Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 23 February 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, 23 February 2010 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

We humbly beseech you to bestow your blessings upon this Council and to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of your glory and the true welfare of the people of Randwick and Australia.

Amen”

 

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

I would like to acknowledge that we are here today on the land of the Bidjigal people of the Dharwahal Nation.  The Bidjigal people are the traditional owners and custodians of this land and form part of the wider aboriginal nations of the Sydney area.  On behalf of Randwick City Council I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Elders both past and present.”

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 8 December 2009

Extraordinary Council Meeting - 9 February 2010

 

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council by Members of the Public

Mayoral Minutes

Mayoral Minutes (if any) will be distributed on the night of the meeting 

 

Urgent Business

 

 


Director City Planning Reports

CP1/10      168 Gale Road Maroubra

CP2/10      4 Northumberland Street, Clovelly

CP3/10      195-199 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

CP4/10      11 Lurline Street, Maroubra

CP5/10      112 Bilga Crescent, Malabar

CP6/10      9 Lurline Street, Maroubra

CP7/10      88-102 Moverly Road, South Coogee (Part A)

CP8/10      88-102 Moverly Road, South Coogee (Part B)

CP9/10      Liquor Act 2007 - Application for a Primary Service Authorisation for licensed premises situated at 3R Marine Parade, Maroubra known as the "Pavilion Beachfront Cafe".

CP10/10    Reporting variations to Development Standards under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) from 1 November to 30 November 2009

CP11/10    Industrial Lands Discussion Paper

CP12/10    Draft Chifley Sports Reserve Plan of Management

CP13/10    Department of Planning Draft Local Development Contribution Guidelines

 

General Manager's Reports

GM1/10     Review of the 2009-13 Management Plan - December 2009 Quarterly Report

GM2/10     Impact of New Division of Local Government Guidelines on Proposed Building for our Community Program

 

Director City Services Reports

CS1/10      Extending the number of months the outdoor swimming areas are open at Des Rendord Aquatic Centre

CS2/10      Asset Management Policy

CS3/10      Gordon Avenue, Coogee - Proposed Footpath - Petition

CS4/10      Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee - Proposed Footpath - Petition

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF1/10      Affixing of the Council Seal

GF2/10      Investment Report - November 2009

GF3/10      Investment Report - December 2009

GF4/10      Investment Report - January 2010

GF5/10      Councillors Expenses & Facilities Policy - results of public exhibition

GF6/10      Budget Review - December 2009 Quarter  

 

Petitions

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM1/10     Notice of Motion from Cr Matthews - Waiving of Fees for the Coogee Patchwork Group for hiring Clovelly Seniors Hall

NM2/10     Notice of Motion from Cr Woodsmith -  Overdevelopment of Dunningham Reserve, Coogee

NM3/10     Notice of Motion from Crs Smith, Tracey and Woodsmith - Introducing 4 hour Parking  on (northern side) of Burnie Street, Clovelly

NM4/10     Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Reconsideration of planned new Foothpath - Edgecumbe Avenue, Coogee

NM5/10     Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Pending removal of Jacaranda tree on Department of Housing estate at 38 Malabar Road, Maroubra

NM6/10     Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Coogee Bay Hotel Site Redevelopment Proposal

NM7/10     Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Lexington Place Busking Competition

NM8/10     Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Opposition Leader's Emissions Reduction Scheme    

 

Notice of Rescission Motion

NR1/10      Notice of Rescission Motion submitted by Crs Matson, Woodsmith & Notley-Smith - Bundock Street - Drainage Upgrade  

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP1/10

 

 

Subject:                  168 Gale Road Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/915/2009

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Land subdivision of the site into two allotments with a car space to lot 1 which fronts Gale Road (SEPP 1 due to non compliance with minimum allotment sizes and frontage widths)

 

Ward:                      Central Ward

 

Applicant:                J Spiteri

 

Owner:                         R Grannall

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The proposed development is for the subdivision of the existing property into two allotments as follows;

 

a)     Lot 1 having a site area of 314.576m with a frontage of 10.06m,

b)     Lot 2 having a site area of 314.576m with a frontage of 10.06m

 

Both proposed lots are below the standard for minimum sizes (450sqm) and frontage widths (12m) required for 2A zoned land under Clause 30(1) of the Randwick Local Environment Plan 1998 (RLEP). The proposed allotment sizes and frontages are greater than a 10% variation to the standard and the Department of Planning requires that applications with variations greater than 10% to development standards to be referred to Council for determination.

 

The applicant has included an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with Clause 30(1A) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan is unreasonable and unnecessary. In assessing the applicants SEPP 1 objection the following matters are addressed;

 

●    The proposed allotments are consistent with the majority of lot sizes and subdivision pattern in the immediate locality.

 

●    The variation to the development standards will not hinder the compliance with the relevant preferred solutions of the Development Control Plan for Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

●    The creation of a new allotment to the rear of the subject site maintains the residential character of the street.

 

With respect to the above matters the proposed subdivision is consistent with the historical background of the immediate locality which includes the subdivision of allotments to create new allotments to the rear of existing dwellings which have frontages to the street at the rear of the site.

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The application details the proposed torrens title subdivision of the site into two allotments.

 

The proposal lots are;

 

●      Lot 1, 314.56sqm. with a frontage of 10.06m.

●      Lot 2, 314.56sqm, with a frontage of 10.06m.

 

3.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is on the northern side of Gale Road and is presently occupied by a single storey dwelling with garage and carport within the rear yard with vehicular access from Metcalfe Street at rear. The site has a frontage of 10.06m and overall site area of 675.127m.

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of single and two storey dwellings. The subject site is the only property within this block which has street frontages to both Gale Road and Metcalf Street.

 

4.      Site History

 

There are no relevant matters associated with this property.

 

5.    State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 1 Development Standards

 

The proposal seeks to vary development standards contained within RLEP 1998. A SEPP 1 objection has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clauses 30(1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 the minimum allotment size resulting from subdivision in 2A zones is 450sqm with each allotment having a frontage of at least 12m. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Site area and frontage

Proposal

Lot 1, 314.56sqm and Lot 3, 314.56sqm both with frontages of 10.06m

LEP development standard

Minimum lot sizes of 450sqm and frontage of 12m.

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

The resultant lots areas represent 30% less than the minimum area and the width of 10.06m represents 16% less than the minimum width.

 

In assessing the applicant’s SEPP 1 objection, the principles established from the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 have been addressed. The case has established that the upholding of a SEPP 1 objection is a precondition which must be satisfied before a proposed development can be approved by the consent authority:

 

Matter 1

The Court must be satisfied that “the objection is well founded” (clause 7 of SEPP 1). The objection is to be in writing, be an objection “that compliance with that development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case”, and specify “the grounds of that objection” (clause 6 of SEPP 1).

 

Minimum allotment sizes Clause 30

The stated purpose of the minimum allotment standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

“To establish minimum requirements for the subdivision of land within residential zones in order to protect and enhance local amenity”.

 

The applicant has submitted a written SEPP 1 objection, which outlines the following justifications for the variation to the standard:

 

-      The proposed allotments are consistent with the majority of lot sizes and subdivision pattern in the immediate locality.

-      The variation with the development standards will not hinder the compliance with the relevant preferred solutions of the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies, in relation to landscaped area, floor space ratio and building height.

-      The proposed frontage width is common within the immediate locality and any future development on the proposed lots will not be restrained by the frontage width.

-      The proposal is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Residential 2A zone in that it will create a new residential lot to the rear of the subject site and maintains the residential character of the street.

-      The proposed new rear allotment is of sufficient size to accommodate a typical low density residential development and will be in keeping with the character of the surrounding areas.

-      The proposed subdivision aims at providing for a more sustainable, functional and efficient use of the subject site which is in accordance with the general aims and objectives of the LEP and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Comment:

The submitted SEPP 1 objection has addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard, the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The objection has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, particularly as the proposed subdivision is in character with all of the other allotments in both Gale Road and Metcalfe Street. As such, it is considered that the objection is well founded.

 

Matter 2

The Court must be of the opinion that “granting of consent to that development application is consistent with the aims of this Policy as set out in clause 3” (clause 7 of SEPP 1).

 

The aims and objects of SEPP 1 set out in clause 3 are to provide “flexibility in the application of planning controls operating by virtue of development standards in circumstances where strict compliance with those standards would, in any particular case, be unreasonable or unnecessary or tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act”. The last mentioned objects in section 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act are to encourage:

 

“(1) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(2) the promotion and coordination of the orderly and economic use of developed land.”

 

Comment

The variations from the minimum allotment sizes and frontage width are not inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as they would not detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would promote the orderly use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

The proposal is also consistent with the relevant objectives of Residential 2A Zone in that it will allow for development which is consistent with the desired character of the locality.

 

Matter 3

The Court must be satisfied that a consideration of the matters in clause 8(a) and (b) of SEPP 1 justifies the upholding of the SEPP 1 objection. The matters in clause 8(a) and (b) are:

 

“(a) whether non-compliance with the development standard 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”.

 


Comment

The proposed development and variation from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standards will not allow the best use of the site and allow the site to be developed in a consistent and orderly manner. 

 

Ways of establishing that compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary

Preston C J expressed the view that an objection under SEPP 1 may be well founded and be consistent with the aims set out in clause 3 of the Policy in a variety of ways:

 

First

The most commonly invoked way is to establish that compliance with the development standards is unreasonable or unnecessary because the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

The rationale is that development standards are not ends in themselves but means of achieving ends. The ends are environmental or planning objectives. If the proposed development proffers an alternative means of achieving the objective, strict compliance with the standard would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

As discussed above, strict compliance with the development standards is unreasonable and unnecessary as the design scheme will achieve the objectives of the development standard.

 

Second

A second way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose is not relevant to the development with the consequence that compliance is unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective or purpose of the standards is relevant to the subject development.

 

Third

A third way is to establish that the underlying objective or purpose would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required with the consequence that compliance is unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The underlying objective of the standards would not be defeated or thwarted as full compliance in this instance is unreasonable.

 

Fourth

A fourth way is to establish that the development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consents departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Comments:

The minimum allotment sizes have not been abandoned or discarded by any decision or actions of Council.

 

Fifth

A fifth way is to establish that “the zoning of particular land” was “unreasonable or inappropriate” so that “a development standard appropriate for that zoning was also unreasonable or unnecessary as it applied to that land” and that “compliance with the standard in that case would also be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

Comments:

The existing Residential 2A zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

6.         Community Consultation

 

The proposal has been notified in accordance with the DCP-Public Notification. No submissions have been received.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineers for consideration. Comments and conditions have been provide for inclusion with any consent granted.

 

8.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

 

The site is zoned 2A 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 following clauses of LEP 1998 are relevant to the proposed development:

Clause 10 Zone 2A

The proposed subdivision does not comply with the minimum allotment size standard required under Clause 30 of the RLEP. Whilst the shortfall is significant it is considered the circumstances of the case with regards to the existing subdivision pattern means that the proposed development may be supported. In particular, the proposed subdivision will not detract from the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality as the remainder of this and the subject streets contain similarly dimensioned allotments.

 

Overall, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed subdivision will maintain the existing subdivision pattern in the street.

 

Clause 21 - Subdivision

Clause 21 of RLEP98 requires Council’s consent for subdivision works. The applicant has provided draft subdivision plans to Council for assessment and approval and this complies with the requirements of the RLEP in relation to subdivision.

 

Clause 22    Services

Clause 22 states that Council may grant consent to the carrying out of development where it is satisfied that adequate facilities for water supply, sewage removal/disposal and drainage are available. If approval is granted for this application, a condition will be applied requiring a Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 to be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

 


Clause 30 (1) – Minimum Allotment sizes

Clause 30 (1) sets out minimum standards for the subdivision of land within a 2A zone.

This clause relates to land subdivision and is therefore applicable. The minimum allotment size for the subdivision of land within a 2A zone is 450m with a 12m frontage. In this respect the proposed development for Torrens title subdivision into two lots does not comply as shown in the table below.

 

Residential

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

30 (1)– Minimum allotment sizes Zone 2A

The minimum allotment size for subdivision of allotments in 2A zone is 450m², with each allotment having a frontage of at least 12m. 

Two lot subdivision for lots 1 & 2 with 314.576 and 314.576 with frontages measuring 10.06m each.

No1

1Objection under SEPP No. 1 provided in support of non-compliance.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) was gazetted on 15 January 2010.  Clause 7 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) requires that a development application lodged but not finally determined prior to the appointed day will continue to be assessed and determined under the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 that was in force immediately before the commencement of this plan. The subject application was lodged on the 9th December 2009 and is therefore subject to the savings provision. Further, when determining an application to which this clause applies, the consent authority must have regard to the provisions of this plan as if it had been exhibited under the Act but had not been made.

 

Consequently, the assessment of this application is made against the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, and the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) is treated as a draft plan only.

 

9.    Policy Controls

 

9.1 Development Control Plan Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

The subdivision of the site to create a new allotment at the rear of the existing property will alienate the vehicular access at the rear of the site from the existing dwelling fronting Gale Road. The application proposes the installation of a hard stand car space to lot 1 between the street alignment and the dwelling to provide off street parking. The car space is proposed to have dimensions of 3m x 6.5m.

 

There are no major objections to the construction of a hard stand car space to the front of the dwelling in proposed Lot 1, as there are a number of driveways accessing garages to dwellings which are similarly sited between the front boundary and dwelling and an argument that an installation of the car space in this position would result in an adverse impact upon the amenity or character of the streetscape cannot be sustained.

 


9.2    Subdivision Code

Clause A (1) of the Subdivision Code states that the subdivision of land shall not be approved in respect of an allotment of land with a 2A zone unless each new lot has an area of no less than 325m and is no less than 9m in width at the front alignment of the allotment. The proposed subdivision will create two new allotments with site areas of 314.5m each, and a frontage of 10m.

 

Not withstanding this requirement, clause A (2) provides that Council may consent to the subdivision of land were the area or width departs to only a minor extent from the area or width as nominated in clause A(1).

 

The resultant site areas of 314.5m to each lot can be regarded as a minor departure from the minimum lot area, particularly as the area of the lots is consistent with the other adjoining properties in Metcalfe Street which have historically been subdivided from the lots fronting Gale Road and are of similar areas to those proposed by this subdivision.

 

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.

 

The proposal is for the subdivision of the allotment only and does not propose any building works which will result in any impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining property or the established characteristics of the locality.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Excellence in urban design and a healthy environment

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed subdivision is permissible with development consent under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and will provide for two allotments which are consistent with the others in this and the surrounding residential streets and will enable for the orderly and economic development of the allotment.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the objections under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 – Development Standards in respect to non-compliance with Clause 30(1) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, relating to minimum allotment sizes respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 915/2009 for the subdivision of the 168 Gale Road, Maroubra subject to the following conditions:

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 09.179, sheets 1 & 2, dated December 2009 and received by Council on the 9th December 2009, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

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

 

2.       The 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.

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works:

 

3.       A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

 

Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to the Building Developing and Plumbing section of the website www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

 

Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer infrastructure can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to release of the plan of subdivision.

 

4.       A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road / Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a subdivision certificate for the development.

 

For further information, please contact Councils Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999

 

5.       The applicant shall provide Council with the finalised survey plan of the property prior to receiving subdivision approval

 

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

 

7.       A formal subdivision application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or an accredited certifier and all conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

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

 

8.       Prior to the issuing of an subdivision certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

a.         Construct concrete vehicular crossing and layback at kerb opposite the vehicular entrance to proposed Lot 1 in Gale Road.

b.         Remove all existing fencing located on land to be dedicated to council for road widening purposes on the Metcalf Street frontage.

 

9.       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.

 

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

 

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

 

11.     The Council’s Development Engineer has inspected the above site and has determined that the design alignment level at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be:

 

Gale Road Frontage

·      20mm ABOVE the back of the existing footpath at all points opposite, along the full site frontage in Gale Road.

 

Metcalf Street Fontage

·      Graded between 2.5% and 5.0% from the existing top of kerb in Metcalf street

 

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

 

13.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $121(inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

14.     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.

 

15.     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.

 

16.     A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any public utility service works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road / Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final subdivision certificate for the development.

 

For further information, please contact Councils Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

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

 

17.     Detailed drainage plans shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate. The drainage plans shall demonstrate compliance with the conditions of this development approval.

 

18.     Stormwater runoff from proposed Lot 1 shall be discharged :

 

c.  Through a private drainage easement over proposed Lot 2 to Council’s kerb and gutter (or underground drainage system) in Metcalf Street, in general accordance with the Concept Stormwater Drainage Plan by John Spiteri dated Jan 2010.

 

19.     All site stormwater which is discharged from the site, must be taken through a sediment/silt arrester pit. The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed with:

 

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

 

·      The pit must be constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

 

·      The grate is to be a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

 

·      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.

 

·      A galvanised heavy-duty screen located over the outlet pipe (Mascot GMS Multi-purpose filter screen or similar).

 

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

 

·      The inlet pipeline located on the side of the pit so that the stormwater will discharge across the face of the screen.

 

·      A sign adjacent to this pit stating that:

 

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

 

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

 

20.     The proposed silt arrestor pit and drainage lines shall be fully constructed and certified by a suitably qualified hydraulic engineer prior to the issuing of a subdivision certificate, indicating that they comply with the conditions of this development consent:

 

The following conditions are applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works:

 

21.     A Section 73 Compliance Certificate under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.

 

Application must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator. Please refer to the Building Developing and Plumbing section of the website www.sydneywater.com.au then refer to “Water Servicing Coordinator” under Developing Your Land” or telephone 13 20 92 for assistance.

 

Following application a “Notice of Requirements” will advise of water and sewer infrastructure to be built and charges to be paid. Please make early contact with the Coordinator, since building of water/sewer infrastructure can be time consuming and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to release of the plan of subdivision.

 

22.     The applicant shall provide Council with the finalised survey plan of the property prior to receiving subdivision approval.

 

23.     The applicant shall dedicate to council a portion of land of land 4.57m in depth across the full site frontage in Metcalf Street for road widening purposes in conjunction with the registration of the proposed plan of subdivision for this property.

 

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

 

25.     A "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of proposed Lot 2, in conjunction with the registration of the proposed plan of subdivision for this property, to ensure that any future onsite detention system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention 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:

The "restriction as to user 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.

 

26.     A formal subdivision application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or an accredited certifier and all conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

 

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

 

27. That part of the nature-strip upon either of Council's footway’s 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 installed prior to the issue of a final Occupation Certificate.

 

Street Tree Conditions

 

28.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $900.00 (including GST), being the cost for:

 

a.       Council to remove the existing Hibiscus tiliaceus (Cottonwood) street tree, located on Council’s Gale Road nature strip, due to the close proximity of the proposed vehicle crossing;

b.       Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre replacement street tree of the same species further to the east, towards the eastern site boundary;

c.       A loss of amenity fee in recognition of the fact that this semi-established tree is only being removed in order to accommodate the development of private property.

 

The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant will be required to contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613, giving at least two working weeks notice, to arrange for removal of the existing street tree/provision of a replacement street tree upon completion.

 

Tree Removals

29.     Approval is granted for removal of that existing vegetation within the rear yard, should it be necessary as part of the proposed demolition works, as all were observed to be exempt from the provisions of the TPO due to a combination of their small size/insignificance, inappropriate location close to existing structures or being undesirable/weed species.

Advisory Conditions

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP2/10

 

 

Subject:                  4 Northumberland Street, Clovelly

Folder No:                   DA/232/2008/B

Author:                   Gerard Turrisi, GAT & Associates Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                     Section 82(a) Review of council's determination to refuse consent to allow construction of a roof terrace over the garage-

 

Ward:                      North Ward

 

Applicant:                Leans Productions

 

Owner:                         Mr M Pizzuto

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This Section 82A Review application seeks the deletion of a condition of consent from DA/232/2008 which prohibited the construction of a roof terrace over the garage and new stairs from the roof terrace to the rear yard. The applicant is seeking to have the condition deleted so that the roof terrace and access stairs can be constructed.

 

The original Development Application No. 232/2008 proposed, amongst other works, a roof terrace over half of the double garage. However as part of the Development Consent issued for this application, Council imposed a condition of consent deleting this roof terrace from the approval for reasons relating to the privacy of adjoining properties, as well as the visual appearance when viewed from the rear lane and adjoining properties.

 

Following the determination of the original DA, the applicant made a Section 96 Modification Application seeking to have this roof terrace reinstated (DA/232/2008/B). However, Council refused this modification application, once again on the basis that a roof terrace would compromise the amenity of surrounding development and adversely impact the environment of the locality by compromising the privacy of adjoining and nearby properties.

 

The applicant again now seeks to have the roof terrace and access stairs approved under this current S82A Application. The applicant submits that the roof terrace will not compromise the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of visual impact or privacy. The applicant has erected privacy screens around the roof terrace and considers this to be sufficient to prevent any overlooking into neighbouring properties. The issue of whether the erection of the privacy screen is legal will also be discussed in this report.

 

After consideration of the current S82A Review application, the previous applications and determinations made for the property, and site inspections of the subject property and adjoining properties, it is considered that the concerns raised by Council Officers in the previous planning reports are still relevant. The provision of the privacy screens erected by the applicant around the proposed roof terrace area are not considered to adequately address the privacy issues of neighbouring properties when people are using the roof terrace. In addition, the concerns regarding the visual appearance of these screens, and any additional screens, from Northumberland Lane and neighbouring properties still remain.

 

For the reasons outlined in this report, it is recommended that the previous refusal of this proposal be upheld and therefore that Council refuse the request to have Condition No. 6 deleted from Development Consent No. 232/2008.

 

2.    Site History and the Proposal

 

The following applications are applicable to the subject site:

 

DA/1663/99 – Alterations and additions to the dwelling, including a new garage. The proposal included a gazebo and deck to the garage roof, which was by condition of consent deleted from the proposal.

 

DA/232/2008 – Alterations and additions to the dwelling, including construction of a swimming pool, decking to the rear, garage with trafficable roof fronting laneway, fencing and associated works. This application was approved on 10 June 2008 and a condition of consent was imposed to have the roof terrace and access stairs to the garage deleted, to maintain privacy to the adjoining properties (condition no. 6).

 

It is noted that the applicant agreed to have the roof terrace deleted prior to the development consent being issued.

 

As part of the application, privacy screens were proposed along the western side of the roof terrace. The screens have been erected, despite Condition 6 deleting the roof terrace from the approval. Condition 6 did not specifically state that the privacy screens were not allowed, and as such the applicant believes that the screens are approved. It is reasonable to assume that these screens were not allowed given that they related specifically to the roof terrace, which was not approved. The issue of the screens is discussed further in this report.

 

DA/232/2008/A – Section 96 Modification to the above consent, seeking a toilet and shower in the laundry of the garage - approved 20 April 2009.

 

DA/232/2008/B – Section 96 Modification to the same consent seeking the deletion of Condition 6 to allow construction of a roof terrace over the garage and to provide new access stairs from the garage to the rear yard. This application was refused on 29 May 2009 for the following reasons:

 

1.  The proposed modifications are not consistent with Clause 10(1)(a) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the height of the rear garage with privacy screen above will not maintain the established character of the rear laneway.

 

2.  The proposed development is not consistent with Clause 10(1)(c) and Clause (10)(1)(d) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 in that the proposal will compromise the amenity of the surrounding development and adversely impact the environment of the locality by compromising the privacy of adjoining and nearby properties. 

 

3.  The proposed development does not comply with the objectives, performance requirements and preferred solution of Part 4.5 of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies - “Visual and Acoustic Privacy” in that the proposed trafficable garage roof does not provide adequate levels of privacy to the surrounding properties. 

 

4.  Approval of the application will set an undesirable precedent for similar future development in the surrounding area. 

 

The Section 82A Review application now before Council seeks a review of the determination made by Council on DA/232/2008/B. The applicant submits that the roof terrace should be allowed, as existing screening on the roof terrace addresses any privacy concerns of adjoining property owners. In addition, the applicant considers that the roof terrace will not adversely affect the amenity of neighbouring properties, in terms of visual appearance as the laneway is a collection of derelict garages, substandard fences and the occasional garage with a roof terrace above. The applicant submits that there are other examples in the immediate area of trafficable spaces over garages, which establish a precedent. Under this Section 82A Review the applicant therefore seeks to again have Condition No. 6 of Development Consent No. 232/2008 deleted.

 

Condition No. 6 states:

 

6  To maintain privacy to the adjoining properties the proposed roof terrace to the      garage and access steps are to be deleted from the plans and the garage roof is     not to be used for trafficable purposes.

 

As assessment of the potential impact of having this condition deleted to allow for a trafficable roof space on the garage is provided in this report.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Northumberland Street, between Park Lane to the north and Warner Lane to the south. The site is presently occupied by an existing two storey dwelling, with a double garage and swimming pool located at the rear. The site has a frontage of 10.6 metres to Northumberland Street and a depth of 35.42 metres. The total site area is 356m². The site falls steeply from the rear to the front, and also across the site from the north to the south.

 

The site has rear access from Northumberland Lane. The immediate locality is residential in nature and predominantly contains a mix of one and two storey semi-detached dwellings and free standing dwellings, with some multi unit housing. The immediate area is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

4.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the S82A Review application between 14 January and 28 January 2010, in accordance with the Randwick Development Control Plan – Public Notification. As a result of the notification, submissions from the following property owners were received:

 

1.     7A Campbell Street, Clovelly

2.     6 Northumberland Street, Clovelly

3.     7 Campbell Street, Clovelly

4.     121B Boundary Street, Clovelly

5.     3 Campbell Street, Clovelly

6.     5 Campbell Street, Clovelly

7.     9 Campbell Street, Clovelly

 

The issues raised in the submission are addressed as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

The previous objections raised by adjoining residents in relation to DA/232/2008 & DA/232/2008/B still stand and Council was correct is refusing the roof terrace on the 2 previous occasions.

The objections raised in the previous submissions related to:

-    Concerns that the roof terrace would result in the loss of privacy to adjoining properties;

-    Additional noise would be generated which would compromise the amenity of the surrounding dwellings;

-    The proposal was out of scale with the existing development fronting the lane; and

-    The proposal would set an undesirable precedent for future development in the surrounding area.

 

These points have been raised as part of the S82A Review application and are addressed below.

The existing privacy screens are unsightly and should not have been approved as Council’s previous assessments found that the trafficable deck is unsuitable, even with screens. The roof deck is already being used.

The original DA included the installation of a 1.5m high timber privacy screen to the western elevation over half of the double garage where the roof terrace was proposed. A planter box was proposed over the remaining half of the garage on the western side, to present a consistent screen above the garage to the lane. A 1.2m high glass pool fence was also proposed along the southern side of the roof terrace to provide a safety barrier to the adjoining swimming pool.

 

When Council refused the roof terrace, it is reasonable to assume that all works associated with this terrace, being the privacy screen and pool fence, would not be constructed. However, Condition No. 6 did not specifically state that these ancillary works were also deleted from the proposal. As a result, the applicant has erected the 1.5m high timber privacy screen to the western elevation. The 1.2m high pool fence along the southern side of the terrace has not been erected.

 

The assessment report for DA/232/2008 states that “the garage and associated privacy screen will create an appearance of excessive bulk and scale in comparison to the existing built form of the surrounding area.” This reinforces the opinion that the screens were not intended to be approved by Council as part of the original DA.

 

Based on recent decisions of the Land & Environment Court, it is arguable whether the privacy screen and pool fencing proposed on the roof of the garage was covered under the approval, and is therefore unauthorised.

 

While the privacy screen does add to the overall height and scale of the garages when viewed from the rear lane and neighbouring properties, it does to some extent restrict views between the rear yard and pool on the subject site and neighbouring properties. The removal of this screen would not be a suitable outcome given the privacy concerns of the applicant and adjoining owners. The removal would result in major privacy issues between the subject site and adjoining properties given the approved levels of the courtyard and pool surrounds.

 

The privacy screen is considered necessary to limit views from the approved development. However, the screen does not justify allowing the roof terrace to be a trafficable area as will be discussed further in this report.

 

In relation to the deck already being used, the applicant denies this.

The deck allows for people standing or sitting to look directly into the rear yards and living rooms of adjoining properties, impacting on their privacy. People can also see onto the deck from the lane.

This point was assessed on site and will be discussed in further detail in this report.

The roof area will increase noise for adjoining residents from people gathering in this space

The area on the roof terrace is not significant in comparison to the overall rear yard area and it is not considered that use of the space will significantly increase noise, in comparison to the noise generated from use of the existing outdoor space.

The roof deck will set a precedent in the area. There are no other trafficable roof decks like this in the immediate area.

While approval of a roof terrace may encourage others to do the same, it does not mean that any other proposals would automatically be approved based on this one setting a precedent. All property owners have the right to lodge applications for roof terraces, and any such applications are assessed individually to determine their impact on matters such as privacy, overshadowing and visual appearance.

 

It is acknowledged that there are currently no other trafficable roof decks such as this visible in Northumberland Lane.

It is contrary to the existing scale of development in the laneway, which has modest garages and no trafficable roof areas.

While the applicant’s submission indicates that there are other examples of roof terraces in the lane, and that the existing garages are derelict and fences are substandard in the lane, the site inspection revealed that Northumberland Lane consists of single storey garages, carport and fencing, all of which appear to be in good condition. The scale of the garage and privacy screen is larger than the other built forms adjoining the lane. No other garages in the lane were seen to have trafficable roof areas.

The proposal will result in lower property values for the area.

There is no documented evidence that such a roof terrace will lower property prices. The impact of development on property values are not a planning consideration under S79C of the EP&A Act 1979.

The roof deck does not comply with the objectives under DCP3.5.1

Assessment of the roof terrace against the relevant provisions of Development Control Plan- Dwelling Houses & Attached Dual Occupancies is provided in Section 7.3 of this report.

Some submissions included copies and references to previous submissions submitted for DA/232/2008 & DA/232/2008/B, which also raised issues relating to overshadowing from the garage and the removal of trees.

The issue of overshadowing and removal of trees was considered as part of the previous applications, and did not form part of the reasons for refusal of the roof terrace.

 

A site inspection was undertaken on 8 February 2010 by Gerard Turrisi and Margaret Barrett of GAT & Associates, who met with adjoining residents who made submissions. The owners of the following properties were present:

 

7A Campbell Street, Clovelly

6 Northumberland Street, Clovelly

7 Campbell Street, Clovelly

3 Campbell Street, Clovelly

5 Campbell Street, Clovelly

9 Campbell Street, Clovelly

 

The residents in attendance raised the same issues as those previously raised in their objection letters for all of the relevant applications, being DA/232/2008, DA/232/2008/B, and this Section 82A Review.

