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 August 2008

 

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, 27TH MARCH 2007 AT 6:00 PM

 

1           Prayer & acknowledgement of local indigenous people

 

2           Apologies/Granting of leave of absences

 

3           Confirmation of the Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY, 2007.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addressing of Council by Members of the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

6.1                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 13/2007 - SALVATION ARMY'S RED SHIELD APPEAL - REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF ASSOCIATED FEES.

2

 

Additional Mayoral minutes (if any) will be issued and listed in a supplementary agenda.

 

7           Urgent Business

 

8           Director City Planning Reports

 

8.1                      

Director, City Planning Report 8/2007 - 17 Church Street, Randwick. (DEFERRED)

4

8.2                      

Director, City Planning Report 9/2007 - 10 Frenchmans Road, Randwick.

21

8.3                      

Director, City Planning Report 10/2007 - 169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee.

60

8.4                      

Director, City Planning Report 11/2007 - Draft Development Control Plan UNSW Kensington Campus Public Exhibition.

70

 

9           General Manager's Reports

 

9.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 3/2007 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

93

9.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 4/2007 - GOLDSTEIN RESERVE PUBLIC TOILETS.

95

 

 

 

10         Director City Services' Reports

 

10.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 12/2007 - DECLARATION OF CELTIS AS A NOXIOUS WEED IN RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL.

99

 

11         Director Governance & Financial Services' Reports

 

11.1                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 15/2007 -   IN HOUSE MANAGEMENT OF THE BURNIE PARK COMMUNITY CENTRE.

115

11.2                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 16/2007 -   INTERNAL REPORTING SYSTEM - PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT.

117

11.3

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 17/2007 – APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL VARIATION TO GENERAL INCOME.

119

 

12         Petitions

 

13         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

13.1                      

MOTION BY COUNCILLOR HUGHES – CODE OF CONDUCT – MONETARY LIMIT FOR DONATIONS. (DEFERRED)

121

13.2                      

MOTION BY COUNCILLOR WHITE – CAROLS BY CANDLELIGHT IN MATRAVILLE.

121

 

14         Confidential Items (Closed Session)

 

14.1                      

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 13/2007 - RECONSTRUCTION OF MILITARY ROAD BETWEEN BUMBORAH POINT ROAD AND BUNNERONG ROAD, MATRAVILLE - TENDER NO. 01/07.

122

 

15         Notices of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER

 


 MAYOR'S MINUTE 13/2007

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

SALVATION ARMY'S RED SHIELD APPEAL - REQUEST FOR WAIVING OF ASSOCIATED FEES

 

 

DATE:

28 February, 2007

FILE NO:

F2004/06050

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from Captain Phil Gluyas (Zone Director Randwick) and Mr Peter Schick (Zone Chairman Randwick) of the Eastern Beaches Salvation Army advising that the 2007 Army’s Red Shield Appeal is being held on the weekend of 19 and 20 May, 2007.

 

The Army seeks Council’s assistance with the installation and dismantling of a banner on the corner of Arden Street and Malabar Road prior to the Appeal, informing residents and visitors of the Red Shield Appeal. The Army also seeks assistance for the use of the RandwickTown Hall for its ‘counting house’ operation on Sunday 20 May.

 

ISSUES:

 

It has been the practice to assist charities or non-profit organisations on a needs basis and the Red Shield Appeal is considered worthy of Council’s support. There is no allocated budget for this type of activity so Council needs to allocate the funds required for waiving the fees amounting to $3,972.00.  The fees are made up as follows:

 

Application fee                                                $   132.00              

Install and dismantle banner ($500 x 4 weeks)      $2,000.00

Town Hall hire fee                                           $1,840.00                                  

TOTAL                                                             $3,972.00

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funds are available in the 2006/2007 Contingency Fund to cover the fees proposed to be waived.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that Council could help the Salvation Army’s Red Shield Appeal by waiving the fees associated with the installation and dismantling of a banner on the corner of Arden Street and Malabar Road and with the use of the Town Hall. Funds are available from the Contingency Fund 2006/2007 to cover this contribution.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)  Council vote to waive the fees associated with the installation and dismantling of a banner on the corner of Arden Street and Malabar Road and also with the use of the Randwick Town Hall and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2006/07;

 

b)  the Appeal’s organisers undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution during the Red Shield Appeal; and

 

c)  the Mayor or his representative be given the opportunity to address the Appeal on behalf of Council.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

PAUL TRACEY

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Director, City Planning Report 8/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

17 Church Street, Randwick. (DEFERRED)

 

 

DATE:

15 March, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1007/2006

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Health and Building and Planning Committee at its meeting held on the 13th March 2007 resolved:-

 

            “that this matter be deferred to the next ordinary Council meeting to allow the objectors to meet with Council officers to review shadow diagrams with respect to this application.”

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 14th February 2007.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

14 February, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1007/2006 & PROP003171Nil

 

PROPOSAL:

 New attic addition to an approved multi-unit housing building

PROPERTY:

 17 Church Street Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 J Spiteri

OWNER:

A & Y Gilsenan

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Tracey, Procopiadis, Hughes, Woodsmith and Matson.

 

The application proposes the construction of an attic within the roof space of the two dwellings within an approved multi-unit housing building.

 

The main issue is the impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties with respect to loss of privacy.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The building at present is a multi-unit building containing 2 dwellings under construction and nearing completion. The application details the construction of an attic within the roof space of each dwelling with dormer windows to the northern and southern sides of the roof. It is also proposed to delete approved juliette balconies to the front of the building, install windows to the en suite bathrooms at first floor level, enlarge the window to the kitchens at ground level and replace a single window to the living rooms with two vertical glazed panels.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Church Street and has a street frontage of 13.87m, side boundary of 24.385m and an overall site area of 338m². The site falls from the rear towards the street with a difference in level of up to 1m, and also falls across the site from the south towards the north with a difference in level of up to 1.25m. The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings and two and three storey multi unit housing development.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

There is a previous development application, DA 258/04, which detailed the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a two storey multi-unit housing building containing two dwellings. Approval was granted to that application on the 30th June 2004.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

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

 

5.1 Objections

M & S Tanti of 15 Church Street Randwick

Issue

Comment

The application increases the approved floor area of the building.

The application details the construction of attics within the roof space of the building, the additional floor area to the building is addressed in Section 7.

The proposed attic will result in a loss of privacy to their property.

The position of the dormer window within the northern side of the roof will look directly across the roof of the adjoining dwelling and not into any private outdoor living area or windows to that dwelling.

 

D & S Rosenfeld of 5/19 Church Street Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The additional height to the building will result in a lower amount of sunlight to their dwelling and the roof pitch should be lowered.

A comparison with the approved development reveals that the north facing windows will not suffer any additional loss of sunlight because of the increased height of the building.

There will be a serious loss of privacy to the north facing units of their building.

A condition is recommended to require that the sill height of the dormer window to the southern side of the building be a minimum of 1500mm which will maintain privacy to the adjoining building.

The discrepancy of the actual height of the building needs to be clarified.

The proposed overall height of the building is indicated at RL18.75 which is 500mm higher than the building as originally approved.

A full assessment of the impact upon the residents of 19 Church Street needs to be made.

An assessment of the impact of the proposed development upon the amenity of adjoining residents is included in Section 7.

 

H Cooper of 6/19 Church Street Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The additional height to the building will result in a lower amount of sunlight to their dwelling and the roof pitch should be lowered.

A comparison with the approved development reveals that the north facing windows will not suffer any additional loss of sunlight because of the increased height of the building.

 

The discrepancy of the actual height of the building needs to be clarified.

The proposed overall height of the building is indicated at RL18.75 which is 500mm higher than the building as originally approved.

 

There will be a serious loss of privacy to the north facing units of their building.

A condition is recommended to require that the sill height of the dormer window to the southern side of the building be a minimum of 1500mm which will maintain privacy to the adjoining building.

 

Shadow diagrams should be provided for mid summer as well as mid winter.

Shadow diagrams are generally required for the winter solstice when the shadows cast are the longest and the impacts greatest on adjoining properties. Shadow diagrams for mid summer would indicate lesser shadow impacts.

The proposed pitch of the roof should be flattened to reduce impacts upon sunlight.

A comparison with the approved development reveals that the north facing windows will not suffer any additional loss of sunlight because of the increased height of the building.

 

P Morahan 8/19 Church Street Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

There will be a serious loss of privacy to the north facing units of their building.

A condition is recommended to require that the sill height of the dormer window to the southern side of the building be a minimum of 1500mm which will maintain privacy to the adjoining building.

 

The proposal will result in a loss of view from their dwelling.

See loss assessment in Section 7.

The raising of the roof of the building will add considerable bulk to the building.

The proposal

The roof pitch should be reduced and the attic and dormer only provided to the northern side of the building.

The building as approved is symmetrical and if consent is granted dormer windows should be provided to both sides of the building to maintain the symmetry of the building.

 

P de Permentier of 9/19 Church Street Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The discrepancy of the actual height of the building needs to be clarified.

The proposed overall height of the building is indicated at RL18.75 which is 500mm higher than the building as originally approved.

The additional height of the building will result in a loss of sunlight which will not comply with Council regulations.

A comparison with the approved development reveals that the north facing windows will not suffer any additional loss of sunlight because of the increased height of the building.

Shadow diagrams should be provided for mid summer as well as mid winter.

Shadow diagrams are generally required for the winter solstice when the shadows cast are the longest and the impacts greatest on adjoining properties. Shadow diagrams for mid summer would indicate lesser shadow impacts.

 

 

D Roye 10/19 Church Street Randwick

Issue

Comment

The development will result in a possible economic loss to the owners of units on the northern side of the building.

This is not a relevant matter of consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

There will be a serious loss of privacy to the north facing units of their building.

A condition is recommended to require that the sill height of the dormer window to the southern side of the building be a minimum of 1500mm which will maintain privacy to the adjoining building.

 

GK Strata Management Pty Ltd on behalf of the owners of 19 Church Street Randwick

Issue

Comment

The discrepancy of the actual height of the building needs to be clarified.

The proposed overall height of the building is indicated at RL18.75 which is 500mm higher than the building as originally approved.

The additional height of the building will result in a loss of sunlight which will not comply with Council regulations.

A comparison with the approved development reveals that the north facing windows will not suffer any additional loss of sunlight because of the increased height of the building.

The concluding statement of the submitted report does not allow for the re-assessment of impacts upon the residents of the adjoining building.

An assessment of the impact of the proposed development upon the amenity of adjoining residents is included in Section 7.

Shadow diagrams should be provided for mid summer as well as mid winter.

Shadow diagrams are generally required for the winter solstice when the shadows cast are the longest and the impacts greatest on adjoining properties. Shadow diagrams for mid summer would indicate lesser shadow impacts.

The roof pitch of the building should be lowered to reduce loss of sunlight to the adjoining residents.

A comparison with the approved development reveals that the north facing windows will not suffer any additional loss of sunlight because of the increased height of the building.

 

6.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

The following clauses of LEP 1998 are relevant to the proposed development:

a)    FSR

Clause 32 of LEP 1998 states that a maximum floor space ratio for land zoned 2B is 0.65:1 and land zoned 2C is 0.9:1.  However, if the site is located on land zoned 2C and has less than a total site area of 700 m2, the floor space ratio is 0.65:1.

The proposal has a floor space ratio of 0.84:1 and does not comply, a SEPP 1 Objection has been lodged by the applicant, see discussion below.

c)    Height

Clause 33 of LEP 1998 imposes a maximum overall building height of 9.5 metres for buildings on land zoned 2B and 12 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C.  It also imposes a maximum external wall height of 7 metres for buildings on land zoned 2B and 10 metres for buildings on land zoned 2C. 

The proposed development has a maximum overall height of 9.2 metres and an external wall height of 6 metres breach of wall height – includes dormers over 6m2 and 2.5m in depth and, therefore, complies.

State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

The proposal seeks to vary the development standard in the Randwick LEP with respect to the floor space ratio standard in clause 32(2), which states a maximum floor space ratio of 0.65:1 and an objection under SEPP 1 has been lodged to support the non-compliance with this standard.

 

The applicant has argued that strict compliance with clause 32 of Randwick LEP 1998 is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

a)  The additional floor area will be contained wholly within the roof space and does not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on adjoining development in terms of loss or privacy, overshadowing and visual impact.

 

b)  The additional bulk (i.e. dormer windows) will not be visually intrusive when viewed from the neighbouring properties or result in any significant adverse impact upon the character of the streetscape.

 

c)  The proposal will provide a high quality contemporary design that is sympathetic to the desired future character of the area.

 

d)  The overall bulk and scale of the development is consistent with surrounding development.

 

Clause 8 of SEPP No. 1 sets out the matters, which shall be considered in deciding whether concurrence should be granted, stating that:

 

“The matters that shall be taken into consideration in deciding whether concurrence should be granted are –

 

a.    Whether non-compliance with the development application raises any matter of significance for State or regional environmental planning; and

 

b.    the public benefit of maintaining the planning controls adopted by the environmental planning instrument.”

 

The variation on balance is relatively small and is unlikely to impact on any matters of significance in either state or regional planning. Allowing the variation will not affect the public benefit sought as part of the objectives for this development standard within Clause 32 Floor Space Ratio of RLEP 1998.

 

Justice Lloyd in Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council [2001] NSWLEC 46 in assessing a SEPP 1 objection asked the following questions:

 

First, is the planning control in question a development standard?

 

Yes, Clause 32 is contained within an LEP and is expressed as a development standard not a prohibition.

 

Second, what is the underlying object or purpose of the standard?

 

The purpose of the standard is to achieve reasonable upper limits of floor area for redevelopments without compromising the amenity of adjoining developments.

 

Third, is compliance with the development standard consistent with the aims of the Policy, and in particular does compliance with the development standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the EP&A Act?

 

Varying the development standard will not hinder the attainment of the objectives of the LEP, sections 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the SEPP and the EP&A Act.

 

Fourth, is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case?

 

It is considered that within the context of the streetscape and immediate locality the objection can be supported. The development achieves the objectives of the clause, and strict compliance with the standard is considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary. The resultant bulk is consistent with the character and density of the streetscape particularly the adjoining multi unit housing development and the variation has no significant bearing on the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties.

 

Fifth, is the objection well founded? In relation to the fourth question, it seems to me that one must also look to see whether a development which complies with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, as noted by Cripps J in the Hooker Corporation case.

 

It is considered that there is an established density within the locality well above that proposed by the current scheme and the overall bulk and scale of the building will remain consistent with the streetscape and bulk of neighbouring properties.

 

Pursuant to Clause 7 of SEPP No. 1, it is considered that the objection is well founded and the granting of consent is consistent with the aims of the Policy. It is recommended that the SEPP 1 objection be supported.

 

7.    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

7.1   Development Control Plans

Development Control Plan – Multi-Unit Housing

The DCP for 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 assess the proposal against the Preferred Solutions, and where non-compliance results, assessment is made against the relevant Objectives and Performance Requirements. 

Performance Requirement

Preferred Solution

Compliance

(Whether proposal meets Performance Requirements or Preferred Solutions.)

Height

P1 Heights of walls, their location and orientation do not cause substantial adverse impacts on streetscape or adjoining properties.

Maximum 10m – wall height

8.6m. Complies.

Building Setbacks

P2  Side boundary setbacks

Side setbacks to ensure:

       Solar access maintained and overshadowing minimised.

       Privacy between adjoining dwellings and open spaces

 

       Landscaping and private open space provided

S2  Zone 2B

Minimum average setback 4 metres.

No part closer than 2.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

 

The side setbacks of the dormer windows are approximately 3m from the boundary. Does not  comply.

 

The proposed dormers would not be visually obtrusive in the streetscape and would not detrimentally impact on solar access to the multi-unit housing building to the south given the generous setback

       Streetscape amenity is maintained.

 

S2  Zone 2C

Minimum average setback 5 metres.

No part closer than 3.5 metres.

Maximum length of wall without articulation is 10 metres.

Minimum length of any step is 3 metres.

between the respective properties.  In relation to privacy, a suitable condition is included requiring a sill height of 1.5m for the dormer windows.

Density

P1 Building bulk compatible with surrounding built forms and minimises impact on nearby buildings, open spaces and the streetscape.

 

The application exceeds the LEP controls and a SEPP 1 Objection has been lodged and assessed in Section 6.

Privacy

P1  Visual Privacy

Windows and balconies of main living areas are located to avoid overlooking windows in adjoining dwellings and private open space.

S1 Offset, angle or screen windows with less than 10m separation. Sill level of 1.6 metres above floor level.

There will not be any impacts upon the privacy of the adjoining dwelling at 15 Church Street in that viewing from the dormer window will be across the roof of that dwelling. Notwithstanding a condition is included requiring a 1.5m sill height to protect the privacy of dwellings within the adjoining multi-unit building

View Sharing

P1 Design and location of buildings considers surroundings for assessing impact on views.

 

The building to the north of the subject property enjoys an outlook across the adjoining properties and includes large trees within both the street frontages and rear yards of adjoining

 

 

properties. The increased height of the building will in part obscure this outlook, however the quality of the view cannot be regarded as significant and the loss of part of the district outlook does not justify the refusal of the application.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

P1  Solar Access to Neighbouring Properties

Design, orientation, siting and landscaping minimises loss of solar access.

S1.  Solar access to existing solar collectors on adjacent buildings is maintained between 9am and 3pm each day, throughout the year.

S2  Living areas of neighbouring dwellings do not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year.

S3  At least 50% of the principal landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings does not have access to sunlight reduced to less than 3 hours per day throughout the year.

 

The increased height of the development will not result in any significant loss of sunlight to the north facing windows of the adjoining building at 19 Church Street in comparison with the already approved development. Further the proposal is well within the maximum permissible height limit.

 

8.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome: Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction: Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

 

 

9.    CONCLUSION

 

The proposed alterations to the multi-unit housing building satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the DCP-Multi-Unit Housing. 

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

THAT Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/1007/2006 for permission to carryout alterations to the existing attached dual occupancy to include an attic within the roof space and alter windows to the rear ground level of the building and install windows to the en suite bathroom to the upper level at 17 Church Street, RANDWICK, subject to the following conditions: -

 

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

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 04.116A, dated April 2004 and received by Council on the 22nd November 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

2        The external materials, colours and finishes of the building are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building.

 

3        Metal roof sheeting is to be painted or colour bonded to minimise reflection and to be sympathetic and compatible with the building and surrounding environment.

 

4        No cooking facilities or sanitary fittings other than those indicated on the approved plans are to be installed in the premises without the prior written consent of the Council.

 

5        To maintain a reasonable level of privacy to the adjoining properties the dormer windows shall have a minimum sill height of 1500mm as measured from floor level.  Details shall be provided on the plans accompanying the Construction Certificate application.

 

The following conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

6        New external timber or metal framed and brick veneer walls and roofs are to be provided with insulation (i.e. bulk insulation and a reflective building membrane/reflective sarking/foil insulation), having a minimum total thermal resistance R–value of 3.0 in roofs and 1.5 in external walls.  The insulation and reflective building membrane is to be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the manufacturer’s details.

 

Details of compliance with the requirements for insulation are to be included in the construction certificate application.

 

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

 

7        Surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

 

Absorption pits must be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed or flow onto any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance.

 

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

 

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

 

8        The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

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

 

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

 

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

11        Prior to the commencement of any building works, the person having the benefit of the development consent must: -

 

i)     appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work; and

 

ii)     appoint a principal contractor for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, obtain an owner-builder permit in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and notify the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly in writing; and

                                        

iii)    unless the person having the benefit of the consent is the principal contractor (i.e. owner-builder), notify the principal contractor of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

 

iv)    give at least two days notice to the Council, in writing, of the person’s intention to commence building works.

 

         In relation to residential building work, the principal contractor must be the holder of a contractor licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

12      The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or another certifying authority if the Principal Certifying Authority agrees), in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

The principal contractor or owner-builder (as applicable) must ensure that the required critical stage and other inspections, as specified in the Principal Certifying Authority’s “Notice of Critical Stage Inspections”, are carried out to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and at least 48 hours notice (excluding weekends and public holidays) is to be given to the Principal Certifying Authority, to carry out the required inspection, before carrying out any further works.

 

13      A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site for the duration of the works, which contains the following details:

 

     name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable);

     name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority; and

     a statement stating that “unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited”.

 

14     An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the development if the development is inconsistent with the development consent.  The requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

15      Prior to the issuing of an interim or final occupation certificate, a statement is required to be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority, which confirms that the development is not inconsistent with the development consent and the relevant conditions of development consent have been satisfied.

 

Details of critical stage inspections carried out by the principal certifying authority together with any other certification relied upon and must also be provided to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

     has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $5,000.

 

Details of the principal building contractor and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 (i.e. Details of the principal licensed building contractor and a copy of the Certificate of Insurance) are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, with the notice of appointment of the PCA / notice of intention to commence building work.

 

17     The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

19      Except with the written approval of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services, all building, demolition and associated site works (including site deliveries) must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive and between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays and all building activities are strictly prohibited on Sundays and Public Holidays.

 

20      Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

         

21      Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works.

 

The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from the Council and other relevant Authorities prior to excavating or opening-up the road or footway for services or the like.

 

Any part of Council’s nature strip which is damaged as a result of the work must be back-filled, top-soiled and re-turfed with kikuyu turf prior to occupation or finalisation of the development, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

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

 

Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

23      During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by the NSW Department of Housing

 

Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any footpath, roadway, nature strip, drainage line or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

A warning sign for soil and water management must be displayed in a prominent position on the building site, visible to both the public and site workers.  The sign must be displayed throughout the construction period.  Copies of a suitable warning sign are available at Council’s Customer Service Centre for a nominal fee.

 

24      Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

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

 

Temporary site fences are to be structurally adequate, safe and be constructed in a professional manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

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

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or amenities upon a footpath or public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

25      A local approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council's Building Services section prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

     Install or erect any site fencing, hoardings or site structures

     Operate a crane or hoist goods or materials over a footpath or road

     Placement of a waste skip (grater than 3m in length) or any container or other article.

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

A1      Building or excavations works must not be commenced until a construction certificate has been obtained from Council's Building Certification Services or an Accredited Certifier and either Council's Building Certification Services or an Accredited Certifier has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) for this development.

 

Failure to obtain a Construction Certificate and appoint a PCA before commencing works is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million under the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

A2      The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and the construction certificate must not be inconsistent with the development consent.

 

In this regard, the development consent plans do not detail compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA.

