being imposed that the applicant provide Council with a stockpile of pavers sufficient to cover an area of 150m2. Condition 181 has been included in the recommendation to ensure this occurs. This removes the need for suggested conditions b) and c), above except for the requirement to seal the pavement after construction.

 

a.    Design Review Panel

 

The proposed modification to the Green Street pedestrian link was considered by the Design Review Panel at its July meeting. The application was referred to the Panel as the Green Street pedestrian link was raised as a significant feature of the development by the consultant (UDAS) engaged to make urban design and SEPP 65 assessments prior to the Panel being convened. The Panel made the following comments:

 

The Panel considers that there is a continuous grain on an east west axis through this and adjoining blocks. The planning controls contained in the Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP 2004 further reinforce this as a desirable pedestrian link.

 

The panel believes that with the completion of the Maroubra Mall development, there will be increased pedestrian activity within the precinct.

 

It has been identified that pedestrians had previously utilized a link in this location to access the Mall and Anzac Parade, even though the link was not sufficiently reinforced by the design of the previous Mall.

 

The Panel considers that the link is a highly important characteristic of the Maroubra Mall site, and should be maintained.  Serious consideration should be given to redesigning the loading dock areas to give priority to pedestrian access.  The separation of truck movements servicing the northern tenancies from truck movements servicing the rest of the complex would allow a pedestrian zone that would not be traversed by vehicles.

 

The inclusion of the pedestrian link was part of the approval process determined before construction. The applicant should have undertaken consideration to the complex and competing issues at an earlier stage.

 

This proposal need not come to the SEPP 65 Panel again if the issues raised in this report can be satisfactorily resolved with Council's Assessing Officer.

 

The applicant has responded to the Panel’s comments with an additional submission. The submission provides additional detail in relation to the existing development on sites adjoining Piccadilly Place. These sites do not form part of the Maroubra Mall redevelopment and the applicant considers that their continued operation does not allow for a pleasant and safe pedestrian environment to be provided on Piccadilly Place. In addition, the applicant argues that the provision of vehicular access from surrounding streets (as suggested by the Panel) is contrary to the approved master plan and objectives of the Maroubra Junction DCP. The applicant’s submission is included below (all attachments referred to are included at the end of this report):

 

We refer to the Joint Randwick/Waverley Design Review Panel report of July 2004 (item 6).  The report indicates that the Panel considers that a through site link should be maintained and that consideration should be given to redesigning the loading dock areas to give priority of pedestrian access.  The Panel suggests that this can be achieved by servicing the site from other streets (separate access to each of the northern and southern components) to permit a pedestrian zone not traversed by vehicles.

 

We respond to the Panel’s comments as follows:

 

1.     The site specific Master Plan adopted by Council does not include the through site link within its public amenity (or any other) principles.

 

2.     The Master Plan specifically nominates the use of Piccadilly Place by service and delivery vehicles for both residential and retail development components under planning principles nos 77 and 78 and Figure 23.

 

3.     Priority for pedestrian access and a pedestrian zone not traversed by vehicles cannot be achieved for the following reasons:

 

 

·        The portion of Piccadilly Place adjacent to the Centrelink building is the subject of an easement for vehicular and service delivery access to the Centrelink site.  Centrelink’s frontage to Piccadilly Place contains not only a ramp to the basement carpark and service docks, but also 900 on site at-grade parking for the great majority of the frontage.  This results in a footway crossover extending for almost all of the Centrelink frontage along Piccadilly Place. (refer photographs nos. 1-4)

·        The portion of Piccadilly Place adjacent to the Police Station is public road with a single lane in each direction.  Existing vehicular access and service loading access to the Police Station is via Piccadilly Place. (refer photographs nos. 5-7)

 

·        The approved development includes vehicular access at two points to the north of Piccadilly Place, and service delivery vehicle access to loading docks at multiple points to the north, east and south of Piccadilly Place.   These are currently under construction.  (refer photographs nos. 8-9)

 

·        It is noted that service delivery vehicle access to loading docks for the existing Maroubra Mall is entirely via Piccadilly Place. (refer photograph no. 10)

 

·        The footways in Piccadilly Place are extremely narrow in width and are not even comfortable for a single pedestrian to walk.  And, as identified above, they are littered with vehicular crossovers. (refer photograph no. 11)

 

·        There is no pedestrian route at the western end of Piccadilly Place.  It terminates at a vehicular roundabout and concludes with a vista comprising a large vehicular area providing traffic access to three “Newington Towers” car park entries. (refer photographs nos. 12-13)

 

Refer to the attached sketch entitled “Vehicle Access – Piccadilly Place” and the accompanying streetscape photographs that illustrate the features of Piccadilly Place addressed above.

 

4.       Any relocation of approved vehicular entries from Piccadilly Place will have a detrimental effect on other street frontages around the development, and on the pedestrian circulation around the perimeter of the site, as a result of the large openings and crossovers required for service vehicles.

 

5.       The Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan identifies Anzac Parade, Maroubra Road and Boyce Road as pedestrian routes.  It does not include Piccadilly Place as a pedestrian route.

 

·        The only buildings opposite the site in Bruce Bennetts Place are the “Newington Towers” development and the “Affinity” development (currently under construction at 89-91 Boyce Road).  The “Newington Towers” pedestrian entries are located in Maroubra Road and Boyce Road and the “Affinity” pedestrian entry is close to Boyce Road.  Consequently, there would be no significant benefit in the provision of the through site link as occupants of, and visitors to, these developments and other buildings in the vicinity are likely to continue to use Maroubra Road and Boyce Road.

 

·        Residents should be encouraged to continue to use Maroubra Road and Boyce Road as principal pedestrian routes. Their footways are wide, generally undercover of street awnings, activated by continuous retail shopfronts and provided with safe amenity for pedestrians. These two roads are also the only two designated pedestrian crossings along Anzac Parade.

 

Refer to the attached sketch entitled “Pedestrian Routes – Maroubra Mall” which illustrates the principal pedestrian circulation addressed above.

 

In summary:

 

·        The adopted Master Plan does not incorporate the through site link.

·        The Master Plan incorporates service access via Piccadilly Place.

·        Analysis of Piccadilly Place demonstrates that priority of pedestrian access and a pedestrian zone not traversed by vehicles cannot be achieved.

·        Relocation of approved Piccadilly Place vehicular entries will be detrimental to the public amenity.

·        Piccadilly Place does not represent a natural, desirable or safe pedestrian route within its context.

 

The applicant’s submission is considered to raise valid arguments against enforcing the construction of the Green Street pedestrian link. The construction of the pedestrian link may be removed from development consent without significant impact on the Maroubra Junction precinct. The applicant’s request to excise this part of the development from the consent is supported for the reasons outlined above and throughout this report.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The site is in excess of 4000m2 and requires a master plan under Clause 40A of the RLEP98. Council approved a revised Master Plan for the site on 26 February 2002. The master planning requirements for the site have been fulfilled.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The section 96 application does not seek to substantially modify the development from that already approved. As such, limited consideration of compliance with Council’s planning instruments and policy is required.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

a.    Maroubra Junction Town Centre Development Control Plan

 

The Maroubra Junction Town Centre DCP came into effect on 18 May 2004. This document was in draft form when the original approval was granted. Part 1 of the DCP provides diagrams relating to the urban structure and strategy for Maroubra Junction. Although these diagrams indicate some form of connection through the subject site in line with Green Street, there is no clear description of this element as being an important or significant feature of the Town Centre.

 

Part 3 of the DCP provides block by block controls for all the blocks in the Town Centre. The Maroubra Mall site falls within Block 6. The objectives for Block 6 include:

 

§ Provision of an open space in the middle of the town centre away from the traffic noise and surrounded by shopping activity providing the focus for the town centre. This is proposed through the introduction of a Town Square at the entrance to the Maroubra Mall facing Anzac Parade, which will provide a visual and pedestrian link from the square to Bruce Bennetts Place to the west and across Anzac Pde to Garden St to the east.

 

The block control diagrams for Block 6 do not indicate a pedestrian connection between the town square and Bruce Bennetts Place (via Piccadilly Place) to support the above objective. The town square has been appropriately located to provide a visual connection between Garden Street and the site and provide a termination of the axis of Green Street. The rear of the town square adjoins the retail areas of the Mall and beyond that the loading docks and Bruce Bennetts Place.

 

The requirement for a pedestrian link between Bruce Bennetts Place and the Town Square would appear to be overridden by the site specific master plan which located the service areas for the development to the rear of the site along Piccadilly Place. The objectives for Block 6 also include:

 

§ Reinforce Anzac Parade as the main street

§ Reinforce Maroubra Road as the cross street

§ Reinforce the ‘Junction’ of Maroubra Rd and Anzac Pde as the main focus of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre

 

By providing a secondary mid block connection along Piccadilly Place, the ability to focus pedestrian activity onto the main streets of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road may be lessened. This may make achieving the above objectives for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre difficult. As noted by the applicant in their supporting statement, there are no traffic lights or pedestrian crossings in Bruce Bennetts Place or Anzac Parade to encourage pedestrian traffic in the vicinity of Picadilly Place.

 

As illustrated below, the Maroubra Mall site is currently under construction. The continuation of Green Street via a pedestrian connection would terminate at the roundabout in Bruce Bennetts Place and is not considered to result in a high quality pedestrian route with good amenity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Above: The dotted line approximates the location of the Green Street pedestrian link.

 

It is considered that the DCP objective for the provision of a town square will be fulfilled regardless of the provision of a pedestrian link through the Maroubra

Mall site. The building envelope and site layout diagrams within the DCP do not indicate that a pedestrian link must be provided, but makes clear reference to the provision of the town square and improved pedestrian access along Maroubra Road and Anzac Parade. These elements are considered to be the most important to the overall achievement of the DCP’s vision for Maroubra Junction. Approval of this amendment will not detract from the improvement of pedestrian access in the Junction as a whole.

 

8.2  Council Policies

 

a.  Landscape Design Guidelines for the Maroubra Junction Precinct

 

The AIS has discussed compliance with the Landscape Design Guidelines for the Maroubra Junction Precinct (see Section 6.1, above) and determined that in the circumstances of this large and unique site that relaxation of the paving standards within this document is appropriate. No relaxation of the species selected for street planting has been allowed and street tree planting is to be consistent with Council’s preferred species Condition 179 clarifies this issue.

 

8.3  Maroubra Mall Master Plan

 

Council approved a master plan for the site in August 2001. A master plan amendment was considered and approved in February 2002. The master plan provided indicative maximum building envelopes, a site layout and some notional schemes for the site. The site layout and envelopes described by the master plan did not include any reference to a pedestrian link through the centre of the site. The use of Piccadilly Place for service and ‘back of house’ functions is clearly articulated in clauses 77 and 78 of the master plan and the accompanying diagrams. The master plan focussed on improving the pedestrian amenity of the perimeter streets of Bruce Bennetts Place, Anzac Parade and Boyce and Maroubra Roads and provision of the town square. Approval of this amendment to remove the Green Street pedestrian link from the development will not affect the consistency of the proposal with the master planning provisions for the site.

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1  Substantially the same

 

The proposed modifications relate to conditions and will result in a development that is substantially the same as that currently approved. The proposed modifications may be considered under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

9.2  Consideration of submissions

 

The application to modify conditions constitutes a section 96(1A) application and therefore did not require notification of surrounding properties.