 

GAT & Associates viewed the proposed roof terrace from Northumberland Lane and the rear yards of the properties listed above. Access was also provided to the rear facing living room located on the first floor level of No. 7A Campbell Street, where people standing in the rear yard and pool surrounds and on the roof terrace of the subject site are visible. A number of properties that back onto Northumberland Lane have rear facing living areas at first floor level, as well as ground level, and those properties located opposite the site can be overlooked from the subject site.

 

During the site inspection, access was also provided to the rear yard of the subject site by the applicant. The rear yard has been designed to maximise the water views available to the south. Views to the south are achieved from the courtyard and pool surrounds from a standing position. The privacy screens erected at the roof terrace level are along the western elevation, and people standing on the roof terrace are able to look over the screen into the rear of the properties located to the west. There are no screens along the southern elevation of the terrace, which allows for sitting and standing views not only to the water, but also into the rear yards and decks of the properties located to the west which back onto Northumberland Lane. In addition, as the level of the roof terrace is considerably higher than the ground level of adjoining properties, people sitting or standing on the terrace and people standing on the pool surrounds are able to directly look into the rear yard of the adjoining properties to the south, particularly that of No. 6 Northumberland Street immediately adjoining the site.

 

At the site inspection, the applicant and his architect, Mr. Tom Rivard from Lean Productions, were agreeable to erecting further privacy screens along the western and southern elevations to increase privacy between the subject site and neighbouring properties. However, it is not considered that the provision of additional screens would satisfactorily address the privacy issues. Any screens provided along the southern elevation would have to be of a significant height to prevent overlooking from the roof terrace to adjoining properties, which would thereby restrict views to the water and defeat the purpose of the roof terrace.

The other concern with additional screens is the height and appearance from Northumberland Lane and the neighbouring properties. Extension of the existing privacy screens along the entire rear boundary would result in a structure that would be essentially two storeys in height on a zero setback. The height is due to the difference in levels, with the ground level of the lane being RL39.33 in the south-west corner of the site, and the roof terrace being some 3 metres higher at RL42.40. Erecting another 1.5m or 1.8m high privacy screen on top of the garage roof would result in a wall height of almost 5 metres. This would be out of character with other structures along Northumberland Lane which are single storey and have a very low visual impact.

 

The floor level of the roof terrace is approximately 1 metre higher than the courtyard level, and this height difference contributes to a sense that the two areas are disjointed in that the terrace does not really flow onto the courtyard or the pool area. The existing courtyard area is large enough to provide for outdoor entertainment and extends directly from the internal living areas. With a width of 3 metres, the location of existing planter boxes, and the proposed provision of new access stairs, it is not considered that the additional area achieved on the roof terrace would significantly contribute to improve the overall courtyard area. The space would essentially become a viewing platform, rather than an area used for outdoor dining or seating. It is noted that this opinion is supported by the fact that during the assessment of the original DA, the assessing officer made a file note stating that after speaking with the applicant’s architect, the purpose of the roof terrace is to provide an additional vantage point for the view towards Coogee.

 

In response to the submissions made by the objectors, the applicant has submitted a response to the issues raised in the objection letters. The points made by the applicant are, in summary:

 

-    At no time has there been seating on the roof terrace.

-    A submission referred to the potential of noise coming from a dog in the rear yard. The applicant does not currently have a dog.

-    The objectors have balconies on their second floor enabling them to look into the applicant’s property and living room. The residents also use these balconies for dinner parties. The applicant asks where is the fairness that the neighbours can have a terrace and intrude on his privacy, visually and acoustically, while he cannot use his terrace.

-    The size of the terrace does not allow for large social gatherings and there would be no difference in noise levels whether people were next to the pool or on the roof terrace.

 

The first two responses above are noted. In relation to the third response, most properties located on the opposite side of Northumberland Lane have first floor decks located off living or bedroom areas. The difference is that these decks are setback from the rear boundary and lane, thereby providing greater separation to those properties located on the opposite side of the lane. In addition, these decks are at a lower height than the roof terrace and do not “overlook” onto the roof terrace.

 

In relation to the fourth response by the applicant, it is agreed that the size of the roof terrace does not allow for large gatherings and the difference in noise levels from the pool or courtyard would be significant. However, the roof terrace will allow people to be able to directly overlook into adjoining and neighbouring properties, which in this instance is considered to be unacceptable.

 

5.    Technical Officers Comments

 

As no building works would be required should the application be supported, referral to other technical officers is not necessary.

 

6.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

6.1    Environmental Planning Instruments

The S82A Review, and all previous relevant applications, were lodged with Council when the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 was in force. However, since the S82A Review application was lodged, the new Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) has been gazetted, on 15 January 2010.

 

Clause 7 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) has savings provisions which states that:

 

(1) Any development application lodged but not finally determined prior to the appointed day will continue to be assessed and determined under the provisions of the environmental planning instruments that were in force immediately before the commencement of this plan.

 

(2) However, when determining an application to which this clause applies, the Council must have regard to the provisions of this plan as if it had been exhibited under the Act but had not been made.

 

Therefore the provisions of both the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) are required to be considered for this proposal. An assessment against both Plans is provided below.

 

q   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The following Clauses of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 are relevant to this development:

 

Clause 10 – Residential 2A Zone

The objectives of the Residential 2A Zone are:

 

(a)  to maintain the character of established residential areas, and

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

(c)  to enable redevelopment for low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development, and

(d)  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

(e)  to enable a mix of housing types to encourage housing affordability.

 

As stated in the reasons of refusal for Development Application/232/2008/B, the proposal is not consistent with objective (a) in that any proposal to extend or increase the height of the privacy screens on top of the garage will not maintain the established character of the rear laneway.

 

The proposed development is not consistent with objectives (c) and (d) in that the proposal will compromise the amenity of the surrounding development and adversely impact the environment of the locality by compromising the privacy of adjoining and nearby properties.

 


Clause 29 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

While the site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, the site is not directly visible from the foreshore and will therefore not detract from the scenic qualities of the foreshore location.

 

Clause 40A – Master Planning Requirements

Clause 40A(1) of RLEP 1998 provides that consent may be granted to a development application made in respect of a site consisting of more than 4,000m² only if: (a) a master plan has been adopted, and (b) the consent authority is satisfied that the development is not inconsistent with the provisions of that master plan. The site has a land area of 356m2 and a master plan is not required.

 

q   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The following Clauses of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) are relevant to this development:

 

Clause 10 – Residential 2A Zone

The objectives of the Residential 2A Zone are:

 

(a)  to provide a low density residential environment, and

(b)  to maintain the desirable attributes of established residential areas, and

(c)  to protect the amenity of existing residents, and

(d)  to allow for a range of community uses to be provided to serve the needs of residents, workers and visitors, and

(e)  to encourage housing affordability, and

(f)  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.

 

It is considered that the proposal is inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the zone, being (b) and (c). The roof terrace will result in adverse impacts to the privacy and amenity of the adjoining and surrounding properties due to the increased capacity to overlook. The provision of the roof terrace will not protect the amenity of existing residents adjoining and adjacent to the site.

 

Any proposal to increase the privacy screens would compromise the existing established character of the surrounding residential area, with particular regard to the height and scale of the structures fronting the laneway.

 

Clause 29 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

While the site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, the site is not directly visible from the foreshore and will therefore not detract from the scenic qualities of the foreshore location.

 

6.2    Development Control Plans

 

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

Section 4.5 of this Development Control Plan relates to visual and acoustic privacy.

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas and private open spaces is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies; and separation, screening devices and landscaping be used un minimising privacy impacts. In addition, balconies are designed to provide adequate privacy for the occupants of the building when viewed from other public spaces or the street.

 

The proposed deletion of condition no. 6 will result in a roof deck over the garage that will be accessible for people to use. People using this space will be able to directly overlook adjoining properties to the south and west from a standing or sitting position. The use of the roof terrace will lead to a significant degree of overlooking into the surrounding properties. In addition, people will be able to view the roof terrace being used from Northumberland Lane, as well as from adjoining properties to the south and west of the site.

 

For these reasons, it is believed that the proposal to use the roof terrace does not meet the objective of Section 4.5 of the Development Control Plan, as the proposal will not provide privacy for the occupants of the site, nor for adjoining property owners.

 

The proposal also does not satisfy the Performance Requirements as outlined above.

 

While the privacy screen that has been erected assists in maintaining some level of privacy between the courtyard level on the subject site and neighbouring properties, it would not provide adequate privacy to the roof terrace level. Any proposal to increase the privacy screen in length or height would not be supported as this would add to the bulk and scale of the structure.

 

The following statement made in the assessment of the previous S96 Modification (DA/232/2008/B) is still considered relevant:

 

“The 1500mm high privacy screen proposed by the applicant is not adequate in addressing the privacy concerns and to increase the height of this privacy screen to a height which is capable of maintaining privacy to the surrounding dwellings will result in a structure of excessive bulk and scale fronting the laneway.”

 

For these reasons, the proposal is not considered to meet the provisions of Section 4.5 of the Development Control Plan.

 

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.

 

For the reasons outlined in this report, it is considered that the proposal is not in the public interest as it will result in adverse visual and acoustic privacy issues. The proposal is not in keeping with the aesthetic qualities of Northumberland Lane, which consists of 1.8m high fencing and single storey garages or carports.

 

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.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The Section 82A Review seeking the deletion of Condition No. 6 of Development Consent No. 232/2008, to allow a roof terrace on top the garage and access stairs to this terrace, will result in significant adverse impacts upon the privacy and amenity of surrounding residents properties. The proposal is still not considered to be appropriate. It is recommended that the Section 82A Review application be determined to confirm the previous decision of Council and that Condition No. 6 of the original consent be retained.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council's original decision to retain Condition No. 6 on Development Consent No. 232/2008 for the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including construction of a swimming pool, decking to the rear, garage with trafficable roof fronting laneway, fencing and associated works at 4 Northumberland Street, Clovelly, be confirmed.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP3/10

 

 

Subject:                  195-199 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/34/1988/A

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of Development Consent No 34/1988 to alter the hours of operation of footway dining area at the Maroubra Junction Hotel from 10am to 6pm Monday to Sunday to 10am to 12 midnight Monday to Sunday. Original consent: use part of footpath adjacent to No. 199 for footway restaurant purposes.

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Realize Architecture

Owner:                         Mayjay Hotels Pty Limited

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval subject to conditions

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The application is referred to Council given the proposed modification to the outdoor trading is associated with hotel premises within the Maroubra Junction Town Centre. The application is made under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

The proposal is seeking consent to increase the operating hours of the ground floor footpath trading area in front of the Hotel from the licensed 10am to 6pm Monday to Sunday to a later closing time of 12 midnight Monday to Sunday. The applicant states that this area is to cater to the desire of patrons for late night dining in an environment where smoking is permitted.

 

The application was lodged on 28 August 2009 and notified and advertised to the surrounding properties. One objection was received from a resident on Anzac Parade during this advertising period and raised concerns regarding the potential acoustic and anti-social impact of the proposed extension of hours.

 

A letter was sent to the applicant on 27 October 2009 requesting an amended acoustic report to be completed that reflected the potential noise generation from the proposed extension of hours. The applicant responded by submitting an acoustic report that reported on background noise levels of previous proposals. Other additional information was also received by Council on 27 October 2009 comprising a Social impact assessment, and Management Plan dated 2007.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer indicates that approval for outdoor footway areas have been approved for cafes and restaurants and that consideration should be given to approving like proposals subject to restrictions on the hours of trading and alcohol consumption and meal service. This includes recommendation that the hours be restricted to a closing time of 10:30pm which is less than what is sought (12 midnight) as well as less than allowed for under the DCP for footpath trading. It is considered appropriate in the circumstances that the hours be restricted so that they are consistent with that allowed for under the DCP guidelines (11:00pm Monday to Saturday & 10:00pm Sunday). This represents a reasonable approach having regard to the site being located within the core of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre and reviewable conditions have been included that allow Council to monitor the operation of the premises and address the potential for adverse amenity impacts such as noise, anti social behaviour, and excessive alcohol consumption. 

 

The application was also referred to the licensing officer of the NSW Police who indicated that there are no objections subject to relevant hours of operation being restricted to appropriate times and noise restrictions being applied.

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed development will not result in unacceptable noise or amenity impacts on the surrounding properties or residential units, subject to the relevant mitigation measures and conditions of consent being included.

 

The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The applicant seeks an increase to the hours of trading to the approved footpath seating area from a closing time of 6pm to a closing time of 12 midnight Monday to Sunday.

 

 

 

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is on the southern side of Maroubra Road, 30m east of Anzac Parade. Pacific Square is over Maroubra Road to the north. The site is level with a 32.86m frontage and 838.3m2. The Hotel is 80 years old and listed as a heritage item in the Randwick LEP 1998. Residential units are located on the upper levels of the Pacific Square development opposite. Listed as a heritage item in the Randwick LEP 1998, The Maroubra Junction Hotel opened in 1927 and is described in Council’s Heritage Inventory as an:

 

“Impressive 1920s Classical Revival building; notable for its decorative rendered bands over brickwork; excellent parapet with impressive roof lantern; [with] some alteration to centre section, but reasonably sympathetic. Hard to say what was original. Main problems are signs, advertising and power lines”.

 

No works are proposed as part of this application.

 

4.    Site History

 

Current hours of operation

DA/34/1998 approved an outdoor dining area. Condition 1 of the original consent refers to the requirement for a licence agreement to be made with Council. The latest agreement was issued on 29 July 2009 and covers the area until 28 July 2014. Under the licenses schedule the area is limited to a depth of 2m by 8m (16sqm), a maximum of 6 tables and 12 chairs and operating hours of between 10am and 6pm Monday to Sunday.

 

DA/395/2008 approved additions and renovations to the Maroubra Junction Hotel. This consent built upon an August 2007 approval for work at the basement and ground levels. The consent involved:

 

·      demolition of 13 existing hotel accommodation units at 2nd level and construction instead of a new function room and lounge bar accommodating up to 350 people

·      a new outdoor terrace (licensed) at 2nd level accommodating up to 50 people

·      rearrangement of 8 hotel accommodation units at 3rd level into a manager’s residence, office and hotel reception

·      construction of 10 new hotel accommodation units at 3rd level

·      minor amendments to the earlier approval including additions to the basement, a new circular stair, a new lift to service all levels, and alterations to bar and storage layouts.

 

A condition of consent restricted the following hours of trading:

 

1.   The hours of operation of the Maroubra Junction Hotel are restricted to:

 

Monday to Saturday:      5:00am – 5:00am (24hours)

Sunday:                       10:00am – Midnight

 

2.   The hours of operation of the First Floor Terrace are restricted to:

 

Monday to Saturday:      6:00am – Midnight

Sunday:                       10:00am – Midnight

 

Note: The Hotel does not presently operate for the full extent of its approved hours

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal was exhibited in accordance with Council’s Public notification policy. The following submissions were received:

 

5.1 Objections

 

Issues

Comment

Owner of a unit within 747 Anzac Parade Maroubra

The unit is located on an upper level of the pacific square development site opposite.

Increase in noise as a result of the increased hours of trading to 12 midnight seven days.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the application and recommended that a requirement for an acoustic report is incorporated in any approval granted by Council. It is also recommended that the hours be restricted to a closing time of 11pm Monday to Saturday and 10pm on Sundays which is relatively consistent with general operating times for outdoor dining premises within the general business zone; In addition, there is a requirement that the consumption of alcohol within the outdoor dining area occur only in conjunction with the serving of a meal.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies:-

 

Environmental Health

The following comments were provided:

 

The proposal

Proposed alteration of Footway dining hours on Maroubra Road, Maroubra.

 

Key Issues

 

Noise

Noise is considered an issue as such an acoustic report was requested to provide advice on the potential impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

 

An acoustic report dated 2008 prepared by Acoustic Logic was subsequently submitted based on a previous proposal.

 

The report identified background noise levels considered representative of the area. No details have been provided to assess the current location.

 

In terms of the proposal it is not considered appropriate to have the footway operating till midnight. Primarily due to the management of customers and problems associated to outdoor areas and drinking with no acoustic shielding.

 

An assessment of the surrounding area revealed outdoor footway areas have been approved for cafes and restaurants and consideration should be given to approving like proposals.

 

As a result if approved it is recommended that the operation be limited to 10.30 pm and the service of alcohol be permitted only with food service.

 

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the application for the above-mentioned premises be approved subject to the following conditions being attached to the development consent.

 

External referral to NSW Police

The application was referred to NSW Police Eastern Beaches Local Area Command. The acting licensing officer indicates correspondence was provided by the senior licensing officer who is currently on leave however a copy of this correspondence is not able to be located. As such no formal correspondence has been sighted. Notwithstanding this, verbal discussions between the acting licensing constable and Councils Coordinator Regulatory Projects indicates that subject to hours of trading being restricted, restrictions on noise levels, management principles being adopted by the hotelier and staff and relevant harm minimisation strategies being adopted that the proposed development may be acceptable.

 

In addition, it is noted that the following comments were made in previous correspondence between the Local Area Command and Council regarding outdoor areas to this particular hotel: if council was considering allowing the outdoor areas …. The Police would respectively request that stringent noise restrictions and barriers be applied as part of any approval to comply with noise regulations.

 

Consequently, conditions have been included addressing where relevant the abovementioned issues.

 

7.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

(a)    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The site is zoned No. 3A (General Business Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposed activity is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposal is consistent with the general aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed modified hours as conditioned will not detract from or adversely impact upon the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

Clause 42D

Clause No.

Requirement

Provided

Compliance

42D – Maroubra Junction Town Centre

The subject site is located within the area defined by the DCP. The clause includes numerous sub-clauses and objectives.

The proposal is for increasing the hours of the outdoor seating and will not alter the external appearance of the building.

The proposal ( as conditioned) is generally consistent with the objectives and sub-clauses of the clause. As such the proposal is either non-applicable to the clause or is consistent with its objectives.

 

7.1 Policy Controls

a.    Development Control Plan - Footpath Dining & Trading DCP

The main function of the DCP – Footpath Dining and Trading is “to maintain the primary function of footpaths as public pedestrian corridors and domains, while encouraging reasonable opportunities for outdoor dining and other footpath trading activities”. Another objective of the DCP is “to enhance the social and aesthetic aspects of the City’s streetscapes”.

 

Operating Hours - Performance Criteria and Controls

The DCP allows for closing times of 11pm from Monday to Saturdays and 10pm on Sundays. The proposed modification seeks to increase the trading hours to 12 midnight 7 days a week and does not comply with the hours recommended for general business zones under the DCP.

 

Councils Health Officer has recommended a closing time of 10.30pm seven days which is less than that allowed for from Mondays to Saturdays and more than what is allowed for on Sundays under the DCP. It is considered, in the circumstances, appropriate that the hours of operation be allowed to fall within the hours recommended under the DCP on the basis of the following:

 

-      The site is located within the middle of the Maroubra Junction Town Centre where outdoor trading is seen as central to contributing to its vitality and atmosphere and other premises in the immediate locality are generally permitted to operate up to 11pm (Monday – Saturday) and 10pm (Sundays) which is in line with the DCP for footpath trading.

-      The terrace has already been approved for use and the subject proposal does not involve any changes to the configuration and size of the outdoor trading area. The proposed extension of operating hours does not increase the number of patrons that use this area.

-      To ensure noise and other disturbances to the local residents are kept to a minimum during the extended trading hours, relevant conditions are included that restricts alcohol consumption to only occur with the consumption of a meal, inclusion of a reviewable condition only allowing for a temporary extension of trading hours for this outdoor area (subject to a 12-month trial period) so that Council could monitor the effectiveness of management practices.

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed extension of trading hours to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 10pm on Sundays are reasonable within this commercial zone and would not unreasonably compromise the amenity of the surrounding residences, subject to compliance with relevant conditions of consent. These conditions address relevant issues such as acoustic impacts; harm minimisation strategies, an amended management plan, requiring consumption of alcohol within this area to only occur with the service of a meal and a reviewable condition allowing only a temporary extension of trading hours.

 

7.2    Council Policies
None applicable

 

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.

 

Social impact assessment

The applicant submitted a previous Social impact assessment (SIA) report and management plan. Although the submitted reports do not specifically address the increased hours of operation, it is considered they maintain their relevance in so far as:

 

-    The SIA was subject to consultation with numerous stakeholders at the time where it was concluded that in combination with the accompanying Management plan (MP) that the hotels operation in accordance with the identified harm minimisation strategies were mostly acceptable.

 

-    The recommended hours of trading to 11pm from Monday to Saturday fall within the scope of the hotels approved hours of trading and the recommended hours of trading for general business zones under the DCP for footpath trading.

 

-    The prolonged use of the outdoor trading area is somewhat tempered by the inclusion of conditions requiring:

 

·         the consumption of any alcohol within the outdoor trading area to only take place with or ancillary to the service of a meal consumed within this area

·         submission of an acoustic report and amended management plan to be submitted to and approved by Council upon commencement of any outdoor trading/dining activity to these extended operating times.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 8:      A Strong Local Economy.

Direction 8a:     Vibrant town centres that adequately serve the community and foster support for local business activity.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

This application proposes an increase in the hours of operation of the outdoor dining area in front of the Maroubra Junction Hotel. The originally proposed hours of operation were considered excessive and would likely form a poor precedent for operating hours within the area. Councils Health Officer has considered the 12 midnight closing times as being excessive and recommended a 10.30pm closing time. These recommended times are inconsistent with the Footpath Dining and Trading DCP guidelines which allow for closing times of 11pm from Monday to Saturday and 10pm on Sundays. It is considered appropriate that the footpath trading times be restricted to those allowed for under the DCP subject to conditions.

 

These conditions require on going compliance with acoustic noise levels, management of patrons, meal service with alcohol consumption, harm minimisation strategies and a temporary approval of the extended hours to address potential adverse impacts such as excessive noise, alcohol consumption and anti social behaviour.

 

The proposed development as conditioned will provide for generally consistent hours of operation for outdoor trading within the core of the Maroubra Junction town Centre and it is not considered the proposed development will result in any unreasonable adverse impacts to adjoining businesses or neighbours in terms of noise, odour or anti social behaviour and the proposed modification as restricted would be suitable for the subject site.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. 34/1988 for alteration to hours of operation of footway dining area at the Maroubra Junction Hotel from 10am to 6pm Monday to Sunday to 10am to 11pm Monday to Sunday and 10am to 10pm Sundays, at No. 195-199 Maroubra Road, Maroubra in the following manner:

 

Add the following 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 L10 noise level emitted from the outdoor trading area shall not exceed the background noise level (L90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz – 8kHz inclusive) by more than 5dB between 7.00am and 12.00 midnight at the boundary of any affected residence.  The background noise level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from the licensed premises.

 

Notwithstanding compliance with the above, the noise from the licensed premises and outdoor trading area shall not be audible within any habitable room in any residential premises between the hours of 12.00 midnight and 7.00am. 

 

12.     An acoustic report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, must be provided to the Council within 4 weeks of commencement of the extended opening hours of the footway dining area, and from time to time as requested by Council with reasonable prior notice, which demonstrates and confirms that the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the noise criteria and requirements contained in this consent continues to be satisfied (including reference to the relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations).  The assessment must include (but not be limited to):

 

·      Monitoring from the nearest affected residential and commercial premises,

·      Monitoring and assessment during the use and operation of the premises and greater occupancy is present,

·      Compliance monitoring shall be carried out during the times when the nearby residential and public domain areas are likely to be most affected,

·      Ensure the break out of any internal noise complies with the set criteria. If not, nominate the necessary and required measures to ensure compliance (this may include controlling live entertainment; controlling internal noise; provision of sound locks; other management practices as deemed appropriate and necessary),

·      The report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources.

 

13.     An amended plan of management shall be submitted to and approved by Council prior to  commencement of operations, which details the measures to be implemented for the footway area to:

 

·      ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of approval,

·      ensure compliance with relevant noise criteria and minimise noise emissions and associated nuisances,

·      minimise the potential environmental and amenity impacts upon nearby residents,

·      effectively minimise and manage anti-social behaviour,

·      effectively manage and respond to resident complaints,

·      ensure responsible service of alcohol and harm minimisation,

·      provision of adequate security and surveillance,

·      ensure that the maximum number of patrons does not exceed the authorised capacity, in accordance with Council’s consent.

·      provision and use of CCTV

 

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

 

Upon reasonable prior notice, the licensee must make available the incident book to the NSW Police and/or Council officers.

 

15.     The operating hours of the footway dining area must be restricted to the following and are subject to a review period in accordance with Section 80(A)(10B) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Division 14 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000:

 

         Monday to Saturday 10:00am to 11:00pm

Sunday 10:00am to 10:00pm

 

The extended hours of operation will be reviewed by Council within 12 months of the date of commencement of the extended use of the outdoor trading area.  The operator of the premises must advise Council in writing of the commencement of the extended hours. Council must also be provided with appropriate supporting evidence (including, but not limited to, relevant acoustics measurements) to demonstrate compliance with all conditions of this consent as part of the review.

 

All food services to customers shall only be provided within the abovementioned hours of operation and all patrons must vacate the area and all outdoor furniture is to be removed within 30 minutes of the specified hours.

 

16.     The footway dining area must not be used solely for the consumption of alcohol. Alcohol must only be served or consumed in this area if it is in conjunction with and ancillary to the service of a meal (as defined in the Liquor Act 2007). Details are to be included in a plan of management and be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of any outdoor trading/dining.

 

17.     Prior to operation of the approved footpath dining area the applicant/proposed Licensee shall amend the formal license agreement with Council covering the terms and conditions of the footpath restaurant. The applicant is advised to contact Council’s Property Compliance Officer, (9399-0936), regarding Council’s requirements for the formal license agreement.

 

18.     Any external lighting must not cause a nuisance to nearby residents or motorists.

 

19.     Video surveillance devices must be able to capture the footpath trading area to record for the full duration of each day’s trade. Monitors shall be placed in relevant sections of the hotel to ensure staff can effectively supervise activities in the footpath area.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP4/10

 

 

Subject:                  11 Lurline Street, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/161/2009/B

Author:                   David Mooney, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) modification to relocate roof stairs, change and realign windows and alterations to screen to living room.

 

Ward:                      East Ward

 

Applicant:                Architectural Projects

 

Owner:                         B and P Pang

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This Section 96(2) modification application is referred to Council because the original development application was determined by Council.

 

The modification application involves amendments to the previous approval for alterations and additions to a single detached dwelling including enclosing upper front balcony with aluminium framed glass and reconfiguring the stair enclosure to the roof terrace.

 

The site is on the south-eastern side of Lurline St south of Mermaid Ave, Maroubra. It is 427m2, 12.19m wide and 35.05m deep. The site slopes moderately on a northerly aspect.

 

There were objections from neighbouring lots at 11A and 15 Lurline St in relation to FSR, bulk, scale and overshadowing. The issues raised are presented in this report.

 

The proposed floor space ratio is excessive and the alterations to the stair enclosure cause unacceptable overshadowing to the northern windows at 11A Lurline Street.

 

The application is recommended for refusal on these grounds.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

This is a section 96 modification application and involves amendments to the previous approval for alterations and additions to a single detached dwelling. The amendments include:

 

·      Enclosing upper front balcony with aluminium framed glass

·      Reconfigure stair enclosure to the roof terrace.

·      Replace northern living room wall with operable aluminium louvres.

·      Internal reconfiguration to bathrooms and walk-in-robes.

·      Adjustment to fenestration to improve alignment and aesthetics.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is on the south-eastern side of Lurline St south of Mermaid Ave, Maroubra. It is 427m2, 12.19m wide and 35.05m deep. The site slopes moderately on a northerly aspect.

 

A 2 and 3 storey dwelling is present. There are free-standing homes to the north, south and east. The surrounding area is residential in character and dominated by large freestanding homes on 400-450m2 lots. Council has recently approved redevelopment at 7 and 9 Lurline St to the north. The land is zoned 2A residential and subject to Clause 29 of the former LEP 1998 for foreshore scenic protection.

 

Figure 1 shows an aerial photograph of the locality. Figure 2 shows a photograph of the existing dwelling taken from the street.

 

Figure 1 – Aerial photograph

Figure 2 – Existing streetscape

 

4.    Site History

 

There is a 2 and 3 storey dwelling on the site approved in 1989. Council approved the parent development application DA/161/2009 25 August 2009. Council’s database also records the following relevant historical applications.

 

·      BA/681/1991, Alterations to dwelling

·      DA/356/1989, Erect a new 2 storey dwelling house

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

Council notified the section 96 application to nearby landowners. Issues raised are summarised and assessed here:

 

Objector, 15 Lurline Street, Maroubra

 

Issue: Strongly object to any increase in floor space ratio as the proposal already exceeds the permissible limits.

 

Assessing Officer: This issue is used a reason for refusal.

 

Issue: Object to the proposal for a cover [awning] to be placed over the roof-top terrace area; there is no precedent in our street.

 

Assessing Officer: The awning was omitted from the plans after the notification period.

 

Objector, 11A Lurline Street, Maroubra

 

Issue: Tree plantings on the south western corner are not marked with a symbol.

 

Assessing Officer: This issue could ordinarily be resolved by the provision of more information or by consent condition. It is not fatal to the application.

 

Issue: The stairwell to the rooftop terrace has adverse impacts to the natural light currently enjoyed by the bedroom

 

Assessing Officer: This issue is used as a reason for refusal.

 

6.    Section 96 Assessment

 

The application was lodged under Section 96(2) of the Act. The proposed modification satisfies the Section 96 threshold and is substantially the same as was originally approved. However, it does fail section 79C assessment as described in the next section.

 

7.    Section 79C 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.

 

Floor space ratio

 

The approved development increased the floor space ratio of the existing building by 7m2 to 0.96:1. The modification proposal increases floor area again by 11m2 to 0.98:1. The applicant offers the following statement in support of the increase.

 

Applicant’s claim in support of the increased Floor Space Ratio

 

“The allowable FSR applicable to the subject site is 0.6:1. The existing dwelling has an FSR of 0.95:1. The approved development has an FSR of 0.96:1. The proposed development as part of this Section 96 application has an FSR of 0.99:1. While the proposed development numerically does not comply with the requirements of this clause, it is noted that the proposal does not required the footprint of the existing dwelling to be enlarged, and all the additional floor space is contained within the existing envelope. The proposal seeks an increase to the FSR to enable the recovery of views lost from the Master Bedroom as a result of the approval at 9 Lurline St Maroubra. The current proposal undertakes additional modifications to address the previous concerns related to the bulk of the front façade. The current proposal is a significantly less bulky façade than the current approval. The extension of the glass line of the first floor terrace to align with the glazing of the ground floor terrace does not impact on the perceived bulk of the buildings.”

 

Assessing Officer’s assessment of the increased Floor Space Ratio

 

It is a specious argument to reason that an addition does not add to the footprint and therefore to the mass of the building. Unmitigated, a building could easily grow by adding balconies (that do not contribute to floor space ratio calculations) and then filling them in under the pretence that the building footprint does not expand.