 

Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

You are therefore advised to ensure that the development is not inconsistent with Council's consent and to consult with Council’s Building Certification Services or an accredited certifier prior to submitting your construction certificate application to enable these matters to be addressed accordingly.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

PERRY HEAD

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING 

SENIOR ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


Director, City Planning Report 9/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

10 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

 

 

DATE:

12 March, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/740/2006 & PROP033299

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. DA/740/2006 for alterations and additions to the existing boarding house.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 23 February 2007.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID MOONEY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

23 February 2007

FILE NO:

DA/740/2006 & PROP033299

 

PROPOSAL:

 Alterations and additions to the existing boarding house

PROPERTY:

 10 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

WARD:

 North Ward

APPLICANT:

 Electrical Services International Pty Ltd

OWNERS:

Mr B Subota & Ms M A Palisi

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This development application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors Woodsmith, Matson and Hughes.

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions to the existing boarding house, increasing the number of boarding rooms from 7 to 12. The new building would be 290 square metres in area and includes new kitchens, laundries and bathrooms. There is a landscaped recreational area and 2-parking spaces proposed for the rear yard. Vehicular access is available to the parking spaces via a right of way off Frenchmans Road.

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Frenchmans Road between Chapel Street and Avoca Street in Randwick. The land is 7.57 metres wide, 49 metres deep and 378 square metres in area.

 

There are objections under SEPP 1 to the development standards for Floor Space Ratio and Landscaped Area. These are considered to be satisfactory.

 

The proposal includes an on-site manager and there is a management plan that deals with noise, behaviour, complaint resolution and waste management, among other things.

 

The proposal was notified to adjoining owners on two occasions. The issues raised in the objections were extensive. Primary issues related to the perceived visual dominance of the proposed addition, the social impact of low-cost housing, amenity, parking and traffic. There were other issues and all are dealt with in this assessment report.

 

The proposed development is considered to be satisfactory. Impacts on the visual landscape and the amenity of surrounding properties are considered to be consistent with the zoning of the site.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions to the existing boarding house, increasing the number of boarding rooms from 7 to 12. The new building would be around 290 square metres in area and includes new kitchens, laundries and bathrooms. There is a landscaped recreational area and 2 open parking-spaces proposed for the rear yard. Vehicular access is available to the parking spaces via a right-of-way off Frenchmans Road.

 

The proposal includes demolition of the rear-wing of the existing Victorian row-house and construction of a new 2-storey rear-wing. The upper and lower floor plans would be identical. A large boarding room, a new kitchen and 2-bathrooms would be contained within the existing building at each level. The new rear-wing would contain 5 new boarding rooms and a laundry at each level. The windows for the new upper level boarding rooms would be installed with obscure glass. Figure 1 shows the proposed ground floor plan.

 

Figure 1 Proposed ground floor layout.

 

The proposal includes an on-site manager and there is a management plan that deals with noise, behaviour, complaint resolution and waste management, among other things.

 

The proposal is accompanied by SEPP1 objections for floor space ratio and landscaped area.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Frenchmans Road between Chapel Street and Avoca Street in Randwick. Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the subject site. The land is 7.57 metres wide, around 49 metres deep and 378.3 square metres in area. Vehicular access is available to the site via a right-of-way located at the rear shown hatched green in figure 2.

 

The site is to the north of, but not part of the St Mark’s heritage conservation area. The conservation area boast’s the City’s largest and most consistent collection of 19th century dwellings. The conservation area is outlined in red in figure 2.

 

The existing building is a detached Victorian row house and it is in a row with 3 other similar buildings facing Frenchmans Road. The building is presently used as a boarding house with 7 boarding rooms.

 

Figure 3 shows the existing premises in its street setting. Figure 4 shows the existing rear wing of the subject premises.

Figure 2 - Aerial view of the subject site showing nearby conservation area and service right-of-way.

 

Figure 3 - Street setting of the subject premises (white building above the car)

 

Figure 4 - The existing rear wing of the subject premises (centre of photo)

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

The existing building was constructed as a dwelling in the late 1800s. Council’s electronic database records the following application history.

 

BA/910/1964, additions

BA/965/1964, alterations and additions

BA/1161/1977, additions

 

The current proposal was the subject of a pre-lodgement application. The pre-lodgement design included a detached garage at the rear of the lot, with an additional boarding room above. The garage was replaced with open car-parking in the development application.

 

The proposal was amended during the course of assessment by way of adding the obscure glass to the upper-level east-facing windows.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

The proposal was advertised and notified in accordance with Council policy on two occasions. The second occasion was an amended proposal. Submissions were received from the following people:

 

Ronald van Geloven, 16/6 Dutruc Street, Randwick

John and Zoe Lynch, 7 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

Colin Small, 1 Chapel Street, Randwick

Architectural Property Services Pty Ltd, Rose Bay on behalf of the owners, 8 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

John and Judith Fleming, 2 Chapel Street, Randwick

Robert Hasforth and Heather Grierson, 3 Chapel Street, Randwick

John and Kay Carter, 8 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

Justin and Gail Monjo, 12 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

Pamela Kelly and Paul Murphy, 6 Chapel Street, Randwick

Noreen Boshell, 2 Dutruc Street, Randwick

Owner*, 4 Dutruc Street, Randwick

 

*Owner’s name withheld due to safety and other considerations in accordance with Part 5 (of Appendix 2) of Council’s Privacy Management Plan.

 

The issues raised are categorised and paraphrased below for comment.

 

Visual Impact

 

Issue: The size, scale, purpose and design of the building are completely inappropriate to the site and surrounding area. It is a massive intrusion...

Issue: The size of the development and the lack of landscaping means immediate neighbours are walled in, the structure imposes itself in a dominating way in the surrounding area.

Issue: The proposed privacy screens [opaque glass] are poor design solutions.

Issue: The addition is higher than 2 stories from our lower perspective at 6 Chapel.

Issue: The increase in density will have a significant impact on the character and amenity of the local area.

Issue: The proposal would increase in the perception of density by eroding outlook to sky and green space.

Issue: The proposed addition would impact on outlook from my second storey at 4 Dutruc Street.

Issue: The construction would have a visual impact on the neighbouring occupants at Nos 8 and 12 Frenchmans Road.

 

Comment: These issues of visual impact and outlook are considered under the ‘Environmental Assessment’ and SEPP1 headings of this report. The impacts of the development are found to be in context with the residential 2B zoning of the site and not unreasonable.

 

Light Spill

 

Issue: Impact of light-spill on 8 Frenchmans from the use of opaque glass (Like big TV screens). Imagine an 18 metre long, two-storey development rising up over your backyard – now with 5 glowing TV screens, magnified by obscure glass.

 

Comment: The use of opaque glass will prevent direct glare from the upper level windows. The windows are close to the rear yard at 8 Frenchmans Road and the diffused light would be seen, but the impact is not out of context in a residential area.

 

Privacy impact

 

Comment: Overlooking from the upper level boarding rooms was raised in response to the first exhibition period. The applicant introduced opaque glazing to those rooms and the revised proposal was also exhibited. Privacy was not raised as an issue during this second exhibition period. Privacy is considered under the ‘Environmental Assessment’ heading of this report.

 

Occupant amenity

 

Issue: The rooms are small with no outlook.

 

Comment: The rooms are modest but well laid-out. Internal amenity is considered under the ‘Environmental Assessment’ heading of this report.

 

Noise impact

 

Issue: There will be an increase in the ambient noise with more people coming and going and more televisions and appliances.

Issue: There will be an increase in the occurrence of parties and loud noises.

 

Comment: Building performance will need to satisfy the sound transmission requirements of the BCA. The residential use is not out of context in the zone and the site would be managed by an on-site caretaker under a management plan. Noise impact is not expected to be significant.

 

Previous unlawful expansion

 

Issue: The boarding house recently expanded from 5 boarding rooms to 7 without the necessary approval from Council.

 

Comment: This matter has been referred to Council’s Compliance Officer for investigation.

 

Management Plan

 

Issue: A management plan cannot be legally linked to the development application.

Issue: The management plan will not be properly implemented.

 

Comment: Management plans that impose limitations on a proposed use are important and useful ways of dealing with potential impacts. Council has the power to impose a condition for compliance with a management plan under Section 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Non-compliance

 

Issue: Non-compliance with floor space ratio and landscaped area requirements is substantial.

Issue: There is inadequate justification for non-compliance.

Issue: The proposal does not comply and is an overdevelopment of the site.

 

Comment: Non-compliance with the FSR and landscaped area requirements is the subject of a SEPP 1 objection and considered under that heading of this report. The objections are found to be acceptable as the proposed development is within the context of the zone and does not unreasonably impact on the nearby residents and local character.

 

Economic impact

 

Issue: There will be considerable economic impact on Nos 8 and 12 Frenchmans Road.

 

Comment: Capital improvement generally tends to improve the market value of the subject property and its neighbouring properties in the long term. While marketability can suffer during construction, there is no evidence to suggest that the adjoining properties would suffer a substantial long-term loss in value.

 

Overshadowing

 

Issue: Overshadowing will be much worse, we will lose much of our sun at No 8 Frenchmans Road.

Issue: The proposal will eliminate sunlight in our downstairs living areas at No 12 Frenchmans Road.

Issue: Overshadowing to 6 Chapel Street.

 

Comment: Overshadowing is considered under the ‘Environmental Assessment’ heading of this report and found to be acceptable.

 

Heritage Impact

 

Issue: Increase in density, FSR and reduction in private open space, as well as opaque glass would detract from the visual landscape and heritage nature of the area.

Issue: The proposal would impact on the values of the St Marks Conservation Area.

Issue: The proposal will have a negative visual impact on the heritage precinct. The elevation and bulk abruptly contrast with the row of Victorian Houses.

Issue: The proposal is out of scale and character with the heritage listed dwelling at 4 Dutruc Street.

 

Comment: The proposal is nearby to several heritage items and adjoins a heritage conservation area. Impact on the heritage significance is considered under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan heading of this report. The proposal is not considered to adversely affect the significance of the nearby items or conservation area.

 

Social Impact

 

Issue: If you lower the quality of residence, you will get a lower quality of tenant.

Issue: Most of the dwellings are inhabited by nuclear families and ageing home owners. This is the demographic of the area. The proposed is not consistent with that demographic; it will introduce more single adults, un-attached to the community and concentrate them on one site. Such a concentration will establish a precedent and is likely to cause future conflict and unhappiness in an otherwise peaceful community.

Issue: The development will lead to overcrowding on the site.

Issue: Impact on safety of surrounding residents. The resident of 4 Chapel Street was knifed in his home last year. We have a young family.

Issue: The development is out of character with the family nature of the neighbourhood.

Issue:  There is already a range of non-residential uses in the area. The proposal is a commercial use and will lead to a change in the ratio of commercial to residential uses in the locality.

 

Comment: The demographic profile of Randwick is not homogenous and has roughly equal proportions of 1 person, 2 person and 3 or more person households. A boarding house would not be unique in the area as there is a range of accommodation in various residential building types. The proposed boarding house is not considered to threaten the social cohesion in the locality and it is considered to be consistent with the nature of a residential zone.

 

Parking and Traffic

 

Issue: Impact on the availability of parking in the street.

Issue: There will be an increase in the incidence of illegal and unsafe parking adjacent to the Chapel/Frenchmans junction.

 

Issue: There is already excessive traffic along Frenchmans Road, Chapel and Dutruc Street.

Issue: The Chapel/Dutruc and Chapel/Frenchmans junctions are dangerous.

 

Comment: The proposal satisfies Council’s requirements for the provision of on-site parking.

 

Unlawful Uses

 

Issue: There is potential for the premises to be used unlawfully for backpacker’s accommodation.

Issue:  Council will have difficulty enforcing any prohibition on use as a backpackers as evident with others that ‘plague’ the eastern suburbs.

 

Comment: The building would not be permitted to be used for backpacker’s accommodation. There does not appear to be a history of such use on the site. The use of the premises for backpacker’s accommodation would be a breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. There are remedies available to Council and any aggrieved person to remedy or restrain such a breach.

 

Stormwater drainage

 

Issue: The premises as 6 Chapel and 2 Dutruc streets already have problems with stormwater overflow. The development will worsen these conditions.

 

Comment: The proposal requires the installation of stormwater infrastructure. These requirements are included as a consent condition in the recommendation.

 

Owner’s Consent

 

Issue: It is unclear who the application is made by as there are different company names provided … this raises concerns about the application, most importantly what legal entity residents and Council are actually dealing with and the accuracy of the declaration by the applicant.

 

Comment: The application is made by Electrical Services International Pty Ltd by declaration under Company Seal at Clause 12 on the development application form. The land-owner’s consent is given at Clause 3 on the application form. Council staff are satisfied that the application has been properly made.

 

Vegetation removal

 

Issue: Two significant palm trees are to be removed.

 

Comment: Council’s Tree Preservation Officer advises that these two palm trees are in good health and provide some local amenity, but can be replaced with more appropriate native species.

 

 

 

 

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 Landscape Technician

 

Council’s Tree Preservation Officer has advised that there is one Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow palm) five metres tall, one Howea forsteriana (Kentia palm) four metres tall and one Ligustrum lucidum (Privet tree) growing within the rear of this property.

 

The Privet is an environmental weed and is not covered by Council's Tree Preservation Order. Council actively recommends removal of this tree species wherever it is identified.

 

The two palms are in good health and have some local amenity. However, they provide little habitat and food source for native wildlife and could be replaced with more appropriate native trees should development approval be granted.

 

6.2 Development Engineer

 

Stormwater Comments

On site stormwater detention is required for the redeveloped portion of the site.

 

The Planning Officer is advised that the submitted drainage plans should not be approved in conjunction with the DA, rather, the Development Engineer has included a number of conditions in this memo that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required to submit detailed drainage plans to the certifying authority for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Traffic Comments

Prior to the issuing of any development consent, the applicant will be required to provide documentary evidence demonstrating that the site has legal use rights for access over the adjacent right of way. It is noted that this report has been written on the assumption that such legal use rights exist[1].

 

Parking requirements

Council’s DCP – Parking states that where the proposal comprises an extension/modification to an existing development, additional parking is only required to be provided to cater for the additional demands arising from the proposed modifications.

 

The Planning Officer is advised that there is no parking facilities provided on site for the seven existing boarding rooms. Noting Council’s DCP – Parking specifies a minimum of one car space per ten boarding rooms plus one additional space for a caretaker; the five additional boarding rooms (including an on-site manager’s room) would necessitate the provision of two car spaces.

 

The submitted plans show the provision of two hardstand car spaces fronting the right of way at the rear of the site, demonstrating compliance with this requirement.

 

Waste Comments

 

Council’s waste storage requirements for boarding houses are 1 x 240L garbage bin and 1 x 240L recycling bin per 6 beds. Assuming one bed per room for the proposed development (that is, 11 single boarding rooms and 1 single manager’s room), the waste storage area/s shall be sized to contain at least 4 x 240 litre bins (2 garbage bins & 2 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins.

 

6.3 Heritage Officer

 

Council’s Heritage Officer provided the following comments in respect of the pre-lodgement proposal. These comments also refer to a new out-building, which was not included in the final development application. The development application proposal is otherwise similar in size and form to the pre-lodgement proposal.

 

The subject site is occupied by a detached two storey terrace-type building, part of a group comprising nos.2-12 Frenchmans Road.  The site is to the north of the St. Mark’s heritage conservation area.  In terms of aesthetic significance, the Statement of Significance for the conservation area notes that the precinct boasts the City’s largest, most consistent collection of nineteenth century dwellings. 

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to facilitate the continued use of the property as a boarding house.  In detail it is proposed to demolish the existing rear wing and to construct a new enlarged rear wing, and to construct a new two storey outbuilding at the rear of site, accessed from the existing right-of-way.

 

Clause 46 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 requires Council to consider the likely effect of any development on the heritage significance of a heritage conservation area in the vicinity.

 

In relation to the proposed new rear wing to the existing building it is noted that the proposal retains the front rooms of the dwelling under the main pitched roof, while replacing the secondary rear wing.  The new rear wing will remain secondary in scale to front part of the building, and will have a similar form to the original rear wing and to traditional rear wings, with a skillion roof falling towards the side.  The deletion of the proposed parapet to the east elevation could simplify construction and give the rear wing a more traditional appearance.  Cutting back the roof to the link between the front part of the building and the new rear wing could improve the separation between new and existing.

 

In relation to the proposed new outbuilding, there are no objections to the scale and bulk of the proposed building, given the predominant two storey scale of surrounding buildings.  There are some concerns that the treatment of the ground level elevation to the laneway through the use of black walls and security screens will provide poor pedestrian amenity to the laneway and a poor entrance to these units.

 

The Heritage Officer’s comments are considered under the ‘Randwick Local Environmental Plan’ heading of this report.

 

6.4 Department of Planning – Housing Policy Branch

 

The proposal was referred to the Department of Planning for the Director Generals concurrence under State Environmental Planning Policy No 10. The Director General’s concurrence is shown in figure 3 below;

Figure 5 - Director General's Concurrence

 

7.    RELEVANT ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

 

7.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The following provisions of LEP 1998 are relevant to the proposed development.

 

a.    Clause 11                Zone No 2B (Residential B Zone)

 

The land is zoned 2B Residential and a boarding house[2] is permissible with development consent.

 

The objectives of Zone No 2B are:

 

           to allow a variety of housing types within residential areas, and

 

           to allow for a range of community facilities to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors, and

 

           to enable residential development in a variety of medium density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development in the area, and

 

           to allow people to carry out a range of activities from their homes, where such activities are not likely to adversely affect the environment of the locality, and

 

           to enable a mix of housing types to encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy these objectives. The proposed additions do not materially change the character of the area and allow the existing building to continue to make a positive contribution to the established streetscape. The proposal does not have any unreasonable impacts on local amenity and it would increase the stock of affordable accommodation in the locality.

 

b.    Clause 31, 32 and 33        Landscaped Area, FSR and Building Height.

 

The following table shows non-compliance with development standards prescribed by the LEP. The non-compliances are considered under the ‘State Environmental Planning Policy No 1’ heading of this report.

 

Table 1 - LEP Development Standards

Clause

Description

Provision

Proposal

Compliance

31

Landscaped Area

50%

42%

No

32

Floor Space Ratio

0.65:1

0.77:1

No

33

Building Height

Wall 7m

6.61

Yes

Overall 9.5m

6.61

Yes

 

c.    Clause 34   Boarding houses

 

This clause applies to a building or place that is used for the purpose of a boarding house. The consent of the Council is required to demolish, change the use of or make any alterations or additions to a boarding house. The matters for consideration that are outlined in this clause are principally concerned with the impact of a loss of boarding-house style accommodation, the availability of alternate accommodation for dislocated residents, and any change in the affordability of the existing premises.

 

The proposal would add to the local stock of boarding house accommodation. The proposed additions are not expected to significantly increase the rental values at the premises and construction work would begin only at the termination of the current lease arrangements. The proposal is considered to satisfy the requirements of this clause.

 

d.    Clause 46                Development in the vicinity of heritage items, heritage conservation areas and known or potential archaeological sites

 

When determining an application for consent to carry out development on land in the vicinity of a heritage item, a heritage conservation area or a known or potential archaeological site, the Council must take into consideration the likely effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item, heritage conservation area or known or potential archaeological site and on its setting.

 

The existing building is not a listed heritage. However, the subject site is adjacent to the St Mark’s Heritage Conservation Area and the following heritage items.

 

    49 Avoca Street, Randwick - “Archina”, Federation style two-storey residence.

    49–51 Avoca Street, Randwick - Logistics Support Group complex of timber and iron buildings.

    4 Dutruc Street, Randwick - Victorian residence, c 1886.

 

Council’s Heritage Assessment Officer commented on the pre-lodgement proposal and the relevant parts of those comments are provided here (the comments are shown in full under the ‘Technical Officer’s Comments” Section of this report).

 

“In relation to the proposed new rear wing to the existing building it is noted that the proposal retains the front rooms of the dwelling under the main pitched roof, while replacing the secondary rear wing.  The new rear wing will remain secondary in scale to front part of the building, and will have a similar form to the original rear wing and to traditional rear wings, with a skillion roof falling towards the side.  The deletion of the proposed parapet to the east elevation could simplify construction and give the rear wing a more traditional appearance.  Cutting back the roof to the link between the front part of the building and the new rear wing could improve the separation between new and existing.”

 

The proposal finally presented in the development application does not include a skillion roof and does not delete the eastern parapet as recommended by Council’s Heritage Officer. These details would be significant to the architectural integrity of the existing building if it was a listed heritage item, but they are not significant to the adjacent heritage conservation area or nearby heritage items. Importantly, the new rear wing remains secondary in proportion to the front part of the building and will have a similar form to the original rear wing. The proposed outbuilding shown in the pre-lodgement proposal did not appear in the development application and so the Heritage Officer’s comments on that matter are not relevant and have been excluded from this section.

 

7.2 State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards

 

The proposal was accompanied by SEPP 1 objections to the development standards for Landscaped Area and Floor Space Ratio in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

A SEPP 1 objection must be supported by a written objection that shows compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and specifies the grounds of that objection. This requirement was built-upon by Justice Lloyd in Winten Property Group Limited v North Sydney Council (2001) NSWLEC 46 where he specifically asked whether;

 

  Compliance would otherwise hinder the attainment of the principle objectives of the Act,

 

  Compliance would be unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, and

 

  The objection is well founded.

 

Landscaped area

 

The landscaped area clause aims 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 proposed development is 26 square metres short of the required landscaped area. A landscaping plan was submitted with the application and shows:

 

  A functional and generous 56 square metre (7m x 8m) communal open space at the rear of the site. The recreation space is set in a contemporary landscape arrangement, which augments privacy and includes a central lawn and communal barbeque.

 

  A landscaped car-parking area. Hardstand is limited to 600mm-wide wheel-strips. This area contributes around 25 square metres of permeable ground for stormwater infiltration, but is not included in the calculation.

 

  Augmentation of the existing landscaping in the front yard, improving on the established street character.

 

  A side-path consisting of large format pavers set in beds of Mondo Grass providing a semi-permeable and pleasant access-way to the rear of the site.

 

The proposed landscaping ‘softens’ the impact of the development, reduces urban run-off and provides for recreational space. The landscaping performs in a manner that is as good as a proposal with less substantial landscaping work, but complying area. Compliance with the standard would not necessarily further the principle objects of the Act. The applicant’s case for the non-compliance is shown in Figure 6 below and is considered to be sound. Compliance with the landscaped area is considered to be unreasonable in the circumstances of this case.

 

Figure 6 - Applicant's case for non-compliance with Landscaped Area

 

 Floor Space Ratio

 

The floor space ratio clause aims 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.

