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

 

 

19 November 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, 23RD NOVEMBER 2004 AT 6:00 PM.

 

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 19TH OCTOBER, 2004.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

6.1                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 88/2004 - WAIVING OF FEES - RANDWICK CITY TOURISM VIDEO FOR VISITORS.

2

 

6.2                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 89/2004 - CONTRIBUTION TO WORKS - COOGEE CROQUET CLUB.

4

 

6.3                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 90/2004 - USE OF RANDWICK CITY LOGO BY 324 SQUADRON AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE CADETS.

6

 

6.4                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 91/2004 - MAROUBRA BEACH AREA - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO ALCOHOL FREE ZONE.

8

 

6.5                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 92/2004 - WAIVING OF FEES - COOGEE SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB.

10

 

6.6                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 93/2004 - COOGEE FAMILY FUN DAY - WAIVING OF FEES.

12

 

6.7                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 94/2004 - WAIVING OF FEES - MUSICAL PERFORMANCES IN GRANT RESERVE.

14

 

6.8                        

MAYOR'S MINUTE 95/2004 - WHITE RIBBON DAY.

18

 


 

7          Report of the Greening Randwick Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 12th October, 2004.

 

                        

Minutes of the Greening Randwick Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, 12th October, 2004 

20

 

 

8           General Manager's Reports

 

8.1                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 35/2004 - SEPTEMBER 2004 QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT - 2004/07 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

24

 

8.2                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 36/2004 - TREE PRESERVATION/TREE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REVIEW.

26

8.3                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 37/2004 - ACQUISITION OF LAND - 31R PRINCE STREET, RANDWICK.

36

 

8.4                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 38/2004 - 2004/2005 BUDGET  REVIEW AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2004.

40

 

8.5                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 39/2004 - ENVIRONMENTAL LEVY - PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF NSW FOR SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES, RESEARCH AND PROJECTS.

43

 

8.6                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 40/2004 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

49

 

8.7                        

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 41/2004 - RANDWICK SPORTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE - REVIEW OF MEMBERSHIP.

53

 

 

9           Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Reports

 

9.1                        

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 88/2004 - TREE PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE TENDER - TENDER NO. T025/04.

58

 

9.2                        

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 89/2004 - BUSH REGENERATION WORKS - TENDER NO T024/04.

60

 

9.3                        

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 90/2004 - PARKING SCHEME - THE SPOT.

66

 

9.4                        

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 91/2004 - NEW ACCESS RAMPS AT SOUTHERN CROSS DRIVE AND GARDENERS ROAD.

73

 

9.5                        

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 92/2004 - OFF - STREET PARKING FOR MCDONALDS AT KINGSFORD - PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT BY COUNCIL'S  RANGERS.

82

 

9.6                        

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 93/2004 - FOOTPATH PETITION- KYOGLE STREET, MAROUBRA.

85

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.7                        

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 94/2004 - BOWEN LIBRARY – TENANTS’ COMPENSATION CLAIM REGARDING THE ERECTION OF COUNCIL'S SAFETY FENCING.

88

 

 

10         Director Governance Management & Information Services' Reports

 

10.1                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 35/2004 -   ARRANGEMENTS DURING CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR PERIOD FOR DECISIONS TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL AND SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR YEAR 2005.

91

 

10.2                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 36/2004 - STATUS OF FINANCIAL REPORTS 2003/2004.

97

 

10.3                        

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES' REPORT 37/2004 - S611 COURT COSTS IN HIGH COURT CASE WITH OPTUS AND TELSTRA

99

 

 

11         Director Planning & Community Development's Reports

 

11.1                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 90/2004 - SUBMISSION ON THE METROPOLITAN STRATEGY DISCUSSION PAPER FOR THE SYDNEY GREATER METROPOLITAN REGION.

102

11.2

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT’S REPORT 91/2004 - AFFIXING COUNCIL'S SEAL TO DOCUMENTATION - DADHC FUNDING AGREEMENT.

105

 

11.3                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 92/2004 - AEOLIA STREET, RANDWICK.

107

11.4                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 93/2004 - 1A THOMAS STREET, COOGEE.

121

 

11.5                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 94/2004 – 45-53 DUDLEY STREET, COOGEE.

150

 

11.6                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 95/2004 - 8 FENTON AVENUE, MAROUBRA.

200

 

11.7                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 96/2004 - APPLICATION TO THE LICENSING COURT OF NSW - 2-4 PEROUSE ROAD, RANDWICK (ROYAL HOTEL).

243

 

11.8                        

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'S REPORT 97/2004 - 2-8 WILLIAM STREET, RANDWICK.

253

 

 

12         Petitions

 

13         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

13.1                        

By Councillor White – Upgrade to Parking Area at Duffy’s Corner, Anzac Parade.

319

13.2

By Councillor Daley – Shade Cloth in Cromwell Park, Malabar Beach

319

13.3

By Councillor Daley – Construction of Shade Cloths at all Council Owned Playgrounds.

319

13.4

By Councillor Daley – Expulsion of Councillor Sullivan.

319

13.5

By Councillor Daley – Council’s Enforcement Officers.

319

13.6

By Councillors Sullivan, Tracey, Bastic, Andrews & White – Civic Reception for Randwick Rugby Union Football Club.

320

 

 

 

14         Urgent Business

 

15         Confidential Reports

 

15.1                        

CONFIDENTIAL MAYOR'S MINUTE 96/2004 - DETERMINING PROCEDURE FOR GENERAL MANAGER'S PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT.

321

 

15.2                        

CONFIDENTIAL ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 95/2004 - PROJECT NO. 10049 - RECYCLING FACILITY NO. 9 BUMBORAH POINT ROAD, MATRAVILLE DA 358/2003 & CC 691/04.

327

15.3

CONFIDENTIAL GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT 42/2004 – APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR, ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES.

330

 

 

16         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

17         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

18         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER.


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 88/2004

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - RANDWICK CITY TOURISM VIDEO FOR VISITORS.

 

 

DATE:

16 November, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/07550 xr 98/S/1044

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Terry McGuinness, President of Randwick City Tourism Inc., has written to Council seeking the waiving of fees associated with the filming of a visitor video during January 2005.

 

ISSUES:

 

Randwick City Tourism is working with a group of young people, through an accredited training agency, on several Work for the Dole projects, one of which involves the filming of a visitor video on the Randwick City area.

 

This amateur group is based in the Scout Hall in Bunnerong Road, Kingsford and, as a trade-off for the use of those premises as a temporary film unit base until March 2005, has undertaken a maintenance programme at the Hall to bring it back into a useable condition.  Accordingly, Scouts N.S.W., the film group and the wider community will all benefit from this much needed Hall maintenance project.

 

The film group is presently working on an outline for the video and shooting will probably be undertaken over a five day period, subject to weather conditions.  The projected date for filming is between Monday, 17th January and Saturday, 22nd January 2005.  It is proposed that the public shooting locations will be:

 

·    Clovelly or La Perouse – diving shots

·    Coogee Beach – water and sand (swimmers, walkers, volleyball, lifesaving zodiac)

·    Gordons Bay - snorkelling

·    La Perouse – walkers at water’s edge

·    Little Bay – walking along the sand

·    Maroubra Beach – learn-to-surf and surfing, skateboard ramp

·    Yarra Bay – beach and water shots and sailing boats

In addition, filming will take place within private premises such as the Australian Jockey Club, the Coogee Bay Hotel, various golf courses, etc.

 

The request for waiving of fees is based on the fact that Randwick City Tourism Inc. is a registered not-for-profit organisation whose goals are to promote Randwick as a desirable visitor destination and to generate local employment opportunities.  The Council fees associated with this activity are:

 

            Application Fee                           :            $85

            Filming Fees (low impact)            :        $1540

            Total                                          :        $1625

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the recommendation in this Minute, the financial implication to Council is $1,625.00 and currently there are sufficient funds in the Contingency Vote for 2004/05 to cover this contribution.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The efforts of Randwick City Tourism Inc. in fostering a co-operative environment by bringing together participants in Work for the Dole and Scouting N.S.W. for future mutual community benefit is commendable and I consider Council should support the organisation’s current request for the waiving of fees associated with the filming of this amateur video production.

                                               

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That Council vote the sum of $1,625.00 to cover the fees associated with the filming of the visitor video and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund in the 2004/05 budget; and

 

(b)        That Randwick City Tourism Inc. undertake to appropriately acknowledge Council’s contribution in the credits of the film.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 


 

 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 89/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

CONTRIBUTION TO WORKS - COOGEE CROQUET CLUB  

 

 

DATE:

17 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1331

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A request has been received from the Coogee Croquet Club for Council to contribute on a dollar for dollar basis $5,500 towards renovation and levelling of the number two croquet green.

 

ISSUES

 

The Coogee Croquet Club occupies land at the eastern end of Bardon Park where two greens and a clubhouse are located.  The Club is required to prepare an annual maintenance program and is responsible for maintaining the grass areas in a trim condition.  Over the years, there has been some subsidence of the playing surface and the Club has requested that Council contribute funding to cover costs for the renovation and levelling of the number two croquet green, based upon a quotation received in the amount of $11,000.

 

An inspection of the green has been carried out confirming that some settlement has occurred and that this may impact upon the playability of the green.  The estimated cost of the works would appear to be reasonable given the extent of work required to be undertaken.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council adopt the recommendation, a cost of $5,500 will be incurred from the Contingency Fund.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Coogee Croquet Club is a small community based Club that relies on its membership base for funding its maintenance program.  It is considered that the quantum of the work required and associated costs would be beyond the capacity of the club to undertake on a volunteer basis and that a contribution from Council is appropriate.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council contribute the requested amount of $5,500 from the Contingency Fund to the Coogee Croquet Club to be used for the renovation and levelling of the number two croquet green.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 90/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

USE OF RANDWICK CITY LOGO BY 324 SQUADRON AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE CADETS  

 

 

DATE:

16 November, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/06574 xr F2004/06333

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Carol Moreau, Flight Lieutenant and Commanding Officer of the 324 Australian Air Force Cadets Squadron has written to me seeking approval from Council to use its logo on uniform lapels, banners and in its title.

 

ISSUES:

 

The 324 Squadron (City of Sydney) Australian Air Force Cadets, was originally formed in 1954 and was located at Cleveland Street Boys’ High School.  In 2002, the Squadron was relocated to Randwick Army Barracks, Avoca Street, as a temporary measure during the School’s renovation.

 

However, the Avoca Street Randwick Barracks has now become the permanent home of the Squadron and, in its 50th year, would like to formally align itself with the Randwick City area.

 

The Squadron is now seeking the Council’s formal approval to the utilisation of Council’s logo on its equipment, to designate that it is based and is part of the Randwick City community.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

I consider the request from the 324 Squadron Australian Air Force Cadets to be acceptable and complimentary to the Randwick City Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That the request by the 324 Squadron Australian Air Force Cadets to utilise Council’s logo on its equipment and Randwick City in its name be agreed to; and

 

(b)        That the General Manager be given the delegated authority to make the necessary arrangements and finalise the matter.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 91/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

MAROUBRA BEACH AREA - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO ALCOHOL FREE ZONE.

 

 

DATE:

17 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1285

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Maroubra Beach Precinct Committee has expressed concern regarding the amount of on-street drinking in the Maroubra Beach area and has suggested that the Alcohol Free Zones be extended into Fenton Avenue, Maroubra.

 

ISSUES:

 

The Local Government Act sets out the process for the declaration of Alcohol Free Zones on public roads. There are currently Alcohol Free Zones in Marine Parade, Maroubra between Maroubra Road and Fitzgerald Ave and McKeon Street from Duncan Street to Marine Parade.

 

All Alcohol Free Zones in Randwick were reviewed approximately 24 months ago. Arising out of that review it was proposed that all Alcohol Free Zones within Randwick have a common expiry date October 2005.

 

Legislation allows for Alcohol Free Zones to be established for a maximum period of up to three years. Should Council wish to proceed with the proposal put forward by the Precinct Committee, it is suggested that the expiry date of October 2005 be adopted so that a consistent review of Alcohol Free Zones can be done at that time.

 

Should Council wish to proceed with this proposal, advertisements will be placed in the local paper detailing the proposal and specific comments will be sought from the Local Police and other groups as specified by the Act.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Should Council wish to support this proposal, drinking of alcohol in Fenton Avenue between McKeon Street and Mons Avenue, would be prohibited and signposted accordingly.  For completeness, however, it is suggested that the alcohol free zone be extended into Mons Avenue between Marine Parade to Fenton Avenue.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

a)   Council support the request by  the Maroubra Beach Precinct Committee to extend the Maroubra Beach Alcohol Free Zone into Fenton Avenue from McKeon Street to Mons Avenue;

 

b)   Council support the extension of the Alcohol Free Zone at Maroubra Beach to include Mons Avenue between Marine Parade and Fenton Avenue; and

 

c)   The proposal be advertised and appropriate parties be consulted in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 92/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - COOGEE SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB

 

 

DATE:

3 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1318

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Ms Heather Morris of the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club has approached Council for assistance in waiving the fees associated with the use of Coogee Beach for its ocean swim, the Express Glass Island Challenge around Wedding Cake Island on Sunday, 28th November, 2004.

 

ISSUES:

 

The event is being organised by the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club to celebrate National Surf Lifesaver’s Day.  The event has the support of the SLSA at Branch, Sydney and State Levels. 

 

Beach Hire-Coogee Beach                               $511.50

Application Fee                                                $130.00

TOTAL                                                           $641.50

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $640.00 to be charged to the Contingency Fund 2004/05.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.         Council vote $640.00 to cover the fees associated with the Express Glass Island Challenge and funds be charged to the Contingency Fund 2004/05;

 

2.         The event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

3.         The Mayor’s representative be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 93/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

COOGEE FAMILY FUN DAY - WAIVING OF FEES

 

 

DATE:

8 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1148

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received a request for assistance from the Coogee Chamber of Commerce, organisers of the annual Coogee Family Fun Day to be held this year at Goldstein Reserve, Coogee on Saturday, 4 th December, 2004. They have requested assistance from Council with the following, given that this is a fundraising event:

 

Installation and dismantling of banner (November/December)    $   544.50

Banner over public roadway fee                                                            $   456.50

Installation and dismantling of portable stage (4th December)      $1,800.00

Administration Fee                                                                                $   550.00

Supply and remove extra bins and remove rubbish                                 $1,500.00

(based on 10 - 240 litre bins emptied 3 times a day)                             

Connection to power                                                                            $    74.80

Connection to water supply                                                                   $    49.50

Additional Toilet Cleaning                                                                     $  330.00

 

                                                                        TOTAL:                      $5,305.30

 

ISSUES:

 

As Council’s contribution to this event has been significant over the years, it is appropriate that it be seen as a co-operative partner, rather than just a general supplier. This has been discussed at length with the Chamber of Commerce which has  subsequently agreed to acknowledge Council as a major sponsor to the value of the support supplied.

 

In return for the contribution of a stage, cleaning assistance, additional rubbish bins and the erection of a banner, Council will receive the following promotion in return:

 

1.   Council Logo being prominently displayed on the Family Fun Day Banner suspended across Coogee Bay Road.

2.   Council Logo being prominently displayed on all promotional materials such as flyers, newspaper advertisements etc.

3.   Council will be mentioned as sponsor in any radio advertisements.

4.   Council’s sponsorship acknowledged in all local press and publicity.

5.   Elected representatives invited to participate in formal proceedings.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $5,305.30 and currently there are sufficient funds in the Contingency Fund 2004/05 to cover this contribution. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Coogee Family Fun Day is a significant local event and one that is well supported and attended by the community.  Funds raised through this event are donated to the Sydney Children’s Hospital.

 

It is considered that Council should continue to support this event through its “in-kind” sponsorship via the waiving of fees, otherwise payable to Council.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That: 

 

1.   Council vote $5,305.30 to cover the fees associated with the event and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2004/05.

 

2.   The event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

3.   The Mayor’s representative be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 94/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - MUSICAL PERFORMANCES IN GRANT RESERVE

 

 

DATE:

3 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1219

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 24th July 2004 waived fees associated with the staging of a community event being organised by Mr Barry Watterson.  The event is a stage production of “Much Ado About Nothing” to be held on Friday and Saturday evenings during February 2005 at the rotunda in Grant Reserve.  Mr Watterson has advised Council that he wishes to expand the community event by incorporating musical events on the Sunday evenings of 6th, 13th and 20th of February.  Mr Watterson has requested that Council waive the additional fees that may be incurred.

 

The music performances will cover chamber music, jazz and world music on three summer Sunday evenings in February and the performances will close by 9.00pm. The performances will be given by the Sydney Chamber Orchestra, a Jazz Band and the World Music Ensemble.

 

Night Sky Productions Pty Ltd letter detailing the event is attached.

 

ISSUES:

 

The musical event would offer a summer activity and enjoyment to patrons who will support the event by way of donation. The selected charity most likely to benefit from this event is the Cancer Council of New South Wales.  

 

It is considered that the musical event is a very worthwhile community event and listed below are associated fees to hold such an activity:

 

Application fee                                                 $130.00

Connection to Electricity                                   $ 74.80

Supply & Remove Additional

   Garbage Bins (4 x 3 performances)                $594.00

 

TOTAL                                                                  $798.80

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $798.80 and currently there are sufficient funds in the Contingency Fund 2004/05 to cover this contribution. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Given that the aim of the event is for the community, it is considered that Council should support the waiving of fees for this event.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:-

 

1)   Council vote $798.80 to cover the fees associated with the 2005 musical event in Grant Reserve and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2004./05;

 

2)   The event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event; and

 

3)   That the Mayor’s representative shall be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Letter from Night Sky Productions Pty Ltd

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 95/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

White Ribbon Day

 

 

DATE:

16 November, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/07396

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR  

 

Nil

INTRODUCTION:

 

White Ribbon Day on 25 November is the day designated by the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (IDEVAW).

 

ISSUES:

 

I have been told that Bathurst Council has a banner across the main street with an appropriate message against violence.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the recommendation in this Minute, the financial implications for Council will be a minor expenditure for the purchase of ribbons and this expenditure will be costed against the Councillors’ Contingency Fund.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Unfortunately time does not allow Randwick City to do anything on this scale.  None-the-less I think it is appropriate that we mark the day in some way and the UNIFEM should be informed of our support.

 

Further details on White Ribbon Day can be found at the UNIFEM website, www.unifem.org.au.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council;

 

1.         Notes its support for the United Nations designated "International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women" to be held on the 25 November 2004 and will purchase a reasonable quantity of white ribbons to be available to Council             staff and Councillors who wish to wear them at no cost on the day;

 

2.         Funds for this purpose be allocated from the Councillors’ Contingency Fund 2004/05; and

 

3.         Will notify UNIFEM of Randwick City Council’s support for the day.

 

ATTACHMENT:

 

Nil.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MURRAY MATSON

 

MAYOR

 


REPORT OF GREENING RANDWICK COMMITTEE MEETING OF
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANDWICK

HELD ON TUESDAY, 12TH OCTOBER 2004 AT 5:56 P.M. 

 

 

PRESENT:

 

His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson (Chairperson) (East Ward)

 

North Ward                                         -           Crs P. Tracey & M. Woodsmith

 

West Ward                                          -           Crs S. Nash & J. Procopiadis

 

 

OFFICERS PRESENT:

 

General Manager                                                                                  Mr. R. Brownlee.

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services                         Mr. R. Wade.

Director Planning & Community Development                           Ms. S. Truuvert.

Director Governance Management & Information Services                    Mr. M. Hummerston.

Assistant Public Officer                                                             Mr. D. Kelly.

Manager, Policy, Planning & Performance                                             Ms. K. Walshaw.

Tree Management Officer                                                                     Mr. B. Bourke.

Communications Manager                                                                     Ms. D. Brien.

 

IN ATTENDANCE:

 

Crs Belleli, Daley, Hughes, Kenny, Seng and Sullivan.

 

1.         APOLOGY:

 

An apology was received from Cr Notley-Smith.

 

RESOLVED:  (Woodsmith/Tracey) that the apology be received and accepted and leave of absence be granted to Cr Notley-Smith from the Greening Randwick Committee Meeting of the Council held on Tuesday, 12th October, 2004.

 

1A.      LEAVE OF ABSENCE – COUNCILLOR ANDREWS.

 

Leave of Absence had previously been granted to Cr Andrews, Minute No. 185/2004.

 

2.         MINUTES.

 

Nil.

 

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (Tracey/Woodsmith) that the meeting be adjourned at 5.57 p.m.

 

The meeting was resumed at 5.58 p.m.
3.         DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY & NON-PECUNIARY INTERESTS

 

Nil.

 

RESOLVED: (Tracey/Woodsmith) that the meeting be adjourned at 5.59 p.m.

 

4.         ADDRESSES TO THE COMMITTEE BY THE PUBLIC.

 

Prior to consideration of the Agenda by the Committee, the following deputation was received in respect of the following matter:

 

6.1       ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 75/2004 - AGGRESSIVE-ROOTED STREET TREE STRATEGY REVIEW - SEPTEMBER, 2004.  (F2004/07359 XR 98/S/4689)

 

Against Mr Peter Barker                       19 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee

 

The meeting was resumed at 6.03 p.m.

 

5.         MAYORAL MINUTES.

 

5.1       MAYORAL MINUTE 73/2004 – ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPUTY CHAIR FOR GREENING RANDWICK COMMITTEE.  (F2004/07359)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson) that the Deputy Mayor be appointed Deputy Chair of the Greening Randwick Committee.

 

MOTION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson) SEE RECOMMENDATION.

 

6.         GREENING RANDWICK.

 

6.1       ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 75/2004 - AGGRESSIVE-ROOTED STREET TREE STRATEGY REVIEW - SEPTEMBER, 2004.  (F2004/07359 XR 98/S/4689)

 

RESOLVED (PROCEDURAL MOTION) (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Woodsmith) that Cr Nash assume the Chair so His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson can effectively debate the upcoming items.

 

RECOMMENDATION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Woodsmith) that:

 

(a)        no more than five percent of ‘Ficus Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) street trees be removed in any twelve-month period from streets where there are designated significant plantings of this species;

 

(b)        the criteria used for nominating significant street tree plantings be confined to streets containing predominantly Ficus ‘Hillii’ - where that species represents at least fifty percent of total vegetative canopy cover within that street;

 

(c)        Council provides at least two month’s written notification and consultation to residents and property owners directly affected by the proposed removal of any Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ street tree within streets of significant plantings. 

 

MOTION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Woodsmith) SEE RECOMMENDATION.

 

6.2       ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 76/2004 - FICUS 'HILLII' OUTSIDE 1 DUKE STREET, KENSINGTON.  (R/0250/03)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Tracey) that this matter be deferred to the next Greening Randwick Committee to allow for further consultation with the residents of Duke Street, Kensington.

 

PROCEDURAL MOTION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Tracey) SEE RECOMMENDATION.

 

RESOLVED (PROCEDURAL MOTION) (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Woodsmith) that the meeting be adjourned at 6.25 p.m.

 

The meeting was resumed at 6.27 p.m.

 

6.3       ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 77/2004 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS HILLII GROWING OUTSIDE 2 GREVILLE STREET, CLOVELLY.  (R/0346/03)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (Tracey/Woodsmith) that this matter be deferred to the next Council meeting to allow Councillors to better assess the reasons for refusing the removal of this tree.

 

MOTION: (Tracey/Woodsmith) SEE RECOMMENDATION.

 

6.4       ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 78/2004 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 42 MAITLAND AVENUE, KINGSFORD.  (R/0493/03)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (Tracey/His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson) that the Ficus ‘Hillii’ growing outside 42 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, be removed and replaced with a more appropriate tree species - in line with Council’s proposed removal and replacement program for the entire street.

 

MOTION: (Tracey/His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson) SEE RECOMMENDATION.

 

6.5       ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES' REPORT 79/2004 - COUNCIL OWNED FICUS 'HILLII' GROWING OUTSIDE 19 MAITLAND AVENUE, KINGSFORD.  (R/0493/03)

 

RECOMMENDATION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Woodsmith) that the Council-owned Ficus ‘Hillii’ (Hill’s Weeping fig) growing on the nature strip outside 19 Maitland Avenue, Kingsford, be removed and replaced with an advanced Magnolia grandiflora (Bull Bay Magnolia), as per Council’s Street Tree Masterplan.

 

MOTION: (His Worship the Mayor, Cr M. Matson/Woodsmith) SEE RECOMMENDATION.

 

7.         GENERAL BUSINESS.

 

(Note: Cr Sullivan was given approval to raise general business and voiced his opinion as to the purpose of the Greening Randwick Committee.)

 

8.         NOTICE OF RESCISSION MOTIONS.

 

Nil.

 

 

The meeting closed at 6.43 p.m.

 

 

 

 

………………………………….

CHAIRPERSON


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 35/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

SEPTEMBER 2004 QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT - 2004/07 MANAGEMENT PLAN  

 

 

DATE:

17 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/0555

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors on the implementation of the 2004/07 Management Plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

This is the September Quarterly Review of the 2004/07 Management Plan.

 

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

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

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 September Quarterly Review – 2004/07 Management Plan be received and noted.

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. SEPTEMBER 2004 QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT 2004/07 MANAGEMENT PLAN (UNDER SEPERATE COVER)

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 36/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

TREE PRESERVATION/TREE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REVIEW

 

 

DATE:

17 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

There have been a number of issues raised recently by a variety of community groups and as a part of the discussions of the Greening Randwick Committee about the effectiveness of a range of Council’s tree management policies and procedures relating to the identification, management and retention of significant tree assets within the City.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

Council has adopted a variety of resolutions and strategies in recent times to deal with a range of complex and costly problems associated with not only its own tree assets but also in the management of trees on private property covered by its Tree Preservation Order.

 

These strategies have been brought about largely as a result of spiralling maintenance costs and outdated or ineffective management practises and have either been poorly received or understood by the broader community.

 

An example of this is the strategy adopted by Council in November, 2002, to progressively remove and replace the four most inappropriate and damaging street tree species within the City over a ten year period.

 

Even though the majority of residents and property owners within the City are aware of the type and seriousness of damage being caused by the roots of these trees, there is a strong emotional and historic attachment to them by large sections of the community and often strong opposition to their removal.

 

Added to this is the perception that urban development appears to also be adversely impacting upon large numbers of established trees growing on both private property and public land throughout most metropolitan cities.

 

This has meant there has been an increasing demand made on Local councils to ensure they do everything within their power to retain and properly manage their own tree assets - as well as those on private property.