 

It is similarly false to claim that an addition in glass does not add to building mass. Glass is reflective and a floor-to-ceiling wall of it can have as much visual mass as a masonry wall. Especially so where the glass is installed with curtains (as it would be in this case because it is part of a bedroom), and perhaps more so because there is no relief in the wall as there would normally be with a recessed window sill or door frame.

 

Balconies are important architectural devices that moderate building mass. On the approved building, the balconies (especially the existing deeply recessed upper front-balcony) give a highly modelled street façade. The subject building is already one of the biggest in the street and needs such a façade to ensure a good streetscape fit.

 

The dwellings next door at 11a and 15 Lurline St are deeply modelled with primary and secondary street facades. Nearly a third of the width of these dwellings is secondary façade which is at least 2.5m behind the primary façade. The approved dwelling at 9 Lurline St is likewise deeply modelled. The approved dwelling at 7 Lurline St is less modelled but considerably narrower than the others, with generous setback to the northern boundary.

 

The proposed balcony enclosure would result in a comparatively flat upper level street façade for the full width of the building; relieved only by a 1.2m wide balcony. This is inadequate.

 

Figure 3 shows a comparison of floor space ratio on nearby lots. These lots have identical dimensions and areas to the subject lot. As can be seen, the proposed building already has the highest floor space ratio of nearby buildings.

 

Figure 3 - Floor Space Ratio Comparison Table

7 Lurline St

9 Lurline St

11 Lurline St

11A Lurline St

15 Lurline St

Approved

Approved

Approved

Existing

Existing

0.73:1

0.77:1

0.96:1

0.96:1

0.67:1

 

The original development application originally included additions to the building to increase its floor space ratio to 1.1:1 but was amended to omit the additions. During the assessment of that application, the Assessing Officer advised the applicant:

 

Assessing Officer’s comments to the applicant on the FSR of an earlier proposal:

 

“Try modifying your internal planning to recover views over the neighbour’s land rather than adding to the building. There is a great deal of opportunity within the existing floor area. You already have the biggest building in the street to work with. In my view, the floor space potential of the site has been exhausted. I cannot see any reasonable grounds to support an FSR that is more than twice the maximum, especially when [the] proposed building form … does not have any of the volume, form or setback characteristics of its neighbours. I do not believe that architectural detailing will overcome the fundamental issue of building mass…”

 

The proposed modification has not overcome this fundamental issue of building mass, even with a lesser addition to the floor area and in glass. The proposed modifications do not achieve design merit that is adequate to justify further departure from the maximum floor space ratio.

 

For the forgoing reasons, the proposed modification does not satisfy the objectives for floor space ratio in Council’s Development Control Plan for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

Solar access

 

The proposed alteration to the roof-terrace stair enclosure increases the level of overshadowing at 11A Lurline St. A north facing bedroom window at 11A that is partially shaded under the approved scheme at 9am during the winter solstice would now be fully shaded at 9am. While satisfying the minimum preferred solution of 3 hours in Council’s Development Control Plan, the overshadowing fails the solar access test set-out by Roseth SC in Parsonage v Ku-rin-gai [2004] NSWLEC 347*over page because:

 

·      It affects a part of the neighbour’s building that is not vulnerable to overshadowing. It is a north facing window on the upper level of a dwelling that is topographically higher than the subject dwelling. The landowner would be entitled to expect to retain solar access.

 

·      It is caused by a component of the proposed building that is up to 2.2m above the preferred solutions for external wall height in Council Development Control Plan for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

·      The approved scheme provides materially the same access to the roof terrace but without the overshadowing of the proposed modification.

 

*Roseth SC opined that overshadowing arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical guidelines. The poor quality of a proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact on the neighbours.

 

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.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The modification application involves amendments to the previous approval for alterations and additions to a single detached dwelling including enclosing upper front balcony with aluminium framed glass and reconfiguring the stair enclosure to the roof terrace.

 

The site is on the south-eastern side of Lurline St south of Mermaid Ave, Maroubra. It is 427m2, 12.19m wide and 35.05m deep. The site slopes moderately on a northerly aspect.

 

There were objections from neighbouring lots at 11A and 15 Lurline St in relation to FSR, bulk, scale and overshadowing. The issues raised are presented in this report.

 

The proposed floor space ratio is excessive and the alterations to the stair enclosure cause unacceptable overshadowing to the northern windows at 11A Lurline Street.

 

The application is recommended for refusal on these grounds.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority refuse to grant consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/161/2009 to relocate roof stairs, change and realign windows and alterations to screen to living room, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal increases floor space ratio to 0.98:1 and does not comply with the preferred solutions, performance requirements or objectives for floor space ratio in the Development Control Plan for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies.

 

2.       The proposal increases overshadowing to an upper level bedroom window at 11A Lurline Street to an unreaonable degree.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP5/10

 

 

Subject:                  112 Bilga Crescent, Malabar

Folder No:                   DA/1/2005/B

Author:                   David Mooney, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) Modification to ground floor southern street boundary retaining wall from rendered masonry to sandstone and add balustrade to upper floor roof and reduction to the length of upper floor window from 2400mm long.

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Sydesign

Owner:                         M and M Azzi

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This Section 96(2) application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors Matthews, Andrews and White.

 

The proposal is a section 96(2) modification and involves new balconies, different building materials, a reconfigured bathroom window and changes to the boundary fences.

 

The approved development is a 2 storey dwelling house with double garage.

 

The site is located on the north side of Bilga Crescent between both ends of Eucla Crescent, Malabar. The site has frontage of 21.335m and is 581.7m². 

 

Council notified the modification application to nearby landowners by letter in accordance with policy. There was one objection that raised issues about the potential loss of privacy. These matters are addressed in this report.

 

The proposed modification satisfies the Section 96 threshold and is substantially the same as was originally approved.

 

The proposal continues to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements in the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The higher fence height on the western boundary resolves a complaint from the neighbour. There are conditions in the recommendation for privacy screens on the new balconies.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposal is a section 96(2) modification and involves:

 

·      Changing the street retaining wall from masonry to sandstone.

·      Adding a balcony to the western elevation off bedroom 2.

·      Extending the existing balcony off bedroom 1 to the west.

·      Extending the existing balcony off the master bedroom to the south.

·      Changing the upper level bathroom window from a 2.4m wide high-sill to a 900mm wide regular-sill.

·      Increasing the height of the western boundary fence.

 

All of the above work has already been carried out and this application is seeking retrospectate approval for these works.

 

3.    The Approved Development

 

The approved development is a 2 storey dwelling house with double garage.

 

4.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is located on the north side of Bilga Crescent between both ends of Eucla Crescent in Malabar.  The site has frontage of 21.335m, a western side boundary of 33.53m, an eastern side boundary of 34.38m, a rear boundary of 13.715m and is 581.7m². To the west is a 2 storey dwelling, to the east is a single storey dwelling and to the rear is a single storey dwelling. The area is zoned 2A and is low-density residential in character. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the site and surrounding area.

 

Figure 1 – An aerial view of the site and surrounds

 

5.    Site History

 

DA/1/2005           Demolition of the existing dwelling and construct a new two storey dwelling house

 

DA/1/2005/A        Section 96(2)  - Modifications to the original development including an increased rear building setback from 10.86m to 11.5m, internal reconfiguration, changes to external window/door openings, relocation of rainwater tank, changes to the roof of the dwelling and changes to the materials and finishes of outdoor decks, pool surrounds and external garage wall.

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

Council notified the modification application to nearby landowners by letter in accordance with policy. There was one objection.

 

Objection from 114 Bilga Crescent

 

Issue: Overlooking into the backyard from the balcony off bedroom 2. Proposed timber slatted privacy screen is inadequate to protect privacy. Balcony should be removed, or an opaque glass screen installed to completely enclose it.

 

Comment: The balcony is to be installed with a 1.5m high timber-slatted privacy screen. Timber-slatted screens are commonly used for privacy screens as they allow air circulation while preserving a modicum of privacy. They are perfectly adequate and are often used on housing development in the Randwick City. There is a condition in the recommendation that requires the surface area of the privacy screen to be less than 25% open.

 

Issue: The balcony off bedroom 2 was approved as non-trafficable roof and should be re-instated.

 

Comment: Section 96 of the Act allows from the retrospective approval of works already carried out. Its inclusion subsequent to the original approval is not reason alone to refuse consent to the modification application.

Issue: Overlooking into the backyard from the balcony extension to the bedroom 1. There is no proposal for a privacy screen. The balcony should be disallowed or a 1.8m high opaque glass screen be installed on its western and northern aspects.

 

Comment: There is a condition in the recommendation that requires a privacy screen to be installed on the western and northern aspects of this new balcony. The privacy screen is to be at least 1.5m high above the floor of the balcony, and constructed of obscure/opaque glass.

 

7.    Section 96 Assessment

 

The application was lodged under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The proposed modification satisfies the Section 96 threshold and is substantially the same as was originally approved.

 

8.    Section 79C Assessment

 

The proposal does not add to the height or floor area of the approved building, or change building setbacks, landscaped area or solar access. Privacy issues with the new balconies can be resolved by the installation of privacy screens and this is included as a condition in the recommendation. The privacy screens would prevent overlooking toward the neighbour’s back-yard, and a privacy envelope for the future development of the neighbour’s land. The higher western boundary fence resolves a complaint from the neighbour about security. The proposal continues to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements of Council’s Development Control Plan for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies. The proposal also continues to satisfy the objectives for the 2A zone.

 

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.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is a section 96(2) modification and involves new balconies, different building materials, a reconfigured bathroom window and changes to the boundary fences.

 

The approved development is a 2 storey dwelling house with double garage.

 

The site is located on the north side of Bilga Crescent between both ends of Eucla Crescent, Malabar. The site has frontage of 21.335m and is 581.7m². 

 

Council notified the modification application to nearby landowners by letter in accordance with policy. There was one objection. The issues are addressed in this report.

 

The proposed modification satisfies the Section 96 threshold and is substantially the same as was originally approved.

 

The proposal continues to satisfy the objectives and performance requirements in the Development Control Plan for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. The higher fence height on the western boundary resolves a complaint from the neighbour. There are conditions in the recommendation for privacy screens on the new balconies.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority grant consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/1/2005/B for modification to ground floor southern street boundary retaining wall from rendered masonry to sandstone and add balustrade to upper floor roof and reduction to the length of upper floor window from 2400mm long for 112 Bilga Crescent, Malabar in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition 1 to read:

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered L01, DA1, DA2, DA3, DA4, DA5, dated 31.12.04 and received by Council on 22 February 2005, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans dated 16 November 2009 and received by Council 17 November 2009 and plans dated 25 November 2009 and received by Council on 25 November 2009, 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:

 

Insert after condition 62 the following conditions:

 

63.   The western and northern edges of the balcony off bedroom one must be installed with a 1.5m high obscure/opaque glass privacy screen. The privacy screen must be installed before an interim or final Occupation Certificate is issued for the development.

 

64.   The surface area of the privacy screen on the western edge of the balcony off bedroom 2 must not be more than 25% open. The privacy screen must meet this specification before an interim or final Occupation Certificate is issued for the development.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP6/10

 

 

Subject:                  9 Lurline Street, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/956/2007/A

Author:                   Wendy Wang, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96(2) modification of the development by changing external wall height, internal reconfiguration, and various modifications to approved window and door openings.  

 

Ward:                      Central Ward

 

Applicant:                Ms L Fanale

 

Owner:                         Ms L Fanale

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Part Approval

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This section 96(2) modification application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors Bowen, Tracey and White.

 

The current application involves amendments to the previous approval for a new three (3) storey dwelling including raising the overall height of the building by 400mm, modifications to windows and internal reconfiguration.

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Lurline Street. The site has a regular rectangular shape, slopes to the rear and also has a cross fall that is consistent with the slope of the street with a frontage width of 12m, a side boundary depth of 35 m and has an overall site area of 427sqm.

 

Three (3) submissions were received from neighbouring properties at 5, 7, and 11 Lurline Street in relation to bulk, scale, privacy, streetscape, and overshadowing. The issues raised are addressed in relevant sections of this report.

 

The proposed bulk and scale arising from the increase in height is excessive and will result in an adverse impact on the streetscape and increases overshadowing to the premises to the south. As such, the component of the application seeking to increase the height of the building is not supported. However, the proposed internal reconfiguration, modifications to openings and external materials are considered to be acceptable and will not result in any adverse impacts on adjoining properties or the streetscape.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to deletion of the proposed increase in height.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The current application seeks to amend the original consent in the following manner:

 

External

·        The upper level and roof are to be raised by 200mm each (resulting in entire building to be raised by a total of 400mm).  

·        Additional obscure glass bathroom window to the southern elevation.

·        Upper level cladding to be changed from timber batons to matt powder coated perforated metal.

·        All external window frames to be anodised aluminium in lieu of timber.

·        Reconfiguration of windows on the northern elevation at the upper level.

·        Garage doors to be colourbond in lieu of timber.

 

Internal

·      Reconfiguration of bathroom/staircase area at the upper level.

·      No change to mid level

·      Water storage area in lower level to be located in garage slab and previous water storage area now to be used as a store room

·      Reconfiguration of bin area

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Lurline Street and is presently under construction as per the approved development application DA/956/2007. The subject site has a regular rectangular shape, slopes to the rear and also has a cross fall that is consistent with the slope of the street, has a frontage width of 12m, a side boundary depth of 35 m and has an overall site area of 427sqm. Neighbouring the property to the north and south are part two and part three storey dwellings and to the rear is a two storey dwelling.  Council has recently approved redevelopment at 7 and 11 Lurline St to the north and south of the subject site. The land is zoned 2A residential and subject to Clause 29 of the former LEP 1998 for foreshore scenic protection.

 

4.    Site History

 

DA/956/2007/A – approved under delegated authority on 22 October 2008 for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new three storey dwelling of contemporary design.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified from 14 – 28 January 2010 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. The application was further notified from 27 January – 10 February 2010. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:-

 

5.1 Objections

5 Lurline Street, Maroubra

Issue

Comment

The increase in height of 400mm along with the proposed change in elevation treatment will exacerbate the overbearing nature of the subject property. The proposed bulk and scale of the dwelling will have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding properties and Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

The objector’s concerns regarding overbearing bulk and scale and resultant adverse impact on the streetscape are supported as discussed in the relevant sections of this report.

The increase in building height will compromise the privacy of the rear yard of No. 5 Lurline Street should not be supported.

It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in unreasonable bulk and scale of the building when viewed from the street and therefore this component of the application is not supported. However, the current application does not result in any additional privacy concerns for No. 5 Lurline Street as any openings along the northern elevation of the proposal are separated from No. 5 by the dwelling at No. 7 Lurline Street and any areas capable of overlooking into No. 5 Lurline Street remain unaffected by the current Section 96 proposal.

 

7 Lurline Street, Maroubra

Issue

Comment

The updated drawings do not reflect the conditioned changes to the planter box including increasing the wall of the planter box to 1000mm.

The planted box indicated on the current plans reflects an increased width to 1000mm as conditioned in the original approval. Complies.

The submitted sun diagrams do not clearly indicate what the additional overshadowing is compared with the already approved DA design. If there is no additional overshadowing to outdoor living areas and garden in the afternoon, no further objections in this regard.

No. 7 Lurline Street is located to the north of the subject site and therefore overshadowing impacts are minimal.

The large window on the north elevation overlooks into living room windows resulting in loss of privacy. The window can also later be converted into a door.

The proposed windows should be relocated to be offset from those of No. 7 Lurline Street. Alternatively, the sill height can be raised to 900mm of the finished floor level, or opaque glass installed.

For detailed assessment, refer to “Visual and Acoustic Privacy” section of this report.

Council should not support an increase in height when the current proposed height was already rejected previously.

The objector’s concerns regarding overbearing bulk and scale and resultant adverse impact on the streetscape are supported as discussed in the relevant sections of this report.

 

11 Lurline Street, Maroubra

Issue

Comment

The SEE is a reissue of the original SEE dated November 2007. 

The SEE dated November 2007 was submitted as supplementary information and does not form the basis of the current assessment.

The SEE accompanying the current application does not address the changes proposed.  The SEE does not deal with that elevational changes, does not mention the approved DA for No. 11 Lurline Street and disregards previous concerns raised by Council and objectors.

Council officers have undertaken their own analysis of the proposed development and have not relied solely upon the report from the applicant’s planning consultant in the assessment of proposed development. 

The submitted sun diagrams do not clearly indicate what the additional overshadowing is compared with the already approved DA design. Elevational shadow diagrams are not provided.

The submitted shadow diagrams clearly indicate the extent of additional overshadowing. Elevation shadow diagrams were submitted to Council. These diagrams were made available to the public on Council’s website via the online tracking service and at the customer service centre as of 29 December 2009

The Planning, Urban Design and Heritage Report dated February 2008 makes no mention of the DA approved for No. 11 Lurline Street. It does not deal with the increased impact of the section 96 application.

No “Planning, Urban Design and Heritage Report dated February 2008” was received as part of the current application.

There is uncertainty regarding the levels of properties as no RLs have been indicated and do not allow accurate assessment of the proposal on No. 11 Lurline Street. 

Council officers have undertaken their own analysis of the levels of adjoining properties and have not relied solely upon the levels provided by the applicant   in the assessment of current section 96 application.

The windows to the bedrooms are modified to create a larger glazed area facing north. The upper level glazing is no longer defined by the cladding surround. The 3-dimensionality of the “lightweight sleeping box” will therefore no longer be readable.

The proposed modifications are considered to be well balanced between horizontal and vertical elements. The proposal continues to provide a positive presentation to the street.    

The South Elevation is no longer horizontal which previously helped to reduce the bulk of the 8 to 9 metre wall on the boundary when a 7 metre height is permitted. The elevational treatment has removed a bay of cladding .The elevation is more vertical and links to the top glazing above the central bay. This increases the height significantly in order to provide a 2.7 metre floor to ceiling height to the hall and ensuite and increases floor levels to other floors.

The objector’s concerns regarding overbearing bulk and scale and resultant adverse impact on the streetscape are supported as discussed in the relevant sections of this report.

The articulation of five horizontal windows has been replaced by three larger windows which are less horizontal.

The shift from a horizontal to vertical composition is less effective at reducing the bulk.

The proposed building will continue to have a contemporary design that articulates and that modulates its massing and proportions in a manner that presents well to the street. However, the increased height is not justified as it will result in the building appearing disproportionate in scale when viewed in the streetscape.

Four vertical windows have been replaced by three larger windows. A new window appears in the “lightweight sleeping box” which undermines its ability to float and provides potential overlooking. The shift from a horizontal to vertical composition and the breaking of the “lightweight sleeping box” is less effective at reducing the bulk.

See above.

The excessive height of the floor to floor heights particularly in close proximity to the boundary is a major source of concern for 11 Lurline St. Original concerns regarding bulk resulted in a lowering of the building. The proposed increase shows no concern for the previous discussions with the Council or the neighbours. The additional height impacts on light and solar access and the new elevational treatment makes the building bulk appear even greater so close to the boundary.

The objector’s concerns regarding overbearing bulk and scale and resultant adverse impact on the streetscape are supported as discussed in the relevant sections of this report.

As the SEE does not reflect an assessment of the current scheme it is preferable that it be resubmitted to correct this and be readvertised. The S96 for 11 Lurline St was required to be readvertised to more correctly describe the discussion with the neighbours. It is therefore a matter of procedural fairness that the SEE be readvertised.

The application was renotified to reflect the correct description and accompanying information is deemed to be adequate for assessment of the application.

Concerns regarding unauthorised works and as the building is substantially commenced there may be an attempt to build to the height of the proposed Section 96 rather than the approved DA. To avoid that possibility it would seem prudent to require that the applicant provide survey levels for each floor of the building during construction.

Council cannot speculate with regard to potential unauthorised works yet to be carried out. The original development consent includes a number of conditions relating to inspections during the construction process to ensure that all building works are carried out in accordance with the approved plans. These inspections are carried out prior to the issue of a final occupation certificate. 

 

5.2 Support

No letters of support were received.

 

6.    Technical Officers Comments

 

No referrals were required for the assessment of this application.

 

7.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

7.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) was gazetted on 15 January 2010.  Clause 7 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) requires that a development application lodged but not finally determined prior to the appointed day will continue to be assessed and determined under the provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 that was in force immediately before the commencement of this plan. The subject application was lodged on 29 December 2009 and is therefore subject to the savings provision. Further, when determining an application to which this clause applies, the consent authority must have regard to the provisions of this plan as if it had been exhibited under the Act but had not been made.

 

The site is zoned Residential 2A under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent. The relevant zone objectives are as follows:

 

Clause 10 – Zone No 2A (Residential 2A Zone)

The relevant objectives of Zone No 2A are:

 

(a)  To maintain the character of established residential areas, and

 

(c)  To enable redevelopment for low density housing forms, including dwelling houses, dual occupancy, semi-detached housing, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development

 

The proposed increase in height will detract from the environmental qualities of the area and while providing negligible improvements to the functionality of the subject dwelling, compromises the amenity of surrounding streetscape. An increase in the height of the building will result in a development that has an excessive bulk and scale not commensurate with the surrounding development. As such, this component of the proposal does not adequately satisfy the relevant zone objectives. However, proposed modifications to openings and external materials are considered to be acceptable and will not result in unacceptable impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

The application, subject to deletion of the increased height is therefore recommended for approval as it is generally consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed built form will not compromise the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

 

7.2 Policy Controls

Development Control Plan - Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

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

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

 

Preferred Solution

Proposed

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

The approved dwelling (under DA/956/2007) has a height of 9.2 metres. For detailed discussion of non-compliance, refer to Section 9 (Section 79C Assessment) of this report and assessment below.

 

The Objectives of the DCP are that developments should not be excessive in height and scale and be compatible with the existing character of the locality; to ensure impacts in terms of privacy, natural light and views are minimised; and with respect to additions that they not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

 

The relevant Performance Requirements are that the height of buildings should relate to those in the existing streetscape and the topography; buildings be designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting where relevant characteristics of mass and proportion, materials and finishes, roof form and pitch, facade articulation, window and door location and proportions, and verandahs, eaves and parapets; with respect to additions to semi-detached dwellings they integrate with the attached dwelling; and views are shared.

 

The approved dwelling (under DA/956/2007) has a maximum external wall height of 9.2 metres. This does not comply, however, the degree of non compliance was deemed to be acceptable given the scale of the dwelling was commensurate with that of the adjoining dwellings. The approval was granted subject to the height of the building being decreased by 400mm to reduce the apparent size and scale.

 

The current application seeks to increase the maximum external wall by 400mm. This component of the application is not supported as it increases the bulk and scale of the building. For detailed discussion of non-compliance, refer to Section 9 (Section 70C Assessment) of this report.

 

Visual & Acoustic Privacy

 

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Habitable room windows within 9m of another dwelling’s windows are offset by 45 degrees or have fixed obscure glazing below 1.5m above floor level.

See assessment below.

 

S1

Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more or fixed obscure glazing below that height.

See assessment below.

 

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

Conditioned to comply with the BCA.

 

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

 

The Performance Requirements include that overlooking of internal private living areas is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies; and separation, screening devices and landscaping be used to assist in minimising privacy impacts.

 

The current application proposed a number of modifications to the approved window openings at all three levels. These are summarised and discussed as follows: -

 

Northern elevation

 

·      Modification of windows on the northern elevation at the upper level.

 

Comment: The upper floor windows proposed to be enlarged service the study and bedroom 2. The windows are set back 3.9m from the northern side boundary and 4.5m from the dwelling at No. 7 Lurline Street.  The proposed sill height is 800mm off the finished floor level. This is considered to be reasonable as the original sill height was 900mm and the majority of the increased area of window is toward the ceiling. This does not create an unreasonable additional capacity to overlook.

 

·      Slight reduction of dimensions of lower ground floor window.

 

Comment: The dimensions of this window are being decreased as result of this proposal. This is considered to minimise any potential to overlook into the property to the north.

 

·      Minor change to mid floor window adjacent to dining room.

 

Comment: The dimensions of these windows are not being altered as a result of this proposal and reconfiguration of window panes will not result in any additional capacity to overlook into the adjoining property to the north.

 

·      All external window frames to be anodised aluminium in lieu of timber.

 

Comment: This does not affect the level of overlooking and does not create any addition privacy concerns.

 

Southern elevation

 

·      Additional obscure glass bathroom window to the southern elevation.

 

Comment: This does not create any additional privacy concerns.

 

·      Reconfiguration of bathroom/laundry area window at the lower level.

 

Comment: These rooms are not considered to be rooms of night traffic. Further, the dimensions of windows are being decreased as result of this proposal. This is considered to minimise any potential to overlook into the property to the south.

 

·      All external window frames to be anodised aluminium in lieu of timber.

 

Comment: This does not affect the level of overlooking and does not create any addition privacy concerns.

 

 

The impacts to the privacy of the surrounding properties as a result of this proposed development is considered to be both reasonable and acceptable.

 

Foreshore Development

 

 

Performance Requirements

Assessment

P1

No encroachments on Foreshore Building Line at identified properties.

Complies.

P2

Building form, colour, materials and finishes are sympathetic.

The proposed modifications to external materials still incorporate a mix of building materials and external finishes that will enhance the current streetscape.

P3

Stepped buildings on sloping sites are articulated.

Complies.

P4

Buildings incorporate sufficient setbacks to allow fair sharing of views.

The current application does not seek to modify the building envelope and therefore does impact existing view sharing conditions. Complies.

P5

Ancillary structures do not detract from the appearance of developments.

Not applicable.

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

New dwellings comply with a minimum of 3.5 stars on the NatHERS.

Amended BASIX required (conditioned).

S2

Private open space receives at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

The rear yard will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.

S2,8

North-facing windows to living areas receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.

The proposal includes north-facing windows that will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight. Complies.

S9

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

The proposal will not overshadow solar collectors on adjoining properties. Complies.

S9

North-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.  If currently less than 3 hours, it is not further reduced.

The proposal will not reduce solar access to less than 3 hours on north-facing windows. Complies.

S9

Principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings receive at least 3 hours sunlight over part of its area between 9am and 3pm on 21 June.  If currently less than 3 hours, it is not further reduced.

The proposal will not reduce solar access to private open space to less than 3 hours. Complies.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed increase in building height is not supported as it will increase the overall bulk of the dwelling thereby exacerbating existing overshadowing conditions for the adjoining dwelling to the south.

 

8.    Section 96 Assessment

In accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 legislation the proposed changes are considered minor and are substantially the same as the originally approved development. As such they can be assessed under Section 96 of the Act.

 

9.    Section 79C 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.

 

Height, bulk and scale

It is noted that original proposal (DA/956/2007) did not comply with preferred solutions for FSR, wall height and set backs. The proposal was amended in accordance with advice from Council and the height of the dwelling was reduced by 400mm.

 

As such, the approved development has a maximum height of 9.2m, which is still 2.2m excess of the preferred solution maximum external wall height as prescribed by the DCP for Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. This was deemed to be acceptable as the dwelling maintained a reasonable bulk and scale when viewed in conjunction with adjoining dwellings and the topography of the street. The modification proposal increases the approved building height by a further 400mm to a maximum of 9.6m. The applicant offers the following statement in support of the increase.

 

Applicant’s claim in support of the increased building height

 

The aim of the section 96 is to raise the height in the lounge room from 2.4 to 2.6 and the ceilings in the bedrooms from 2.57 to 2.7m whilst maintaining as a minimum the ceiling heights in the rest of the property. Following the approval of the current application, the adjoining properties at No’s 7 and 11 Lurline Street have subsequently had applications approved (No. 11 at a higher RL).  The proposed increase in height does not result in any adverse impacts to adjoining properties and given the scale of much larger properties in Lurline Street and surrounding streets, the proposed increase is reasonable. The adjoining dwellings have set the precedent for the building height and the application should be reassessed in context of adjoining development.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment: 

The original development was approved subject to the decrease in overall height of the building by 400mm following advice from Council.

 

The approved dwelling was seen to be commensurate with the bulk and scale of the established streetscape and when viewed in conjunction with the approved development at No. 7 and No. 11 Lurline Street, responded well to the topography of the street. The approved dwelling has a built form that will be in keeping with the constant stepping of the dwellings in the street and will not “stick out” from the other dwellings in the vicinity. The approved development will not dominate the Lurline Street streetscape and has adequately addressed the constraints of the site in and provided a design that is contemporary and provides good internal amenity for the future occupants of the site without unreasonably affecting the neighbouring properties or surrounding environment.

 

To argue an increase in height based on comparative heights of adjoining dwellings in absolute value terms is not valid given the bulk and scale of the building must also be taken in context of the street topography. It is inaccurate to say that the increase in building height has no adverse impacts on the surrounding area as the current approved height of the building provides a visually consistent “stepping down” of building heights along this section of Lurline Street. 

 

Further, the nature of the subject dwelling and the adjoining dwellings differ in the sense that No. 11 Lurline Street, at its highest section (RL 44.365), only the minimum enclosure was carried out to allow for a covered stairwell to access the roof terrace, which does not create additional bulk. The stair enclosure is setback from the primary and secondary street elevations and has a sloping roof to minimise additional bulk and overshadowing. It is only as high and wide as necessary to enclose the access stair to the roof terrace and was considered to be acceptable.

 

Similarly, the approved addition at No 7 is appropriate in the streetscape given that the building is smaller overall and benefits from larger side-boundary setbacks at the upper levels. No. 7 Lurline is comparable with the approved development at 9 Lurline St, itself approved on the basis of compatibility with the street, subtle façade articulation and use of contemporary materials. The proposed addition shares these attributes and generally has acceptable impacts on solar access, view sharing and privacy. The proposal satisfies the performance requirements for floor space ratio, setback and height.

 

In contrast, the entire mass of the subject dwelling is proposed to be increased, which is a much more prominent increase when viewed from the street. The increased section is not set back off the primary elevation and will contribute to a significant and unnecessary increase in visual bulk.

 

The table below shows a comparison heights (for the purpose of this argument, only the height of the main building mass has been taken) on nearby lots. As can be seen, the proposal, as previously approved, provides a visually consistent “stepping down” of building heights along this section of Lurline Street

 

7 Lurline St

9 Lurline St

11 Lurline St

Approved

Approved

Approved

RL 40.80

RL 41.8

RL 42.965

 

There is a consistent step down of around 1m from dwelling to dwelling and this provides for a cohesive streetscape appearance.