 

10.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

Conditions 1 and 5

 

Conditions 1 and 5 relate to the provision of a pedestrian link aligned to Green Street. As discussed in Section 8, above, the provision of a pedestrian link in this location is not considered to be of high pedestrian value as there is not a clear desire line running east west through the site due to the ‘dead end’ created by existing development to the west of the site and the restrictions due to existing development which fronts Maroubra Road and does not form part of the subject site (Centrelink and Police Station sites). As discussed above the location of the pedestrian link is contrary to the approved master plan which dedicates this area to service functions. Likewise the DCP for Maroubra Junction does not clearly identify the link as an important feature of the town centre and places emphasis on the main thoroughfares of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road. The deletion of Condition 5 of the consent and the modification of Condition 1 to take out references to the sketch plan showing the pedestrian link will remove the requirement to construct this portion of the approved building. This has been included within the recommendation.

 

Condition 169

 

Condition 169 relates to the modification of paving and street planting details. The AIS Department imposed this condition. The applicant has met with Council officers and negotiated to have strict compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Junction waived on this large and unique site. The AIS has agreed to modification of the preferred paving materials for the footpaths and town square, subject to conditions relating to public liability and maintenance issues. In relation to the street planting, the AIS has advised that it does not support the modification requested by the applicant and as such an additional condition clarifying this has been included in the recommendation (see Condition 179).

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications to the existing development consent conditions have been reviewed against all relevant policy documents and the approved master plan and result in a development that is substantially the same as that currently approved. The impact of the condition changes are considered to be negligible in terms of the quality of the public domain within the Maroubra Junction Town Centre and as such the modifications are generally recommended for approval.

 

Additional conditions have been imposed to ensure maintenance and liability issues in relation to Council’s footpath are resolved and that appropriate species are selected for street tree planting. The applicant has agreed to the modification of conditions as required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.        THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. 255/2002/GG on property 707-745 Anzac Parade, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

1.         Amend Conditions No. 1 and 169 to read:

 

1.         The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans drawn by Crone Nation Architects, Revision C of drawings numbered with the prefix A2004/ ADA and individually numbered Z1054-Z1064 dated 25 October, 2002 and Revision B of drawings numbered with the prefix A2004/ ADA and individually numbered Z2000, Z2001, Z2005 and drawings numbered SK.02-SK.07 dated 18 September, 2002 except where amended by plans with prefix A2004/ADA and numbered Revision A of S6501, S6502, S6504, S6505- S6507, S6509, S6511, S6513, S6514, S6515, S6530- S6533 and Revision B of S6510, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered Z2004C and Z1065E drawn by Crone Nation Architects, dated 21.04.04 in the amendments box and stamped received by Council on 27 May 2004, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 applications, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

169.     The applicant shall submit a landscape design for the Anzac Parade, Maroubra Road, Piccadilly Place, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road street frontages of the development in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guidelines for Maroubra Commercial Centre as modified by the streetscape and paving principles described in the applicant’s landscape drawings dwg no. 001 and dwg no. 002 dated July 2004. The landscape design shall include pavements, seat, bin and bus shelter retention/relocation and tree grates as required by Council’s Landscape Architect.

 

The Landscape Design plans shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director A & I Services in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, prior to the certifying authority issuing a construction certificate for the development.

                                                        

The applicant shall note that the approved landscape works carried out on Council property, shall be in accordance with Council’s requirements for Civil Works on Council property. An application for the cost of the landscape works on Council property is to be submitted to Council at the completion of the internal building works. An application fee shall be payable to Council for the quotation of the required works. The applicant may elect to use his contractor for the required works, subject to Council approval, however a design checking and supervision fee based on the lowest quotation from Council’s nominated contractor will be required to be paid prior to the commencement of any works.

 

A refundable deposit in the form of cash or cheque of $6,000.00 shall be lodged with Council prior to issue of a construction certificate for the proposed development in order to ensure the construction of the approved landscape works along the Anzac Parade, Maroubra Road, Piccadilly Place, Bruce Bennetts Place and Boyce Road site frontages.

 

2.         Delete Condition 5

 

3.         Add Conditions 177-181 as follows:

 

177.     The owners of the Pacific Square development shall make provision for sealing the pavement following construction in compliance with the sealant manufacturers specifications.

 

178.     The developer shall liaise with all of the public utility authorities to ensure that any possible future upgrading of their plant is allowed for with conduits during the construction phase of the footpath pavement so that minimum excavation occurs on the footpath in the future.

 

179.     Street trees to Anzac Parade, Boyce Road and Maroubra Road frontages included in the landscape design required by Condition 169 are to be Eucalyptus leucoxylon (Yellow Gum) to provide an effective link between the existing planting within Maroubra Junction and the site.

 

180.     The paving layout provided in the landscape design required by Condition 169 shall be in accordance with Council’s paving guidelines and with existing paving areas within Maroubra Junction, including banding/trim along the pavement, kerb line and around tree grates.

 

181.     The applicant is to provide Council with 150m2 of the granite sets used for footpath paving to cover any future maintenance and repairs of the non-standard area of footpaths. Pavers are to be provided prior to the release of first occupation certificate for the retail stage of development.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Diagram indicating existing constraints on Piccadilly Place

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KAREN ARMSTRONG

RACHEL AITKEN

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 62/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

73 FERN STREET, CLOVELLY.

 

 

DATE:

17 August, 2004

FILE NO:

DA597/2003/A

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for a Section 96 application to increase size of first floor master bedroom by reducing the rear balcony depth and to increase the size of the ground floor family room by extending into the rear yard for Development Consent No 597/03.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Section 96 application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 17 August, 2004.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KAREN ARMSTONG

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

17 August, 2004

FILE NO:

DA597/2003/A

 

PROPOSAL:

 S96 application to increase size of first floor master bedroom by reducing the rear balcony depth and to increase the size of the ground floor family room by extending into the rear yard

PROPERTY:

 73 Fern Street, Clovelly

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Mr A Van Dam

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application has been referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Chris Bastic, John Procopiadis and Paul Tracey.

 

The modification seeks minor alterations to the approved plans by increasing the floor space of the first floor master bedroom and ground floor family room.  The estimated cost of the development is $125 000.

 

The main issues for consideration are the increased floor space ratio of the proposal and the potential loss of natural light and overshadowing to adjoining properties.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is for a Section 96 modification of the approved plans. The modifications will involve the following:

 

1.       Extending the ground floor family room by 1.5m into the rear yard.

 

2.       Extending the first floor master bedroom by 2m towards the rear by reducing the depth of the first floor balcony by 2m.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings. The subject premises is on the eastern side of Fern Street and contains a free standing single storey dwelling on an allotment of land with overall dimensions of 8.165m x 42.66m and an area of 343m2, the site is relatively level with a fall of up to 1.5m towards the rear of the premises.

 

Adjoining the site directly to the north is a substantial two storey dwelling on a site approximately 2m higher than the subject premises and to the south there is a two storey dwelling of similar bulk and scale as the proposed first floor addition to the dwelling. The premises to the rear of the dwelling are separated by Fern Lane.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

Approval was granted for ground floor alterations and first floor additions on 23 September 2003.

 

The application originally proposed to site the northern wall of the upper level in part upon the boundary, as does the existing ground floor level. Advice was provided to the applicant that this could not be supported due to the impact upon the adjoining premises, and as a result the plans were amended to have the whole upper level addition sited 900mm from the northern boundary.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP for Public Notification and the following submissions were received:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Mr & Mrs Peters – 71 Fern Street, Clovelly

 

·    The amendment states that compliance with the development standards is considered unreasonable and unnecessary as the extent of the breach of development standards is minor and has no impact on the living environment of adjoining dwelling homes. This is definitely not correct.

 

Comment

 

The applicant lodged a SEPP 1 Objection which, given that the proposal is for alterations for a dwelling, is not required. Notwithstanding, the increase in the size of the master bedroom has been achieved by decreasing the size of the first floor balcony, which may have had the potential to impact on the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring properties. Although it is acknowledged that there will be an increase in the envelope of the building, the likely additional amenity impacts by the addition for surrounding properties will be minimal.

 

·    The setback between buildings at first floor between No. 71 & No. 73 will be 194cm. This is extremely close and result in loss of substantial light, sunlight, noise and views.

·    Proposal will further reduce the amount of natural lighting available through southern windows.

 

Comment

 

As mentioned earlier in this report under the “Application History” section, the original plans were amended to provide a 900mm setback between the northern boundary and the first floor addition. This setback was considered sufficient given that the ground floor is sited on the boundary. The proposed modification will not affect approved setbacks.

 

The northern side of the approved balcony is to have privacy screens 1800mm in height along its length. With the increase in the size of the master bedroom, a 2m section of this timber screen will be replaced by the continuation of the masonry wall. Again, the proposed modification and its minor nature will not adversely affect natural light of the property to the north.

 

It is also worth noting that since the recent first floor additions at No. 75 Fern St were built, the owners of No. 73 have had a much brighter kitchen (located on the southern side of the dwelling) due to the reflection of natural light off the rendered surface from this new wall.

 

·    The amendment states the proposal has not caused loss of views. This is incorrect as views are had through all first floor windows on the southern side.

 

Comment

 

The 2m increase in the first floor masonry wall to cater for the increase in size of the master bedroom will be replacing part of a 1.8m high privacy screen which formed part of a condition of the original development consent. This potential view loss is not considered to be an issue as views are still maintained and enjoyed from the sizeable balcony to the rear of the objectors dwelling. (see “View Loss” in the Environmental Assessment Section below).

 

·    Increased floor space ratio. Proposal is 24m2 over or 21.2% over council’s recommendation.

·    Also noted that staircase is not included in the FSR calculations and it is understood that it should be. This would increase the FSR even further. This could not be considered a minor increase.

 

Comment

 

The proposed modification seeks to increase the approved FSR from 0.66:1 to 0.7:1 (an additional 21m2). It is noted that the documentation supporting the application has stated that the FSR is to be 0.727:1 although based on calculations by the assessment officer this is incorrect and as such the FSR as calculated is 0.7:1. As mentioned previously in this report, it is acknowledged that the proposed modification exceeds the preferred solutions in the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, however, based on the justification given in the application and the nature of the proposed modifications, it is considered that the performance requirement within the DCP has been met.

 

 

Mr Thomas Morrow – 75 Fern Street, Clovelly

 

·      The delegated report for the approved DA states that the maximum FSR of 0.65:1 applies. This is incorrect as based on the site area the FSR maximum should be 0.6:1 meaning the original approved DA was approved as being 10% over the allowable FSR. The proposed modification will increase this to 0.727:1, which is 21% over the allowable maximum.

 

Comment

 

Whilst the delegated report has referred to the incorrect FSR requirement, the current application refers to the correct FSR or 0.6:1 and has provided sufficient justification as to potential impacts on adjoining properties. Further, the assessment of the original proposal was made against the corresponding objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies in relation to density.

 

·      Given the extreme case of overshadowing on my property, there is no reason why Clause 32, Floor Space Ratio, of Randwick LEP should not be adhered to.

 

Comment

 

As mentioned previously, the subject property is a dwelling house, and as such, the applicable FSR requirement is contained within the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The FSR stipulated with the DCP is a preferred solution whereas the FSR in the Randwick LEP is a development standard and a SEPP 1 objection would be required to justify a non compliance only for buildings other than a dwelling house.