 

As a result of community concerns and through representations made by Council’s Greening Randwick Committee, MANEX recently resolved to review a variety of tree management procedures and policies – with particular emphasis being placed on whether sufficient and appropriate importance was being placed on a range of environmental factors when decisions were being made by Council to allow the removal of significant tree assets.

 

ISSUES:

 

Current Position

 

Because of the range and complexity of issues involved in the management of both private and public trees within the City, it was considered prudent to obtain legal opinion on a variety of matters relating to this issue.

 

This involved seeking advice on a wide range of existing Council policies and procedures and included Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and its implementation, management of trees in Heritage Conservation areas, the effectiveness or otherwise of Council’s existing TPO, amending Council’s LEP if necessary and the commissioning of a Significant Tree Register – among other things.

 

Those matters and the legal opinion obtained in relation to their implementation and effectiveness are detailed below, along with a range of short- and long-term recommendations.

 

·   Council has a two-tiered system for the removal, pruning, etc, of trees – except in certain circumstances such as where a tree is on a site that contains an item of heritage significance or is growing within a Heritage Conservation Area - either on private property or public land - and a Development Application is required;

 

This two-tiered system applies to trees which are owned by Council as well as those growing on private property.

 

·   The dual system comprises a process whereby a party may elect to apply for a permit pursuant to Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) for removal, pruning, etc, of a tree;

 

·   If the permit application (TPOA) is refused, the aggrieved party may then apply by way of a Development Application (DA) for removal, etc, of the tree;

 

·   If, after assessment of the DA application on its merits, it is refused (or deemed to be refused), then the party may appeal to the Land and Environment Court for a ‘merits’ review;

 

·   A party does not have a right of appeal to the Land and Environment Court from an ‘informal’ permit refusal, as a permit does not constitute development consent;

 

·   No development consent or permit is necessary when it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of Council that a tree is dying, dead or has become dangerous or where the tree is dealt with in accordance with a permit granted by the Council [Clause 28 (6) of the Randwick LEP 1998].

 

This not only allows persons to remove trees that are dying, dead or have become dangerous without a permit but also allows Council to undertake routine tree maintenance operations such as under pruning, removing deadwood from within tree canopies, maintaining statutory clearances around overhead electricity mains and domestic service wires, removing branches dangerously overhanging onto private property, etc, without having to obtain a permit – in order to abate any recognised danger to persons and/or property.

 

·   However, as detailed in Clause 43 of the Randwick LEP 1998, development consent is required if a tree is within a Heritage Conservation Area or is on land identified as containing a Heritage Item.

 

Even so, in the case of a tree that is dangerous, where immediate action is required for reasons of safety, then in appropriate circumstances there would be a defence of necessity if Council or the owner of a tree on private property were to act without obtaining consent. 

 

·   There are a number of issues which need to be addressed if the two-tiered system is to be retained by Council, as well as in relation to the pruning/removal of trees in Heritage Conservation Areas and which are on land identified as containing a Heritage Item.

 

In order to address the range of issues confronting Council officers in the management of both public and private tree assets in both the short and long term, there are a number of policies and procedures which have been identified as needing to be reviewed and amended.

 

Options

 

1)  Short term

 

·   The TPO application form needs to be amended to make it quite clear that it is an application for a permit under Clause 28 (Sub-clause 6) of the Randwick LEP and not for development consent under Clause 28 (Sub-clause 5).

 

This is a relatively simple matter and a copy of an amended TPO ‘Application for permit form’ is attached for consideration.

 

Council should also incorporate a more comprehensive checklist into any TPO application for permit process that would assess not only the health, safety and appropriateness of any particular tree but also its scenic/environmental amenity and its significance within the surrounding vegetation system and natural wildlife habitats, in accordance with Clause 28 (7) a), b), c).

 

·    Legal advice advocates that Council’s existing Tree Preservation Order is deficient in its wording and that it requires amending. Attached is a draft Tree Preservation Order document based on the Order implemented by City of Sydney Council on 1 June, 2004.

This Order contains a number of Exempt Activities where consent is not required for specific tree works, as well as an expanded Schedule of Exempt Species. It is recommended that a similar approach be adopted at the earliest opportunity.

 

·   Council would also need to amend the existing Development Application form to cater for tree applications and to incorporate a tree-related assessment checklist. This checklist would need to detail matters for consideration listed under Section 79C of the EP&A Act and Clause 43 and Clause 28 of the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

This would be specifically required for dealing with all trees in Heritage Conservation Areas and those listed on land identified as containing a Heritage Item. This would require the applicant to submit appropriate information, including a heritage impact assessment, detailing the reasons why a tree should be removed.

 

Council would be well advised to ensure that any such assessments of its own tree assets in these areas be undertaken by independent and appropriately qualified arborists.

 

Council’s Manager – Development Assessments advises that existing staffing levels within Planning and Community Development could deal with the number of annual additional Development Applications relating to trees specifically within Heritage Conservation Areas and on sites containing Heritage Items.

 

It would perhaps be appropriate for Dept of Planning and Community Development to process any such DAs and for Council tree management staff or independent arborists (whichever is appropriate) to undertake the actual tree assessments as part of an internal referral process. Council’s current delegation policy will apply to development applications relating to trees.

 

Fees

 

The matter of an appropriate fee structure for this new procedure would also need to be addressed. At present there is a TPO inspection fee of either $26.40 (week days) or $35.20 (Sat/PHols) which is payable whenever a TPO application is lodged.

 

This is simply a contribution towards TPO administrative costs and is in no way reflective of the actual costs associated with assessing and processing those applications.

 

A number of other Councils have a sliding scale of inspection fee charges which increase depending on the number of trees being assessed on any one property and perhaps this is something that should be considered.

 

Should any revised TPO assessment procedures be implemented which will involve a more thorough and time consuming tree assessment process, then the current application fee structure would need to be reviewed for both TPO applications and tree-related DA applications.   

  

2) Long term

 

·   Amend Randwick Local Environment Plan 1998

 

Council’s LEP should be amended to only refer to trees of significance. Any trees of recognised heritage significance within the City would therefore have to be listed in a Significant Tree Register so that they would require appropriate expert assessment should they be nominated for removal/pruning.

 

Clause 28 Sub-clause (6) should also be amended to include all ‘Exempt Activities’ as contained in Clause 4 of the proposed revised Tree Preservation Order.

 

·   Review Notification Policy for Works Proposals

 

This is obviously a particularly important issue when dealing with the proposed removal of any significant tree within the City.

 

Trees growing within Heritage Conservation Areas and those listed as Heritage Items are to be assessed as DAs and would therefore be subject to the relevant notification processes.

 

The issue of public notification of works proposals involving the removal of significant Council-owned tree assets has been addressed with the adoption of Council Resolution 105 at Council’s Ordinary Meeting held on Tuesday, 25 May, 2004.

 

·   Significant Tree Register

 

A report on methods to acknowledge the significant trees growing within the Randwick City Council area was drafted on 31 July, 2003, for consideration by Council. The report outlined the National Trust’s criteria for a significant tree. As an example tree species such as Ficus Hillii may potentially satisfy some of the criteria identified by the National Trust (report attached).

 

That report recommended that Randwick City Council allocate funding of at least $50,000 specifically for the purpose of establishing a Significant Tree Register that would acknowledge significant trees within the City.

 

Trees do make a significant contribution to the natural environment of the City of Randwick. The current funding available under the Environmental Levy is appropriate to be used for this purpose.

 

This is particularly important should the Randwick LEP be amended as recommended to ensure that trees of recognised heritage significance were appropriately assessed should an application be lodged for their removal/pruning.

 

·    The DA process – an alternative model

 

A far more comprehensive and arguably more effective approach to the entire question of tree management and preservation issues highlighted above would involve Randwick City Council moving towards introducing development consent for all tree works. This is an approach being adopted by an increasing number of NSW Councils.

 

The solution to many of the problems associated with the current TPO permit system would be to apply the same development control regime as applies to other forms of development under the NSW EPA Act 1979 - i.e. the same process as is used for construction and building applications.

 

This means that development consent would need to be obtained before removing or pruning any tree. As an example, Newcastle City Council adopted this approach when amending its Local Environmental Plan in 2003.

 

The key purpose for the adoption was to comply with the Court ruling and with legal advice that tree removal is a ‘work’ under the Act and requires development consent. An advantage is also that Council would be able to tailor its regulatory framework to be consistent with other development control provisions.

 

To facilitate this process, Council would have to consider a number of administrative issues, including appropriate application forms, resident notification and application fees.

 

The adoption of this particular recommendation would have ramifications on the number of Council officers required to deal with the ensuing increase in development applications as well as raising issues about appropriate delegation.

 

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations (1994) prescribe the maximum fee that can be levied for a development application, but there is no restriction on levying a lesser fee if Council sees fit. Upon investigation of the implications of the DA process as it applies to trees, a better indication of the appropriate fee structure would be determined.

 

Council will be able to introduce appropriate criteria for its tree work under exempt and complying development categories. This will avoid overloading the DA record system, to free up Council from undertaking private tree diagnoses and to thereby ease the liability burden from responding to claims about dangerous trees.

 

Also recommended for use in conjunction with this new approach to tree preservation and tree management would be a Council Tree Technical Manual.

 

A manual published by Council would clearly establish and define specific technical regulations, standards and specifications necessary to fulfil its tree preservation obligations and to achieve its long term tree management goals.

These standards and specifications should be intended to provide consistent tree care and to serve as benchmark indicators to measure achievement of the following:

 

·    Ensure and promote preservation of the existing tree canopy cover within the Randwick City Council area;

 

·    Provide standards of maintenance required for protected private and Council-owned trees;

 

·    Provide a standardised content for tree reports required by Council;

 

·    Establish criteria for determining when a tree is unsafe and a possible threat to public health, safety and welfare;

 

·    Provide standards for the replacement of trees that are permitted to be removed;

 

·    Increase the survivability of trees during and after construction events by providing specific protection standards and best management practices.

 

 

The adoption of this particular recommendation should also address the majority of issues expressed by the Greening Randwick Committee relating to the proper assessment of tree assets and the utilisation of best practice management techniques by Council’s tree management officers.

 

Delegations

 

At the Works Committee held on 12 October 2004 it was resolved:

 

that a report by the relevant Council officer be brought before the next meeting concerning the inefficiency of having to decide on tree removals on two occasions with a significant month delay and why it wouldn't be best to deal with them either at the Works Committee or Ordinary Council.

 

Then at the Works Committee held on 9th November, 2004 it was resolved:

 

that the report of the Greening Randwick Committee be deferred to the next Ordinary Council meeting to be dealt with by all Councillors concurrently with a General Manager's Report on the clarification of items and efficient functioning of the Greening Randwick Committee.

 

It is considered that all policy issues relating to the management and/or removal of significant tree assets should be referred to the Greening Randwick Committee for consideration. Although this committee has no official delegation it is appropriate that it consider policy matters relating to significant tree assets within the City. Any reports that are tabled to the Greening Randwick Committee should then be referred in their entirety together with any recommendations of the Greening Randwick Committee to the Works Committee.

 

However, the merits associated with any TPO applications and or requests for the removal of significant trees should be considered at a meeting of either a Committee or Council that has full delegations to determine the matter.  As such, it is recommended that the Works committee deal with any TPO applications and the Health Building & Planning Committee deal with development applications associated with the removal of significant trees. The current delegation for Development Applications will apply to tree-related applications and three (3) Councillors will continue to be able to call up an application to Council/Committee.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

In the short term there would be minimal additional costs to Council associated with the proposed administrative amendments.  However, the assessment and process times under the new criteria would increase but could be provided for within the existing staff complements.

 

In the long term the significant tree register and amendments to the LEP and DCP for Exempt & Complying will result in a direct financial cost to Council in the vicinity of $60,000.  In additional resources associated with the long term move to controlling tree application through the development assessment process and Environmental Planning & Assessment legislation will be considered in a further report to Council.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Tree removal is a ‘work’ requiring consent under the EP&A Act and Councils need to consider their administrative processes for trees - as many appear to be operating contrary to the legislation.

 

Exempt and complying development provisions do provide a mechanism to bring tree applications into line with other development application and assessment processes. There would appear to be many other advantages with this approach.

 

Obviously, there are a range of procedural, staffing and fee structure issues that will need to be dealt with should the above range of recommendations be implemented by Council – particularly the alternative DA model proposed.

 

At present, any assessment to remove or significantly prune either Council-owned tree assets or privately owned trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order takes into account a variety of matters, including the appropriateness of the subject tree/s, the health of the tree/s, any damage the tree may be doing, the importance of the tree/s as a provider of habitat/food source and its importance in the streetscape/landscape.

 

By incorporating a more comprehensive assessment checklist into the existing TPO ‘Application for permit’ process, there will be implications for current performance targets being met and this may therefore include the need to employ more tree management and assessment staff.

 

Should the evaluation procedure for assessing trees covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order be strengthened as proposed, it may justify any decision to amend the Randwick Local Environment Plan 1998 to allow Clause 28 to prevail in all tree matters (except identified trees of heritage significance listed in a Significant Tree Register) and allow Clause 43 and Clause 49 to be amended to only refer to trees of significance.

 

Adoption and implementation of the following short- and long-term recommendations should not only address any currently ambiguous tree management procedures and policy anomalies but should also allay any community concerns about the proper assessment and management of all trees within the City of Randwick.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

Short term –

 

THAT:

 

1.   Council amend its ‘Application for permit to prune/remove tree/s’ to make it clear that it is an application for a permit under Clause 28 (Sub-clause 6) of the Randwick LEP and not for development consent under Clause 28 (Sub-clause 5);

 

2.   Council incorporates a more comprehensive evaluation checklist into its tree assessment procedures that includes not only the health, safety and appropriateness of the subject tree/s but also its scenic/environmental amenity and its significance within the surrounding vegetation system and natural wildlife habitats;

 

3.   Council amends the existing Development Application form to cater for tree specific issues and to incorporate a comprehensive tree-related assessment checklist;

 

4.   Council amends its Tree Preservation Order to include a number of Exempt Activities where consent is not required for specific tree works as well as an expanded Schedule of exempt species; and.

 

5.   The Greening Randwick Committee should only deal with policy issues relating to the management and/or removal of significant tree assets.

 

6.   Any reports that are considered at the Greening Randwick Committee shall be referred in their entirety together with any recommendations of the Greening Randwick Committee to the Works Committee.

 

7.   Any TPO applications and or request for the removal of significant trees should be considered at a meeting of either a Committee or Council that has full delegations to determine the matter.  The Works committee shall consider and determine any TPO applications (not subject to delegated authority) and the Health Building & Planning Committee shall consider and determine any development applications (not subject to delegated authority) associated with the removal of significant trees.

 

Long term -

THAT:

 

1.   Council amends its Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 to only refer to trees of significance under Clause 43 and 49;

 

2.   In conjunction with the above recommendation Council commissions a Significant Tree Register to include all trees of designated significance on both private and public land funded under the Environmental Levy Program;

 

3.   Council investigates the proposal to apply the same development control regime as applies to other forms of development under the NSW EPA Act 1979 to its trees; and

 

4.   In conjunction with this recommendation, Council investigates the drafting of a Tree Technical Manual that will clearly establish and define the specific technical regulations, standards and specifications necessary to fulfil its tree preservation obligations and achieve its long term tree management goals.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Director of Asset & Infrastructure Services Report dated 31st July, 2003.

2.  Randwick City council application form to prune or remove trees.

3.  Amended Randwick XCity Council Tree Preservation Order.

4.  Randwick City Council Tree Preservation Order.

5.  Amended Randwick City Council Tree Preservation Order.

6.  Proposed Tree Asessment form.

7.  Parramatta City Council DA report form.

ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 37/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

ACQUISITION OF LAND - 31R PRINCE STREET, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

16 September, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2498

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER     

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A parcel of land exists on the corner of Frances & Prince Street, Randwick, being part of the former tramway land, described as Lot A in DP 79159 and identified in Certificate of Title Volume 4987 Folio 156.  The land is currently owned by the State Transit Authority of New South Wales and is used by residents to illegally park vehicles.  Council has approached the State Transit Authority in regard to it’s intentions for use of the land.

 

ISSUES:

 

A number of issues have been raised in the past by residents in regard to the illegal parking of vehicles, uneven surfaces of the land (ie. Pot holes) and incumbered pedestrian access.  Management of the land as Council owned land will provide an opportunity to Council to increase the maintenance of the land and thus reduce the concerns raised by local residents.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The financial impact on Council in relation to the purchase of this land is a cost of $5,000.00, to be funded from funds reserved for carparking purposes.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The State Transit Authority of New South Wales has offered the land to Council for the nominal sum of $5,000.00 to cover the State Transit’s administrative and legal costs and that asked that a simple Form of Transfer would suffice for this transaction.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council accept the proposal to purchase the said parcel of land (Volume 4987 Folio 156) for $5,000.00 from the State Transit Authority of New South Wales and this expenditure be funded from funds reserved for carparking purposes.

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Letter from State Transit Authority of New South Wales dated 13 August 2004

Eview arial photograph  

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER




 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 38/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

2004/2005 BUDGET - REVIEW AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2004

 

 

DATE:

15 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/4403

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2004/2005 current budget as at 30 September 2004.

 

ISSUES:

 

a)         LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT) REGULATION 1999

 

Part 2 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1999 requires that at the close of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2004/2005 year, based on current trends.  The statement must be prepared on an accrual basis and must also show the original estimates as adopted in the Management Plan.

 

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

 

I.          A report as to whether or not the responsible accounting officer believes that the Statement indicates that the financial position of the Council is satisfactory, having regard to the original estimate of income and expenditure; and

 

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

 

b)         SEPTEMBER 2004 QUARTER BUDGET REVIEW STATEMENT

 

A review has been made of each budget area by its Manager and, with the exception of three budget areas no budget changes outside individual budget are suggested. In relation to two budget areas, (Des Renford Aquatic Centre and Communications) it is recommended that these changes be deferred and considered again when a detailed review of the overall budget takes place as at 31 December 2004. At that time, more accurate trends will be available for the balance of the current financial year. Any budget changes necessary following the implementation of a new Award as from the first full pay in November 2004 will also be considered.

 

At its Meeting held on 24 August 2004, Council approved a tender for the construction of a Recycling Facility at Port Botany.  Funds amounting to $1,284,734 were allocated to the project from surplus funds provided from Domestic Waste Charges. The revised overall estimated cost of this project is now to the order of $2,389,729.

 

This project is subject to a separate report to Council.

 

Further consideration is being given to a source of funds for this project, however it is expected that funds can be provided initially from Council’s financial reserves.

 

c)         INCOMPLETE WORKS FROM 2003/2004

 

A number of projects for which funds were provided for in the 2003/04 were incomplete as at 30 June 2004 and these are recommended for continuation in 2004/05 from funds provided from the 2003/2004 budget.

 

A schedule of those works is tabled.

 

d)         SUMMARY

 

At this stage it is anticipated that a balanced budget will be achieved. This is in accordance with the original budget adopted by the Council as part of its Management Plan for 2004/05.

 

Details of the adopted budget, together with income and expenditure to 30 September 2004 are tabled.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The impact of budget changes is set out in the body of this Report.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s Financial Services Manager as the responsible accounting officer, advises that the projected financial position (balanced budget) is satisfactory.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

(a)        That the report in relation to the September 2004 budget review be received and noted; and

 

(b)        That additional funds amounting to $1,104,995 be allocated to the cost of construction of the Recycling Facility.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 39/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Environmental Levy  - Partnership Agreement with the University of NSW for Sustainability initiatives, research and projects

 

 

DATE:

16 November, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/08350

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Over recent months, Council has been discussing with the University of NSW’s Faculty of Built Environment and related Research Centres (eg. Centre for Water and Wastewater) to develop mutual exchange on current research and programs particularly issues relating to environmental research and sustainability projects.

 

As a result of these information sessions, it has become apparent that the University is leading in many areas aimed at delivering improved environmental management and sustainability outcomes and that many of these have a strong overlap with the strategic directions of Council, eg. on water and energy conservation, more efficient use of resources and educating for sustainability.

 

 

ISSUES:

Due to these common interests, a proposal was made to prepare a draft agreement that would allow Council and UNSW to share experiences and benefit from a new partnering arrangement. A draft agreement has been prepared to formalise the opportunity for increased cooperation and collaboration on sustainability initiatives, research and projects (see Attachment).

 

The draft agreement requires no funding or additional efforts than those already underway. The key point of the agreement is that Council benefits in having access to current research and projects that the University is developing while in return, the University has the opportunity to work through an interested local government partner. The agreement makes it clear that all existing mechanisms for approval and accountability within both organisations must be complied with in any joint projects considered or undertaken.

 

To everyone’s knowledge to date, the draft agreement is the first time such a partnering arrangement has been developed between a University and Local Council, particularly for the purposes of furthering sustainability outcomes.

 

Further briefings are being planned to enable relevant staff to learn from the work underway through the University and consider its practical application within the local government setting. It is proposed to operate the agreement as a draft over a 12 month period with relevant staff reporting back to their respective organisations on areas of appropriate activity and application over that period.

 

It is further proposed that both organisations announce the establishment of the draft Collaboration Agreement during the Sustainable Schools Awards conducted by the UNSW which the Mayor will be attending on Monday, December 6, 2004.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.  However, as the partnership progresses there will be benefits gained by research produced by the university dealing with specific issues relating to Randwick Local Government Area.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The partnership with the UNSW provides a positive opportunity for the University and Randwick City Council to coordinate and cooperate in their efforts to develop and implement sustainability initiatives, research and projects.  A draft Collaboration Agreement has been prepared for the above purpose for in-principle approval from both organisations and finalising over the next 12 months.

 

There will be no costing involved in driving this project. The draft agreement provides a formal process for partnering between the organisations on relevant and appropriate sustainability initiatives, research and projects.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council enter into a partnership agreement with the UNSW Faculty of Built Environment to share the outcomes of various initiatives, research and projects.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Draft Agreement

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 

 

 

 

 

Draft

 

 

Collaboration Agreement

 

between

 

Randwick City Council

 

and

 

University of New South Wales,

Faculty of Built Environment

 




Definitions

 

Randwick City Council

 

UNSW Faculty of Built Environment

 

‘party’ or ‘parties’

 

‘sustainability’ or ‘sustainability outcomes’

 

 

Purpose

 

This Agreement is intended to establish a formal working relationship between Randwick City Council (RCC) and the University of New South Wales, Faculty of Built Environment (FBE) for the express purpose of progressing, sharing and collaborating on joint projects or initiatives intended to deliver key sustainability outcomes or changes of mutual benefit to both organisations within or adjacent to the area comprising Randwick City.

 

 

Objectives

 

The Objectives of this Agreement provides for:

a)   Mutual cooperation on matters that progress the delivery of sustainability outcomes and changes;

b)   Sharing of publicly available information and experiences likely to lead to the delivery of relevant sustainability outcomes and changes;

c)   Promotion of this Agreement for the purpose of encouraging wider participation, case studies or models in sustainability research or cooperation;

d)   Carrying out joint projects, research, cooperative promotions, pilot projects or related initiatives agreed to in writing and aimed at furthering the understanding and delivery of sustainability outcomes within or adjacent to Randwick City; and

e)   Cooperating or coordinating joint efforts aimed at producing sustainability outcomes around projects or activities identified in Schedule 1 to this Agreement and as amended from time to time by the relevant officers delegated to make such amendments. 

 

 

No Obligation on Either Party

 

This Agreement places no obligation on Randwick City Council or the University of New South Wales, Faculty of Built Environment to undertake any specific work, provide any financial or in-kind resources, funding or grants or to undertake any new research or provide details of any new or existing research without the written consent and agreement by both parties and compliance with all financial or corporate requirements of either or both organisations.

 

 

 

 

Duration of this Agreement

 

This Agreement is to operate for an initial period of 12 months from the date of signing and should be reviewed within that time or continued for a further 12 months by mutual agreement.

 

 

Discontinuation of this Agreement

 

Either party is free to discontinue this Agreement at any time by writing and notifying the relevant Head that the Agreement is discontinued.

 

 

Conflict Resolution or Disagreement

 

Both parties agree to open and transparent communication aimed to deliver the above Purpose and Objectives of this Agreement. In the event of any conflict or disagreement, both parties will work to resolve the matter in the spirit that this Agreement has been made. In the event of a disagreement continuing, resolution is to be passed on to the Administrative Head of both organisations and the most appropriate mechanism for resolution to be achieved.

 

 

 

Signed on behalf of Randwick City Council  (PRINT NAME ………………………..)

 

 

 

…………………………………………………………….. Date ……/ …… / ………

 

 

 

Signed on behalf of University of New South Wales,
Faculty of Built Environment       (PRINT NAME ……………………………….…..)

 

 

 

…………………………………………………………….. Date ……/ …… / ………

 

 




Schedule 1

 

List of specific projects for partnering on sustainability outcomes between Randwick City Council and University of New South Wales, Faculty of Built Environment

 

 

Sustainable Education

·      Encouraging Randwick Secondary schools to participate in the Sustainable Living Challenge and Sustainable Schools Awards

·      Support of the Sustainable Schools Awards hosted by UNSW

·      Supporting the upcoming South Pacific Youth Forum hosted by UNSW under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Program

 

 

Water Conservation

Exploring opportunities for improved water conservation, re-use and recycling including pilot projects implementing harvesting of stormwater, conserving, treating or re-using wastewater

 

 

Energy

Exploring opportunities for improved energy conservation including pilot projects           that support or promote use of renewable energy and implementation of Cities for Climate Change

 

 

Sustainable Consumption

Exploring opportunities aimed at monitoring, measuring and minimising the consumption of natural resources by the residents of Randwick City and the operations and facilities of Council and communicating those results in readily understandable formats, including constructive changes capable of implementation to minimise the impacts of that consumption.

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 40/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

3 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1110-01 xr 98/S/1165-01 xr 98/S/1178-02, 98/S/0810, 98/S/0885-2, P/05884, P/001524, P/013183, P/003353, P/006634, P/004317, 98/S/5549, 98/S/4262, 98/S/0018-3

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER       

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

1.         Randwick Petersham Cricket Club Inc. in relation to a maintenance agreement over Kensington, Snape & Coogee Ovals.

2.         Coogee Fishing Club & Volunteer Sea Rescue Inc. in relation to a licence for part of the land known as Reserve No. 82505 located at the north of Coogee Beach adjacent to Dunningham Park, more particularly described as the boat storage area and club house.