 

The applicant’s argument to increase the floor to ceiling height is not considered to be valid given the original approval still allowed for ample room to provide reasonable amenity for the occupants of the dwelling and is an issue which can easily be resolved through redistribution of heights and reconfiguration of the floors rather than an increase to the building height resulting in excessive bulk and scale. The floor to ceiling heights at all three floors range from 2.7m to 2.5m and provide ample room to accommodate future occupants. Further, the void/space at the 2nd (middle) floor above the living, kitchen, WC and entry areas provides increased amenity and provides a floor to ceiling height of 2.9m. This issue could be resolved by lowering the natural ventilation zone slightly. The increase in building height is therefore not reasonable based on the justification for greater ceiling heights. The approved dwelling as per DA/956/2007 has floor to floor heights generally ranging from 2.75m to 3.18m. Allowing an average slab thickness of 150mm for a dwelling house, the minimum floor to ceiling height would still be reasonable. The areas with lower floor to ceiling heights are generally restricted to the lower ground floor at the storage area/bathroom and laundry. The approved plans also indicate floor to ceiling heights of 2.4m to 2.7m.

 

Based on the assessment above, the component of the current section 96 seeking to increase the building height does not satisfy the objectives of the DCP for Single Dwellings and Attached Dual Occupancies and is not supported. The consent has been conditioned accordingly.

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The current application involves amendments to the previous approval for a new three (3) storey dwelling including raising the overall height of the building by 400mm, modifications to windows and internal reconfiguration.

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Lurline Street. The site has a regular rectangular shape, slopes to the rear and also has a cross fall that is consistent with the slope of the street with a frontage width of 12m, a side boundary depth of 35 m and has an overall site area of 427sqm.

 

Three (3) submissions were received from neighbouring properties at 5, 7, and 11 Lurline Street in relation to bulk, scale, privacy, streetscape, and overshadowing. The issues raised are addressed in relevant sections of this report.

 

The proposed increased height is excessive and results in an adverse impact on the streetscape and reasons for the increase in height were not adequately justified and this component of the application is not supported. However, proposed internal reconfigurations, modifications to openings and external materials are considered to be acceptable and will not result in unacceptable impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

The proposed modification to the original consent satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in that it will constitute substantially the same development. The proposed modifications will not result in any unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the streetscape and is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify condition/s of Development Application No. DA/956/2007 for permission to modify the original consent through changes to window openings, external wall material, new bathroom window on the southern elevation, and internal reconfiguration at 9 Lurline Street, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:

 

Amend Condition 1 to read:

 

1.     The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans drawn by Mac-Interactive, numbered DA:808:03A, DA:808:04A, DA:808:05A, DA:808:06A, DA:808:07A DA:808:08A and received by Council on 4 August 2008, the landscape plan drawn by Material Pty Ltd, numbered 07-0038-02A, received by Council on 7 November 2007, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans dated numbered DA:808.03 B, DA:808:04B, DA:808:05B, DA:808:06B, DA:808:07B and DA:808:08B, dated 22/12/2009 and received by Council on 20 December 2009, only in so far as they relate to the modifications to windows, external materials, and internal modifications, excluding the increased height of the building 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

 

Add the following conditions:

 

72.   An amended BASIX certificate must be submitted to the Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate application for this development.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate are to be included on the plans, specifications and associated documentation for the proposed development, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The design of the building must not be inconsistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the BASIX commitments may necessitate a new development consent or amendment to the existing consent to be obtained, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP7/10

 

 

Subject:                  88-102 Moverly Road, South Coogee (Part A)

Folder No:                   DA/77/2008/A

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 (AA) Modification of approved development by alteration to Condition 11 to alter width of verges, footpath and road reserve

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This application is referred to Council because it comprises modifications to a development consent under Section 96(AA) being modifications to an original development application determined by the Land and  Environment Court.

 

The Court approved development (DA No. 77/2008) involves a Staged 1 development pursuant to Section 83C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) comprising a Stage 1 concept plan of a residential development, bulk earthworks, provision of infrastructure, and subdivision into 10 super-lots in the Endeavour House site. The original development application was approved on 5 February 2009 subject to 89 conditions of consent.

 

The Section 96(AA) application will modify the approved development as follows:

 

·      Modify condition No. 11 to alter the width of grass verges and footpaths within designated road reserves adjoining the proposed central open space of the approved development (essentially verges will be reduced in width in the one-way streets bordering the central open space and no footpath will be provided on the side of these streets abutting the central open space).

 

The applicant advises that the changes to Condition No. 11 are requested due to the sloping topography of the central open space which has been carefully considered in the design of the park such that the required width of 3m for the verge and 1.5m for the footpath would require levelling of the entire perimeter of the park thereby reducing the overall area of useable recreational space. It would result in all of the structural elements and built forms such as retaining walls, stairs and electricity substations encroaching further into the useable open space. Additionally, the applicant advises that the provision of a footpath on the side of the street immediately abutting the central open space would not be necessary in terms of both the aesthetics and amenity of the park.

 

·      Modify condition No. 49 to specify the provision of automatic irrigation systems for all landscape areas within the overall proposed development site except road verges

 

The applicant advises that the exclusion of irrigations systems in road verges is justified as they reflect Council’s intention for irrigation in the planted landscaped zones of the public domain and not in the verges. Furthermore, the use of an irrigation system for turf on road verges is not in line with Council's Sustaining Our City program which supports conserving water supplies through practices including as the use of water-wise landscape surfaces.

 

The applicant’s justifications for altering the width of verges and footpaths in designated road reserves and excluding road verges for automatic irrigation is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

§ The proposed changes to verges, footpaths and road reserves in Condition No. 11 are consistent with the approved configurations of road reserves granted under the development consent for Stage 2B development (DA 578/2009).

 

§ The reduction in verge and deletion of footpath on the central open space side of the designated streets will be such that the changes will be visually imperceptible given the exposed and expansive nature of the central open space.

 

§ The exclusion of automatic irrigation systems in road verges under Condition No. 49 reflects existing conditions in public roads in the Randwick LGA where such systems are neither practical nor required.

 

§ The proposed changes to Conditions No. 11 and No. 49 will result in minimal environmental impact in that there will be no significant additional impacts upon the amenity of either existing properties in the locality or future residences within the proposed development. 

 

§ The proposed modifications to Conditions No. 11 and No. 49 do not give rise to additional amenity impacts as the modifications essentially will be contained within the approved development, relate internally to the configuration and design of infrastructure and landscape areas within the proposed development with no changes to footprints and envelopes of the buildings approved under the original DA No. 77/2008 and Stage 2B DA No. 578/2009 which will be maintained.

 

The Section 96AA application was not required to be advertised or notified to surrounding properties as the proposed modifications will be of minimal environmental impact as provided for under Clause 117 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (see Section 5 below).

 

Accordingly, the proposed modification is considered to be substantially the same development as that previously approved and will not result in any significant additional impacts upon the amenity of surrounding properties or the visual character of the locality. 

 

The section 96 modifications to Conditions Nos. 11 and 49 are recommended for approval with additional amendments to the wording of Condition No. 11 as advised by Council’s Development Engineer.

 

2.      The Proposal

 

The subject application is made pursuant to Section 96(AA) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify the Development Consent as follows (new/amended text in bold italics) :

 

(1)            Amend Condition 11 to read as follows:

 

“11.  All internal roads within the proposed development site must be constructed to council’s specification and requirements. The minimum standards for carriageway, verge widths and road reserve widths shall be generally as documented in Drawing No. A0015 Revision B as amended by the following:

a.     For the proposed one way streets bordering the reserve/open space (i.e. Street Type E), a 2m wide verge on the Eastern boundary and a 1.25m wide verge on all other boundaries shall be provided on the reserve/open space side of the carriageway. The total road reserve will therefore become 10 metres in width based on the following configuration:

2.3 metre wide parking lane on the left hand side with a minimum 3 metre wide travelling lane measured to the lip of the gutter. Thus a carriageway width of 5.75 metres will be attained, with a 1.2 metre wide footpath within the 3 metre wide road verges on the residential side only creating a 10 metre wide road reserve. Note: notwithstanding the above requirements the dimensions of any one way street must be such that adequate vehicle manoeuvring space is available for vehicles to enter/exit vehicular crossings and internal driveways.

All future development applications for this site and any Construction Certificate for Stage 1 works must demonstrate compliance with these minimum carriageway widths, verge widths and road reserve widths.

 

Notes:

 

a.       A detailed analysis of vehicle turning manoeuvres must be undertaken by the applicant for vehicles to enter/exit vehicular crossings and internal driveways within any one way street. The analysis must be submitted to council for approval, and be approved, prior to the issuing of any development consent for the Stage 2 application and prior to the issuing of a construction Certificate for any Stage 1 works.

 

b.       Council’s preference is for the proposed kerb and gutter within the development site to be Council’s standard integral kerb and gutter. Roll kerb will only be considered in areas where crossings are in very close proximity to one another.”

 

The original condition No. 11 reads as follows:

 

“11.  All internal roads within the proposed development site must be constructed to council’s specification and requirements. The minimum standards for carriageway, verge widths and road reserve widths shall be generally as documented in Drawing No. A0015 Revision B as amended by the following:

 

a.  For the proposed one way streets bordering the reserve/open space (i.e. Street Type E), a 3m shall be provided on the reserve/open space side of the carriageway. The total road reserve will therefore become 11.75m in width based on the following configuration:

 

2.3 metre wide parking lane on the left hand side with a minimum 3 metre wide travelling lane measured to the lip of the gutter. Thus a carriageway width of 5.75 metres will be attained, 3 metre wide road verges and 1.5 metre wide footpath on  both sides creating an 11.75m wide road reserve. Note: notwithstanding the above requirements the dimensions of any one way street must be such that adequate vehicle manoeuvring space is available for vehicles to enter/exit vehicular crossings and internal driveways.

 

All future development applications for this site and any Construction Certificate for Stage 1 works must demonstrate compliance with these minimum carriageway widths, verge widths and road reserve widths.

 

Notes:

 

a.       A detailed analysis of vehicle turning manoeuvres must be undertaken by the applicant for vehicles to enter/exit vehicular crossings and internal driveways within any one way street. The analysis must be submitted to council for approval, and be approved, prior to the issuing of any development consent for the Stage 2 application and prior to the issuing of a construction Certificate for any Stage 1 works.

 

b.       Council’s preference is for the proposed kerb and gutter within the development site to be Council’s standard integral kerb and gutter. Roll kerb will only be considered in areas where crossings are in very close proximity to one another.”

 

Applicant’s justification: The applicant advises that the changes to the verges and footpath are necessary for the following reasons:

 

§ There is considerable level change from the eastern boundary to the western boundary of the open space/ reserve.

 

§ The existing fall across the park has been carefully considered in the detailed design and location of retaining walls to maximise usable open space.

 

§ The introduction of a 3 metre wide verge would require a level area around the entire perimeter of the park which would result in all of the structural elements and built forms such as retaining walls, stairs and electricity substations to encroach on the park, thereby reducing the area of useable public open space.

 

§ A 3 metre verge will reduce the area of useable open space within the park, resulting in the majority of existing trees to be removed. The current design maximises the retention of mature trees within the open space / reserve.

 

§ A pedestrian path will still be provided that traverses the park, bringing users to a central focal point. Pram ramp crossings will be integrated at the entry and exit points of the park with the adjoining streets.

 

§ An additional footpath around the perimeter of the park would significantly detract from the aesthetics and amenity of the park.

 

§ Footpaths are located on the opposite side (house side) of the road and this is considered to be sufficient for pedestrians traversing the site.

 

§ The existing walls identified for retention in the Aboriginal and Historical Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Assessment Report prepared by Heritage Concepts Pty Ltd are being retained and protected and incorporated into the central park as a feature of the design. The lines created by the footpaths respond to angles of these historical walls which frame the seating platform.

 

§ The differentiation between the park and adjacent road reserve will be treated by the installation of retaining walls along the eastern park boundary. Where the park is level with the kerb along the western edge, bollards will be installed to prevent any conflict between vehicles and park visitors.

 

§ The detailed design of the park will be submitted with the development application for the Central Park. Please refer to those drawings for further detail.

 

Council’s comment:  the applicant’s request to reduce the width of verges in designated road reserves is considered reasonable and acceptable especially having regard also to the following:

 

·      the reduction in verge and deletion in footpath on the reserve/open space side of the affected road reserve will be such that the reduction will not be detrimental in visual or practical terms as the adjoining open space will be openly accessible.

 

·      the proposed changes have already been incorporated into the approved design of the road reserve in Stage 2B of the proposed development granted under Development Consent No. 577/2009 on 24 November 2009.

 

·      an examination of the approved Stage 2B development under DA 578/2009 confirms that the approved road-reserve of roads adjoining the central open space have been designed with verge and footpath widths similar to that requested that proposed under the modifications. Accordingly, the proposed alterations to the verges and footpath pathway will integrate appropriately with the overall approved development for the Endeavour House site. 

 

·      The proposed changes, in effect, seek to ensure that the original Court-issued Stage 1 Development Consent is consistent with the development consent granted for Stage 2B.

 

In view of this, Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objection to the proposed amendments subject to additional changes to the wording of the condition comprising the following phrases which are to be incorporated into the final proposed condition:

 

 “…creating a 10 metre wide road reserve (in sections where the verge is 1.25m) and a 10.75 metre wide road reserve (in sections where the verge is 2m)”...

and

“(such 1.25m verge is to be measured from the outer face of the bollards defining the edge of the park, that is, the verge does not include the bollard)” 

 

 (2)   Amend Condition 49 to read as follows:

 

49. Any future development application for the provision of civil infrastructure within the site must provide irrigation details for the proposed landscape areas within the reserve/open space and landscaped entry and median. Such system shall provide full coverage to all the landscaped areas within the reserve/ open space and landscaped entry and median, excluding road verges with no overspray onto driveways and pathways. The system shall comply with all Sydney Water requirements, and relevant Australian Standards. Note: landscaped areas must contain a predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

The original condition No. 49 reads as follows:

 

49.   Any future development application for the provision of civil infrastructure within the site must provide irrigation details for the proposed landscape areas. Typically Council requires an automatic irrigation system shall be installed throughout all the landscaped areas. Such system shall provide full coverage to all the landscaped areas with no overspray onto driveways and pathways. The system shall comply with all Sydney Water requirements, and relevant Australian Standards. Note: landscaped areas must contain a predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.

 

Applicant’s justification: The applicant advises that the proposed changes to the irrigation system are justified for the following reasons:

 

§ The amendments reflect Council’s intention for irrigation in the planted landscaped zones of the public domain and not in the verges.

 

§ The use of an irrigation system for turf on road verges is not in line with Council's Sustaining Our City program which supports conserving water supplies through practices including as the use of water-wise landscape surfaces.

 

Council’s comment:  the applicant’s request to exclude automatic irrigation in road verges is considered reasonable and acceptable. In particular the reduction in verge will occur on the reserve/open space side of the

 

§ It focuses irrigation on specific relevant areas (ie., within the reserve/ open space and landscaped entry and median) rather than the broad reference to “landscape areas” as indicated in the current condition.

 

§ The exclusion of automatic irrigation systems in road verges reflects existing conditions in public roads in the Randwick LGA where such systems are neither installed nor required.

 

§ The use of irrigation systems for turf on road verges will be incongruous with State government water conservation policies and sustainability principles which require the selection of appropriate water-conserving plant species.

 

3.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The Endeavour House site is located on the western side of Moverly Road immediately to the rear of the existing residential properties fronting Moverly Road from Latham Park to Jacaranda Place. Apart from these residential properties on the western side of Moverly Road, the site is bounded almost entirely on all sides by low density residential properties (predominantly dwelling houses) within the adjoining Moverly Green complex. 

 

The approved Stages 2A and 2B is located in the south-western quadrant of the Endeavour House site, adjacent to Moverly Green and Latham Park (see Figure 1).

 

The Endeavour House site has an area of approximately 6.74 ha and, prior to demolition, contained 4 large buildings formerly used for housing of Defence personnel. Apart from the 4 large buildings, the site also contains several small buildings, walkways, car parks and other minor structures.

 

Vehicular access to the Endeavour House site is available via a single entry road from Moverly Road. All future residential allotments within the Endeavour House site will be served by a hierarchy of internal roads comprising Primary Access Street and Local Access Streets.

 

Pedestrian access into the Endeavour House site will be available via four public pathways (i.e. entry road reserve, an existing footpath in the north-western section of the site linking into Tallow Place and two recent approved pathways through No. 132 Moverly Road to the east and No. 11 Grevillea Place to the west). Internal pedestrian access to residential allotments will be available via 1.2m wide pedestrian pathways within all road reserves of the Primary Access Street and Local Access Street.

 

A central open space will be provided in the centre of the whole site containing plantings and passive recreation area including a playground area and barbeque facility for use by the local community.

 

Figure 1 : Overall Stage 1 development site and Stages 2A and 2B.

 

4.      Site History

 

A Development Application (DA/439/2008) for demolition of the existing buildings on site was approved under delegated authority on 29 July 2008.

 

On 5 February 2009, the Land and Environment Court approved DA No. 77/2008 for a Staged 1 development pursuant to Section 83C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) comprising a Stage 1 concept plan of a residential development, bulk earthworks, provision of infrastructure, and subdivision into 10 super-lots in the Endeavour House site.

 

A Stage 2A development application (DA/577/2009) for construction of 18 x two storey dwellings with garaging and public domain works within Stage 2A of Endeavour House site and Street Tree Master Plan for whole of Endeavour House site was approved on 24 November 2009.

 

A Stage 2B development application (DA/578/2009) for construction of 11 x two storey detached dwellings 6 x two storey townhouses with garaging and Public Domain works within stage 2B of Endeavour House site and construction and dedication of Central Park within larger site was approved on 24 November 2009.

 

Two Development Applications (DA/554/2009 and DA/555/2009) for the public pedestrian access ways from the internal roads of the development to the east and west of the site were approved under delegated authority in November 2009. These two public pedestrian access ways satisfied the condition of the court approval for Stage 1 application. 

 

Development Applications (DA/577/2009) for the Stage 2A development comprising the construction of 18x two storey detached dwelling houses, detailed landscape design of the central park and associated landscaping works and Stage 2B development comprising .

 

5.      Community Consultation

 

Section 96AA (1) of the EP&A Act states that “A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the Court and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the development consent, if (among other things): (b) it has notified the application in accordance with: (i) the regulation, if the regulations so require”.

 

The relevant regulation governing public consultation for Section 96AA applications is Clause 117 – Public participation – applications for modification of development consents involving minimal environmental impact. Clause 117 Sub-clause (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 states as follows:

 

“This clause applies to an application under section 96(1A) of the Act or under section 96AA of the Act in respect of modification which, in the opinion of the consent authority, is of minimal environmental impact.”

 

Under Council’s DCP - Public Notification, Section 96 (1A) applications (modifications with minimal environmental impacts) do not require to be advertised and notified. Accordingly, by that very fact, and having regard to the wording of Clause 117 (1), Section 96 (AA) applications involving modifications of minimal environmental impacts do not require advertising and notification. As discussed in relevant sections of this report, the proposed modifications sought under the subject Section 96(AA) application will have minimal environmental impacts, particularly in that :  

 

§ The proposed changes to Conditions No. 11 and No. 49 will have no significant additional impacts upon the amenity of either existing properties in the locality or future residences within the proposed development. 

 

§ The proposed modifications to Conditions No. 11 and No. 49 essentially relate to works that will be contained within the approved development, relate internally to the configuration and design of infrastructure and landscape areas within the proposed development with no changes to footprints and envelopes of the buildings approved under the original DA No. 77/2008 and Stage 2B DA No. 578/2009 which will be maintained.

 

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 Comments

No referral/comment in relation to health and building issues is required for this application.

 

6.2    Development Engineering Comment

The subject Section 96 Application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineer advises that:

 

“The proposed modification to Condition No. 11 regarding the verges and footpath are consistent with the configuration for these road reserve elements contained in the approval granted for Stage 2B. In particular, the proposed part 1.25m and part 2m grass verge on the open space side will provide adequate green separation between the carriageway and the adjoining central open space. Similarly, the deletion of the footpath alongside the central open space will not detrimentally affect the function of the open space which will be fully accessible and adequately permeable especially given the reasonable provision of pedestrian paths that will traverses the park, bringing users to its central focal point. It is noted that the edge of the open space will be bounded by bollards as indicated in the Park Detail Plan defining the edge of the central open space. The proposed 1.25m verge width must be measured from the outer face of the bollards. Additionally, the proposed amendments do not impact on the vast majority of Development Engineering conditions such that no objections are raised to the subject Section 96 application subject to further modification to Condition No. 11 to include the following words:

 

“…creating a 10 metre wide road reserve (in sections where the verge is 1.25m) and a 10.75 metre wide road reserve (in sections where the verge is 2m)”...

 and

“(such 1.25m verge is to be measured from the outer face of the bollards defining the edge of the park, that is, the verge does not include the bollard)” 

 

The proposed modification to condition No. 49 involving irrigation in all planted landscape zones except verges is considered acceptable as it is not Council policy for irrigation systems to be installed in road verges. Accordingly, the exclusion of automatic irrigation systems in road verges reflects existing conditions in public roads in the Randwick LGA where such systems are neither installed nor required.”

 

7.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

7.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The proposed modifications will not change the approved floor space, heights and landscaped area provision of the original development. Therefore, the proposal is considered satisfactory having regard to the provisions of the LEP.

 

The subject site is zoned Special Uses 5 under Clause 17 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The proposal is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent. The proposed modifications will not be inconsistent with the specific objectives of the zoning listed in Clause 17 nor the general aims of the Randwick LEP listed under Clause 2.

 

7.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

8.      Policy Controls

 

The proposed modifications will have no impact in terms of the original DA's compliance with relevant policy controls as the proposed changes relate specifically to infrastructure configurations (ie., road verges and footpaths) and services (irrigation systems).

 

 

 

9.      Section 96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 96(2), a consent authority may modify a development consent if it is satisfied that the development to which the development as modified is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted; and has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modifications.

 

9.1      Substantially the same

The proposed modification involves alterations to the dimensions of road verges and footpaths within designated road-reserves and the extent of irrigation of public landscape areas. These modifications are considered minor and of minimal environmental impact such that the original development, as proposed to be modified, will be substantially the same development as that for which consent was originally granted. Specifically, the proposed modifications sought in this Section 96 AA application will not be inconsistent with the Court approved staged development application for the Stage 1 residential concept, bulk earthworks, road layout, infrastructure and subdivision.

 

9.2      Consideration of submissions

As indicated in Section 5 above, the application, being a Section 96 AA application with minimal environmental impacts is not required to be advertised and notified pursuant to Clause 117 (Public participation – applications for modification of development consents involving minimal environmental impact), Sub-clause (1),  of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

 

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  Urban Design

The reduction in the width of the road verge and footpath by 0.3m along the open space side of the designated road reserve will be acceptable in terms of urban design for the following reasons:

 

§ The absence of a footpath around the perimeter of the park would not significantly detract from the aesthetics and amenity of the park as the park itself will be fully accessible for pedestrians such that the provision of a concrete footpath bordering the open space, visually, would be unnecessary.

 

§ The differentiation between the park and adjacent road reserve will be treated by the installation of retaining walls along the eastern park boundary as well as bollards along the perimeter of the park that comprise raised open lawn areas where the park is level with the kerb so as to prevent any conflict between vehicles and park visitors.

 

·      The proposed alterations to the verges and footpath pathway will integrate appropriately with the design of the central open space and the overall development concept for the Endeavour House site. 

 

10.2  Sunlight, Privacy and Views

The proposed modifications relate to infrastructure and services and do not involve any changes to the building footprint and envelopes of dwellings approved in the original development application. As such, the modified proposal will not give rise to any amenity impacts on adjoining and surrounding developments in terms of solar access, privacy, views and bulk and scale.

 

10.3       Site Suitability

The site remains suitable for the original approved development and will not be detrimentally affected by the proposed s96 modifications. The suitability of the site for approved development has been extensively addressed and assessed in the original determination of the DA.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 5a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development.

Outcome 11:      A healthy/sustainable environment.

Direction 11a:    Council is a leader in fostering sustainable practices.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the original development consent satisfies Section 96(AA) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, in that it will constitute substantially the same development, and approval of the modification will not result in any significant additional impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding development or the streetscape. It is therefore considered that the modification to the original development consent is reasonable and within public interest.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the responsible Consent Authority grant consent under Section 96AA of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/77/2008 by changing Condition 11 to alter verges, footpath and road reserve and Condition 49 to specify irrigation of landscape areas at 88-102 Moverly Road, South Coogee, in the following manner: 

 

1.        Amend Condition No. 11 to read as follows:

 

“11.    All internal roads within the proposed development site must be constructed to council’s specification and requirements. The minimum standards for carriageway, verge widths and road reserve widths shall be generally as documented in Drawing No. A0015 Revision B as amended by the following:

a.     For the proposed one way streets bordering the reserve/open space (i.e. Street Type E), a 2m wide verge on the Eastern boundary and a 1.25m wide verge (such 1.25m verge is to be measured from the outer face of the bollards defining the edge of the park, that is, the verge does not include the bollard) on all other boundaries shall be provided on the reserve/open space side of the carriageway. The total road reserve will therefore become 10 metres in width (in sections where the verge is 1.25m) and 10.75 metres in width (in sections where the verge is 2m) based on the following configuration:

 

2.3 metre wide parking lane on the left hand side with a minimum 3 metre wide travelling lane measured to the lip of the gutter. Thus a carriageway width of 5.75 metres will be attained, with a 1.2 metre wide footpath within the 3 metre wide road verges on the residential side only creating a 10 metre wide road reserve (in sections where the verge is 1.25m) and a 10.75 metre wide road reserve (in sections where the verge is 2m). Note: notwithstanding the above requirements the dimensions of any one way street must be such that adequate vehicle manoeuvring space is available for vehicles to enter/exit vehicular crossings and internal driveways.

All future development applications for this site and any Construction Certificate for Stage 1 works must demonstrate compliance with these minimum carriageway widths, verge widths and road reserve widths.

 

Notes:

 

a.       A detailed analysis of vehicle turning manoeuvres must be undertaken by the applicant for vehicles to enter/exit vehicular crossings and internal driveways within any one way street. The analysis must be submitted to council for approval, and be approved, prior to the issuing of any development consent for the Stage 2 application and prior to the issuing of a construction Certificate for any Stage 1 works.

 

b.       Council’s preference is for the proposed kerb and gutter within the development site to be Council’s standard integral kerb and gutter. Roll kerb will only be considered in areas where crossings are in very close proximity to one another.”

 

2.        Amend Condition No. 49 to read as follows:

 

“49.    Any future development application for the provision of civil infrastructure within the site must provide irrigation details for the proposed landscape areas within the reserve/ open space and landscaped entry and median. Such system shall provide full coverage to all the landscaped areas within the reserve/ open space and landscaped entry and median, excluding road verges with no overspray onto driveways and pathways. The system shall comply with all Sydney Water requirements, and relevant Australian Standards. Note: landscaped areas must contain a predominance of species that require minimal watering once established or species with water needs that match rainfall and drainage conditions.”

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP8/10

 

 

Subject:                  88-102 Moverly Road, South Coogee (Part B)

Folder No:                   DA/77/2008/B

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 (AA) Modification of approved development to alter staging of works, bonding of works, issuing a subdivision certificate and correct errors in conditions

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd

Owner:                         Mirvac Projects Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

This application is referred to Council because it comprises modifications to a development consent under Section 96(AA) being modifications to an original development application determined by the Land and Environment Court.

 

The Court approved development (DA No. 77/2008) involves a Staged 1 development pursuant to Section 83C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) comprising a Stage 1 concept plan of a residential development, bulk earthworks, provision of infrastructure, and subdivision into 10 super-lots in the Endeavour House site. The original development application was approved on 5 February 2009 subject to 89 conditions of consent.

 

The Section 96(AA) application will modify the approved development as follows:

 

1.     Amend Condition No. 2 to allow the approved development to be sub-divided into applicable numbers of individual Torrens-title allotments relevant to each release stage instead of the designated 10 super lots originally intended.

 

The applicant advises that the changes to Condition No. 2 is necessary to allow for clarity and to support the intention to subdivide the land into individual Torrens title lots within designated release stages (as reflected also in the proposed amendment to Conditions Nos. 12 and 88 below).

 

2.     Amend Condition No. 3 to correct the dates of documents/drawings referenced in this condition.

 

The applicant advises that the amendment allows for corrections to be made of a few minor discrepancies in the drawings referenced in Condition 3.

 

3.     Amend Condition No. 12 to allow for dedication of internal roads in stages as each designated stage of development is completed and built.

 

The applicant advises that the changes to Condition No. 12 are necessary as dedication of the roads can only be undertaken in stages as and when each of the designated stages for the proposed development is completed.

 

4.     Amend Condition No. 66 to provide for compliance certification of road works in stages commensurate with the completion of each designated stage of development. The changes also provide Council with an opportunity to impose a bond at each stage where access to the development is shared by with construction access.

 

The applicant advises that the amendment to Condition No 66 facilitates the certification and dedication of the roads in stages as and when each designated stage is completed. Additionally, Compliance Certificates will be issued at the completion of civil works, rather than occupation certificates which are issued for building works.

 

5.     Amend Condition No. 88 to allow for sub-division certification to be issued for each stage of the proposed development and to allow all associated requirements for that certification to be met in stages.

 

The applicant advises that the staging of the sub-division certification is necessary and consistent with the dedication of roads in stages as sought in the proposed modification to Condition No. 12 above and overall development of the site in stages as provided for in the development consent.

 

As outlined in the relevant assessment sections below, the proposed changes to the above-listed conditions are reasonable and acceptable as they, primarily, allow for the sub-division of the overall Endeavour House site development to be undertaken in stages. In particular, the proposed sub-division certification of the site in stages will not be inconsistent with the overall development concept approved in the Stage 1 DA granted by the Land and Environment Court. In any event, adjustment to the form and staging of sub-division in large development sites is  not unusual and not unreasonable being customary business considerations for developers having regard to property market conditions and housing trends.  

 

The Section 96AA application was not required to be advertised or notified to surrounding properties as the proposed modifications will be of minimal environmental impact as provided for under Clause 117 (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (See Section 5 below).

 

Accordingly, the proposed modification is considered to be substantially the same development as that previously approved and will not result in any significant additional impacts upon the amenity of surrounding properties or the visual character of the locality. 

 

The section 96 modifications to Conditions Nos. 2, 3, 12, 66 and 88 are recommended for approval.