 

·      The development will have a drastic effect of shadowing on their property.

 

·      The DA amendment will further add to the shadowing problem, particularly in the principle outdoor recreation space.

 

Comment

 

Whilst it is agreed that the approved addition will overshadow 75 Fern St, the proposed modification will not significantly increase the overshadowing as the point from which the shadow is cast is taken from the outer edge of the roof over the balcony, which will not be altered.

 

·      Part of the open space on the balcony (approved on 73 Fern St) is being reduced, being replaced by a wall, which will further decrease the light received by their property.

 

Comment

 

The 2m increase in first floor wall length is considered to have a negligible impact on adjoining properties in terms of access to natural light.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

Referrals were not required in this case.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

This heading has been considered but is not relevant.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-           Building Code of Australia.

-           Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plan – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

CONTROLS

PERFORMANCE

REQUIREMENTS

PREFERRED

SOLUTIONS

COMPLIANCE

(how applicant has

achieved performance requirements or preferred solutions).

SOLAR ACCESS

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

The amount of additional overshadowing is minor and occurs as a result of the 1.5m ground floor extension only.

 

The additional impact occurs in the rear yard of the adjoining dwelling house at 75 Fern St. Given the above, the relevant preferred solution of the DCP concerning outdoor recreation space has been met.

LANDSCAPING & OPEN SPACE

P1 Landscaped areas suit requirements of the dwelling occupants.

 

 

 

 

 

S1 40% of the total site area is landscaped.

 

Currently, there is approx 41% of the site available as landscaped area therefore the preferred solutions of the DCP are met.

FLOOR AREA

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

FSR

>300 to 450m2    0.6:1

 

Original plans approved at 0.66:1. Proposed modification seeks increase to 0.7:1 – See Assessment Section

BUILDING SETBACKS

Rear Setback

 

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

Rear Setback

 

S2 No closer than 4.5m.

 

 

 

 

Rear setback is 10m and therefore complies with the DCP.

 

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1  Substantially the same


The proposed modification represents a relatively small increase in the approved envelope and has not introduced any new elements. As such, the modifications to the development proposal are considered to represent substantially the same development as that originally approved.

 

9.2  Consideration of submissions

 

There will be no additional adverse impacts on adjoining neighbours by way of overshadowing, building bulk or loss of natural light due to the minor nature of the application. The submissions made as part of the notification period have been previously addressed under the “Community Consultation” section of this report.

 

10.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10.1   Floor Space Ratio

 

The original application was approved with an FSR of 0.66:1. The proposed modification will increase the FSR to 0.7:1. The applicant has stated that the introduction of varying setbacks, wall articulation, varying heights and creating interest in roof design has minimised any adverse effect on neighbouring dwellings. The applicant has also stated that “the majority of lot sizes and building floor areas in Fern St, Clovelly, and the surrounding areas are similar in size and site area.”

 

The performance requirement in the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies is that building bulk must be compatible with surrounding built forms and must minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours, streets and public open space. It is considered that whilst the preferred solution has been exceeded, the performance requirement has been met. The increased bulk cannot be seen from the street or public open space, the proposal is consistent with surrounding built forms and the addition represents a relative minor increase in terms of building bulk. Finally, neighbouring properties should not experience additional adverse impacts by way of overshadowing, loss of natural light and loss of views.

 

10.2   Solar Access

 

The amended shadow diagram submitted with the proposed modification, when compared to the shadow diagram submitted with the original plans, shows little change in overshadowing impacts as the adjoining dwelling to the south side will already be predominantly in shadow. As mentioned previously, the point from which the shadow is cast is from the roof of the first floor balcony which will not change under the proposed modification.

 

Whilst the proposal cannot meet the preferred solutions of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, the performance requirement is met. The northern wall of the adjoining property to the south will not experience any additional overshadowing. The principle outdoor recreation area of the dwelling to the south will experience a slight increase in overshadowing although the shadow will be cast from the lower storey thus reducing the extent.

 

It should be acknowledged that the site is oriented east-west and slopes to the south, constraining development opportunities to some extent. The approved wall height is 6.5m on the northern elevation and 6.9m on the southern elevation thus complying with the preferred solution in the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. Compliance with the height requirements will in turn reduce the impact of overshadowing to adjoining properties. Overall, the proposed modification will have minimal impacts in terms of additional overshadowing and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies have been achieved.

 

10.3     View Loss

 

The nature of the views enjoyed at 71 Fern St are distant ocean views out of the objectors southern windows on the first floor. Views directly to the east are restricted by a mature grove of trees. Side views are more difficult to protect than views from front and rear boundaries. View loss to the south east is considered to be minor, particularly as a privacy screen 1.8m in height along the northern side of the approved first floor balcony was required by a condition of the original development consent. Given that a 2m length of this screen will be replaced by a masonry wall, and it has been demonstrated that the proposal meets the performance requirements in the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, it would be difficult to warrant refusal of an application. In addition, views are still maintained and enjoyed from the sizeable balcony to the rear of the objectors dwelling

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modifications to the approved plans sought as part of this application are minor in nature relating to a minimal increase in FSR and subsequent building bulk located at the rear of the building. These modifications will have negligible impacts in terms of overshadowing and loss of light and views to adjoining properties. Overall, the proposal will not adversely affect the streetscape nor the amenity enjoyed by surrounding property owners.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. 597/2003 on property 73 Fern Street, Clovelly in the following manner:

 

·      Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.   The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 03 310 Sheets 1a to 9a, dated 25 August 2003 and received by Council on the 4 September 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans numbered 03 310 Sheets 1b to 9b, dated 10 June 2004. and received by Council on the 28 June 2004, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Configurations

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KAREN ARMSTRONG

ANDREW BEATTIE

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

STUDENT PLANNER

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 63/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

56 Carr Street Coogee

 

 

DATE:

17 August, 2004

FILE NO:

39/90

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is the Development Application Report for a Section 96 application to modify conditions of Development Consent No 39/90 to permit the use of dwellings on levels 9 and 10 for either long term letting, serviced apartments or private dwellings.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Section 96 Application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 17 August, 2004

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KAREN ARMSTRONG

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

17 August, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 39/90

 

PROPOSAL:

 Modify conditions of consent to permit the use of dwellings on level 9 & 10 for either long term letting, serviced apartments or private dwellings

PROPERTY:

 56 Carr Street Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Archivision

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application details the proposed modification of the conditions of the original consent to allow for the use of the 8 dwellings within levels 9 & 10 of the existing development for either serviced apartments or private dwellings.

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the original application was determined by Council.

 

Condition 29 of the development consent requires dwelling in all levels of the building other than levels 9 & 10 and the commercial uses and basement carpark to be used as serviced apartments. The dwellings in levels 9 & 10 were not required to be used as serviced apartments.

 

The main issue is the potential impact upon the amenity of the residents of the building through the use of dwellings within levels 9 & 10 for either long term letting, serviced apartments or private dwellings.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The owners corporation of the subject building are seeking consent to permit levels 9 & 10 of the building to be used for either long term letting, serviced apartments or dwellings. The serviced apartments are operated by a building management organisation within the building and are controlled by a management plan adopted as part of the original development consent and also a code of conduct operated by the owners corporation. In support of the application the applicant states that the nature of the building being beach front, and no doubt the cost of letting, would not result in the dwellings being let or used for backpacker type accommodation and that the owners corporation have created a code of conduct to ensure that any undesirable or noisy tenants would be ejected from the building.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is on the corner of Carr and Arden Streets and is directly opposite Goldstein reserve and Coogee Beach. At present on the site there is a 10 level building with commercial uses at ground floor, residential and serviced apartments above and basement carpark.

 

On the 25th January 1991 development consent was granted by the Land & Environment Court for the erection of a 10 level commercial and residential building containing a mixture of commercial uses at ground floor and a mixture of dwellings and serviced apartments within the upper levels and a basement carpark. It should be noted that at that time the planning controls (LEP71) allowed for a floor space ratio bonus to encourage tourist type development including serviced apartments.

 

Consent was granted subject to conditions, including conditions relating to the use of specific portions of the building, to restrict the use of in particular residential levels other than levels 9 & 10 of the building for serviced apartments and requiring a Section 88 B instrument to be created to restrict the use of the serviced apartment component of the development to tourist accommodation only.

 

The original development consent has been the subject of a number of applications to modify the consent relating specifically to the use of portions of the building, other than level 9 & 10, for either serviced apartments or for long term residential letting.

 

The most recent modification was approved by the Court, with the Council’s support, on the 15th September 1994, which modified the development consent by deleting Condition 25, which required an 88B instrument to restrict the use of the serviced apartment component and 29, which required that the residential units on levels 9 & 10 be used for dwellings only. The following new condition 29 was imposed by the Court which provided that;

 

“All units, other than those located on levels 9 & 10 be used as serviced apartments as defined in Randwick LEP No.104 made on 23 March 1993.”

 

There has been a long history of complaints to Council from some residents of the building that dwellings within levels 9 & 10 are also being used for serviced apartments. Legal advice was sought and it was determined that the use of dwellings within levels 9 & 10 for serviced apartments is prohibited under the terms of Development Consent No 39/90 and the managing agents for the building were formally notified to cease the unauthorised use of some of those dwellings on 23 February 1999.

 

Despite this advice, the use of some of the dwellings within levels 9 & 10 have allegedly continued to be used for serviced apartments, the most recent complaint being received by Council on the 11th March 2004.

 

4.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.

 

The following submissions were received:

 

B & M Sloan owners of 25/58 Carr Street Coogee

 

-totally objects to the erection of levels 9 & 10.

 

M Croker of 22/58 Carr Street Coogee

 

-totally objects to the erection of levels 9 & 10.

 

Ms G Paramasivam of 906/56 Carr Street Coogee

 

-strongly objects to the proposed modification.

-removing the restriction of the use of levels 9 & 10 enable dwellings to be used for letting which may result in nuisance to the other occupiers.

-the units within levels 9 & 10 are considered different to the other levels.

-the use of dwellings within levels 9 & 10 for serviced apartments will result in loss of value because those dwellings originally were higher priced because they could be occupied by permanent residents.

 

Mr C Kotis Secretary of the owners corporation and owner of dwellings, 604, 703, 704, 805 and shop 2.

 

-strongly believes that the dual use of dwellings within levels 9 & 10 is a practical and positive result and does not believe that the use of the dwellings for short term letting such as service apartments would necessarily result in a nuisance to other occupants of the building.

 

T & S Quigley owners of unit 1003/56 Carr Street Coogee.

 

-supports the application to modify consent to allow dwellings within levels 9 & 10 being used as serviced apartments and approval of the application will remove the current ambiguity regarding the permitted use of dwellings on these levels.

 

5          SECTION 96 ASSESSMENT:

 

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria has been complied with: -

 

5.1       Substantially the Same Development:

 

The proposed modification seeks consent to vary a condition of consent only and does not propose to alter the approved building and will not result in a significant change to the dominant use of the building. As such, the proposed modifications to the original development proposal are considered to represent substantially the same development.

 

5.2       Consideration of submissions

 

The matters raised in the submissions are addressed below.

 

6          ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

6.1       Likely Impacts of the Proposed Use

 

Firstly, the application deals with the use of existing portions of the building only, it is not proposed to add additional levels to the building and objections based on this assumption have clearly resulted from a misunderstanding of Council’s notification letter, which advised of the application to “allow for levels 9 & 10 to be used as residential or serviced apartments.”