 

The proposed development is 52 square metres over the maximum allowable floor space ratio. The building mass is just 2-stories high and not out of context in the 2B residential zone. The scale of the existing frontage remains the same and makes a positive contribution to the street. The proposal does not generate unacceptable impacts on the solar access, privacy or outlook of surrounding properties. The applicant’s case for the non-compliance is shown in figure 7 below and is considered to be sound. Compliance would not further the principle objects of the Act and is considered to be un-reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

 

Figure 7 Applicant's case for non-compliance with Floor Space Ratio

 

 

7.3 State Environmental Planning Policy No.10 - Retention of Low Cost Rental Accommodation

 

The aim of this policy is to provide a mechanism for the retention of low cost rental accommodation. The policy requires the consent of Council and the Concurrence of the Director General for alterations and additions to a boarding house. The provisions of the policy are principally concerned with the impact of a loss of boarding-house style accommodation, the availability of alternate accommodation for dislocated residents, and any change in the affordability of the existing premises.

 

The proposal would add to the local stock of boarding house accommodation. The proposed additions are not expected to significantly increase the rental values at the premises and construction work would begin only at the termination of the current lease arrangements. The Director General concurs unconditionally to the approval of the proposed development under this policy. The Director General’s comments are included in full under the Technical Officer’s Assessment section of this report.

 

7.4 State Environmental Planning Policy No.55 - Remediation of Land

 

The site has not been identified as including any contaminated land or having sustained any previous uses which may have resulted in contamination.

 

7.5 Development Control Plans

There are no ‘boarding house’ specific development control plans.

 

a.    Development Control Plan - Parking

 

The DCP requires car parking to be provided on the site as shown in figure 8.

 

Figure 8 - Car Parking requirements

 

There are 12 proposed rooms including one room for a resident care-taker. Therefore, the proposal requires 2 parking spaces, and these have been provided at the rear of the site. The proposal satisfies the requirements of this DCP.

 

7.6 Council Policies

The following policies do not have explicit statutory effect under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 but are considered here as a matter of public interest.

 

Rainwater tank policy

 

The proposal has been assessed against this policy and does not require the installation of a water tank.

 

Asbestos policy

 

An asbestos survey has not been submitted with the application. The building may contain asbestos. In accordance with Council’s Asbestos Policy, a number of conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to maintain appropriate levels of public health and safety.

 

Social Impact Assessment Policy

 

This policy specifies two levels of assessment for development depending on the complexity and type of the proposal:

 

Social impact comment; for the majority of proposals, it is expected that any social impact comment can be adequately addressed by an appropriate comment in the statement of environmental effects required to be lodged with all development applications. A social impact comment will not be required for minor proposals.

 

OR

 

Social Impact Assessment; where significant social impacts are anticipated or likely. A social impact assessment is required in the case of a positive response to the criteria outlined in table 2 below.

 

Table 2 - Is a social impact assessment required?

Provision

 

Response

Is the proposal likely to give rise to a significant increase or reduction in the number of persons living or working on or visiting the site?

NO - The proposal would increase the number of boarders from 7 to 12. While nearly double the occupants on the site, the total number of occupants on the site is not significant.

 

Is the proposal likely to disadvantage or benefit any particular social group?

NO - While the proposal will provide additional low cost accommodation, the scope of the addition is not such that it would confer a particular advantage or disadvantage on a social group.

 

Is the proposal likely to give rise to an increase or decrease in employment opportunities in the locality?

NO - The proposal does not affect the supply of employment opportunities in the locality.

 

Is he proposal likely to have a significant impact on the existing housing stock in the locality, particularly low rental housing?

 

NO – The proposal would increase the stock of low rental housing.

Is the proposal likely to have an impact on existing community meeting places or give rise to an increased demand for community facilities or services in the locality?

 

NO - The small increase in occupants on the site is not likely to have a discernable impact on the existing social or physical environment.

Will on-site support services be required?

NO – The modest scope of the proposal does not warrant the provision of on-site support services.

 

Is the proposal likely to give rise to increased conflict in the community or adversely impact upon community identity?

 

NO – The modest scope of the proposal is consistent with the diverse array of housing types and mixes provided in the locality.

Is the proposal likely to enhance of detract from the cultural life of the community?

 

NO – The proposed addition is small and not likely to have any discernable impact on the cultural life of the community.

Will the proposal create areas of risk for occupants or pedestrians within or adjacent to the development?

 

NO – There are no physical hazards, and none proposed on or around the site.

Is the proposal likely to give rise to increased community concern regarding public safety?

 

 

NO – despite the subject of several objections, the increased occupancy of the site is not likely to have any discernable impact on actual or perceived public safety.

 

 

The proposal would increase the number of occupants on the site from 7 to 12. The new occupants would integrate into the diverse population base of Randwick without any discernable impact on the demand for social services or the feeling of community identity. The proposal is a small development and does not require a comprehensive social impact analysis. The applicant’s case is brief but accurate and states; The proposal will have no adverse or identifiable impact in terms of social impact.

 

8.    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.

 

Occupant amenity

 

The proposed boarding house includes 2 communal kitchens, a communal storage room, 4 bathrooms, 2 laundries and a formal outdoor barbeque and recreation area. The rooms are compact, at just 8 square metres, but are well laid out with a desk, built-in ward-robe and space for circulation, a single-bed, side-table, and chair. Windows are east facing and would receive morning sun throughout most of the year. Bedrooms 1 and 7 are on the upper and lower levels of the existing building and are more generously sized with north facing windows. The larger of these 2 rooms (on the upper level) is set aside for the on-site caretaker. The premises would not be extravagant, but would provide modest accommodation for people with limited means.

 

Visual privacy

 

The assessment of visual privacy in a residential setting is concerned with direct overlooking of main internal living areas and private open spaces. New development can protect existing visual privacy by off-setting windows and living areas, providing buffer distances of around 10 metres and installing screening devices.

 

Visual privacy is adequately protected for all surrounding properties. The principle source of privacy intrusion are the upper-level, east-facing windows. These windows would be installed with opaque glass. Ground level windows and the outdoor recreational area would be screened by the boundary fence. The outdoor recreation space is separated from the upper level windows of surrounding development by horizontal distance of at least 10 metres. There would be very little impact on the visual privacy presently enjoyed by surrounding residents.

 

Noise

 

Noise impact assessment is primarily concerned with the increase in background or ambient noise levels, and the likelihood and severity of specific intrusive noises.

 

The increase in ambient noise or the occurrence of intrusive noises would be reasonable. The additions would be constructed in 270mm cavity brick and sound transmission would need to comply with the Building Code of Australia. There is a management plan that details the lawful responsibilities of the 12 tenants and makes a complaints reporting procedure available to nearby residents in the case of specific incidents like loud parties. The impact of noise from the proposed boarding house would be consistent with the medium density residential zoning and is not expected to be significant to the amenity of surrounding residents.

 

Amenity and outlook

 

The rear part of 10 Frenchmans Road is part of a localised open-landscape setting. Six or so lots within 20 metres of the site ‘contribute’ to a shared landscape open-ness and ‘borrow’ the benefit of a wider outlook. The proposal would impact on that setting by protruding some way into a portion of it. Neighbouring lots at No 8 and 12 Frenchmans Road would experience the most acute impact and the landowner’s have objected to the proposal on the basis of being ‘walled-in’.

 

There are no specific building form guidelines for boarding houses. However, the concept of ‘borrowed landscape’ frequently manifests as a control for rear boundary setbacks, which are typically more generous than side and sometimes front boundary setbacks. Council’s Single Dwellings and Dual Occupancies DCP specifies a rear boundary setback of 4.5 metres. The Multi-Unit Housing DCP specifies an average setback of 6 metres and a minimum setback of 4.5 metres.

 

The proposed rear setback is less than the rear setbacks on the adjoining lots, and consequently, the new building mass would substantially change the outlook presently enjoyed by the occupants of 8 and 12 Frenchmans Road. However, while the magnitude of change is substantial the proposed development retains a generous rear boundary setback of 14.8 metres and the overall impact is not out of context in the medium density residential zone.

 

Solar Access

 

The assessment of solar access is concerned with the amount of sunlight that is available to the occupants of the proposed development, and the amount of sunlight that would be available to the occupants of nearby development. Provision of 3 hours to north facing living rooms and open space areas during the winter solstice is a universally accepted numerical minimum for residential development. In the case of neighbouring buildings, it is also important to consider how much sunlight is lost, as well as how much is retained.

 

Boarding rooms 1 and 7 face north and would have excellent solar access throughout the day. The boarding rooms within the new addition are oriented toward the east and would generally receive a generous amount of morning sunlight.  Boarding rooms 2 and 3 are on the lower level and would only receive sunlight for an hour or so after 11 am during the winter solstice. The outdoor recreation area is on the southern side of the building and would have partial sunlight throughout the day. Solar access to the occupants of the proposed development is generally considered to be acceptable.

 

The proposal addition does not affect any north facing living rooms or open space areas. Development to the south is separated by a generous rear boundary setback on the site and the adjacent right of carriageway.

 

The proposal would increase overshadowing in the morning to rear parts of the western lot. The proposed addition lengthens, but does not increase the height of the existing western elevation. Sunlight that falls to the living area and the critical open space area adjacent to this building would remain intact throughout the day. There would be no additional overshadowing of the western lot after midday.

 

Overshadowing from the addition would be observed on the eastern lot from about 1 pm, and it would increase throughout the afternoon. The proposed addition is longer, closer and higher to the eastern lot than the existing building although it affects only the outdoor space. The addition would not overshadow any windows or living areas. Existing solar access throughout the morning until 1 pm would remain intact.

 

Solar access and overshadowing are considered to be acceptable.

 

Public transport.

 

The site is serviced by bus routes on Frenchmans Road.

 

Management

 

The proposal includes provision for an on-site manager and a management plan that deals with the following matters:

 

  Resident behaviour,

  Use of illegal drugs,

  Neighbourly relations,

  Noise,

  Use of external areas,

  Parties,

  Consumption of alcohol,

  Use of stereos and the like,

  Activities likely to cause a nuisance,

  Registering and dealing with complaints,

  Theft,

  Car-parking,

  Evacuation,

  Major incidents, and

  Waste management

 

There are conditions in the recommendation that require the premises to be managed in accordance with the management plan.

 

Site suitability

 

The subject site is zoned and serviced for residential use (including boarding houses). There are no site constraints that are adverse to the proposed use. The site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development.

 

Public Interest

 

The proposed addition would add to the local stock of affordable boarding style accommodation. This is a desirable planning outcome. The proposal does not unreasonably impact on the surrounding residents or the character of the local area. Approval, subject to conditions, is considered to be in the public interest.

 

9.    RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:      Excellence in urban design and development

Direction 4a:     Improved design and sustainability across all development

Key Action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability

 

10. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11. CONCLUSION

 

This development application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors Woodsmith, Matson and Hughes.

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions to the existing boarding house, increasing the number of boarding rooms from 7 to 12. The new building would be 290 square metres in area and includes new kitchens, laundries and bathrooms. There is a landscaped recreational area and 2-parking spaces proposed for the rear yard. Vehicular access is available to the parking spaces via a right of way off Frenchmans Road.

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Frenchmans Road between Chapel Street and Avoca Street in Randwick. The land is 7.57 metres wide, 49 metres deep and 378 square metres in area.

 

There are objections under SEPP 1 to the development standards for Floor Space Ratio and Landscaped Area. These are considered to be satisfactory.

 

 

The proposal includes an on-site manager and there is a management plan that deals with noise, behaviour, complaint resolution and waste management, among other things.

 

The proposal was notified to adjoining owners on two occasions. The issues raised in the objections were extensive. Primary issues related to the perceived visual dominance of the proposed addition, the social impact of low-cost housing, amenity, parking and traffic. There were other issues and all are dealt with in this assessment report.

 

The proposed development is considered to be satisfactory. Impacts on the visual landscape and the amenity of surrounding properties are considered to be in context with the zone of the site.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council assume the concurrence of the Director of Planning to vary the provisions of Clause 31 and 32 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended) relating to alterations and additions to the existing boarding house under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 and, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/740/2006 for alterations and additions to the existing boarding house at 10 Frenchmans Road, Randwick subject to the following conditions:-

 

Referenced plans:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the architectural plans numbered A03. A04, A05 and A09 dated December 2006 and received by Council on 19 December 2006, and Landscape Plan numbered 06.111 dated 26 July 2006 and received by Council 12 September 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions.

 

Environmental amenity

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

 

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

 

3.       No cooking facilities or sanitary fittings other than those indicated on the approved plans are to be installed in the premises without the prior written consent of the Council.

 

4.       Internal or external clothes drying facilities are to be provided in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

5.       Lighting to the premises shall be designed so as not to cause a nuisance to nearby residents or motorists and to ensure that light overspill does not affect the amenity of the area.

 

6.       The premises must be operated as a ‘boarding house’ within the meaning of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.

 

7.       The premises must be operated in accordance with the plan of management submitted as Appendix E in the Statement of Environmental Effects. Failure to operate the premises in accordance with the plan of management shall constitute a breach of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Ecologically sustainable development & energy efficiency: 

The following conditions are imposed to promote ecologically sustainable development and energy efficiency.

 

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

 

9.       Hot water service pipes are to be provided with insulation and must also satisfy any relevant requirements of Building Code of Australia and AS 3500.

 

10.     Appliances provided within the development must as a minimum satisfy the following energy ratings:

 

a.  Clothes dryers minimum 2.5 star

b.  Dishwashers minimum 3 star

c.  Air conditioners minimum 4 star

d.  Clothes washers minimum 4 star

e.  Fridge minimum 4 star

 

Noise emission conditions:

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that noise emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

 

11.     The operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

12.     In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an LAeq, 15 min  sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Department of Environment & Conservation Noise Control Guidelines.

 

13.     The applicant must establish and maintain a formal and documented system for the recording and resolution of complaints made to the premises by residents. All complaints are to be attended to in a courteous and efficient manner and referred promptly to the managing agent. The appropriate remedial action, where possible, is to be implemented immediately and managing agent is to contact the complainant within 48 hours to confirm details of action taken.

 

14.     Upon reasonable prior notice, the managing agent must make available the incident book to the police and Council officers.

 

Traffic conditions/Civil Works Conditions

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

 

15.     Prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a.  Reconstruct any damaged sections of concrete footpath along the full Frenchmans Road site frontage. Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

b.  Reconstruct any damaged sections of kerb and gutter along the full Frenchmans Road site frontage.

 

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

 

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

 

Alignment Level Conditions

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

 

18.     The Council’s Development Engineer has inspected the above site and has determined that the design alignment level (concrete/paved/tiled level) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

 

19.     The design alignment levels (concrete/paved/tiled level) issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate.

 

20.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $121.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Service Authority Conditions

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

 

21.     A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

22.     The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Energy Australia and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

23.     Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming that their requirements have been satisfied, must be submitted to the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Drainage Conditions

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for drainage and associated infrastructure:

 

24.     Stormwater drainage plans have not been approved as part of this development consent. Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a.  A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b.  A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, and invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system. 

 

c.  Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (ie. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage system.

 

d.  The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.       Grassed areas

iv.      Garden areas

 

e.  Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

f.   Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

g.  The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

25.     All stormwater run-off naturally draining to the site must be collected and discharged through this property's stormwater system.  Such drainage must, if necessary, be constructed prior to the commencement of building work.

 

26.     All site stormwater from the redeveloped portion of the site must be discharged (by gravity) to either:

 

a.  The kerb and gutter or drainage system at the front of the property; OR

 

b.  A suitably sized infiltration system (subject to geotechnical investigation confirming that the ground conditions are suitable for an infiltration system).

 

27.     Should stormwater from the redeveloped portion of the site be discharged to Council’s street drainage system, on-site detention must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the above site is not to exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 5 year storm of 1 hour duration for the existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the above site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the kerb and gutter or drainage system as required by Council.  Provision is to be made for satisfactory overland flow should a storm in excess of the above parameters occur.

 

Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm, the on-site detention system shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

For small areas up to 0.5 hectares, determination of the required cumulative storage must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible the detention tank must have an open base to infiltrate stormwater to the groundwater. Note that the ground water and any rock stratum has to be a minimum of 2.0 metres below the base of the tank.

 

28.     Should stormwater from the redeveloped portion of the site be discharged to an infiltration system, the infiltration area shall be  sized for all storm events up to the 1 in 20 year storm event with provision for a formal overland flow path to Council’s Street drainage system.

 

Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the design storm, the infiltration system shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

29.     Any Infiltration systems/Absorption Trenches must be designed in accordance with "Section 8.5 ABSORPTION TRENCHES" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

30.     The detention area/infiltration system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it functions as required by the design.

 

31.     The maximum depth of ponding in above ground detention areas (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) shall be as follows:

 

a.  150mm in uncovered carparking areas (with an isolated maximum depth of 200mm permissible at the low point pit within the detention area)

 

b.  300mm in landscaped areas (where child proof fencing is not provided around the outside of the detention area and sides slopes are steeper than 1 in 10)

 

c.  600mm in landscaped areas where the side slopes of the detention area have a maximum grade of 1 in 10.

 

d.  1200mm in landscaped areas where a childproof fence is provided around the outside of the detention area

 

Notes:

 

a.  It is noted that above ground storage will not be permitted in basement carparks or in any area which may be used for storage of goods.

 

b.  Mulch/bark must not be used in onsite detention areas

 

32.     Any above ground stormwater detention areas (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

33.     The floor level of all habitable and storage areas adjacent to the detention area (and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage) must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level in the detention area for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be constructed.

 

(In this regard, it must be noted that this condition must not result in any increase in the heights or levels of the building.  Any variations to the heights or levels of the building will require a new or amended development consent from the Council prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development).

 

34.     A childproof and corrosion resistant fastening system shall be installed on access grates over pits/trenches where water is permitted to be temporarily stored.

 

35.     A `V' drain is to be constructed along the perimeter of the property, where required, to direct all stormwater to the detention/infiltration area.

 

36.     Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the permissible discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working.

 

The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with "Section 8.4 PUMP SYSTEMS" as stipulated in Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

37.     A sediment/silt arrester pit must be provided:-

 

a.  within the site at or near the street boundary prior to the site stormwater discharging by gravity to the kerb/street drainage system; and

 

b.  prior to stormwater discharging into any absorption/infiltration system.

 

The sediment/silt arrester pit shall be constructed in accordance with the following requirements:-

 

c.  The base of the pit located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

 

d.  The pit constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

 

e.  A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

 

f.   A galvanised heavy-duty screen located over the outlet pipe/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

 

g.  The grate being a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

 

h.  A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system provided for the access grate (e.g. spring loaded j-bolts or similar).

 

i.   A sign adjacent to the pit stating:

 

j.   “This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned.”

 

Note:       Sketch details of a standard sediment/silt arrester pit may be obtained from Council’s Drainage Engineer.

 

38.     Prior to occupation of the development, a "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention/infiltration system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention/infiltration system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

Notes:

a.  The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Development Engineer.

 

b.  If new linen plans are being prepared for the site, the plans shall indicate the location and dimensions of the detention/infiltration areas. 

 

c.  The works as executed drainage plan and hydraulic certification must be submitted to Council prior to the “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” being executed by Council.

 

39.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to Council, a works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer. The works-as-executed drainage plan shall be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and shall include the following details:

 

a.  The location of the detention basin with finished surface levels;

b.  Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

c.  Volume of storage available in the detention areas;

d.  The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes;

e.  The orifice size(s) (if applicable);

f.   Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

g.  Details of any pumping systems installed (including wet well volumes).

 

40.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the conditions of development consent. The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the certifying engineers and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

Waste Management Conditions

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate provisions for waste management:

 

41.     The waste storage areas shall be sized to contain a total of 4 x 240 litre bins (2 garbage bins & 2 recycle bins) whilst providing satisfactory access to these bins. Details showing compliance with this requirement are to be shown on the plans submitted to the certifying authority for the construction certificate.

 

42.     The waste storage areas are to be provided with a tap and hose and the floor is to be graded and drained to the sewer to the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

43.     The waste storage areas shall be clearly signposted.

 

Landscape Conditions

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

 

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

 

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

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure that the development satisfies the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Regulations and to provide for reasonable levels of fire safety:

 

46.     The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

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

 

48.     Prior to the commencement of any building works (including necessary upgrading works specified in the conditions of this consent), a construction certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

49.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, the person having the benefit of the development consent must:-

 

a.  appoint a Principal Certifying Authority for the building work, and

 

b.  appoint a principal contractor for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, obtain an owner-builder permit in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and notify the Principal Certifying Authority and Council accordingly in writing, and

 

c.  unless the person having the benefit of the consent is the principal contractor (i.e. owner-builder), notify the principal contractor of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority, and

 

d.  give at least two days notice to the Council, in writing, of the persons intention to commence building works.

 

In relation to residential building work, the principal contractor must be the holder of a contractor licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

50.     The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority (or another certifying authority if the Principal Certifying Authority agrees), in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected in accordance with section 81A (2) (b1) (ii) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Documentary evidence of the building inspections carried out and details of compliance with Council’s consent is to be maintained by the Principal Certifying Authority.  Details of critical stage inspections carried out and copies of certification relied upon must also be forwarded to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

The principal contractor or owner-builder (as applicable) must ensure that the required critical stage and other inspections, as specified in the Principal Certifying Authority’s “Notice of Critical Stage Inspections”, are carried out to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority and at least 48 hours notice (excluding weekends and public holidays) is to be given to the Principal Certifying Authority, to carry out the required inspection, before carrying out any further works.

 

51.     A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site, which contains the following details:

 

a.  name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable)

 

b.  name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority,

 

c.  a statement stating that “unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited”.

 

52.     An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the development if the development is inconsistent with the development consent.  The requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

53.     Prior to the issuing of an interim or final occupation certificate, a statement is required to be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority, which confirms that the development is not inconsistent with the development consent and the relevant conditions of development consent have been satisfied.

 

Details of critical stage inspections carried out by the principal certifying authority together with any other certification relied upon must also be provided to Council with the occupation certificate.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

b.  has been given a declaration, signed by the owner of the land that states that the market cost of the labour and materials involved in the work does not exceed $5,000.

 

Details of the principal building contractor and compliance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989 (i.e. Details of the principal licensed building contractor and a copy of the Certificate of Insurance) are to be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of works, with the notice of appointment of the PCA / notice of intention to commence building work.

 

55.     The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

The building is required to be provided with a smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a smoke detection system complying with Clause 4 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia or a combination of a smoke alarm system within the sole-occupancy units. A smoke alarm system complying with Clause 3 of Specification E2.2a of the Building Code of Australia is required to be installed in accordance with the following requirements:

 

a.  smoke alarms are required to comply with AS 3786 - Smoke Alarms, and be powered from the mains electric power source, and provided with a battery back-up.

 

b.  in kitchens and other areas where the use of the area is likely to result in smoke alarms causing spurious signals, heat alarms may be installed in lieu of smoke alarms.