 

2.      The Proposal

 

The subject application is made pursuant to Section 96(AA) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify the Development Consent as follows (new/amended/deleted text in bold italics) :

 

2.1    Amend Condition 2 to read as follows:

 

“2.    This consent does not authorise the carrying out of development on any part of the site other than Stage 1 which comprises:

 

a.     Demolition of existing structures on the site and removal of certain trees.

b.     Bulk earth and infrastructure works (including road construction).

c.     Installation of utility services and stormwater management.

d.     Torrens-title subdivision of the subject land” (delete: “into 10 super lots”)

 

The original condition No. 2 reads as follows:

 

“2.    This consent does not authorise the carrying out of development on any part of the site other than Stage 1 which comprises:

 

a.     Demolition of existing structures on the site and removal of certain trees.

b.     Bulk earth and infrastructure works (including road construction).

c.    Installation of utility services and stormwater management.

d.    Torrens-title subdivision of the subject land into 10 super lots”

 

Applicant’s justification: The applicant advises that, to be consistent with the proposed amendment to Conditions Nos. 12, 66 and 88 below, Condition No. 2 needs to be amended to accommodate the Torrens-title sub-division of the land into individual allotments associated with each designated stage of development rather the original 10 super lots. Accordingly, Mirvac will lodge a development application for the detailed land subdivision for each stage of development.

 

Council’s comment:  The modification to condition No. 2 serves to clarify and reinforce Mirvac’s intention to develop the Endeavour House site in a number of stages based on a Torrens Title subdivision of individual allotments rather the 10. The staging of the development, in this case, is a matter entirely for the applicant based on market projections and housing trends.

 

2.2    Amend relevant parts of Condition 3 to read as follows:

 

“3.    The concept plan proposal and Stage 1 of the development to which consent is given are described In the following plans and documents:

 

q.     Soil and Water Management Plan Stage 2 Project No.150080, Drawing No.CDA 9213 Revision B dated 7 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

r.     Soil and Water Management Plan Stage 3 Project No.150080, Drawing No.CDA 9214 Revision B dated 7 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

y.     Stormwater Detention Storage Typical Sections Project No. 150080, Drawing No. CDA 9223 Revision A dated 8 October 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

z.     Typical Details Project No.150080, Drawing No. CDA 9224 Revision A dated 7 October 2008 prepared by adw Johnson”

 

The original parts of condition No. 3 read as follows:

 

“3.      The concept plan proposal and Stage 1 of the development to which consent is given are described In the following plans and documents:

 

q.  Soil and Water Management Plan Stage 2 Project No.150080, Drawing No.CDA 9213 Revision B dated 7 October 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

r.   Soil and Water Management Plan Stage 3 Project No.150080, Drawing No.CDA 9214 Revision B dated 7 October 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

y.  Stormwater Detention Storage Typical Sections Project No. 150080, Drawing No. CDA 9223 Revision A dated 26 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

z.  Typical Details Project No.150080, Drawing No. CDA 9224 Revision A dated 26 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson”

 

Applicant’s justification: The applicant advises that, a review of the Consent has identified a few minor discrepancies in the dates of documents/drawings referenced in Condition 3.

 

Council’s comment:  The changes are required to address minor discrepancies in dates which are considered reasonable and acceptable.

 

2.3    Amend Condition 12 to read as follows:

 

12.   All internal roads within the development site shall be dedicated to Council in Stages, at no cost to Council, following construction of the roads in Stages to Council’s design standards and specification.

 

The original condition No. 12 reads as follows:

 

12.   All internal roads within the development site shall be dedicated to Council, at no cost to Council, following construction of the roads to Council’s design standards and specification.

 

Applicant’s justification: The applicant advises that the Mirvac will develop the civil infrastructure in stages consistent with the proposed staging of development for the Endeavour House site. Road works in each designated stage will be subject to construction certification and compliance certification.

 

Council’s comment:  the applicant’s request to stage the dedication of the internal roads is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

§ The dedication in stages will not be inconsistent with the approval granted by the Land and Environment Court.

 

§ The staged dedication of the road is consistent with Mirvac’s intention to develop the Endeavour House site in stages as a Torrens Title subdivision as identified in the Stage 1 development consent issued by the Land and Environment Court.

 

§ The dedication of the roads in stages can reasonably be undertaken as and when each of the designated stages for the proposed development is completed.

 

§ The completion of the works for each stage, including roadworks will be subject to construction and compliance certification to ensure that roads are appropriately constructed to Council’s standards prior to dedication.

 

§ The amended condition will maintain the requirement for any roads to be dedicated to Council to be constructed to Council’s design and specification.

 

 2.4   Amend Condition 66 to read as follows:

 

“66.  A Road/Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road/Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are bonded or completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final compliance certificate for civil works for the final stage of the development.

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Road/Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.”

 

The original condition No. 66 reads as follows:

 

“66. A Road/Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road/Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate for the development.

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Road/Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.”

 

Applicant’s justification: The applicant advises that, as with the proposed modification to Condition No 12, the proposed modification to Condition No. 66 will provide for clarity in support of Mirvac’s intention to dedicate the roads to Council in stages upon completion of each stage. Furthermore, Mirvac will have a temporary construction access adjoining Moverly Road which will remain in place until the final stage of the development.  The access to the development will form part of the first stage of civil works however this will be shared with construction access. It is intended to dedicate the roads at each stage and bond completion of the road where the construction access will remain until completion of the development. Additionally, Compliance Certificates will be issued at the completion of civil works, rather than occupation certificates which are issued for building works.

 

Council’s comment:  the applicant’s request to stage the dedication of the internal roads is considered reasonable and acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·          The modification to Condition No. 66 is necessary to facilitate the dedication of roads in stages as sought in the proposed modification to Condition No. 12 above.

 

·          The dedication in stages will not be inconsistent with the approval granted by the Land and Environment Court.

 

·          The bond completion of the road at each stage is acceptable as it provides a security for Council to hold until such time as all road works are completed to Council’s standard and satisfaction.

 

·          The completion of the works for each stage, including roadworks, will be subject to construction and compliance certification.

 

·          The amended condition will maintain the requirement for any roads to be dedicated to Council to be constructed to Council’s design and specification

 

2.5      Amend Condition 88 to read as follows:

 

“88.    Prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate for each stage in respect of the Torrens Title subdivision of the subject land:

 

·          it must be demonstrated to Council that the conditions of this development consent that are applicable to the subdivision of each stage (ie, provision of infrastructure and services for the stage) for Stage 1 have been satisfied and their compliance verified by the Principal Certifying Authority;

 

·          it must be demonstrated to Council that suitable rights of carriageway, easements for services, support and storm water lines, as required  for each stage will be created upon registration of the plan of subdivision for that stage; and

 

 

·          details of critical stage inspections for that stage carried out by the Principal Certifying Authority, together with any other certification relied upon  for that stage must be provided to Council.”

The original condition No. 88 reads as follows:

 

“88.  Prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate in respect of the Torrens Title subdivision of the subject land into 10 super lots under the Stage 1 development consent:

 

·          it must be demonstrated to Council that the conditions of this development consent for Stage 1 have been satisfied and their compliance verified by the Principal Certifying Authority;

 

·          it must be demonstrated to Council that suitable rights of carriageway, easements for services, support and storm water lines, as required will be created upon registration of the plan of subdivision and

 

·          details of critical stage inspections carried out by the Principal Certifying Authority, together with any other certification relied upon  must be provided to Council.”

 

Applicant’s justification: The applicant advises that, it is the intention of Mirvac to develop Endeavour in Stages as a Torrens Title subdivision as identified in the Stage 1 development Consent. Therefore, there is no need to create 10 superlots up front for the development. Mirvac will develop the civil infrastructure in stages and progressively dedicate the infrastructure on completion of each stage as the development progresses.

 

Council’s comment:  the applicant’s request for sub-division certification to be issued for each stage of the proposed development as identified in the original consent is considered acceptable and reasonable for the following reasons:

 

·          The staging of the sub-division certification is necessary and consistent with the dedication of roads in stages as sought in the proposed modification to Condition No. 12 above and overall development of the site in stages as provided for in the development consent.

 

·          The sub-division certification of the site in stages will not be inconsistent with the approval granted by the Land and Environment Court.

 

·          The completion of the works for each stage, including roadworks, will still be subject to construction and compliance certification.

 

3.      The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The Endeavour House site is located on the western side of Moverly Road immediately to the rear of the existing residential properties fronting Moverly Road from Latham Park to Jacaranda Place. Apart from these residential properties on the western side of Moverly Road, the site is bounded almost entirely on all sides by low density residential properties (predominantly dwelling houses) within the adjoining Moverly Green complex. 

 

The Endeavour House site has an area of approximately 6.74 ha and, prior to demolition, contained 4 large buildings formerly used for housing of Defence personnel. Apart from the 4 large buildings, the site also contains several small buildings, walkways, car parks and other minor structures.

 

Vehicular access to the Endeavour House site is available via a single entry road from Moverly Road. All future residential allotments within the Endeavour House site will be served by a hierarchy of internal roads comprising Primary Access Street and Local Access Streets.

 

Pedestrian access into the Endeavour House site will be available via four public pathways (i.e. entry road reserve, an existing footpath in the north-western section of the site linking into Tallow Place and two recent approved pathways through No. 132 Moverly Road to the east and No. 11 Grevillea Place to the west). Internal pedestrian access to residential allotments will be available via 1.2m wide pedestrian pathways within all road reserves of the Primary Access Street and Local Access Street.

 

A central open space will be provided in the centre of the whole site containing plantings and passive recreation area including a playground area and barbeque facility for use by the local community.

 

4.      Site History

 

A Development Application (DA/439/2008) for demolition of the existing buildings on site was approved under delegated authority on 29 July 2008.

 

On 5 February 2009, the Land and Environment Court approved DA No. 77/2008 for a Staged 1 development pursuant to Section 83C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) comprising a Stage 1 concept plan of a residential development, bulk earthworks, provision of infrastructure, and subdivision into 10 super-lots in the Endeavour House site.

 

A Stage 2A development application (DA/577/2009) for construction of 18 x two storey dwellings with garaging and public domain works within Stage 2A of Endeavour House site and Street Tree Master Plan for whole of Endeavour House site was approved on 24 November 2009.

 

A Stage 2B development application (DA/578/2009) for construction of 11 x two storey detached dwellings 6 x two storey townhouses with garaging and Public Domain works within stage 2B of Endeavour House site and construction and dedication of Central Park within larger site was approved on 24 November 2009.

 

Two Development Applications (DA/554/2009 and DA/555/2009) for the public pedestrian access ways from the internal roads of the development to the east and west of the site were approved under delegated authority in November 2009. These two public pedestrian access ways satisfied the condition of the court approval for Stage 1 application. 

 

Development Applications (DA/577/2009) for the Stage 2A development comprising the construction of 18x two storey detached dwelling houses, detailed landscape design of the central park and associated landscaping works and Stage 2B development comprising .

 

5.      Community Consultation

 

Section 96AA (1) of the EP&A Act states that “A consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the Court and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the development consent, if (among other things): (b) it has notified the application in accordance with: (i) the regulation, if the regulations so require”.

 

The relevant regulation governing public consultation for Section 96AA applications is Clause 117 – Public participation – applications for modification of development consents involving minimal environmental impact. Clause 117 Sub-clause (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000 states as follows:

 

“This clause applies to an application under section 96(1A) of the Act or under section 96AA of the Act in respect of modification which, in the opinion of the consent authority, is of minimal environmental impact.”

 

Under Council’s DCP - Public Notification, Section 96 (1A) applications (modifications with minimal environmental impacts) do not require to be advertised and notified. Accordingly, by that very fact, and having regard to the wording of Clause 117 (1), Section 96 (AA) applications involving modifications of minimal environmental impacts do not require advertising and notification. As discussed in relevant sections of this report, the proposed modifications sought under the subject Section 96(AA) application will have minimal environmental impacts as the proposed changes to Conditions Nos. 2, 3, 12, 66 and 88 relate primarily to the manner in which sub-division of the subject land should occur, that is, Torrens-title subdivision of individual allotments in stages as and when each designated stage of development is completed.

 

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 Comments

No referral/comment in relation to health and building issues is required for this application.

 

6.2    Development Engineering Comment

The subject Section 96 Application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineer advises that no objections are raised to the staged subdivision certification of the development.

 

7.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

 

7.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998

The proposed modifications will not change the approved floor space, heights and landscaped area provision of the original development. Therefore, the proposal is considered satisfactory having regard to the provisions of the LEP.

 

The subject site is zoned Special Uses 5 under Clause 17 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998.  The proposal is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent. The proposed modifications will not be inconsistent with the specific objectives of the zoning listed in Clause 17 nor the general aims of the Randwick LEP listed under Clause 2.

 

7.2      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation)

The proposal is consistent with the aims and objectives of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

8.      Policy Controls

 

The proposed modifications will have no impact in terms of the original DA's compliance with relevant policy controls as the proposed changes relate specifically to form and staging of sub-division and road dedication for the development site as well as minor corrections to plan dates.

9.      Section 96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of Section 96(2), a consent authority may modify a development consent if it is satisfied that the development to which the development as modified is substantially the same development as the development for which the consent was originally granted; and has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modifications.

 

9.1      Substantially the same

The proposed modification involves Torrens-title sub-division of allotments in stages and associated roadwork dedication as well as correction to plan dates These modifications are considered minor and of minimal environmental impact such that the original development, as proposed to be modified, will be substantially the same development as that for which consent was originally granted. Specifically, the proposed modifications sought in this Section 96 AA application will not be inconsistent with the Court approved Stage 1 development application.

 

9.2      Consideration of submissions

As indicated in Section 5 above, the application, being a Section 96 AA application with minimal environmental impacts is not required to be advertised and notified pursuant to Clause 117 (Public participation – applications for modification of development consents involving minimal environmental impact), Sub-clause (1),  of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations 2000.

 

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  Urban Design

While there will be changes in the boundaries of each stage proposed for the development site,  the will be no direct impact on the overall design and planning of the building envelopes/footprint, infrastructure, services, open space and landscaping approved under the Stage 1 development consent. The proposed staging of sub-division and road dedication will not be inconsistent with these approved Stage 1 design and planning concepts. 

 

10.2  Sunlight, Privacy and Views

The proposed modifications primarily relate to the type and staging of sub-division for the development site and do not involve any changes to the building footprint and envelopes of dwellings approved in the original development application. As such, the modified proposal will not give rise to any amenity impacts on adjoining and surrounding developments (in terms of solar access, privacy, views and bulk and scale) nor to the internal amenity of future dwellings within eth development site.

 

10.3       Site Suitability

The site remains suitable for the original approved development and will not be detrimentally affected by the proposed s96 modifications. The suitability of the site for approved development has been extensively addressed and assessed in the original determination of the DA.

 

11.    Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 5a:      Improved design and sustainability across all development.

Outcome 11:      A healthy/sustainable environment.

Direction 11a:    Council is a leader in fostering sustainable practices.

 

12.    Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the original development consent satisfies Section 96(AA) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, in that it will constitute substantially the same development, and approval of the modification will not result in any significant additional impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding development or the streetscape. It is therefore considered that the modification to the original development consent is reasonable and within public interest.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the responsible Consent Authority grant consent under Section 96(AA) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to modify Development Consent No DA/77/2008 to alter staging of works, bonding of works, issuing a subdivision certificate and correct errors in conditions at 88-102 Moverly Road, South Coogee, in the following manner: 

 

1.     Amend Condition No. 2 to read as follows:

 

“2.  This consent does not authorise the carrying out of development on any part of the site other than Stage 1 which comprises:

 

a.   Demolition of existing structures on the site and removal of certain trees.

b.   Bulk earth and infrastructure works (including road construction).

c.   Installation of utility services and stormwater management.

d.   Torrens-title subdivision of the subject land”

 

2.     Amend Condition No. 3 to read as follows:

 

“3.   The concept plan proposal and Stage 1 of the development to which consent is given are described In the following plans and documents:

 

a.  Master Plan Overview Job No. 1440 Drawing No. A0001 dated February 2008 Revision A dated 9 November 2007 prepared by Mirvac Design

b.  Envelope Zone Controls Job No. 1440 Drawing No. A0002 dated February 2008 Revision B dated 12 September 2008 prepared by Mirvac Design

c.  Envelope Zone Controls Job No. 1440 Drawing No. A0003 dated February 2008 Revision C dated 3 October 2008 prepared by Mirvac Design

d.  Architectural Consistency Job No. 1440 Drawing No. A0004 dated February 2008 Revision A dated 9 November 2007 prepared by Mirvac Design

e. Setbacks and Landscaping Job No. 1440 Drawing No. A0005 dated February 2008 Revision C dated 3 October 2008 prepared by Mirvac Design

f.   Indicative Staging Plan Job No. 1440 Drawing No. A0009 dated February 2008 Revision B dated 8 September 2008 prepared by Mirvac Design

g.  Plan of Proposed Subdivision Drawing No. 76014.02.P01 dated 17 October 2007 prepared by Lean and Hayward Pty Ltd

h.  Subdivision Concept Plans - Cover Sheet, Locality Plan, Site Plan and Sheet Schedule Project No.150080, Drawing No. CDA 9205 Revision B dated 7 October 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

i.   Typical Road Sections Job No. 1440 Drawing No. A0015 dated September 2008 Revision B dated 3 October 2008 prepared by Mirvac Design

j.   Road Chainage Plan Project NO.150080, Drawing No. CDA 9206 Revision A dated 26 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

k. Road Longitudinal Section Road No.1 Project No.150080, Drawing No. CDA 9207 Revision A dated 26 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

I.   Road Longitudinal Section Road No.2 Project No.150080, Drawing No. CDA 9208 Revision A dated 26 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

m.  Longitudinal section Road No.3, 4, 5 and 6 Project No: 150080, Drawing No. CDA 9209 Revision A dated 26 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

n. Typical Cross Sections Project No.150080, Drawing No. CDA 9210 Revision B dated 7 October 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

o. Stage 1 Demolition and Site Regrading Plan Project No.150080, drawing No. CDA 9211 Revision A dated 26 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

p. Drainage Concept Plan Project No.150080, Drawing No. CDA 9212 Revision B, dated 7 October 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

q.  Soil and Water Management Plan Stage 2 Project No.150080, Drawing No.CDA 9213 Revision B dated 7 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

r.   Soil and Water Management Plan Stage 3 Project No.150080, Drawing No.CDA 9214 Revision B dated 7 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

s. Soil and Water Management Plan Stage 4 project No.150080, Drawing No.CDA 9215 Revision A dated 26 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

t.   Soil and Water Management Plan Stage 5 Project No.150080, Drawing No.CDA 9216 Revision A dated 26 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

u. Sewer and Water Concept Plan Project No.150080, Drawing No. CDA 9217 Revision A dated 26 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

v. Electricity Services Plan Project No.150080, Drawing No. CDA 9218 Revision B dated 7 October 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

w. Site Section Plan Project No.150080, Drawing No. CDA 9219 Revision A dated 26 August 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

x. Stormwater Long Sections Line 1 and Line 10 Project No.150080, Drawing No.CDA 9222 Revision A dated 7 October 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

y.  Stormwater Detention Storage Typical Sections Project No. 150080, Drawing No. CDA 9223 Revision A dated  8 October 2008 prepared by adw Johnson

z.  Typical Details Project No.150080, Drawing No. CDA 9224 Revision A dated 7 October 2008 prepared by adw Johnson”

 

3.     Amend Condition No. 12 to read as follows:

 

12.     All internal roads within the development site shall be dedicated to Council in Stages, at no cost to Council, following construction of the roads in Stages to Council’s design standards and specification.

 

4.     Amend Condition No. 66 to read as follows:

 

“66.  A Road/Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road/Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are bonded or completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final compliance certificate for civil works for the final stage of the development.

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Road/Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.”

 

5.     Amend Condition No. 88 to read as follows:

 

“88.    Prior to the issue of a subdivision certificate for each stage in respect of the Torrens Title subdivision of the subject land :

·          it must be demonstrated to Council that the conditions of this development consent that are applicable to the subdivision of each stage (ie, provision of infrastructure and services for the stage ) for Stage 1 have been satisfied and their compliance verified by the Principal Certifying Authority;

·          it must be demonstrated to Council that suitable rights of carriageway, easements for services, support and storm water lines, as required  for each stage will be created upon registration of the plan of subdivision for that stage; and

·          details of critical stage inspections for that stage carried out by the Principal Certifying Authority, together with any other certification relied upon  for that stage must be provided to Council.”

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP9/10

 

 

Subject:                  Liquor Act 2007 - Application for a Primary Service Authorisation for licensed premises situated at 3R Marine Parade, Maroubra known as the "Pavilion Beachfront Cafe".

Folder No:                   F2004/07767

Author:                   Allan Graham, Compliance Officer     

 

Introduction

 

On the 17 July 2008, See To Shore Pty Limited (the operator of the Pavilion Café at Maroubra) wrote to Council notifying of its intention to apply to the Casino Liquor and Gaming Control Authority (the Authority) for a Primary Service Authorisation (PSA) under the Liquor Act 2007. This will allow the café to serve alcohol without the provision of meal.

 

Council wrote to café operator, on the 29 July 2008, advising that Council officers would not support the application. The reasons contained within this correspondence for opposing the application were predicated on the basis that the provision of alcohol absent of a meal may be contrary to the Lease for the use of the premises. This interpretation of the terms of the Lease was subsequently found to be incorrect.

 

On 26 November 2009, the café operator formally advised Council that she wishes to progress the application for the grant of a PSA at the premises.

 

This report has been prepared to recommend to Council that no objection be made to the applications subject to sufficient conditions being imposed to control the manner in which the PSA is exercised, including a trial period.

 

Executive Summary

 

The approved use of Pavilion Beachfront Café is that of a Café/Kiosk and operates with the benefit of an existing On-premises licence pursuant to the Liquor Act 2007. The premises are also subject to a Lease between The Arthur Byrne Reserve Trust, managed by Randwick City Council, and See to Shore Pty Limited for the use of part of the Reserve as a Café/Kiosk.

 

It is Council officers’ view that there are no restrictions, by way of Plan of Management, policy constraints, existing Development Consent, Lease arrangements or issues regarding the conduct history of the premises that prevents the Pavilion Beachfront Cafe operating with the benefit of a PSA.

 

Importantly, a PSA would not allow the café to become something else. While the café with a PSA can provide alcohol to its patrons without a meal, the primary purpose cannot at anytime be the sale and supply of alcohol.

 

Furthermore, a restaurant or cafe with a PSA must, on a monthly basis, record the total liquor sales during that month and the total sales of the other products such a food and non-alcoholic beverages. These records must be produced to the Office of Liquor Gaming and Racing and Police on request.

 

It is recommended that no objection be raised to the grant of the Application subject to suitable conditions being imposed to ensure that the grant of the PSA does not detrimentally impact the locality.

 

Discussion

 

The Liquor Act 2007, provides that any person (including the Local Consent Authority) may make a submission to the Authority. The Authority may, after considering an application for a licence and any submissions received in relation to the application, grant the licence or refuse to grant the licence.

 

When Council receives a notification of a liquor licence application, an assessment is undertaken and a submission is prepared for the Authority’s consideration taking the following into account:

 

1. Whether or not the requisite Development Consent is in force for the use of the premises.

2. Whether or not there are any relevant restrictions by way of Development Consent condition(s).

3. The location of the proposed licensed premises to residential or other sensitive premises, such as schools and churches.

4. The conduct history of the premises.

5. Any measures in place, or proposed to be put in place, in respect to harm minimisation and the responsible service of alcohol.

6. The prevalence of alcohol related issues in the vicinity of the premises and the likely impact that the grant of the application may have in this regard.

7. The views of Eastern Beaches Local Area Command Licensing Police in respect to the application.

 

Issues

 

1.            The Application

 

The Application is for the grant of a PSA for the Pavilion Beachfront Café.

 

The cafe occupies approximately 180 square metres of floor space of the north eastern area of the Maroubra Beach Pavilion Building.

 

2.      Liquor Licensing Arrangements

 

The Pavilion Beachfront Cafe has the benefit of an On-Licence (Restaurant) Licence, granted in 2001. This is now an On-Premises (Restaurant) licence pursuant to the Liquor Act 2007.

 

3.      Primary Service Authorisation (PSA) - s. 24 (3) of the Liquor Act 2007

 

The Liquor Act 2007 makes provision for an existing or proposed On-premises licensed venue (such as a restaurant or café) to make application under s. 24 (3) of the Liquor Act 2007, for a Primary Service Authorisation. This would allow for the sale of liquor in the licensed restaurant or cafe without a meal.

 

On the 15 October 2008, Council received Advice from Marsdens Law Group in respect to the operation of a PSA at an approved licensed restaurant or café as to whether or not such premises having the benefit of a PSA require further Development Consent pursuant to the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, for that purpose.

 

Marsdens’ Advice concluded that "If an existing [development] consent authorises a premises to be used as a restaurant or café, a proposal to allow liquor to be sold without a meal on that premises would not require further development consent to be obtained if the existing development remains characterised as a restaurant or café in town planning terms…"

 

4.      Approved use of the premises

 

The current approved use of the premises is for the purpose of a kiosk/café and was granted on the 25 October 1983 (DA/104/1983).

 

A further Development Consent was granted on the 27 August 2002 to “enclose the existing open dining area of the pavilion café.” (DA/433/2002)

 

Condition No. 1 of Development Consent No. DA/433/2002, stipulates that “the hours of operation for the Pavilion kiosk/café are restricted form 7.00am to midnight Monday to Sunday.” And, relevantly, condition No. 14, states that the “Licensee (See to Shore Pty Ltd trading as Maroubra Beach Pavilion Café) shall during the term of the agreement with Council, abide with any current or future Council Policy, Resolution or directive relative to the consumption of alcohol in public spaces.” This consent (Development Consent No DA/433/2002) was subsequently modified on the 10 July 2006, to permit the construction of a “new concrete floor to the seating area and new suspended false ceiling at the Pavilion Café at Maroubra.

 

The abovementioned modified consent imposed an additional condition (condition No. 26) which states that “Amplified music, entertainment, or any other ancillary activity is not permitted within the footway dining area [which is the enclosed dining area of the premises], except with prior development consent.”

 

5.      Lease arrangements

 

The current Lease for the cafe permits that the Lessee may “only serve alcohol in accordance with an On-Licence (Restaurant) pursuant to the Liquor Act 1982”.

 

Council officers’ initial concerns with respect to the application were on the basis that that clause 15.2(d) of the Lease refers specifically to the service of alcohol by way of an On-Licence (Restaurant) pursuant to the Liquor Act 1982. When it commenced, on the 1 July 2008, the Liquor Act 2007 repealed the Liquor Act 1982 and is now the relevant Act of Parliament which regulates the sale and supply or liquor in NSW.

 

As a result, the relevant clause of the Lease referring to the Liquor Act 1982 would now be read to mean the Liquor Act 2007 by virtue of clause 1.1.4 of the Operative Part of the Lease which states: “References to statutes regulations ordinances or by-laws shall be deemed to extend to all statutes regulations ordinances or by-laws amending consolidating or replacing the same.      

 

A PSA operates as an "endorsement" upon an On-premises licence. Whilst an On-premises licence endorsed with a PSA may affect the manner in which such licence is exercised, it does not change the licence type. As such, the current On-premises licence for the premises endorsed with a PSA would not be contrary to the terms of the Lease.

 

6.      Maroubra Beach Plan of Management Overview (September 1996)

 

The Maroubra Beach Plan of Management is silent on issues relating to alcohol consumption in the Reserve, including premises situated in the Reserve. In the absence of any to the contrary, the “Plan of Management” does not restrict the operation of a licensed restaurant within the Reserve.

7.      Food and Beverage Outlets on Crown Reserves (Department of Lands)

 

The Department of Lands has published, in December 2004, a “Policy Position” titled "Food and Beverage Outlets on Crown Reserves"(the Policy). The objects of the Policy are to identify types of food and beverage outlets that are acceptable on Crown reserves. The following parts of the Policy are relevant.

 

 ”Food and Beverage Outlets that may be acceptable on Crown Reserves

 

iii      A bistro brasserie or restaurant that serves light to substantial meals with beverage to be consumed on the premises, is an acceptable use on public purpose reserves, where it is ancillary and supportive of the use of the reserve.”

 

Food and Beverage Outlets that may not be acceptable on Crown Reserves

 

v      Licensed premises other than those with “on licence (restaurant)" cannot be regarded as ancillary to the public purpose reserve.

 

The proposal to have the existing licensed premises endorsed with a PSA is not inconsistent with the Department of Lands “Policy Position”.

 

8.      Conduct History of the Premises

 

A search of Council records has disclosed that there is no history of complaints, alcohol related or otherwise, with respect to the operation of the premises. Eastern Beaches Licensing Police have advised that the premises have not been associated with alcohol consumption of any persons involved in any incident.

 

9.      Police Position

 

Eastern Beaches Licensing Police have advised they do not support the Application (in its current form). The primary concern of Police is that the premises may, operating with the benefit of a PSA, evolve where the sale and supply of alcohol becomes a dominant feature at the premises which may potentially impact on alcohol related anti-social behaviour and the quiet and good order of the neighbourhood.

 

In subsequent discussions between Eastern Beaches Licensing Police, Council officers advised that the operator may be amenable to conditions being imposed on the licence which limit the duration, in any trading day, the PSA is exercised.

 

In this regard, Police advised that they may reconsider their current position should the operator of the café agree to the imposition of sufficient conditions on the liquor licence which limit the duration that the PSA would be exercised and that the PSA be subject to a trial period.

 

10.    Liquor Accord Membership

 

The Licensee of the Pavilion Beachfront Cafe is one of only three (3) licensed restaurant operators who are members of the Accord and has recently been elected to the Accord’s Executive. This demonstrates a commitment on the part of the Licensee to work with the Accord and “regulators” to address issues relating to the misuse and abuse of alcohol in the community.

 

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 pro-active policies, programmes and strategies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

There is nothing by way of further Development Consent required or any privative conditions imposed by the existing consents, the Lease, any policy position or conduct history which would disentitle the premises from operating with their current On-premises licence endorsed with a PSA.

 

Suitable conditions could be framed that stipulate the duration, in any trading day, that the PSA can be exercised; the provision of alcohol only to take place by way of table service and that the PSA be granted for a trial period. This would provide the opportunity for Council (and Police) to assess whether or not the premises operating with the benefit of the PSA can do so in a manner which does not adversely impact the locality.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council raise no objection to the grant of the application to the Casino Liquor and Gaming Control Authority by Shirley Dawn Struk for the grant of a Primary Service Authorisation pursuant to s. 24(3) of the Liquor Act 2007, for the existing licensed premises situated at 3R Marine Parade, Maroubra and known as the Pavilion Beachfront Café subject to suitable conditions being imposed, to the satisfaction of the Director of City Planning, which:

 

a)     limit the duration in any trading day whereby the Primary Service Authorisation can be exercised to between midday and 5.00pm, and

 

b)     provide that alcohol must only be sold or supplied by way of table service, and

 

c)     that the grant of the Primary Service Authorisation is subject to a six (6) month trial period.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP10/10

 

 

Subject:                  Reporting variations to Development Standards under State Environment Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP1) from 1 November to 30 November 2009

Folder No:                   F2008/00122

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in November 2008 advising Councils to adopt additional procedures in relation to the administration of SEPP No.1. The additional measures are largely in response to the ICAC inquiry into Wollongong City Council. Those additional measures are:

 

1)     Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP 1;

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP 1 to be determined by full council (rather than the general manager or nominated staff member);

3)     Providing a report to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP 1;

4)     Making the register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP 1 available to the public on council’s website.   