 

With respect to the other objection, (unit 906) the salient matters for consideration are whether the use of the dwellings for the temporary accommodation of tourists and serviced apartments will result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of other occupants within those levels of the building. Further, if consent has been granted by the owners corporation for the lodgement of this application it is not unreasonable to assume that a majority of the owners are agreeable to this proposed modification.

 

Whatever the use of these dwellings in the building, it is difficult to regulate the behaviour of any occupants be they long or short term. The applicant’s argument that the type of tenants that would occupy these apartments will be very different from backpacker type occupants and will not result in as much potential nuisance, is considered valid. The code of conduct which has been created and adopted by the owners corporation for the occupants of the building is a positive step to address the objection, and also the building has a full time manager which could address any problems should they arise. In order to ensure that the use of the dwellings is managed in an integrated and effective manner, it is recommended that the use of the dwellings for tourist accommodation be restricted to serviced apartment use (rather than private lettings for tourist purposes) which will require these premises to be operated in accordance with the approved Management Plan and therefore be the responsibility of the Manager of the building.

 

7          CONCLUSION

 

The proposed modification to the original consent satisfies the assessment criteria under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 in that it will constitute substantially the same development.

 

On balance it is considered that the proposed modification to conditions of consent to permit levels 9 & 10 within the building to be used as either dwelling or as serviced apartments is unlikely to result in any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the residents of the building and is recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to vary conditions of Development Consent No.39/90 for the application which sought to erect a 10 level commercial residential development at 56 Carr Street Coogee as follows:-

 

A         Condition No.1 be amended to read as follows

 

1.   Except as required by these conditions the development of the site shall be carried out generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application dated 7 February 1990, as amended by plan No.5 showing an amended floor plan for level 6A submitted to Council on 19 December 1990 and in accordance with the plans submitted to Council by Kann Finch & Partners on 14 December 1993 in accordance with Statement of Environmental Effects dated 5 February 1990 and in accordance with other material submitted by the applicant in support of the application including the development application made on or about 7 February 1990 as amended by the Section 96 application received by Council on the 8th April 2004, only in so far as they relate to the modifications detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Condition 29 be amended to read as follows:

 

29        All units, other than those located on levels 9 and 10 shall be used as serviced apartments as defined in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. Units within levels 9 and 10 may be used as either dwellings or serviced apartments, as defined in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. Dwellings within levels 9 and 10 which are used as serviced apartments must comply with the terms of the approved Management Plan as required by Condition 24 of this Development Consent.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KAREN ARMSTRONG

              PERRY HEAD

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

              SENIOR ASSESSMENT                                         OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 64/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

313 Bunnerong Road, Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

17 August, 2004

FILE NO:

D/439/2003

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is a Development Application Report for a Section 96 application to modify the Development Consent No 439/2003 to change the dwelling mix, increase third floor component to provide 2 studio dwellings, new external staircase, one additional carspace and reduction in height of the building.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider and determine the Section 96 Application in accordance with the recommendation contained in the attached report.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 17 August, 2004

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KAREN ARMSTRONG

 

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

17 August, 2004

FILE NO:

D/439/2003

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96(2) application to change the dwelling mix, increase third floor component to provide 2 studio dwellings, new external staircase, one additional carspace and reduction in height of the building.

PROPERTY:

 313 Bunnerong Road, Maroubra

WARD:

 Central Ward

APPLICANT:

 Sam Property Developments Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Committee as the original application was determined by Council.

 

The applicant proposes to change the dwelling mix for the approved mixed commercial/ residential development. As a result of a more detailed flood study, which has reduced the required 1:100 year flood levels, the applicant also proposes to reduce the height of the building to Bunnerong Road (west) by 430mm from to RL 34.370 to RL 33.94 and to Wild Lane (east) by 855mm from RL33.595 to RL32.74. Deferred Commencement Condition 1 of the consent allowed the eastern portion of the building to be a maximum height of RL 34.115 and the western portion to be a maximum height of RL 34.89 to accommodate the originally estimated flood levels. The proposed amendment will reduce these allowable heights by 1.375 metres and 950mm respectively

 

The amendment is recommended for approval. In order to allow the changes to the height of the building, Deferred Commencement Conditions 1 to 5 and Development Consent Conditions 1, 11, 76, 78 and 79 are to be amended. An additional deferred commencement condition has also been included increasing the rear setback to the rear lane to allow for landscaping shown on the original application to be retained.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The applicant proposes to alter the approved building by:

 

        General Amendments:

·      Reduction in the overall height of the building.

·      Reduction in ground floor levels.

 

Ground Floor:

·    Alter the level of the ground floor shop and residential entrance lobby, and changes to the shop façade,

·    Alter the rear ground floor setback to Wild Lane,

·    Alter the level of the garage,

·    Additional car space to the car park,

·    Alter the location of the garage entry store,

 

First Floor:

·    Alter the door locations to Units 1, 2, 3, and 4.

·    Enlargement of light wells

 

Second Floor:

·    Convert Units 5 and 6 to one bedroom apartments.

·    Remove the internal stair access from Units 5 and 6 to the third floor.

·    Include external stair access to the third floor from the internal walkway.

·    Enlargement of light wells

 

Third Floor:

·    Convert the former second bedrooms of Units 5 and 6 to two studio apartments.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The site consists of a single allotment, with a short western frontage to Bunnerong Road of 13.765 metres and northern and southern side boundaries of 41.48 and 38.93 metres respectively. The rear (eastern) boundary of the site addresses Wild Lane and measures 10.8 metres. The total area of the site is 506.6m2. The site is generally level.

 

The site currently contains a single storey brick shop and residence, two brick garage buildings are located to the rear of the site, with access from Wild Lane.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by a mix of residential and commercial uses and a variety of architectural styles and construction eras. To the north and south of the site are single storey brick shops. Bunnerong Road forms the western boundary of the Randwick LGA. Across Bunnerong Road are light industrial areas. To the east across Wild Lane are single storey freestanding and semi-detached dwellings. Several allotments to the north of the site is Maroubra Road. Three allotments to the south is Kingsford Street.

 

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

A prelodgement meeting was held on 25 November 2002 to discuss the development concept. At the meeting, the issue of flooding was raised as a major issue and the applicant advised that additional information to determine flood levels would be required.

 

A Development Application was lodged with Council on 29 May 2003. During the assessment process, the AIS Department advised that details of the calculations used to determine flood levels were required. When these details were submitted, they were found to contain deficiencies that resulted in the flood level needing to be increased by 520mm. The method used to calculate the flood level was based on a simple model and resulted in an unrealistically high requirement. A more detailed flood study could be used to determine the true flood level, alternatively the building can be built to the conservative levels noted by the applicant’s hydraulic consultant. The applicant indicated that he wished to pursue the second option of raising the building by a further 520mm and this resulted in development consent being granted, subject to deferred commencement conditions relating to the potential flooding issue. These included:

 

 

 

‘Deferred Commencement Conditions

 

            1.             Plans showing compliance with deferred commencement conditions 2-5 are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of Planning & Community Development, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to operation of this consent. The overall height of the building is not to exceed a maximum RL of 34.115 for the eastern portion of the building and RL 34.89 for the western portion of the building.

 

This condition is imposed to ensure that the overall height of the building is not increased more than the required flood level.

 

            2.             The floor level of the residential entry foyer shall be raised to a minimum RL of 23.95 (AHD).

 

    3.         The shop/office located on the ground floor shall be fully tanked and waterproofed up to RL 23.95. It is noted that this will include designing the front window to withstand hydrostatic pressures from flood water up to RL 23.95. Full details of how it is proposed to tank and water proof the area shall be prepared by a suitably qualified structural engineer and submitted to the principal certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

            4.             A high point shall be provided along the full width of the driveway to a minimum RL of 23.41 (AHD) (as shown on the submitted drawing PMAR-01 Rev A by CHA Architects dated 24/9/2003), and a floodgate shall be provided at the carpark entrance (top of the high point) to provide protection from flooding up to at least RL 23.80 (AHD). The flood gate shall be designed by a suitably qualified engineer and shall be designed in accordance with the following minimum requirements:

 

·          The flood gates shall automatically rise when water levels gets to 300 mm below the high point in the driveway (i.e. to RL 23.11 (AHD)).

·          Provision shall be made for manual raising and lowering of the floodgates.

·          Warning alarms and lights shall be provided to indicated when the flood gates are being raised and lowered

·          The floodgates shall be constructed with a full back up system for both power supply and raising mechanism.

 

Full details of the proposed floodgates, including a maintenance/service schedule, shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

5.         The floor of the carpark shall be graded with a minimum fall of 2% towards the carpark entrance.

 

All windows, vents and other openings into the ground floor shop/office and carpark (except the access driveway) shall be above RL 23.95(AHD).’

 

6.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with the DCP for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. The following submissions were received:

 

6.1       Objections

 

J Mcleod, 16 Kingsford Street Maroubra.

 

·    Concerns have not changed since their original objection.

·    The council is allowing a small block to be overdeveloped.

·    The building is located in a 9metre height zone yet an 11 metre high building has been allowed.

·    8 x 1 bedroom units should all that should be allowed for the site.

·    The building is consistent with other buildings within the immediate area.

·    There is not enough parking in Wild Street, Kingsford Street and Bunnerong Road to accommodate extra parking.

·    There should be 16 Spaces for 10 Units.

 

7.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

7.1  Engineering Issues

 

Councils Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services has provided the following comments:

 

An application to modify development consent has been received for the construction of a mixed use multi-unit development containing eight residential units and one retail/commercial unit.

 

The modifications to the development consent relate to the reduction in floor levels and building height, in accordance with an amended flood study, and subsequent internal reconfigurations including two additional studio apartments and one additional car space.

 

Traffic Comments

According to Council’s DCP – Parking, the proposed development should provide a total of 13 parking spaces (including two visitor spaces), given the two studio apartments being proposed in addition to the original development. The submitted plans show only 11 being provided. The DPCD is to determine whether the proposed parking provisions are adequate.

 

It is also noted that given there are no visitor parking spaces provided for the development, the AIS Department has not requested that a carwash bay be provided. Should the DPCD determine that a visitor parking space is now required, it is recommended that the application be referred back to the AIS Department so that appropriate conditions regarding the visitor space being designed as a carwash bay may be included in the S96 approval.

 

Drainage Comments

Council has received a flood study prepared by Webb, McKeon and Associates (dated January 2004) together with supplementary information dated 27 February 2004 and 16 March 2004, which determined the 1 in 100 year flood levels for the above development to be at approximately RL. 22.00 (AHD).

 

The AIS Department does not object to reducing the floor levels of the development as a result of the flood levels determined by Webb, McKeon and Associates.

 

Based on the information contained in the submitted flood study, the minimum floor level for all habitable and storage areas (excluding the carpark area) should be RL.22.30 (AHD), and the carparking area should be at a minimum be RL 22.15 (AHD), or suitably protected from flooding up to this same level. It would appear that the submitted plans correctly show these amended floor levels.

 

Should this S96 application be approved, conditions 20-27 and 29 of the AIS memo (\\Nwadm05\Data\Groups\BusinessPaper\Dpe\O040817-DPE-1012.doc) shall be amended/deleted to reflect the revised flood levels.

 

Amendments to AIS Department conditions 20-24 (deferred commencement conditions 2-5 in final Development Approval)

 

It is noted that the conditions 20-24 in the AIS memo were included as deferred commencement conditions 2-5 in the final conditions of development approval for DA 439/2003.