 

c.  smoke alarms must be installed within each sole-occupancy unit, located on or near the ceiling in:

i. any storey containing bedrooms, located between each part of the sole-occupancy unit containing bedrooms and the remainder of the sole-occupancy unit; and where bedrooms are served by a hallway, located in that hallway; and

ii.          any storey not containing any bedrooms, located in egress paths; and

 

d.  in a building not protected with a sprinkler system, smoke alarms are to be provided in public corridors and other internal public spaces, located in accordance with the requirements for smoke detectors in AS 1670.1 and the smoke alarms must be interconnected to activate a building occupant warning system in accordance with Clause 6 of Specification E2.2.a.

 

e.  [Clause 6 requires that the system to comply with Clause 8.7 of AS 1670.1 to sound throughout all occupied areas, except that the sound pressure level need not be measured within a sole-occupancy unit if a level of not less than 85dB(A) is provided at the door providing access to the sole-occupancy unit and the inbuilt sounders of the smoke alarms may be used wholly or partially to meet the requirements].

 

Additional requirements regarding the design and installation of the smoke detection and alarm system may be specified in the construction certificate for the development.

 

f.   Provide emergency lighting to the stairways and corridors, in accordance with the provisions of Clauses E4.2 and E4.4 of the Building Code of Australia and AS/NZS 2293.1 (1998).

 

g.  Provide exit signs to the Building, to satisfy the provisions of Clause E4.5 and E4.7 of the Building Code of Australia and AS/NZS 2293.1 (1998).  Exit signs must be visible at all times to indicate the way to a position of egress from the building to the satisfaction of Council.

 

h.  Provide portable fire extinguishers to the building, to satisfy the provisions of Clause E1.6 of the Building Code of Australia of Australia and AS 2444 (1995).

 

i.   Provide a self-closing, solid-core timber door to the front entry doorway of each sole-occupancy unit, in accordance with Clause C3.11 of the Building Code of Australia.

 

j.   Prior to commencing the abovementioned fire safety works, a Construction Certificate must be obtained from Council’s Building Certification Services or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

56.     A Certificate of Adequacy prepared by a professional engineer, shall be submitted to the Council prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate [or strata subdivision certificate], certifying the structural adequacy of the,

 

a.  building

 

57.     Upon completion of the fire safety upgrading works and prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, a final fire safety certificate is to be submitted to Council and a copy of the fire safety certificate and fire safety schedule are to be displayed in a prominent position within the building (ie entrance area), in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

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

 

58.     The demolition, removal, storage, handling and disposal of building products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment & Conservation (formerly the Environment Protection Authority) and Randwick City Council policies and conditions, including:

 

a.  Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

b.  Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

c.  Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001

d.  WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

e.  Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

f.   The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

g.  Relevant Department of Environment & Conservation (DEC) / Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and WorkCover NSW Guidelines.

h.  Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005)

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

59.     A copy of the construction certificate, the approved plans & specifications and development consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

 

60.     Except with the written approval of Council’s Manager of Health, Building & Regulatory Services, all building, demolition and associated site works (including site deliveries) must only be carried out between the hours of 7.00am to 5.00pm on Monday to Friday inclusive and (except as detailed below) between 8.00am to 5.00pm on Saturdays.

 

All building, demolition and associated site works are strictly prohibited on Sundays, Public Holidays and also on Saturdays adjacent to a Public Holiday.

 

In addition, the use of any rock excavation machinery or any mechanical pile drivers or the like is restricted to the hours of 8.00am to 5.00pm (maximum) on Monday to Friday only, to minimise the noise levels during construction and loss of amenity to nearby residents.

 

61.     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

 

62.     Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works.

 

The roadway, footpath and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A Road Opening Permit must be obtained from the Council and other relevant Authorities prior to excavating or opening-up the road or footway for services or the like.

 

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

 

Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council, unless the waste container is located upon the road in accordance with the Roads & Traffic Authority Guidelines and Requirements, and the container is exempt from an approval under Development Control Plan for Exempt & Complying Development and Council’s Local Approvals Policy.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

64.     During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by the NSW Department of Housing.

 

Details of the proposed sediment control measures are to be detailed in a site management plan and must be submitted to and approved by the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any site works.  The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout construction.  A copy of the approved details must be forwarded to the Council and a copy is to be maintained on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Stockpiles of soil, sand, aggregate or other materials must not be located on any footpath, roadway, nature strip, drainage line or any public place and the stockpiles must be protected with adequate sediment control measures.

 

Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

 

65.     Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to the site and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted, when work is not in progress or the site is unoccupied.

 

A temporary safety fence is to be provided to protect the public, located to the perimeter of the site. Temporary fences are to have a minimum height of 1.8 metres and be constructed of cyclone wire fencing, with geotextile fabric attached to the inside of the fence to provide dust control, or other material approved by Council.

 

If the work involved in the erection or demolition of a building is likely to cause pedestrian or vehicular traffic in a public place to be obstructed or rendered inconvenient or the building involves the enclosure of a public place, a hoarding or fence must be erected between the work site and the public place.

 

If necessary, an awning is to be erected sufficiently to prevent any substance from, or in connection with, the work from falling into the public place or adjoining premises.

 

Temporary fences or hoardings are to be structurally adequate, safe and be constructed in a professional manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

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

 

If it is proposed to locate any hoardings, site fencing or amenities upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or any public place, the written consent from Council’s Building Services section must be obtained beforehand and detailed plans are to be submitted to Council for consideration, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide access and facilities for people with disabilities:

 

66.     Access and facilities for people with disabilities must be provided in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure compliance with Local Government Legislation and Policies of Council:

 

67.     Places of shared Accommodation must comply with the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 and the premises must be registered with the Council prior to occupation and on an annual basis, and the approved registration/inspection fee is to be forwarded to Council prior to occupation.

 

 

ADVISORY MATTERS:

 

1.       The applicant is advised that the Construction Certificate plans and specification must comply with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

In this regard, the development consent plans do not show compliance with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the BCA, including:

 

a.  Part B1          -        Structural provisions

b.  Part C1         -        Fire resistance and stability

c.  Part C2         -        Compartmentation and separation

d.  Part C3         -        Protection of openings

e.  Clause C3.2&C3.4     -        Protection of openings in external walls

f.   Part D3         -        Access for people with disabilities

g.  Part E1          -        Fire fighting equipment

h.  Part E2          -        Smoke Hazard Management

i.   Part E4          -        Emergency lighting, exit signs & warning systems

j.   Part F1          -        Damp and weatherproofing

k.  Part F2          -        Sanitary and other facilities

l.   Part F5          -        Sound Transmission and Insulation

 

Details of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and conditions of development consent are to be provided in the plans and specifications for the construction certificate.

 

You are advised to ensure that the development is not inconsistent with Council's consent and if necessary consult with Council’s Building Certification Services or your accredited certifier prior to submitting your construction certificate application to enable these matters to be addressed accordingly.

 

2.       The applicant/owner is advised that this approval does not guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the applicant should therefore consider their liability under the Act.  In this regard, the applicant is advised that compliance with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standard 1428.1 - Design for Access and Mobility does not necessarily satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

The applicant/owner is requested to give consideration to providing access and facilities for people with disabilities in accordance with Australian Standard 1428 Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 - Design for Access and Mobility, which may be necessary to satisfy the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

DAVID MOONEY

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER


 

Director, City Planning Report 10/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee

 

 

DATE:

14 March, 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1140/2003 & PROP017163

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Attached is Development Assessment Report for Development Application No. DA/1140/2003/A for Section 96 Modification seeking retrospective approval for a new sports bar to the rear of the ground floor of the Coogee Palace Hotel.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Development Application Report dated 22 February 2007

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

CHAHRAZAD RAHE

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 

 


 

Development Application Report

 

 

 

REPORT BY:           DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

 

DATE:

22 February 2007

FILE NO:

DA/1140/2003/A & PROP017163

 

PROPOSAL:

 Section 96 Modification seeking retrospective approval for a new sports bar to the rear of the ground floor of the Coogee Palace Hotel.

PROPERTY:

 169 - 181 Dolphin Street, Coogee

WARD:

 East Ward

APPLICANT:

 Beach Palace Hotel

OWNER:

Jomaring Pty Ltd

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

LOCALITY

PLAN

 

 

 

 

 

1.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

This Section 96 application is referred to the Health, Building and Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Murray Matson, Paul Tracey and Bradley Hughes.

 

The application seeks retrospective approval for the construction of a sports bar at the rear north western corner of the ground floor public bar area, as the works have already been carried out. Three submissions were made relating to the negative impact that the Hotel has on the residential amenity and the behaviour of patrons as a result of the consumption of alcohol.

 

The inclusion of an ancillary bar is considered to be minor in nature and the modified development is substantially the same as the original approved development. 

 

The recommendation is for approval of the Section 96 application.

 

2.    THE PROPOSAL

 

The proposal is to authorise the use of a “Sports Bar” in the rear north western corner of the ground floor public bar area of the Coogee Palace Hotel.

 

3.    THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA:

 

The subject site is located on the north-western corner of the intersection of Beach and Dolphin Streets in Coogee and is located opposite the beach and a recreational reserve. The site contains a three-storey building used for the purpose of a hotel and associated car parking. The ground floor contains a bar area, a gaming room, tab room, café, billiards/pool tables area and rest rooms. The other floors contain bars, office uses and dining areas. Pedestrian access to the site is off Dolphin Street via a centrally located door. The building contains fixed windows to the street and is a building of considerable heritage significance.

 

Adjacent development to the west is five storey building containing residential serviced apartments. The building adjacent to the north is a three storey residential flat building. In the vicinity of the site along Dolphin Street, uses are predominantly commercial/retail at ground floor and residential above. The area is predominantly a mix of two to five storey residential and commercial uses with large areas of open space adjacent to the beach.

 

4.    SITE HISTORY

 

a.    APPLICATION HISTORY

 

DA 1140/2003 was approved on 9 July 2004 and granted consent for internal alterations to the Coogee Palace.  The works included the removal of partition walls, relocation of the gaming room, provision of additional toilet facilities for patrons and removal of existing fixed windows located on Dolphin St and Beach St and replacement with new folding windows and new doors.

 

5.    COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

 

Notification and advertising of S96 (1A) applications under Council’s DCP – Public Notification is not required as they constitute minimal environmental impact.  Notwithstanding, two submissions were received:

 

5.1 Objections

 

Martin Faulkner - 9/84-86 Bream Street, Coogee NSW 2034

 

Issue

Comment

Council should not allow expansion of the bar area to serve more alcohol.

The proposal does not seek to increase the area of the licensed premises, or is likely to increase patronage.

Damage caused by intoxicated patrons of the Beach Palace Hotel.

The hotel is required to comply with the NSW liquor licensing laws in respect to the responsible service of alcohol.

 

Carolyn Murray - 5/169 Arden Street, Coogee NSW 2034,

Rona Wade – 4-138 Beach Street, COOGEE NSW 2034

 

Issue

Comment

Coogee is overwhelmed by bars and does not need another.

The proposal does not seek to increase the size of the existing licensed premises.

The residential amenity of the area is significantly affected by the hotel and its patrons. The ability to serve more alcohol should not be supported.

The serving of alcohol is governed by the liquor license conditions of the Hotel.  The “Sport Bar” would operate ancillary to main bar on the ground floor and would not necessarily result in increased patronage.

If the original DA did not mention a Sports Bar or specify these facilities were to be part of an additional bar then the fact that the facilities have been completed is not an argument to approve the bar.

The fact that the facilities are already constructed has not influenced Council’s assessment of the application.

 

6.    TECHNICAL OFFICERS COMMENTS

 

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

 

6.1 Environmental Health

 

This application was referred to the Environmental Health for technical comment, conditions have been provided for inclusion with any consent granted. The following comments were provided:-

 

Environmental Health comments

 

The proposal consists of a section 96 application for alterations to the ground floor bar and gaming room, in the existing hotel. The proposed alterations include a Sports Bar to the rear of the Ground Floor wholly within the existing building and involves no change in use of the premises.

 

 

 

Key Issues

 

Food safety requirement

The premises is to be designed in accordance with the Food Standards.

 

6.2 Building Service

 

The application was referred to the Building Services for technical comment and the following comments were received:

 

Building Services comments

 

The subject development relates to alterations to the Coogee Palace Hotel premises. The Section 96 amendment details a small bar facility located in the north-western corner of the ground floor lounge/TAB/entertainment area.

 

An inspection of the site has identified that the subject variations have been carried out have been commenced prior to obtaining the necessary prior consent or section 96 and construction certificate. No objection is seen to this minor variation that may have been considered to be not inconsistent with the consent.

 

Recommendation

No additional building related conditions of consent are proposed to be included in this determination.  However, the applicant is advised of the necessity to ensure compliance with the original conditions of development consent.

 

7.    MASTER PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

 

The total site area (1587m2 approximately) 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;

  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998;

  Building Code of Australia;

  Randwick Development Control Plan – Parking.

 

(a)  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

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

 

The objectives of Zone No. 3A are:-

a)     to maintain the viability of existing business centres

 

b)     to facilitate development of land, in places identified by the Council as suitable to be used as business centres, for commercial retail, residential and community purposes:

i)      by introducing appropriate floor space ratio controls, and

ii)      by encouraging economically viable retail cores which are currently located in close proximity to public transport, and

iii)     by enhancing employment opportunities and servicing the needs of the local and regional community, and

iv)     by encouraging and facilitating the use of public transport, and

v)     by providing and enhancing pedestrian and public open space areas for shoppers and workers, and

vi)     by maintaining and improving the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the City of Randwick,

 

c)       to minimise the impact of development on adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

The proposal is considered to be consistent with objectives of the General Business 3A zone

 

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

The purpose of this clause is “to establish consent requirements for development involving a heritage item or land within a heritage conservation area. Also, to establish criteria for the assessment and determination of development applications arising from those consent requirements”.

 

The subject site is listed as a heritage item. The proposal results in internal changes only being the new sports bar to the rear of the ground floor. These alterations will not affect the character and appearance of the building or be visible from the streetscape. The proposal fulfils the relevant assessment criteria and the work is considered to be relatively minor and will not have a significant impact on the heritage significance of the item.

 

8.1 Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plan No. Parking

 

There is no change to the use of the building or increase in the floor area; therefore there will be no additional parking demand for the subject site.

 

9.    SECTION 96 AMENDMENT

 

9.1 Substantially the same

 

Council may only approve an application under section 96(1a) of the Act if “it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section”.

 

The proposed modification to the original development is considered to represent substantially the same development and therefore may be considered by Council under section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The amendment details a new bar facility located in the north-western corner of the ground floor lounge/TAB/entertainment area and substantially relates to the Development Consent No. 11140/2003 for alterations to the Coogee Palace Hotel premises.

 

 

 

 

 

10. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

 

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

 

10.1  Likely Impacts:-

           

It is not considered that the addition of a “sports bar” to the corner of the public bar area within the Coogee Palace will result in any significant impacts on the amenity of neighbouring residents.  The provision of a second bar does not increase the service area of this part of the hotel and would not necessarily lead to increased patronage.  It would operate ancillary to the main bar on the ground floor, and does not represent a significant intensification of the activities on this level of the Hotel.  Furthermore, the ground floor of the Hotel is not subject to any public entertainment.

 

11. RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b: New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

Key Action: Develop and implement effective processes and strategies to manage the impact of new and existing development.

 

12. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

13. CONCLUSION

 

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

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

A.     THAT Council as the responsible authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Modify Development Consent No. DA/1140/2003/A on property 169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee in the following manner:

 

     Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the Revision plans numbered 0312-DA-01, dated 27/11/03  and received by Council on 10 December 2003, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plan numbered 0606-896-01, dated 28/06/06 and received by Council on 24 November 2006, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

     Conditions Nos. 28 to 38 to be added:

 

The following conditions have been applied to ensure that noise emissions from the development satisfy legislative requirements and maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the area:

 

a.       The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the operation of the premises and plant and equipment shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background (LA90), 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with the NSW Environmental Protection Authority’s Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

The following conditions are applied to ensure compliance with the Food Act 2003 and to ensure public health and safety:

 

b.       The premises is to be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004, Australia & New Zealand Food Standards Code and Australian Standard AS 4674-2004, Design, construction and fit-out of food premises and details of compliance are to be included in the documentation for the construction certificate to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

c.       Food safety practices and operation of the food premises must be in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004, Food Standards Code and Food Safety Standards at all times, including the requirements and provisions relating to:

·    Food handling – skills, knowledge and controls.

·    Health and hygiene requirements.

·    Requirements for food handlers and businesses.

·    Cleaning, sanitising and maintenance.

·    Design and construction of food premises, fixtures, fitting and equipment.

 

A failure to comply with the relevant food safety requirements is an offence and may result in legal proceedings, service of notices and/or the issuing of on-the-spot penalty infringement notices.

 

d.       Upon completion of the work and prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate, the premises must be inspected by Council’s Environmental Health Officer to ascertain compliance with relevant Food Safety Standards and the written approval of Council (being the relevant Food Authority for this food business) must be obtained prior to the operation of the food business.

 

e.       The Proprietor of the food business and all staff carrying out food handling and food storage activities must have appropriate skills and knowledge in food safety and food hygiene matters, as required by the Food Safety Standards.

 

f.        The design and construction of food premises must comply with the following requirements, as applicable:-

33.1    The floors of food preparation and serving areas and the like are to be constructed of materials which are impervious, non slip and non abrasive.  The floor is to be finished to a smooth even surface, graded and drained to a floor waste connected to the sewer.

33.2    The intersection of walls with floor and plinths is to be coved, to facilitate cleaning.

33.3    Walls of the storage, preparation and serving areas and the like are to be of suitable construction finished in a light colour with glazed tiles, stainless steel, laminated plastics or similar approved material adhered directly to the wall adjacent to cooking and food preparation facilities or areas, to provide a smooth even surface.

The glazed tiling or other approved material is to extend up to the underside of any mechanical exhaust ventilation hoods and a minimum of 450mm above bench tops or other facilities and equipment.

33.4    Walls where not tiled are to be cement rendered or be of rigid smooth faced non-absorbent material (i.e. fibrous cement sheeting, plasterboard or other approved material) and finished to a smooth even surface, painted with a washable paint of a light colour or sealed with other approved materials.

33.5    The ceilings of food preparation areas, storerooms and the like are to be of rigid smooth-faced, non absorbent material i.e., fibrous plaster, plasterboard, fibre cement sheet, cement render or other approved material.

33.6    All stoves, refrigerators, bain-maries, stock pots, washing machines, hot water heaters, large scales, food mixers, food warmers, cupboards, counters, bars are to be supported on wheels, concrete plinths a minimum 75mm in height, metal legs minimum 150mm in height, brackets or approved metal framework of the like.

33.7    Cupboards, cabinets, benches and shelving may be glass, metal, plastic, timber sheeting or other approved material.  The use of particleboard or similar material is not permitted unless laminated on all surfaces.

33.8    Wash hand basins must be provided in convenient positions, with hot and cold water, together with a sufficient supply of soap and clean towels.  Such hot and cold water shall be supplied to the wash hand basins through an approved mixing device.

33.9    Ceramic tiles or similar being provided to a height of 450mm above bench tops, wash hand basins and similar fittings.

33.10  A numerically scaled indicating thermometer or recording thermometer, accurate to the nearest degree Celsius being provided to refrigerators, cool rooms, other cooling appliances and bain-maries or other heated food storage/display appliances.  The thermometer is to be located so as to be read easily from the outside of the appliance.

33.11  All food that is to be kept hot should be heated within one (1) hour from the time when it was prepared or was last kept cold, to a temperature of not less than 60°C and keep this food hot at or above the temperature.  Food that is to be kept cold should be cooled, within four (4) hours from the time when it was prepared or was last kept hot, to a temperature of not more that 5°C and keep this food cold at or below that temperature.

 

34.     Commercial waste materials must not be disposed via council’s domestic garbage service.  All trade/commercial waste materials must be collected by Council’s Trade Waste Service or a waste contractor authorised by the Waste Service of New South Wales and details of the proposed waste collection and disposal service are to be submitted to Council prior to occupation of the building.

 

Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of trade/commercial waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

CHAHRAZAD RAHE

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

ASSESSMENT OFFICER

 


 

Director, City Planning Report 11/2007

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

Draft Development Control Plan UNSW Kensington Campus Public Exhibition  

 

 

DATE:

12 March, 2007

FILE NO:

F2006/00681

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING      

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

Council considered, at its meeting on 13 December 2005, the University of New South Wales Kensington Campus Master Plan under clause 40A (Master plans) of the Randwick LEP 1998 and resolved to adopt relevant sections as a DCP for the site.  A draft DCP has been prepared for the UNSW Kensington Campus site which addresses the matters identified in the 2005 Council resolution.  The draft DCP was placed on public exhibition for an extended period of 2 months (5 December 20066 February 2007). 

 

This report provides a summary of the draft DCP and the comments received during public exhibition. It is recommended that the draft DCP UNSW Kensington Campus, incorporating the recommended changes based on comments received during the recent public exhibition, be adopted by Council.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

Council considered, at its meeting on 13 December 2005, the University of New South Wales Kensington Campus Master Plan which addressed the matters for consideration under clause 40A (Master plans) of the Randwick LEP 1998.  The report considered the public submissions to the Master plan and technical officer’s comments (drainage, traffic, transport, parking, landscaping, waste, heritage and urban design). 

 

Council resolved to include relevant sections of the Master plan (Section 5 Campus Design Principles and Provisions, Section 6 The Design of Campus Projects and Section 7 Implementation of the UNSW Kensington Campus) as a DCP for the site.  Changes to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in relation to Master plans required that the UNSW Kensington Campus Master plan is to take the form of a development control plan.  Council also resolved at that meeting to commence preparation and exhibition of a DCP under section 74C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which incorporates the relevant sections of the Master Plan and additional provisions based on comments from the community and technical officers as identified in the Council resolution.  This report provides a summary of the draft DCP and the comments received during public exhibition.

 

 

 

ISSUES:

 

Draft DCP Contents

 

The draft DCP contains standard introductory sections (land to which the DCP applies, relationship to other DCPs and aims of the DCP) and the key design features of the Campus (Sections 1-4).

 

Detailed design principles and provisions are included in Section 5 including sustainability, landscape areas, buildings (height and footprints), housing, retail and services, recreation and cultural facilities and events and transport and parking.  This section of the DCP reflects previous comments made by the community and Council’s 13 December 2005 resolution to further address relevant matters in relation to sustainability, waste management, landscaping, building heights and setbacks, housing, transport and parking.  This Section also includes relevant provisions from Section 7 (Implementation of the UNSW Kensington Campus) of the Master Plan.