3.         Coogee Bay Kiosk Pty Limited in relation to a deed of agreement to lease for part of Lot 7087 in DP 93755, known as the Coogee Kiosk located in Goldstein Reserve.

4.         Bana B Kamila (T/As Radha’s Tandoor) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 130 Anzac Parade, Kensington

5.         Antonio DeSalvo (T/As Renato’s Italian Restaurant) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 235 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

6.         Tony Mircevski (T/As Oporto’s Coogee) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 135-137 Dolphin Street, Coogee.

7.         Shahin Saracoglu (T/As Pide Hutt) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 26 Perouse Road, Randwick.

8.         Samih Rizkalla (T/As MacSam’s Takeaway) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 608 Bunnerong Road, Matraville.

9.         Peter Comonos (T/As Fish ‘N’ Flicks) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 36 St Pauls Street, Randwick.

10.       Options Youth Housing Association Inc. in relation to a licence for Part of the HACC facility, situated at Office 1, Level 3, Bowen Library, 669-673 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction.

11.       Bunnerong Gymnastics Association Inc. in relation to a licence for part of the Heffron Park, more particularly described as comprising the Gymnastics building and the grassed area immediately adjacent to the building.

12.       Department of Community Services in relation to a service agreement certificate.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The financial impact on Council in relation to the above issues is as follows –

 

1.         Council will in each cricket season for three (3) years contribute an amount of $29,300 + GST to the Randwick Petersham Cricket Club Inc. to assist with the costs of the preparation of the cricket wickets and mowing of the outfields at the Ovals.

2.         The licence agreement with the Coogee Fishing Club & Volunteer Sea Rescue Inc will generate an annual income of $250.00 + GST, increased annually by the CPI.

3.         The deed of agreement for lease with Coogee Bay Kiosk Pty Limited will provide the Coogee Bay Kiosk Pty Limited an agreement to enter into a lease on completion of the building works in accordance with the proposed plans for a term of five (5) + five (5) years, which will generate an annual income of $150,000.00 + GST, increased annually by the CPI.

4.         The licence agreement with Bana B Kamila (T/As Radha’s Tandoor) will generate an annual income of $1,777.41 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

5.         The licence agreement with Antonio DeSalvo (T/As Renato’s Italian Restaurant) will generate an annual income of $3,340.19 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

6.         The licence agreement with Tony Mircevski (T/As Oporto’s Coogee) will generate an annual income of $8,812.25 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

7.         The licence agreement with Shahin Saracoglu (T/As Pide Hutt) will generate an annual income of $1,210.53 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

8.         The licence agreement with Samih Rizkalla (T/As MacSam’s Takeaway) will generate an annual income of $1,187.46 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees and Charges.

9.         The licence agreement with Peter Comonos (T/As Fish ‘N’ Flicks) will generate an annual income of $2,219.31 + GST, increased annually in line with Council’s Pricing Policy and Statement of Fees & Charges.

10.       The licence agreement with Options Youth Housing Association Inc. will generate an annual income of $3,600.00 + GST.

11.       The licence agreement with Bunnerong Gymnastics Association Inc. will generate an annual income of $25,340.00 + GST, increased annually by the CPI.

12.       There is no direct financial impact for Council in regard to the service agreement certificate with the Department of Community Services.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As clause 48 of the Meetings Regulations required 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.         Randwick Petersham Cricket Club Inc. in relation to a maintenance agreement over Kensington, Snape & Coogee Ovals.

2.         Coogee Fishing Club & Volunteer Sea Rescue Inc. in relation to a licence for part of the land known as Reserve No. 82505 located at the North of Coogee Beach adjacent to Dunningham Park, more particularly described as the Boat storage area and Club house.

3.         Coogee Bay Kiosk Pty Limited in relation to a deed of agreement to lease for part of Lot 7087 in DP 93755, known as the Coogee Kiosk located in Goldstein Reserve.

4.         Bana B Kamila (T/As Radha’s Tandoor) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 130 Anzac Parade, Kensington

5.         Antonio DeSalvo (T/As Renato’s Italian Restaurant) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 235 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

6.         Tony Mircevski (T/As Oporto’s Coogee) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 135-137 Dolphin Street, Coogee.

7.         Shahin Saracoglu (T/As Pide Hutt) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 26 Perouse Road, Randwick.

8.         Samih Rizkalla (T/As MacSam’s Takeaway) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 608 Bunnerong Road, Matraville.

9.         Peter Comonos (T/As Fish ‘N’ Flicks) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 36 St Pauls Street, Randwick.

10.       Options Youth Housing Association Inc. in relation to a licence for Part of the HACC facility, situated at Office 1, Level 3, Bowen Library, 669-673 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction.

11.       Bunnerong Gymnastics Association Inc. in relation to a licence for part of the Heffron Park, more particularly described as comprising the Gymnastics building and the grassed area immediately adjacent to the building.

12.       Department of Community Services in relation to a service agreement certificate.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 41/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Randwick Sports Advisory Committee - Review of Membership

 

 

DATE:

15 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/0799

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

In November 2002 Council initiated a meeting with the representatives of all the major sporting codes in Randwick City and the outcome of this meeting was the establishment of the Randwick City Council Sports Advisory Committee. A copy of the Terms of Reference for this Committee is attached for your information.

 

Throughout 2003 and early 2004 the Committee met seven times. The meetings have been chaired on different occasions by the Mayor, a Councillor or a Council officer. The initial focus of the Committee has been on improving the maintenance and upkeep of the sporting facilities, promoting more equitable access to facilities, implementing a Wet Weather line to manage changes in venues due to inclement weather, improving communications between the different codes and Council officers and better management of Coogee Oval.  The Committee has been quite successful in achieving these objectives and has dealt with a number of problems of mutual interest.

 

The meetings are held approximately every three months on a Wednesday evening from 5pm to 6pm.

 

ISSUES:

 

While the Committee has included representatives of the major football codes, that is, league, union and soccer, it is now looking to broaden its membership and become more involved in contributing to the strategic development of sporting facilities throughout the City. Accordingly, invitations to join the Committee have been extended to representatives of Touch Football, Oztag and Surfing NSW.

 

The Terms of Reference allow for the Mayor and two formal Councillor representatives though other Councillors may attend if they are interested in a particular matter.

 

The Committee members have acknowledged the importance of the involvement of elected representatives as the meetings provide a valuable opportunity to discuss critical issues affecting the major sporting groups who represent many thousands of local junior and senior players across Randwick City.  Accordingly, it is proposed that the two Councillor representatives be nominated for membership to this Committee for the next two years.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The effectiveness of the Randwick City Council Sports Advisory Committee will be increased with the involvement of the General Manager, the Mayor and two other Councillors. This will facilitate a strategic approach to the development of sporting facilities across the City.

 

Other senior staff as deemed appropriate by the General Manager will also attend.

 

Further, in order to foster improved communication with all Councillors, the Minutes of each meeting should be circulated to all Councillors through the Councillors’ Bulletin.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That two Councillors be appointed as members of the Randwick City Council Sports Advisory Committee.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Terms of Reference

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 


RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

Sports Advisory Committee

 

TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

                                       

1.             NAME

 

The Committee shall be known as the Randwick City Council Sports Advisory Committee.

 

 

2.            AIMS

 

§ To provide a forum for representatives from local sporting organisations and Council to discuss current issues and future needs of local sporting organizations.

 

§ To promote equitable access for the use of Council’s sporting grounds, facilities and kiosks.

 

§ To promote the involvement of members of all sporting facilities in the planning and decision making process to ensure the promotion, extension and improvement of sport and sporting facilities within the Randwick City area.

 

§ To provide a forum for discussion on problems of mutual interest between member Associations

 

§ To promote and encourage the social fellowship of its members

 

 

3.             OBJECTIVES

 

§ To ensure that Council policies and programs are consistent with Commonwealth and State Government Legislation and Best Practice relevant to the full range of local sporting and recreational needs;

 

§ To develop a Randwick City Council Check list, code conduct and terms of reference;

 

§ To comment on Council planning instruments; including Plans of Management, Development Control Plans (DCPs), Local Environmental Pans (LEPs), Strategic Plans in relation to sporting facility access;

 

§ To assist Council in effective policy development through the provision of comprehensive advice in relation to sport;

 

§ To encourage participation from members of all sporting associations in Council’s decision making processes;

 

§ To assist Council in the identification of current and future sporting needs for the community;

 

§ The maintenance of a directory of the associations comprising the Sports Committee and associated activities (i.e.maintenance).

 

 

4.       DETERMINATIONS

 

The committee shall be an advisory body, operating on a consensus basis, which submits recommendations for consideration by Randwick City Council.

 

5.       MEMBERSHIP

 

Membership of the Committee shall consist of no more than 15 and no less than six Community representatives. In addition there will be two Councillors and the Mayor.

 

The community representatives will be residents of Randwick or people who are members of local sporting associations and/or facilities servicing the Randwick City Area.

 

Council staff representatives will include:

Manager Works

Manager, Planning, Policy & Performance

Community Consultation and Liaison Officer;

 

 

Depending on the nature of issues raised it may be necessary to invite relevant departmental staff to attend particular meetings.

 

 

6.         RESPONSIBILITIES OF MEMBERS

 

Members are requested to ensure effective and timely communication between the organisation the teams they represent and the Committee.

 

The Committee is a working committee and therefore it is anticipated that some tasks will need to be undertaken by members outside of meetings.

 

 

7.         RESPONSIBILITIES OF COUNCIL

 

Council will provide secretariat support, including minute taking and professional officer support as appropriate. 

 

 

8.         ELIGIBILITY FOR APPOINTMENT

 

Randwick City Council seeks members of the sporting community who are the peak representative for their sport code or club

 

 

9.         TERNURE OF MEMBERSHIP

 

Review of membership should be undertaken on a regular basis.

 

10.      PROCEDURES AND PROCEEDINGS

 

Meetings of the Committee shall be four times a year. Two at  the start of each season and two mid-season.

 

A quorum of the Committee shall be six members with voting

rights.

 

In relation to any procedural matter, the ruling of the Chairperson shall be final.

 

The Committee shall undertake an annual review and forward planning process to determine future directions and establishment of priorities.

 

Other interested individuals are welcome to attend meetings as observers but are recognised with consent of the Chairperson.

 

 

11.      NOTICE OF ORDINARY MEETINGS

 

Members of the Committee shall receive at least ten working days written notice of ordinary meetings and such notice shall include an agenda for that meeting.

 

 

12.      MINUTES OF MEETINGS

 

Minutes of meetings shall be made available to any interested residents for inspection and shall be published on Council’s Internet web site.

 

13.      NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETINGS

 

Should the need arise for a special meeting to consider a matter considered particularly urgent, a special meeting to consider only that particularly urgent matter, may be called by the Chairperson and two other committee members.

 

 

14.      ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS

 

Members may, in consultation with the Committee, request that an invitation be extended to a particular individual to attend a future meeting as a visitor, when it is considered that the visitor may be in a position to contribute to the proceedings.

 

15.      AMENDMENTS TO TERMS OF REFERENCE

 

These Terms of Reference shall only be amended with the Committee’s agreement.


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 88/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

TREE PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE TENDER - TENDER NO. T025/04

 

 

DATE:

16 November, 2004

FILE NO:

T025/04

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

As part of Randwick City Council’s tree management and maintenance operations, Tree Planting and Maintenance Tenders (T025/04) were called for the planting of approximately 1600 x 25 litre street trees along a number of main roads and coastal precinct streets throughout the City as well as their subsequent maintenance for a period of six (6) months.

 

ISSUES:

 

Background:

 

Council has allocated approximately $100,000 in its 2004/05 capital works budget specifically for the planting and maintenance of street trees along nominated main roads and coastal precinct streets.  On 22nd September, 2004, Council’s Acting General Manager approved the calling of Tenders for the provision of this service and a Tender was issued on 5th October, 2004.  Tenders subsequently closed at 10.00 am on Tuesday, 26th October, 2004.

 

Current Position:

 

Council’s prescribed Tender evaluation plan has been adhered to and a recommendation made for the award of Contract justified on the basis of:

 

·    Demonstrated need and allocated funding for goods and services; and

·    Endorsement of business case.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is $100,000 specifically allocated in the 2004/05 Capital Works Budget for street tree planting and maintenance along designated main roads and coastal precinct streets.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

All submitted Tenders have been fully evaluated and the recommended goods/services conform to Council’s requirements.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

THAT:

 

a.   the Tender (T025/04) for Tree Planting and Maintenance be awarded to Plateau Tree Service Pty Ltd and that council enter into a contact under Clause 19 of the Local Government (Tendering) Regulation 1999;  

 

b.   authority be granted for the General Manager in conjunction with the Mayor to sign and affix Council’s Common Seal to enter into a Contact on behalf of Council with the recommended Tenderer for Tree Planting and Maintenance as listed in the Tender Evaluation Report above; and.

 

c.   the unsuccessful Tenderers be notified of the Tender result.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Tender Evaluation Report - under separate cover, (under separate cover)

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

BRYAN BOURKE

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TREE MANAGEMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 89/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

BUSH REGENERATION WORKS - TENDER NO T024/04  

 

 

DATE:

15 November, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/08129

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The bush regeneration works tender was initiated to better manage the engagement of bush regenerators by Council Officers in an accountable, transparent manner and strictly in accordance with Council’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures.

 

The tender offers a three year contract period with Council’s option to extend the contract period for two further 12 month terms.  The tender replaces a number of previous contracts established in 2002 which have now expired.  It is expected that this tender will provide substantial efficiencies and improve effectiveness for Council through a single term contract, compared to the time and costs associated with the issue of multiple contracts per annum for individual bush regeneration sites and services. The standing offer contract will enable staff to source all bushland maintenance needs from the selected panel.

 

This is a standing offer contract, allowing Council to select contractors from a panel to do various works, as they are required, and allows the flexibility to not use a contractor if their work is found to be lacking.  The estimated annual cost of bush regeneration works is $200,000.  The minimum individual works are expected to be in the vicinity of $5,000 and the maximum in the vicinity of $35,000.  The General Manager and the Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services approved the tender before it was issued.

 

This tender process was performed in accordance with the Local Government Act, 1993, Tendering Regulation 1999 and Council’s Purchasing Policy and Procedures.

 

ISSUES:

 

BACKGROUND

 

As Council does not have sufficient skilled persons amongst its outdoor staff, bush regeneration activities have been carried out primarily by contractors since 1991.  Council manages 13 hectares of remnant bushland and an unmeasured number of hectares of unlandscaped and otherwise unmanaged land particularly along the coastal strip.  These areas are the responsibility of the Bushland Management Division.  All Council’s remnant bushland is now included in a plan for its restoration.  The unmanaged land is designated for revegetation in the long term to create a contiguous strip of natural areas along the coast.  The cost of this will be spread over many years with only small areas being treated each year according to available resources.

 

TENDER ASSESSMENT:

 

Tenders were evaluated strictly in accordance with Council’s Purchasing Policy, Procedures and the approved Evaluation Plan, and in compliance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1993 and Tendering Regulation 1999.

 

A Tender Evaluation Plan was developed and approved by the Supply Coordinator prior to the tender close. The roles and responsibilities of the Evaluation Committee members are outlined in the Tender Evaluation Plan and summarized in the table below.

 

Members Name

Position Title

Council Department

Specific  Responsibilities

Omar Seychell

Noxious Weeds Officer

A&IS

Create tender documents and evaluation plan, and evaluate tender submissions

Bettina Digby

Natural Resources Coordinator

A&IS

Review and edit tender documents and evaluation plan, evaluate tender submissions.

Don Mann

Supply Coordinator

Governance

Evaluate tender submissions and endorse Evaluation Plan

 

The following tender evaluation criterion was used to assess the value for money offered by the tenderers.

 

Evaluation Criteria

·    Price

·    Tender Schedules

·    Quality Assurance

·    Occupational Health and Safety Plan and Procedures

·    Tenderers' Environmental Policies and Procedures

·    Tenderers' capacity, qualification and previous experience

·    Tenderers' financial capacity/stability

·    References

·    Availability

 

A detailed breakdown of the evaluation criteria and weightings is outlined in Attachment A.

 

TENDERS RECEIVED

 

Nine (9) tenders were received

 

LATE TENDERS

 

No late tenders were received.

 

NON CONFIRMING TENDERS

 

No non-conforming tenders were received. 

 

CONFORMING TENDERS

 

Nine (9) conforming tenders were received and proceeded to a detailed evaluation.

 

TENDER EVALUATION  - SELECTION OF TENDERERS

 

Tenderers were evaluated against each evaluation criteria outlined in the Tender Evaluation Plan to determine a quality score.  To determine which tenderers offered the best value for money, the quality score was divided by the Cost Index to determine the Value for Money score.

 

Each person on the evaluation panel assessed the submissions in isolation and although the individual scores allocated by each panel member varied, the scores of each panel member demonstrated the same relativity between contractors.  That is, each evaluator arrived at the same conclusion as to the order of the submissions.

 

It was anticipated that there was a need for a small number of contractors to be selected to be on the Bush Regeneration Works panel. The bush regeneration contractors selected will implement the restoration and revegetation works as planned by Council staff.  This work requires botanically and technically skilled people to achieve a positive outcome. 

 

Of the 4 preferred contractors recommended by the Evaluation Committee to supply under this contract, all have the resources, skills and expertise required to undertake bush regeneration works in a number of ecological plant communities within the Local Government Area.

 

TENDERER SUBMISSION SUMMARIES

 

The evaluation committee considered that Bush Habitat Restoration Cooperative, Toolijooa Environmental Restoration, Sydney Bush Regeneration Company and the National Trust of Australia offered the best value for money on a range of specialist weed control activities, including rope work, and competitive hourly rates for all required weed control services. Referees spoke highly of these contractors and in all cases noted that they would, and have, re-employed them when similar work became available.  All tenderer questionnaires and previous workplace experience showed a true understanding of working with Local Government and an ability to complete the work efficiently and effectively.

 

Total Earth Care Pty Ltd provided a comprehensive tender submission however it was not demonstrated that the site supervisors and bush regenerators had sufficient skills and experience in Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub,as specified in Section E9 of the tender documents.  Referees also commented on their untimely reporting and invoicing, and the inconvenience in having to acquire this documentation. 

 

Green Spectrum demonstrated moderate skills in performing primary weed clearing and one-off bush regeneration projects, and has a competitive hourly rate as specified on the schedule of rates. The company did not demonstrate the required level of skills and experience in Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub, as specified in Section E9 of the requirements specification. Referees provided were for works done on private property and Local Government. Responses from the referees were mixed, and included not employing the contractor again, as a result of poor work performance.      

 

Earth Repair, although providing a comprehensive tender submission, answered the tenderer questionnaire poorly. It was not demonstrated that the staff’s skills and experience were adequate to meet the requirements specified in Section E9 of the requirements specification. Work place referees identified untimely reporting and lack of communication between the client and the contractor.

 

All Suburbs Tree Services provided an adequate tender submission, completing all schedules to an acceptable level. The company, specializing in Arboriculture, did not appear to have in-depth knowledge of bush regeneration processes, principles and skills.

 

The hourly rate for the majority of the bush regeneration activities was less competitive in comparison to the majority of other submissions, and the company had only one employee with experience in remediation of natural bushland areas. All Suburbs Tree Services presents a significant risk to Council should they be placed on the bush regeneration panel, as they demonstrated a lack of previous work place history in bush regeneration, and a lack of sufficient bush regeneration staff to perform the work.  

 

Marsupial Landscapes provided a thorough tender submission however they did not provide copies of their Occupational Health and Safety, Environmental, and Quality Assurance plans and procedures as requested in the tender.  While they referred to these procedures, they failed to identify how they would implement them.  The hourly rate specified for the majority of the bush regeneration activities for Marsupial Landscapes was also the least competitive. Although Marsupial Landscapes has demonstrated a professional image, good rapport with its clients, and a skilled work team, due to the high rate quoted, this tenderer represents poor value for money. 

 

RECOMMENDATION SCHEDULE

 

The recommended tenderers for the Bush Regeneration Works Contract are listed below in order of value for money.  The following recommended tenderers quality, cost and value for money scores are outlined in Attachment B:

 

1.   Bush Habitat Restoration Cooperative Ltd

2.   Toolijooa Environmental Restoration

3.   The National Trust of Australia (NSW)

4.   Sydney Bush Regeneration Pty Ltd

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council’s remnant plant communities and areas maintained by Council’s Bushland Management Division are diverse, often requiring a large number of specialist bush regeneration skills and experience. This can be attributed to Council’s topography and geographical location. It is expected that the Bush Regeneration Works Contract will satisfy the majority of Council’s bush regeneration needs for the term of the contract. The Bush Regeneration Works Contract will primarily support the Asset and Infrastructure Services Departments in the delivery of their core maintenance activities.

 

TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE

 

The tender Evaluation Committee endorses the following recommendations.

Original Report signed by -

Mr Omar Seychell, Noxious Weeds Officer

Ms Bettina Digby Natural Resources Co-Ordinator

Mr Don Mann, Supply Co-Ordinator

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The estimated annual cost of bush regeneration works is $200,000 and sufficient funds for this purpose are provided in the 2004/05 Adopted Estimates.. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

1.         The tenderers, Bush Habitat Restoration Cooperative Ltd, Toolijooa Environmental Restoration Pty Ltd, The National Trust of Australia (NSW) and Sydney Bush Regeneration Pty Ltd be awarded contracts for a 3 year term with 2 options to extend for a further term of 12 months each for the supply of Bush Regeneration Works, and that Council enter into Contracts under Clause 19 of the Local Government Tendering Regulation 1999;

 

2.         That authority be granted for the General Manager, in conjunction with the Mayor, to sign and affix Council’s Common Seal to contracts on behalf of Council with the recommended tenderers for Bush Regeneration Works; and

 

3.         The unsuccessful tenderers be notified of the Tender result.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

a. Evalution Criteria and Weightings

b. Tenders Scores including Quality, Cost & Value for Money scores - under separate cover     

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

BetTINA DIGBY

A/DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

natural resources co-ordinator

 


 

Acting Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 90/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

PARKING SCHEME - THE SPOT

 

 

DATE:

15 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2714

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Works Committee, at its meeting held on 9  November, 2004, considered the attached Acting Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report No 79/2004 and it was resolved that -

 

“this matter be deferred to the next Ordinary Council meeting to allow input from all Councillors as this is the first and one of the most important parking management schemes ever adopted by Council”.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That

 

(a)  The Spot Precinct Resident Parking Scheme, Visitor Parking Scheme and General Parking Scheme be adopted for introduction on 1 March 2005;

 

(b)  All traffic facilities and signposting as detailed in Plans 1-14 of the final report, as amended, be implemented; and

 

(c)  Council will develop a Communication and Implementation Strategy that will be presented to the December Council Meeting.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. A/Director Asset & Infrastructure Services Report No 79/2004.

2. Minutes of Special Traffic Committee 19 Oct 2004

 

Under separate cover

1.Amended Plans Nos 4 & 14 and Typical Threshold Treatment - Detail Plan.

2. Report: "Final Report - The Spot Residents Parking Scheme & Parking Scheme"

3. Attachment: "Attachments to Final Report"     

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

ALAN OPERA

A/DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 79/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

PARKING SCHEME - THE SPOT

 

 

DATE:

25 October, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/2714

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES          

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At its meeting held on 11th May 2004 Council resolved that the Spot Resident Parking Scheme be adopted in principle and that the report be placed on public display and referred to the Traffic Committee for consideration.

 

The attached report entitled “Final Report - The Spot Residents Parking Scheme & Parking Scheme”, and the attached agenda and minutes of the Special Traffic Committee Meeting held on 19th October 2004, provide analysis and summary of these consultative processes.

 

ISSUES:

 

Numerous suggestions/proposals were submitted by both members of the Traffic Committee and members of the public in relation to certain aspects of the draft report. The attached final report provides a comprehensive review of the draft report in light of these submissions and where appropriate amendments have been made to the draft report. These amendments are summarized in Sections B, C & D of the Final Report and are dealt with in detail in the Attachments to this report.

 

Additionally the deliberations and recommendations of the Traffic Committee in respect of the final report and recommended amendments (i.e. Plans Nos. 4 and 14 amended 20th October 2004) are also attached.

 

The introduction of this scheme involves installation/alteration of signposting, construction of islands and kerb extensions, and bay marking and linemarking. All works for this scheme will be funded from the current budget allocation for the introduction of Parking Schemes during 2004/2005.

 

In accordance with Council’s draft policy for the introduction of permit parking schemes it is proposed, subsequent to adoption of this scheme by Council, that the scheme be advertised for four weeks and that letters and information brochures be forwarded to all premises within the Spot precinct. It is however considered ineffective to advertise the scheme over the December/January holiday period when many residents are likely to be away. Further it would be expected that annual closedowns will seriously affect construction works over this period. It is therefore proposed that the Spot Parking Scheme be implemented during January/February 2005 with the aim of being fully operational by 1st March 2005.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Construction, signage and line marking costs (to be funded from the

current budget allocation for the introduction of Parking Schemes

during 2004/2005):  Estimated to cost in the order of $80,000.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The final report on the Spot Parking Schemes confirms the need and demand for a Resident Permit Scheme in the Spot Precinct. Additionally the report identifies medium cost proposals to improve both the quantity and availability of public parking within the precinct to the benefit of all users. The proposals conform to the proposed policy and procedures for permit schemes and conform fully to relevant legislation.

 

It is considered that the Spot Parking Scheme, as detailed in the final report and subsequent amendments, should be adopted with the aim of implementing the scheme by 1st March 2005.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

i.    The Spot Precinct Resident Parking Scheme, Visitor Parking Scheme and General Parking Scheme be adopted for introduction on 1st March 2005,

 

ii.    All traffic facilities and signposting as detailed in Plans 1-14 of the final report, as amended, be implemented,

 

iii.   Councill will develop a Communication and Implementation Strategy that will be presented to the December Council Meeting.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.Minutes of Special Traffic Committee held on 19 October, 2004

 

Under separate cover:

1.  Amended Plans Nos: 4 & 14 and Typical Threshold Treatment - Detail Plan.

2.  Report:"Final Report - The Spot Residents   Parking Scheme & Parking  Scheme"

3.  Attachment: "Attachments to Final Report"        

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

ALAN OPERA 

A/DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 


 

MINUTES OF

SPECIAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE MEETING

19th OCTOBER 2004

 

SUBJECT:  PARKING SCHEME – THE SPOT

 

The Police, RTA and STA representatives to the traffic committee were requested to consider the attached matter as a special traffic committee item to be determined on 19th October 2004.