 

Given the revised flood levels (as determined by Webb McKeown and Associates), it is considered that deferred commencement conditions 2-5 are no longer required. However, to ensure that the development is suitably protected from flooding (based on the revised flood levels) it is recommended that the following standard conditions of approval be included in lieu of the deferred commencement conditions:

 

1.   The floor level of the residential entry foyer shall be a minimum RL of 22.30 (AHD).

 

2.   The floor level of the shop/office shall be a minimum RL of 22.30 (AHD). All sections of the shop/office area and disabled access ramp located below RL 22.30 (AHD) are to be constructed using materials that will not be adversely affected by flooding/stormwater inundation. There are to be no electrical connections nor the storage of any goods that may be affected by stormwater below RL 22.30 (AHD) within this shop/office area.

 

3.   The floor level of the carparking area shall be a minimum RL of 22.15 (AHD).

 

4.   The floor of the carpark shall be graded with a minimum fall of 2% towards the carpark entrance.

 

5.   All windows, vents and other openings into the ground floor shop/office and carpark (except the access driveway) shall be above RL 22.30 (AHD).

 

Amendments to AIS Department conditions 25, 26, 27 and 29 (Conditions 76, 78, 79 and 81 of final Development Approval)

 

Based on the revised flood levels, conditions 76, 78 and 79 of development approval should be amended as follows:

 

76)  All sections of the lobby area located below RL 22.30 (AHD) are to be constructed using materials that will not be adversely affected by flooding/stormwater inundation.

 

78) There are to be no electrical connections nor the storage of any goods that may be affected by stormwater below RL 22.30 (AHD) within the lobby area.

 

79) A restriction to user shall be attached to the title of the subject development which prohibits the storage of any goods and the installation of any floor coverings, wall coverings and fixtures (including electrical connections) that may be adversely affected by stormwater inundation, below RL 22.30 (AHD) in the front lobby area. The proposed restriction shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate and the restriction shall be attached to the title of the property when the strata plans are registered with the Land and Property Information.

 

Condition 81 relates to the disabled access platform which has been deleted in the amended plans. The AIS Departments considers that condition 81 may be deleted.

 

The AIS Department does not object to the S96 application being approved subject to conditions 20-27 and 29 (from the AIS memo proposed for the original development application being amended/deleted as detailed above.

 

The relevant amendments to the originally imposed conditions of consent have been made in the recommendation section of this report.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

(a)   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 3b Local Business under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Commercial

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

32 - FSR

1:1

1.294:1

No

33 - Building Height

9m

10.8-11.6m

No

 

(b)   State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

Clause 115 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 states the following with regard to applications for modification of development consents:

 

(1A)     In addition, an application for the modification of a development consent under section 96 (2) or 96AA (1) of the Act, if it relates to residential flat development for which the development application was required to be accompanied by a design verification from a qualified designer under clause 50 (1A), must be accompanied by a design verification from a qualified designer, being a statement in which the qualified designer verifies that:

(a) he or she designed, or directed the design, of the modification of the residential flat development, and

(b)  the residential flat development, as modified, achieves the design quality principles set out in Part 2 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65—Design Quality of Residential Flat Development, and

(c)  the modifications do not diminish or detract from the design quality, or compromise the design intent, of the development for which the development consent was granted.

(1B)     The consent authority may refer the proposed modification to the relevant design review panel.

As the application was made prior to 1 December 2003, it did not require design verification statement from a qualified designer. As such the submission of a design verification statement is not required to support this application. As the modifications will result in reduced height of the building referral of the modification to the Design Review Panel was not considered necessary. Deferred Commencement Condition 7 has been added to the consent to ensure that the landscaping to Wild Lane is retained in accordance with the recommendations of the Design Review Panel in relation to the approved development.

 

 

 

 

 

8.1  Policy Controls

 

a.         Development Control Plan – Parking

 

Parking rates and layout requirements for the development are contained within the DCP - Parking.

 

Item

DCP Parking Requirement

Proposed

Allocation

Complies

Residential

2x Studio

6x1 b/r

 

2x0.5=1

8x1 =8

 

10

 

Yes

 

Visitor

1 per 4 units

10/4=2.5

0

No

Subtotal Residential

11.5 spaces

10 spaces

No

Commercial/ Retail

1 per 40m2

GFA

38m2= 1

 

 

1

 

 

Yes

Total

12.5 Spaces

11 Spaces

No

 

Discussion of compliance with Council’s DCP – Parking is included under Section 9.4 of this report.

 

b.         Section 94 Contributions Plan

 

The development has been assessed against Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan as it proposes additional dwellings on the site. As a result of this assessment a condition of consent has been proposed requiring the payment of monetary contributions relating to open space, community facilities, townscape improvements and administration charges totalling $16,677.50 for the residential component of the development. Condition 11 has amended to reflect the changed unit mix.

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1  Substantially the same

 

The proposed modifications are minor and will not result in any appreciable additional impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape and therefore the proposed modifications to the approved development are considered to represent substantially the same development.

 

9.2  Consideration of submissions

 

Some objections have raised issues which were assessed with the original Development Application report. These do not form part of the Section 96 Modification and are not relevant to the assessment of this application.

 

Issues relating to parking are addressed in section 9.4 below

 

10.  ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10.1   Height

 

The applicant proposes to reduce the overall height of the building to a maximum of 10.8-11.6metres.  This is over 1 metre less than the approved overall height of 11-12.7 metres but exceeds the statutory standard of 9.0 metres under clause 33(5) of Randwick LEP 1998. In the original application the applicant submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and argued that strict compliance with clause 33 of Randwick LEP 1998 was unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances.  Given that the proposal represents a reduction in the overall height of the building it is considered that the reduction in height will have less of an impact on the neighbouring dwellings than the approved height.

 

The proposal is satisfactory with regard to height.

 

10.2   Density

 

The proposed development has a floor space ratio of 1.294:1(657.2m2), which exceeds that permissible under the existing Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 for a development on the site, being 1:1 (507.7m2) by 150m2 and the approved floor space ratio 1.289:1(654.8 m2) by 2.4 m2.

 

Given that a SEPP 1 Objection has been lodged with the original development application and that the works fall under a Section 96 application, a SEPP 1 Objection is not required. However a merit based assessment of the increase against the objectives of the standard is appropriate.

 

The applicant has modified the internal lay outs of the units on levels one and two slightly to enlarge the light wells to these units. The additional floor area can be attributed to the enlargement of the third floor level to accommodate two studio apartments.

 

Although the gross floor area of the building has been increased the reduction in the building height gives the perception that the building appears less bulky than the approved development especially the rear portion of the building.  This reduction in bulk will have less of an impact on the surrounding properties and the streetscape of Bunnerong Road than the approved building.

 

The proposal is therefore satisfactory with regard to density.

 

 

10.3   Building Setbacks

 

The ground floor carpark’s setback has been reduced from 1.8 metres, to 800mm from the boundary of Wild Lane. This setback was required by the Councils Design Review Panel for the retention of trees in the rear lane which were considered a positive design element.  The spaces 9, 10 and 11 are of generous proportion and exceed the requirements for car parking space widths as detailed in the Councils Development Control Plan Parking.

 

It is therefore considered reasonable for this setback to remain and as the wall could still be setback 1.8metres from the rear boundary and provide parking spaces which would satisfy the requirements of the Councils Development Control Plan Parking.

A condition will be imposed upon the development consent requiring the southern eastern wall of the rear of the development be setback 1.8metres from the laneway.

 

10.4   Parking and Access

 

The development meets Council’s requirements with regard to commercial and resident car parking. The proposal is deficient 2 residential visitor spaces. This deficiency is the same as with the approved development and as with the approved development will not result in significant additional parking demand in the area and will not exacerbate the parking deficiencies suggested by objectors to the development.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on surrounding properties and the non-compliances with statutory controls will not exacerbate impacts. The amendment is recommended for approval subject to Deferred Commencement Condition 1 to 5 and  Development Consent Conditions 1, 11, 76, 78 and 79 being amended and an additional deferred commencement condition being included increasing the rear setback to the rear lane.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. D/439/2003 on property 313 Bunnerong Road Maroubra in the following manner:

 

§ Delete Deferred Commencement Conditions No. 1 to 5

 

§ Add Deferred Commencement Condition 7 to read as follows:

 

7.   The eastern wall of the carpark is to be setback 1.8metres from Wild Lane. This condition has been imposed to retain a landscaped strip at the rear of the property to Wild Lane.

 

§ Delete Development Consent Condition No. 81

 

§ Amend Development Consent Conditions 1, 11, 76, 78 and 79 to read as follows:

 

1.   The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with revision A of the plans drawn by CSA Architects numbered .PMAR-01 to PMAR-04 , dated 16/05/03 and stamped received by Council on 1 October 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as amended by the Section 96 plans drawn by CSA Architects numbered Revision B of PMAR-01 to PMAR-04 dated 5/5/2004 and stamped received by Council on 23 June 2004, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

11. In accordance with Council’s Section 94 Contributions Plan effective from 2 September 1999, the following monetary contribution is to be paid to Council.

 

a)       for the provision or improvement of open space                    $11,269.50

b)       for the provision or improvement of community facilities     $  4,983.00

 

The contribution must be paid in cash or by bank cheque prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development, together with payment of the required Section 94 Administration Fee of $425.00.  Council’s Section 94 Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick.

 

76. All sections of the lobby area located below RL 22.30 (AHD) are to be constructed using materials that will not be adversely affected by flooding/stormwater inundation.

 

78  There are to be no electrical connections nor the storage of any goods that may be affected by stormwater below RL 22.30 (AHD) within the lobby area.

 

79. A restriction to user shall be attached to the title of the subject development which prohibits the storage of any goods and the installation of any floor coverings, wall coverings and fixtures (including electrical connections) that may be adversely affected by stormwater inundation, below RL 22.30 (AHD) in the front lobby area. The proposed restriction shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate and the restriction shall be attached to the title of the property when the strata plans are registered with the Land and Property Information.

 

§ Add Development Consent Conditions 111- 115 to read as follows:

 

111.     The floor level of the residential entry foyer shall be a minimum RL of 22.30 (AHD).

 

112.     The floor level of the shop/office shall be a minimum RL of 22.30 (AHD). All sections of the shop/office area and disabled access ramp located below RL 22.30 (AHD) are to be constructed using materials that will not be adversely affected by flooding/stormwater inundation. There are to be no electrical connections nor the storage of any goods that may be affected by stormwater below RL 22.30 (AHD) within this shop/office area.

 

113.     The floor level of the carparking area shall be a minimum RL of 22.15 (AHD).

 

114.     The floor of the carpark shall be graded with a minimum fall of 2% towards the carpark entrance.

 

115.     All windows, vents and other openings into the ground floor shop/office and carpark (except the access driveway) shall be above RL 22.30 (AHD).

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. A4 Reductions

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

KAREN ARMSTRONG

SHAUN HEHIR

ACTING DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Planning & Community Development's Report 65/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

DISCUSSION PAPER "TOWARDS A STRATEGY FOR BOTANY BAY"

 

 

DATE:

13 August, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2633

 

 

REPORT BY:            ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In May 2004 the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) released for public comment the discussion paper “Towards a strategy for Botany Bay” (see summary at Attachment 1). This report sets the context for the need to produce a regional management strategy for the Bay and recommends that Council endorse the attached draft response to DIPNR for their consideration, prior to the finalisation of a strategy for the Bay (see Attachment 3).