 

Section 6 provides detailed guidelines for the design of campus projects including architectural relationships and elements, campus building types and landscape.

 

Council officers had previously provided technical comments (drainage, traffic, parking, public transport, landscaping, waste, heritage and urban design) in relation to the UNSW Master Plan, Kensington Campus (refer Council report dated 13 December 2005).  These issues were incorporated and suitably addressed in the exhibited version of the draft DCP.  No additional technical comments were provided on the draft DCP.

 

Public Notification and Submissions

 

The draft DCP was exhibited from 5 December 2006 to 6 February 2007 with advertisements in the local newspaper, details on Council’s website and notification letters sent to surrounding properties.  Consultation on the Master Plan had been previously undertaken with Government Agencies including the Department of Transport, Roads and Traffic Authority, Department of Planning and NSW Police.  Comments made by the Department of Transport’s were incorporated into the draft DCP.  The draft DCP was also referred to the Roads and Traffic Authority for comment during the exhibition, however no response has been received to date. 

 

A number of submitters requested additional time to provide submissions; the additional time was granted.  This included the Kingsford Kensington Precinct Committee with its first meeting of 2007 held on 5 February.  A total of ten submissions were received by Council.  A detailed summary of comments raised, and a response to the comments, is included in Attachment 1.  The main points raised in submissions were:

    parking and public transport;

    building height;

    relationship with surrounding areas;

    permissibility of ‘international standard hotel’; and

    protection of trees.

    parking and public transport concerns: this was the key issue raised in the majority of submissions, and acknowledged as a primary issue for the site.  The UNSW Transport Strategy (included in the draft DCP) sets out a range of measures to address this issue, particularly in relation to student parking and the effectiveness of DCP to reduce private vehicle use over time and encourage the use of public transport.  The draft DCP acknowledges that parking is an issue in the area, and requires that the total number of parking spaces on campus is to be maintained until it is demonstrated (through annual parking surveys) that the total number of on-campus spaces may be reduced without adversely impacting on parking in surrounding streets.  Some submissions requested parking on-site for all students.  It is not environmentally sustainable, nor possible because of unacceptable traffic impacts, to provide parking on site for all students.  The use of public transport for both staff and students needs to be actively encouraged and Council will continue to work with the UNSW to promote its use. 

 

The DCP notes that the approved Transport Strategy as part of the Master Plan, provides the basis for transport measures for the site.  To ensure consistency with the Master Plan Transport Strategy in relation to the preparation of a parking control plan for streets surrounding the University, a minor wording change is proposed in the draft DCP in Part 3(c) (Local Street Parking Plan) of the UNSW Transportation Strategy replace ‘Council to prepare’ with ‘The University and Council to reach agreement on’.

 

    building height: submissions to the previous exhibition of the draft Master Plan raised concerns with the building heights in the Western and Lower Campus. The maximum building heights identified in the draft DCP were modified from the exhibited draft 2004 Master Plan to address these comments and the height limited to 24 metres.  Concern was also raised in the exhibition of the draft DCP on the impact of proposed buildings on the Western Campus on adjoining residents.  A number of submissions raised impacts such as overshadowing and overlooking on neighbhouring properties.  These issues would be addressed in any development application for the site however; the provisions of the draft DCP include landscape setbacks and height limits which would address these concerns.  The draft DCP height map, which identifies maximum height and not building envelopes (ie. the exact form of the building), allows for a 10 metre landscaped setback and graduation in height (12m maximum adjacent to the boundary) on the western side of the Western Campus.  Setbacks and height limits are shown in Figure 5.8 (Building height) and Figures 5.9 (Potential sections).  Submissions also commented on the three 60m high buildings (two of which already exist) and the impact that these would have on views to the site.  These buildings are located toward the centre of the site and provide feature buildings for the University Campus.  The design of all buildings will be assessed during the development application stage and the community will be consulted.

 

It is recommended that two changes are made to the draft DCP to clarify controls relating to building height, including in Section 5.6 the removal of the unnecessary reference to ‘internal’ in relation to floorspace  and the replacement of ‘outdoor recreation spaces’ with ‘roof space’ in relation to the use of the roof.  Changes to the colouring of the legend in figure 5.8 (building height) are proposed to more clearly differentiate between 18m and 24m wall height.

 

    relationship with surrounding area: a number of submissions raised concerns that the draft DCP was inward focussed.  The draft DCP applies to the UNSW Kensington Campus site only; however the relationship of the site with surrounding development is considered in the Campus Design Principles and Provisions including Sense of Place Provisions (Section 5.2), Landscape Provisions (Section 5.5), Building Provisions (Section 5.6) and Transport and Parking Provisions (Section 5.10).  In addition, all development applications will need to identify and address any impacts on adjacent development and Council may condition any development approval to minimise impacts.

 

    international standard hotel: the permissibility of an ‘international standard hotel’ was raised in submissions.  The draft DCP’s intention is to provide accommodation for visitors including academic staff and students consistent with the definition of ‘educational establishment’ in the Randwick LEP 1998:

 

educational establishment means a building or place used for education (including teaching) and includes:

(a) a school, and

(b) a tertiary institution, being a university, TAFE establishment, teachers’ college or other tertiary college providing formal education which is constituted by or under an Act, and

(c) an art gallery, library or museum, not being an art gallery, library or museum in which any items on display are for sale,

 

whether or not accommodation for staff and students is provided and whether or not used for the purpose of gain.

 

It is recommended that to clarify this and address concerns, all references to ‘international standard hotel’ be removed from the draft DCP and replaced with ‘accommodation for visitors including academic staff and students’.

 

    protection of trees: concern was also raised in submissions about the retention of the existing street trees and landscaping within the Campus.  Street trees are the responsibility of Council and are outside the site to which the draft DCP applies.  Section 5.5 (Landscape) of the draft DCP identifies existing trees on the UNSW site and includes them in three categories: highest retention priority, high retention priority and other existing trees.  Significant trees are identified on Figure 5.6b (Landscape) and the plan provides adequate setbacks from all boundaries of the site to enable edge landscaping.  The impact on the natural environment (including landscaping) would need to be addressed in all future development applications.  The Landscape Objectives and Provisions in Section 5.5 provide satisfactory protection for existing landscape features on the site.

 

One change is recommended to the landscape provisions (section 5.5) to include in the use of advanced trees when replacing or compensating for tree loss. It is noted that vegetation can only be removed based on detailed arborist assessment and if there is no other design option.

 

A number of issues raised in submissions related to matters that are more appropriately dealt with at the development application stage; where more detailed analysis is undertaken and the actual design of the proposed development is known.  The purpose of the draft DCP is to provide a planning control framework to guide detailed architectural and landscape design.  Detailed design issues such as overshadowing, overlooking, construction impacts, lack of detailed architectural resolution, and specific landscaping details are all matters that would be addressed in Statements of Environmental Effects that accompany a development application and would be assessed by Council under s.79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. 

 

A number of submissions also raised the density of the site and commented that there is an overdevelopment of the site.  The University is a well established use on the site and the DCP provides for its long term future, with a balance of development and public spaces.  As per the Master Plan, the intended scale and distribution of the facilities is considered acceptable for such a key land use in our City.

 

Changes to the Draft DCP

 

In response to comments received during exhibition in summary, the following changes are recommended to the draft DCP:

    removal of all references (in text and figures) to ‘international standard hotel’ or ‘hotel’ and replace with ‘accommodation for visitors including academic staff and students’;

    landscape provisions (section 5.5) to include in c. replacement (including advanced trees) or compensation strategies;

    building provisions (section 5.6) to remove ‘internal’ and replace ‘outdoor recreation spaces’ with ‘roof space’;

    changes to the colouring of the legend in figure 5.8 (building height) to more clearly differentiate between 18m and 24m wall height; and

    a minor wording change in Part 3(c) (Local Street Parking Plan) of the UNSW Transportation Strategy replacement of ‘Council to prepare’ with ‘The University and Council to reach agreement on’.

 

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:    Excellence in urban design and development

 

Direction 4a:  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

Direction 4b:  New and existing development is managed by a robust framework

 

Outcome 8:    A strong local economy

Direction 8c:  Economic growth and development that strengthens our hospital and university

 

Outcome 9:    Integrated and accessible transport

Direction 9c:  Parking is managed to balance convenience against reduced car reliance

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The draft DCP UNSW Kensington Campus has been prepared and exhibited to satisfy Council’s resolution of 13 December 2005 in relation to the UNSW Master Plan.  The draft DCP was exhibited from 5 December 2006 until 6 February 2007 and includes the changes required by the 2005 resolution.  This report considered the comments raised during the exhibition period including concerns regarding parking, building height, relationship with surrounding neighbours, permissibility of ‘international standard hotel’ and tree protection.  Many of the submissions received raised issues that would need to be addressed at the detailed design stage and would be considered in future development application and supporting Statement of Environmental Effects.  The draft DCP provides sufficient detail to guide architectural and landscape design.

 

It is recommended that minor changes be made as identified above and that the draft DCP be adopted by Council.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council:

 

1.     Adopt the draft Development Control Plan University of NSW, Kensington Campus in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and Regulation 2000, subject to the following changes:

 

a)     removal of all references (in text and figures) to ‘international standard hotel’ or ‘hotel’ and replace with ‘accommodation for visitors including academic staff and students’;

b)     landscape provisions (section 5.5) to include in c. replacement (including advanced trees) or compensation strategies;

c)     building provisions (section 5.6) to remove ‘internal’ and replace ‘outdoor recreation spaces’ with ‘roof space’;

d)     changes to the colouring of the legend in figure 5.8 (building height) to more clearly differentiate between 18m and 24m wall height; and

e)     a minor wording change in Part 3(c) (Local Street Parking Plan) of the UNSW Transportation Strategy replacement of ‘Council to prepare’ with ‘The University and Council to reach agreement on’.

 

2.     Agree that the Director, City Planning may make minor modifications to the draft DCP to rectify numerical, typographical, interpretive and formatting errors if required, in the completion and printing of the draft DCP.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Attachment 1 - Summary of Submissions

Attachment 2 - Draft DCP UNSW Kensington Campus - under separate cover   

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

SIMA TRUUVERT

KERRY LONGFORD

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING

CONSULTANT STRATEGIC PLANNER

 


Submissions to Draft UNSW DCP Kensington Campus

Public Exhibition 5 December 20066 February 2007

 

Document Number

Comment

Response

D00380411

(received 16/02/07)

B O’Regan

Concern and objects to impact on surrounding neighbourhood and roads of traffic and parking from increased student population

Comment noted.

 

Supports in principle a reduced level of on-campus parking.  Without dramatically improved public transport facilities on campus parking will be transferred to local streets.

Comment noted. Council will continue to work with the University and STA to promote the use of public transport.

 

No mention in DCP for plans or discussions for integrating traffic requirements of Racetrack, Prince of Wales and UNSW and possibility of intermodal traffic transfer hubs.

Possibility of an intermodal transport hub is outside the scope of this DCP.  Council will continue to work with the UNSW, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick Racecourse and STA on coordinated traffic management for the area.

 

Bus stops on Anzac Parade and pedestrian crossings are traffic hazard and bottleneck; plan should consider improvement on this.

The location of bus stops and pedestrian crossings are outside the scope of this DCP.  However Council and the UNSW will work with the STA and RTA to ensure safe crossing points on all major roads adjacent to the University.

 

Should be commitment from Sydney Buses, State Government, Randwick Council, Prince of Wales Hospital and Randwick Racecourse to plan for solutions.

Council will continue to work with the UNSW, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick Racecourse and STA on coordinated traffic management for the area.  However, the issue is outside the scope of this DCP.

 

Introduce a Transfer Hub servicing all three sites, more and extended bus services, introduction of cross city services and consideration of other type of transport (light rail), local bicycle ways and more on site or near site accommodation before any student expansion is allowable.

Refer comments above re transfer hub.  The DCP identifies areas of new campus housing which will reduce the need for students to travel by private car.

D00380382

(received 19/02/07)

M Whitehead

Wants guarantee that curtains of trees along Anzac Parade, High Street, Botany Street and Day Avenue and rear of west campus are retained.  These trees identify the university and separate it from the two commercial centres along Anzac Parade.  DCP provides no protection to these trees.

The DCP identifies significant trees and those of highest and high retention priorities.  These are identified on Figure 5.6a and 5.6b.  Landscape Provisions b, c & j provide protection for these trees.  All development applications need to address impact of existing vegetation and proposed landscaping.

 

Groundwater should be protected from contamination so that groundwater dependent ecosystems continue to sustain the vegetation.

A separate Stormwater Strategy which was approved as part of the Masterplan provides a detailed study of the site.  All development applications for the site will be required to address impact on the environment, including stormwater management and any affects on groundwater.

 

Questioned possibility of revegetating Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub.

The DCP identifies a range of species for landscaping including examples of pre-1788 vegetation including Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub.

 

University should not impose on the community vistas of ugliness of packed buildings 24m high across the site, interrupted on the ridge by structures 60m+ high.

There is a range of maximum building heights across the site as shown in Figure 5.8.  The height map identifies maximum height and not building envelopes (ie. the exact form of the building).  The 60m buildings are located away from the street edge; two of the three buildings already exist on the site.  Building height of 24m is permitted in the Western Campus fronting Day Avenue and Anzac Parade and in the centre of the site with a 12m height buffer. High Street, Botany Street, Willis Street and in the centre of the Campus. A development application (including a Statement of Environmental Effects) will be required and all major new buildings will be referred to Council’s Design Review Panel for comment.

 

High buildings are not suitable for educational purposes.

Advice from the UNSW is that the upper levels of multi-storey buildings are used for non-teaching activities such as research, administration and support services and are therefore suitable.

 

Ambitious proposals to extend designated university accommodation, exercised under privilege from the State Government, across a 15m radius from the University would destroy residential area.

The DCP does not apply outside the UNSW Kensington Campus grounds.

 

Proposals to solve parking problems by reducing parking availability on campus are unlikely to succeed.  Parking will place a heavy imposition on university neighbours.

Comment noted. A Transport Strategy was prepared as an accompanying report to the Campus 2020 Masterplan which included detailed investigations into traffic and parking.  Council will continue to work with the UNSW and Sydney Buses to promote the use of public transport.

 

Value the university as a learning centre, disappointed to find rampant commercialisation and encroachment on the community.

The UNSW DCP applies only to the Kensington Campus site.  Any commercial uses on the site must be ancillary to the University purpose.

 

Should argue the case for more adequate funding from government and corporations.

Comment noted.  This is an administrative matter for the UNSW and is outside the scope of this DCP.

D00380377

(received 19/02/07)

B & A Moore

DCP has unacceptable inward focus on the exclusive interests of UNSW, to the virtual exclusion of suburban residential context.

The purpose of the DCP is to provide planning controls for the UNSW site and therefore has a focus on the site.  However, the impact of the UNSW on surrounding areas has also been considered in the Campus Design Principles and Provisions objectives. In addition, all development applications will need to include a Statement of Environmental Effects which details the impact of the development on the surrounding area.

 

DCP fails to specify any building objective that has regard to sites relationship to existing locality and its character.

The DCP includes a building objective to creating campus edge conditions compatible with desired future building form.  The DCP also contains the requirement that buildings on the Western and Lower Campus greater than 20m in height are to be accompanied by an urban design analysis demonstrating the proposals impact on nearby residential development.

 

Comment that objective 5.2(2) does not provide for planning control rigour.

This is an objective; not a planning control.  Detailed provisions relating to the interface of the campus with the surrounding community are included in detailed Sense of Place Provision (c) including building setbacks and landscaping.

 

Comment that provisions in 5.2(c) does not specify design principles and planning controls that would be in the interests of the local community.

The DCP acknowledges that the interface of the campus with the surrounding community also determines its sense of place.  The provisions in 5.2(c) are considered to sufficiently recognise the interface between the site and the adjacent residential area.

 

Comment that reference to lower buildings on western campus being setback to provide transition to adjoining residential scale is imprecise and has no planning control value.

The controls that apply to the western campus are considered sufficiently detailed in Building Provisions n, r and s and on figure 5.8 (Building Height).

 

Concern that 5.6 Objective 3 ignores low rise character of adjoining suburban streets.

The objective refers to the ‘desired future adjoining built form’ of the adjacent areas; reflecting the range of building forms surrounding the UNSW site to both the east, west and south, including single and two storey houses and residential flat buildings. 

 

Requirement that DAs for Western and Lower Campus greater than 20m should have urban design analysis of impacts on adjacent development is inadequate control and should apply to all development.

All development applications will have a Statement of Environmental Effects that will be required to address impacts on adjacent development.

 

DCP should provide precise objectives, design standards and planning controls to set out manner in which developer is to address local community interests and minimise impact.

The objectives, design standards and planning controls are of a level of detail consistent with that of a development control plan.  As noted previously, every development application will including a Statement of Environmental Effects which provides a detailed analysis of the impact of the development.

 

Each DA should be required to include an Urban Design/Site Planning Analysis including impacts on adjacent development.

Refer response above.

 

DCP provides quantity, configuration and design objectives but without detailed architectural resolution.

It is not the purpose of a DCP to provide detailed architectural resolution; it is to provide objectives, design standards and planning controls to guide development.  A development application (and accompanying SEE) is the stage in the planning process where detailed architectural resolution is provided.

 

Objects to 6.2.1(8) that theatres, galleries etc that have specialised lighting needs could have larger floorplates.

These matters will need to be addressed in the detailed design of any theatres, galleries etc and an assessment of their impact will be required.

 

DCP fails to specify point from which wall height is measured and there are no planning constraints for the roof size.  Objects to use of areas above wall height (50% of the building footprint) being used for plant rooms and internal floor space.

The LEP provides definitions of building height which applies to the DCP.  Roof height normally contains plant rooms and use of 50% space is an acceptable provision.

 

Object to exact alignment of buildings north and south of University Mall being determined by future detailed study of geometry of University Mall.  Study ought to have accompanied the DCP.

It is not the purpose of a DCP to provide exact building alignments; it provides a guide to the location of buildings (maximum footprint and height).  The exact location of buildings and open areas will be determined at the architectural design stage, to be considered by Council (including consultation with the community) in the assessment of the development application.

 

DCP lacks precision concerning specific objectives and design based development standards, measures and planning controls (eg. how height or density measured). 

The DCP provides a level of detail sufficient and consistent with that of a development control plan. Definitions for height are included in the LEP as previously noted.

 

Other issues not addressed include transport (public and private), demand on natural and community resources, social and cultural impact of development, s94 planning, provision of public open spaces, principles of ecologically sustainable development.

Transport issues are addressed in the DCP, including the Transport Strategy.  Sustainability is also addressed in the DCP.  These issues, along with the social and cultural impact, s94 planning, open space are required to be addressed in the detailed development applications.

 

Urge Council to reject the DCP and have more rigorous planning input to the DCP that includes precise development requirements and standards.

The DCP includes development requirements and standards consistent with the level of detail normally in a DCP. 

 

Council should exercise its right under s74D to require additional information.

Refer above.  No additional information is required. It is again noted that development applications will require a detailed assessment of impacts of the development.

 

Western Campus scale of development is excessive and incompatible with surrounding residential properties.  Not resolved by proposed 10m setback to Doncaster Avenue.  Setback breached for about 40% of Western Campus rear boundary.

The controls for the Western Campus have been modified in the DCP as a result of earlier submissions to the Masterplan.  The scale of development on the Western Campus is considered appropriate; with the 12m height limit to the rear boundary of Doncaster Avenue properties generally consistent with the 2 storey built form.  Acknowledge that the existing NIDA building does breach this height limit.

 

Concern that development will cast morning shadow on Kensington streets.

Overshadowing and loss of sunlight will be assessed when detailed architectural designs for individual buildings are lodged with development applications.

 

Height, bulk and footprint of Western Campus will have dominating effect on adjacent properties.  There is insufficient provision for open space and no provision for soft surfaces and landscaping.

The 10m setback from the western boundary and the 12m height limit will provide similar scale development at the boundary.  It is also noted that the 10m setback contains existing established trees which are identified as having ‘highest retention priority’.  The exact location of open space, soft surfaces and landscaping will be included in the detailed design of the Western Campus as part of individual development applications.

 

DCP notes ‘possible housing component’ but does not address how privacy of neighbours is to be protected.

The impact on neighbouring properties (including assessment of overlooking) will be assessed as part of the detailed design in any development application.

 

Urge Council to limit height on Western Campus to 14m and more open space.

Height limit has been graduated so that the height at the boundary is 12m and there is a 10m setback (containing large established trees).  The 24m height limit is acceptable with this setback and graduation.  As noted previously, the exact location of open space, soft surfaces and landscaping will be included in the detailed design of the Western Campus as part of individual development applications.

 

Noise, traffic, parking and crime implications for Kensington are serious concern.

Comment noted.  A Transport Strategy was prepared as an accompanying report to the Campus 2020 Masterplan which included detailed investigations into traffic and parking and requirements for monitoring of on-street parking.  Council will continue to work with the UNSW and Sydney Buses to promote the use of public transport.  All development applications will be required to address social impacts on the environment.

 

Council should reject plan to adopt night hub use of Western Campus.

The night hub use would be accessed from Anzac Parade.  Again, detailed development applications would need to address any impacts on surrounding residents.

 

Traffic and parking implications of a child care centre on Western Campus have been ignored.  DCP needs specific planning objective and controls for child care centres.

The DCP identifies a number of potential locations for future childcare including the Western Campus adjacent to Day Street.  Any childcare facility would be subject to a development application and detailed assessment of impacts including impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

International hotel is discordant with residential area or the zoning of the land and would not fall within ‘educational establishment’ definition and would be prohibited in the zone.  It would be inappropriate and incompatible with residential development and would have unacceptable impacts.

The DCP makes reference to a ‘possible international standard hotel’.  It is recommended that the DCP be amended to clarify this proposed accommodation and replace ‘international standard hotel’ with ‘accommodation for visitors including academic staff, students and other visitors’.

 

DCP fails to identify how many additional students, staff, residents and frequent or occasional visitors will result in the development. 

The purpose of the DCP is to provide a planning control framework to provide guidelines for future development.  The DCP is based on the Master Plan which is not anticipating any significant change in the staff or student numbers.  Details such as University population numbers would need to be addressed in the development applications for individual proposals.

 

Expansion fails to recognise the strained local and regional context – call on Council to ensure clear limits on what amount to the proposed overdevelopment of the site.

See response above. The DCP provides planning controls and clear guidelines on the extent of development within the site, consistent with the level of detail that is contained in DCPs. 

 

Council should reject part of the DCP providing for buildings that are iconic, have monumental or ceremonial scale, or visual prominence.

These types of buildings are suitable and appropriate in a major educational establishment, subject to the maximum heights and related controls set out in the DCP.  Future development applications will consider building design and Council’s Design Review Panel of experienced architects will provide comment on the design.