 

The Police representative, Sgt. Thompson, advised that the proposed unbroken edge line markings on the northern side of Coogee Bay Road (See Plan No.4) will lead to driver confusion as to the legality of parking within 10 metres of intersections. It was agreed that unbroken edge lines within 10 metres of the intersections on the northern side of Coogee Bay Road be replaced with broken edge lines.

 

Sgt. Thompson considered that due to significant resident opposition, the Stewart Street angle parking proposal (See Plan No. 14) should not proceed at this time. The committee agreed that Council should investigate this matter further for reconsideration at a future time, but otherwise agreed to continue with the proposal for resident parking and No Standing in Stewart Street at this time. The committee agreed that resident parking should be implemented in Stewart Street in parallel parking format covering the areas as shown on Plan No. 14. It was also agreed that the proposed No Standing restrictions at both ends of Stewart Street should be introduced to improve traffic conditions.

 

Council’s representative, Mr. Opera, advised that it was not intended to introduce raised pavements between the blister islands at the proposed thresholds in Lee Street (Plan No. 9), Soudan Street (Plan No. 12), St. Pauls Street (Plan No. 13c) and Stewart Street (Plan No. 14). Mr. Opera also advised that it was proposed to apply painted or a different pavement texture in the location of entry thresholds so as to reinforce the change in traffic conditions for drivers. The committee agreed that raised pavements were not required in these locations. The matter of pavement highlighting at entry thresholds would be referred to the RTA for consideration.

 

Mr. Opera advised that the specification of days of the week (i.e. Mon-Sun) on full time restrictions presents problems on public holidays and that it was proposed not to designate days on the signposting. The advice from the RTA’s legal section is that this action is preferable to wording of “Mon-Sun” or “7 Days”.

 

It is recommended:

 

1.   That The Spot Precinct Resident Parking Scheme, Visitor Parking Scheme and General Parking Scheme be adopted,

 

2.   That all traffic facilities and signposting as detailed in Plans 1-14 of the final report be implemented except as detailed in (a) to (d) below:

 

a)   That angle parking not be introduced in Stewart Street at this time, and that Council carry out further investigations in this respect in the future, and that resident parking be introduced in Stewart Street in parallel format covering the areas as shown in Plan No. 14, and that No Standing restrictions as proposed be introduced at both ends of Stewart Street,

 

b)   That unbroken edge lines on the northern side of Coogee Bay Road be replaced with broken edge lines 10 metres either side of the intersections with side streets,

 

c)   That raised pavements not be introduced between blister islands at the proposed thresholds, and that the proposal to introduce painted or different pavement texture in these locations be referred to the RTA for consideration,

 

d)   That days of operation not be designated on all full time period and resident parking restrictions

 

 

 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 91/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

NEW ACCESS RAMPS AT SOUTHERN CROSS DRIVE AND GARDENERS ROAD

 

 

DATE:

18 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/4405

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES    

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 24 January 2003, the Minister for Roads the Hon. Carl Scully announced an $80 million 10-year program of works to upgrade and improve the road network in the South Sydney region. The Minister stated that a package of works will be undertaken to improve traffic along South Dowling Street and Southern Cross Drive by upgrading key intersections along their routes.

 

The road network improvements will be designed to cater for the large increase in developments in the South Sydney region, including the Green Square Development and the new buildings in the Victoria Park Master Plan site. Mr Scully said that the previous Member for Heffron, Ms Deidre Grusovin, had campaigned hard for the funds to be made available for these works.  He added that “community consultation and environmental studies will begin shortly on these projects.”

 

However, other than the abovementioned broad statements by the Minister, no specific details of various works included in the program were available. Council to date is also unaware of any formal community consultation and environmental studies undertaken by the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA).

 

The main issues of concern for Randwick City Council relate to the increased traffic passing into and through the Randwick local government area.  Accordingly, Council in November 2003 made a submission to the RTA stating that the program should incorporate the following proposals:

 

·    In regard to the major improvements foreshadowed in the Program for the intersections of Cleveland Street, Dacey Avenue and Todman Avenue with South Dowling Street, such improvement works should be suitably designed to reduce pressure on the existing street network in the area by discouraging traffic passing through the Randwick LGA;

 

·    A direct connection to the Eastern Distributor, for both northbound and southbound traffic, from the Victoria Park Master Plan site;

 

·    Substantial at grade improvements to provide at least two exclusive right turn lanes for traffic turning right from O’Dea Avenue into South Dowling Street;

 

·    A full grade separated interchange at the intersection of Epsom Road and Southern Cross Drive;

 

·    RTA’s investigation should be extended to include the Eastern Distributor/Anzac Parade corridor. Currently the section of Anzac Parade, between the Kingsford roundabout and Todman Avenue, carries large volumes of through traffic that should ideally use Southern Cross Drive;

 

·    Council supports the reconfiguration of the O’Riordan Street, Wyndham Street, Bourke Street and Botany Road intersection. However, the impact of the Green Square Town Centre development should be carefully assessed, and increased traffic on Epsom Road should be directed through Southern Cross Drive. It is stressed that the residential amenity of Lenthall Street cannot be compromised; and measures aimed at not only reducing traffic flows but also strengthening of the road pavement to cater for the heavy traffic flows would need to be undertaken;

 

·    The widening of Lachlan Street and McEvoy Street is also supported, however, any increased cross regional traffic flow at its eastern end, should be directed along South Dowling Street/Eastern Distributor;

 

·    Any direct connection between Southern Cross Drive and Gardeners Road should be carefully assessed in terms of its impact on the Kingsford roundabout.  

 

The Ward Councillors were advised of Council’s submission to the RTA as outlined above.

 

Subsequently Council at its meeting held on 25 May 2004, resolved:

 

that Council’s Traffic Officers meet with representatives of the Minister for Roads in relation to residents requests for the reopening of Dalmeny Avenue at Kimberley Grove.”

 

On 5 July 2004, a meeting was therefore convened to discuss this issue. At that meeting Council was represented by Mayor Councillor Murray Matson, Councillor John Procopiadis, Councillor Bradley Hughes, the then Director Asset and Infrastructure Services Mr Mick Savage, Director of Planning Ms Sima Truuvert and Senior Traffic Engineer Mr Ken Kanagarajan. The RTA was represented by Mr Michael Veysey, General Manager - Sydney Client Services and his team of Network Managers.

 

RTA officers indicated support in principle to Council’s submission and stated that Council’s proposals will be incorporated in the RTA’s Traffic Modelling exercise, and Council will be advised in due course of the results of the RTA’s investigation of the issues.

In regard to Council’s request for the re-opening of Dalmeny Avenue, RTA representatives stated whilst this is not an issue for the RTA, it is a matter for the consideration of the City of Sydney.

 

The RTA indicated that although the re-opening of Dalmeny Avenue would reduce existing traffic volumes along Lenthall Street, it could however, adversely affect the residents of Dalmeny Avenue and therefore may not be supported by the City of Sydney.

 

Council’s Senior Traffic Engineer then brought to the attention of the RTA’s representatives of the proposed development of two 32 storey buildings housing 900 residential units on the “Dolina” site at 87-103 Epsom Road, Rosebery. He stated that this development, if permitted, will significantly increase the traffic and congestion in the area and cause a substantial increase in traffic on Lenthall Street, which is already experiencing very high traffic volumes, which are well above the pavement design levels.

 

RTA’s Mr Michael Veysey stated that this development will be assessed under the provisions of Schedule No.1 of Environmental Planning Policy No. 11 (SEPP 11). He gave the assurance that the advice from the RTA to the City of Sydney concerning this development proposal will include a condition requiring consultation with Randwick City Council to discuss and implement suitable measures which will mitigate further traffic increases along Lenthall Street as a result of this development.

 

He added that the RTA does not have a proposal at this time for the provision of a full or partial grade separated interchange at the intersection of Epsom Road and the Eastern Distributor.  However, the Authority would ensure that any new buildings or structures associated with the development on the “Dolina” site are erected clear of the land required for the future construction of the interchange.

 

Council is advised that the above conditions have been incorporated in RTA’s letter dated 19 October 2004, to the City of Sydney.

 

Mr Michael Veysey then advised that early consideration of road network issues and the projected benefit cost estimates have indicated that the provision of access ramps from Gardeners Road to Southern Cross Drive would help alleviate congestion in the South Sydney area. Consequently, this project has now been prioritised for immediate development while the other options are further analysed and developed.

 

SOUTHERN CROSS DRIVE / GARDENERS ROAD – PROVISION OF NEW ACCESS RAMPS

 

On 24 September 2004, the Minister for Roads released plans to build ramps on Gardeners Road at Eastlakes that will provide direct access to and from Southern Cross Drive.

 

The Minister said that this project, at an anticipated cost of $12 million, would be the first   to go ahead as part of the 10-year $80 million Roads Boost for South Sydney program announced earlier in 2003.

 

There is currently no link between Gardeners Road and Southern Cross Drive, and this proposal will incorporate south facing ramps between these two roads.

 

The Minister announced that tenders are due to be called in the first half of 2005, with construction work planned to start in the second half of  2005 and completion expected in late 2006.

 

ANTICIPATED BENEFITS OF THE RAMPS:

 

It is considered that the Gardeners Road ramps with Southern Cross Drive will contribute greatly to the movement of people and goods across the southern inner City area. The impact of these ramps would help alleviate congestion as far as Cleveland Street.

 

The ramps have been proposed in line with the RTA’s strategic aim of improving transport efficiency, alleviating congestion, improving the traffic flows and reducing travel times.

 

Currently, motorists who travel along Southern Cross Drive each day for their destinations in the eastern suburbs (e.g. University of New South Wales, The Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney Cricket & Sports Grounds, Randwick Racecourse, Bondi etc.) either mainly use Link Road / Lenthall Street corridor, or O’Dea Avenue / Todman Avenue to reach their destinations. Should the ramps be completed, there will be a significant reduction of traffic volumes in Lenthall Street.

 

The ramps will also service the increase in transport demand anticipated from both the expected developments and growth in the South Sydney area and from the Cross City Tunnel. They will ease the pressure on access ramps elsewhere on Southern Cross Drive and provide a viable alternative for traffic wishing to access the Eastern Distributor / M5 routes.

 

DESIGN DETAILS OF THE RAMPS:

 

The ramp project (see Attachment) comprises:

 

·    a northbound off-ramp for traffic exiting Southern Cross Drive into Gardeners Road, incorporating one left turn lane and two right turn lanes into Gardeners Road;

 

·    a southbound on-ramp for traffic from Gardeners Road to Southern Dross Drive, incorporating one left turn lane for westbound traffic in Gardeners Road and one right turn lane for eastbound traffic in Gardeners Road;

 

·    removal of the existing pedestrian signals across Gardeners Road at Tunstall Avenue;

 

·    the provision of traffic signals to control vehicle and pedestrian movements at the intersections of both the on and off-ramps with Gardeners Road;

 

·    relocation of a bus stop for westbound buses on Gardeners Road; and

 

·    the closure of one lane of westbound traffic on the Gardeners Road overbridge.

 

ISSUES:

 

As stated earlier the ramps would alleviate congestion along the Southern Cross Drive intersections as far as Cleveland Street. There will be a significant reduction of traffic volumes in Lenthall Street.

 

The RTA has stated that the predicted traffic volumes on the ramps for the am peak hour for the year 2016 are 1162 vehicles per hour for the off-ramp and 717 vehicles per hour for the on- ramp.

 

It is expected that the proposed off-ramp with two right turn lanes to Gardeners Road will have a significant adverse impact on the West Kingsford Precinct. It is estimated that 800 vehicles during the am peak hour or two thirds of traffic on the off-ramp will pass into and through the Randwick local government area.

 

This will result in Tunstall Avenue, Eastern Avenue and Cottenham Avenue each carrying an additional traffic volume of approximately 200 vehicles per hour (3 to 4 vehicles per minute) during the am peak. In addition, the Kingsford roundabout will be further congested with an additional 200 vehicles per hour during the am peak.

 

Council has been greatly concerned for sometime about the speed and volume of traffic filtering through the residential streets of West Kingsford.

 

Following detailed investigations through the Randwick Traffic Committee and extensive community consultation, Council at its meeting held on 27 July 2004, approved the West Kingsford Local Area Traffic Management Scheme incorporating various traffic calming measures at several locations within the area. Due to funding constraints, the implementation of these works has to be deferred at least until next year’s budget allocation.

 

Council considers these works as priority measures for implementation due to the apparent inaction by the RTA in its management of the phasing and priorities of the operations of traffic signals on Gardeners Road and Anzac Parade to discourage cross traffic movements taking short cuts through local residential streets.

 

The construction of the proposed ramps will further deteriorate the amenity of this unique residential neighbourhood. It is therefore considered that the RTA should be responsible for providing traffic calming measures in the West Kingsford Precinct, to reduce the impact of any additional traffic infiltration resulting from the provision of the new access ramps. Increasing the capacity of the Kingsford roundabout system must be part of the Local Area Traffic Management now.

 

The RTA has not yet conducted a comprehensive traffic noise assessment as a result of the proposed ramps. It is therefore considered that the RTA should be responsible for the implementation of appropriate noise mitigation measures as required.

 

The Member for Heffron, Ms Kristina Kenneally, has supported the new access ramps and stated that “an environmental assessment as well as investigations into pedestrian movements and local traffic arrangements would now be undertaken. These are expected to be completed later this year.”

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There will not be any financial implication to Council as a result of the access ramps, should the RTA undertake implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in this report.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that the Gardeners Road access ramps with Southern Cross Drive will contribute greatly to the movement of people and goods across the South Sydney area.  There will be a significant reduction of traffic volumes in Lenthall Street and the impact of the ramps would alleviate congestion at key intersections as far as Cleveland Street.

 

Council should therefore support this initiative by the State Government and encourage  its early implementation. However, this support should be subject to appropriate works being carried out.

 

The RTA should be responsible for providing traffic calming measures in the West Kingsford Precinct, as approved by Council at its meeting held on 27 July 2004 and as outlined in Attachment B, to reduce the impact of traffic infiltration through the Precinct.

 

In addition, the RTA should implement appropriate noise mitigation measures as identified in the environmental assessment, due to the impact of the proposed ramps.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.   Council support the concept of the Gardeners Road access ramps with Southern Cross Drive, and encourage the early implementation of this initiative by the New South Wales State Government subject to the following conditions, namely that:

 

a)   The RTA be responsible for the funding and implementation of traffic calming measures in the West Kingsford Precinct as approved by Council, to discourage cross traffic movements taking shortcuts through these local residential streets;

 

b)   The RTA implement appropriate noise mitigation measures, as identified in the environmental assessment, prior to the completion of the ramps, subject to Council being satisfied with these measures;

 

c)   The provisions for pedestrian movements and local traffic arrangements on Gardeners Road shall be to the satisfaction of the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

d)   Six months after completion of the access ramps, the RTA shall undertake a full comprehensive traffic assessment of the operation of the Kingsford Roundabout to assess the impact of the ramps, and implement appropriate measures in consultation with Randwick City Council, to improve the traffic flows through Gardeners Road/the roundabout/Anzac Parade corridor;

 

e)   The RTA shall undertake appropriate Community Consultation, prior to the implementation of measures outlined in a) to d) above;

 

2.   A brief statement be included in the Mayor’s column in the Southern Courier to  state Council’s position on the proposed ramps;

 

3.   The City of Sydney be urged to consult Randwick City Council to discuss and implement suitable measures which will mitigate further traffic increases along Lenthall Street as a result of the proposed development on the “Dolina” site at 87-103 Epsom Road, Rosebery, prior to granting approval to this development, and as required by the RTA in its letter dated 19 October 2004 to the City of Sydney;

 

4.   The City of Sydney be requested to investigate and undertake Community Consultation in relation to residents’ requests for the reopening of Dalmeny Avenue, Rosebery, at Kimberley Grove;

 

5.   The RTA be urged to formalise the design for the provision of a grade separated interchange at the intersection of Epsom Road and Southern Cross Drive and prioritise it as the next to go ahead as part of the 10 year $80 million Roads Boost for South Sydney program;

 

6.   The RTA be requested to provide an update of its investigations and traffic modelling of the various measures proposed by Randwick City Council for inclusion in the $80 million program;

 

7.   The Member for Heffron, Ms Kristina Kenneally, be advised that while Randwick City Council acknowledges, in principle, the wider benefits of the proposed ramps in improving overall transport efficiency, by contributing greatly to the movement of people and goods across South Sydney region, Council cannot unconditionally support any proposals that would be detrimental to the local residential amenity in its local government area, and would therefore seek her support in achieving appropriate Community Consultation and acceptance of the proposed mitigation works prior to their implementation by the RTA; and

 

8.   The Member for Heffron be requested to liaise with the Council of City of Sydney in support of residents’ requests for the reopening of Dalmeny Avenue, Rosebery, at Kimberley Grove.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

The layout of proposed access ramps

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

 

PETER STONE

 

KEN KANAGARAJAN

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 92/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

OFF - STREET PARKING FOR MCDONALDS AT KINGSFORD - PROPOSED ENFORCEMENT BY COUNCIL'S  RANGERS

 

 

DATE:

15 November, 2004

FILE NO:

R/0060/02

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council has received representation from McDonald’s Australia Limited concerning illegal parking, by students of the University of New South Wales, at the Kingsford McDonald’s car park area, located at the south eastern corner of Anzac Parade and Barker Street, Kingsford.

 

It has been stated that due to the immediate proximity of the site to the UNSW, students park illegally at the car park with the result that genuine customers of the restaurant are often unable to park there, and therefore drive away without conducting business.

 

There are 43 spaces within the car park, and at present McDonalds have installed signs stating “McDonalds Customer Parking Only, 30 Minutes Limit”. McDonalds have requested enforcement of these car parking spaces by Council’s Rangers with a view to generating a greater turn over of parking for the customers.

 

The matter was referred to the Randwick Traffic Committee for its consideration. The Committee has reported that whilst the car park area is within private property, it is a ‘road related area’. Under the Australian Road Rules, it is ‘an area that is not a road and that is open to or used by the public for driving, riding or parking vehicles’, and as such enforcement by Council’s Rangers can be undertaken provided that the area is appropriately signposted in accordance with the Australian Road Rules, the spaces are line marked and numbered to achieve effective enforcement and the owner of the land agreeing to such an arrangement. The Traffic Committee raised no objection to the proposed Council enforcement of the area.

 

The Traffic Committee has recommended that 38 spaces within the car park be signposted as “2 Hour Parking 8am - 8pm Seven Days”; three spaces near the staff entrance be signposted as “No Parking Authorised McDonalds Staff Vehicles Excepted”; one space near the main entrance be designated for Disabled Parking; and one space near the delivery dock be signposted as “Truck Zone 8am - 8pm Seven Days”.

 

McDonalds has agreed to meet the full cost of line marking and signposting, as specified by Council.

 

ISSUES:

 

The provision, control and regulation of parking, both on-street and off-street, within the local government area is an important element within Council’s Planning and Development objectives and overall Transport Philosophy for the City.

 

Council at its meeting held on 27 July 2004 adopted the City of Randwick On-Street Parking policy. This policy has been developed to ensure that all on-street parking spaces are used in the most appropriate manner catering for the differing needs of the various users in all parts of the City.

 

One of the objectives of the Policy reads: “Assist private land owners (eg. McDonalds at Kingsford, Coles at Maroubra Junction) in eliminating improper use of their off-street parking facilities”.

 

Currently, Council Rangers enforce parking restrictions within the Coles Supermarket car park area at Maroubra Junction, under a temporary arrangement with Coles. This temporary arrangement has been operating for nine months.

 

The penalties that commonly apply to these car park areas are: Disobey ‘No Parking’ signs - $70; Disobey ‘No Stopping’ signs - $155; Exceeding the permitted parking time limit - $70; and Illegal Parking at ‘Disabled Parking’ space - $392.

 

The estimated net revenue to Council through enforcement of the Maroubra Coles car park is approximately $20,000 per annum. No additional Rangers have been allocated to supervise this car park area, and the area is covered as part of the regular patrols of the Maroubra Precinct.

 

PROPOSAL:

 

It is proposed that Council undertake enforcement of parking within McDonald’s car park at Kingsford, and enter into a Deed for such an arrangement. The Deed would need to cover issues such as termination, costs to be borne by McDonalds and enforcement revenue to be retained by Council.

 

The current temporary arrangement with the Coles Supermarket at Maroubra Junction will cease soon when Coles moves to its new premises within the Pacific Square Development.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

It is anticipated that the enforcement of parking at the Kingsford McDonald’s car park, if undertaken by Council, will generate additional $30,000 net revenue per annum to Council.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that there would be a substantial benefit to the community as a result of Council’s parking enforcement of car park areas owned by private and commercial establishments. These benefits include a more orderly and greater turn over of parking, and assisting with the financial viability of businesses in Council’s area. Additional revenue to Council would also be generated. These parking enforcements are in accordance with City of Randwick On-Street Parking Policy.

 

Such enforcement practices are carried out successfully by many Metropolitan Councils for the purposes of achieving greater turn over of parking catering for the needs of the various users in all parts of the local government area, and should therefore be considered by Council for adoption.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.   Council undertake enforcement of parking within McDonalds car park at Kingsford;

 

2.   A Deed be prepared by McDonalds Australia Limited, and vetted by Council’s Legal Officer, for such an arrangement;

 

3.   All costs associated with the signposting and line marking of the parking spaces be borne by McDonalds; and

 

4.   All revenue raised through the parking enforcement be retained by Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

 

Nil

 

 

……………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

KEN kanagarajan

A/DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER

 


 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 93/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Footpath Petition- Kyogle Street, Maroubra

 

 

DATE:

1 November, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/07364

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

On 4th October 2004, a petition signed by residents of Kyogle Street was forwarded to Council requesting for funds from the 2004/05 Footpath Construction Programme to be reallocated towards the construction of footpath on Kyogle Street, in Maroubra.

 

In particular the petition refers to footpath funding that was initially allocated towards Nervorie Crescent and Marjorie Crescent, which were listed in the 2004/05 Footpath Construction Programme.  However residents of Nervorie Crescent and Marjorie Crescent requested that Council omit these streets from the 2004/05 footpath construction programme. 

 

ISSUES:

 

Perviously, two petitions were received from residents of Nevorie Crescent and Marjorie Crescent.

 

At Council’s meeting held on 26 August 2004, it was resolved that the available funds previously allocated to the construction of footpath at Marjorie Crescent be reallocated to provide a footpath in Snape Street on the southern side, between Percival Street and Charman Avenue. 

 

At Council’s meeting held on 21 September 2004, it was resolved that the available funds previously allocated to the construction of footpath at Nevorie Crescent be reallocated to provide a footpath in Henning Avenue on the western side, between Moverly Road and Argyle Crescent.

 

Due to the above Council resolutions, these funds have already been reallocated and approved by Council for the construction of footpath on Henning Avenue and Snape Street. 

 

Kyogle Street is not currently included in the 2004/05 Footpath Construction Programme; however it is located in Central Ward and does not have a continuous footpath constructed on either side of the street. Provided that funding is available, Kyogle Street between Mons Avenue and Fitzgerald Avenue will be listed for inclusion in a future footpath construction programme as part of the 5-year footpath construction initiative.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There will be no financial implications for the current 2004/05 financial year.

 

All works associated with the proposed construction of footpath at Kyogle Street is estimated to cost $35,000.  However Council will not incur any financial impacts until the footpath on Kyogle Street is adopted in a future footpath construction programme. 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Footpath construction in Kyogle Street should be included in a future footpath construction programme, since funds have already been reallocated to Henning Avenue and Snape Street and the residents should be advised accordingly.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.   Residents be advised that available funding has already been reallocated towards the construction of footpaths on Henning Avenue and Snape Street; and

2.   Residents be advised that footpath construction on Kyogle Street will be listed for consideration in an upcoming footpath construction programme.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Petition from residents of Kyogle Street, Maroubra

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

ANNIE SHUM

ACTING DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ANCILLARY ASSETS ENGINEER

 

 

 



Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 94/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

BOWEN LIBRARY - TENANTS COMPENSATION CLAIM REGARDING THE ERECTION OF COUNCIL'S SAFETY FENCING.

 

 

DATE:

15 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/5446

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES      

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

 

At its meeting held on 25 February, 2003, Council, in relation to the matter of compensation for one of the tenants at Bowen Library, resolved that a further report be submitted to Council detailing:

 

i)          Why did it take a considerable time for Council to proceed with rectification works at the site?

ii)         Why did it take from February to August 2001 to get a structural engineer to obtain a report?

iii)         When was the structural engineer appointed by Council?

 

The following report details the sequence of events taken by Council to ensure the safety of the public around the Bowen Library Building and the design and commencement of the replacement of the Bowen Library façade.

 

Background

In February 2001, pieces of the Bowen Library cement façade fell from the building landing on the footpath in Anzac Parade. As a result of this on 15th February 2001, Council installed safety fencing to ensure the safety of pedestrians from further falls of cement render.

 

In late February 2001, Council staff with the approval of the RTA, shut down the kerb side lane in Anzac Parade to allow the use of a cherry picker to remove most of the loose pieces of cement render and to investigate the extent of the delaminated “drummy” render. Large areas of delaminated render were subsequently discovered which could not be easily removed safely with a cherry picker and safety fencing.

 

ISSUES:

 

When was the structural engineer appointed by Council?

 

A consultant's brief was prepared and quotations sought to investigate the cause of the delaminated render and to design, specify and prepare tender documents to allow a contract to be let to repair the façade render.   Stephenson Turner International Architects, which were the original architects for the construction of the Bowen Library, were engaged in March 2001 to undertake and manage the repair project.

 

Structural engineers Meinhardt Façade Technology Pty Ltd were engaged by Stephenson Turner International and the structural engineer’s preliminary report was available to Council in May 2001.

 

Why did it take from February to August 2001 to get a structural engineer to obtain a report?

 

Key findings of the structural report for the reasons why the façade render was failing included a combination the following factors: double curvature flexure of the brick skin walls caused from building load transfer from the slender floor beams to the brick skin walls, lack of expansion joints in the brick skin walls to allow for thermal expansion and contraction and poor adhesion of the cement render to the brick skin walls.

 

Council’s officers in conjunction with the consultant architects determined that the facade should be replaced and the works be included with the third storey building addition (HACC facility) that was to be project managed by Council.

 

The consultant architects recommended an architectural hoarding that would allow the safety fencing to be removed. This hoarding would allow both the façade repair to be carried out as well as the third storey extension to proceed.

 

Why did it take a considerable time for Council to proceed with rectification works at the site?