 

The need for improved management of Botany Bay, and its catchments, has been a key finding of a number of recent Government initiatives, including:

§  Inquiry into the Georges River – Botany Bay System (Healthy Rivers Commission (HRC), 2001)

§  Botany Bay Program - The Tide is Turning (Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Council’s, 2001),

§  Sharing the Georges River Catchment (PlanningNSW, 1999),

§  Southern Sydney Catchment Blueprint (SSCMB, 2002), and

§  Georges River – Botany Bay System Statement of Intent (SOI) (New South Wales Government, November 2002).

 

The production of this discussion paper and the subsequent finalisation of a management strategy for Botany Bay is part of the State Government’s response to the recommendations of reports on the Bay and its catchment. Of particular note is the SOI endorsed by Cabinet in response to the Health Rivers Commission recommendations. Objective 3 of the SOI relates to Botany Bay and states the objective of the NSW Government as follows:

 

“A whole-of-bay perspective is to provide for an integrated approach to bay management that recognises its environmental administrative and political complexity. It will provide for protection of remaining natural areas and associated resources, and the recognition of significant residential, commercial, transport and recreational developments.” (HRC 2001, p.6)

 

The SOI sets out a number of specific tasks to achieve this objective, including planning related tasks to:

·    Management of Botany Bay itself

·    Development assessment within the Bay

·    Management of natural areas on the Kurnell Peninsular

·    Management of Rockdale wetlands

 

ISSUES:

 

Preliminary Draft Botany Bay Strategy October 2003

In early 2003 DIPNR created a planning team to develop a draft Botany Bay Strategy, for consideration by the Minister, in response to the State Government’s SOI commitments. An advisory committee was also subsequently formed. Randwick City Council was actively represented on the Botany Bay Strategy Advisory Committee, from April 2003 to October 2003. The Advisory Committee consisted of senior level representatives from three levels of government and the major interests/groups of the area - including industry/business, environment, science and the community.  It was set up to provide guidance for decision making and to make recommendations to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.

 

In distributing the preliminary draft Strategy in October 2003, DIPNR representatives advised that comments from the Committee would be considered, however DIPNR also stressed that the preliminary draft Strategy was a Departmental document only at that stage and requested that it not be distributed to the Public. As a consequence and also due to the short timeframe requested for comment this draft document was not reported to Council as a confidential document before going to the Minister. However Council Officer’s involvement and work in the Committee was reported to MANEX and via the Councillor Bulletin in 2003. The Committee provided broad stakeholder input into a Departmental document at an early stage of its development, and DIPNR should be commended for this inclusive approach.

 

The draft strategy aimed to present a vision for Botany Bay that will plan, manage and protect it for future generations.  It aimed to establish a clear framework for future planning and management of Botany Bay and its surrounding areas, to ensure that informed decisions are made about new development.  It was generally recognised by the Advisory Committee that the work by DIPNR contained in the October 2003 draft report was an encouraging first step. However, as the draft Strategy, in its current format, fell well short of achieving its objectives, consequently a number of recommendations were made by the Committee. Correspondence from Botany Bay Advisory Committee to Minister Knowles, October 2003 is attached (at Attachment 2).

 

The draft Botany Bay Strategic Plan was submitted by DIPNR to the Minister for his evaluation in November 2003.  The Minister had a number of options available to him, such as, endorsing and placing the document on public exhibition, sending it back for revision, or not endorsing it. In May 2004 a revised version of the October 2003 preliminary draft Strategy was released for public comment as a discussion paper “Towards a Strategy for Botany Bay”. On release it became a document for consideration by the Commission of Inquiry looking into the proposed Port Botany expansion.


Discussion paper “Towards a strategy for Botany Bay” May 2004

 

The discussion paper “Towards a strategy for Botany Bay” is available for public comment till the end of August 2004. It is seen by Council Officers as a positive step towards the goal of integrated whole of Bay planning and management, however in its current format it will do little to assist Council in its decision making on development and natural resource management matters. The future draft Strategy which is to be an outcome of this discussion paper, must concisely detail regional targets and actions providing specific detail on management of threats and opportunities. The future Strategy should not simply call for investigative and data finding projects in key areas which, in the view of Council officers, should be thoroughly researched to inform the Strategy and thereby set a clear direction and most importantly the framework for sustainable decision making. This framework must recognise the environmental, social and economic benefits provided by the Bay and ensure their retention and enhancement for future generations.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council Officer comments on the discussion paper, whist supportive of its intent, are qualified stating that the Strategy must provide concise guidance through statutory and non-statutory frameworks in three key areas, management frameworks (administrative and sustainable decision making), management actions and resourcing.

 

DIPNR advise that a Strategy including an action plan is to be delivered by the end of this year. Council should seek continued input to the Strategy development and implementation, to ensure its issues are taken into account.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council endorse the attached draft letter to be forwarded to the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources providing comment on the discussion paper, “Towards a strategy for Botany Bay,” (Attachment 3).

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

Ø 1. Discussion Paper - summary (under separate cover)

Ø 2. Letter from Botany Bay Advisory Committee to Minister Knowles October 2003

Ø 3. Draft submission from Randwick City Council to DIPNR   

 

 

 

KAREN ARMSTRONG

TONY WATSON

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

TEAM LEADER STRATEGIC PLANNING

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 2

 

202 Doncaster Avenue

Kensington, NSW 2033

 

24 October 2003

 

Hon Craig Knowles

Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources

Macquarie Tower
2 Farrer Place
Sydney

 

Dear Minister

The draft final Botany Bay Strategic Plan is being submitted by your Department. The Botany Bay Advisory Committee has prepared separate comments that should assist in the implementation of the Strategy. The Committee has been guided by the Government's commitment to Botany Bay that is expressed in the Statement of Intent for the Georges River-Botany Bay System and by the Deputy Premier's statement of 3 September 2002 that 'any developer will now have to meet the strict requirements formulated on this ... strategy'. Accordingly, the Committee has worked with your officers in the development of the Strategic Plan. It believes that implementation of the Strategy must address the Statement of Intent and the Government's and your recent commitment to resolving natural resource issues in a holistic manner.

Botany Bay is under acute pressure and continues to deteriorate despite the plethora of reports that have called for action to arrest the decline. The surviving ecology, local amenity and the Bay's physical shape are all under assault. The Bay lacks an integrated approach to its management that addresses its environmental, administrative and political complexity. The Strategy adopts an integrated approach – a plan that is about leaving Botany Bay in a condition that will benefit the quality of life of this and future generations.

The Strategy requires better operational management within levels of government, industry and the general community. This requires a thorough level of understanding of its objectives amongst operators, regulators, developers and residents and this means a commitment to leadership and communications.

Many of the Strategy’s messages have been stated before to little effect. Our view is that this is because there has not been a deep commitment to an integrated approach across a range of government and non-government stakeholders. It is also because adequate management processes to implement the plans have not been properly identified and resourced.  Under the current fragmented conditions, powerful interests operate for short-term gains whilst the strategic importance of the Bay, its ecology, and its community is ignored.

If the Government is committed to its desire to preserve the Bay, then firm action needs to be taken to implement and support the Strategy. A number of key messages have been formulated by the Committee that support these assertions:

·     Strong leadership is required from government to ensure that responsibility for managing the Strategy’s implementation is assigned to an adequately resourced organisation. The new Catchment Management Authority appears to fit this profile with its integrated, cross-agency approach to operational management.

·     The principles within the Strategic Plan should be applied to all government planning processes that have an impact on the future of the region, most particularly Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. The Botany Bay Strategy should be used to assess current major development proposals, such as the airport and Port Botany, which require the sort of framework provided by the Strategy. We also recommend that a range of statutory and non-statutory frameworks is required for the practical and effective implementation of the strategy.

·     Community representatives believe the scale of the proposed Port Botany development will erode any benefits of the Strategy unless the proposal is subjected to the strictest interpretation of the Strategy and its objectives. The Strategy must guide any inquiry into this development.

·     A transport strategy including rail freight is also needed to guide future management of the state and the region. This too should be guided by the principles enunciated in the Botany Bay Strategy.

·     An overall strategic framework for independent research and information management in the Bay is required within which targeted scientific research can be conducted. This requires a dedicated focal point, such as a university.

·     The short time frame allowed for the development of the Strategy requires some work to be undertaken urgently to give effect to the Government's commitment of September 2002 to 'a major environmental study'. As a matter of priority, further work needs to be undertaken on the hot-spots already identified in the strategy. The Department should manage this until the Authority has been established.  The early identification of future hot-spots that are subject to particular pressures is also required.

·     Sand mining:

     o  A date is required for cessation of all current and proposed sand mining on the Kurnell Peninsula that takes account of current leases. There is widespread community support for immediate and total cessation of sand extraction at Kurnell. Some members on the committee called for an immediate moratorium on current and planned sand mining on the Peninsula.

We note that, subsequent to my previous letter, work has been undertaken on a metropolitan sand mining strategy. The Government should implement the sand mining strategy as soon as possible so that uncertainty within the community and industry is addressed in a managed and environmentally conscious manner.

·     The Committee should be reconvened and resourced to oversee the implementation phase of the Strategy.

·     There is a concern within the advisory committee that the Botany Bay Strategic Plan has been ring-fenced to the exclusion of the entire catchment of Bay and Georges and Cooks Rivers and their interests. Future phases should include the interests of the broader catchment.

The Committee believes it is imperative that this strategy is properly resourced. This will require a commitment of resources to the management and independent science that have been discussed above. In addition, the Strategy must be promoted through a sound and well resourced communication strategy, which incorporates consultation and:

·     Promotes the key messages and implications of the Strategy deep within industry, government, NGOs and the broader community.

·     Creates linkages across relevant government agencies, local government and scientific programs that are required for the implementation of key principles within the Strategy.

·     Puts the plan on public exhibition for a minimum of 3 months.

You will appreciate that the Advisory Committee contains representatives from a number of interests and has worked within a very tight timetable. It has not been possible to reach consensus on all matters. In view of this, and to give you the fullest picture, I also attach three letters that contain some dissenting views.

The Committee requests that you meet with it to discuss in detail the issues and the profound concern that its members feel for the future of the Bay.

Finally, at its last meeting the Advisory Committee placed on record its appreciation of the professionalism and support of the officers who have been responsible for writing the Plan.

Yours sincerely

 

 

 


Bob Wilson

Chair, Botany Bay Strategy Advisory Committee

 

Explanatory Note

 

The three letters from Community Groups which also accompany the messages to the Minister, contained the following central messages:

§ That Minister Knowles should endorse the promise made by Minister Refshauge, in September 2002, to develop a regional strategy covering “the entire Botany Bay Catchment”, and the Minister should identify the stages needed for this operation, with deadlines announced for completion of each stage,

§ That a management entity for the Bay should be set up immediately,

§ The Botany Bay Strategy Advisory Committee has not been given sufficient time to debate the key Botany Bay management issues, and

§ The work of the Botany Bay Strategy Advisory Committee will not be complete until the “strict requirements” for the management and control of development within Botany Bay and its catchment, as foreshadowed by Minister Refshauge, have been formulated and adopted by State Government.