 

UNSW sign is rejected as a lighting project as it has adverse impact on local residents.

The UNSW sign on the Library building is an existing sign.  Any future signage as part of any development application will require consent from Council and the impacts on surrounding residents will be addressed.

 

DCPs transport strategy is not supported by any reputable traffic flow study addressing impact on the local community.  Fails to provide parking when public transport is recognised as inadequate.  UNSW will snatch our streets by the imposition of short term parking restrictions and associated parking congestion and increased traffic flow.

A Transport Strategy was prepared as an accompanying report to the Campus 2020 Masterplan which included detailed investigations into traffic and parking.  Council will continue to work with the UNSW and Sydney Buses to promote the use of public transport in favour of the private car.

 

Council should require an analysis of the volume, nature and type of traffic and parking generated by the development and impose planning constraints on the extent, scale, type and location and impose transport and parking controls

Refer response above.  Detailed development applications will also need to address traffic and parking generation and implication for the surrounding environment.

 

Risk that towers (which require airport authority approval) would result in a deviation of the current flight path to result in aircraft flying over Kensington. This would be unacceptable. Council should make all UNSW development conditional on it providing due verification that current aircraft flight patterns/routes will not be affected.

Confirm that the Sydney Airports Corporation sets out restrictions on buildings that would affect flight pattern/routes.  It is also noted that two of the three towers already exist on the site.

D00379655

(received 16/02/07)

Kensington / West Kingsford Precinct Committee

DCP offers no guarantee for protection of trees classified as ‘highest retention priority’.  Trees provide habitat for native fauna and are part of a green corridor.  Concern that there will be large scale removal of significant trees.

The DCP identifies significant trees and those of highest and high retention priorities.  These are identified on Figure 5.6a and 5.6b.  Landscape Provisions b, c & j provide protection for these trees.  All development applications need to address impact of existing vegetation and proposed landscaping for Council assessment.

 

Council insist that the University provide written guarantees quantifying the amount of over storey to be preserved.

Refer response above.

 

Note that key energy management requirements set out in the DCP.  DCP does not provide any certainty that the University will use these renewable technologies.

The DCP requires a report on energy efficiency is to accompany all development applications for new buildings or refurbishments.

 

Council should set targets to prevent an increase in energy use as a result of proposed developments.

Section 5.1 provides detailed provisions relating to Sustainability and energy use which sufficiently address this issue.  As noted above, details will be required with each development application.

 

Council should provide specific protection for ground water on the site that ground water dependent ecosystems are not damaged.

Council has previously approved a Stormwater Strategy for the UNSW.  The impacts on the natural environment (including groundwater) will need to be addressed with all development applications.

 

DCPs proposal to improve public transport to overcome need for car travel appears difficult to achieve.  Transport Strategy requirement for cooperation between University, students, State Government and Council is fanciful.

A Transport Strategy was prepared as an accompanying report to the Campus 2020 Masterplan which included detailed investigations into traffic and parking.  Council will continue to work with the UNSW and Sydney Buses to promote the use of public transport in favour of the private car.

 

Local and regional transport systems already at saturation point, particular during peak hours during University semesters.

Comment noted. Refer response above. 

 

Probably that State Government will not support increased bus services due to prevailing congestion along Anzac Parade.

As part of the Transport Strategy, Council will continue to work with the UNSW and the Sydney Buses to promote the use of public transport within Randwick.

 

Provision of 300 car spaces on western campus is insufficient to meet demands of additional student population.

The Transport Strategy does not intend to provide additional parking for students as this will only increase congestion and traffic flow in and around the campus.  The 300 spaces referred to are not additional spaces but will replace any lost due to redevelopment ie. there will be no net increase in car spaces.  The spaces will be located within the western and lower campus.

 

Introducing 300 car spaces to be accessed via Day Avenue, University is compounding the traffic problem which it has acknowledged already exists.

Refer response above.  Any development involving car parking would be the subject of a development application and assessment on impacts on traffic and surrounding neighbourhood.

 

Potentially worsening traffic problem for local residents requires preparation of a LATM which the community has sought for many years.

A Transport Strategy was prepared as an accompanying report to the Campus 2020 Masterplan which included detailed investigations into traffic and parking.  Development applications will also need to specifically address traffic and parking generation and implication for the surrounding environment.

 

Community is opposed to parking metres in residential streets and seeks guarantee that parking metres will not be used as a short/long term solution to alleviate student parking.

The Transport Strategy accompanying the Master Plan had included parking meters as part of a package of measures to discourage students from driving to the University.  However, following exhibition, Council endorsed the Master Plan with exclusion of parking meters on any public streets.  The draft DCP is consistent with the resolution.

 

Long term parking on campus should be retained until the local residential streets have been relieved of student parking.

As part of the Transport Strategy , educing the availability of on site parking will be undertaken in conjunction with encouraging and providing for better public transport.  It is not realistic to expect no student parking in local residential streets.

 

Major concern is the ratio of open space to buildings on the western campus.  Residents of Doncaster Avenue will view 12m high walls plus rooflines.  Will be drastically affected in terms of loss of sunlight, overshadowing and increased noise.

Height limit has been graduated so that there is a 10m setback (containing large established trees) and the height at the adjacent boundary is 12m.  The 24m height limit is acceptable with this setback and graduation.  As noted previously, open space areas would be identified within the Western Campus site as part of detailed architectural design and development application. 

 

Concern re prospect of international hotel within the western campus.  Seek clarification as to classification of this building as part of educational institution.  Do not believe it is responsibility of the University to house visitors in an international hotel within the campus. Request Council reject approval of an international hotel.

The DCP makes reference to a ‘possible international standard hotel’.  It is recommended that the DCP be amended to clarify this proposed accommodation and replace ‘international standard hotel’ with ‘accommodation for visitors including academic staff, students and other visitors’.

 

Residents of Kensington do not want designated student housing embedded in their community.

Comment noted.  The DCP only applies to UNSW Kensington Campus land; not surrounding residential land. 

 

University has maximised the proposed development, filling spaces wherever possible resulting in a reduction of green space and loss of visual amenity.

The DCP establishes the long term scenario for the use and development of the Kensington Campus, and balances the Campus needs with open space provision.

 

DCP presents an over-development of the whole of the campus site.

The University is a well established use on the site and the DCP provides for its long term future, with a balance of development and public spaces.  As per the Master Plan, the intended scale and distribution of the facilities is considered acceptable for such a key land use in our City.

 

DCP lacks specificity as to building development and control and should be read in context of how it relates to the community as a whole.

The DCP provides objectives, planning controls and clear guidelines on the extent of development within the site, consistent with the level of detail that is contained in DCPs. 

 

Residents ask that the University provide:

    Comprehensive EIS statement

    A social impact statement showing how the needs of the increased student population will be met by services such as medical, social support and law and order

An EIS is only required for development applications that are for designated development.  A Statement of Environmental Effects, including social impacts, will be required with every development application.

 

Request Council protect interests of local community and reject the DCP in its present form.  Problems with the development that need to be addressed and require further consultation with the University’s neighbours.

The DCP provides a level of detail sufficient and consistent with that of a development control plan. In addition, all development applications will need to include a Statement of Environmental Effects which details the impact of the development on the surrounding area.  Adjoining neighbours will be notified.

D00376396

(received 06/02/07)

P M B Pope

Concern with traffic arrangements and proposals dealing with local street parking.

A Transport Strategy was prepared as an accompanying report to the Campus 2020 Masterplan which included detailed investigations into traffic and parking.  Development applications will also need to specifically address traffic and parking generation and implication for the surrounding environment.

 

Council remiss in not notifying residents living close by of these proposals for comment.

All properties surrounding the UNSW Kensington Campus were notified by letter prior to the commencement of the public exhibition and consistent with Council’s Notification DCP.  Information was advertised in the local paper and available on Council’s website.

 

Concept to reduce the use of private vehicles is flawed and will only further impact on street parking problem.

A Transport Strategy was prepared as an accompanying report to the Campus 2020 Masterplan which included detailed investigations into traffic and parking.  Council will continue to work with the UNSW and Sydney Buses to promote the use of public transport.

 

No one will park in the University and pay fees if the car parking is free on adjacent streets.  University must provide adequate parking on its own grounds.

Refer response above.  The general principle is to promote the use of public transport to the site, rather than continue to encourage private vehicle use.  It is also noted that parking on streets surrounding the University is time limited. 

 

Already a parking problem. Years ago Council had proposals to erect 2 hour parking restriction signs on all adjacent streets, but lost its way through pressure from RTA, business community and the University.  Increase of 18% in student numbers will exacerbate problem.  Council would immediately erect parking restriction signs followed by installation of parking metres.

Parking metres were proposed in the Master Plan but were removed following comments received during the public exhibition of the Master Plan.  Parking restrictions continue in streets a number of streets adjacent to the University and the Transport Strategy will review the time limits and extent of these restrictions.

 

Wansey Road should be included as there is issue of student parking and heavy vehicles.

The DCP applies to land within the UNSW Kensington Campus.  Future development applications will include an assessment of traffic and parking impacts including those on Wansey Road.

D00376307

(received 06/02/07)

G Antony

Objects to loss of open space, publicly accessible coastline and recreational facilities.

Submission relates to UNSW Little Bay site, not the site of this DCP (UNSW Kensington Campus). The submission will be included in the comments to the development application for the proposed Cancer Centre currently being assessed by Council.

D00375948

(received 05/02/07)

K Tran

Objects to entries to carpark from Oval Lane which would be dangerous and disruptive.  Oval Lane is extremely narrow and steep and has no provision for pedestrians.  Difficult for vehicles to pass.

The entries to carpark via Oval Lane would be assessed in the detailed development applications and may require the widening of Oval Lane by extending it onto the campus.

D00375437

(received 06/02/07)

Y Koolis

Concerned about parking and theory that reducing number of parking spaces and provided public transport eduction will reduce parking in surrounding residential streets.

There are a number of measures in the Transport Strategy to encourage the use of public transport.  Travel behaviour will also be surveyed annually to assess the outcomes of the Strategy.

 

University needs to provide more affordable on-site parking for students.

It is not the intention of the Transport Strategy to provide additional parking for students.  This would only increase congestion and traffic flow in and around the campus.

 

Where parking restrictions are in place on residential streets, strict 1-2 hour limit should apply, patrolled and enforceable by police/rangers.

Parking restrictions continue in streets a number of streets adjacent to the University and the Transport Strategy will review the time limits and extent of these restrictions.

D00374039

(received 30/01/07)

K Hill

Does not agree with massive building to be constructed on western campus adjacent to Doncaster Avenue properties.

There is no massive building proposed on the western campus.  The DCP only includes figures showing maximum height areas.  The areas would not be developed to the full extend of the hatching shown on the plan; the hatching just shows the maximum height.  Development adjacent to the rear of Doncaster Avenue properties would be separated by a 10m avenue of established trees.

 

Object to proposed height and scale which would not satisfy s79C(1)(b), likely impact of development.

S.79C will need to be addressed with all future development applications.

 

Elevation of building is up to 12 metres in height, much higher that existing building.  Second elevation up to 24 metres is ludicrous.  Too high, visually unappealing and not in keeping with campus of western side.  Building is too big, will block nature light and is not environmentally sympathetic. More acceptable for other parts of the campus.

The 12 metre height and 10m landscaped setback to the rear boundaries of properties on Doncaster Avenue addresses concerns previously raised in the Masterplan exhibition and is an acceptable height limit for the boundary treatment.  All development applications will require a Statement of Environmental Effects which will need to address issues such as overshadowing and effects on neighbouring properties.

 

Any development that borders homes should be consistent with the scale of the existing homes.

Refer response above.

 

Example of NIDA building dominating the area should not be repeated.

Comment noted.

 

Proposal for 10m trees to be planted between building and boundary is admirable but will be of little benefit for screening unless planted 5 years before building works to become established trees.

These trees already exist.  The 10m setback allows for their retention.

 

Concern about impact on local environment and adjoining homes during construction (noise pollution, dust, debris and heavy machinery operating)

Construction impacts on the local environment will be considered for each development application and accompanying Statement of Environmental Effects.  Council can condition any development consent to minimise impact on neighbours.

 

Concern about loss of privacy for backyard and into home. Windows facing homes should be either too high to view out of opaque glass.

Refer response above.  This also applies to overlooking impacts.

 

Western campus is not a suitable environment for a large development.  Developing the village green would achieve the same goals with minimal disruption to anyone other than the university community and loss of one sporting oval. 

The DCP includes figures showing maximum height areas (Figure 5.8).  The areas would not be developed to the full extend of the hatching shown on the plan; the hatching just shows the maximum height.  Development adjacent to the rear of Doncaster Avenue properties would be separated by a 10m avenue of established trees. There will be landscaped areas within the Western Campus.  The village green area has additional uses as a recreation space and detention basin for stormwater flow.

 

Should continue to develop the campus at Malabar to cater for expansion.

Comment noted.

 

More resources should be focused on on-line education that does not require further buildings.

Comment noted.

 

Buildings should be used more effectively year round.  Current situation where Doncaster Avenue is deserted for two month (Dec-Jan).  If University used this time and scheduled lectures during this period it would increase the capacity by 16% without any changes to the existing structures or impact on existing environment.

Comment noted. UNSW advised that the academic calendar is based on the needs of Australian and international students and staff.  UNSW uses the summer break to provide summer schools, conferences and events to maximise the utilisation of its buildings.

 

Value the services that the University provides to the local community but development proposed will have a huge impact on the surrounding environment and on a site not suitable for the development.

The site is an established educational use and is suitable for this use.  The impact of all development proposals will be assessed as development applications which will be accompanied by detailed Statements of Environmental Effects identifying the impacts of the proposed development.

D00373397

(received 01/02/07)

Kingsford Kensington Precinct

Concern about protection of trees (eucalypts, figs, conifers and brushbox) in Day and Doncaster Avenues.

The street trees in Day and Doncaster Avenue are outside the UNSW site.  Council has the responsibility for these trees.

 

Concern about measures planned for parking.

A Transport Strategy was prepared as an accompanying report to the Campus 2020 Masterplan which included detailed investigations into traffic and parking.  Council will continue to work with the UNSW and Sydney Buses to promote the use of public transport and to review the parking situation in adjoining streets.

 

Issue of joint transport hub with Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick Racecourse and UNSW.

Possibility of an intermodal transport hub is outside the scope of this DCP.  Council will continue to work with the UNSW, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick Racecourse and STA on coordinated traffic management for the area.

 

Concern over building vista and subsequent loss of amenity, massive overshadowing and loss of open space.

All development applications will have a Statement of Environmental Effects that will be required to address impacts on adjacent development.

 

Concern about ratio of open space to building on Western Campus vis a vis Eastern Campus. Residents on Doncaster Avenue will be affected by loss of sunlight, increased noise and loss of privacy.

Refer response above.

 

Concern regarding prospect of international standard ‘hotel’ with issue of management and responsible service of alcohol.

The DCP makes reference to a ‘possible international standard hotel’.  It is recommended that the DCP be amended to clarify this proposed accommodation and replace ‘international standard hotel’ with ‘accommodation for visitors including academic staff, students and other visitors’.

 

Height of building on Day Avenue/Anzac Parade was to be reduced to 24m but DCP still lists as 30 metres. 

The height of buildings on Day Avenue/Anzac Parade is shown on Figure 5.8 as 24m.


 GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 3/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

27 February, 2007

FILE NO:

F2004/07367

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 400 (Part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 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 Labour Club in relation to an agreement to lease, deed of lease and positive covenant over 3 balconies and an extension of staircase adjoining 135-139 Alison Road, Randwick.

2.  Jack Ziade & Jean Ziade in relation to an agreement to lease, deed of lease and positive covenant over a balcony adjoining 39-47 St Pauls Street, Randwick.

3.  A residential tenant for a lease over 127 Boyce Road, Maroubra.

4.  The Department of Lands for a request for title creation over a drainage reserve known as Lot Z DP 401609.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 7:    A Liveable City that Balances Growth and Change,

 

Direction 7f:   Town Centres that meet the needs of our community as places to work, shop, live and socialise.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

In signing of these agreements, Council will receive the following income:

 

1.         An airspace lease for the 3 balconies and an extension of staircase adjoining 135-139 Alison Road, Randwick will generate an annual income of $4,000.00 + GST.

2.         An airspace lease for the balcony adjoining 39-47 St Pauls Street, Randwick will generate an annual income of $2.00 + GST.

3.         A residential lease agreement for the property at 127 Boyce Road, Maroubra will generate an annual income of $10,400.00.

4.         There is no direct financial impact for Council from the signing of the request form.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As per Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) 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.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

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

 

1.  Randwick Labour Club in relation to an agreement to lease, deed of lease and positive covenant over 3 balconies and an extension of staircase adjoining 135-139 Alison Road, Randwick.

2.  Jack Ziade & Jean Ziade in relation to an agreement to lease, deed of lease and positive covenant over a balcony adjoining 39-47 St Pauls Street, Randwick.

3.  A residential tenant for a lease over 127 Boyce Road, Maroubra.

4.  The Department of Lands for a request for title creation over a drainage reserve known as Lot Z DP 401609.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 4/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

GOLDSTEIN RESERVE PUBLIC TOILETS

 

 

DATE:

12 March, 2007

FILE NO:

F2004/07501

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Reference is made to my previous report to Council (36/2006) at its Ordinary Meeting held on the 24 October 2006 in respect to the Premier of New South Wales – Crime Prevention Partnership (CPP). The report outlined the CPP request to Council to allow the public toilets at Goldstein Reserve to remain open on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. The CPP put forward a proposal for a joint funding arrangement for security personnel for the public toilets.

 

As a result, Council resolved, on the motion by Councillors Matson and Andrews, in the following terms:

 

314    RESOLUTION:  (Matson/Andrews) that:

 

a)       the report be received and noted, and

 

b)       the General Manager liaise with the Premiers Delivery Unit for joint funding of security personnel for the public toilets in Goldstein Reserve and that Councillors be notified of the outcome.

 

c)       Council acknowledges the good work of the Eastern Beaches Crime Prevention Partnership in developing and implementing initiatives and strategies to reduce the number of non-domestic related assaults and other related crime and anti-social behaviour.

 

Subsequent to above resolution, provision of security personnel (1 male & 1 female security officer) at the public toilets commenced on the 15 December 2006 for a 3 month period. After obtaining three (3) quotations, Council engaged H & H Security Pty Limited to provide the service at a cost of $12,401.40 which is jointly funded by the Premier’s Delivery Unit ($8,267.60) and Council ($4,133.80). The service is scheduled to cease on the 17 March 2007.

 

The purpose of this report is primarily to inform Council of the success of this particular initiative.

The report also includes information in regard to the other important strategies implemented at Coogee over the 2006/2007 summer period which are collectively aimed to reduce the potential for anti-social behaviour.

 

BACKGROUND:

 

Prior to the current security arrangements, which operate from 10.00pm to 4.00am the following day on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights, the public toilets at Goldstein Reserve closed at 10.00pm, daily. The main reason for the closure of the toilets at 10.00pm was the concerns that access to the toilets beyond this time could result in the facilities being used for anti-social behaviour or other mischief and also result in the premises being subject to increased vandalism.

 

From the inception of the CPP, Council has been requested to give consideration to opening the public toilets at Goldstein Reserve to reduce incidents of public urination at Coogee. Public urination at Coogee has, for sometime, been an issue of concern for residents, police and Council, particularly late at night on weekends. 

 

Important consideration relates to the enforcement of public urination under the Summary Offences Act 1988. The Police contend that the unavailability of the toilets may provide a defence which could be relied upon by a person charged under the Summary Offences Act 1988 in relation to an act of public urination.

 

ISSUES:

 

1.         EXTENDED USE OF PUBLIC TOILETS

 

Since the commencement of the provision of security at the Goldstein Reserve public toilet (15 December 2006) weekly usage data has been collected by the security personnel and collated by Council officers.

 

1.1      Usage

 

To 1 March 2007, over 4,000 persons have used the toilets during the extended opening period. By gender there have been approximately 1,800 females and 2,200 males using the toilets during the period.

 

1.2      Comments by Council’s City Services Staff

 

Council’s Coastal Area Co-ordinator has advised that although there has been a decrease in the level of cleanliness due to the increase in usage, this is not to the extent that requires any expansion or modification of the current daily cleaning regime for the toilets. Additionally, Council’s Co-ordinator has advised that since the provision of security at the facilities incidents of vandalism and graffiti have decreased.

 

1.3      Comments by Police

 

Eastern Beaches Local Area Commander – Superintendent Rogerson has praised this initiative. Superintendent Rogerson has indicated that his officers have reported a ‘dramatic’ reduction in incidents of public urination since Council has allowed the toilets to remain open. Superintendent Rogerson has further advised that no complaints have been made to police in respect incidents of persons urinating, on either private or public land, during the period that the toilets have remained open.

 

1.4      Comments by the Premier’s Delivery Unit

 

The Premier’s Delivery Unit (PDU) has attributed a reduction in ‘offensive conduct’ incidents and complaints being reported in the Coogee Basin, in part, to the extended opening hours of the toilets at Goldstein Reserve.

 

The PDU is of the view that the extended opening hours of the public toilets in conjunction with other initiatives that have been implemented at Coogee have resulted in the reduction of incidents of public urination and other anti-social behaviour.

 

2.         OTHER STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTED AT COOGEE

 

It is important to recognise that the extended opening of the public toilets at Goldstein Reserve is only one of the strategies implemented at Coogee to reduce incidents of not only non-domestic assaults, but also to reduce incidents of anti-social behaviour, particularly at weekends and late at night.

 

These initiatives include the implementation of the Secure Taxi Rank at Arden Street, the Pumpkin Bus Service and the rescheduling of the 373 service from Coogee. Both the Secure Taxi Rank and the Pumpkin Bus service will conclude after the 2007 Easter weekend. This coincides with the conclusion of the provision of security personnel at the Goldstein Reserve public toilets.

 

3.         EXISTING FUNDING OF CURRENT COOGEE STRATEGIES

 

As previously outline the funding for the provision of security personnel at the Goldstein Reserve Public toilets has been made possible by a ‘one-off’ arrangement between the Council and the Premier’s Delivery Unit for the 3 month trial period. It is the view of the CPP that the Eastern Beaches Liquor Accord should be approached to provide future funding for this initiative, should Council allow the extended opening of the toilets beyond the current arrangement.  

 

The late night Pumpkin Bus Service which operates through the summer period is funded by the Eastern Beaches Liquor Accord. I have recently written to the Accord requesting an undertaking that the Accord support and fund the Pumpkin Bus service for the 2007/2008 summer period. Marketing and promotion of the service is funded as part of the Local Government Road Safety Program of the RTA.