 

The preparation of the design and the supporting documentation was completed and the  Work Cover and Council approvals were obtained by early September 2001 for the temporary hoarding.

 

Quotations were called for the construction of the architectural hoarding in October 2001. The builder commenced construction works on the 5th November and completed the hoarding on the 20th December 2001. The safety fencing was removed on the 21st December 2001.

 

The construction of the HACC facility and the repair of the façade commenced in March, 2003.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The consultant architects engaged the structural engineers in April 2001 and a preliminary report was issued in late May 2001 to allow investigation and design of the façade repair to commence. The final comprehensive structural engineer’s report which included a structural assessment and structural certification of the final design for the façade repair, the design of the expansion joints to the retro fitted, the hoarding and awning designs were completed in August 2001.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Compensation has been paid to all three (3) tenants as a result of the impact of the hoarding, however, one tenant’s claim has still not been finalised. The total amount of compensation paid to date is $90,657.00.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Acting Director Asset and Infrastructure Services’ Report on the Bowen Library Tenants Compensation Claim be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PETER STONE

JOHN EARLS

A/DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

ASSETS CO-ORDINATOR


 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 35/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

ARRANGEMENTS DURING CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR PERIOD FOR DECISIONS TO BE MADE BY COUNCIL AND SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR YEAR 2005.

 

 

DATE:

16 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/1738 xr 98/S/1078

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

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

 

ISSUES:

 

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

 

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

 

It has been the practice for many years for the Council to take a recess following the last Ordinary Meeting in December, to give Councillors and Officers the opportunity to either take holidays or to finalise the year’s activities and plan for the following twelve months.  During the previous recess periods, the Council’s Policy No. 1.01.11, which provided a means of obtaining decisions on urgent or important matters, prevailed. Over the past Christmas/New Year period (2003/04), two items of business were dealt with under this Policy.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

a)         That the Council go into recess following its Ordinary Meeting on Tuesday, 14th  December, 2004 and thence resume meetings in the new year commencing with Committee Meetings on Tuesday, 8th February, 2005, and during this period the provisions of Policy No. 1.01.11 prevail, subject to the need for any Extraordinary Meetings to be held in the intervening period to consider pressing matters; and

 

(b)        That the Meeting Schedule for the Year 2005 be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Policy No. 1.01.11

2.  Policy No. 2.01.06

3.  Council and Committee dates for Year 2005. 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 


RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART 1 -  COUNCIL MATTERS, MAYOR, COUNCILLORS AND STAFF

 

 

Review Date:    /     /                                                         Policy No: 1.01.11

 

 

POLICY TITLE:         COUNCIL IN RECESS – PROCEDURE.

 

 

File No.                   C-16-7

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

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

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

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

 

The Mayor, the Chairpersons of the Health Building and Planning Committee, the Administration & Finance Committee, the Community Services Committee and the Works Committee or in his or her absence, (or if the Mayor is the Chairperson of the Committee) the Deputy Chairpersons and the General Manager jointly be authorised to make decisions which would otherwise be made by the Council and any such decisions are to be unanimous and circulated to Councillors for their information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Amended:           386/1993                                               12 September, 1993     582/1993       14 December, 1993

                        566/1994                                                   18 October, 1994

                        577/1994                                                22 November, 1994

                        381/1996                                                10 December, 1996

                        264/1998                                                24 November, 1998

                        163/2000                                                 5 September, 2000


RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

POLICY REGISTER

 

 

PART 2 – GENERAL MANAGER’S OFFICE

 

 

Review Date:     /    /20                                                     Policy No: 2.01.06

 

 

 

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

 

 

File No.                   C-16-7

 

 

OBJECTIVE

 

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

 

 

POLICY STATEMENT

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Amended:              289/1989                                            19 September, 1989

General Manager’s Del. Auth. Revised legislation-Policy No. 2.01.04 [No.14(ii)] Local Government Act, 1993


COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETING DATES FOR 2005

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

 

JANUARY

FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

 

MON

 

 

 

 

 

 

MON

TUE

 

1

1

 

 

 

TUE

WED

 

2

2

 

 

1

WED

THU

 

3

3

 

 

2

THU

FRI

 

4

4

1

 

3

FRI

SAT

1 New Year’s Day

5

5

2

 

4

SAT

SUN

2

6

6

3

1

5

SUN

MON

3

7

7

4

2

6

MON

TUE

4

8 COMMITTEES

8 COMMITTEES

5

3

7

TUE

WED

5

9

9

6

4

8

WED

THU

6

10

10

7

5

9

THU

FRI

7

11

11

8

6

10

FRI

SAT

8

12

12

9

7

11

SAT

SUN

9

13

13

10 

8

12 

SUN

MON

10

14

14

11 

9

13 Queens’ Birthday

MON

TUE

11

15 

15

12  COMMITTEES

10 COMMITTEES

14  COMMITTEES

TUE

WED

12

16 

16

13 

11

15 

WED

THU

13

17

17

14

12

16

THU

FRI

14

18

18

15 

13

17

FRI

SAT

15 

19 

19

16

14 

18

SAT

SUN

16

20

20

17

15 

19

SUN

MON

17

21

21

18

16

20 

MON

TUE

18

22 COUNCIL

22 COUNCIL

19

17

21

TUE

WED

19

23

23

20 

18

22

WED

THU

20

24

24

21

19

23

THU

FRI

21

25

25 Good Friday

22 

20

24

FRI

SAT

22

26

26

23

21

25

SAT

SUN

23

27

27 Easter Sunday

24

22

26

SUN

MON

24

28

28 Easter Monday

25  ANZAC DAY

23

27

MON

TUE

25 

 

29

26  COUNCIL

24 COUNCIL

28 COUNCIL

TUE

WED

26 Australia Day (Holiday)

 

30

27

25

29

WED

THU

27

 

31

28

26

30

THU

FRI

28

 

 

29 

27

 

FRI

SAT

29 

 

 

30

28

 

SAT

SUN

30

 

 

 

29

 

SUN

MON

31

 

 

 

30

 

MON

TUES

 

 

 

 

31

 

TUES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meeting Times:

Community Services Committee

Works Committee

Administration & Finance Committee

5.30 p.m.

6.00 p.m.

6.00 p.m.

Council Meetings:

6.00 p.m.

 

Health, Building and Planning Committee

6.30 p.m.

Deadlines Close:

12.00 noon

G:\ADM\WP\GENERAL\STAN\MEETINGDATES-JAN-DEC 2005 - NO DEADLINES.doc                                                                                                                                                                 18 November 2004


 

COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE MEETING DATES FOR 2005

PUBLIC HOLIDAYS

 

JULY

AUGUST

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

NOVEMBER

DECEMBER

 

MON

 

1

 

 

 

 

MON

TUE

 

2

 

 

 

TUE

WED

 

3

 

 

2 Melbourne Cup Day

 

WED

THU

 

4

1

 

3

1

THU

FRI

1

5

2

 

4

2

FRI

SAT

2

6

3

1

5

3

SAT

SUN

3

7

4

2

6

4

SUN

MON

4

8

5

3 Labour Day Holiday

7

5

MON

TUE

5

9 COMMITTEES

6

4

8   COMMITTEES

COMMITTEES

TUE

WED

6

10

7

5

9

7

WED

THU

7

11

8

6

10

8 

THU

FRI

8

12

9

7

11

FRI

SAT

9

13

10

8

12

10

SAT

SUN

10

14 

11

9

13

11

SUN

MON

11

15 

12

10

14 

12

MON

TUE

12  COMMITTEES

16

13 COMMITTEES

11 COMMITTEES

15 

13 COUNCIL

TUE

WED

13

17

14

12

16

14 

WED

THU

14 

18

15

13

17

15

THU

FRI

15

19

16

14

18 

16

FRI

SAT

16

20

17

15

19

17

SAT

SUN

17

21

18

16

20

18

SUN

MON

18

22

19

17

21

19

MON

TUE

19

23 COUNCIL

20  EXTRAORDINARY COUNCIL (Elect Mayor & Deputy)

18 COUNCIL

22  COUNCIL

20

TUE

WED

20

24

21

19

23

21

WED

THU

21

25

22

20

24

22

THU

FRI

22 

26 

23  

21

25

23

FRI

SAT

23

27

24

22

26

24 

SAT

SUN

24

28

25

23  LGAC

27

25  Christmas Day

SUN

MON

25

29

26

24  LGAC

28

26  Boxing Day

MON

TUE

26  COUNCIL

30

27 COUNCIL

25  LGAC

29

27  Boxing Day (Holiday)

TUE

WED

27

31

28

26

30

28

WED

THU

28

 

29

27 

 

29

THU

FRI

29

 

30

28

 

30

FRI

SAT

30

 

 

29

 

31 New Year’s Eve

SAT

SUN

31

 

 

30

 

 

SUN

MON

 

 

 

31

 

 

MON

TUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

TUES

Meeting Times:

Community Services Committee

Works Committee

Administration & Finance Committee

5.30 p.m.

6.00 p.m.

6.00 p.m.

Council Meetings:

6.00 p.m.

 

Health, Building and Planning Committee

6.30 p.m.

Deadlines Close:

12.00 noon

G:\ADM\WP\GENERAL\STAN\MEETINGDATES-JAN-DEC 2005 - NO DEADLINES.doc                                                                                                                                                 18 November 2004


 

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 36/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

STATUS OF FINANCIAL REPORTS 2003/2004

 

 

DATE:

16 November, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/08331

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Under the provisions of the Local Government Act, a Council must prepare financial reports for each year (sect. 413), and must refer them for audit as soon as practicable after the end of that year.  The reports must be prepared and audited within a period of four months (sect. 416 (1)).  As well the Council’s Annual Report must include a copy of these audited reports.                                               

 

ISSUES:

 

It has not been possible to meet that deadline because of the implementation difficulties as the result of ‘Councils Online’ which imposed a very significant additional workload on Council’s accounting staff.  It is understood other Councils in the Councils Online Syndicate are experiencing similar issues.  In the main the difficulty is in reconciling accounts from two systems (TCS Stowe and Oracle Financials) in the one financial year.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Director General of the Department of Local Government has been advised of the reasons for the delay (sect. 416 (2)), and an extension of time has been applied for.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report on the Status of the 2003/2004 Financial Reports be noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


  

Director Governance, Management & Information Services' Report 37/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

S611 COURT COSTS IN HIGH COURT CASE WITH OPTUS AND TELSTRA

 

 

DATE:

17 November, 2004

FILE NO:

98/S/3624

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Reference is made to advice from the Local Government & Shires Association dated 20th October, 2004 in relation to the above matter (Attachment A).  Also attached is a confidential report considered by Council at its meeting of 25th May, 2004 (Attachment B).   This report gave Council an update of the background to this litigation as well as nominating the councils involved in the Optus and Telstra challenges.  It also confirmed the results of the litigation and flagged that as Randwick was the only council challenged by both Telstra and Optus, Randwick’s exposure to costs was greater than any other council involved.  However, at the time of the report there was no information available as to the magnitude of such costs.

 

The letter of 20th October, 2004 follows the one received on 17th June, 2004 (Attachment C) which claims the amount of $894,721.22 as costs in this case. Council’s General Manager at that time, agreed to reject this amount (on advice from the Local Government Shires Association) and a letter was subsequently sent to Optus’ solicitors outlining this agreed stance (Attachment D).

 

ISSUES:

 

The letter of the 20th October, 2004, indicated that the Optus offer of costs had been reduced from $894,721.22 to $590,000.00 and that as Randwick is one of the three (3) New South Wales Councils involved (along with Blacktown and Warringah) and one (1) Victorian council, its share of the costs could be $147,500.00.

 

As indicated in this correspondence the solicitors who have had carriage of this case on behalf of the councils recommended that this offer be accepted.

 

The letter also advised that a call will be made on all of the councils in NSW to help defray these costs.  However, it must be noted that there is no compulsion on these councils to answer this call and the costs could end up being paid by the four (4) councils directly involved in this case.

 

It should also be noted that the Telstra costs have now been been finalised. However, since Randwick is one of ten (10) New South Wales councils as well as three (3) Victorian councils in the Telstra matter, Randwick’s share in this situation will be $30,000.  A report from the Director of Asset and Infrastructure Services to the Acting General Manager dated 30 July, 2004 had recommended that Telstra’s original offer be rejected (and based on the LGSA’s confidence that negotiations would bring the cost to each NSW council down to a maximum of $34,000) the LGSA was informed that Council would agree to reject the Telstra offer and that the solicitors be allowed to negotiate on these costs subject to Council’s maximum liability in the Telstra matter being $34,000.  (Copy of report is Attachment E). As the amount negotiated is $30,000, this matter will be settled once Telstra receives Council’s $30,000. The deadline for this payment to be received by Telstra’s solicitors is 1 December, 2004.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

The costs incurred by Council, in the order of $177,500.00, have not been specifically budgeted for.  Once the costs are finalised, and the outcome of the LGSA’s call on other Councils to contribute is known, a review of the current budget will be undertaken to identify sufficient funds to cover this.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Based on the recommendation of Council’s solicitors, it was considered that Council should accept Optus’ offer in respect of costs incurred as part of the above litigation. The deadline for the acceptance of this offer by Council was Wednesday, 3 November, 2004. The payment of costs to Telstra has also been agreed to, based on the solicitor’s advice and the deadlines set at that time. Both of these offers of Court Costs against Council i.e. $147,500 for Optus and the $30,000 for Telstra have been agreed to and the LGSA has been informed that it is Council’s opinion that all NSW and Victorian councils which had the potential to benefit from S611 charges should contribute to these costs and the LGSA should continue to pursue a more equitable distribution of these costs from these councils. 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the report on the S611 Court Costs in the High Court Case with Optus and Telstra be noted and the actions taken, endorsed.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

ATTACHMENT A: Correspondence from LGSA dated 20 October 2004 on S.611 charges.

ATTACHMENT B: Confidential Report to Council Meeting on 25th May, 2004 on Section 611 Charges.

ATTACHMENT C: Correspondence from LGSA dated 17th June, 2004 in relation to Optus Vision costs in High Court Proceedings.

ATTACHMENT D: Correspondence from LGSA dated 23rd June, 2004 in relation to Optus Vision costs in High Court Proceedings.

ATTACHMENT E: Report dated 30 July, 2004 from the Director, Asset and Infrastructure Services to the Acting General Manager on the Telstra High Court Costs. ALL UNDER SEPARATE COVER.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MARK HUMMERSTON

 

DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE, MANAGEMENT & INFORMATION SERVICES

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 90/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Submission on the Metropolitan Strategy Discussion Paper for the Sydney Greater Metropolitan Region

 

 

DATE:

8 November, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/07912

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the end of September 2004 the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) released a discussion paper on the Sydney Greater Metropolitan Region Strategy (GMS).  The strategy is being exhibited for two months, with submissions to be received by 30 November 2004.

 

The strategy encompasses the Greater Sydney Metropolitan Region, the Central Coast, Lower Hunter and Illawarra regions.

 

The discussion paper follows the release of the Ministerial Directions Paper in May 2004, a range of community and stakeholder consultations and has drawn on a number of papers, research and other document.

 

Council officers have reviewed the GMS Discussion paper and have prepared a submission in response for Council’s endorsement.  This submission is provided in Attachment1.

 

ISSUES:

 

The strategy provides a long term vision for the next 30 years and aims to guide major decision making on the provision and locations of services and infrastructure requirements for housing, jobs, transport, schools, hospitals and the like.

 

As well as considering the regions of the central Coast, Lower Hunter and Illawarra, the Sydney region is further classified into 6 broad regional areas, being:

§ North West

§ West Central

§ South West

§ North

§ East Central

§ South

There are eight key issue areas identified in the GMS, with an overall sustainability objective.  The key issues include:

§ Urban growth

§ Housing and communities

§ Employment

§ Natural resources

§ Environment

§ Infrastructure

§ Transport

§ Linking the regions

 

Following on from these issues, the strategy identifies nine key ‘Directions for Managing the Regions”.  These include:

1.   Plan for balanced growth within natural resource constraints

2.   strengthen the regions

3.   manage growth and value non-urban areas

4.   build liveable new communities

5.   renew existing areas

6.   strengthen employment centres and precincts

7.   connect centres with the transport network

8.   target infrastructure

9.   use appropriate funding and government arrangements

 

The opportunity to comment on the direction of the GMS is welcomed as a broad and early information base for the strategy.  In summary the submission does however raise concern that:

§ there is a need for significantly more detail and extensive consultation;

§ there is commitment to ongoing strategy reviews in line with other state and Council planning functions, such as the State of the Environment Reporting;

§ there is limited discussion of a number of issues raised during consultation forums, such as affordable housing;

§ there is a need for immediate, short, medium and long term scenarios;

§ there is a need for directions and actions that are clear and measurable;

§ though the background studies are useful and relevant they are  not directly specific to the future growth and needs of the greater metropolitan region; and

§ the paper recognises existing infrastructure commitments rather than forward planning future infrastructure needs.

 

It is anticipated that the draft strategy will be exhibited in early 2005 and Council will have further opportunity to comment on the strategy at this time.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Council officers have attended several forums to date, totalling approximately 1 week of work hour resources.  Given the importance of the strategy for the future planning of the greater metropolitan area and the regions it comprises and thus the directions for local areas, staff will continue to be involved in further forums and information sessions.

 

It is expected regional forums will follow and there will be implications for strategic planning work such as the City Plan and the direction of Council strategies, therefore it is critical for strategic planning to be actively involved in the process.

 

A draft strategy will be re-exhibited and will require further review and submission.  Though the strategy will not involve any capital funding it is anticipated that this will involve overall approximately two to three week’s staff hours this financial year.

 

Following finalisation of the strategy Council may need to review its policy documents.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The opportunity to comment on the direction of the GMS is welcomed as a broad and early information base for the strategy.  However, it is expected that this strategy will be built upon in the next review to include greater detail and directions which are clear and measurable, with rigorous performance indicators that recognise and balance the economic, social and environmental costs and benefits.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Randwick City Council submission attached be endorsed for forwarding to the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.   under separate cover - Randwick City Council Submission on the Metropolitan Strategy Discussion Paper  

2.   Summary Extract of the Greater Metropolitan Strategy Discussion Paper

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

ROBYN EISERMANN

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SENIOR STRATEGIC PLANNER

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 91/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Affixing Council's Seal to Documentation - DADHC Funding Agreement

 

 

DATE:

17 November, 2004

FILE NO:

F2004/06275

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 48 of the Local Government (Meetings) Regulations 1993 requires that the Seal of 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:

 

The NSW Department of Ageing, Disability and Homecare (DADHC) requires organisations to view, sign and return the acceptance of the amended Funding Agreement to indicate that Council accepts the conditions of the amended Agreement for service provision for 2004/5, as outlined in Schedule 2 Part A, for Randwick Council.

 

Council currently receives this funding in two parts:

 

1.   A contribution towards the salary of Randwick City Council’s Community Development Worker, Aged Services to the value of $22,227;  and

2.   Recurrent funding of the Randwick Handyman Service to the value of $126,564.

 

The total grant obtained from DADHC is $149,291. These Funding Agreements are current for the financial year 04/05. It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the DADHC Acceptance of the amended Funding Agreement

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As Clause 48 of the Meeting 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 is granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the DADHC Acceptance of amended Funding Agreement.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.   Nil   

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

SHANE LOWE

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AGED & DISABILITY SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 92/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

Aeolia Street, RANDWICK

 

 

DATE:

11 November, 2004

FILE NO:

da-0785/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No. 785/2004, prepared by an independent planning consultant, for subdivision of part of Aeolia Street, Randwick, to enable proposed road closure.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.  Plans

2.  Director of Assets & Infrastructure Services Report dated 21 November 2002

3.  Site Map and Aerial Photo 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KERRY LONGFORD

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CONSULTANT PLANNER

 

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

11 November, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 785/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

 Subdivision of  part of Aeolia Street, Randwick, to enable proposed

PROPERTY:

Aeolia Street, Randwick

WARD:

East Ward

APPLICANT:

Randwick City Council

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Council at its meeting of 3 December 2002 resolved to make an application to close and sell the eastern section of Aeolia Street, Randwick to the Catholic Education Office.  This development application (DA785/2004) has been lodged by Randwick City Council and relates to the subdivision of the eastern section of Aeolia Street to faciliate the proposed road closure and sale.  The report has been prepared on behalf of Randwick City Council, the consent authority for the proposed development, as the application relates to land owned by Council. The proposed subdivision and future road closure will formalise an existing situation, since the subject site appears to be part of the Brigidine school and has not been used by the public for a considerable period of time. 

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

A development application has been submitted by Randwick City Council to subdivide a section of the eastern part of Aeolia Street, Randwick to enable the future closure of this section of road and disposal by Council to the Catholic Education Office.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

«Type Subject Site and Surrounds»

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

Council at its meeting of 3 December 2002 resolved to make an application to close and sell the eastern section of Aeolia Street, Randwick to the Catholic Education Office.  This development application relates to the subdivision of the eastern section of Aeolia Street to faciliate the proposed road closure and sale. 

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP-Public Notification. The owners of adjoining properties were notified of the proposed development on the 24 September 2004.  As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.

 

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   Director of Assets and Infrastructure

 

The application was referred to the Director of Assets and Infrastructure for comment.  No objections were raised subject to meeting Council’s resolutions regarding the road closure. 

 

6.2  Heritage Planner

 

The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for advice as the site is adjacent to the “Aeolia” Brigidine Convent and Chapel (identified as a heritage item in Schedule 3 of the Randwick LEP 1998).  The site is also adjacent to The Spot Heritage Conservation Area.  No heritage objections to the proposed subdivision were raised.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The master planning requirements in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 do not apply to the proposed development.

 

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 a road and is unzoned under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The proposed subdivision is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of the LEP 1998 apply to the proposal:-

 

Unzoned land (clause 39)

 

This clause states that “1) A person may, with the consent of the Council, carry out development on land unzoned on the map for the purpose of anything which is permissible on land adjoining that land”.

 

As Council intends to remove the site’s status as a road, and dispose of the site, it is recommended that the current unzoned status of the site be reviewed as part of Council’s administrative review of the Randwick LEP 1998 (refer Council resolution 12 October 2004) to ensure a zoning which is consistent with the site’s current use, as special uses.

 

Subdivision (clause 21)

 

This clause states that land may be subdivided, but only with development consent.  The purpose of the development application is to seek that consent.

 

Services (clause 22)

 

This clause states that “the Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development on any land only where it is satisfied that, when relevant to the proposed development, adequate facilities for the supply of water and for the removal or disposal of sewage and drainage are available to that land”.  The proposed subdivision may alter the situation regarding provision of services.  However, the following condition of consent is recommended: “The applicant shall create suitable rights of carriageway, easements for services and internal stormwater lines, as required.  The applicant shall be advised that the minimum easement width for any internal stormwater line is 0.9metres”.

 

8.1  Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan 

 

The site is unzoned and is part of an existing road and as such no development control plans apply to the site.  The site falls outside the land to which DCP No.22 – The Spot and Surrounds applies.

 

8.2  Council Policies

There are no Council policies that apply to the proposed subdivision.

 

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.

 

Having regard to all relevant matters for consideration, the proposal will not result in any adverse impact upon either the amenity of adjoining premises or the character of the locality.  The proposed subdivision will not affect the current access arrangements to Aeolia Lane. The proposed subdivision will facilitate future road closure and will formalise an existing situation, since the subject site appears to be part of the school and has not been used by the public for a considerable period of time.  However, the subject site is still classified as a ‘road’ and must be closed in accordance with the Roads Act, 1993.

 

10.  FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

The subject site is owned by Randwick City Council.  The purpose of the proposed subdivision is to facilitate road closure and subsequent sale of the site, and, as such, would have a positive financial impact.

 

11.  CONCLUSION

 

The proposal satisfies all relevant assessment criteria and may be approved subject to appropriate conditions.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.    THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No 785/04, subdivision of part of Aeolia Street, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.  The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the subdivision plan “Plan of Part of Aeolia Street creating Lot 102 for title issue and road closing under the Roads Act, 1993 (being part of ct. vol. 1835 fol.71)” dated 5 June, 2003 and received by Council on 20 September, 2004, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions:

 

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

 

2. The applicant shall provide Council with a survey plan of the road closure prior to finalisation of the linen plans.

 

3. The applicant shall create suitable rights of carriageway, easements for services and internal stormwater lines, as required.  The applicant shall be advised that the minimum easement width for any internal stormwater line is 0.9metres.

 

4. A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing if necessary, to determine the position and level of service. Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been or are able to be satisfied accordingly, shall be submitted to Council prior to a subdivision certificate being issued.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. A4 Plans

2. Director of Assets & Infrastructure Services Report dated 21 November 2002

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KERRY LONGFORD

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

CONSULTANT PLANNER

 

 

 



 

Director Asset & Infrastructure Services' Report 142/2002

 

 

SUBJECT:

AEOLIA STREET, RANDWICK - PROPOSED ROAD CLOSURE

 

 

DATE:

21 November, 2002

FILE NO:

R/0010/00

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 8 June 1999, considered the proposed partial road closure of Aeolia Street, Randwick and resolved:

 

“That Council make application to close and sell the section of Aeolia Street shown on the survey plan subject to -

 

1.         All survey and legal costs to be borne by the Catholic Education Office.

2.         A mutually acceptable valuer being retained by Council and paid for by the Catholic Education Office to determine the value of the subject land subject to the valuation  being referred back to Council for consideration.

3.         Catholic Education Office ensuring that none of the public utility authorities including AGL, Energy Australia, Telstra etc have any objection to the closure and sale of the subject land; and

4.         The Catholic Education Office advising the Council of the acceptance of all of the above conditions and providing Council with payment the application fee and all other fees required by the Department of Land and Water Conservation prior to Council making application for this closure.

 

Following a Motion Pursuant to Notice Council at its meeting held on 22 June 1999, resolved:

 

“That Council defer execution of its resolution of 8 June, 1999 shown above, relating to the Aeolia Street road closure request to allow time for the consideration of how the opportunity can be used to minimise existing parking problems in The Spot and East Ward Councillors consult with the Director of Planning and Environment on this matter prior to a submission of a further report to Council.”

 

ISSUES:

 

Following the above resolutions, some discussions took place with the College and the Catholic Education Office as a result of the College wishing to develop their land abutting the St Pauls St section of the site. The representatives of the Catholic Education Office indicated as part of these discussions that there was another section of unmade, unnamed laneway off Coogee Bay Road which was being utilised as a landscape curtilage for one of the college buildings which should also be officially closed and transferred to the College.