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all SEPP 1s approved in the period from 1 November to 30 November 2009  five (5) SEPP 1s were approved during this period and all were determined at either Planning Committee or Ordinary Council meetings.  

 

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.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP 1 objections. This report is in response to one of those requirements whereby a report is provided to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP 1. 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP11/10

 

 

Subject:                  Industrial Lands Discussion Paper

Folder No:                   F2007/00575

Author:                   Ross Anthony, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Executive Summary

 

This report seeks Council’s endorsement, for the purposes of public consultation, of the Industrial Lands Discussion Paper, one of six land use discussion papers being prepared as part of Council’s Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan (LEP) and Development Control Plan (DCP) process.

 

At the Planning Committee Meeting on 8 July 2008, Council resolved to formally commence preparation of a (draft) Comprehensive LEP for the Randwick local government area, consistent with the NSW Government’s Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. This includes standard zones, clauses and definitions across all NSW councils.

 

The land use discussion papers will guide the drafting of the Comprehensive LEP and DCP and are being prepared for Industrial Lands; Town and Neighbourhood Centres; Special Uses; Open Space and Environment; Residential; and the Randwick Specialised Centre (University/ Hospital Precinct).

 

Each discussion paper reviews the current planning controls, future needs and trends, the directions from the State Government’s Metropolitan Strategy and takes into consideration any relevant local strategic plans and studies, such as the Randwick City Plan, Economic Activity Study and the Recreation Needs Study. Other issues, such as heritage, are incorporated into each paper.

 

For Randwick’s industrial lands and Port Botany, this Paper recommends that a new detailed development control plan is prepared for industrial development and that the new planning controls are similar to those that currently exist. 

 

Comprehensive Local Environmental Plan and Development Control Plan 

The development of the Comprehensive LEP/DCP is a legislative requirement under the Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006. The Department of Planning has indicated Randwick Council should aim to have a comprehensive LEP/DCP for the Randwick local government area in 2011.

 

The Comprehensive LEP will be an entirely new stand alone plan which will repeal all existing and draft Randwick LEPs. The Comprehensive DCP will consolidate and stream line existing DCPs into a single plan. These plans are guided by the key directives of the Metropolitan Strategy (incorporating the draft East Subregional Strategy) and Council’s own strategic 20 year City Plan and key strategic studies. The Plans will, amongst other things:

 

-       plan for a housing target of 8,400 additional new dwellings by 2031 (as identified by the draft East Region Subregional Strategy), focused in and around existing town centres and accessible locations.

-       promote housing choice to accommodate a diverse population, including affordable and accessible housing.

-       plan for an employment target of 5,900 additional new jobs by 2031 (as identified by the draft East Region Subregional Strategy), focused in and around Port Botany, the University and Randwick Hospitals complex.

-       strengthen the role and hierarchy of our town centres, villages and neighbourhood centres.

-       protect the City’s special environment, open space and cultural assets.

-       promote sustainable development and incorporate actions for climate change and natural hazards.

-       review and update heritage controls to assist in preserving the local character of our suburbs.

-       provide guidance for achieving good urban design.

 

This Report was previously deferred by Council in 2009 pending the gazettal of the new Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) which occurred on 15 Jan 2010, and clarification of our industrial controls.

 

Industrial Lands Discussion Paper

Context

Randwick City’s industrial area includes 71 ha of land zoned for industrial purposes and an additional 169 ha of land at Port Botany. Together this comprises 6.4% of the LGA. The Port Botany land is entirely owned by Sydney Ports Corporation and comprises large lots accommodating logistics, freight, container storage and other port related uses.

 

The land zoned Industrial 4A acts as a buffer between the Port and surrounding residential areas and contains a diverse range of lot sizes. It comprises 170 local, regional and international scale industrial operations, of which car repairs, warehousing and logistics are the most common industries. There is also significant pressure for non conforming land uses, such as bulky goods retailing, which would change the nature and purpose of the industrial area.

 

The Metropolitan Strategy designates the area (including the industrial land in adjacent City of Botany Bay) as a ‘specialised centre’. Approximately 4800 people are employed in the Randwick City portion, mostly in port related and manufacturing industries, and this is set to increase by approximately 1700 people by 2031 (draft East Region Subregional Strategy).

 

Relatively few planning controls exist for the two zones. Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) contains zone objectives; a floor space ratio; and restricts certain uses in the buffer zone adjacent to the residential areas and at Port Botany. There is no DCP for industrial uses, though car parking rates and some landscaping requirements are listed in the Parking DCP and signs are covered by the Outdoor Signage DCP.

 

In July 2009, all of Port Botany and most of the remaining industrial area was declared a ‘state significant site’ and State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 replaced Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) as the relevant planning instrument, introducing new zones and controls for the area.

 

The following list summarises the key industrial land planning considerations. They are fully addressed in the Discussion Paper:

 

·      Metropolitan Strategy (incorporating the draft East Subregional Strategy) – Port Botany and the surrounding industrial lands are a ‘specialised centre’ and are a key component of Sydney’s economic ‘Global Arc’. Its importance is to be reflected in local planning controls.

 

·      State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) Major Development 2005 – This SEPP has replaced RLEP as the relevant planning instrument for Port Botany and much of the adjoining industrial land. Sydney Ports Corporation and Dept. of Planning have a greater role in assessing developments, though Council still has a role in assessing local development. The SEPP introduces consistent zones and planning controls for both the Randwick and Botany Bay Council areas. Council has written to the Department of Planning, seeking to reinstate controls in the SEPP such as ‘buffer areas’ adjacent to residential areas, which were removed in the SEPP.

 

·      The Randwick City Plan – Council is committed to protecting this small but significant industrial area from non conforming uses (ie bulky goods retailing) by supporting a diverse range of industries and employment opportunities where the traffic and environmental impacts are minimized.

 

·      Randwick Economic Activity Study – The Study made a number of recommendations relating to zonings, controls, residential buffer areas; and restrictions on bulky goods and retail activity.

 

·      Environment – Potential acid sulphate soils and ground water/land contamination (related to the long history of industrial uses) affect the area and a small cluster of endangered Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub surrounds the Bunnerong Electricity Substation.

 

·      Sustainability – Council’s 2003 Rainwater Tank Policy is the only existing formal sustainability control. There is significant scope to improve this in the new LEP/ DCP.

 

·      Safety - The Department of Planning’s Port Botany Use Safety Study (1996) and Botany/Randwick Land Use Safety Study (2001) restricts any increase of the cumulative risk of hazardous industry in the industrial area (subject to a risk assessment) and prohibits any intensification of the surrounding residential or commercial uses.

 

·      Residential interface – Conflicts potentially arise where residential properties adjoin industrial properties. These will be managed through appropriate urban design considerations and restrictions on the intensity of industrial uses and impacts such as noise and hours of operation. Also by restricting higher density residential uses in those adjoining areas.

 

·      Heritage – The only industrial lands heritage item in RLEP 1998 - the former AMCOR Paper Mill building on McCauley St - has recently been largely demolished, leaving small ‘interpretive’ section. It has not been included as a heritage item in SEPP Major Development and should be deleted from the heritage register.

 

·      AMCOR site – Approximately half of the AMCOR site may become available for new industrial uses and will potentially provide the majority of the new floor space required to support the expect growth in jobs. An application for a new factory complex was recently approved by the Department of Planning who are also currently considering an application for subdivision.

 

Industrial Land Directions – Drafting the LEP/DCP

The Industrial Lands Discussion Paper recommends the following draft LEP directions:

 

·      Maintain all existing industrial land for industrial uses

·      Convert the existing 4A and 4B zoned area into three similar zones consistent with the Standard LEP Instrument:

IN1 – General Industry

IN2 – Light Industry

SP1 – Special Activities (Port Industry)

·      Maintain the current 1:1 floor space ratio

·      Maintain and protect the Perry Street precinct for local and light industry

·      Encourage clean, sustainable and well designed industry

The new comprehensive LEP maps will indicate the area where SEPP (Major Development) 2005 overrides the provisions of the LEP.

 

Consultation

The progress of the draft Comprehensive LEP and DCP will be reported to Council on a regular basis. Consultation has begun with the community through Council’s website, information sheets and throughout the preparation of the land use discussion papers.

 

More specifically related to the Industrial Lands Discussion Paper, consultants SGS Economics and Planning, when preparing the Economic Activity Study (2008), held two public consultation sessions with business, industry, chamber of commerce and precinct representatives across the City and conducted an industry needs survey with the land and business owners in the Matraville industrial area.

 

The draft Industrial Lands Discussion Paper will be exhibited for a period of 2 months for community and land owner feedback. This paper and any feedback will then provide the basis for preparing the new Comprehensive LEP and DCP, which, once drafted will be reported back to Council before public exhibition and further feedback.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable city.

Direction 6d:      A strategic land use framework provides for our lifestyle changes and for a continuing, yet low rate of growth across the City.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Preparation of the discussion paper was undertaken in house, with the key supporting study, the Economic Activity Study (2008), being prepared by consultants and costing $70000 (2007-08 budget).

 

Conclusion

 

As Port Botany and the surrounding industrial area is designated as an economic and employment ‘specialised centre’, significant direction is provided to Council by the State Government, through the Metropolitan Strategy and associated draft East Subregional Strategy. This is to retain and reinforce the current port and industrial uses.

 

This Discussion Paper reflects this direction, but also Council’s own strategic planning objectives, as adopted in The Randwick City Plan, and provides a broad background analysis of the current and likely future needs of industrial development in Randwick City. This provides a solid foundation to begin drafting the new comprehensive LEP and DCP to ensure future industrial development is high quality and sustainable; contributes to the vitality of the local economy; provides employment and local business opportunities; and supports Sydney’s ‘global arc’.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council endorse the Randwick City Industrial Lands Discussion Paper (2010) for public consultation and as a basis for drafting the Comprehensive LEP and DCP.

 

b)     Council agree that the Director City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors as required in preparing the paper for public consultation.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Industrial Lands Discussion Paper

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP12/10

 

 

Subject:                  Draft Chifley Sports Reserve Plan of Management

Folder No:                   F2009/00086

Author:                   Ross Anthony, Environmental Planning Officer; Karen Armstrong, Manager Strategic Planning     

 

Executive Summary

 

The NSW Department of Lands appointed Randwick City Council as the manager of the Chifley Sports Reserve Trust in February 2008. At the 12 May 2009 Planning Committee Meeting, Council resolved (Andrews/Notley-Smith) to prepare a Plan of Management for Chifley Sports Reserve and formally advise the NSW Department of Lands’. The draft Plan of Management (PoM) has been prepared to facilitate the refurbishment of the Reserve for a range of sports and passive recreation activities.

 

This report seeks the endorsement of Council to exhibit the draft PoM in accordance with the requirements of the Crown Lands Act 1989 and undertake public consultation, inviting input from the local community and sporting and interest groups.

 

Background

 

Chifley Sports Reserve (formally the Chifley Women’s Athletic Fields) is a 7.7 ha sports field located on the corner of Hastings Avenue and Bunnerong and Little Bay Roads, Chifley, being Lot 4686 DP 752015 (Reserve No. 1014568 for public recreation and community purposes) and Lot 7093 DP 1120572 (former unmade road reserve). Council was appointed Chifley Sports Reserve Trust Manager after the previous reserve trust was dissolved by the NSW Department of Lands.

 

The Reserve is currently used by the Eastern Suburbs Junior Baseball League and configured with four softball/ baseball diamonds in the northern portion surrounding an amenities building. The southern half has a disused cricket oval. An informal car park and vehicle access is off Bunnerong Road. The Reserve and facilities require upgrading. The site has been extensively filled in the past and due to the topography of the area, the southern end of the Reserve is now raised with an embankment of up to 6m above street level along the Bunnerong and Little Bay Road frontages. The remaining vegetation around the Reserve is dominated by weeds species.

 

Recreational Needs Study

Council’s Recreational Needs Study (adopted May 2008) identifies the City’s future sporting and passive recreational needs. The following recommendations from the Study were considered and incorporated into the draft PoM:

 

§ The Chifley Sports Reserve should be classified a ‘District Park’ where the main role is to provide for sport activities but space should also be provided for passive uses eg. picnic area, walking

§ incorporate a children’s play ground

§ some of the fields should be flood lit

§ focus on providing spaces with multiple use, such as softball, baseball, rectangle fields (soccer, rugby, league) and an AFL/ cricket oval, if the design allows

§ upgrade the amenities building, and

§ potential to develop a ‘green link’ between La Perouse and Heffron Park utilising the corridor adjacent to Bunnerong Road via the Chifley Sports Reserve.

 

It also noted that there was a need for more youth based recreation facilities and the survey found that a basketball area/ skateboard park was ranked in the top three most required future recreation facilities.

 

La Perouse Skate Park and Youth Space Report

In August 2007, Council resolved (Hughes/Notley-Smith) that a report be prepared regarding the siting of a possible youth and skate park facility around La Perouse. Assessing the physical conditions/context, access, security, amenities, impact on surrounding uses and distance from dwellings for a number of sites, Chifley Sports Reserve was identified as the most suitable site for a youth and skatepark facility. This has been investigated and included as part of the PoM for the Reserve.

 

The draft Plan of Management

The draft PoM is consistent with the Department of Lands PoM template and includes measures to:

 

§  improve the appearance and amenity of the Reserve

§  undertake any soil rehabilitation required and to level and resurface the Reserve

§  improve pedestrian access around the site

§  improve vehicle access and parking

§  upgrade (and plan for the long term replacement of) the amenities building

§  upgrade and reconfigure the playing fields to cater for multiple uses in addition to continuing the use for baseball

§  undertake extensive weed control and vegetation rehabilitation

§  provide a youth recreation facility and passive recreation spaces, including seating, a picnic area, childrens recreation facilities, exercise equipment and shared pedestrian/ cycle ways around the Reserve, and 

§  Identify improvements to the public domain adjoining Chifley Sports Reserve, eg tree plantings and footpaths in the roadway verge.

 

The draft Landscape Plan for the Reserve provides for a variety of summer and winter sports field layouts to ensure flexibility and to respond to the needs of local sporting groups. The final combination will be dependent on later tendering by local sporting groups. Possible combinations include:

 

·          1 senior baseball field, 3 junior base ball fields and 4 junior sized multi purpose rectangular fields (soccer/ rugby league/ rugby union/ touch football/ Oz-tag)

·          1 senior baseball field, 3 junior AFL fields or 2 cricket ovals and 2 junior multi purpose rectangular fields, or

·          1 senior baseball field, 6 junior multi purpose rectangular fields

 

Outside times when the sport fields are booked, the entire Reserve will be available for passive recreation by the community.

 

Consideration was also given to a resident request to provide a horse riding track, however, this was not considered appropriate for the Reserve given that the key purpose is for multi purpose sports and there is potential for conflict with the sports and passive recreation uses and maintenance concerns.  The potential impact of horses accessing the site, particularly if via the adjacent environmentally significant land, including remnant vegetation and one of the largest sites of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub and Acacia Terminalis outside Botany Bay National Park (both are listed under the Threatened Species Conservation Act) was also a factor in not including a riding track in the PoM.

 

The Landscape Plan is contained in Part 3 of the draft PoM and shows the indicative layout of the Reserve, including the possible sports field combinations, vehicle and pedestrian access, landscaping and other recreation facilities.

 

Site Specific DCP Requirement in Randwick LEP

The draft PoM addresses the criteria in Clause 40A of Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) for the preparation of a development control plan for sites over 10000sqm and as such the preparation of a separate DCP is not necessary and the requirement to do so should be waivered by Council. Clause 40A allows that if adequate planning controls are in place a separate DCP is not required.  This PoM will satisfy the requirements identified in the clause.

 

Consultation

A consultation strategy has been prepared to ensure that all interested stakeholders will have an opportunity to comment on the draft PoM. Consultation will include:

 

§  notices in the local newspaper and on Council’s website

§  exhibition of the draft at Council’s Administration Building and Bowen, Randwick and Malabar Libraries

§  direct notification to:

o   adjoining local residents and land owners

o   local sports groups

o   bushland groups

o   local schools

o   precinct committees, and the

o   Sports Committee

 

The Department of Lands will also need to agree to exhibit the draft PoM.

 

The draft PoM will be on public exhibition for a minimum of 28 days. Comments from the local community and interest groups will be sought and will then be taken into consideration when the PoM is finalised. This will be reported back to Council and then submitted to the Minister for Lands for final approval.

 

Timing and Staging

The draft PoM identifies that the required remediation works and park upgrade will cost approximately $8 Million. This costing includes remediation and restoration works of $5M (from an estimate range of $3.6M - $5M) and landscape/building works of an estimated $3 Million. The upgrade could be undertaken over 2 years, and funding from various Council budgets has been identified to enable commencement of the remediation work in 2010/11 for completion of the upgrade by 2011/12.

 

A financial strategy was prepared and notes that the Council’s domestic waste budget, which can be used for the $5M remediation/restoration, has funds available over the financial years from 2009/2010 to 2011/12. The landscape/building works of approx $3 Million can be funded via a combination of the Council’s capital works budget, S94A funds and from the proposed Building for our Community Program, subject to Council’s endorsement via the annual budget process.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

Direction:                  Maximise opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy both active and passive open space uses.

 

Financial impact statement

 

A total budget of $60,000 has been set aside in the 2009-10 budget to prepare the Chifley Sports Reserve PoM, including consultants, drafting, exhibition and finalisation of the plan. In house resources include work by the Strategic Planning and Landscape Design teams. The proposed works in the draft PoM are estimated at $8 Million, to be allocated over various Council budgets as detailed above and in the draft PoM, according to a financial strategy to fund the works by 2015-16.

 

Conclusion

 

The PoM will provide the community, sports groups, user groups and Randwick City Council with a clear direction on the future use and management (short, medium and long term) of the Chifley Sports Reserve. It will facilitate the much needed rehabilitation and revegetation; upgrade of the Reserve for both active and passive recreation; and improve the quality, safety and useability of the area. 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     Endorse the attached draft Chifley Sports Reserve Plan of Management for public consultation, subject to comments from the Department of Lands.

 

b)     Waive the requirement under Cl 40A(1) to prepare a site specific DCP for the Chifley Sports Reserve in accordance with the waiver requirements of Clause 40A (2) of Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

c)     Council agree that the Director City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors as required in preparing the Plan of Management for public exhibition.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DRAFT Chifley Sports Reserve Plan of Management February 2010

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP13/10

 

 

Subject:                  Department of Planning Draft Local Development Contribution Guidelines

Folder No:                   F2004/06783

Author:                   Elena  Sliogeris, Environmental Planning Officer - Strategic Planning     

 

Introduction

 

The Department of Planning has released Draft Local Development Contributions Guidelines for consultation to replace existing section 94 Practice Notes (issued 2005). The draft guidelines and an associated policy statement are to assist councils in understanding the implementation of the new (yet to commence) Part 5B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). Part 5B provides the new legislative framework to implement the planning reforms for development contributions. The main reasons for the reforms are to provide greater certainty and consistency in the preparation and administration of development contributions and consistency in the types of community infrastructure for which councils can seek development contributions. 

 

The purpose of the draft guidelines is to assist councils in the preparation and administration of development contribution plans and planning agreements for local community infrastructure, previously referred to as s94 contributions. This includes direct contribution plans (previously referred to as s94 plans based on a nexus with population growth) and indirect contribution plans (previously referred to as s94A plans based on a % levy on the cost of development). 

 

The Department of Planning is seeking submissions on the draft guidelines which close on 26 February 2010. A Council submission has been prepared, as attached.

 

This report informs Council on the proposed changes to the development contributions system under Part 5B of the EP&A Act, the draft guidelines and potential implications for Randwick City in the next review of our S94A Plan, programmed to be undertaken this year.

 

Background

 

The provisions of Part 5B of the EP&A Act are contained in the EP&A Act 2008 (the Amendment Act), which was assented to on 25 June 2008. The Amendment Act is progressively implementing the NSW Government planning reforms with some parts having already commenced including the new plan making provisions ‘Gateway’ and the planning assessment commissions and joint regional planning panels. The Council has commented previously on these legislative changes, when still at the proposal stage.

 

The new provisions in Part 5B include a number of new policy initiatives to reform the state’s development contributions system which came from a state government review into development contributions in 2008.

 

Key provisions of the existing contributions legislation are retained while now referring to them as ‘direct’ (s94 nexus) and ‘indirect’ (s94A levy) contributions. Council’s S94A Plan was introduced in July 2007, using the percentage levy approach.

 

The Department of Planning has indicated that Part 5B is to commence early 2010, as soon as the draft guidelines have been finalised. A date for the automatic repeal of existing contributions plans has been set at 18 months from that commencement. Councils must review and replace existing contributions plans within this timeframe.

 

The following provides an overview of the new Part and guidelines.

 

Overview of Part 5B

 

Part 5B of the EP&A Act, will set out the legislative provisions for levying of development contributions by:

 

·           Setting key considerations for determining, collecting, and then spending contributions. These are in the form of questions eg. What will be the impact of the proposed development contribution on the affordability of the proposed development? Councils must demonstrate that it has considered each of the key considerations in preparing a new or amending a contributions plan; 

·           Restricting the receipt of contributions for key community infrastructure only (these are outlined below);

·           Establishing a two-tier system for local contributions. Councils can continue to require contributions for key community infrastructure without approval from the Minister. However, councils will require Ministerial approval to obtain a contribution or enter into a planning agreement, for any other kind of community infrastructure called additional community infrastructure;

·           Introducing the terms direct contribution (formerly s94 contribution) and indirect contribution (formerly s94A contribution). Councils must still seek a direct or indirect contribution, but not both. Indirect contribution will generally remain limited to 1 per cent of the development costs. Councils can seek a higher rate from the Minister with a business plan, in the same way as additional community infrastructure;

·           Introducing additional reporting requirements on collection and expenditure of contributions; and

·           Retaining councils role in control of management of contributions.

 

Key community infrastructure is defined as:

 

(a)    local roads;

(b)    local bus facilities;

(c)    local parks;

(d)    local sporting recreational and cultural facilities (being community and child care centres and volunteer rescue and volunteer emergency services facilities);

(e)    local car parking facilities;

(f)    drainage and stormwater management works;

(g)    land for any community infrastructure (except land for riparian corridors);

(h)    district infrastructure of the kind referred to in paragraph (a)-(e) but only if there is a direct connection with the development to which a contribution relates.

 

Overview of the draft Guidelines

 

The draft guidelines have updated and consolidated the existing series of s94 practice notes and guidelines. They assist Councils and stakeholders in interpreting the new concepts in Part 5B, such as:

 

·           Identifying the difference between key community infrastructure and additional infrastructure ;

·              Addressing the key considerations for development contributions;

·           How to prepare and document a business plan to ‘verify’ and ‘justify’ a second tier contributions plan (eg one containing additional community infrastructure or a variation to the maximum amount of an indirect levy);and

·              Establishing a direct or indirect contributions plan and planning agreement.

 

The attached submission notes that a comprehensive set of guidelines and requirements are generally supported, in providing a consistent approach for development contributions. However, some concerns are raised with regards to the definition of ‘key community infrastructure’.  

 

Implications for Randwick City - preparation of future contributions plans

 

·      Key community infrastructure

Community infrastructure is only key community infrastructure if it comprises facilities and infrastructure that service either a local or district service catchment. A district or local service catchment is considered to be an area that is equal to or smaller than a local government area respectively. Types of infrastructure that have a service catchment extending beyond the local government area (regional parks, entertainment centres) are not considered key community infrastructure.

 

The guidelines also state that community infrastructure that does not comprise building or works (for example library resources, books, computers as identified in our current plan) is not key community infrastructure and should then be considered as `additional community infrastructure’ which would only be approved with Ministerial consent. 

 

However, plan administration and management costs are key community infrastructure and do not need specific approval from the Minister.

 

·      Additional community infrastructure

For all other items which do not meet the definition for key community infrastructure, council will be required to prepare a business plan, independently assessed, in seeking the Minister’s approval for any ‘additional community infrastructure’ to be included in the plan.

 

Council’s existing S94A Plan has many items listed on the works schedule that do not meet the definition for key community infrastructure. Many community and open space facilities provide important infrastructure not only for the local area but also for the broader region eg beaches/coastal reserves, and open spaces such as Heffron Park and Chifley Reserve. Nevertheless they remain essential for local purposes. In addition, other items such as town centre concept plans, public domain strategies, public art, remnant bushland regeneration, water and energy savings plans will need Ministerial approval to be included. This issue has previously been raised with the Department.

 

·      Council’s existing s94A development contributions Plan

Council will need to review our contributions Plan and revise the works schedule to remove ‘additional community infrastructure’ or seek approval to retain it from the Minister.

 

A review of Council’s s94A Plan was programmed in the current 2009/10 Management Plan, given that many of the works have or are near completion, to review development trends and infrastructure priorities and revenue trends. It is proposed to commence this review as soon as Part 5B commences. 

 

 

 

 

·      Planning Agreements

A planning agreement is no longer required to be instigated by the developer instead both parties are to agree in principle to enter into an agreement.

 

The guidelines also state that negotiation of a planning agreement should run in parallel with applications, particularly that negotiations should not commence until a decision has been taken (and endorsed by the gateway process) to prepare a planning proposal to rezone land.

 

In addition, Council will require the Minister’s approval to negotiate future affordable housing contributions via planning agreements. Affordable housing is not considered as key community infrastructure and as such requires the Minister’s approval.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:      Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

This report provides an overview into the changes to the State’s development contributions system under Part 5B of the EP&A Act, the Department of Planning’s Draft Local Development Contributions Guidelines and potential implications for Randwick City.

 

The guidelines have been prepared to assist councils and stakeholders in understanding the legislative framework and requirements of the, yet to commence, Part 5B of the EP&A Act. The draft guidelines update and expand on the existing practice notes and guidelines and provide a comprehensive guide to councils in preparing and managing contribution plans and planning agreements.

 

However, a review of Part 5B and associated draft guidelines indicate that Council will be not be able to levy developments for contributions for many items currently listed in Council’s s94A development contributions plan, without Ministerial approval.

 

When Part 5B of the EP&A Act commences, a further report will be prepared to Council on the detailed implications and commencement of the s94A plan review.

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted and the attached submission be noted and forwarded to the Department of Planning in response to the public exhibition of the Draft Local Development Contribution Guidelines.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Draft Local Development Contributions Guidelines - Submission from Randwick City Council

 

 


Draft Local Development Contributions Guidelines - Submission from Randwick City Council

Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

 

F2004/06783

 

12 February 2010

 

Director-General

Department of Planning

 

 

Dear Mr Haddad,

 

Draft Local Development contributions guidelines - submission from Randwick City Council

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comment on the NSW Government’s draft Local Development Contributions guidelines, which will update the current practice notes and guidelines.

 

Randwick City Council is generally supportive of these draft guidelines which provide for greater consistency and a comprehensive framework for local councils to update and review their current contributions plans.  The Council would, however, like to raise and seek clarification of several issues.

 

Addressing ‘Key considerations’

 

The Randwick City S94A Plan was adopted by the Council in July 2007 and this percentage based approach to levying for contributions has significantly simplified and improved the collection and use of the funds, with our community receiving the resulting facilities earlier than was previously possible.

 

The draft guidelines set out specific ‘key considerations’ or questions for councils to respond to and to be included in any public exhibition of a new draft contributions Plan. To assist councils in preparing a response to the key considerations, the intent of each of the key considerations should be clearly outlined in the guidelines including a possible response to each of the key considerations. It may be beneficial to include a third column of ‘possible responses’ to Table 1 Addressing Key Considerations. Different requirements, as noted above, for direct and indirect contributions should also be noted.

 

While responding to these questions is relevant where councils are preparing a ‘direct’ plan, for those plans which will be ‘indirect’ levy based plans as is Randwick City’s case, these would appear onerous and unrelated, and thus alternative and more streamlined ‘considerations’ should be provided for indirect plans.

 

The set of key considerations do not adequately address the provision of community need, which should be a fundamental principle to councils seeking contributions from developments. The set of key considerations as drafted appear skewed towards limiting the scope in which councils may seek contributions from developments rather than the provision of community infrastructure based on community need.

 

We query whether the second key consideration ‘What will be the impact of the proposed development contribution on the affordability of the proposed development?’ is a valid consideration, considering that this is concerned with the development’s feasibility rather than any effect on housing affordability, which are two very different terms. Any contribution sought from a development would impact on its affordability.

 

The requirement in relation to ‘district’ level infrastructure and a direct connection with a development is also queried in relation to ‘indirect’ plans. We seek clarification and intent of subclause 31A(1)(h) ‘district infrastructure of the kind referred to in paragraphs (a) – (e) but only if there is a direct connection with the development to which a contribution relates’, particularly since indirect levies are not nexus based. 

 

While recognising that the legislation now refers to contributions as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ to replace the nexus (S94) versus percentage (S94A) approaches, we further note that if any alteration to the legislation is to be undertaken, these terms should be reconsidered as they do not reflect simply nor accurately the different contributions and are likely to compound community confusion about development contributions.

 

Identifying Key community infrastructure

 

We recognise and support a consistent approach in the types of infrastructure included in contributions plans, whether ‘key community infrastructure’ or ‘additional community infrastructure’. However, we raise concerns on the scope of community infrastructure to be defined as ‘key community infrastructure’.

 

The exclusion of regional facilities places councils such as Randwick City with an unnecessary and unfair burden of justifying separately to the Minister the funding of various critical community and open space facilities that provide not only for the local area but also provide for the broader region.

 

As the Departments’ draft East sub-regional strategy notes, Randwick City provides 80% of the open space within this East Sub-region while having only 45% of the total land area and 45% of the total population. Further, urban consolidation adjacent to this Council and the East sub-region, within Green Square, Victoria park and its surrounds, is occurring with limited increase in terms of active open space and will place further pressure on the Council’s open space, sporting and recreation facilities.

 

This imbalance requires that Randwick City provides extensively for the open space needs beyond its own residents. Nevertheless the Council approaches this challenge with sound and ongoing planning and implementation of facilities construction, replacement, upgrading and improvements and maintenance as shown in the extensive and popular beaches and beach reserves, coastal walkway and large parks such as Heffron Park (regional catchment) and Chifley reserve (district catchment) which was recently transferred from the State to Council care, control and management. We appreciate that State support exists in the form of regional open space funding, however this is limited and falls well short of providing for Sydney’s regional open space needs.

 

Thus, rather than being recognised for our City’s ongoing and quality provision of facilities for residents both within and beyond our City, it appears that the Council will be further limited from sourcing development contributions for highly demanded facilities, or be required to undergo additional business planning and reporting to seek the Minister’s approval to help fund these facilities. The required resources of the Council, Department of Planning and the Minister, would appear counter-productive to the intentions of the State planning reforms for simplifying and streamlining planning processes for the benefit of the community.

 

This issue has previously been raised with the Department and we again ask that local facilities that also provide for a regional catchment should be recognised as key community infrastructure.

 

We also seek clarification with regards to child care centres and Appendix B – a guide to key and additional infrastructure. The guidelines state that child care centres (including preschools, long day care centres and family day care) are not identified as key community infrastructure while occasional care centres and outside of school hours care are.

 

Further, the types of key community infrastructure as defined means that affordable housing is not considered as ‘key community infrastructure’ and will also now require Ministerial approval. Randwick City Council, guided by its affordable housing program, has successfully negotiated 8 units for the purposes of affordable housing over recent years from different development sites, assisted by having a clear policy framework in place for the use of voluntary planning agreements. Consideration of criteria for enabling this suitable outcome for diversity of housing in new developments should be given, recognising where councils such as Randwick City have an established and appropriate affordable housing program in place that should be allowed to continue.

 

The indicative thresholds in Appendix C are useful. While it is understood that the populations are indicative only, a comprehensive list of indicative populations for different infrastructure types in the one table is useful. The source for the indicative population thresholds should also be cited. 

 

Preparing business plans and seeking Ministerial approval

 

The guidelines are vague on how to prepare a business plan including format and the additional matters for consideration to be addressed on page 81 of the draft guidelines. It is unclear how these additional set of considerations are to fit in with the key considerations, particularly since the additional set of considerations seem to be largely based on the key themes from the set of key considerations. The matters to be addressed in a business plan should be simplified and made clear.

 

In addition, the guidelines would benefit from a simpler approach to preparing a business plan. This could be in a form of a template or similar guideline format to the Department of Planning’s guidelines for preparing planning proposals, which clearly outlines the format, requirements and criteria to be addressed.

 

It is also noted that Ministerial approval for items of additional community infrastructure is required prior to exhibition of the draft contributions plan. Given the 18 months automatic repeal of existing contribution plans upon the commencement of Part 5B and council reporting requirements, it is essential that the Department can commit to an early response to the submission of these business plans.

 

Structure – requirements for plans etc and best practice chapter

 

The requirements for new plans have increased with the inclusion of an executive summary, key considerations and additional provisions. It is essential that these additional requirements do not compromise the readability of the plan for the general community.

 

The sample structure of plans provided in the Appendix could benefit from a table format with an additional column of notes, references to relevant legislative clauses and/or relevant parts of the guidelines. In addition, the best practice chapter may benefit through the use of examples and/or case study scenarios.

 

We hope the comments provided in this submission will assist the Department in finalising a comprehensive set of guidelines to the reformed development contributions framework. Once again, we thank the Department of Planning for providing the opportunity to comment on these draft guidelines.

 

Please do not hesitate to contact Ms Karen Armstrong, Manager, Strategic Planning or Ms Elena Sliogeris, Strategic Planner on 9399 0961, should you require any further information in relation to any of the points raised in this submission.

 

 

 

 

Yours faithfully

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM1/10

 

 

Subject:                  Review of the 2009-13 Management Plan - December 2009 Quarterly Report

Folder No:                   F2009/00052

Author:                   Anne Warner, Coordinator Integrated Planning     

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors and the community on the implementation of the 2009-13 Management Plan.

 

Issues

 

This is the December 2009 Quarterly Review of the 2009-13 Management Plan. Under the Local Government Act 1993, there is the requirement that a Report must be provided after the end of each quarter, detailing the extent to which performance indicators and targets set by Council’s Management Plan have been achieved during the quarter.

 

The December Quarterly Report is presented in two parts. The first outlines some of the highlights for the Quarter, while the second provides comments for each of the 2009-10 Management Plan actions.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1a:      Council has a long term vision based on sustainability.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the December Quarterly Report is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all actions as set out in the adopted Management Plan 2009-13. In addition, given that the Management Plan is based on the 20 year Randwick City Plan and that Council’s reporting format is based on outcomes rather than organisational structure, the December Quarterly Report also provides a level of accountability against our long term vision for the City of Randwick.

 

Recommendation

 

That the information contained in the December 2009 Quarterly Review of the 2009-13 Management Plan be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Highlights of the RCC December 2009 Quarterly Report

 

2.View

RCC Quarterly Report - December 2009

 

 


Highlights of the RCC December 2009 Quarterly Report

Attachment 1

 

 

Highlights of the Randwick City Council Quarterly Report December 2009

 

The following highlights are outlined as per the themes and respective outcomes of the 20 year Randwick City Plan.

 

RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT

»        Leadership in Sustainability

 

·      Council developed and facilitated the inaugural Corporate Leadership Cup bringing together employees from Temora Shire, Sutherland Shire, Harden Shire, City of Canterbury, Cobar Shire and Randwick City Council to compete in real world business challenges. The objective of the event was to; identify a key professional development opportunity, execute challenging tasks to develop key leadership skills and effective business acumen, provide an opportunity for multi council networking, and to benefit the participating organisations. The competition provided great opportunities for learning, networking and developing a greater understanding of the importance of local governments in our communities.

 

·      94.18% DA's are determined under 60 days, well above the net target of 80%

 

A SENSE OF COMMUNITY

»        A vibrant and diverse community

»        An informed and engaged community

 

·      Highly successful "Broadening the Appeal of Precincts" Conference, with over 120 precinct members from 5 different Councils attending, including representatives from 9 different Randwick precincts.

 

·      Precincts well supported in multiple ways, including: responses to precinct minutes; publicity via advertisements, banners, website and printing leaflets; notifications of all relevant consultations; copies of Council reports and documents. Quarterly Precinct Coordination Committee meeting held to reinforce Council's relationships with our community and functioning of the precincts. Initiative for new forum to develop partnership between Council and local Service Clubs.

 

·      A four page edition of Randwick Community News was produced for December 2009 and delivered to Randwick City's 55,000 households. Its focus was on the Council's events including the Garden Awards, Sports Awards, Mayor's Charity Ball and the Bali Memorial.

 

·      Council's Visual Identity Guidelines finalised. Editing and approval of over 85 publications to comply with the Council's corporate standards to ensure effective public communication is maintained.

 

 

·      Over 300 residents and visitors attended the Eastern Sydney Disability Expo, with over 35 Disability organisations and activity providers also in attendance. Over 180 people with a disability and their carers attended the Masquerade Ball, which featured original art works by clients from Headeast, Junction House, Miroma and Miroma Light Industries & Holdsworth Community Centre and performances from The Junction House band. Funds raised from World AIDS Day were donated to the Bobby Goldsmith Foundation.

 

 

PLACES FOR PEOPLE

»        Excellence in urban design and development

»        Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities

»        A liveable City

»        Heritage that is protected and celebrated

 

·      The history book ‘Randwick’ was launched in December by prominent journalist and author, Paul Barry, at the Prince Henry Community Centre. Over 1500 primary school children attended a live theatrical performance of Randwick in a Nutshell, a pantomime‑style play which brings the history of the LGA to life. Each child received a 12 page comic which reinforced the historical messages of the play. Children were also asked to submit their ideas of what Randwick would be like in 150 years time. The feedback from schools and pupils has been exceptionally positive. 100 Views festivals were celebrated at Emanuel School, Randwick Public School and Temora West Public School. This marks the end of a year long highly successful environmental and cultural program. Poems and artwork will be displayed on 100 views.com.au and Randwick City Council's site.

 

·      25 Schools participated in the Surf and Water Safety program. The program was delivered to over 1000 local children as well as two schools in Temora. The program received very positive feedback from both teachers and students and will be offered again next year.

 

·      Moverly Children's Centre has a number of sustainable initiatives happening, involving both parents and the children, with positive outcomes. The community and families have been involved in ongoing projects such as a vegetable garden, mosaics and participating in the Eco Living fair.

 

·      Cromwell Fountain conservation works completed in November and long term maintenance plan completed.

 

A PROSPERING CITY

»        A strong local economy

 

·      Ongoing meetings of Economic Development Committee being held to address all matters detailed in the Economic Development Strategy. Short term items currently being looked at in great detail. Randwick Tourism Committee meetings being held monthly.

 

MOVING AROUND

»        Integrated and accessible transport

 

·      Council agreement to expand the number of car share vehicles for Randwick residents from 7 to 11. Location of new vehicles currently being finalised with GoGet Carshare. Major launch event conducted with GoGet Carshare for residents at The Ritz Cinema in December 2009.

 

LOOKING AFTER OUR ENVIRONMENT

»        A healthy environment

 

·      Home composting workshops commenced for residents. First Sustainability Street community group forms in Randwick. Randwick represented in presentations at conferences (State of the Australian Cities) and panel discussions (Australian Govt Infrastructure and LGSA). Coastcare Week activities organised for December 2009. Summer Activities program organised for Jan 2010.

·      Provided a high level of garbage and recycling collection services to the community. Over 90% requests were met within timeframe and less than 2.75 bins were missed per 10,000 bins scheduled for collection.

 

·      Publicity received for completion of solar panel installation at Works Depot. Final commissioning and commencement of backwash and borewater re‑use project at Des Renford Aquatic Centre. Completion of major stormwater treatment and re‑use at Clovelly – saving approximately 346,000L tap water in the last month. Completion of permanent biodiesel fuel system at Works Depot.

 

 


RCC Quarterly Report - December 2009

Attachment 2

 

 






























Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM2/10

 

 

Subject:                  Impact of New Division of Local Government Guidelines on Proposed Building for our Community Program

Folder No:                   F2009/00343

Author:                   Ray Brownlee, General Manager     

 

Introduction

 

The Council resolved to commence community consultation on a proposed building program funded by a special variation to rates income on 8 December 2009. The proposal was based on a 7% special variation in year 1 of the program in accordance with s508(2) of the Local Government Act 1993.

 

On 18 December 2009 the Division of Local Government (DLG) issued Circular 09-42 and new guidelines regarding the submission of special variations to rates income. The guidelines have changed the methodology required for the submission of special variation applications, requiring the Council to amend the building program funding model.

 

Issues

 

Special Variation Guidelines

 

The Council nominated to be a Group 1 council for the implementation of the new Integrated Planning and Reporting guidelines. The DLG’s ‘Guidelines for the preparation of an application for a special variation to general income in 2010-11’ recommend Group 1 councils apply for a Special Variation over a period of years under s508A of the Local Government Act 1993. A s508A special variation allows the Council to spread the financial impact of a rate increase on its rate payers over a number of years, rather than increasing rates in one year, as would be the case under a s508(2) variation.

 

The Council submitted an ‘Intention to Apply for a Special Variation to General Income under s508A’ application to the DLG on 29 January 2010.

 

The revised approach proposes a 2.71 per cent special levy on rates for the next three years in order to fund the whole building program over seven years. The following tables outline: the estimated building levy component of the annual rates notice (Table 1); an example of ratepayer accounts showing the rates for the next three years, including the rate peg and the building levy(Table 2); the average cumulative increase and per cent of properties affected (Table 3); and the cumulative increase over 3 years (Table 4). The figures in each of the tables relate to sample land values.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Estimated building levy component of the annual rates notice

Estimated building levy component of the annual rates notice

Land Value

Current Rate

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

318,000
(Minimum Rate)

$549.50

$14.89

$15.68

$16.66

500,000

$875.70

$23.73

$24.99

$26.56

700,000

$1,225.98

$33.22

$34.99

$37.18

900,000

$1,576.26

$42.72

$44.98

$47.80

1,100,000

$1,926.54

$52.21

$54.98

$58.42

1,500,000

$2,627.10

$71.19

$74.97

$79.67

 

Table 2: An example of Ratepayer Accounts

Example of Ratepayer Accounts

Land Value

Current

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Change over
3 years

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

2012/13

318,000
(Minimum Rate)

$549.50

$578.68

$614.90

$653.64

$104.14

500,000

$875.70

$922.20

$979.93

$1,041.66

$165.96

700,000

$1,225.98

$1,291.08

$1,371.90

$1,458.33

$232.35

900,000

$1,576.26

$1,659.96

$1,763.87

$1,875.00

$298.74

1,100,000

$1,926.54

$2,028.84

$2,155.84

$2,291.66

$365.12

1,500,000

$2,627.10

$2,766.60

$2,939.79

$3,124.99

$497.89

 

Table 3: Average cumulative increase and per cent of properties affected

Average cumulative increase and % of properties affected.

Land Value

Current Rate

Cumulative Building Program

Average
over 3 years

% of Properties

LV Range

318,000
(Minimum Rate)

$549.50

$92.70

$30.90

51%

500,000

$875.70

$147.73

$49.24

13%

700,000

$1,225.98

$206.83

$68.94

18%

900,000

$1,576.26

$265.92

$88.64

10%

1,100,000

$1,926.54

$325.01

$108.34

4%

1,500,000

$2,627.10

$443.20

$147.73

4%

 

Table 4: Cumulative increase over 3 years

Cumulative increase over 3 years

Land Value

Nominal Rate Pegging

Building Program

Combined
Total

318,000
(Minimum Rate)

$106.02

$92.70

$198.72

500,000

$168.96

$147.73

$316.69

700,000

$236.54

$206.83

$443.37

900,000

$304.13

$265.92

$570.05

1,100,000

$371.71

$325.01

$696.73

1,500,000

$506.88

$443.20

$950.08

 

Community Consultation

 

During February and March, the Council is implementing an extensive community consultation strategy that meets the consultation level of “collaboration” by partnering with the public to develop alternatives and identify the preferred solution. Council has collaborated with the community through two focus groups and a deliberative engagement workshop. The focus groups were conducted on 28 January and 4 February 2010 with participants’ representative across age, gender, ethnicity and suburbs. The groups offered positive feedback and supported both the building program and the rates variation. The deliberative engagement workshop, held on 13 February, was a new consultation initiative for Council, involving 50 community members of a representative demographic spread in a half-day intensive workshop.

 

Other activities will include an on-line blog through a special website, a range of stakeholder meetings and an on-line feedback questionnaire on Council’s website. A hard copy of the questionnaire and explanatory brochure will also be letter box dropped to the 55,000 households in Randwick City. Our libraries and customer service centre will also promote the questionnaire and background material to the public.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A liveable city.

Direction 6a:      Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The proposed s508A special variation will raise $9.259 million for the building program over the next 3 financial years. A further $20.858 million will be raised from 2013-14 to 2016-17 to complete the proposed building program.

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

As a result of new guidelines issued by the DLG the funding model for the proposed building program has changed. In accordance with the recommendations of the DLG for a Group 1 Integrated Planning and Reporting council, it is now proposed an increase in rates be staged over a 3 year period rather than an increase in one year.

 

The total cost of the proposed building program is approximately $34.8 million. The Council already has $4.7 million from other sources, and therefore requires an additional $30.1 million to complete the work program.

 

At the completion of the community consultation period a report will be provided to Council regarding the application for a special variation to general income under s508A of the Local Government Act 1993 to fund the proposed building program.

 

 

Recommendation

That the Council note the community consultation activities and modified approach regarding the proposed application for a special variation to general income under s508A of the Local Government Act 1993 to fund the proposed building program.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS1/10

 

 

Subject:                  Extending the number of months the outdoor swimming areas are open at Des Rendord Aquatic Centre

Folder No:                   F2006/00408

Author:                   Reece Heddle, Manager Des Renford Aquatic Centre     

 

Introduction

 

Council resolved at its Ordinary Council Meeting held on 8 December 2009:

 

“(Matson/Andrews) that Council consider extending the number of months of the year that the outdoor swimming areas of the Des Rendord Aquatic Centre are open for use, with a report to come back to Council.”

 

The Des Renford Aquatic Centre is a large Aquatic facility which comprises five bodies of water including two-25 metre indoor pools, an outdoor 50 metre pool, a small outdoor toddlers’ pool and a medium outdoor wading pool. Currently the indoor pools operate all year round and the outdoor pools operate from the school holidays in September/October through to the school holidays in April.

 

These opening and closing times of the outdoor pools are a guide only and are assessed from week to week leading up to the school holiday periods and are adjusted based on weather conditions, usage and ability of the outdoor pools to maintain a reasonable temperature.

 

Issues

 

The three outdoor pools cannot maintain the set pool temperature of 25.5 degrees during the cooler months as the two 100KW heating units operating at 100% capacity are insufficient for the volume of water which is required to be heated. During summer, warmer days and particularly the warmer nights assists the heating units in maintaining the pool temperature at its set point. The pools lose a significant amount of temperature on cooler days and between one and two degrees overnight even with the pool blankets on nightly. Unfortunately, the heating system cannot regain this temperature without the assistance of the warmer weather and the pool temperature will fluctuate between 20 to 23 degrees in winter dependant on the weather conditions on the day.

 

To maintain a temperature of between 20-23 degrees in the cooler months, the heating units will need to operate at 100% capacity twenty four hours per day. This will significantly increase the power consumption of the facility.

 

This lower pool temperature is not a popular temperature with the majority of patrons. In April each year as the temperature of the outdoor pools reduces, they are rarely used. In April 2006, a trial was conducted with the outdoor pools remaining open until mid May. The pools struggled to maintain temperature and were rarely used, with the majority of users preferring the indoor pools. The pools were closed in mid May without any increase in attendances compared to previous years and no complaints were received by the public for the pool closures.

 

The effect of cooler weather periods on outdoor pool usage can be highlighted during cooler days during summer. On 18 December 2009, the weather at the facility was a cool 21 degrees with occasional rain. Only 16 patrons used the outdoor pools whilst over 200 people utilised the indoor pools despite the outdoor pool temperature being 25.5 degrees on the day.

 

Increasing the number of months the outdoor pools are open will increase staff costs. The facility maintains the Royal Lifesaving Safe Pool Operations guidelines at all times, the minimum standard required by Aquatic facilities. Under these guidelines, Council is required to increase the number of lifeguard staff due to the increase in the amount of water areas. One extra lifeguard would be required to be employed at all times that the outdoor pools are open.

 

The increase in expenditure per month of operation of the outdoor pools is listed in the table below. These figures are based on a similar sized outdoor facility which operates throughout the winter months.  

 

Income

Per Month

Rationale

Explanation

Entry Fees (Extra)

$1,800

450 entries per month @ $4.00

(15 per day for 30 days)

Extra income associated with outdoor pools based on other outdoor facilities within the Sydney area.

Secondary Spend

$675

Industry average

25% of patrons spend average of $6 per month.

Total Income         

$2,475

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditure

Extra Expenses per month.

 

 

Staff plus on-costs

$13,734

105 hours per week

Regulations require a dedicated staff member for the outdoor pools.

Electricity

$12,000

Heating Units operating at 100% capacity at all times.

Figures based on similar outdoor facility.

Water

$1,500

Increase in water usage due to increase in backwashing and evaporation.

Figures based on similar outdoor facility.

Chemicals

$800

Increase in chemical usage to maintain health department guidelines.

Figures based on average facility usage.

Maintenance

$1,000

Increase in usage of pool vacuums, grounds maintenance and other items.

Increase in breakdowns and repairs.

Total Expenditure

$29,034

 

 

 

Income per month

$2,475

Average income per month

 

Expenditure per month

$29,034

Average Expenditure per month

 

Result per month

($26,559)

Loss per month

 

 

Based on the figures above, the facility would require an extra $26,559 per month that the outdoor pools remain open. To cover costs, the facility would require an extra 237 full paying patrons per day. The current winter average per day is 80 patrons.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:    Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

Direction 5b:  A range of cultural, sporting and leisure activities.

Key Action:    Recognise and promote opportunities for residents and visitors to engage in sports and other cultural pursuits.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Financial impact of extending the number of months the outdoor swimming areas are open at Des Renford Aquatic Centre would be approximately $26,559 per month of operation.

 

Conclusion

 

The outdoor pools are not capable of maintaining a comfortable temperature during the cooler months. This reduced pool temperature results in a significant decrease in usage of the outdoor pools and a significant increase in operating costs which will not be able to be recovered.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)   the Des Renford Aquatic Centre maintains the current opening and closing times of the outdoor pools; and

 

b)   the opening and closing times be kept under review and adjusted annually based on weather conditions and usage trends.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS2/10

 

 

Subject:                  Asset Management Policy

Folder No:                   F2007/00043

Author:                   Joe Ingegneri, Co-ordinator Engineering Services     

 

Introduction

 

The implementation of Asset Management is underpinned by the development of an Asset Management Policy to set the principles and framework to achieve Council’s objectives for community infrastructure.

  

Issue

 

An Asset Management Policy outlines a commitment and framework to effectively manage assets under Council’s control to meet the needs of the community.

 

Randwick Council has been implementing asset management practices on key infrastructure asset classes in accordance with industry best practice.  These practices are outlined in the Asset Management Strategy and Plans. However, an Asset Management Policy that outlines Randwick Council’s broad objectives and outcomes has not been formally adopted.

 

The Asset Management Policy has been developed to complement the existing Asset Management Strategy, Plans and Systems already adopted by Randwick City Council.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:      Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

Outcome 9:       Integrated and accessible transport.

Direction 9a:      A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycle ways linking major land uses and recreation opportunities.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There are no financial implications of this report.

 

Conclusion

 

The adoption of the Asset Management Policy will set the framework for effective Asset Management principles and practices in line with objectives for Randwick City Council and its community.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council adopt the Randwick City Council Asset Management Policy.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Randwick City Council Asset Management Policy

 

 

 

 


Randwick City Council Asset Management Policy

Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asset Management Policy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contact Officer: Coordinator Engineering Services

Date approved by Council: ______________

Date of next review:  1 March 2012

History of amendments: First published:         New

TRIM Folder Number: F2007/00043

1.     
Purpose

 

The purpose of this policy is to outline Randwick Council’s commitment to the principles of sound asset management and to provide a practical framework to achieve asset management objectives to meet community expectations.

 

2.      Scope

 

This policy applies to all infrastructure assets owned or controlled by Randwick City Council including transport assets (roads, footpaths, K&G), drainage parks and reserves, buildings and plant.

 

3.      Objective

 

The objective of this policy is to establish an asset management framework which will complement and build upon Randwick Council's City Plan and Delivery Plan with a more formalised approach to asset management principles and practices. Council will achieve significant benefits including:

 

·        Clear direction and “ownership” of Asset Management.

·        A guide to better and more informed decision-making by Council, staff and community.

·        Integration of resources, knowledge and the ability to plan for the present and future generations.

·        A framework to implement continuous improvement in Asset Management

·        Meet community needs and expectations.

·        Manage Council’s risk.

·        Greater resource efficiency through the use of integrated systems.

·        Compliance to State and Federal legislation.

 

4.      Policy

 

To ensure effective asset management Council will undertake to:

 

·           Allocate sufficient resources for the development of asset strategies, management plans and service level documents.

·           Manage all infrastructure assets in a systematic and sustainable manner.

·           Develop and commit to long term capital works and financial management plans that support and are responsive to the needs of the community.

·           Ensure a critical review of asset renewal, disposal, upgrade or new asset provision is carried out prior to considering funding. Principles to consider include demonstrated need, life cycle costing, alternative modes of delivery, sustainability, equitable distribution of resources and social equity.

·           Involve and consult with the community and key stakeholders as required in determining service and intervention levels.

·           Ensure asset management practices conform to legislative requirements and reflect best practice in the industry.

·           Incorporate a consideration of risk management requirements in decision making processes.

·           Ensure roles and responsibilities of all asset users are well defined and understood.

·           Review, as required, the framework developed for the evaluation and prioritisation of capital works projects.

·           Manage assets in a team manner taking into consideration the requirements of asset managers, asset users, asset providers and the community.

 

5.      Asset Management Roles and Responsibilities

 

The implementation of this policy will rely upon the efforts of three key groups. The responsibilities of these groups are:

 

5.1    Councillors

 

·           To adopt a strategic direction for Council in relation to asset management.

·           Support the implementation of improved asset management practices in the organisation.

·           To act as stewards for the community’s assets.

·           To ensure appropriate resources and funding for Asset Management activities.

 

5.2    Executive Management Team

 

·           Provide professional advice to Council to enable informed strategic asset management decisions.

·           Promotion of asset management across the organisation.

·           To ensure consultation occurs between staff, Council and community as required.

·           Monitor progress and performance in the implementation of asset management policies.

·           To allocate resources and training to support asset management generally.

·           Ensure outcomes support Council’s City Plan.

·           Approve and review asset management plans.

 

 

5.3    Asset Management Team

 

·           Implement asset management policies and strategies.

·           Development and implementation of asset management plans.

·           Establish current levels of service for assets, compare to benchmarks and community needs and identify gaps or challenges.

·           Manage asset systems, develop procedures and ensure compliance with standards.

·           Develop processes and procedures for assessment of capital works and asset rationalisation to ensure consistent decision making.

·           Ensure communication between staff and the Executive Management Team.

·           Effectively and efficiently manage funds allocated for asset maintenance, improvement and management.

·           Develop forward operational programs.

·           Promote and raise awareness of asset management in the organisation and through the community.

 

In accordance with the framework within this policy, an Asset Management Strategy has been developed to guide improvements in asset management practices in Council. The strategy identifies actions, outcomes, time frames and responsibilities.

 

6.      Legislation / References

 

·           Local Government Act, 1993

·           Roads Act, 1993

·           Planning and Resources Guidelines – NSW Department of Local Government

·           Randwick City Plan

·           International Infrastructure Management Manual

 

7.      Review

 

This policy will be reviewed bi-annually.

 

8.      Responsibility

 

The Director City Services is responsible for the overall management of this policy.


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS3/10

 

 

Subject:                  Gordon Avenue, Coogee - Proposed Footpath - Petition

Folder No:                   F2006/00028

Author:                   Joe Ingegneri, Co-ordinator Engineering Services     

 

Introduction

 

Council has received two (2) petitions and a letter from the residents of Gordon Avenue, Coogee objecting to the proposed construction of a new concrete footpath on both sides of Gordon Avenue as part of the 2009-10 Capital Works Program.

 

Issues

 

The construction of a new concrete footpath along Gordon Avenue, Coogee was identified as part of Council’s objective to construct footpaths along all streets.  The footpath construction was included in the 2009-10 Capital Works Program. When planning the construction works, a letter was sent to residents advising them of the proposed work.  This notification was delivered in July 2009.

 

Gordon Avenue is a cul-de-sac off Moore Street.  The road reserve is narrower than normal at approximately 12.3m.  The footways are only 2-2.3m wide. See the attached aerial photograph and proposed footpath in Attachment 1.

 

The traffic volumes along Gordon Avenue are very low. The existing footway is part grass nature strip, part landscaped area and there are some segments of concrete footpath on the western side of the road that have been constructed when properties have been developed. The overall condition of each type of surface is good.

 

Nature of Objections

Council has received two (2) petitions and one (1) letter objecting to the construction of the proposed footpath.  Overall, there are 9 properties represented in the letters and petitions received. The grounds for all objections are:

 

·           Aesthetics – Nature strip is well maintained and concern regarding the removal of trees.

·           There are few pedestrians

·           Money would be better spent elsewhere

·           Need – considered that the pedestrian demand is greater between Gordon Avenue and Major Street along Kildare Lane.

 

One of the petitions specifically objects to the construction of the footpath on the eastern side.  It states that if a footpath were to be constructed, it should be placed on the western side of the road because there are segments of footpath already constructed on the western side.

 

Assessment

Gordon Avenue is not a major pedestrian thoroughfare.  Therefore, the proposed concrete footpaths will benefit current and future residents only.

 

We received objections from 9 properties.  There are 30 properties that front Gordon Avenue.  The petition representing 6 properties objects to the construction of a footpath on the eastern side of the street.

 

Construction of a footpath on one side of the street will provide a wet weather and pram or wheelchair friendly access for the residents.

 

Given there are concrete footpath segments already on the western side of Gordon Avenue, it is proposed that the missing links be completed.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:        A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:       Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

Key Action:         Assets are managed strategically to deliver intergenerational equity and to meet Council’s obligation as the custodian of our community’s assets.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Construction of the concrete footpath along both sides of Gordon Avenue, Coogee is in the 2009-10 Capital Works program.

 

Conclusion

 

The objections received to the proposed construction of a concrete footpath along Gordon Avenue do not represent the majority of properties.  However, it is acknowledged that Gordon Avenue is not a pedestrian thoroughfare.

 

On this basis, it is proposed that a concrete footpath be constructed on the western side of Gordon Avenue to link the existing concrete footpath from Moore Street to the end.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the proposed concrete footpath in Gordon Avenue, Coogee, as listed in the 2009-10 Capital Works program, be constructed on the western side of the street only.

 

b)     the savings be directed to footpath improvement works in East Ward.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Gordon Avenue, Coogee - Aerial Photography

 

 

 

 


Gordon Avenue, Coogee - Aerial Photography

Attachment 1

 

 

 



Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS4/10

 

 

Subject:                  Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee - Proposed Footpath - Petition

Folder No:                   F2006/00028

Author:                   Joe Ingegneri, Co-ordinator Engineering Services     

 

Introduction

 

Council has received a petition and a letter from residents of Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee and Seaside Parade, South Coogee objecting to the proposed construction of a new concrete footpath on both sides of Edgecliffe Avenue as part of the 2009-10 Capital Works Program.

 

Issues

 

The construction of a new concrete footpath along Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee was identified as part of Council’s objective to construct footpaths along all streets.  The footpath construction was included in the 2009-10 Capital Works Program. When planning the construction works, we sent a letter to residents advising them of the proposed work.  This notification was delivered in July 2009.

 

Edgecliffe Avenue is located off Malabar Road and currently forms part of the coastal walkway.  There are no concrete footpaths on either side of Edgecliffe Avenue.

 

The traffic volumes along Edgecliffe Avenue are low. The existing footway is grass nature strip with a moderate grade resulting in varying property boundary levels between adjacent properties.  The overall condition of the grassed footway is good.

 

Nature of Objections

The letter of objection is from a resident of Seaside Parade whose side boundary runs along Edgecliffe Avenue.  The objection states that the proposed work will detract from the amenity of the area and is not in keeping with the landscaping of the area.

 

The petition has been prepared as a survey requesting residents to nominate whether they wish a footpath to be constructed on their side of the street.  The outcome of the survey is detailed in the table below.

 

North Side

No. of Properties

19

Responded

12

In favour

5

Against

7

 

South Side

No. of Properties

14

Responded

9

In favour

1

Against

8

 

The survey also includes comments from the residents. 

 

On the southern side, the overwhelming response was that that they do not want a concrete footpath.

The residents from the northern side of the street had a mixed response.  The survey states that the overriding concern was that if a path was to be constructed, it should be constructed without steps.

 

Assessment

Edgecliffe Avenue forms part of the coastal walkway.  It does not have concrete footpaths on either side.  Therefore, the proposed concrete footpaths will benefit residents and the community.

 

The petition/survey was completed by 60% of the residents. It indicates a strong opposition to a concrete footpath on the southern side of the street.  There was a mixed response from the residents on the north side of the street.  The general view was that if a footpath was to be constructed that it should be constructed without steps.

 

An assessment of the footways revealed that a concrete footpath can be constructed on the northern side of the street without steps if it is placed at the back of the kerb.

 

Construction of a footpath on the northern side of the street will provide a wet weather and pram or wheelchair friendly access for the residents and the community using the coastal walkway.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:        A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:       Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

Key Action:         Assets are managed strategically to deliver intergenerational equity and to meet Council’s obligation as the custodian of our community’s assets.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Construction of the concrete footpath along both sides of Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee is in the 2009-10 Capital Works program.

 

Conclusion

 

The petition/survey received to the proposed construction of a concrete footpath along Edgecliffe Avenue was completed by the majority of the residents.  There is a strong objection from the residents on the southern side of Edgecliffe Avenue.

 

Edgecliffe Avenue forms part of the coastal walkway.  A concrete footpath will provide an all weather surface for pedestrians.

 

On this basis, it is proposed that a concrete footpath be constructed on the northern side of Edgecliffe Avenue located at the back of kerb.

 

Recommendation

 

That the proposed concrete footpath in Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee, as listed in the 2009-10 Capital Works program, be constructed on the northern side of the street only, located at the back of kerb.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee - Aerial Photograph

 

 

 

 


Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee - Aerial Photograph

Attachment 1

 

 

 


 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF1/10

 

 

Subject:                  Affixing of the Council Seal

Folder No:                   F2004/07367

Author:                   Sharon Plunkett, Property Coordinator     

 

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.       Coogee Fishing Club and Volunteer Sea Rescue Inc in relation to a licence for the occupation of building and land for fishing club within Dunningham Reserve also known as 2R Baden Street, Coogee.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:      Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

 

Financial impact statement

 

In signing of these agreements, Council will receive the following income:

 

1.       Coogee Fishing Club and Volunteer Sea Rescue Inc for the occupation of the building and land within Dunningham Reserve will generate an annual income of $2,348.21 + GST.

 

Conclusion

 

As 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 the Council’s Seal be affixed to the signing of agreements between Council and:

 

1.     Coogee Fishing Club and Volunteer Sea Rescue Inc in relation to a licence for the occupation of building and land for fishing club within Dunningham Reserve also known as 2R Baden Street, Coogee.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF2/10

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - November 2009

Folder No:                   F2004/06527

Author:                   Greg Byrne, Manager Financial Operations     

 

Introduction

 

The Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Responsible Accounting Officer provide a written report to the ordinary meeting of the Council giving details of all monies invested and a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Issues

 

Council is authorised by s625 of the Local Government Act to invest its surplus funds. Funds may only be invested in the form of investment notified by Order of the Minister dated 31 July 2008. The Local Government (General) Regulation prescribes the records that must be maintained in relation to Council’s investments.

                         

The table in this report titled “Investment Register – November 2009” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of November 2009. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council's Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

The size of the investment portfolio may vary significantly from month to month as a result of cash flows for the period. Cash outflows (expenditure) are typically relatively stable from one month to another. Cash inflows (income) are cyclical and are largely dependent on the rates instalment due dates and the timing of grant payments including receipt of the Financial Assistance Grant. The next rate instalment for 2009-10 financial year, is due 28 February 2010. 

 

Expenditure during the period was incurred for capital works, payroll and miscellaneous expenses. Main income sources were rates income, grants and miscellaneous fees and charges.

 

The investment portfolio increased by $3.463 million during November 2009. The increase is representative of positive cash flow for the month as income exceeded expenditure. There was an unrealised capital loss on investments for November of $73,708.83.

 

 

The above graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from July 2004 to November 2009. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

The investment portfolio is diversified across a number of investment types and is spread across a number of financial institutions. The various investment types may include managed funds, term deposits, rolling rate investments, floating rate notes and on‑call accounts.

 

The following graph indicates the allocation of investment types held at the end of November 2009.

 

The investment portfolio is regularly reviewed in order to maximise investment performance and minimise risk. Comparisons are made between existing investments with available products that are not part of Council's portfolio. Independent advice is sought on new investment opportunities.

 

The following graph shows the investment returns achieved against the UBS Bank Bill Index and the official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate for the period September 2004 to November 2009.

 

 

Investment performance for the financial year to date has been above the industry benchmark UBS Australian Bank Bill Index with an average return after fees of 3.72%, compared with the benchmark index of 3.43%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate increased by 0.25% to 3.50% at the November 2009 meeting. (Note: A further rate increase of 0.25% was realised at the December 2009 meeting.)

 

Ministerial Investment Order

 

In late 2007, the NSW Government commissioned a review of NSW local government investments. The review, known as the Cole Report included eight recommendations that were all adopted by the NSW Government and incorporated into the latest Ministerial Investment Order dated 31 July 2008.

 

The Ministerial Investment Order includes transitional arrangements that allow councils to continue to hold investments that were made in compliance with the previous Ministerial Order dated 15 July 2005. Council’s investment portfolio contains a number of investments that fall into this category including both Managed Funds and Structured Products.

 

Managed Funds

 

The investment portfolio includes $7.871 million in managed funds. The following table depicts the latest information in respect to these products.

 

Investment

Product Type

Credit

Rating

Par Value

Market Value

LGFS Fixed Outperformance Cash Fund

Floating Rate Fund

A

4,881,191

4,881,191

Blackrock

Care & Maintenance Fund

Collective Investment

Not Rated

2,989,958

3,117,790

 

The LGFS Fixed Outperformance Cash Fund pays a floating rate return of 0.50% above the 90day BBSW index.

 

The Blackrock Care & Maintenance Fund was created following the closure of the Blackrock Diversified Credit Fund. This new fund is referred to as a “Collective Investment” and is closed to any new deposits or withdrawals. Proceeds of the fund are distributed to investors as the underlying investments reach maturity or the fund manager considers it an opportune time to sell the investments at current market rates.  The purpose of the fund is to limit the financial losses that would have occurred if the underlying assets were sold at market prices at the time that the original fund was wound up.

 

Structured Products

 

The investment portfolio includes $4.00 million in structured products. The following table depicts the latest information in respect to these products. The risk rating is assigned by Council’s investment advisor. 

 

Investment

Product Type

Credit

Rating

Par Value

Market Value

Risk Rating

Maturity Date

CBA

Shield Series 21

Capital Protected Note

AA

1,000,000

1,160,970

Low

28/02/11

Longreach

Series 33 (STIRM)

Capital Protected Note

A+

1,000,000

1,071,900

Low

10/05/13

ANZ Three Pillars

CDO

B

2,000,000

1,585,400

Moderate

06/04/10

TOTAL

 

 

4,000,000

3,818,270

 

 

 

Movements in the market value of these investments have been quite volatile over the past 18 months. This period has also seen very little liquidity for these products.

 

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

 

Funds are invested with the aim of achieving budgeted income in 2009-10 and outperforming the UBS Australian Bank Bill Index over a 12 month period.   The budget provision for income from this source was revised at the September quarterly review to $1,397,308.00 an increase of $50,000.00. Investment income to 30 November 2009 amounted to $650,418.68.

Following is the detailed Investment Report – November 2009.


Conclusion

 

All investments as at 30 November 2009 have been made in accordance with Council Investment Policy.  All investments meet the requirements of s625 of the Local Government Act and the Local Government (General) Regulation.

 

Changes to the economic climate and financial markets are being closely monitored. Appropriate adjustments to the investment strategy will continue to be made as required.

 

Recommendation

 

That the investment report for November 2009 be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF3/10

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - December 2009

Folder No:                   F2004/06527

Author:                   Greg Byrne, Manager Financial Operations     

 

Introduction

 

The Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Responsible Accounting Officer provide a written report to the ordinary meeting of the Council giving details of all monies invested and a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Issues

 

Council is authorised by s625 of the Local Government Act to invest its surplus funds. Funds may only be invested in the form of investment notified by Order of the Minister dated 31 July 2008. The Local Government (General) Regulation prescribes the records that must be maintained in relation to Council’s investments.

                         

The table in this report titled “Investment Register–December 2009” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of December 2009. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council's Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

The size of the investment portfolio may vary significantly from month to month as a result of cash flows for the period. Cash outflows (expenditure) are typically relatively stable from one month to another. Cash inflows (income) are cyclical and are largely dependent on the rates instalment due dates and the timing of grant payments including receipt of the Financial Assistance Grant. The next rate instalment for 2009-10 financial year, is due 28 February 2010. 

 

Expenditure during the period was incurred for capital works, payroll and miscellaneous expenses. Main income sources were rates income, grants and miscellaneous fees and charges.

 

The investment portfolio decreased by $1.603 million during December 2009. The decrease is representative of negative cash flow for the month as expenditure exceeded income. There was an unrealised capital gain on investments for December of $173,574.09.

 

 

The above graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from July 2004 to December 2009. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

The investment portfolio is diversified across a number of investment types and is spread across a number of financial institutions. The various investment types may include managed funds, term deposits, rolling rate investments, floating rate notes and on‑call accounts.

 

The following graph indicates the allocation of investment types held at the end of December 2009.

 

The investment portfolio is regularly reviewed in order to maximise investment performance and minimise risk. Comparisons are made between existing investments with available products that are not part of Council's portfolio. Independent advice is sought on new investment opportunities.

 

The following graph shows the investment returns achieved against the UBS Bank Bill Index and the official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate for the period September 2004 to December 2009.

 

 

Investment performance for the financial year to date has been above the industry benchmark UBS Australian Bank Bill Index with an average return after fees of 4.34%, compared with the benchmark index of 3.56%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate increased by 0.25% to 3.75% at the December 2009 meeting.

 

Ministerial Investment Order

 

In late 2007, the NSW Government commissioned a review of NSW local government investments. The review, known as the Cole Report included eight recommendations that were all adopted by the NSW Government and incorporated into the latest Ministerial Investment Order dated 31 July 2008.

 

The Ministerial Investment Order includes transitional arrangements that allow councils to continue to hold investments that were made in compliance with the previous Ministerial Order dated 15 July 2005. Council’s investment portfolio contains a number of investments that fall into this category including both Managed Funds and Structured Products.

 

Managed Funds

 

The investment portfolio includes $7.888 million in managed funds. The following table depicts the latest information in respect to these products.

 

Investment

Product Type

Credit

Rating

Par Value

Market Value

LGFS Fixed Outperformance Cash Fund

Floating Rate Fund

A

4,898,936

4,898,936

Blackrock

Care & Maintenance Fund

Collective Investment

Not Rated

2,989,958

3,157,064

 

The LGFS Fixed Outperformance Cash Fund pays a floating rate return of 0.50% above the 90day BBSW index.

 

The Blackrock Care & Maintenance Fund was created following the closure of the Blackrock Diversified Credit Fund. This new fund is referred to as a “Collective Investment” and is closed to any new deposits or withdrawals. Proceeds of the fund are distributed to investors as the underlying investments reach maturity or the fund manager considers it an opportune time to sell the investments at current market rates.  The purpose of the fund is to limit the financial losses that would have occurred if the underlying assets were sold at market prices at the time that the original fund was wound up.

 

Structured Products

 

The investment portfolio includes $4.00 million in structured products. The following table depicts the latest information in respect to these products. The risk rating is assigned by Council’s investment advisor. 

 

Investment

Product Type

Credit

Rating

Par Value

Market Value

Risk Rating

Maturity Date

CBA

Shield Series 21

Capital Protected Note

AA

1,000,000

1,160,970

Low

28/02/11

Longreach

Series 33 (STIRM)

Capital Protected Note

A+

1,000,000

1,093,600

Low

10/05/13

ANZ Three Pillars

CDO

B

2,000,000

1,698,000

Moderate

06/04/10

TOTAL

 

 

4,000,000

3,952,570

 

 

 

Movements in the market value of these investments have been quite volatile over the past 18 months. This period has also seen very little liquidity for these products.

 

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

 

Funds are invested with the aim of achieving budgeted income in 2009-10 and outperforming the UBS Australian Bank Bill Index over a 12 month period.  The budget provision for income from this source was revised at the September quarterly review to $1,397,308.00 an increase of $50,000.00. Investment income to 31 December 2009 amounted to $813,823.05.

Following is the detailed Investment Report – December 2009.


Conclusion

 

All investments as at 31 December 2009 have been made in accordance with Council Investment Policy.  All investments meet the requirements of s625 of the Local Government Act and the Local Government (General) Regulation.

 

Changes to the economic climate and financial markets are being closely monitored. Appropriate adjustments to the investment strategy will continue to be made as required.

 

Recommendation

 

That the investment report for December 2009 be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF4/10

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - January 2010

Folder No:                   F2004/06527

Author:                   Greg Byrne, Manager Financial Operations     

 

Introduction

 

The Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Responsible Accounting Officer provide a written report to the ordinary meeting of the Council giving details of all monies invested and a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Issues

 

Council is authorised by s625 of the Local Government Act to invest its surplus funds. Funds may only be invested in the form of investment notified by Order of the Minister dated 31 July 2008. The Local Government (General) Regulation prescribes the records that must be maintained in relation to Council’s investments.

                         

The table in this report titled “Investment Register–January 2010” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of January 2010. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council's Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

The size of the investment portfolio may vary significantly from month to month as a result of cash flows for the period. Cash outflows (expenditure) are typically relatively stable from one month to another. Cash inflows (income) are cyclical and are largely dependent on the rates instalment due dates and the timing of grant payments including receipt of the Financial Assistance Grant. The next rate instalment for 2009-10 financial year, is due 28 February 2010. 

 

Expenditure during the period was incurred for capital works, payroll and miscellaneous expenses. Main income sources were rates income, grants and miscellaneous fees and charges.

 

The investment portfolio decreased by $3.343 million during January 2010. The decrease is representative of negative cash flow for the month as expenditure exceeded income. There was an unrealised capital gain on investments for January of $175,851.72.

 

 

The above graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from July 2004 to January 2010. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

The investment portfolio is diversified across a number of investment types and is spread across a number of financial institutions. The various investment types may include managed funds, term deposits, rolling rate investments, floating rate notes and on‑call accounts.

 

The following graph indicates the allocation of investment types held at the end of January 2010.

 

The investment portfolio is regularly reviewed in order to maximise investment performance and minimise risk. Comparisons are made between existing investments with available products that are not part of Council's portfolio. Independent advice is sought on new investment opportunities.

 

The following graph shows the investment returns achieved against the UBS Bank Bill Index and the official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate for the period September 2004 to January 2010.

 

 

Investment performance for the financial year to date has been above the industry benchmark UBS Australian Bank Bill Index with an average return after fees of 5.08%, compared with the benchmark index of 3.93%.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate increased by 0.25% to 3.75% at the December 2009 meeting and remained unchanged at the February 2010 meeting.

 

Ministerial Investment Order

 

In late 2007, the NSW Government commissioned a review of NSW local government investments. The review, known as the Cole Report included eight recommendations that were all adopted by the NSW Government and incorporated into the latest Ministerial Investment Order dated 31 July 2008.

 

The Ministerial Investment Order includes transitional arrangements that allow councils to continue to hold investments that were made in compliance with the previous Ministerial Order dated 15 July 2005. Council’s investment portfolio contains a number of investments that fall into this category including both Managed Funds and Structured Products.

 

Managed Funds

 

The investment portfolio includes $7.908 million in managed funds. The following table depicts the latest information in respect to these products.

 

Investment

Product Type

Credit

Rating

Par Value

Market Value

LGFS Fixed Outperformance Cash Fund

Floating Rate Fund

A

4,918,001

4,918,001

Blackrock

Care & Maintenance Fund

Collective Investment

Not Rated

2,989,958

3,206,566

 

The LGFS Fixed Outperformance Cash Fund pays a floating rate return of 0.50% above the 90day BBSW index.

 

The Blackrock Care & Maintenance Fund was created following the closure of the Blackrock Diversified Credit Fund. This new fund is referred to as a “Collective Investment” and is closed to any new deposits or withdrawals. Proceeds of the fund are distributed to investors as the underlying investments reach maturity or the fund manager considers it an opportune time to sell the investments at current market rates.  The purpose of the fund is to limit the financial losses that would have occurred if the underlying assets were sold at market prices at the time that the original fund was wound up. A cash distribution of $22,358.62 entirely made up of income was paid on 20 January 2010.

 

Structured Products

 

The investment portfolio includes $4.00 million in structured products. The following table depicts the latest information in respect to these products. The risk rating is assigned by Council’s investment advisor. 

 

Investment

Product Type

Credit

Rating

Par Value

Market Value

Risk Rating

Maturity Date

CBA

Shield Series 21

Capital Protected Note

AA

1,000,000

1,168,120

Low

28/02/11

Longreach

Series 33 (STIRM)

Capital Protected Note

A+

1,000,000

1,100,800

Low

10/05/13

ANZ Three Pillars

CDO

B

2,000,000

1,810,000

Moderate

06/04/10

TOTAL

 

 

4,000,000

4,078,920

 

 

 

Movements in the market value of these investments have been quite volatile over the past 18 months. This period has also seen very little liquidity for these products.

 

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

 

Funds are invested with the aim of achieving budgeted income in 2009-10 and outperforming the UBS Australian Bank Bill Index over a 12 month period.  The budget provision for income from this source was revised at the September quarterly review to $1,397,308.00 an increase of $50,000.00, with a further $300,000.00 being included in the December quarterly review. Investment income to 31 January 2010 amounted to $994,870.44.

Following is the detailed Investment Report – January 2010.


Conclusion

 

All investments as at 31 January 2010 have been made in accordance with Council Investment Policy.  All investments meet the requirements of s625 of the Local Government Act and the Local Government (General) Regulation.

 

Changes to the economic climate and financial markets are being closely monitored. Appropriate adjustments to the investment strategy will continue to be made as required.

 

Recommendation

 

That the investment report for January 2010 be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF5/10

 

 

Subject:                  Councillors Expenses & Facilities Policy - results of public exhibition

Folder No:                   F2004/06576

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

Section 252 of the Local Government Act requires Councils to adopt a policy for the payment of expenses incurred by and the provision of facilities to, Mayors, Deputy Mayors and other councillors.  Mayors, Deputy Mayors and councillors can only be reimbursed for expenses and provided with facilities, in discharging the functions of civic office, in accordance with this policy.

 

A revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy was considered at the 24 November 2009 Council Meeting, where in it was resolved (Woodsmith/Nash) that:

 

a)     the Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy be publicly exhibited for a period of 28 days in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1993;

 

b)     the General Manager seek advice from the Department of Local Government on the proposed amendments made by Councillor Stevenson with respect to legal assistance and pre-approved expense limits and bring a report back to Council outlining the Department’s response; and

 

c)     a copy of this report to Council, the report arising from part (b) above and the revised policy be submitted to the Department of Local Government.

 

Issues

 

Advice was sought from the Division of Local Government (Department of Premier and Cabinet) on 30 November 2009 as follows:

 

The first of the amendments proposed is in Part 1 Clause (xvi) Dispute Resolution. The first paragraph is to be amended by including additional wording and would read as follows:

 

“Where possible, approval is to be sought and gained prior to reimbursable expenses under this policy being incurred, and a pre-approved limit be advised if requested.”

 

The reasons for this suggested change put forward by the councillor were:

 

·           being able to know the limits to costs of conferences or other activities up front;

·           knowing the limit acts as a guide as to what level of expenses are expected and reasonable for a councillor to incur;

·           not having to seek approval of what was spent afterwards and possibly having it disputed; and

·           it helps to avoid potential criticism of what councillors spend at conferences.

 

The second of the proposed amendments we seek your advice on is a rewording of one of the new clauses in Part 7 – Legal Assistance to now read “Council will not meet the legal costs of legal proceedings initiated by a councillor under any circumstances, except for appeals processes where a councillor would be covered by the policy for the proceedings below.”

 

The reason for this amendment provided by the councillor was that, at the moment, if a party sues a councillor then legal expenses are indemnified or reimbursed by Council under the policy. However, the councillor may need to appeal that decision in order to be given justice and the Council, under this policy, would not fund the councillor’s legal expenses.

 

The Deputy Director General (Local Government), Department of Premier and Cabinet, responded on 8 January 2010, indicating:

 

 

A copy of the November 2009 report to Council and a copy of the revised policy were also submitted to the Division of Local Government (Department of Premier and Cabinet).

 

The revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy was on public exhibition from 15 December 2009 to 29 January 2010

 

During the public exhibition period, the policy was available to be viewed at Council’s Customer Service Centre, the three (3) Council libraries and on Council’s website.  The availability of the document was advertised in the Southern Courier Newspaper.

 

There were no submissions received during the public exhibition period.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

There is no relationship to the City Plan.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that the revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy be adopted for immediate implementation, with the following amendments (as suggested by Councillor Stevenson and endorsed by the Division of Local Government:

 

Part 1 – Clause xvi - Dispute resolution (page 10 of the revised policy)

“Where possible, approval is to be sought and gained prior to reimbursable expenses under this policy being incurred, and a pre-approved limit be advised if requested.”

 

Part 7 – Legal Assistance (page 17 of the policy)

“Council will not meet the legal costs of legal proceedings initiated by a councillor under any circumstances, except for appeals processes where a councillor would be covered by the policy for the proceedings below.”

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)   it be noted that there were no submissions received as a result of the public exhibition of the revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy.

 

b)   the revised Councillors’ Expenses & Facilities Policy be adopted for immediate implementation.  

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Revised Councillors Expenses & Facilities Policy

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF6/10

 

 

Subject:                  Budget Review - December 2009 Quarter

Folder No:                   F2008/00650

Author:                   Caroline Foley, Manager Corporate & Financial Planning     

 

Introduction

 

Section 203(1) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that at the end of each quarter, a Budget Review Statement be prepared and submitted to Council that indicates the latest estimates of income and expenditure for the 2009-10 year.

 

The regulation (Section 203 (2)) also requires that the budget review statement must include, or be accompanied by:

 

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

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

 

Issues

 

This report is a review of the Council’s 2009-10 current budget and recommends adoption of a revised budget for 2009-10.

 

It proposes variations to Council’s adopted budget, which will result in a projected surplus at year end of $12,350. Major variations to the budget are highlighted below:

 

FINANCIAL POSITION

$

 

 

Current projected deficit/(surplus)

(14,508)

 

 

Variations Proposed This Review

 

Increase in Expenditure

484,772

Decrease in Expenditure

(401,099)

Increase in Income

(531,196)

Decrease in Income

449,681

Total Variations This Review

2,158

 

 

Projected deficit/(surplus) as at 30 June 2010

(12,350)

 

Attachments 1 to 2 summarise Council’s Financial Performance, Source and Application of Funds and Council’s Financial Position.

 

Comments on variations are listed in the table below. Attachment 3 contains a schedule of all proposed variations.

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed Budget Variations

 

 

Increase / (Decrease) in Expenditure

(Increase)/ Decrease

in

Income

INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE

 

 

1. Park Grass Maintenance

50,000

 

Increase in expenditure required for Anzac Parade median strips and new parks at Little Bay.

2. Fringe Benefits Tax

60,000

 

Increase in taxable value of Fringe Benefits.

3. CCTV Installation

93,730

 

Increase in capital expenditure required on CCTV installations throughout the Council area.

4. Works Depot Refurbishment

21,042

 

Construction costs of improvements to the Administration area of Storey Street Works Depot.

5. Information Technology Reserve

260,000

 

Increase of the transfer to Information Technology reserve after a review of the IT Strategy.

TOTAL INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE

484,772

 

 

DECREASE IN EXPENDITURE

 

 

1. Department of Planning Levy

(2,474)

 

Matching budget to actual expenditure.

2. Street Lighting

(160,000)

 

Street lighting hardware costs are lower than expected.

3. Fine Processing Fees

(238,625)

 

Reduction in ordinance inspectors fine processing fee due to reduction in amount of fines.

TOTAL DECREASE IN EXPENDITURE

(401,099)

 

 

 

 

 

INCREASE IN INCOME

 

 

1. Interest on Investments

 

(251,629)

Projected interest on investments greater than originally forecasted due to a rise in the RBA’s cash rate.

2. Section 149 Certificates

 

(10,000)

Demand for s149 certificates greater than anticipated.

3. Interest on Bank Account

 

(4,000)

Projected interest on bank account greater than originally forecasted due to a rise in interest rates.

 

 

Increase / (Decrease) in Expenditure

(Increase)/ Decrease

in

Income

4. Merchant Service Fee Recovery

 

(10,000)

Higher than anticipated use of credit cards for payments to Council.

5. Public and Private Restorations

 

(1,454)

Profits from works undertaken in 2009

6. Community Facilities Hire Fees

 

(20,000)

Increase in the volume of hiring of Council facilities.

7. Commercial Rentals

 

(20,000)

Unbudgeted for revenue from temporary licence on Moverly Road.

8. WASIP – Waste Development

 

(81,433)

Overhead recovery from grant funded waste improvement program.

9. Rates Revenue

 

(116,430)

Increase in anticipated rates revenue.

10. Gross Pollutant Traps

 

(8,000)

Funding of replacement gross pollutant traps.

11. SMILE – Integrated Transport

 

(8,250)

Overhead recovery from grant funded integrated transport program.

TOTAL INCREASE IN INCOME

 

(531,196)

 

DECREASE IN INCOME

 

 

1. Parking Fines

 

415,176

Decrease in amount of revenue forecasted to be received from ordinance inspectors parking fines.

2. Trade Waste User Charges

 

 

Contract extension fee less than anticipated.

 

34,505

TOTAL DECREASE IN INCOME

 

449,681

TOTAL VARIATIONS

83,673

(81,515)

NET VARIATIONS – DEFICIT / (SURPLUS)

2,158

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1b:      Council is a leader in the delivery of social, financial and operational activities.

Financial impact statement

 

The proposed variations listed in this report and in Attachment 3 will result in a projected surplus at year end of $12,350.

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Director Governance and Financial Services, as the responsible accounting officer, advises that the projected financial position is satisfactory.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the report in relation to the December 2009 budget review be received and noted; and

 

b)     the proposed December 2009 budget variations shown in Attachment 3 to this report be adopted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Statement of Financial Performance and Appplication of Funds for the period ended 31 December 2009

 

2.View

Balance Sheet as at 31 December 2009

 

3.View

Proposed Budget Variations - December 2009 Quarter Review

 

 

 

 


Statement of Financial Performance and Appplication of Funds for the period ended 31 December 2009

Attachment 1

 

 






Balance Sheet as at 31 December 2009

Attachment 2

 

 


Proposed Budget Variations - December 2009 Quarter Review

Attachment 3

 

 

















 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM1/10

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matthews - Waiving of Fees for the Coogee Patchwork Group for hiring Clovelly Seniors Hall

Folder No:                   F2004/08261

Submitted by:          Councillor Matthews, South Ward     

 

 

That fees payable for the hire of the Clovelly Seniors Hall by the Coogee Patchwork Group be waived as they are a non-profit organisation consisting only of senior citizens who perform outstanding volunteer work for the community but do not have financial means of paying the current fees being charged.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM2/10

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Woodsmith -  Overdevelopment of Dunningham Reserve, Coogee

Folder No:                   F2004/08256

Submitted by:          Councillor Woodsmith, North Ward     

 

As there has not been the usual community consultation, and there is considerable disquiet within the Coogee area, concerning the perceived over development of Dunningham Reserve (in relation to the stairs and wall) the matter be brought back before Council for debate.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM3/10

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Crs Smith, Tracey and Woodsmith - Introducing 4 hour Parking  on (northern side) of Burnie Street, Clovelly

Folder No:                   F2004/06137

Submitted by:          Councillor Tracey, North Ward; Councillor Smith, North Ward; Councillor Woodsmith, North Ward     

 

That:

 

a)     Council recommends to the Traffic Committee that 4 hour parking each day be introduced on the northern side of Burnie Street, between Arden Street and       Winchester Road, Clovelly; and

 

b)     These restrictions are necessary to facilitate users of the council playground and      community facilities located there.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM4/10

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Reconsideration of planned new Foothpath - Edgecumbe Avenue, Coogee

Folder No:                   F2006/00575

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

That Council receive and note the petition collected by Mr Sheedy opposing the intended footpath on the western side of Edgecumbe Avenue, Coogee and reconsider its previous resolution on the matter.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM5/10

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Pending removal of Jacaranda tree on Department of Housing estate at 38 Malabar Road, Maroubra

Folder No:                   F2004/07809

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

That Council request a meeting with the Department of Housing officials and Ward Councillors to explore options that would allow for the retention of the Jacaranda tree outside Ms Vicki Powers residence on the Department of Housing estate at 38 Malabar Road, Maroubra.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM6/10

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Coogee Bay Hotel Site Redevelopment Proposal

Folder No:                   F2009/00555

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

That this meeting debates the report back by Ward Councillors of the outcome of the discussion at the Monday 15 February meeting of the Coogee Bay Precinct Committee on the issue of the proposed redevelopment of the Coogee Bay Hotel site.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM7/10

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Lexington Place Busking Competition

Folder No:                   F2004/07096

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

That the draft budget consider funding for another busking competition in Lexington Place this year.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM8/10

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Opposition Leader's Emissions Reduction Scheme

Folder No:                   F2006/00507

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward     

 

That on behalf of Randwick LGA residents Council notes community dissatisfaction on the opposition leader’s failure to make polluters pay to achieve emissions reduction in his recently announced emissions trading scheme and responds by:

 

a)     writing to the opposition leader noting its concern and seeking clarification on the issue; and

 

b)     contributing $200 to Get up – Action for Australia’s bill board campaign highlighting the deficiency of the scheme if the opposition leader does not reduce Council’s concerns.

 

 

  


Ordinary Council

23 February 2010

 

 

 

Notice of Rescission Motion No. NR1/10

 

 

Subject:                  Notice of Rescission Motion submitted by Crs Matson, Woodsmith & Notley-Smith - Bundock Street - Drainage Upgrade

Folder No:                   F2009/00044

Submitted by:          Councillor Matson, East Ward; Councillor Woodsmith, North Ward; Councillor Notley-Smith, East Ward     

 

That the resolution passed at the Works Committee meeting held on 9 February 2010 reading as follows:

 

‘RESOLUTION: (Andrews/Mayor, Cr J Procopiadis) that:

 

a)     the proposed new concrete apron and open channel within Department of Defence land be undertaken; and

 

b)     the two (2) street trees on the southern side of Bundock Street west of 101 Bundock Street be removed and replaced with 2 super advanced street trees along Bundock Street.’

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

If the Rescission Motion is carried, it is intended to move the following motion:

 

‘That Council assess alternative options that will achieve the desired drainage objectives