 

The Arden Street Secure Taxi Rank is operated and funded by the Ministry of Transport. The rank will conclude its operation after the 2007 Easter weekend. The Ministry of Transport have indicated that a continuation of the ‘Rank’ would be subject to funding by the licensed premises at Coogee.

 

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:  A Liveable City.

Direction 6c: The safety of our community is paramount and is acknowledged and supported through proactive policies, programmes and strategies.

Key Actions: Prepare and implement a crime prevention/community safety plan.

                   Develop and implement a range of programmes to foster a safer City

Develop and implement effective regulatory environmental, public health and safety services and programmes to maximise public safety and anti-social behaviour of buildings and spaces.

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Council’s portion of funding for the provision of security personnel at the Goldstein Reserve Public toilets for the current 3 month trial period is $4,133.80. This funding has been absorbed within Council’s existing Budget.

 

Should Council determine to continue with the opening of the Goldstein Reserve Public toilets, further funding may be required for the provision of security personnel. The cost for the provision of security personnel under the existing arrangement is $318.00 per night ($508.20 on Public Holidays) including GST.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The toilet usage data collected during the trial period indicates that there is a demand for the use of the Goldstein Reserve public toilets after 10.00pm, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. Having regard to this demand there can be little doubt that the extended opening of the toilets potentially reduces incidents of public urination that would occur in the absence of toilet availability.

 

In this regard, it is important to note that the extended opening of the toilets is only one of the strategies implemented at Coogee to reduce incidents of non-domestic assaults, offensive conduct and anti-social behaviour. It is likely that it is the ‘package’ of  strategies, including the Arden Street Secure Taxi Rank, the Pumpkin Bus service, the rescheduling of the 373 bus service and the range of targeted pro-active policing operations that as a ‘collective’ are reducing such incidents over the 2006/2007 summer period.

 

I am of the view that it is the continuation, on a periodic basis, of all the current strategies implemented at Coogee that will provide the greatest overall benefit in the on-going reduction of incidents of anti-social behaviour in their various forms experienced at Coogee. The challenge now is to negotiate with the relevant stakeholders the on-going support and financial commitment to permit these strategies to be put in place for the 2007/2008 summer period.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a) the report be received and noted, and

 

b)  the General Manager liaise/negotiate with the Eastern Beaches Liquor Accord to secure funding through its members for the 2007/2008 summer period for the Pumpkin Bus service, Arden Street Secure Taxi Rank and provision of security personnel at the Goldstein Reserve public toilets, and

 

c)  Council endorse Council’s Road Safety Officer’s application to the RTA to provide funding for marketing and promotion of the Pumpkin Bus Service.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

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

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 12/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

DECLARATION OF CELTIS AS A NOXIOUS WEED IN RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL

 

 

DATE:

12 February, 2007

FILE NO:

F2005/00113

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES      

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A Regional Weed Management Plan has been developed by the Sydney Central Regional Weeds Committee (Celtis Working Group) to coordinate the management of Celtis in affected Council areas in the region.  The working group believes that Celtis may be prevented from invading neighbouring areas and it numbers and distribution reduced to a manageable level.  Another major objective of the working group is to have Celtis declared as a noxious weed in the Sydney region by the Noxious Weeds Advisory Committee.

 

ISSUES:

 

While there are several species of Celtis known to occur in the Sydney region (one native, three exotic) only two have been identified as invasive:

 

1.  Celtis occidentalis – A medium sized tree that can grow to 15m tall.  It has been used extensively in the past as a street and park tree.

2.  Celtis sinensis – A larger tree to 20m tall.  Records indicate that this species was not knowingly planted in parks or streetscape areas, and may have been mistakenly supplied to Councils as C. occidentalis.

 

Plant characteristics:

  C. occidentalis is a native of North America and C. sinensis is a native to Chine, Korea and Japan.

  Seeds can germinate easily and grow aggressively to quickly shade out other plants around it.

  Seeds are spread by large omnivorous birds and hence can be distributed over a widespread area.

  Celtis poses a significant ecological threat through its ability to invade remnant bushland.

  Celtis can tolerate a wide variety of soil types and aspects.

 

Celtis occidentalis and sinensis populations are increasing throughout the LGA, becoming more visible and common throughout the older suburbs, in particular Clovelly, Randwick, Kingsford and Kensington.  However, many seedlings can be seen germinating beneath mature stands of trees (i.e. Banksias) along the coastal fringe.

 

Currently, Celtis sinensis is declared in the North Coast Region of the State as a class 3 category Noxious Weed, but nowhere in the Sydney Region.  C. occidentalis is undeclared in NSW at the present time.

 

If Celtis occidentalis and sinensis are not listed as a noxious weed Council will have no jurisdiction to prevent continual reinfestation of controlled areas or further spread in unmanaged areas and to other parts of Sydney.  This will result in the increased cost of control in the future and potential loss of biodiversity through habitat modification.

 

Celtis trees and other fruit bearing exotic trees support artificially high populations of large aggressive birds like Currawongs, which prey on other native bird populations.  Celtis can also host large populations of fruit bats.

 

There is planting of Celtis SP in the LGA along Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction.  This particular species is not invasive and not affected by this proposed listing.

 

The Sydney Central Regional Celtis Management Plan is currently in final draft.  This plan aims to reduce the occurrence of Celtis on both private and public land in the Sydney Central region, so reducing its present and potential future environmental impacts. The objectives of the plan include:

 

1.  to determine the actual extent of Celtis infestations across the LGAs covered by this plan.

2.  to implement strategic control of Celtis on Council managed land within budgetary restrictions and prevent the spread and establishment of new Celtis infestations on Council managed land.

3.  to develop and implement a community education program to increase public awareness of Celtis, its identification, impacts and control methods etc.

4.  to seek declaration of Celtis sinensis and Celtis occidentalis as a Class 4 noxious weed in the Leichhardt, Waverley, Hurstville, Woollahra, Ashfield, Marrickville, City of Canada Bay, City of Sydney, Randwick, Ku-ring-gai and North Sydney Council areas.

5.  to reduce the presence of Celtis on private land in accordance with a Class 4 Weed Management Plan.

6.  to prevent the sale, propagation and distribution of listed Celtis species.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10: Our natural environment will be protected, enhanced and promoted for future generations.

 

Direction 10c:         Land use planning and management enhances and protects biodiversity and natural heritage.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The distribution and abundance of Celtis occidentalis and sinensis within the Randwick LGA is currently considered minimal and controllable.  The authority to prevent the sale of Celtis and enforce its control on private property, through its declaration as a noxious weed, will greatly assist in the prevention of Celtis occidentalis and sinensis becoming major problems to Council in the future.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)  Council support the aims and objectives of the Sydney Central Regional Celtis Management Plan 2006; and

 

b)  Council endorse the declaration of Celtis occidentalis and sinensis as class 4 noxious weeds under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.

 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Regional Weed Management Plan.

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

mATT LEARY

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

 BUSHLAND FIELD OFFICER

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


FINAL – Oct 2006

 

REGIONAL WEED MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

1.1 PLAN TITLE: Sydney Central Regional Celtis Management Plan

 

1.2 PLAN PROPONENTS

Regional Weeds Advisory Committee: Sydney Central Regional Weeds Committee

Address: City of Canada Bay Council

Contact person: Gareth Debney – Bushcare Coordinator, Locked Bag 1470 Drummoyne 1470

Telephone number: 9911 6383

Facsimile number: 9715 9500

Email address: gareth.debney@canadabay.nsw.gov.au

 

Signature: ................................................................................................. Date:........................

 

1.3 NAME OF PLANT(S)                                                                                  WONS  N

Botanical name(s): Celtis sinensis                    Common name(s): Celtis, Chinese Celtis.

                              Celtis occidentalis                Hackberry

NB: For the purposes of this plan, the term ‘Celtis’ refers to both species..

 

1.4 PLAN PERIOD     (not to exceed five years)

Starting date: July 2007                                      Completion date:   June 2010

 

1.5 AREA OF OPERATION:

This plan extends over the Leichhardt, Waverley, Hurstville, Woollahra, Ashfield, Marrickville, City of Canada Bay, City of Sydney and Randwick Local Government Areas. These LCA’s are all represented on the Sydney Central Regional Weeds Committee.

 

The plan also includes North Sydney Council and Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council represented on the Sydney North Regional Weeds Committee.

 

1.6 AIM:

To reduce the occurrence of Celtis on both private and public land in the Sydney Central Region, so reducing its present and potential future environmental impacts.

 

1.7 OBJECTIVES:

1. Determine the actual extent of Celtis infestations across the LGA’s covered by this plan

2. Implement strategic control of Celtis on Council managed land within budgetary restrictions and prevent the spread and establishment of new Celtis infestations on Council managed land

3. Develop & implement a community education program to increase public awareness of Celtis, its identification, impacts and control methods etc

4. Seek declaration of Celtis sinensis and Celtis occidentalis as a Class 4 noxious weed in the Leichhardt, Waverley, Hurstville, Woollahra, Ashfield, Marrickville, City of Canada Bay, City of Sydney, Randwick, Ku-ring-gai & North Sydney Council areas

5. Reduce the presence of Celtis on private land in accordance with a Class 4 weed management plan

6. Prevent the sale, propagation and distribution of listed Celtis species

 


3.0 BACKGROUND and JUSTIFICATION

Text Box: 2.0 STAKEHOLDERS
Leichhardt Council, Waverley Council, Hurstville Council, Woollahra Council, Ashfield Council, Marrickville Council, City of Canada Bay Council, City of Sydney Council, Randwick Council, Ku-ring-gai Council, North Sydney Council, Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority (SMCMA), Department of Lands (DOL), Department of Housing (DOH), Sydney Water Corporation (SWC), RailCorp, Dept of Primary Industry (DPI), Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA), Nursery and Garden Industry Association.

3.1 Plan Justification and Description of the Problem

This plan has been developed by the Sydney Central Regional Weeds Committee Celtis Working Group to coordinate the management of Celtis in affected Council areas in the region. By working together in a strategic manner, the working group believes that Celtis may be prevented from spreading to neighbouring areas, and its numbers and distribution reduced to a manageable level. Another major objective of this plan is to achieve the declaration of Celtis as a noxious weed in the above listed LCA’s, which will aid in the facilitation of more consistent control and management of the weed on private and public land across LCA boundaries.

 

While there are several species of Celtis known to occur in the Sydney Region (one native, three exotic), only two have demonstrated the ability to naturalise. Celtis sinensis and Celtis occidentals have in the past been planted in both public parks and private gardens around the Sydney Region. These plantings provided the original seed source from which the plants have spread, with the assistance of large fruit eating birds and bats that are common in the area.

 

C.occidentalis is a medium sized tree that can grow to 15m tall – it has been extensively used in the past as a street and park tree. C.sinensis is a larger tree to 20m tall – Council records indicate that this species was not knowingly planted in parks or streetscape areas, and may have been mistakenly supplied to Council as C. occidentalis. Both species form dense crowns in spring, which are retained until winter when the majority of leaves are shed to be either semi or completely deciduous. The plants flower in early summer, producing copious amounts of orange coloured fruit in late summer/early autumn. C. sinensis has shown itself to be the more invasive of the two species, as indicated by the significantly higher proportion of C.sinensis seedlings germinating as opposed to C.occidentalis.

 

Celtis seedlings are quick to establish in cleared or disturbed areas, and can tolerate a wide variety of soil types and aspects. In this situation they form a dense mono-storey, which excludes other plant species from becoming established under the heavy, spreading canopy. The seedlings also possess an ability to germinate in relatively un-disturbed areas, under existing native vegetation. The seedlings grow aggressively, eventually out-competing established native species in remnant bushland and revegetated bushland areas. If left un-checked, the Celtis trees can shade out native species, stunting their development and eventually preventing their survival. It is possible that accumulated leaf litter and/or Celtis roots may produce an alleopathic affect on the soil, further affecting native species in the vicinity of maturing Celtis trees.

 

Control of Celtis on Council land is already occurring, through regular bushland maintenance activities carried out by Bushcare volunteers and professional bushland maintenance staff and contractors working in remnant natural areas and recreated bushland habitat corridors etc. Having identified Celtis as an undesirable species, some Councils have also embarked on strategic removal of mature Celtis trees located within parks and streetscape areas as operational budgets allow. However, the effectiveness of this work is compromised by the likely existence of widely distributed mature specimens and developing infestations on private land and public land under the care, control and management of various State Government Departments.

 

Celtis is recognised as an invasive weed by numerous environmental and agricultural protection organisations (both Government and non-government organisations) for example, the Australian Association of Bush Regenerators; Nursery and Garden Industry NSW & ACT and Australian New Crops (QLD Uni). Celtis sinensis has been declared as a Class 3 Noxious Weed in the NSW North Coast Region, for its damaging effects on regenerating rainforest and riparian vegetation communities, as well as impacts on agriculture. By declaring Celtis sinensis (and Celtis occidentalis) in the Sydney Central Region, affected Local Control Authorities will be able to address Celtis infestations on private land and non-Council managed public land. The proposed declaration will significantly improve the effectiveness of current control programs, allowing Councils to approach public education, enforcement and control in a more strategic, integrated and effective fashion.

 

3.2 The ‘do nothing’ option

In Northern NSW and South East Queensland, Celtis sinensis is a seriously invasive weed - having been dubbed ‘the next Camphor Laurel’, it is actively targeted for control by land managers in that region. While Sydney’s cooler climate has probably aided in restricting the speed at which Celtis has spread from the original planting areas, nevertheless it has demonstrated an ability to be highly invasive in both disturbed and undisturbed areas of the region, forming dense monocultures that exclude all other native (or exotic) plants from growing underneath. This situation contributes to declining biodiversity in the Sydney Central Region, where habitat for endemic plants and animals is already highly fragmented and under pressure from numerous other urban impacts and ‘edge effects’.

 

By not listing Celtis sinensis as a Noxious Weed in the Sydney Central Region, those Local Control Authorities involved in this plan will be unable to effectively deal with a significant proportion of mature trees and establishing infestations on land outside their direct care, control and management.

 

This will obviously lead to:

Ø Continual reinfestation of controlled areas

Ø Further spread in unmanaged areas

Ø Spread and establishment in other parts of Sydney

Ø Increased cost of control in the future

Ø Potential loss of biodiversity through habitat modification & unbalanced ecological processes

 

3.3 Distribution of the infestations

Leichhardt

In 1997, Leichhardt Council conducted an audit of all street and park trees located on land under Council’s management. This survey identified 346 Celtis sp. trees in the LGA. Presumably many of these were planted Celtis occidentalis and Celtis australis – it is not known what proportion were self-sown. Currently, Council is strategically controlling moderately severe infestations around Leichhardt Oval, along the Iron Cove foreshore, in Whites Creek Valley Park and within the Johnstons Creek Catchment in Annandale.

 

Infestations also occur within the grounds of Rozelle Hospital (Dept. of Health), Sydney Light Rail Corridor, Sydney Goods Rail Line, Sydney Port Authority land, various schools and private properties.

 

Randwick

Celtis populations are increasing throughout the LGA, becoming more visible and common throughout the older suburbs, in particular Clovelly, Randwick, Kingsford and Kensington. Mostly occurring in private properties and Council parks and gardens, the plant is generally seen in small numbers with no major infestations known throughout the LGA.

 

The only known infestations of Celtis as part of Councils street tree planting program is approximately 80 Celtis australis planted in 1992 within the Maroubra Junction precinct (along Anzac Parade).

 

City of Sydney

Celtis sinensis and C. occidentalis can be found extensively along roadsides, on residential properties and neglected sites predominantly throughout the southern suburbs of the Council area and in particularly Glebe, Forest Lodge, Camperdown, Redfern, Alexandria and Zetland. There is a heavy infestation of both Celtis species along the roadside of The Crescent in Annandale with seedlings appearing regularly in nearby remediated sites maintained by a local volunteer group.  Celtis occidentalis has been used as a street tree in some suburbs of the local government area however Council does intend to develop a plan to replace these trees with other suitable species.

 

Waverley Council

Celtis is a reasonably uncommon weed in the Waverley LGA, mostly occurring in neglected private properties and unmanaged public land. It has not yet been recorded in any significant numbers within Council’s bushland reserves/parks/open space.

 

Woollahra Council

Celtis sp. are widespread in the Woollahra Local Government Area. There is a high level of seedling recruitment in Council’s bushland reserves, and numerous mature specimens located in public parks and private properties throughout the LGA. Celtis is recognised as a serious bushland weed and is being targeted by Council staff & volunteers accordingly where appropriate.

 

Marrickville Council

Marrickville Council is not aware of the status of Celtis growing within the municipality at this point in time.

 

Ku-ring-gai Council

Ku-ring-gai has 1100 hectares of bushland contiguous with Garigal, Ku-ring-gai, and Lane Cove National Parks.  Celtis is becoming an increasing problem in the bushland reserves, especially those reserves with more fertile soils.  Common to this soil type is Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest.  These forest communities are significant to the Ku-ring-gai local government area and are listed as threatened plant communities under the TSC Act.  The floristic composition of these forests provides favourable foraging areas for much of the fauna and in particular the Grey Headed Flying Fox also listed as an endangered species under the TSC Act.

 

Early detection and eradication of this species will ensure the continued survival of these significant vegetation communities.

 

North Sydney Council

Celtis is increasingly becoming an invasive woody weed in the North Sydney area. It is becoming as abundant as privet, ochna or African olive, all of which are spread by berry eating birds. The seed seems to have a greater longevity than the other mentioned species and the seedlings seem to require less moisture than, say, privet, to germinate. As North Sydney has some Celtis as existing street trees, the source of the seed will remain for some time in the future. Celtis is generally removed in bushland and is treated in a similar way to the other mentioned woody weeds.

 

Hurstville Council

An uncommon weed that has not been formally planted, so there are no identified sightings in parks or as street trees.  Insignificant numbers of Celtis have occasionally been found in a few bushland sites.

 

Ashfield Council

Celtis is not known to occur in any significant numbers at this point in time in the Ashfield LGA. Council has an active program of controlling Celtis seedlings as they are encountered during regular weed control operations.

 

City of Canada Bay Council

Despite the highly modified landscape of Sydney’s inner west, the City of Canada Bay contains relatively large areas of public open space including a number of important remnant natural areas, identified as Endangered Ecological Communities under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

 

Celtis is yet to become a significant weed of open green space and bushland areas in the City of Canada Bay, however incursions have occurred in the Drummoyne/Five Dock area, and isolated individuals are occasionally encountered in the foreshore areas of Chiswick and Abbotsford.

 

The fast rate of growth and high viability of bird dispersed seed has the potential to directly impact on the margins of Swamp Oak Forest, and wetter areas of Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest (such as the remnant found in the Yaralla House Estate, Concord). Both these vegetation communities are significant in the City of Canada Bay Council Area and are listed as endangered under the TSC Act.

 

Centennial Park & Moore Park Trust

In contrast to many Local Government Areas only three Celtis trees have been planted within the Parklands.  However, there are numerous mature trees that have self-sown and seedlings continue to germinate throughout the Parklands.  The Trust also manages two areas of endangered Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS), currently bush regeneration is improving these sites but Celtis poses a constant threat as it is readily fruits and is dispersed widely by birds.

 

3.4 Weed Biology/Ecology

The main identifying features distinguishing both Celtis species are that C. sinensis has a smooth leaf surface and serrations on half of the leaf, whilst C. occidentalis has a rough leaf surface, less serrations on the margin and has much thinner almost papery adult leaves.

 

Celtis sinensis
Description:
Tree to 15 m high, bark grey and smooth.

Leaves ovate to broad-ovate, 4.5--9 cm long, 3--4.5 cm wide, apex acuminate, base oblique, margins toothed in upper half of leaf, upper surface ( smooth and glabrous, lower surface almost glabrous, except for some hairs along midvein; petiole 5--6 mm long.

Drupe globose, 7--8 mm long, green at first becoming orange; 1 or 2, on peduncle c. 10 mm long.

Distribution and occurrence: Native of China, Korea and Japan. Widespread weed in coastal areas, especially around rainforest.

 

Celtis occidentalis
Description:
Medium-sized deciduous tree.

Leaves +/- ovate, 4-14 cm long, mostly 3-7 cm wide, base strongly asymmetric, margins coarsely toothed, upper surface scabrous above, lower surface glabrous to pubescent; usually 3-5-veined, veins prominent, yellowish, +/- glabrous or with scattered hairs; petiole 6-12 mm long.

Inflorescences few-flowered.

Drupe globose, ca 10 mm diam., purple or nearly black, stalk ca 10 mm long.

Distribution and occurrence: Cultivated, sometimes a garden escape; chiefly along banks of rivers. Native of North America.

3.5 Method and Rate of Spread

Celtis seeds are spread by large, omnivorous birds (such as Currawongs, Indian Mynas etc) feeding on the fruit in Autumn and early Winter. Seed is distributed over a wide area as the birds traverse their territories. Celtis seed germinates easily, and quickly outgrows other plants around it. The seed can also be distributed by water, as Celtis will often grow along creek and canal banks, with the canopy overhanging the water-course.

Celtis has been planted in the past as a street and park shade tree by several Councils in the Sydney Central Region. C, occidentalis and C. sinensis are no longer actively planted by public land managers; however the population of mature fruiting trees that have descended form these and other plantings is sufficient at this stage to perpetuate the ongoing spread of the species.

 

Rate of spread is difficult to quantify without detailed mapping of all affected LGA’s over time.  However, Bushcare volunteers and bushland maintenance contractors report numerous seedlings germinating continually within remnant bushland & revegetated habitat areas. For example, in a small (500m2) Bushcare revegetation site in Annandale, approximately 170 seedlings were removed from the planting area in one morning’s weeding. The site had been previously weeded two months before.

 

While the Sydney Central Region appears to be the worst affected by Celtis at this point in time, new incursions on the northern beaches have been noted by Council staff. It is likely that further investigations and information sharing between Sydney Council’s would result in a concerning trend of increasing spread.

4.0 Legislative and Regulatory Situation

4.1 Current Declaration

Currently, Celtis sinensis is declared in the North Coast Region of the State as a Class 3 Category Noxious Weed, but nowhere in the Sydney Region. Celtis occidentalis is undeclared in NSW at the present time.

 

4.2 Declaration Changes

It is proposed to seek declaration of Celtis sinensis and Celtis occidentalis in the Leichhardt, Waverley, Hurstville, Ku-ring-gai, North Sydney, Woollahra, Ashfield, Marrickville, City of Canada Bay, City of Sydney and Randwick Local Government Areas as a Class 4 Category Noxious Weed. While Celtis sinensis has been declared elsewhere in the state, Celtis occidentalis has not yet been declared. The two species display similar invasive characteristics in the Sydney Central region and should be compared to Small Leaf and Large Leaf Privet for the purpose of this proposed declaration.