 

As a result of a Mayoral Minute which was submitted to Council for consideration at an Administration and Finance Committee Meeting held on 14 May, 2002, Council resolved:

 

“That subject to Council approving a DA for a multi-purpose centre for the school, retail space and a four level carpark on the St Pauls Street frontage of the College:

 

1.         Council endorse in principle the proposal to sell the two parcels of surplus roadway land at Aeolia Street and the unmade lane off Coogee Bay Road adjacent to the Brigidine site to the CEO.

 

2.         The Mayor and General Manager negotiate on behalf of Council a contribution from the proceeds of the sale of these two parcels of land to the CEO to enable the construction of an additional level of underground car parking for 46 cars as a commercial public car park.

 

3.         The final outcome of negotiations to be submitted to Council for approval.”

 

A number of meetings were held between the CEO representatives and Council Officers. The aim of the negotiations was to provide a commercially viable public carpark at The Spot with spaces dedicated for use by the public. The Council would not have any say in the running of the carpark except that there would have been some type of caveat or encumbrance to ensure that the carpark would have been available to the public in perpetuity. Council’s contribution would  have been the transferral of the 2 unused public roads discussed above to the college. Council officers sought and received valuations for these 2 sections of unused road which came to $500,000 for Aeolia Street and $220,000 for the unnamed laneway off Coogee Bay Road.

 

In an Email, received a few months ago, the CEO representative indicated that the Brigidine Sisters Provincial Council did not “want any caveat placed on their property  that might encumber the options that the future Trustees may have in disposing of the property.” As a result, the proposal for the development of a public car park was not pursued any further. 

 

The following letter dated 31 October, 2002 was subsequently received from The CEO:

 

“As you are aware, for many years Brigidine College has occupied and used two areas of land that are in the ownership of Randwick Council.  This permitted use has a long history and there have been a number of attempts by both Randwick Council and the Brigidine Sisters to regularise the situation.

This matter needs to be finalised in its own right and not associated with any other development that the College is considering.

 

The Catholic Education Office accepts the valuations prepared for Council by Errol Ferdinands AAPI.  These valuations were:

 

            Aeolia Street 706.8 m2):                                             $500,000

            “Laneway” to Coogee Bay Road (313.3m2):             $220,000

                                                            Total:                          $720,000

 

The properties will be purchased in the name of “The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney”.

 

Mr Bill d’Apice of Makinson and d’Apice, Solicitors and Notaries, will act on behalf of the Trustees.  Mr d’Apice can be contacted at Level 18, 68 Pitt Street Sydney, (phone number: 9233 7788).

 

I would be grateful if you can bring this offer to the notice of the Randwick Council.”

 

The application is an attempt to formalise an existing situation since both of the subject parcels of land appear to be part of the school at the present time and have not been used by the public for a considerable period of time. However these parcels are still classified as roads and must be closed in compliance with the Roads Act, 1993 before they can be transferred to the school.

 

Council also has a responsibility to dispose of its assets in a responsible manner and it is considered that any disposal of this land (should the closures proceed) should be subject to a sale dependent on a market value of this parcel of land, set by an independent valuer agreed to be both Council and agents acting for the College.  It is considered that due to the time lag involved in the negotiations, a new valuation should be sought and used to assess the current value of this land.

 

All costs involved in the application, including survey, legal, application and valuation costs, should be borne by the college or its agents as is the normal practice in these matters.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Council and the public do not currently have use of these parcels of land as public roads and they appear to be surplus to Council’s needs.

 

Any applications to close these roads must comply with Sections 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Roads Act 1993.  Council, as the roads authority, would need to apply for these closures on behalf of the Catholic Education Office and the Department of Land and Water Conservation is the determining authority.  The Department could then advertise the proposals as required by the Roads Act, 1993. 

 

Particular attention needs to be given to Section 38 2(b) which states:

 

            “2.        The land comprising a former road:

 

(b)        in the case of a public road that was previously vested in a council (other than a public road in respect of which no construction has ever taken place), remains vested in the council

(c)        in any other case becomes (or, if previously vested in the Crown, remains) vested in the Crown as Crown land”

 

Council should therefore note that there is no guarantee that Council will be the beneficiary of the sale of these two parcels of land, in particular the unnamed lane off Coogee Bay Road which currently comprises a landscaped curtilage to one of the college buildings. Even so it is still considered appropriate that Council as the roads authority and because of the reasonable nature of this request should take the initial step of applying to the Department to close and sell the relevant section of Aeolia Street and the unmade, unnamed laneway off Coogee Bay Road.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council make application to close and sell the section of Aeolia Street shown as Area 1 in Attachment A and the section of unnamed unmade lane off Coogee Bay Road shown as Area 2 in Attachment A, subject to:

 

a.         All survey and legal costs to be borne by the Catholic Education Office.

 

b.         A mutually acceptable valuer being retained by Council and paid for by the Catholic Education Office to determine the value of the subject lane.

 

c.         Catholic Education Office ensuring that none of the public utility authorities including AGL, Energy Australia, Telstra, etc. have any objection to the closure and sale of the subject lane.

 

d.         The Catholic Education Office advising the Council of the acceptance of all of the above conditions and providing Council with payment of the application fee and all other fees required by the Department of Land and Water Conservation prior to Council making application for this closure.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment A

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

MICK SAVAGE

FRANK ROTTA

DIRECTOR ASSET & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES

MANAGER DESIGN

 



 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 93/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

1A Thomas Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

11 November, 2004

FILE NO:

DA-0247/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No. 247/2004 for alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new first floor addition and roof terrace on existing garage roof.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Reductions .

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

2 November, 2004

FILE NO:

247/04

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new first floor addition and roof terrace on existing garage roof

PROPERTY:

 1A Thomas Street, Coogee

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Archivision

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 John Procopiadis, Dominic Sullivan, Alan White.

 

The applicant is seeking approval to construct first floor additions including a new rooftop terrace above the existing garage on the site at 1A Thomas Street in Coogee. The lot at 1A Thomas Street is a very irregular corner allotment and is small compared to surrounding sites. The subject site appears to have been excised from 1 Thomas Street, which contains a large Federation dwelling. The eastern boundary of 1A Thomas Street is up to 1 metre from the walls of the existing dwelling at 1 Thomas Street and the garage for 1 Thomas Street exists between Higgs Street and the rear yard of 1A Thomas Street. The site is elevated from street level and is within a heritage conservation area. It is considered that these aspects of the site constrain the development potential of the site and raise concerns in relation to construction of a second storey to the existing dwelling on the site.

 

The proposal is considered to be excessive in bulk and scale and has a built form that is inappropriate given the existing character of the area (including the Dudley Street Conservation Area and nearby heritage items). The development will be intrusive when viewed from the street. In addition, the applicant has failed to submit sufficient information in relation to heritage (Statement of Heritage Impact prepared in accordance with the NSW Heritage Manual, materials sample board) and amenity impacts of the proposal (adequate shadow diagrams).

 

The recommendation is for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

It is proposed to remove the pitched roof of the existing dwelling and construct a new first floor addition with skillion roof profile, comprising two bedrooms, two bathrooms, living area and large deck to the northeastern side. Balconies are also proposed to the southeastern and southwestern corners of the first floor addition.

 

A large roof terrace above the existing garage to the southern end of the existing ground floor also forms part of the works.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Thomas Street on the eastern corner of its intersection with Higgs Street. The site is currently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling that is elevated above street level with a garage and pool to the rear. The elevation of the dwelling above the street allows for a street level garage with access from Higgs Street. The site has a very irregular shape due to previous subdivision from the adjoining lot which contains a large Federation style dwelling house. The site has a frontage of 7.19m to Thomas Street and 18.53 to Higgs Street, a side boundary depth of approximately 27m and has an overall site area of 341.4m². Directly opposite the site across Thomas Street is Leete Park. The proposal is in the vicinity of a large bungalow at 7 Thomas Street which is a heritage item and is also located within the Dudley Street Conservation Area.

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

There are no recent development applications relating to the site.

 

The application was lodged on 8 April 2004 after several informal prelodgement meetings where it was suggested to the applicant that heritage advice be sought in relation to the development. On 1 June 2004 a meeting was held between planning staff, the heritage officer and the Mayor. On 3 June 2004 a follow up letter was sent to the applicant confirming the issues raised at the 1 June meeting. The issues related to the form and massing of the proposal and its impact on the Dudley Street Heritage Conservation Area. It was also noted at this time that the documentation supporting the application does not meet the requirements of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. Amenity impacts such as overshadowing and overlooking were also raised as concerns and the applicant was advised that the constraints of the site were such that a first floor addition may not be achievable. The applicant was given an opportunity to submit additional information and amendments.

 

On 22 July 2004 amended sketch plans were provided to Council for informal comment. The amendments indicated a design that included a pitched roof form to attempt to minimise bulk and be more sympathetic to surrounding Federation style dwellings. Council provided verbal advice at the counter to indicate that the amendments, while an improvement may not resolve Council’s concerns with the application. This advice was confirmed by letter on 4 August 2004. The letter indicated that heritage advice was required prior to the design being finalised. After considering the sketch amendments Council advised that the extent of the first floor level was too great and it should be reduced to result in less bulk and an architectural form that would be better integrated with the simple form of the existing dwelling and surrounding Federation dwellings.

 

Contact was made with the applicants to check progress on 7 September and 1 October. On both occasions it was unclear whether the applicant intended to submit new drawings. On 14 October a letter was sent requesting that any amended plans and additional information be submitted by 28 October 2004 so that the assessment of the application may be finalised. No additional plans or information have been received and as such this report relates to the drawings and information formally lodged for the application on 8 April 2004.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1  Objections

 

1.     James Colman Consulting Services in Urban and Environmental Planning, on behalf of the owner of 5 Thomas Street, Coogee

§  Concerned regarding the impact of the proposal on streetscape and general amenity of Thomas Street, given that subject site occupies a visually significant corner and is the highest point in Thomas Street. In addition it overlooks a public park and is within a recorded conservation precinct.

§  Development is architecturally incompatible with adjoining neighbour at 1 Thomas Street

§  Development is inconsistent with the  scale of single storey dwellings in Thomas Street

§  Proposal will degrade the architectural quality of the streetscape

§  A pitched roof profile would be an improvement in aesthetic terms given that this is the predominant roof form of surrounding dwellings

§  Proposal will adversely affect the street character, given the consistent architectural theme and attractive frontage landscaping of neighbours to the east in Thomas Street

 

Comment: The form of the additions is inconsistent with the existing character of the surrounding area as discussed throughout this report.

 

2.     Pike, Pike and Fenwick, on behalf of owner of 1 Thomas Street, Coogee

 

§  Application should be refused as it is poor in quality and lacking in adequate detail.

§  There is no adequate site analysis, which would have highlighted that the unreasonable impacts generated by the proposal

§  Negative streetscape appearance

§  Overshadowing

§  Visual and acoustic privacy impacts

§  Overdevelopment

 

Comment: Council has requested additional details from the applicant on several occasions, however as these details have not been forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time the application has been assessed as submitted. The lack of detail has made an accurate assessment of the impacts on 1 Thomas Street difficult, however it is considered that there is some potential for overshadowing and overlooking impacts from the development.

 

3.     ABC Planning, on behalf of owner of 1 Thomas Street, Coogee

 

§  Loss of outlook from main living area and front verandah to the Coogee basin

 

Comment: Due to the extent of the existing development at 1A Thomas Street and the ground level location of the verandah at 1 Thomas Street, the additions are not considered to result in significant view and outlook impacts to 1 Thomas Street. The dwelling at 1 Thomas Street would retain expansive views to Coogee Basin and the ocean over Leete Park to the northeast. View and outlook impacts are not considered to be a reason for refusal of the application.

 

 

Above: The existing vista from Leete Park to the northeast approximates views from 1 Thomas Street which would remain unaffected by any development on the subject site.

 

§  Overshadowing to external and internal living and bedroom areas

§  Non-compliance with Council’s controls – including the objectives of the Residential 2(a) zone and Parts 3 and 4 of the Dwelling Houses DCP which relate to Ecologically Sustainable Development (solar access) and Building Design (height, setbacks and visual/ acoustic privacy)

§  Inadequate information provided – incomplete survey and no elevational shadow diagrams provided

§  Overlooking to primary living areas and bedrooms from balconies within 2 metres of living area and large terrace above the garage

§  Noise impacts from balcony areas and terrace above the garage

§  Due to the unusual subdivision pattern the  noise impacts are abnormally sensitive

 

Comment: These issues have been addressed throughout this report and concerns raised are generally shared by the assessment officer.

 

4.     M. Coorey, 1 Thomas Street, Coogee

 

§  Impacts on views, sunlight and privacy are particularly sensitive given the unusual subdivision of the sites and subsequent modifications already made to 1A Thomas Street (eg: swimming pool, wall heights)

§  Acoustic privacy impacts

§  Visual privacy impacts

 

5.     F.Coorey,  1 Thomas Street, Coogee

 

§  Acoustic and visual privacy impacts as walls and windows are 2-4 metres from existing bedroom window at 1 Thomas Street, balconies will exacerbate impacts

§  Overshadowing

 

6.     T. Coorey,  1 Thomas Street, Coogee

 

§  Visual and acoustic privacy impacts to ground floor living areas and bedroom  as development is within 2 metres of front bedroom

 

7.     R. Coorey, 1 Thomas Street, Coogee

 

§  One room of the dwelling at 1 Thomas Street will be completely obscured from the street by the proposal

§  Visual and acoustic privacy impacts

§  Breach of Council’s planning codes

 

Comment: The impacts of the development on the dwelling at 1 Thomas Street have been discussed throughout this report.

 

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   Heritage Planner

 

The proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for comments as it is located within the Dudley Street Heritage Conservation Area and is in close proximity to a heritage item at 7 Thomas Street. Council’s Heritage Planner provided the following comments:

 

The subject site is prominently located on an elevated site on the corner of Thomas Street and Higgs Street.  The property is visible for a considerable distance from the north.  The site is occupied by a single storey cottage apparently constructed in the 1950s or 1960s.  It appears that the site has been subdivided from the surrounding site of no.1 Thomas Street.  The site is within the Dudley Street Conservation Area.  The Statement of Significance for the Conservation Area notes that the Conservation Area has aesthetic significance for the fine quality groupings and individual examples of large Federation and Inter-War period detached houses.  The front gardens, fence designs, sandstone kerbing, steep and undulating topography, and the plantings in the parks, all contribute to the setting.  The Conservation Area is also considered to have historic and social significance.  The Statement of Significance notes that there are two unsympathetic newer buildings in the Conservation Area, which compromise its integrity to a degree.  These included no.1A Thomas Street.  The negative impact of these newer buildings is increased by their location in front of the general building line.

 

The application proposes alterations and additions, including an upper level.  At first floor level it is proposed to provide two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a walk-in robe, two balconies and a deck.

 

The proposal has been accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by archivision design.  The SEE notes that the dwelling is located within the Dudley Street (Coogee) conservation precinct, and is of unusual design and siting on an irregular allotment, and has been acknowledged as being non-contributory to the heritage integrity of the area.

 

The proposal has been the subject of several informal pre-lodgement meetings.  It was suggested that a heritage/conservation architect be engaged to assist in generating options for the site.  Concerns were raised that an upper level addition could further increase the prominence of the existing building.

 

Clause 43(3) of Randwick LEP 1998 requires the submission of a report that assesses the impact of the proposal on the heritage significance of the heritage conservation area.  Given the prominent position of the subject site within the Dudley Street Conservation Area, it is considered that the archivision design submission which has been made does not fulfil the guidelines for a Statement of Heritage impact contained in the NSW Heritage Manual.  It is recommended that the applicant engage a heritage/conservation architect to prepare the Statement and advise on design options for the site.

 

Clause 43(2) of Randwick LEP 1998 requires Council to make an assessment of the pitch and form of the roof; the style, size, proportion and position of openings; and the colour, texture and type of exterior materials, in determining the affect of the proposal on heritage significance.  The Statement of Significance for the Dudley Street Conservation Area notes that several styles are represented in the conservation area including Federation Bungalow and Queen Anne and Inter-War Mediterranean and Functionalist.  The existing dwelling on the site has little in common with the forms and massing of surrounding dwellings in the conservation area.  The proposed flat roofed upper level addition will increase the incompatibility of the existing dwelling with the forms and massing of the surrounding conservation area dwellings.

 

The existing dwelling is on a very prominent site, on a corner and elevated above the level of the street.  The prominence of the existing single storey dwelling is in the streetscape is further increased by its reduced setback, as compared to other dwellings in Thomas Street.  The proposed upper level addition will increase the incompatibility of the existing dwelling with the scale of the surrounding conservation area dwellings, and will increase the streetscape prominence of the existing dwelling.

 

It is recommended that the proposal be refused on the following grounds:

·    The submission which has been received does not adequately assess the impact of the proposal on the heritage significance of the Conservation Area, as required by Clause 43(3) of Randwick LEP 1998.

 

·    The forms and massing of the proposed dwelling is incompatible with the forms and massing of surrounding dwellings in the Dudley Street Conservation Area.

 

·    The proposed alterations and additions will detract from the heritage significance of the Dudley Street Conservation Area.

 

·    The proposal will set a poor precedent for further inappropriate alterations and additions in the Conservation Area.

 

Although Council’s Heritage Planner recommended outright refusal of the application, the application was discussed with the applicant and owners of the property to try and achieve an acceptable outcome. Formal amendments and submission of information required under RLEP 98 have not been forthcoming and as such the recommendation is for refusal of the application.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

As the site is less than 4,000m2, there are no master planning requirements under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

The proposal has been assessed in relation to compliance with the following relevant planning documents: -

 

-           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

-           Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-           Building Code of Australia.

-           Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP

-           EP&A Act -An assessment of the proposal in accordance of section 79C of the Act has been provided in Section 9 of this report.

 

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 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (REP98)

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the premises is within the Dudley Street Heritage Conservation area and in close proximity to a heritage item at 7 Thomas Street. The proposed use is permissible under the Randwick LEP, however the character of the proposed alterations and additions is inconsistent with the character of the established residential area and compromises the amenity of surrounding properties and the street. The proposal fails to meet objectives (a) and (c) of the 2A zone.

 

There are no relevant statutory standards with which the proposed development should achieve compliance.

 

Clause 43 - Protection of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and relics

Clause 46 - Development in the vicinity of Heritage Conservation Area and/ or Heritage Items

 

The subject site is separated by one dwelling from 7 Thomas Street, a heritage item to the east of the site and is located within the Dudley Street Heritage Conservation Area. As such, the application has been referred to Council’s Heritage Planner for comment. Council’s Heritage Planner has advised that the application does not fulfil the requirements of clause 43(3) that a heritage impact assessment report is considered for all applications which affect heritage areas and items. Council’s Heritage Planner has advised that the application is unsatisfactory in relation to its impact on the heritage value of the surrounding area (see comments in section 6.1). The development is unsatisfactory with regard to clauses 43 and 46 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

 

Above: Heritage Item at 7 Thomas Street, to the east of the site

 

9.2 SEPP 55

 

Clause 7(1)(a) of the SEPP requires Council to consider whether the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding that site investigations have not been carried out, the current and previous use of the site and surrounding sites for residential uses would substantially reduce the possibility of contamination.

 

It is considered reasonable to assume that the site would not be contaminated, or in need of remediation pursuant to SEPP 55 and that the site is suitable for continued residential use.

 

9.3 Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

 

The DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies states that a proposal is deemed to satisfy the Objectives and Performance requirements of the DCP if it complies with the corresponding Preferred Solutions. Therefore, the tables below assess the proposal against the Preferred Solutions, and where non-compliance results, assessment is made against the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements.

 


Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

40% of the total site area is provided as landscaped area.

41.6 % of the site is landscaped area. Complies

S1

A minimum of 25m² of useable private open space is to be provided.

The rear yard has an area of 25 sqm. Complies

S1

Each dwelling must provide an area of private open space capable of containing a rectangle of minimum dimensions of 3m x 4m with minor changes in level.

The above area has minimum dimensions of 5 x 4 metres. Complies

S1

Private open space in the front yard area is located behind the building line.

The above area is located in the rear yard. Complies

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

20.7 % of the site is permeable. Complies.

 

The Objectives of the DCP with regard to landscaping are that existing significant trees and landscaping are retained and enhanced; dwellings are provided with usable outdoor recreation space; storm water management and the appearance, amenity and energy efficiency of the dwelling is improved through integrated landscape design; and the native wildlife populations are preserved and enhanced through appropriate planting of indigenous vegetation.

 

The Performance Requirements are that the size and dimensions of landscaping suit the needs of the occupants; location and design of open space takes advantage of aspect for year round use; indigenous species are used and existing vegetation is recycled where possible; planting does not obstruct or interfere with entries; and unpaved areas are maximised to allow stormwater infiltration.

 

No change is proposed to the existing landscaping on the site. The existing dwelling complies with the requirements of the DCP. The development is satisfactory with regard to landscaping, although the minimal setbacks of the property to the street and adjoining premises has limited opportunities for landscape screening of the site, with only one tree providing any substantial landscape presentation to the street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Above: The existing setbacks and extent of existing improvements  such as the swimming pool result in the dwelling making no contribution to the landscape character of the area.

Floor Area

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this area is that a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6:1 applies. 

The proposed FSR is 0.58:1. Complies

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in bulk or scale; are compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street.

 

Although the proposal meets Council’s preferred solution for floor space ratio, it is considered that in this instance the development does not achieve the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP. The irregular shape of the site and desire to construct an addition above the existing dwelling has resulted in the distribution of the gross floor area being concentrated towards the front of the site. The floor space ratio represents the ratio of building area to site area of a development. Although the proposal is to be constructed on a site with an area of 341m2, the effective area of the site (over which the bulk of the building is distributed) is approximately 310m2. If this area were to used as the basis for an FSR calculation the FSR of the proposal would be 0.64: 1 and would not comply. This is considered to be the ‘effective FSR’ of the proposal which results in the bulky appearance of the development from the street.

 

The development does not meet the external wall height control nor the setbacks for first floor additions on the southern side. These non-compliances exacerbate the bulk and scale impacts of the proposal and the resultant impacts on neighbouring properties of the excessive bulk of the building, such as visual bulk and increased overshadowing.

 

The existing dwelling on the site has high retaining walls to Higgs Street as a result of the difference between ground levels within the site and street level. This exacerbates the bulk and scale of development on the site as the walls give the appearance of an additional storey and elevate the dwelling such that it is highly visible. The site is also located on a very open corner created by the intersection of Dudley Street and Higgs Street and Leete Park opposite the site. The dwelling footprint extends along the Dudley and Higgs Street frontages increasing the visibility and apparent bulk of the dwelling further. The proposal has exacerbated the existing unsympathetic appearance of the dwelling and its siting by increasing the bulk on this corner which is visible from a wide range of vantage points.

 

The development is two storeys in scale. The majority of dwellings on Thomas Street are large, single storey buildings. Dwellings with a first floor level maintain the predominantly single storey character of the area by containing upper floors within a roof form.


 

 

 

 

 

 


Above: The dwellings on Thomas Street are generally single storey. First floors are contained within the roof form  of some dwellings to maintain a single storey scale (above, left)

 

It is considered that a lesser gross floor area and a reduced first floor footprint would achieve a scale that would be more consistent with the neighbourhood character. The character of the surrounding dwellings has been recognised as being of heritage value by listing in the LEP as a Heritage Conservation Area. The proposed development is considered to have a negative impact on the existing character of the locality, in particular the heritage value of the Dudley Street HCA and therefore fails to meet the objectives of Section 4.2 of the DCP.

 

The development is unsatisfactory with regard to floor area and visual bulk and scale.

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The proposed dwelling has a maximum external wall height of 7.5 metres. Does not comply – see assessment below

S1

External wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5m.

Not applicable.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

Not applicable.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

Not applicable.

S4

The length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

The entire southern elevation (approx. 13m in length) of the proposed dwelling is 1 metre from the southern side boundary at first floor level. Does not comply– see assessment below

S5

The second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

Not applicable.

 

The Objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality; to ensure impacts in terms of privacy, natural light and views are minimised; and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

The relevant Performance Requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and the topography; buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets; with respect to additions to semi-detached dwellings they integrate with the attached dwelling; and views are shared.

 

The proposal exceeds the external wall height control by 500mm on the southeastern elevation. The impacts of the non-compliance are considered to be overshadowing and visual bulk and scale as the southeastern elevation also fails to meet the required setback of 1.5 metres by approximately 500mm. The proposal to construct a first floor addition on the existing dwelling exacerbates the inconsistency of the existing dwelling with the predominant single storey form, massing and setbacks of surrounding buildings. Surrounding buildings have a simple form with low pitched roofs. The proposal has a form and detailing that is overly complex for this context. The use of pergolas, awnings, projecting balconies and skillion roof forms further contribute to the complexity and the overall inappropriateness of the design. The design is also poorly resolved in terms of the relationship between the first floor addition the existing awkward L-shaped building form.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Above: The form of the proposal is considered overly complex and inappropriate given the simple forms of surrounding dwellings.

 

The proposal is two storeys in height but has an effective scale of 2.5-3 storeys on the Higgs Street elevation due to the retaining walls that are approximately 1 storey in height. This is inconsistent with the predominant character of Federation dwellings in the vicinity which have a single storey scale. Due to the elevation of the site above street level and its visibility, the acceptable height of development on the site is more constrained than on a more typical allotment. This demands particular attention to the roof form and overall massing of the building to ensure that the visual impact of any increases in height are minimised. The current proposal is of poor design quality and the lack of adequate site analysis indicates that the height of the proposal is not the result of detailed consideration of the specifics of the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Above: The site is located at the top of a rise on Higgs Street (left) and on Thomas Street (right) resulting in increased prominence of any development. The high retaining walls on the Higgs Street elevation increase the apparent height of development on the site.

 

The height of the proposal is unsatisfactory with regard to the objectives and preferred solutions of the DCP.

 


Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

The existing dwelling has a front setback which is inconsistent with the predominant setback along Thomas Street. The proposed first floor addition will maintain this setback and will exacerbate existing impacts from non-compliance with the front setback provisions of the DCP. See detailed discussion below

S2

No part of the building is closer than 4.5m from rear boundary.

The proposed first floor is 9-16 metres from the rear boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level.

The proposed development is set back 1 metre from the side boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

The proposed development is set back 1.0 metre from the side boundary. Does not Comply.

S3

Side setbacks be 3.0m at third floor level.