 

                                                                        ATTACHMENT 3

 

 

File No: 98/S/2633

 

10 August 2004

 

            Regional Planning Coordinator, Sydney Region East

            Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources

            GPO Box 3927

            SYDNEY NSW 2001

 

Dear Ms Christmann

 

Feedback – Towards a strategy for Botany Bay

 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department with comment on the discussion paper “Towards a strategy for Botany Bay”. The discussion paper was recently considered by Randwick City Council at its meeting 24 August 2004 and the following comments were endorsed.

 

Randwick City Council is one of the four Bay side Council’s and was actively involved in the work of the Botany Bay Advisory Committee (BBAC). Several comments to follow support and reflect recommendations of this key stakeholder committee. Council would like to take this opportunity in commending DIPNR in inviting comment from BBAC at the early stages of Strategy development. Council considers that it is imperative that the Committee has continued involvement in the Strategy development and that a concise and fully funded action plan, addressing the recommendations of the Committee, is detailed in the future Botany Bay Strategy.

 

On review of the discussion paper Council would like to state its support for this initial first step towards a Bay Strategy. However in light of the numerous reports and recommendations for future Bay management in recent years and the State Government’s Statement of Intent in 2002, Council is disappointed that clearer management frameworks in terms of administration and sustainable decision making, together with the necessary dedicated on going funding arrangements for successful implementation have, to date, not been detailed. In this regard Council is concerned that the future Bay Strategy will neither have the necessary funding nor statutory and non-statutory frameworks for effective implementation by Government, industry and community.

 

As a matter of priority Council considers that the Bay Strategy must:

Ø Clearly define the environmental, social and economic benefits provided by the Bay and catchment and recognised as important by all stakeholders.

Ø Identify the relative importance of these benefits, their management needs and opportunities.

Ø Set targets for regional outcomes, ie, for land use changes – no appreciable increase in traffic generation and associated impacts; or, for water quality and air quality – zero emissions target for new industrial development

Ø Provide certainty for sustainable decision making over identified areas of proposed and potential major development, prior to the development application stage.

Ø It must also nominate hot spots and restorative actions.

Ø It must also recognise that substitution of some of the defined environmental, social and economic benefits provided by the Bay is not possible.

Ø It must be adequately funded for State, local and community actions.

 

General comment on the paper, suggestions and future requests for a Botany Bay Strategy are detailed in the attachment.  Council considers that these important issues should be addressed in finalising any Strategy and that Council and the Committee should continue to provide input to the Strategy development and implementation. Should you require any further information please contact Tony Watson, Team Leader Strategic Planning on 9399 0957

 

 

 
 
 
…………………..
KAREN ARMSTRONG
ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
 

ATTACHMENT

 

The discussion paper was reviewed by a number of Council Officers and the following broad and detailed comments are made:

 

General

The development of a Strategy and associated action plan must incorporate and detail an appropriate range of fully funded statutory and non-statutory measures to:

Ø Clearly define the environmental, social and economic benefits provided by the Bay and catchment and recognised as important by all stakeholders.

Ø Identify the relative importance of these benefits, their management needs and opportunities.

Ø Set targets for regional outcomes, ie, for land use changes – no appreciable increase in traffic generation and associated impacts; or, for water quality and air quality – zero emissions target for new industrial development

Ø Provide certainty for sustainable decision making over identified areas of proposed and potential major development, prior to the development application stage.

Ø It must also nominate hot spots and restorative actions.

Ø It must also recognise that substitution of some of the defined environmental, social and economic benefits provided by the Bay is not possible.

Ø Specifically prohibit and limit as appropriate development in critical areas requiring protection, including buffer areas around them.

Ø Recognise that to achieve regional outcomes a DA assessment protocol will not greatly assist Bay management and its environs

Ø Prior to DA and environmental review under EP&A Act part 4 or part 5 processes identify major key sites where potential opportunities for development exist. Set clear guidelines in line with regional targets so decisions can be made based on the environmental, social and economic benefits of the development. Set in place a structure to ensure new benefits can be derived and flexibility to allow a more stringent review of feasible and prudent alternatives prior to a DA.

Ø Systematically prioritise within an action plan the necessary actions to mitigate and enhance ‘hot spot’ areas and threatening impacts

Ø Address cumulative impacts and incremental changes by setting acceptable limits/targets, effectively monitoring indicator trends and predicting changes for early intervention if required.

 

Background

Ø Section 1.3 - The section defining the area to which the Strategy applies appears to exclude the Rockdale wetlands, however the SOI calls for their management and protection. This section should refer to other management actions to specifically protect Rockdale wetlands and also management intensions for the broader catchment as a whole. The study area should address the regional catchment and also recognise the minor catchments. This is particularly critical for comprehensively addressing issues such as stormwater pollution into the Bay.

 

Current management

Ø Some of the language is obtuse and repetitive, for example, in the discussion of strategic and cumulative impact assessment on pages 18 and 19.

Ø Current management issues should be clearly outlined with actions to address – the major land uses of the Port and Airport have potential to improve practices and reduce their current impacts on the Bay, such as management of ballast water discharge and other stormwater impacts.

 

The Vision and Values

Ø The diagram on page 26 could be improved to show better integration of the values and the inter-relationships with Govt, community, business etc.  The diagram doesn’t really “say” much at all and doesn’t add value to the strategy.  Information sharing could be included in the vision/values more clearly.

Ø People and Lifestyles – There is no value relating to improving the quality of the residential environment for residents of the bay area (ie reducing the negative impacts such as noise intrusion etc)

Ø Biodiversity and natural systems – there is no value relating to the benchmarking or balance of development to ensure protection of the natural environment (ie contributions / linkages for large scale intrusive development to improving hot spots)

Ø Economic centre - singles out residential development within the sustainable development.  All development should be sustainable and there seems no need to single out residential, unless there is an objective to convert substantial existing industrial lands to residential.

Ø Place in History – There is no mention of the “place in history” to come – where is the place heading? – maintaining the importance of a key natural, cultural, residential (etc) environment whilst supporting a major gateway (and economic gateway) to Australia

Ø Bay-side character – Balance of land uses around the Bay is not addressed

Ø

Content

Ø Section 2.2 – Historical perspective – Another critical issue which could be drawn from the historical assessment is that though the land use history spans 200 years, the visual and intrusive impacts, including spreading into the Bay are recent and result from modern technology.  Modern technology should thus be better employed to improve the Bay environment could be listed as a critical issue.

Ø Section 2.3 – The critical issues section could be more specific regarding demographics, ie, the need to be catering for the aging population and smaller household size so that appropriate targets/actions can be set.

Ø Section 2.4 – Recognises natural processes are still adjusting from development activity and relationships are not well understood. What does this mean for future development and how will acceptable limits be determined and set by the Strategy?

 

Section 2.6 Current management of the Bay

 

Key messages:

Ø Dot point 2: acknowledges “…some effective elements in the current management arrangements...” What are these elements? Do they include elements identified on preceding pages? That is, co-ordination; integration and forum for improved cooperation in management provided by SSROC; the significant and positive role of the NGOs; industry implementing best practice environmental management.

 

How will a shared vision (assuming it will be shared) enable reconciliation of all statutory instruments especially the role of the Commonwealth?

 

Ø Dot point 3: Does industry implement site-specific best practice environmental management now? How will industry’s role be integrated?

 

Ø Dot point 4: How can informal and formal cooperation across all levels of government be improved and formalised? Does cooperation refer to decision-making?

 

Ø Dot point 5: Will recognition of NGOs lead to effective participation by this sector?

 

Critical issue

Ø Future policy and decision making must clearly direct development for sustainable regional outcomes prior to development assessment process commencing

 

Section 2.7 Key messages for understanding Botany Bay

Ø Management of Botany Bay - Dot point 2: How will ‘an agreed Vision and shared goals’ overcome the structural reality of the statutory and regulatory framework encompassing three levels of government?

 

This is a major impediment and does not appear to have been answered in Section 5 Key Initiatives to Improve Management. The key tools listed in section 5 comprise measures such as a strategy, programs and consistency (all of which presume future willingness, cooperation and favourable political fortunes); targeted strategic planning; feedback mechanisms for review of planning instruments; integrated state government approach; protocol; local strategies; and cumulative improvement. There is limited discussion on how these will overcome this impediment.

 

Improving management of Botany Bay

Ø Terminology section 3:

Dot point 2: What are “operational characteristics (required for effective management).”?

Dot point 11: What are “higher order strategic planning directions”? 

 

Ø Section 3.1.1 - There seems to be an overemphasis on the need to improve information instead of using existing information more effectively (The Paper acknowledges the “substantial amount of work (has been) done in Australia and overseas” p. 21 and “… many earlier reports, studies and projects focussed on issues associated with the management of the Bay and its catchments…” p. 1).

 

Ø Section 3.1.2 - Dot point 3: Need to integrate Commonwealth strategy with state, regional and other strategic policy (as mentioned in dot point 1).

 

Ø Section 3.3.3 - How will shared goals overcome conflicts generated by the structures, institutions and cultures of three levels of government and the often divergent interests of industry and community?

 

Ø Section 3.4.3 – Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting – contains limited consideration of monitoring, generally of the process.  Monitoring is also partly addressed in 5.1.1 – Targeted Research and Section 5.2 Reducing and Managing Impacts – dot point 3 regarding consistent impact assessments and management, however, the issue of monitoring is not specified directly.  A number of large and significant State developments have occurred in the Bay environs.  The previous Port development and the third runway developments for example would have undertaken EIS assessment and monitoring.  Documentation and analysis of the predicted impacts, assessment of these against the forecast impacts and a review of required ongoing monitoring and assessment could provide useful ‘time-development-impact’ understanding and a “bank of information”.  The Strategy should include objectives for assessment of monitoring and results arising from any EIS’s (and other studies) over time to better inform forecasting and analysis of impacts, including the compounding impacts.  These findings should also be made widely available.

 

Ø The “State of the Bay” reporting is a good initiative and should be supported.  The Strategy, however, doesn’t indicate the frequency of this reporting.  The same reporting frequency and schedule as Council’s SOE may be suitable, ie, annual update with four yearly comprehensive. Suitable environmental, social and economic indicators should be proposed by the Strategy. The CMA place manager should be appropriately resourced to compile the report.

 

Additional Comments

Ø The Strategy, when finalised, should be progressed to a Memorandum of Understanding, which clearly identifies the key agencies, specialists, organisations and community groups, their roles, their funding, accountabilities, responsibilities etc.

 

Ø This is an important Bay wide strategy being developed to ensure and manage sustainable development within the Bay environs.  A number of issues discussed in Sections 2.4 – Natural Features and Processes, and 2.5 - Economic Processes are significant in the management and assessment of the cumulative impacts resulting from the Port Botany expansion DA and EIS.  Consequently it would be pre-emptive to determine the Port Botany expansion EIS and DA until the Strategy is finalised and adopted. 