 

Class 4 - Locally Controlled Weeds

"The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the local control authority."

The control objective for weed control class 4 is to minimise the negative impact of those plants on the economy, community or environment of NSW.

Considering that Celtis is a medium to large tree when mature, this classification is the most appropriate. The Class 4 Category would allow Councils to effectively manage new infestations by enforcing control of all juvenile plants on private & public land. Mature and semi-mature specimens could also be controlled where the plants are not included in an approved heritage plan or similar. This category also allows limited discretion to be afforded to private properties containing large specimens, which would likely cost several thousands of dollars to remove (i.e staged removal, generous time-limits etc).

 

As required by the amended NSW Noxious Weeds Act 1993, each LCA will develop and implement a Class 4 Weed Management Plan for Chinese Celtis and Hackberry in consultation with the regional weeds committees and the local community.

 

5.0 CONSIDERATIONS and OPPORTUNITIES

5.1 Opportunities to be exploited

To assist in the implementation of this plan, funding will be sought from within Councils’ operational budgets, as well as various State and Federal Government agencies for mapping, on-ground control works and developing education/community awareness programs.

 

While a great deal of work is occurring on affected Council land by Bushcare volunteers and professional staff and contractors, a coordinated approach that follows strategic guidelines identified by the Celtis Working Group will enhance the effectiveness of control programs, and improve the prospects of receiving grant funding for operational works.

 

Incentives programs will also be investigated and implemented - similar to other projects in the Sydney region for Privet and Asthma Weed, where information packs are distributed to residents containing fact-sheets that detail identification and control guidelines for Celtis, recommended native replacement species and vouchers for a free native plant from local community nurseries etc.

 

5.2 Species Management

Small Celtis plants and seedlings can be manually removed, digging up as much of the main root system as possible to discourage suckering. Over large areas, seedlings are particularly susceptible to being sprayed using a Glyphosate-based herbicide. Larger specimens can be controlled using either the cut & paint, or drilling/frilling methods using an undiluted Glyphosate-based product.

 

Street and park trees are already being actively removed by most LCAs as a priority where budgetary constraints allow. Additional internal funding may be accessible once Celtis is declared.

 

Due to the highly built up nature of the Sydney Central Region, it is not always appropriate to replace Celtis trees with another tree species. Potential replacement species would depend on the landscape position, soil, aspect, original vegetation community of the site and proximity to any remnant native vegetation. Distance from dwellings, public infrastructure and essential services are also important considerations in recommending suitable endemic species to replace removed Celtis trees.

 

5.3 Extension and Education

The main focus for education and extension activities will be to increase skills in the identification and control of Celtis by both residents and local and state agency staff. This will be achieved through numerous means such as:

·     Local media articles when Celtis is declared in new LCAs

·     Articles in ratepayer newsletters

·     Articles in Mayoral columns

·     Distribute information to agency staff on Celtis identification and management, especially regulatory officers, health and building / development control officers and parks staff

·     Including Celtis in weed displays (such as during WeedBuster Week)

·     Including Celtis in regional weed brochures, WEEDeck and on the committees’ website

 

5.4 Links to other Strategies

This plan meets several 'Desired Outcomes' of the NSW Weeds Strategy:

·     The development and implementation of programs to reduce environmental degradation and the loss of biodiversity through weed invasions.  This can be achieved through monitoring river systems and wetlands to identify aquatic weed problems at an early stage so that they can be controlled with minimal environmental damage, and implementing control programs for weeds which cause major environmental problems;

·     The implementation and monitoring of weed control programs on public and State-owned and Crown Land to ensure that objectives are achieved in an efficient and cost effective manner;

·     An effective and efficient system for delivery of noxious weeds control and the enforcement of weeds legislation.

 

It also conforms to the Mission Statement for the National Weeds Strategy "..to reduce the detrimental impact of weeds on the sustainability of Australia's productive capacity and natural ecosystems", and to Objective 3.2: ‘encourage the development of strategic plans for weed management at all levels’.

 

This plan falls within the Sydney Metropolitan and Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment Management Authority (CMA) regions and assists in the implementation of the following Catchment Blueprints:

 

·     The Hawkesbury Lower Nepean Catchment Blueprint, in particular:

Management Target 12: Weeds and pests:

By 2006 implement adequately funded and closely linked strategies and effective actions plans for all major and potential terrestrial and aquatic weed/pest species; and

Prioritised Management Actions for Biodiversity 6:

Resource and implement closely linked strategies and effective action plans developed on a catchment basis for all major aquatic and terrestrial weeds and pests using environmentally appropriate management practices, and develop contingency plans for potential invasive weeds and pests.

·     The Southern Sydney Catchment Blueprint, in particular:

Management Target 14:

By 2012 the threats posed to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems by pest species are measurably reduced; and,

Management Action 4:

Implement closely linked strategies and effective action plans, supported by government for all major aquatic and terrestrial weeds, pests and pathogens using environmentally appropriate management practices, and develop contingency plans for potential invasive weeds and pests.

 

·     The Sydney Harbour Catchment Blueprint, in particular:

Management Action 33:

Develop and implement integrated pest/weed/pathogen management plans for the Board area (aquatic and terrestrial).

 

5.5 Barriers and Contingencies

Once declared, those Councils that form part of this regional plan will develop a Class 4 Weed Control Plans for their LGAs. The strategies for controlling Celtis within these LGAs will be developed cooperatively through the Sydney Central Regional Weeds Committee Celtis Working Group, and will endeavour to address the problem at both the local and regional scale.

 

Control of Celtis is achievable in this region, due to its current limited distribution, and the willingness of relatively unaffected neighbouring Councils to join the Plan and actively manage any minor incursions of the weed into their areas of control.

 

Barriers to the effective control of Celtis that are likely to be encountered include the indicative cost associated with controlling large, mature specimens on private land. At a cost of several thousand dollars, not all private landholders will be able to afford removal in the short-term. Possible solutions to this problem will be generous time limits on control, staged removal, subsidised removal (by Council or private industry – Arboriculture contractors & TAFE classes for example) or inclusion on the property’s 149 Certificate, ensuring control when the property is sold on.

 


6.0 ACTION PLAN

ACTION PLAN FOR CONTROL:

Performance indicators

WHO

Addresses which objectives

6.1 Seek Council endorsements of this Regional Weed Plan and proposed Celtis sinensis & C.occidentalis Class 4 declaration, in Leichhardt, Waverley, Hurstville, Woollahra, Ashfield, Marrickville, City of Canada Bay, City of Sydney, Randwick, Ku-ring-gai and North Sydney LCAs

Regional Plan and proposed Class 4 declaration endorsed by all relevant councils by December 2006

LCAs

4. Seek declaration of Celtis sinensis and Celtis occidentalis as a Class 4 noxious weed in the Leichhardt, Waverley, Hurstville, Woollahra, Ashfield, Marrickville, City of Canada Bay, City of Sydney, Randwick, Ku-ring-gai & North Sydney Council areas

 

6.2 Coordinate mapping of Celtis distribution and extent of infestation in those LGA’s involved in Regional Plan

Mapping completed, collated and report produced by Celtis Working Group within 6 months of Regional Plan being adopted

LCAs

1. Determine the actual extent of Celtis infestations across the LGA’s covered by this plan

6.3 Advise LGA’s in other Regional Weed Committee areas in Sydney Basin of weed potential posed by Celtis & request information sharing of known incursions as detected

Data gathered from other Council’s & included in mapping report. Database of locations created and maintained by members of Celtis Working Group within 9 months of Regional Plan adoption date

LCA’s; Regional Weeds Committees

1. Determine the actual extent of Celtis infestations across the LGA’s covered by this plan

6.4 Strategically manage Celtis on Council land, working in cooperation with other sections of Council where possible (i.e. Tree Preservation Officers; Development Assessment; Parks Managers etc)

Reduction in extent of Celtis infestations on Council land by 20% annually from date of adoption.

Prevention of new infestations from becoming established. 

Identification of mature specimens & programmed removal as budgets allow

Investigate species exemption from TPO and encourage removals on private land through DA process

LCAs, Bushcare volunteers, DEC, RTA, RailCorp, DOH, SWC

2. Implement strategic control of Celtis on Council managed land within budgetary restrictions and prevent the spread and establishment of new Celtis infestations on Council managed land


 

ACTION PLAN FOR CONTROL:

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

WHO

ADDRESSES WHICH OBJECTIVES

6.5 Provide information and increase technical skills for the community and LCA staff, in Celtis identification and appropriate control

Local media articles when Celtis is declared. Features on Council web-sites; articles in ratepayer & Bushcare newsletters, twice annually

 

Mayoral column article (once or twice annually) during life of Plan

 

Training workshop for agency staff in Celtis ID through Regional Weeds Committees. To be organised for the next available meeting following Regional Plan adoption

 

Weed displays include Celtis – annually in October during Weedbuster Week and at other times in conjunction with local festivals, tree giveaways, World Environment Day, etc for the life of the Plan

 

Celtis included in regional brochures, WEEDeck and on Regional Weeds Committees’ website

LCAs, DPI, Regional Weeds Committees

3. Develop & implement a community education program to increase public awareness of Celtis, its identification, impacts and control methods etc

 


 

ACTION PLAN FOR CONTROL:

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

WHO

ADDRESSES WHICH OBJECTIVES

6.6 Send submissions to DPI / NWAC for Celtis sinensis & C.occidentalis Class 4 declaration in Leichhardt, Waverley, Hurstville, Woollahra, Ashfield, Marrickville, City of Canada Bay, City of Sydney, Randwick, Ku-ring-gai and North Sydney LCAs

Celtis declared in Leichhardt, Waverley, Hurstville, Woollahra, Ashfield, Marrickville, City of Canada Bay, City of Sydney, Randwick, Ku-ring-gai and North Sydney LCAs by July 2007.

Class 4 Weed Management Plan developed by the Celtis Working Group and distributed for Agency comment/Council adoption within 3 months of noxious weed declaration

 

Regional Weeds Committees, LCAs

4. Seek declaration of Celtis sinensis and Celtis occidentalis as a Class 4 noxious weed in the Leichhardt, Waverley, Hurstville, Woollahra, Ashfield, Marrickville, City of Canada Bay, City of Sydney, Randwick, Ku-ring-gai & North Sydney Council areas

 

6.7 Strategically coordinate the control and reduction of Celtis on private land through inspections, notifications and enforcement of Noxious Weeds Act, 1993. This will be integrated where appropriate with control works on public land

The number of inspections and notifications per annum will be recorded and compared to previous years. An annual decrease in the extent of Celtis on private land of 30% will be targeted.

The number of follow up complaints will also be recorded.

Increase in Celtis enquiries from a better informed community.

Proactive inspection programs implemented within 3 months of Celtis being declared Noxious to achieve targeted 30% annual reduction

LCAs, private landholders

5. Reduce the presence of Celtis on private land in accordance with a Class 4 weed management plan

6.8 Strategically control Celtis on non-Council managed public land in cooperation with other government agencies

The implementation of Class 4 Weed Management Plan objectives for public land within 6 months of noxious weed declaration

Reduction in extent of Celtis infestations on public land by 10% annually

LCAs, Bushcare volunteers, DEC, RTA, RailCorp, DOH, SWC

4. Celtis on public land strategically controlled and prevented from spreading.


6.9 Conduct inspections of nurseries, markets and relevant retail outlets; distribute information and implement legal action as required

Inspections to commence within 6 months of noxious weed declaration

Number of inspections recorded & follow-up inspections conducted

 

Nursery operators educated

LCAs

6. Prevent the sale, propagation and distribution of listed Celtis species


7.0 MONITOR and REVIEW PROCESS

All Participants in this plan will monitor and review the progress of the plan’s objectives against the performance indicators identified in the Action Plan provided above. Progress will be reported annually in a report to the NWAC. The plan will also be reviewed regularly through the Sydney Central Regional Weeds Committee to address any changes or modifications that become necessary as a result of new information or agency experiences etc.

 

8.0 BENEFITS

Celtis has the potential to develop into a major weed problem in the Sydney Region, as it displays similar invasive behaviours to Camphor Larurel and Large Leaf Privet. At this point in time, moderate to severe infestations in disturbed and undisturbed remnant bushland areas is limited to the inner Sydney Central Region (primarily Leichhardt and City of Sydney LGAs). Celtis is known to be spreading with a greater rapidity than previously believed into neighbouring Council areas. The coordinated approach detailed in this Regional Plan will address the spread of Celtis from it’s current distribution, and strategically reduce the overall spatial extent of the weed in the region.

 

Controlling Celtis will have a positive effect on biodiversity conservation in the area, by protecting the species integrity of remnant bushland areas and revegetated habitat corridors. An additional benefit of actively controlling mature Celtis tree will be a reduction in the available food source for large native and non native omnivorous birds, whose artificially large urban populations not only aid in the spread of Celtis, but have been linked to the decline of smaller bird species (i.e. Superb Fairy-wren) in areas of restricted habitat like the Sydney Central Region.

 

9.0 RESOURCES

NSW Agriculture. (2002). Agnote - Celtis: identification and control. Rod Ensbey.

 

http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au – FLORA Online

 

North Coast Weeds Advisory Committee (2001). Regional Weed Management Plan for Celtis sinensis

 


Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 15/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

IN HOUSE MANAGEMENT OF THE BURNIE PARK COMMUNITY CENTRE

 

 

DATE:

14 March, 2007

FILE NO:

F2004/07674

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Burnie Park Community Centre located within Burnie Park Clovelly, bounded by Burnie Street and Pacific Street, is owned by Randwick City Council and is currently managed by Mrs Tracey Ellis on a holding over basis under a licence agreement which expired on 30 January 2002. As the agreement has expired, Council must decide whether to re-tender for the management services or to self manage the Centre.

 

ISSUES:

 

Under the terms of the expired agreement, the licensee is required to pay an annual licence fee to Council indexed annually by CPI which currently stands at $77.55 + GST. The licensee is also responsible to pay as outgoings, all rates and taxes. The centre is non-rateable as it forms part of the Reserve. The licensee must keep in full force a public risk insurance policy and indemnify Council against all claims, demands and writs.

 

The conditions of the licence agreement stipulate the licensee must maintain all improvements and submit an annual maintenance program. The annual maintenance program for 2007/2008 has been received and details the following works:- replacement of all existing taps, replacement of bathroom light fittings, general repairs, signage on building regarding use of bathroom facilities and replacement of lid of sandpit.

 

In return for the maintenance and management of the facility the licensee is entitled to collect fees from regular and casual hirers. The total income for 2005 was $10,104.00, expenditure for 2005 totalled $5,025.20, resulting in surplus income to the licensee of $5,078.80.  The total income for 2006 was $11,255.00, expenditure for 2006 totalled $6,038.00.  The Centre is limited to operating hours of 9am – 8.15pm Monday to Friday, 10am – 4pm Saturday and 10am – 4pm Sunday.

 

The premises can be available for hire a maximum of 52 days in a year over weekend periods. The facility is a non-smoking venue and alcohol or drugs cannot be brought or consumed on the premises and bookings for evenings must be of a passive nature.

 

With the implementation of Council’s On-Line RMS (Request Management System) Program, Council’s Property Services Section is now in a position to manage the facility and co-ordinate and organise the hire and usage. Council’s Building Services Section will maintain the premises.

 

The usage charges have been incorporated into the Pricing Policy & Statement of Fees & Charges for 2006/2007 in line with the fees currently charged by the licensee.

 

The management of the facility by Council’s Property Services Section will allow for clear and concise conditions of hire to be devised and implemented. It will allow for improved control over the compliance with hiring conditions by users of the facility, including the banning of hirers who do not comply with hiring conditions, as well as improved enforcement by the Rangers. These factors will improve the general amenity within Burnie Park for the benefit of park users and nearby residents.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:    A vibrant and diverse community.

 

Direction 2c:  Strong partnership between Council, community groups and government agencies.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

All income generated from the management of the facility, estimated to be in excess of $10,000.00 per annum, will be off-set against building maintenance costs, estimated to be approximately $5,000.00 and will result in increased usage of the community centre.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The in-house management of the Burnie Park Community Centre will increase the services provided by Council’s property team and will ensure any community issues or concerns relating to the use of the premises are dealt with in a prompt and professional manner by Council staff. The current regular hirer’s agreements will be formalised by way of a hire agreement and the Councils On-Line Booking system will be better utilised with the management of the Burnie Park Community Centre.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council issues the required notice to terminate the expired licence agreement with Ms Tracey Ellis and commences the in-house management of the Burnie Park Community Centre at the expiry of the notice period.

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

Nil .

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

SHARON PLUNKETT

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

PROPERTY COORDINATOR


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 16/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

INTERNAL REPORTING SYSTEM - PROTECTED DISCLOSURES ACT

 

 

DATE:

12 March, 2007

FILE NO:

F2005/00303

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Council annually reviews its Internal Reporting System and Policy in relation to the Protected Disclosures Act.

 

ISSUES:

 

Clause 12 of the Internal Reporting System, Policy No. 1.04.04, provides that the policy shall be reviewed annually to ensure that it meets the requirements of the legislation and facilitates the making of disclosures under the Act.

 

As detailed in the Policy, Randwick Council does not tolerate corrupt conduct, maladministration or serious and substantial waste of public money.  The Council is committed to the aims and objectives of the Protected Disclosures Act.  It recognises the value and importance of contributions of staff to enhance administrative and management practices and strongly supports disclosures being made by staff without any detrimental action in reprisal for making the disclosures.

 

The network of nominated disclosure officers is significant and includes the General Manager, Department Heads, Managers and all members of Council’s Joint Consultative Committee.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 11:            Excellence in Staff Management

 

Direction 11a:          A working environment that provides a strong platform for productivity and achievement and allows all staff to contribute to the best of their ability to achieving Councils outcomes

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Whilst no disclosures have been made under the Council’s Internal Reporting System during the past year, it is considered that the Policy does meet the objects of the legislation and does facilitate the making of disclosures, should the need for such arise.  Disclosure ability is enhanced by the number of nominated disclosure officers as detailed in the Policy.

 

In addition, periodic articles are placed on the Council Intranet and notices are attached to payslips to remind employees of the Internal Reporting System.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the annual report on Council’s Internal Reporting System and Policy in relation to the Protected Disclosures Act be received and noted.

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

 

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

 

 


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 17/2007

 

 

SUBJECT:

Application for Special Variation to General Income

 

 

DATE:

13 March, 2007

FILE NO:

F2004/07049

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The Department of Local Government has written to Council regarding the special variation granted to Council in 2002. The special variation was granted for a five year period and consequently, Council is now required to reduce it’s general income for 2007/2008 by the corresponding amount. To retain this income on a permanent basis, Council is required to again apply for a special variation to general income.                

ISSUES:

 

In June 2002, Randwick City Council applied for a permanent 6% special variation to rates to enable it to fund some major infrastructure maintenance and replacement programs. This additional funding request was part of a long term strategy to increase the level of asset and infrastructure maintenance and ensure the sustainability of the assets belonging to the ratepayers and residents. 

 

In response to this application, the Minister for Local Government gave approval for a special variation of 4.98% that was to apply for a period of five years. A condition was imposed that Council reduce its general income for the 2007/2008 rating year by $1,750,732 plus the equivalent cumulative proportion of this increase from any general variation increases or any special variation increases approved for the 2003/2004 to 2006/2007 rating years, inclusive. On this basis, the amount that Council’s general income is to be reduced for 2007/2008 will be $2,233,039.

 

Over the past 5 years the funding provided from this temporary rate increase has enabled an increased expenditure on infrastructure programs with positive outcomes and clear benefits to the community including:

  Better maintenance of essential infrastructure

  Increased level of community satisfaction with Council’s management of key infrastructure services

  The funds have supported a substantial overall and recurrent increase in a capital expenditure on infrastructure.

 

Representations have been made to the Department of Local Government about extending the special variation granted in 2002 on a permanent basis. The Department have indicated that Council needs to follow the Department’s procedures in this regard and make a fresh application for a special variation to general income.

 

The Department of Local Government require a resolution of Council outlining their intention to apply for a special variation. Council also needs to complete the Department’s “Intention to Apply” form and return it to the Department by 31 March 2007.

 

RELATIONSHIP TO CITY PLAN:

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:    Leadership in Sustainability

 

Direction 1c:  Long term financial viability is achieved

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Without this application for a special variation to general income, Council will be required to reduce it’s general income in 2007/2008 by $2,233,039.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

While Randwick Council over the past 5 years has implemented a wide ranging reform program to achieve efficiencies and cost savings, improved service delivery, increased sustainability, sound financial management and an integrated sound long term strategic planning focus, it is evident that our revenue base is still much lower than our benchmark group of councils and that the removal of this temporary variation to rates would impact negatively on our ability to provide services and facilities to the community.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That council resolve to apply for a special variation to general income making permanent the special variation that was granted in 2002 for a five year period.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

GREG BYRNE

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

MANAGER FINANCIAL OPERATIONS

 


MOTIONS PURSUANT TO NOTICE

 

13.1        Motion By Councillor Hughes – Code of Conduct – Monetary limit for donations. (F2004/06569 xr F2005/00171)

 

(THIS MOTION WAS DEFERRED FROM THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING ON TUESDAY, 27TH FEBRUARY 2007.)

 

That:

 

(a)              Council amends its Code of Conduct to include a specific monetary limit for donations at which Councillors are required to abstain from voting on a matter before Council;

 

(b)      determination of the appropriate monetary limit be approached as follows:

 

i.                Council seeks guidance from the ICAC as to their view on an appropriate specific monetary limit;

ii.               Council seeks guidance from the NSW Department of Local Government as to their view on an appropriate specific monetary limit;

iii.             Council notify the community in the Mayoral Column of the intention to include a specific monetary limit for donations at which Councillors are required to abstain from voting on a matter before Council and invite community feedback via phone response, survey page or a web form as to what people consider to be an appropriate monetary limit.

 

 

13.2    Motion By Councillor White – Carols by Candlelight in Matraville.  (F2004/07079 xr F2005/00171))

 

That Council endorse and seek funding by local business to stage a Carols By Candlelight in the park at Matraville bounded by Franklin Street, Clarence Street, Awydir Avenue and Barwon Crescent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                           



[1] The applicant subsequently provided a copy of the instrument that grants the subject site legal access to the right-of-way.

[2] boarding house means a building or place:

(a)  where permanent accommodation facilities are provided to the residents of the building or place, and

(b)  where meal and laundry facilities may be provided, and

(c)  which is not licensed to sell liquor within the meaning of the Liquor Act 1982,

but (in Part 2) does not include a building or place elsewhere defined in this clause. (Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 – Clause 49).