Not applicable.

 

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

 

The front setback of the existing dwelling on the site is significantly less than that of the large dwellings that comprise the Dudley Street Heritage Conservation Area. The inconsistency of the setback detracts from the streetscape in the area and the setting of the adjacent dwellings. It is considered that the first floor addition, being proposed at the same distance from the front boundary will exacerbate existing impacts on the streetscape and further obscure the significant Federation dwellings to the east of the site. The applicant was advised of Council’s concerns in this regard on 4 August 2004 and encouraged to consider an option that removed the area of the first floor on the northeastern corner of the building. No response has been received to this advice and the prominence of the first floor addition due to the reduced front setback is considered to be a primary reason for refusal of the application.

Above: The northern corner of the building obscures the dwelling at 1 Thomas Street and is the most prominent portion of the existing development.

 

As discussed above under Height, the southern elevation of the dwelling is 1 metre from the southern boundary which is considered to result in bulk and scale impacts and increased overshadowing to the northern elevation and northern (front) yard of the adjoining dwelling at 1 Thomas Street during midwinter afternoons. Increased setbacks or reduced building bulk could alleviate the increase to overshadowing and result in fewer amenity impacts in terms of perceived and actual overlooking, visual bulk and scale.

 

The proposal is considered to exacerbate existing impacts from non-compliant setbacks on the street and surrounding properties. The proposed setbacks are unsatisfactory to the front and southern side of the site.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Habitable room windows within 9m of another dwelling’s windows are offset by 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing below 1.5m above floor level.

The proposal does not have any habitable room windows that overlook those of adjoining dwellings within 9 metres. Complies.

S1

Direct view into open space of an adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m and is beyond a 45 degree angle.

The ground floor and first floor decks and balconies provide opportunities for overlooking the primary open space and windows of the adjoining property. Does not comply – see assessment below.

S1

Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more or fixed obscure glazing below that height.

First floor master bedroom and bathroom windows on the southern elevation have sill heights less than 1.5 metres and are less than 9 metres from windows of the adjoining property.

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies; and separation, screening devices and landscaping be used to assist in minimising privacy impacts.

 

The proposal has not been subject to a rigorous site assessment and analysis which has resulted in a building layout that does not satisfy the performance requirements and objectives of the DCP for visual and acoustic privacy. The provision of a first floor level will provide additional opportunities for overlooking of the property at 1 Thomas Street. In particular, the large deck to the northern end of the building will overlook the primary open space of 1 Thomas Street (which is located in the front yard due to the significant setback and subdivision pattern in the area which results in minimal open space to the rear of this site and will add to the perception of overlooking from within the dwelling at 1 Thomas Street. Insufficient survey information has been provided with the application to assess the impact of the southeastern balcony to the rear of the site and the windows of the master bedroom and ensuite. Despite the lack of information, the proximity of these areas to the boundary and the wall of the dwelling at 1 Thomas Street (up to 2.6 metres) indicates that these windows and balconies may have a significant impact on the visual and acoustic privacy of the dwelling at 1 Thomas Street.

 

The development is considered to result in impacts to actual and perceived visual and acoustic privacy of the dwelling at 1 Thomas Street as a result of the constraints of the site and poor design decisions. The proposal fails to meet the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP in this regard.

 

Safety & Security

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

The proposed front door faces Thomas street. Complies.

S1,3

Dwellings have at least one habitable room window overlooking the street.

The proposed addition has windows that overlook the street. Complies.

 

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP seek to ensure that a safe physical environment and crime prevention is promoted through design, including that buildings are designed to face the street and other public areas to provide for surveillance; dwellings and their entrances are readily identifiable by street numbering and design of front fences; and landscaped areas allows for safe access to the dwelling.

 

The proposal adds decks and windows that overlook the street and the front door of the dwelling will remain in its present location. No objection is raised to the development on the grounds of safety and security.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

No change is proposed to the existing parking provision on the site.

Fences

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

S1

Solid front fences or on street frontages in front of the building line are no higher than 1.2m.

Not applicable.

S1

Fences in front of the building line or on street frontages may be up to 1.8m provided that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

Balustrading is proposed to the new roof terrace over the garage, increasing the height of structures to Higgs Street to 2.9-3.4 metres. Does not comply

 

Generally, the Objectives and Performance Requirements for fences in the DCP are to ensure that front fencing is integrated with the street scape and is compatible with the appearance of the dwelling and any established local fence form and material.

 

The provision of a roof terrace on top of the existing garage will result in planter boxes with an overall height of 2.9 metres on the street alignment. Balustrading to a height of 3.4 metres above street level will be setback 1 metre from the street alignment. These structures will contribute to the visual bulk and appearance of the site from Higgs Street.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

New dwellings comply with a minimum of 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

Not Applicable.

S2

Private open space receives at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

The primary private open space to the front of 1 Thomas Street will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.

S2,8

North-facing windows to living areas receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

The proposal includes north-facing windows that will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.

S9

Solar access to existing or future solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained between 9am and 3pm each throughout the year.

The proposal will maintain adequate solar access to the roofs of adjoining properties. Complies.

S9

North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.  If currently less than 3 hours, it is not further reduced.

Insufficient information to fully assess (no elevational shadow diagrams provided), some portions of elevation will not receive any solar access 12pm-3pm.

S9

Principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.  If currently less than 3 hours, it is not further reduced.

The proposal will not reduce solar access to private open space to less than 3 hours. Complies.

 

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

 

The development will result in additional overshadowing to the primary open space of 1 Thomas Street during midwinter afternoons, solar access to this area will generally be maintained between 9am and 12pm and the preferred solution under the DCP will be met. The applicant has not submitted adequate information to allow for an accurate assessment of the impact of the proposal on north facing windows. From the submitted material, it appears the northwestern corner of the dwelling at 1 Thomas Street will be in shadow from 12pm to 3pm as a result of the development (currently this area is free of shadow at 12pm).

 

Although the proposal appears to generally meet the preferred solution for maintaining solar access to adjoining properties, increases to setbacks and reduction in the bulk of the development (particularly the northern end) would result in reduced overshadowing impacts to the adjoining premises. The development has not minimised its impact on neighbours as a result of poor planning and site analysis.

 

10.  FINANCIAL IMPACT  STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11.       CONCLUSION

 

The height and form of the proposed additions are considered to be unacceptable due to the impact on the setting of nearby heritage items and the location of the site within a Heritage Conservation Area. The development is elevated from the street and has an awkward relationship to the irregular site boundaries which increases its apparent bulk and scale and results in an inappropriate form. The massing of the building includes forms which are complicated including skillion roof profiles of various pitches and directions. The built form is inconsistent with the simple formal arrangement of nearby Federation dwellings. The proposal does not meet setback requirements to the front of the site and southern side. These non-compliances increase the visual bulk of the proposal to the street and further obscure the Federation dwellings of the conservation area. The southern side setback results in development that has the potential to impact on the solar access, visual and acoustic privacy of the adjoining property and adequate details of these impacts have not been provided with the application. Likewise, a satisfactory heritage impact statement (prepared in accordance with the NSW Heritage Manual) has not been provided for Council’s consideration which is contrary to the requirements of clause 43(3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 1A Thomas Street, Coogee, do not comply with the relevant assessment criteria, objectives and performance requirements of the DCP for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies for a constrained site in close proximity to existing development. The proposal is considered to result in significant adverse impact upon the character of the locality and, in particular, the heritage value of the street and adjoining properties. Adverse amenity impacts are also considered to result from non-compliance with DCP controls such as setbacks. The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.      THAT Council as the responsible authority refuse development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA 247/2004 for alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new first floor addition and roof terrace on existing garage roof at 1A Thomas Street, Coogee for the following reasons:-

 

1.       The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the Residential 2A zone, in particular objectives (a) and (c) pursuant to Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and as such will adversely affect the character and amenity of the immediate locality.

 

2.       The submission which has been received does not adequately assess the impact of the proposal on the heritage significance of the Conservation Area, as required by Clause 43(3) of Randwick LEP 1998.

 

3.       The forms and massing of the proposed dwelling is incompatible with the forms and massing of surrounding dwellings in the Dudley Street Conservation Area.

 

4.       The proposed alterations and additions will detract from the heritage significance of the Dudley Street Conservation Area.

 

5.       The proposal will set a poor precedent for further inappropriate alterations and additions in the Conservation Area.

 

6.       The height of the proposed building results in adverse amenity impacts on surrounding properties and is excessive in relation to the established streetscape and scale of surrounding development.

 

7.       The aesthetic appearance, bulk and scale of the proposed development are considered to be inconsistent with the streetscape character of the area, and location of the site in the vicinity of Heritage Conservation Areas and items.

 

8.       The documentation submitted with the application is inadequate, in that site analysis has not been adequately addressed and insufficient details of the location of adjoining properties and their features (such as windows) have been provided.

 

9.       The performance of the building with regard to overshadowing is unclear from submitted information. Elevational shadow diagrams have not been provided and it is considered that potential exists for the development to have an adverse impact on the solar access of adjoining properties.

 

10.     The proposal will result in the loss of privacy to the dwelling at 1 Thomas Street and adequate steps to minimise its impact have not been taken.

 

11.     The proposal does not meet preferred solutions for front and side setbacks and will further obscure the contributory buildings within the street from the public domain.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

A4 Reductions

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

RACHEL AITKEN

DIRECTOR PLANNING &

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Assessment officer

 

 

 


 

 

 

Director Planning & Community Development's Report 94/2004

 

 

SUBJECT:

45-53 Dudley Street, COOGEE

 

 

DATE:

16 November, 2004

FILE NO:

DA 285/2004

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Application Report No 285/2004 for the demolition of existing dwellings and the construction of a multi-unit housing development containing nineteen (19) dwellings and basement car parking for 30 cars.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Development Application Report dated 20 October, 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

 

SIMA TRUUVERT

 

DIRECTOR PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

 

DATE:

20 October, 2004

FILE NO:

D285/2004

 

PROPOSAL:

Demolition of existing dwellings and the construction of a multi-uni housing development containing nineteen (19) dwellings and basement parking for 30 cars.

PROPERTY:

 45-53 Dudley Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 ABC Planning P/L

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council as it is valued at $4.5 million.

 

The application proposes the demolition of the existing buildings and structures on the site, the retention of the large Eucalyptus tree on its north-western corner and the construction of a multi-unit housing development in the form of three interconnected buildings fronting Dudley Street, with the eastern most building also having a frontage to Asher Street.

 

The development is proposed to contain 19 dwellings, with basement parking for 30 cars, with vehicular access located off Havelock Avenue.

 

The proposal is well designed in that each apartment is generously sized, achieves northern solar access to the living area, with the majority of apartments having the advantage of cross-ventilation.  The development is also to be located within an attractive landscape setting, having a substantial area of deep soil planting and overall it is in excess of Council’s landscaped area requirements.

 

The application has been amended since lodgement and subsequent to a number of mediation meetings with objectors.  The amended proposal has been the subject of nine (9) individual objections, Precinct comment and a petition.  The issues raised include traffic and parking impacts, particularly access from Havelock Avenue and potential conflict with buses that use the Havelock Avenue route; excess bulk and height; streetscape impact; potential impacts including view loss, overshadowing and overlooking and the design quality of the proposal.

 

Both the pre-lodgement application and development application were referred to the Design Review Panel convened under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65) to assess the design quality of residential flat development.  At these Panel meetings the proposal received a positive endorsement for achieving the required design quality principles as set out in SEPP 65.

 

The application exceeds both the maximum floor space ratio and building height requirements as set out in Council’s Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and in this regard the applicant has lodged objections pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) to vary these controls.

 

While it is considered that a compliant form of development in regard to floor space ratio and height would have a similar impact on views to affected properties and notwithstanding that there are no other significant amenity impacts to neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing and privacy, it is considered that the additional floor space and excess height associated with the eastern most building will be visually excessive and out of scale with the streetscape context. 

 

It is considered that the top most unit (Apartment 16) in the eastern building should either be deleted or substantially reduced in area and pulled back from the Dudley and Asher Street building alignments, to minimise the streetscape impact of increased height and additional floor space.  This is considered a substantial design change and beyond the scope of a deferred commencement condition of consent, as it lacks finality in terms of outcome. 

 

Notwithstanding the other merits of the design, the SEPP 1 objections are not supported in the circumstances of the particular case and it is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that there is no adverse impact to the surrounding area, in terms of the streetscape context of the proposed building form and height and it is therefore not unnecessary or unreasonable for the development to comply with the building height and floor space ratio controls.  Accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes the following:-

 

·    Demolition of the four (4) existing buildings (containing 6 dwellings) and associated structures on the site.

·    The construction of a multi-unit housing development containing:

o 5 x 1 bedroom apartments;

o 12 x 2 bedroom apartments;

o 2 x 3 bedroom apartments;

o basement parking for 30 cars, including 5 visitor spaces and 2 car wash bays, garbage rooms and bicycle/storage areas

·    Landscaping of the site

·    Strata subdivision of the finished development.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

 

Figure 1: Subject site and surrounds

 

The site is irregular in shape, having a total site area of 1641m2 and consists of five properties as follows:-

 

·    No. 45 Dudley Street identified as Lot 17 in DP 11671;

·    No. 47 Dudley Street identified as Lot 3 in DP 165538 and Lot 1 in DP 1070296;

·    No. 49 Dudley Street identified as Lot 1 in DP 620973;

·    No. 51 Dudley Street identified as Lot 2 in DP 620973;

·    No. 53 Dudley Street (also known as 14 Asher Street) and identified as Part Lots 12 and 13, Section 3, Volume 10497 in Folio 184.

 

Existing on the site are six (6) dwellings, 45 Dudley Street being an existing duplex (refer Figure 2)and 49 and 51 Dudley Street being a pair of semi-detached dwelling houses (refer Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: 45 and 47 Dudley Street (left to right)

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: 49, 51 and 53 Dudley Street (left to right)

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: 53 Dudley Street on the north-west corner with Asher Street

 

The subject site is bounded by Dudley Street on its south with a frontage of 44.125m, Asher Street on its east with a frontage of 33.635m and Havelock Avenue on its north with a frontage of 13.715m.  As well, the site has common boundaries, to the north, with No. 16 Asher Street (alternately known as 12 Asher Street) containing a doctor’s surgery (refer Figure 5) and to its west, with No. 43 Dudley Street, containing a two storey residential flat building (refer Figure 6).  A large Eucalyptus is located on the north-western corner of the site. The site falls from the west to the east of approximately 2.7m, with low points on its eastern boundary with Asher Street to its south-east corner with Dudley Street.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: 16 Asher Street adjoining the site to the north on the south-west corner of Asher Street and Havelock Avenue

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6: 43 Dudley Street adjoining  the subject site to the west

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7: 55 Dudley Street opposite on the north-east corner of Dudley and Asher Streets

 

Located to the east opposite on the north-east corner of Dudley and Asher Street (55 Dudley Street) is a single storey dwelling house (refer Figure 7).  On the opposite (southern) side of Dudley Street are a variety of dwelling types: single storey detached dwelling houses, two storey older style residential flat buildings and recent three storey multi-unit housing developments above raised basement carparks (84 Dudley Street currently under construction – refer Figures 8, 9 and 10).  Located opposite to the north on the north-west corner of Havelock Avenue and Asher Street is a single storey dwelling house (refer Figure 11).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8: 90 Dudley Street opposite to the south

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 9: 86 Dudley Street opposite to the south

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 10: 84 and 82 Dudley Street opposite to the south and south-east

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 11: 10 Asher Street opposite on the north-west corner of Havelock Avenue and Asher Street

 

4.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

The present application was the subject of a pre-lodgement application (PL 0001/2004), which was referred to the Design Review Panel on 1 March, 2004.  A meeting was also held on 11 March, 2004, with Council Officers and written advice issued in regard to the re-development concepts for the site, which included amongst other matters, the issue of localised flooding due to the development site being located near a low point in Dudley Street, which may result in flooding during major storm events.  A freeboard of up to 500mm was identified for setting floor levels, particularly above the ponded flood level in Dudley Street.  As well, the applicant was requested to provide Arborist recommendations on how to mitigate any possible impacts of the proposed vehicular access on the large Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) located on the north-western corner of the site.  This tree is considered of substantial significance to the area and worthy of retention.  A view analysis to identify the view impact for buildings to the south, west and south-west was requested as part of the development application submission.

 

The Design Review Panel recognised the good design qualities of the application and recommended minor modifications only to the design prior to lodging the development application.

 

The development application was lodged on 22nd April, 2004 and advertised and notified until the 2nd June, 2004.

 

As a result of the notification and advertising of the development application, a number of objections were received, particularly relating to the height and scale of the development and consequent impact on views and streetscape.  As well, concerns were raised in regard to location of the vehicular entry point to the basement carpark in Havelock Avenue and the potential traffic and safety impacts that may arise, particularly in regard to buses using Havelock Avenue.

 

The development application was referred to the Design Review Panel at its meeting of 5th July, 2004.  At this meeting the Panel advised that the application complies with the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP 65).  The Panel considers the design to be a well considered urban response and provides a quality outcome that maximises the internal amenity for occupants.  Based on the applicant’s view study, the design will not unreasonably impact on views and any view loss is within expected view sharing aspirations.

 

In response to submissions regarding safety issues arising from the location of driveway entrance in Havelock Avenue to the proposed basement carpark and potential vehicular conflicts with Sydney buses using Havelock Avenue, the applicant submitted on 9th July, 2004, plans showing a median design for the roadway in Havelock Avenue and bus swept paths and these were referred to the State Transit Authority of New South Wales for comment.

 

Council by letter on the 2nd August, 2004, requested the applicant to provide further information in regards to issues raised by Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Department, in particular an arborist investigation to identify the size and location of the major roots of the large Eucalyptus tree on the site, arborist recommendations regarding tree protection measures and further details regarding the vehicular access ramp to the basement carpark, in particular the reasons for its chosen location (in response to an objector’s Traffic Engineer’s report), ramp grades  and alignment levels.  Information in regard to the vehicular access ramp location, grades, etc, was submitted to Council on 12 August, 2004, with the Arborist Report submitted on 28 September, 2004.

 

In order to explore issues raised in objectors’ letters, the applicant and objectors were invited to attend mediation sessions held with an independent mediator on 8 September, 2004 and 15 September, 2004, however, no resolution was reached. 

 

In response to issues raised and explored with objectors at the mediation sessions, the applicant lodged amended plans on 28 September, 2004, which were notified and advertised until 20 October, 2004.  Amendments to the original proposal reduced the volume of the proposed building and included the following:-

 

   deletion of all roof-top projecting skylights;

   increased building setbacks to the southern, eastern and northern boundaries;

   reduction in the building footprint and increased landscape area;

   reduction in floor space by 93m2  and consequent decrease in floor space ratio;

   reduction in length of Asher Street façade by 2.4m on all levels;

   increased setback of balconies on all levels to Dudley Street;

   changes to the expression and width of the corner balconies along the Dudley Street elevation;

   changes to the architectural expression of windows in the Dudley Street façade;

   setting in of central balconies to Havelock Avenue on all levels by 0.8m.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal has been notified and advertised in accordance with Council’s Development Control Plan for Public Notification of Development Proposals and Council Plans. Submissions were received from the following in regard to the amended proposal:-Paul Pearce, MP for Coogee of Suite 113, 29 Newland Street, Bondi Junction; “Once Upon a Deadline” of 55 Dudley Street, Coogee; Proprietors of Strata Plan 57153 of 82 Dudley Street, Coogee; J Vlass of 8 Asher Street, Coogee; J Becker and H Grahame of 80 Dudley Street, Coogee; M and R Richards of 88 Dudley Street, Coogee; K and M Little of 2/137 Brook Street, Coogee; J Shaw of 3/78A Dudley Street, Coogee; Dr C Eliades of 16 Asher Street, Coogee; and a petition containing 542 signatures.  The issues raise in the objections are summarised below:

 

5.1  Objections

 

Traffic and parking

 

   Sight distances for traffic entering and exiting the driveway to the basement car park are in dispute and the application should be considered by the Randwick Traffic Committee.

   The applicant’s traffic engineer has not been provided details of sight lines achieved at the driveway, traffic speed, calculated stopping distance and safety of driveway.

   No photos have been provided that depict the sightline from the proposed driveway from Havelock Avenue or a plan illustrating the sight triangle achieved with the amended proposal.  If the sight triangle cuts across private land, it cannot be relied upon, unless the developer acquires that land, or an easement is placed upon that private land prohibiting construction or landscaping above a defined height.

   Buses do cross the centre line when turning around the bend in Havelock Avenue and will not be able to stay within the confines of the eastbound lane, thus resulting in detrimental road safety impacts if the proposed development were to proceed.

   The high volume of traffic coming and going in the street with all the buses will be dangerous in Havelock Avenue, with the only solution being to have the entrance and exit in Dudley Street.

   The traffic generated by this development will make Dudley Street dangerous and make parking for locals and visitors impossible.

   Tandem and stacked parking is stated as “not permissible” in Council’s DCP, however six units have double car spaces, one behind the other, in the proposed development.  These will be very difficult to use and will put more cars on the street which is already over crowded.

 

Comment

 

Refer to Section 9.4 of the report for discussion of parking and traffic.

 

Bulk, height, scale and streetscape

 

   The proposed building presents as bulky and will overpower the surrounding streetscape and destroy the neighbourhood “village” atmosphere.

   The consolidation of five sites into a single development site disrupts the development pattern of the neighbourhood and two distinctly separate structures would be a better planning result.

   The proposed development will be out of character with the surrounding buildings.

   The massive height and bulk of the proposed development over five existing blocks and three street frontages remains significantly out of proportion in the streetscape context.

   The development is facing the wrong direction with the brick façade on the southern border and the “open” planning on the northern border, which overlooks 16 Asher Street.

 

Comment

 

Discussion of bulk, height, scale and streetscape are contained in Sections 9.22 and 9.23 of the report.

 

Statutory Standards: Height and Floor Space Ratio

 

   The developer has failed to justify why the development standards relating to height and floor space ratio are unreasonable and as such the SEPP No. 1 objections should be rejected and the numerical standards of height and floor space ratio should not be varied.

   The height of the proposed development far exceeds Council guidelines by up to 2.4m.

   The new draft SEPP No. 1 requests developers to show why the development is better as a result of exceeding Council guidelines.  The developer has provided no evidence as to a “better” development.

 

Comment

 

Discussion of SEPP 1 objections are contained in Section 9.22 and 9.23 of the report.

 

The Draft SEPP 2004 (Application of Development Standards) seeks to replace the provisions of SEPP 1 and has been publicly exhibited (concluding on 18 June 2004). The new SEPP will introduce new provisions for assessing whether flexibility of a planning standard is acceptable or not.

 

The additional tests include whether the proposal will result in a better environmental outcome than a complying development, design quality and whether the development meets the objectives of the controls.  Notwithstanding, that the SEPP is a draft document requiring consideration under section 79C of the EP&A Act, Clause 14 of the draft document includes savings provisions that any development application made and not determined when the draft SEPP is gazetted is to be assessed against the existing provisions of SEPP No. 1.  Further, recent legal advice provided to Council considers that the draft SEPP should not be given any significant weight as its final form is neither imminent or certain and would not apply given that it contains a provision saving the subject application.  As such, further consideration of the Draft SEPP is therefore not required. A thorough assessment of the proposal against the existing provisions of SEPP No. 1 and against Council’s statutory control and its objectives has been made in Section 9.22 and 9.23 of this report.

 

                                    Views

 

   The applicant has totally ignored the concept of ‘view sharing’ adopted by the Land and Environment Court.

   The view from 2/82 Dudley Street will be totally blocked out.

   The view from 80 Dudley Street will be very badly affected and the view from other surrounding properties will also be significantly affected.

   The view to Coogee Bay will be lost from 2/137 Brook Street as a result of the proposal.

   View loss affects many people and is one of the main issues that have come up at local meetings of residents.

 

Comment

 

View loss has been raised in regards to the amended proposal but only the specific properties mentioned above have raised specific view loss issues. In this regard the view from 2/82 Dudley Street will be lost by any form of compliant development, as will that of 80 Dudley Street.  A site inspection from 2/37 Brook Street indicates that the proposal will not affect the views from this ground floor level apartment.

 

Applying the view sharing principles adopted by the Land and Environment Court (Tenacity v Warringah Council-2004), an assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal is required.  As such it is considered that the majority of the view across the site to the north-east would be lost from the objectors’ properties with a complying development, however it is considered that part of the view to the ocean/horizon may possibly be maintained from the front verandah of 80 Dudley Street were the proposed development to comply with the 12m overall height limit for the most easterly building located along the Dudley Street frontage of the site.

 

Overshadowing

 

   The massing of the development is likely to cause overshadowing greater than would be the case should the proposal achieve compliance with the applicable development standards.

   Afternoon winter sun will be blocked to the three rooms on the western elevation of 55 Dudley Street being an office, a sunroom and a bedroom.

   Shadows will cover the road and some of the pavement opposite making the street cold.

 

Comment

 

The shadow impacts from the proposed development are considered consistent with the performance requirements of the DCP-Multi-Unit Housing and the proposed development improves solar access to windows in the eastern elevation of 43 Dudley Street adjoining to the west of the site.  Shadow cast on the road reserve is not considered unreasonable.

 

The proposed development overshadows the western side wall of 55 Dudley Street, the setback area to the western boundary from the dwelling house located on this property and a portion of the front yard from approximately 2pm onwards at the winter solstice (21st June).  The dwelling house at 55 Dudley Street predominantly overshadows its own front yard from 2pm onwards. The western side setback of 55 Dudley Street is heavily vegetated which in itself restricts solar access to the western windows during the winter solstice.  As such, it is considered that the objection raised in regard to overshadowing of this property is unsustainable. 

 

Overlooking

 

   Balconies on the south-eastern corner will look directly into the yard of 55 Dudley Street.

   A resident of 8 Asher Street considers their privacy will be severely affected when they walk outside their door by having 19 units all looking down Asher Street.

   The amended proposal has balconies along Dudley Street which will look straight into the front windows of 88 Dudley Street

 

Comment

 

The view to the dwelling house at No 88 Dudley Street is blocked by large trees situated in the front yard (refer Figure 9).  The front yard itself can be overlooked by anybody using Dudley Street and the existing properties contained on the subject site.  The objection regarding overlooking is not sustainable as it is not a private space area. 

 

The objection from No 8 Asher Street relates to overlooking of the public domain and similarly is not sustainable.