 

Ø More detail is requested on:

the significant role the CMA will play, with detailed commitment to a Place Manger for the Bay,

how the Sydney Metro Strategy will inform the Bay Strategy and vice versa,

how the NSW Ports and Transport (particularly freight) Strategy will inform the Bay Strategy and vice versa,

how the Sydney Construction Material Strategy will inform the Bay Strategy and vice versa, and

how the proposed DEC Threatened Species legislation will integrate with the Bay Strategy

 

Ø As mentioned funding is a critical issue which must be adequately funded through Treasury for both State Government, Local Government and community actions. Commonwealth Government must also assist. To rely on piece meal grant funding is not an acceptable outcome and would not allow the essential long term view to be taken on Bay management. It is therefore suggested in addition to treasury funds that addition funds be obtained, via:

Major users of the Bay – for example - annual contribution via a direct contribution plus nominal per ton or person levy on ships and planes (Airport and Seaport have the major impact on the Bay and gain the major economic benefits from the Bay, a contribution to the environmental and social enhancement is appropriate and justified)

Polluting industry – for example - funds obtained via licences to pollute the air and water of the Bay and its catchment should be distributed directed into Bay catchment management/Strategy actions

Major new development – for example - special levy for new major development (in addition to any applicable s94) to be distributed directly into Bay catchment management/Strategy actions to pay for regionally identified quality of life improvement works, ie, the Bay Trail

Botany Bay Advisory Committee

A number of key messages were formulated by the Committee and are supported by Council, as a member of the former BBAC, for articulation in the Strategy:

·     Strong leadership is required from government to ensure that responsibility for managing the Strategy’s implementation is assigned to an adequately resourced organisation. The new Catchment Management Authority appears to fit this profile with its integrated, cross-agency approach to operational management.

·     The principles within the Strategic Plan should be applied to all government planning processes that have an impact on the future of the region, most particularly Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. The Botany Bay Strategy should be used to assess current major development proposals, such as the airport and Port Botany that require the sort of framework provided by the Strategy. We also recommend that a range of statutory and non-statutory frameworks is required for the practical and effective implementation of the strategy.

·     Community representatives believe the scale of the proposed Port Botany development will erode any benefits of the Strategy unless the proposal is subjected to the strictest interpretation of the Strategy and its objectives. The Strategy must guide any inquiry into this development.

·     A transport strategy including rail freight is also needed to guide future management of the state and the region. This too should be guided by the principles enunciated in the Botany Bay Strategy.

·     An overall strategic framework for independent research and information management in the Bay is required within which targeted scientific research can be conducted. This requires a dedicated focal point, such as a university.

·     The short time frame allowed for the development of the Strategy requires some work to be undertaken urgently to give effect to the Government's commitment of September 2002 to 'a major environmental study'. As a matter of priority, further work needs to be undertaken on the hot-spots already identified in the strategy. The Department should manage this until the Authority has been established.  The early identification of future hot-spots that are subject to particular pressures is also required.

·     Sand mining:

A date is important for cessation of all current and proposed sand mining on the Kurnell Peninsula that takes account of current leases. There is widespread community support for immediate and total cessation of sand extraction at Kurnell. Some members on the committee called for an immediate moratorium on current and planned sand mining on the Peninsula.

We note that, subsequent to the previous letter, work has been undertaken on a metropolitan sand mining strategy. The Government should implement the sand mining strategy as soon as possible so that uncertainty within the community and industry is addressed in a managed and environmentally conscious manner.

·     The Committee should be reconvened and resourced to oversee the implementation phase of the Strategy.

·     There is a concern within the advisory committee that the Botany Bay Strategic Plan has been ring-fenced to the exclusion of the entire catchment of Bay and Georges and Cooks Rivers and their interests. Future phases should include the interests of the broader catchment.

The Committee believes it is imperative that this strategy is properly resourced. This will require a commitment of resources to the management and independent science that have been discussed above. In addition, the Strategy must be promoted through a sound and well resourced communication strategy, which incorporates consultation and:

·     Promotes the key messages and implications of the Strategy deep within industry, government, NGOs and the broader community.

·     Creates linkages across relevant government agencies, local government and scientific programs that are required for the implementation of key principles within the Strategy.

·     Puts the plan on public exhibition for a minimum of 3 months.

Three letters from Community Groups also accompany the messages, the central messages of which are also supported:

§ That Minister Knowles should endorse the promise made by Minister Refshauge, in September 2002, to develop a regional strategy covering “the entire Botany Bay Catchment”, and the Minister should identify the stages needed for this operation, with deadlines announced for completion of each stage,

§ That a management entity for the Bay should be set up immediately,

§ The Botany Bay Strategy Advisory Committee has not been given sufficient time to debate the key Botany Bay management issues, and

§ The work of the Botany Bay Strategy Advisory Committee will not be complete until the “strict requirements” for the management and control of development within Botany Bay and its catchment, as foreshadowed by Minister Refshauge, have been formulated and adopted by State Government.


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 66/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

CITY OF SYDNEY MASTERPLAN - 87-103 EPSOM ROAD, ROSEBERY

 

 

DATE:

19 August, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/0821

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Randwick City Council received notification on 27 July 2004 and was invited to comment on the Masterplan application to demolish existing developments and erect a mixed residential development and commercial complex with new roads and dedicated open space for the site at 87-103 Epsom Road, Rosebery (including the Dolina factory). 

 

The Masterplan proposes 927 residential apartments, including a 30 storey tower, 4687 sqm of commercial space and 955 car parking spaces. The site will also have 18,499 sqm of landscaped area.

 

The main issues of concern for Council relating to the proposed Masterplan are, in summary, the increased traffic passing into and through the Randwick LGA, capacity of the road intersections on the Eastern Distributor and the lack of compatibility between the proposed landmark tower building on South Dowling Street and the adjoining residential neighbourhoods in Kensington. Council officers have reviewed the Masterplan and drafted a submission to the City of Sydney, which was due on 20 August 2004. Councillors may have further comments, which could also be forwarded to the City of Sydney.

 

ISSUES:

 

The traffic study attached to the proposed Masterplan shows the expected future traffic flows and additional traffic generation of the site onto the surrounding road network. The results of the study into existing and future traffic flows (vehicles per hour) indicate that  a potentially substantial increase in traffic flows into Randwick City, primarily by way of Lenthall Street. This will entail significant additional traffic movements in both AM and PM peak hours. Given the nature of Lenthall Street, a local street running through a low rise Heritage Conservation Area, the further increase in additional traffic flows created by this development on top of those already expected from approved proposals on adjoining sites will result in further traffic congestion in Kensington.

 

The landmark status of the proposed tower is questionable. There is no reason provided as to why this site should be identified by way of landmarks in this location. The adjacent site (Victoria Park Masterplan) has been approved with three towers, as was identified in the Green Square DCP for the area and this site was not an identified landmark site. It would create an undesirable impact and potentially encourage further landmark buildings all along South Dowling Street. The height and overall scale of the proposed landmark building is considered excessive for this location when compared with neighbouring buildings in Zetland, the 13 storey residential apartments in Raleigh Park and the low density Heritage Conservation Area opposite in Kensington. The impact upon the visual amenity of the West Kensington Conservation Area is also a concern.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Masterplan proposal in its current form is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. The proposed 30 storey tower is adjacent to one and two storey residential dwellings east of South Dowling Street and would create an urban form totally out of character with the existing adjoining neighbourhood. A significant reduction or elimination of the proposed tower would alleviate these concerns and reduce the further impact of more cars on local roads.

 

Randwick Council local roads such as Todman Avenue and Lenthall Street are already experiencing problems with traffic congestion during peak hours. This overdevelopment of this site will further contribute to this problem. Recent discussions with the RTA have indicated that studies are currently being conducted in an effort to upgrade and improve a number of the intersections on South Dowling Street which will go part of the way to addressing this issue. However, the cumulative impact of development in this area is having real impacts on these local areas which must be addressed by City of Sydney now.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that:

 

1.         Council note this report and endorse the attached submission to the City of Sydney.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Submission to City of Sydney

 

 

 

………………………………

 

 

………………………………

KAREN ARMSTRONG

STEVE ROSELAND

ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING OFFICER

 


 

 

(98/S/0821)

(Contact Officer: S.Roseland - 9399.0898)

 

19 August 2004

 

General Manager

City of Sydney

GPO Box 1591

Sydney  NSW  2001

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

RE:       LINK MASTERPLAN – 87-103 EPSOM ROAD, ROSEBERY

Randwick City Council received notification and was invited to comment on the proposed Masterplan for the aforementioned address on 27 July 2004.

 

The main issues of concern for Council relating to the proposed Masterplan are the traffic impacts, impacts of the proposed towers and the cumulative impacts from development in this area generally. In relation to traffic, Council raises concerns over the increased levels of traffic passing into and through the Randwick LGA, capacity of the road intersections on the Eastern Distributor and the lack of compatibility between the proposed landmark tower building on South Dowling Street and the adjoining residential neighbourhoods in Kensington. These issues were raised with the Victoria Park Masterplan, and the cumulative impacts of these developments need to be fully addressed. 

 

The traffic study attached to the proposed Masterplan shows the expected future traffic flows and additional traffic generation of the site onto the surrounding road network. The results of the study into existing and future traffic flows (vehicles per hour) indicate that a potentially substantial increase in traffic flows into Randwick City, primarily by way of Lenthall Street. This will entail significant additional traffic movements in both AM and PM peak hours. Given the nature of Lenthall Street, a local street running through a low rise Heritage Conservation Area, the further increase in additional traffic flows created by this development and the cumulative impact of new developments and already approved proposals on adjoining sites will result in further traffic congestion in Kensington.

 

The landmark status of the proposed tower is questionable. There is no reason provided as to why this site should be identified by way of landmarks in this location. The height and overall scale of the proposed landmark building is considered excessive for this location when compared with neighbouring buildings in Zetland, the 13 storey residential apartments in Raleigh Park and the low density Heritage Conservation Area opposite in Kensington. The impact upon the visual amenity of the West Kensington Conservation Area is a major concern.

 

Please contact Steve Roseland, Council’s Strategic Planning Team on 9399 0898 if you have any further questions or queries.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Sima Truuvert,

ACTING GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

Per: ……………………………………

 

G:\TOWN\WP\STRATEGI\Other Council Issues\Response to City of Sydney Masterplan.doc

 

 


MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

12.1     By Councillor Nash – Request for Council Submission on the Masterplan Application for the Dolina Site - Rosebery. (F2004/07227 xr 98/S/0821 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Randwick City Council prepare and forward to the City of Sydney Council a comprehensive written submission outlining its position on the Masterplan Application for the Dolina site, located at 87 ‑ 103 Epsom Road, Rosebery, for the consideration of the City of Sydney Council in assessing the merits of this Masterplan Application (having particular regard to resident concerns such as overshadowing effects, visual and noise pollution and

increased traffic on local roads).

 

12.2     By Councillor Bastic – Request for Stairs at 29 French Street.  (PROP033069 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council construct stairs outside the property 29 French Street which will enable the infirm resident access to the property.

 

12.3     By Councillor Bastic – Update on the Proposal from Randwick Hockey Club.  (98/S/0492 xr F2004/06574 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Council report on the proposal put forward by Randwick Hockey Club.

 

12.4     By Councillor Procopiadis – Removal of Ficus ‘Hilli’ trees on Todman Avenue.  (PROP001519 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That the Ficus ‘Hilli’ in Todman Avenue and in front of No. 52 be removed and a suitable tree be planted on Council’s nature strip.

 

12.5     By Councillor Seng – Proposal for a Working Group to help combat Council’s Parking Problems.  (F2004/07236 xr 98/S/0753 xr 98/S/0178)

 

That Randwick Council adopt a policy of a closer working relationship with our major economic stakeholders ie. The University, the AJC and the Hospital and that the first collaborative effort would be to jointly develop a strategy to resolve the area’s transport and parking problems and, particularly, to expedite the implementation of light rail to the City.