 

There will be no direct view to the west to the rear yard of 55 Asher Street, as the existing dwelling abuts the shops to the rear when viewed from its western elevation and as such the objection is not sustainable.

 

Setbacks

 

   The setback from the eastern boundary is less than the Council requirement and the close proximity of this exceedingly tall wall to the house (at 55 Dudley Street) will be overpowering.

 

Comment

 

Refer to Section 9.31 of the report for discussion on setbacks of the proposed development.

 

Design Quality

 

   The building design is very unattractive.

   The amended proposal still exceeds Council guidelines regarding FSR but makes the units “pockier” and reduces the “quality” of the development.

   The proposed design resembles an older style of development from the 1960’s and 1970’s which the Premier is trying to remove with the specially convened Design Review Panels under SEPP 65.

 

Comment

 

The design quality of the proposed development has been commented on by the Design Review Panel (refer Section 9.1 of the report), which considered that the application complies with the SEPP 65 requirements.  One of the design quality principles (Principle 10) relates to the aesthetics of the development.  Aesthetics is a response to the environment and the context, particularly the existing streetscape and this issue is discussed in Sections 9.22 and 9.23 of the report.

 

Petition

 

   Development is the largest ever proposed in the Coogee Area and will have a detrimental effect on the historical significance, character and charm of the area. 

   Businesses will be severely compromised with huge reductions in parking, continual noise interruptions and safety issues from increased traffic.

 

Comment

 

The proposal does exceed the permissible density for the site in terms of floor space and also the maximum permissible height.  The height and floor space ratio controls set a building ‘envelope’, which the eastern most building exceeds and which the middle building only partly exceeds.  The site does not contain items of environmental heritage nor is it located within a conservation area, however the streetscape impact of the building envelope is discussed in Sections 9.22 and 9.23 of the report.

 

The proposed development contains in excess of the required number of parking spaces as required by Council’s DCP for Parking and the proposed development will not generate a significant increase in traffic to the area.  It is therefore considered that the impact to local businesses will be minimal and in fact by increasing the number of new residents in the area will generate a likely positive effect to business patronage.

 

Coogee Precinct Committee

 

   The Coogee Precinct Committee opposes any proposals to allow any vehicular access to or from the proposed Dudley Street development into Havelock Avenue.

 

Comment

 

The issue of vehicular access to the site is discussed in Section 9.4 of the report.

 

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       State Transit Authority of New South Wales

 

State Transit’s Traffic Engineer has commented on the proposal as follows:

 

Thank you for sending a copy of the report for the proposed development at 45-53 Dudley Street, Coogee and the plans for the access onto Havelock Avenue.

 

We have reviewed the plans and our only comment would be that the proposed island on the centreline of Havelock Avenue could possibly be extended by about three metres on either side to discourage cars accessing the driveway attempting to turn right by driving on the wrong side of the road.  Otherwise we do not have an issue with the proposed arrangements.

 

6.2       Assets and Infrastructure Services

 

Council’s Director of Assets and Infrastructure Services has provided the following comments in relation to the proposal.

 

Landscape Comments

 

There is one Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) of approximately 20 metres in height and 12 metres in width near the northwest corner of the site, close to the Havelock Street frontage. It appears in excellent health, is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and due to both its large size and good habit, is deemed to be a highly significant example of the species in this area.

 

The plans propose a vehicular access to be constructed close to the eastern side of the trunk of this tree, at a distance of approximately 3 metres. In order to determine the likely impact of the proposed construction on the health, stability and longevity of the tree, the applicant was required to submit an Arborist Report, which was received on 22nd April 2004, compiled by George Palmer, of Botanics Tree Wise People Pty Ltd, dated March 2004.

 

The report stated that following his site investigations, and subject to the implementation of the tree protection measures listed, the construction of the proposed driveway would have minimal impact on the health of the tree, and as such, should proceed as shown on the plans.

 

However, the report did not include exploratory trenching along the line of proposed construction as requested, so in order to clearly identify the size and location of roots in this area, the applicant/Arborist was instructed to conduct further investigations and present the findings to Council for approval, prior to granting consent.

 

This additional report has now been received, (Root Investigative Report, prepared by George Palmer of Botanics Tree Wise People Pty Ltd, dated September 2004) and supports the original report of 22nd April 2004 in finding minimal roots in this area.

 

The Arborist has stated that approximately 5% of the root system will need to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed works, and should have a minimal impact on its health as it will easily be able to compensate for this loss. As such, the applicant will be required to ensure the retention of this tree, as well as the correct and full implementation of the tree protection measures as recommended by the Arborist, as part of this application.

 

NOTE: THE ARBORIST HAS RECOMMENDED THAT IN ORDER TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE TREE AS WELL AS TO MINIMISE COMPACTION OF THE ROOTZONE FROM MACHINERY ETC DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION, ACCESS TO THE SITE SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO THE DUDLEY STREET SIDE OF THE SITE.

 

There are four (4) Eucalyptus species (Gum trees) on Council’s Dudley Street nature strip, all of approximately 3-4 metres in height. They appear in reasonable condition, are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order and make a positive contribution to the streetscape. The applicant will be required to protect these trees as part of the proposed works, and as such, protection measures will be necessary.

 

There are two Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palms) of approximately 4 metres in height, along the northern boundary, adjacent to the Surgery. They appear in reasonable condition and are covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. They are not deemed overly significant; however, the plans show that they are to be retained, and as such, protection measures will be necessary.

 

There is one Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palm) of approximately 4 metres in height, along the southern boundary, along the Dudley Street frontage. It appears in reasonable condition and is covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order. The plans show this palm as being transplanted towards the northern boundary, to be grouped with the other palms in this area of the site. As such, an Arborist Report should be submitted detailing the proposed methods and after care requirements.

 

There are several small-medium sized palms and shrubs/trees near the northeast and southeast corners of the site that have been shown for removal on the plans provided. These trees are all too small to be covered by Council’s Tree Preservation Order, and as such, consent is not required for their removal.

 

Flood Study Comments

 

The subject development site is located near a localised low point in Dudley Street and may be subject to flooding from water pooling in the low point during major storm events. The site may also experience some flooding from overland flows down Dudley Street and Havelock Avenue.

 

The applicant has submitted a ‘Flood Assessment Report (revision A)’ prepared by AKY Consulting, dated April 2004, which determines the 1 in 100 year flood levels for the site. The flood levels were estimated to be as follows:

 

   Depth of ponded water in the Dudley Street sag and Asher Lane - at RL 28.60 (AHD);

 

   Depth of overland flows in Dudley Street – 50 mm above the back of the existing footpath (i.e. 50mm above the level at the property boundary); and

 

   Depth of overland flows in Havelock Avenue – 50 mm above the top of the existing kerb level.

 

The applicant’s hydraulic consultant has reviewed the proposed development plans and confirms that:

 

   The development is unlikely to exacerbate the existing floodwater levels for all storms up to and including the 100 year ARI design storm; and

 

   The development is adequately protected from overland flows along Dudley Street, Havelock Avenue and the sag drainage at Dudley Street.

 

Drainage Comments

 

Under the current stormwater code, on-site stormwater detention (OSD) is not required for this development. However, due to localised flooding problems adjacent to the site, it has been determined that the new stormwater code (currently being prepared) will require the site to provide on-site detention.

 

The applicant was advised of the proposed changes to the stormwater code at the pre-lodgement meeting and the drainage concept plans show provision for on-site detention of stormwater.

 

Whilst the revised code has not yet been finalised / adopted by Council, the AIS Department considers that the proposed development should still be conditioned to provide OSD given prevailing problems associated with flooding in the area.

 

Appropriate conditions have been included in this memo relating to the provision of on site stormwater detention on the subject site.

 

The DPCD is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the AIS Department has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required submit detailed drainage plans to the PCA for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Traffic Comments

 

It is noted that this application has been assessed in accordance with the new Service Level Agreement between the Development Assessment section, and the Asset & Infrastructure Services Department.

 

The DPCD should ensure that the proposed parking provisions are adequate.

 

The average traffic generation for the proposed residential development consisting of 19 residential units will be in the range of 76 to 95 vehicle movements per day.

 

The expected peak flow volume of approximately 9.5 vehicles per hour is considered low and no delays should be experienced in Havelock Avenue as a result of this development.

 

Vehicular Access

 

Further to the AIS Department pre-lodgement comments and subsequent correspondence, the AIS Department again raises concerns over the location and design of the proposed vehicular access.

 

The application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineer and the following comments were received:

 

No reason has been furnished in the traffic report submitted in support of the proposal, as to why a vehicular access has not been proposed at the Dudley Street frontage of the site. Ideally the access should be to and from Dudley Street.

 

Havelock Avenue is a busy bus route and both the physical alignment and the width of this street are not in favour of the driveway as proposed.

 

The applicant should therefore be advised of the preferred option for the driveway frontage to be in Dudley Street.

 

Should however, the submitted proposal be supported by Council, no objection is raised on traffic grounds to the proposed access in Havelock Avenue subject to the conditions that:

 

1.   The width of the combined driveway shall be a minimum of 6.0 metres;

 

2.   The width of the proposed median island be reduced to 300mm and its height be increased to 150mm, with no mountable splay on both sides.

 

Further to the above comments, the AIS Department understands that the driveway should not be relocated to Asher Street (due to flooding problems) nor is it practical from a planning point of view to relocate to driveway to Dudley Street. Given the limited options available for relocating the driveway and the applicant’s Traffic Engineer having found the proposed design satisfactory, then although not desirable, the AIS Department considers that the location of the driveway is NOT grounds for refusal of the application.

 

It is further understood that the width of the driveway cannot be increased from 5.5 metres to 6 metres (as recommended by Council’s traffic engineer) due to the large Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) located immediately to the east of the proposed driveway. It is considered that 5.5 metres will be adequate to facilitate vehicles passing.

 

All new walls adjacent to vehicular crossings must be lowered to a height of 600mm above the internal driveway level for a distance of 1.50m within the site or splayed 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre to provide satisfactory sight lines. Details are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority prior to the release of the construction certificate showing compliance with this condition.

 

The driveway opening at the Havelock Avenue frontage must be 5.50 metres wide and located at least 0.5 metres clear of the side property.

 

The internal driveway must be a minimum 5.50m wide (clear width) for the first 5 metres inside the property so as to allow entering & exiting vehicles to pass within the site. Should the driveway narrow after this point it is then to be designed with a minimum 1.5m x 1.5m splay to allow the passing to work.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area (1641m2) is less than required for the submission of a master plan (4000 m2).

 

8.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

   Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended

   Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000

   State Environmental Planning Policy No.65

   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

   Building Code of Australia.

   Randwick Development Control Plan – Multi Unit Housing (DCP-Multi-Unit Housing)

   Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking

 

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 and the following relevant environmental planning instruments and policies:-

 

9.1       State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65

 

The application was referred to the Design Review Panel convened under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65).  The design was considered by the Panel, both as a pre-lodgement application on the 1st March, 2004 and again after the lodgement of the development application on the 5th July, 2004, in relation to the design quality principles for residential flat buildings, as set out in Part 2 of SEPP 65, as follows:-

 

Design Review Panel Comments: Development Application

 

“The Panel has previously reviewed this application and is satisfied that it meets the requirements of SEPP 65.

 

The new driveway position is preferred as it allows the retention of the existing tree and reduces the impact of cars on the proposed apartments.

 

Minor non-compliance to height control is noted however the panel due to the overall quality outcomes supports the proposal.

 

The panel believes that the scheme maximizes internal amenity for occupants and that the urban responses are well considered.

 

There is no need to see application again as the panel consider that the application complies with SEPP 65 requirements and it is recommended that the application move on to its subsequent stages.

The view study undertaken by the applicant demonstrates that the project will not unreasonably impact on views in the areas of non compliance and any view loss to neighbours on the basis of the information provided is within expected view sharing aspirations”.

 

9.2       Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned Residential 2C under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (LEP 1998) and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The following Clauses of LEP 1998 apply to the proposal as shown in Figure 12 below.

 

Figure 12: LEP 1998 Compliance Table

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

31 - Landscape Area

50% (min) of site area

25% (max) of site area over podium

53.1%

 

26.66%

Yes

 

No – SEPP 1

32 – FSR

0.9:1

1.09:1

No – SEPP 1

33 – Building Height

12m overall

10m external wall

13.32m

No – SEPP 1

 

9.21     Clause 31 – Landscaped Area

 

Development, otherwise than for the purpose of a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2C is required under Clause 31 (2), to provide a minimum of 50% of the total site area as landscaped area.  Further, Clause 31 (3) requires landscaped areas over podiums or excavated basement areas not to exceed 50% of the landscaped area requirements specified by Clause 31 (2) above.  The purpose of the development standard is stated as:

 

“To establish minimum requirements for the provision of landscaping to soften the visual impact of development, assist in the reduction of urban runoff and provide adequate areas of open space for recreational purposes”.

           

The proposal provides approximately 53.1% of the site as statutorily defined landscaped area, of which the equivalent of 26.44% of the site area is deep soil landscaping and 26.66% of the landscaping is above the excavated basement car park level, in the form of terraces, pathways and landscaped garden beds.  As such, although the proposal achieves in excess of the minimum landscaped area requirements for the site, it also proportionally increases the amount of landscaped area over the podium, in excess of the maximum permissible, i.e. 27.6m2 or 1.6% approximately of the site area. 

 

An objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) has been received with the application that argues that compliance with Clause 31 (3) of the standard, in this instance, is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:-

 

·    The landscape design fulfils Principle 6 of SEPP 65

·    The proposal provides generous perimeter gardens and terraces, with a variety of landscaped spaces, with the all dwellings having an aspect to the communal garden spaces.

·    The carpark footprint is concentrated under the building footprint to allow a maximum of the site to be deep soil landscaped zones that allow planting of substantial trees able to grow to maturity.

·    The landscape design retains an existing mature Eucalyptus to the benefit of the surrounding area.

·    Landscaped areas on top of podiums are generally generous private terraces, directly related to living areas, with high recreational value for future residents.

·    The submitted landscape plan appropriately responds to the specific site conditions.

 

Comment

 

Compliance with the development standard for landscaped area is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance and the SEPP 1 submission is supported for the above and following reasons:-

 

·    The proposal provides 53.1% of the site as landscaped area and exceeds of the minimum overall landscaped area requirements for the site.

·    The  proposal achieves the purpose of the standard in that it provides a generous proportion of the site area as deep soil landscaping (26.4%) and is in excess of the minimum of that required if the proposal only achieved the minimum numerical requirements for overall landscaped area.  The deep soil component is primarily responsible for providing visual softening of the development and assisting in urban run-off.

·    The variation to the standard is minor (1.6%) and increases the ability of the development to provide generous ground level active recreation spaces.

 

9.22     Clause 32 – Floor Space Ratios

 

Under Clause 32(2), a maximum floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.9:1 is applicable for the site.  The proposed development has a FSR of approximately 1.09:1 which exceeds the control by approximately 147.6m2.

 

The objective of the FSR standard under the LEP is as follows:

 

“To establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential, business, industrial and special uses zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided.  This will help to reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.”

 

An objection pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) has been received with the application that argues that compliance with the standard in this instance is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:-

 

·    The site can support a floor space that is specific and appropriate to the site due to its “island” context, i.e. it has only a single residential neighbour being (43 Dudley Street) to the west.  The proposed development is reasonable in its context and provides for an attractively designed building which will enhance the built environment.

·    The proposed floor space achieves an appropriate and reasonable built form with acceptable amenity impacts.

·    The built form is consistent with that of newer developments and will have a positive contribution to the streetscapes.

·    The proposal promotes the orderly use of the land as the site is capable of accommodating adequate parking levels, landscaping and an appropriate floor space.

·    The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the 2C Zone which promotes the medium density housing forms which do not compromise the amenity of surrounding areas.

·    The proposed development is considered to form a positive contribution to the streetscape and an improvement to the existing residential flat buildings in the locality, with a positive endorsement from the Design Review Panel.

·    The proposed floor space excess will not be responsible for any loss of views or outlook from surrounding properties.

·    The amount of landscaping exceeds the Council’s numerical requirement and compliments the built form.

·    The excess floor space will not be responsible for any aural or visual privacy impacts.  The proposal provides adequate side and rear setbacks and landscaping to assist in maintaining acceptable privacy levels.

·    The proposed floor space will not be responsible for any adverse shadowing impacts.

·    The proposal complies with the provisions of SEPP 65 and will create an attractive and high amenity living environment, with each unit having north-facing living areas and the majority having cross-flow ventilation.

 

Comment

 

The applicant puts forward in the SEPP 1 objection that the building complies with the provisions of SEPP 65 and it is not doubted that it does comply with many of these provisions in that the proposed design will create an attractive living environment, with a high degree of amenity for future occupants.  It is also not disputed that the apartments have been well planned in that they are generously sized, achieve northern solar access to the living areas of all units, and the majority of apartments having the advantage of cross-ventilation.  As well, it is considered that the development is proposed to be located within a well designed landscape setting, having a substantial area of deep soil planting.

 

It is considered, however, that these attributes of good design can be achieved with a development that complies with the floor space standard.  The purpose of the standard aims to establish a reasonable upper limit on the amount of floor space to be provided on the site and in this regard how the proposed development responds and contributes to site context establishes the appropriateness of the floor space proposed in terms of visual bulk, form and scale.

 

The proposed development steps down the site in three stages: a three storey element at it western end (or topographically highest level), a part three/part four storey element in the middle section and a four storey element at its eastern end (or lowest level).  This results in a building form that culminates at its eastern junction to be visually excessive and aesthetically out of character with the surrounding locality and the streetscape, which forms its context.  While not producing substantial amenity impacts of bulk and scale in regard to shadowing of neighbouring properties or visual privacy, the proposal would not contribute to an attractive visual environment in terms of its scale and would not be compatible with nearby development, particularly the one storey dwelling to the east (55 Asher Street) and the two and three storey scale of development further to the east on the same sides of Dudley Street and Havelock Avenue in which it is to be located.   It is considered that a more “stepped” building form should be adopted that responds to the site topography and this would require the removal of at least part of the floor space on the upper level of the eastern most building, if not eliminating in its entirety, the apartment (Apartment 16) solely located on this level.  This reduction in floor space may also preserve a greater part of the views for residents to the south-east of the site.  Accordingly, the SEPP 1 objection is not supported in the circumstances of the particular case and it is considered not unnecessary or unreasonable for the development to comply with the floor space ratio standard by removing building bulk at the south-eastern corner of the site.

 

9.23     Clause 33 – Building Heights

 

Clause 33 (2) of the RLEP 1998 requires that the maximum building height for a building, other than a dwelling house, within Zone No. 2C be no more than 12m measured vertically from any point on ground level, while the maximum external wall height, under Clause 33 (4), is 10m measured vertically from any point on ground level.  The purpose of the development standard for building heights is as follows:-

 

“To set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity of surrounding areas”.

 

The proposed development has the same maximum overall height and maximum external wall height due to the building form of parapet walls and flat roof.  The maximum height of 13.32m is reached at the eastern end of the development due to the site topography.  The proposal thus seeks variation to both external wall and overall height controls contained with Clause 33. 

 

As the overall building height and external wall height are the product of the building form and are therefore the same, it is considered reasonable to consider the applicant’s SEPP 1 objections together.  These argue that compliance with the building heights standard in this instance is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:-

 

·    The height allows for adequate solar access to the internal and external living areas of the neighbouring properties.

·    The height does not result in any significant loss of view or outlook from surrounding properties; overshadowing or loss of privacy.

·    The height is significantly lower than the neighbouring flat building to the west (Clinton Court) and consistent with recently approved and built residential flat buildings in the vicinity.

·    The height does not dominate the streetscape.

·    The excess height does not contribute or create a disorderly use of the site.

·    The proposed height (overall and wall) is below that of other residential flat buildings along Dudley Street and the vicinity of the site.

·    The proposed design is considered meritorious and will form an attractive addition to the streetscape.

·    The site is located in a valley which will result in the built form being significantly lower than neighbouring development.

·    The degree of variation sought in regard to the overall building height is minor.

·    The eastern end of the site lies within a flood prone area and therefore the floor levels have been raised to prevent flooding of the eastern section of the building.

 

Comment

 

The topography of the site falls from the west to the east as both Dudley Street and Havelock Avenue have quite steep falls down to Asher Street, with the fall in Havelock tapering off past Asher Street to the east, while Dudley Street ascends to the east to Arden Street. 

 

Along the Dudley Street frontage, the building is massed into three (3) separate but interconnected forms.  At the south-western end of the site, the highest point of site, the first building form has an external wall height/overall building height at its western end of approximately 10.62m and approximately 11.89m at the eastern end of its façade.  Thus achieving compliance with the 12m overall height limit but not the 10m external wall height limit.

 

The central building from in the Dudley Street elevation has at its western end a compliant overall height of 11.95m approximately and exceeds the overall height limit at its eastern end with a maximum height of 12.59m.

 

The building form proposed at the eastern end of the Dudley Street elevation, exceeds the overall height limit along its entire frontage, with an approximate height at its western end of 12.79m and at its eastern end a maximum of 13.32m.

 

As noted in the comments by Council’s Assets and Infrastructure Services Department (refer Section 6.2 of this report), there is a localised low point at the eastern end of the site in Dudley Street which may subject the site to flooding from water ponding during major storm events.  Accordingly, to mitigate flooding effects, including overland flows that may occur down both Dudley Street and Havelock Avenue, the ground floor level has been raised in total approximately 1m-1.25m above the ponding depth of the low point identified in the submitted flood study for both the eastern most building form and for the ground floor unit (Apartment 3) in the middle building, the latter in response to overland flows down Dudley Street.  This significantly exacerbates the proposed development’s non compliance with the 12m overall height control, with the highest point of the proposed building being at its south-eastern end, with both the external wall height and overall height being 13.32m (based on survey levels) and this height being fairly consistent along the Asher Street frontage.  Rather as being considered as a constraint on the redevelopment potential of the land, the applicant has sought compensation in the proposed design by way of unnecessarily increasing the height above what otherwise would be available.

 

The applicant quite rightly points out in the SEPP 1 objection, that the increased building height does not result in any significant degree of overshadowing or loss of privacy when assessed with regard to the performance criteria contained in Council’s DCP-Multi-Unit Housing.  Although some views will be lost particularly from dwellings at the lower level of 82 Dudley Street and from the front of the dwelling at 80 Dudley Street, it should be noted that a fully compliant development will still impact on the views of the majority of the properties affected. 

 

The absence of significant amenity impacts to neighbouring properties alone, however, is not sufficient reason to establish the objection.  Instead, the planning purpose looks to consistency with other standards of floor space and landscape to determine the amenity to the surrounding area.  In this regard, while it is considered the proposal achieves numerical compliance with the overall requirements for landscaped area, the floor space ratio is well in excess of the re-development potential of the land.  As such, it is necessary to have regard to the broader impacts resulting to the surrounding area, in particular the contextual fit within the streetscape. 

 

The applicant points out that the proposed building height is less than a neighbouring building to the west at 135A Brook Street, known as “Clinton Court”, however this building appears to be a 1960’s residential flat building approximately 15m in height, approved under different planning controls and should not be regarded as setting any form of precedence for a non complying building height under the current planning instrument. 

 

The applicant also states in argument that the proposed height (overall and wall) is below that of other residential flat buildings along Dudley Street and in the vicinity of the site, however, No 84 Dudley Street currently under construction opposite the site, being one of the most recent buildings in the immediate vicinity was assessed (under DA 202/2002) to be compliant in both external wall height and overall height and adopts a part two/part three storey scale above natural ground level, with the top level setback behind the front building line.

 

Looking to the topography of Dudley Street, as it falls with the site down to Asher Street and then rises again further to the east, to provide the context for an appropriate building scale, it is considered that the building form should step down in height with the street topography to ensure an appropriate contextual fit within the streetscape.  Notwithstanding the requirement to raise the ground floor level of the building form at the eastern end of the site to mitigate against the consequent flood impacts, the overall building height should not be raised in compensation.

 

Instead, the building form at the eastern end of the site should step down to minimise the impacts of scale to the single storey dwelling opposite (55 Dudley) with “ideally” a gradation in height between all three proposed buildings forms, with the proposed building form on the eastern corner of Dudley and Asher Streets being the lowest of the three not the highest, to ensure an appropriate transition to buildings further to the east in Dudley Street. 

 

It is therefore considered that the overall bulk, form and scale of the proposed development is excessive insofar as the height of the proposed four storey element of the eastern building will result in a form of development that is visually excessive and aesthetically out of character with the surrounding locality and streetscape. It is this feature of the proposed development that leads to an unacceptable adverse visual impact on the immediate streetscape and consequentially on the visual amenity of the surrounding locality

 

This in effect would require the deletion of the top most unit (Apartment 16) in the eastern most building form and a redesign of the access to the middle building, as it is currently shown as being accessed via the stairway located in the eastern most building.  Alternatively this uppermost level could be significantly reduced in area and pulled back from the front building alignment to both Dudley and Asher Streets, thus minimising the streetscape impact of increased height. 

 

This level of redesign would achieve a building form with only a minor non compliance with the external wall height control (approximately 0.5m excess) at the street frontage, a significant reduction in the floor space ratio and although the same overall height, the upper level would largely be contained in what otherwise would be roof volume and would have minimal visual impact to the surrounding streetscape.  It may also be possible to provide for greater preservation of views to residents to the south-east of the site.  This is considered a substantial design change and is considered beyond the scope of a deferred commencement condition of consent as it lacks finality in terms of outcome. 

 

In summary, it is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that there is no adverse impact to the surrounding area, in terms of the streetscape context of the proposed building form, which is also directly related to the excess floor space sought.  It is considered that the development would represent a built form that does not appropriately respond to the visual context of the surrounding streetscape and locality and as such, would result in an inappropriate form of development due to the bulk, form and scale.  Notwithstanding the other merits of the design, in term of lack of significant amenity impacts to adjoining properties and the high level of amenity that would be provided to future occupants, the SEPP 1 objection is not supported in the circumstances of the particular case and it is considered not unnecessary or unreasonable for the development to comply with the external wall height control for the building at the south-eastern corner of the site.

 

9.3       Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

 

The Development Control Plan for Multi-Unit Housing (DCP-Multi-Unit Housing) states that a proposal is deemed to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP if it complies with the corresponding preferred solutions. Therefore, the tables below (Figure 13) assess the proposal against the preferred solutions, and where non-compliance results, assessment is made against the relevant objectives and performance requirements.

 

Figure 13: Compliance Table DCP-Multi-Unit Housing

 

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENT