Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 27 July 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

27 July 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, 27 July 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 - 22 June 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

CP55/10    8 Davidson Crescent, Maroubra

CP56/10    355 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

CP57/10    Reporting variation to Development Standard under State Environment

CP58/10    Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) - delegate declarations of interest

CP59/10    Proposed Cultural Arts Program Budget to Activate Community Centres

CP60/10    Land & Environmental Court Appeals

CP61/10    Chifley Sports Reserve draft Final Plan of Management …………………………………79

 

General Manager's Reports

GM26/10    Australian Mayoral Aviation Council - Atendance at 2010 Conference

GM27/10    Future of Riverina Red Gum Forests

GM28/10    Randwick Boys High School - proposed 'Mayor's Award'

GM29/10    Kite Flying - Maroubra Beach

GM30/10    Funding of Heffron Park Plan of Management

GM31/10    Delegations of Authority

GM32/10    Management of Blenheim House - 17 Blenheim Street, Randwick

GM33/10    Actions Arising from Sister Cities National Conference

 

Director City Services Report

CS11/10    City Services - Organisational Restructure/Increase in Service Levels

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF30/10    Coogee Patchworks Group Hire of Clovelly Senior Citizens' Hall

GF31/10    Affixing of the Council Seal

GF32/10    Investment Report - June 2010

GF33/10    Matraville Town Centre Action Plan

GF34/10    Final Migration of Councils Online Applications to an In-House Hosted and Supported Corporate Application Solution  

 

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM34/10    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Notley-Smith - Sydney Airport Community Forum

NM35/10    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Economic Brief

NM36/10    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Economic Development & Tourism Board

NM37/10    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Promotion of Sister City Relationships

NM38/10    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Randwick in Gloucesteshire, England

NM39 /10   Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Erection of signpost to Sister Cities

NM40/10    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Terms of Reference for Youth Advisory Committee

NM41/10    Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Promotion of Voluntary Service in Surf Life Saving  


Closed Session

GM34/10    Advertising in local newspapers

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (d) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

CP62/10    379-401 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (g) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with advice concerning litigation, or advice that would otherwise be privileged from production in legal proceedings on the ground of legal professional privilege.

 

CS12/10    Tender Report for the Des Renford Aquatic Centre - Goods and Services Panel Contract - Tender Number T13/10

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (c) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

CS13/10    Tender Report for City Services Schedule of Rates for Minor Works Contracts - T02/10

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (c) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

CS14/10    Tender Report for the Supply & Delivery of Plants - T09/10

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (c) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

CS15/10    Tender Report for Security Services - Tender Number T11/10

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (c) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

CS16/10    SSROC Tender Report - Provision of Tyre Supply and Servicing

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (c) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP55/10

 

 

Subject:                  8 Davidson Crescent, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/183/2010

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Strata subdivision of existing attached dual occupancy

 

Ward:                      South Ward

 

Applicant:                Redmane Pty Ltd

 

Owner:                         R & K Ashton

 

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

1.    Executive Summary

 

The proposed development is for a strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy (granted approval under DA/155/2006) into two strata lots on a site measuring 676sqm.

 

The subject site does not comply with the minimum allotment size standard for the subdivision of 2A zoned sites under Clause 20B (1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) (Consolidation) which states:

 

The minimum allotment size for allotments resulting from the subdivision of land, other than for the purposes of public utility undertakings or roads, within Zone 2A is 400sqm and each allotment must have a frontage of at least 12 metres.

 

The RLEP (Consolidation) came into effect on the 15 January 2010 removing Clause 30(3) of the previous RLEP 1998 and replacing it with the above Clause. The difference in the two clauses regarding strata subdivision is that the applicable clause 20B (1) requires a minimum site area of 800sqm whilst the previous Clause 30(3) required 900sqm for strata subdivision in a 2A zone. It is noted that the individual reference to strata subdivision that previously existed in Clause 30(3) was unnecessary in that a reference to subdivision included both land and strata subdivision as defined under Clause 4B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 No 203 (EP&A).

 

The proposed strata subdivision on a lot size of 685sqm does not comply with the 800sqm minimum allotment size required under Clause 20B (1). There is a total shortfall of 124sqm which represents a variation of approximately 15% under the minimum site area. The application is referred to Council for determination as required by the Department of Planning where development applications seek a greater than 10% variation to a development standard.

 

It is considered that allowing the subdivision of the subject allotment will be antipathetic to the aims of the LEP objectives of the zone in that it will not maintain the desirable attributes of established low-density residential areas and protection of amenity. The proposed SEPP 1 objection has not established that the proposed strata subdivision will result in the protection of local amenity, an improvement to the amenity of existing residents, encouraging housing affordability and providing for a mix of housing that would be afforded by a development that complies with the standard.

 

The applicants SEPP 1 objection to the minimum allotment size standard is considered to merely point to grammatical references and an absence of physical amenity impacts rather than demonstrating how the proposal satisfies all of the relevant specific objectives and underlying purpose of the standard. Further, a decision in favour of the strata subdivision will have the effect of abandoning the development standard to speculative and individual ownership of undersized allotments that would in turn have the effect of cumulatively transforming the character of 2A zoned land.

 

It is considered, therefore, that requiring adherence to the development standard in this case serves the public interest and the application is recommended for refusal.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

Strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy into two lots.

 

The proposed allotments include:

 

Lot 1: The approximate footprint of lot 1 measures 229sqm

Lot 2: The approximate footprint of lot 2 measures 278sqm.

 

Note: Should the common property areas be combined with the proposed allotments, the approximate footprint of lot 1 would measure 360sqm and the approximate footprint of lot 2 would measure 316sqm,

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the southern corner of Davidson Crescent and Chelmsford Avenue in Maroubra and is presently occupied by an attached dual occupancy.  The site has general dimensions of 17.12m x 42.10m with a curved boundary on the corner of Chelmsford Avenue. The site has an overall site area of 676.6m².  Neighbouring the property to the south-east is a single storey dwelling and to the rear is a two storey dwelling fronting Chelmsford Avenue. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of one and two storey dwelling houses.

 

 

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

 

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

 

Pursuant to Clauses 20B (1) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998, the minimum allotment size for subdivision of an attached dual occupancy on land zoned 2A Residential is 400sqm per allotment requiring a total land size of 800sqm. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:


 

 

Minimum allotment size standard for subdivision

Proposal

Lot 1: The approximate footprint of lot 1 measures 229sqm.

 

Lot 2: The approximate footprint of lot 2 measures 278sqm.

 

Note: Should the proposed allotments combine the immediately adjacent areas of common property, the approximate footprint of lot 1 would measure 360sqm and the approximate footprint of lot 2 would measure 316sqm accounting for a total site area of 676sqm.

 

LEP 1998 (Consolidation) development standard

 

400sqm per allotment requiring a total land size of 800sqm

Shortfall below the LEP standard

 

Lot 1: based on the footprint of lot 1 the shortfall is 171sqm and based on the combined footprint of lot 1 and immediately adjacent common property the shortfall would be 40sqm below the standard.

 

Lot 2: based on the footprint of lot 2 the shortfall is 122sqm and based on the combined footprint of lot 1 and immediately adjacent common property the shortfall would be 84sqm below the standard.

 

The total shortfall below the 800sqm required is 124m2 below the development standard which equates to a 15% shortfall.

 

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).

 

·      Comments:

The stated purpose of the Minimum allotment size standards 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 underlying purpose of Clause 20B(1) is to maintain the existing subdivision pattern and low density character of land zoned 2A.”

 

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

 

The salient points raised by the applicant include the following:

 

·           That Councils position is unreasonable in relation to the application of Clause 20B(1) to strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy;

 

·           That Clause 20B of the RLEP 1998 does not include a development standard citing 800sqm as the minimum allotment size for subdivision in the 2A zone or any other zone.

 

·           That the word allotment is not defined in the RLEP 1998 nor is it defined in the EP&A Act for which there is a body of case law supporting the position that the appropriate interpretation of this word must be in the context of each different Councils Planning instruments. Therefore it is not appropriate to automatically and whole heartedly adopt the Courts interpretation and application of “allotment” in Denis Smith to the RLEP 1998.

 

·           That Councils application of the stated purpose of the development standard relates to the control of the division of land in a 2 dimensional sense not to control the division of land in a 3 dimensions cubic space sense; that being the strata subdivision of a building (in this case an attached dual occupancy).

 

·           That the proposed strata subdivision satisfies the stated particular purpose in that because the application is for strata it will not result in creating an opportunity for any future intensification of development on the land and that the application only provides a means by which the ownership of each dwelling can be managed and that approving the application will not have the effect of abandoning the development standard.

 

Comment:

 

The question as to whether the context or purpose of the “subdivision of land” should not include strata subdivision and whether allotment should or should not include “strata lot” has been posed.

 

Council’s legal advice indicates the application of Clause 20B(1) is appropriate to strata subdivision and that the requirement for each allotment to have an area of 400sqm and a total minimum site area of 800sqm is relevant to the purpose and underlying intent of the standard (provisions) for applications seeking strata subdivision of attached dual occupancies on 2A zoned land.

 

Having regard to particular reference to the “subdivision of land” it is considered that “subdivision” as defined in the EP&A Act under Section 4B extends to strata subdivision.

 

Having regard to the particular reference to “allotments” in Clause 20B(1), it is agreed that the reference to an “allotment”” would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and in this case it is considered that the restrictions on allotment area can sensibly apply to regulate the area of the subject sites land base (footprint) on which each allotment of an attached dual occupancy and proposed strata lots are located on, rather than the three dimensional connotation of a “strata lot” provided by the applicant. In other words, it is considered that the grammatical meaning of the term “allotment” used by the applicant does not give effect to the purpose of the standard, and must therefore fail and give way to a purposive approach of interpretation.

 

A purposive approach, that takes into account the aims of the LEP, the specific objectives of the 2A zone and background research would conclude that the minimum allotment size standard requires 400sqm per allotment and a total site area of at least 800sqm of land for the strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy within the 2A zone. Further, it is clear that Council has applied this standard consistently in the past to attached dual occupancy subdivisions within 2A zoned land having particular regard to aims of the LEP, the objectives of the 2A zone and background research that sheds light on the standards purpose.

 

 

Notwithstanding the applicants concerns regarding the unreasonableness of Councils position, they have in response to a request from Council provided a SEPP 1 objection to the development standard, and sought it to be assessed without prejudice. In their SEPP 1 objection, they seek to explain how the proposed strata subdivision will not result in any adverse impacts on the locality; it will merely result in better management of the site and would not abandon the standard.

 

In assessing the applicants SEPP 1 objection to the minimum allotment size standard the following clauses in the LEP and related documents are relevant to the application:

 

a)     Clause 2(l) of the RLEP 1998 Consolidation requiring the provision of a housing mix;

 

b)     Clause 20B(1) and Clause 20B(4) which set out minimum allotment size standards for subdivision and building an attached dual occupancy on 2A zoned land respectively

 

c)     Clause 10 of the RLEP 1998 which lists relevant 2A zone objectives as follows:

 

a.  providing a low density residential environment,

b.  maintaining the desirable attributes of established residential areas

c.  protecting the amenity of existing residents,

d.  encouraging housing affordability,

 

and

 

d)     Background reviews of the LEP that Council has undertaken in adopting the development standards referred to in Clause 20B(1) and Clause 20B(4).

 

To the extent of the applicants SEPP 1 objection satisfies the 2A zone objectives, it is considered that it merely points to the absence of physical impacts rather than addressing other relevant objectives such as the maintenance of the desirable attributes of established residential areas and protection of amenity, encouraging housing affordability and providing a housing mix. In this respect, the SEPP 1 objection has not established that the proposed strata subdivision will result in the protection of local amenity, encourages housing affordability and providing for housing mix that would be afforded by a development that complied with the standard.

 

Having particular regard to research conducted by Council, it is considered that the reports titled “Dual occupancy and single detached dwellings – Draft DCP and Draft LEP (Amendment No 36). 56/2005” are an important consideration to this application seeking strata subdivision as it supports the underlying purpose of the minimum allotment size standards for both subdivision in the 2A zone and construction of an attached dual occupancy under single ownership. In fact the RLEP 1998 was amended in early 2010 after much analysis of a number of strategic and statutory components discussed under this report.  The discussions included looking at the strategic outcomes that Council and the community were seeking and then adjusting the development standards in the LEP to achieve these.  These changes were implemented in the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) that was gazetted on 15 January 2010.

 

The Council undertook a review of the minimum allotment size for the Randwick Council area. The notable aspects of this process were defining the average allotment sizes and relating that to the character of the City.  An additional consideration was the provision of a variety of different housing forms and how the implementation of these would be achieved.

 

The consequence of Council’s review was that the minimum allotment size in the RLEP was adjusted down from 450m² to 400m² for an allotment.  This change was a direct result of the analysis undertaken by Council as to the nature of allotments throughout the area and the need to ensure a variety of housing supply.  It recognised, in the same way that the SEPP for Affordable Rental Housing 2009 does, that there is a need for attached dual occupancies (also known as ancillary/secondary dwellings) where the two dwellings remain in single ownership.

 

This analysis was also undertaken in 1997, when the Council were seeking to implement the previously gazetted RLEP 1998.  As a result of these two processes, there is an abundance of Council documentation on the strategic planning review and the rationale behind Council’s decisions regarding subdivision in the 2A zone.  The review also looked at the consequences of reduced allotment sizes and strata subdivision for attached dual occupancies.  A key area of concern, in this consideration, was the possible take up rate of this form of development and the larger consequences of allowing a further reduction in allotment sizes.  The following is an extract from the Director of City Planning Report 42 2005 (page 11).

 

The subdivision (including strata subdivision) of attached dual occupancies is not permitted under LEP.  Any variation that permits strata subdivision of attached dual occupancy is likely to increase the number of attached dual occupancy development applications substantially, that is subdivision would encourage a greater proportion of these 4,500 properties to be developed (almost 30% of 2A properties), as each dwelling can be sold separately in addition to renting or use by an extended family.  The focus of this review is to provide reasonable opportunities for this housing type, where a high standard of design can be met and to continue the current focus on increasing density in areas that are most accessible to services and transport.  In Randwick City the majority of attached dual occupancy is occurring in the southern suburbs.  Any significant increase in attached dual occupancy is likely to continue to occur primarily in the southern suburbs (over half of the 4,500).

 

The statement in the Director’s report was in part, based on a detailed issues paper prepared in 2005 by the Council.  It provides a statistical basis to the concern that the variations to the allotment size have the potential to fundamentally change the provision of housing and in areas where Council has not been concentrating medium density outcomes.  The paper provides a guide of the nature of Council’s deliberations.

 

The reviews reflect underlying issues related to the nature of development throughout the area and the integrity of the decisions being made about the form of development that the Council and the community were expecting.  The Council deliberated the questions of site area and form of subdivision at both the 1998 and 2005 reviews of the RLEP and made well considered decisions on the potential outcomes resulting from the proposed development standards.  These decision were to restrict the allotment size in low density areas to promote better design outcome for dwellings whilst at the same time, recognising that the there is a social demand for housing in the form of attached or ancillary dwellings.

 

The reasoning of Council is supported by the approach taken in State Environmental Planning Policy - Affordable Rental Housing 2009, which provides for the provision of additional dwellings on one parcel of land.  In so doing, the SEPP does not allow the separate titling of the second dwelling in low density areas.

 

The decision to allow the attached dual occupancy, in the Council’s case attached dual occupancies (under previous Clause 30(4) now Clause 20B(4), has been a well considered decision to allow another form of housing without fundamentally changing the character of an area by further reducing the minimum allotment size for subdivision.  It demonstrates the Council’s adherence to the development standard over an extended period of time.

 

The analysis undertaken by Council in 2005 also provides an insight into the objectives of the development standard.  It indicates that the Council is concerned about the nature of development that might take place and how that may impact on the character of an area.  It recognised that there was a need to provide a form of housing, attached dual occupancies, to ensure a variety of housing types are provided in the low density zone.  These factors led Council to making an informed decision about the minimum lot size for development.

 

In making a decision about the minimum allotment size, Council had particular regard to the consequence of reducing allotment sizes.  The statistics show that a reduction in allotment size would make the retention of rental housing, which is in the form of a second or attached dwelling, less attractive than simply subdividing the land for commercial gain. 

 

Having particular regard to the standards under Clause 20B(1) & 20B(4), Councils recognition is that there should be an allowance for appropriate attached dual occupancies on smaller lots under Clause 20B(4) as well as restricting subdivision to larger lots under Clause 20B(1). Clause 20B(4), requires a 450sqm lot minimum, has a smaller lot standard to promote two attached dwellings on a single allotment under single tenure or one ownership to provide for a wider variety/mix of housing types that cater to an extended family or rental situation. Clause 20B(1), requiring 400sqm per allotment,  however is distinct in that it requires larger sites for subdivision thereby restricting the speculative and individual ownership that results from allowing titling to such strata allotments. The different standards are set in order to achieve forms of development and desired housing outcomes as specifically related to the RLEP aims, relevant 2A zone objectives and Council research.

 

In respect to amenity impacts, associated with the strata subdivision itself it is considered that the strata subdivision will affect the amenity of the area where instead of shared use of resources within a family or extended family, such as shared vehicles, shared use of open space and the like, the entirely separate use of the two dwellings could increase the intensity of the use. In addition, it is also appropriate to look beyond the building that is to be subdivided to the cumulative effect of the proposed subdivision on the rental market in the area generally, whereby an un-subdivided attached dual occupancy may still facilitate affordable housing in that it may be used for inter-family housing or rented rather than be lost to owner occupancy as a result of separate titling.

 

Overall, it is considered that Council have taken a well considered and balanced strategic decision relating to development in the area and the applicants SEPP 1 objection largely points to grammatical references and an absence of physical amenity impacts rather than demonstrating how the proposal satisfies all of the relevant specific objectives and underlying purpose of the standard. Such a variation to the minimum allotment size standard as proposed would undermine the decisions by Council, to adopt a particular allotment size to achieve the stated planning outcomes. In other words, a decision in favour of the strata subdivision will have the effect of abandoning the development standard to speculative and individual ownership of substandard 2A zoned blocks of land that would in turn have the effect of transforming the character of 2A zoned land.

 

Therefore an opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone and the underlying purpose of the standard cannot be formed and therefore renders the objection unfounded.

 

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 variation from the minimum allotments size standard is inconsistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as it would detract from the objects of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act embodied in Section 5(a)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the resultant development would compromise socio-economic welfare and the orderly and economic use of the land.

 

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 standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. However it is considered that there is a public benefit in maintaining the planning controls adopted by the RLEP (Consolidation) as they will maintain the existing subdivision pattern and low density character of the 2A Zone.

 

The strict adherence to the numerical standard is therefore considered reasonable.

 

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 standard 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 standard is reasonable and necessary as the proposed strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy on a substandard sized allotment of land will not achieve the objectives of the development standard or those of the 2A zone.

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 standard 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 standard would be defeated or thwarted as full compliance in this instance is reasonable.

 

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 size standard has 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 A zoning is not considered to be inappropriate for the locality.

 

 

5.    Site History

 

Approval was granted under DA/155/2006 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new two storey attached dual occupancy including courtyards & balconies and sub-basement car park for 4 vehicles.

 

6.    Community Consultation

 

Given the proposed development doesn’t seek any additional bulk it is considered that under the DCP – Public Notification, the owners of the adjoining and neighbouring properties were not required to be notified of the development.

 

5.1 Support

8a Davidson Crescent Maroubra - consideration of hardship issues related to health. and finances

 

Comment: Whilst it appears there has been health and financial hardship experienced by the proponents of the subject address it is considered that application of the standards in this instance is warranted and abandoning the standard is not in the public interest.

 

7.    Technical Officers Comments

 

None applicable.

 

8.    Master Planning Requirements

 

Master Planning Instruments"

 

9.    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 (Consolidation).

-      Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended.

-      Building Code of Australia.

 

(a)    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:-

 

Clause 2(l) The general aims of the LEP 1998 (Consolidation) - “providing for housing mix”

See discussion below.

 

Clause 10 Zone 2A residential

The objectives of Zone No 2A are:

 

Clause 10 of the RLEP 1998 which lists the specific relevant 2A zone objectives as follows:

 

(a) providing a low density residential environment,

(b) maintaining the desirable attributes of established residential areas

(c) protecting the amenity of existing residents,

(e) encouraging housing affordability,

 

The character of an established low density residential area is generally derived from the subdivision pattern in terms of the lot configuration and the relationship of built form to the surrounding space in conjunction with the zoning of the locality. In respect to this section of Davidson Crescent, it contains several examples of established single detached houses on separate Torrens titled allotments, similar sized allotments and some recent examples of attached dual occupancy developments (without strata). Figure 2 below shows the subject site and the surrounding allotments which are similarly zoned 2A. The subject site is clearly shown as being located in the middle of the 2A zone and it is noted that Councils GIS data indicates that approximately 30% of the properties in the vicinity of the subject site have similar site areas to that of the subject site.

 

Figure 2: Subject site and surrounding sites zoned 2A.

 

In this respect, the proposed strata subdivision would likely lead to the development and strata subdivision of attached dual occupancies on lots of land well below the minimum requirements in the locality and it would lead to a cumulative and significant change in the character of the established and desired low density residential area.

 

The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of providing for housing mix or encouraging housing affordability. The minimum allotment size standard for strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy is set at lower levels to encourage development that would provide housing for extended families particularly across generations e.g. In-laws, parents and grandparents, etc… rather than encouraging a proliferation of separately titled dual occupancies on small sized lots.

 

In particular, the minimum standard for land subdivision under Clause 20B(1) is 400sqm per allotment and a total of 800sqm. It is set higher than that under the previous Clause 30(4) and current Clause 20B(4) which only requires 450sqm per lot for an attached dual occupancy. The intent is to allow attached dual occupancies to be constructed on lots as small as 450sqm but not to allow them to be subdivided. Allowing these types of dual occupancies to be strata titled on small lots, i.e. to be separately titled, would set a poor precedent and make lots within 2A zoned more commercially attractive to developers which would reduce the likelihood of land being developed for the purposes of enabling a mix of housing and housing affordability as described in the SEPP 1 comments above.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed development does not comply with the abovementioned objectives.

 

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. Although services were required to be provided under the previously approved attached dual occupancy development, updated certification would be required from the relevant authorities should the recommendation be for approval.

 

Clause 20B Minimum allotment sizes

Clause 20B(1) sets out minimum standards for strata subdivision within a 2A zone and is therefore applicable. The minimum allotment size for strata subdivision within a 2A zone is 400sqm per allotment and a total of 800sqm for strata of an attached dual occupancy. The proposed development for strata title subdivision into two lots does not comply with the minimum allotment size requirements under Clause 20B(1) of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) as discussed under Section 4 above.

 

9.1 Policy Controls

 

a.    Development Control Plans

None applicable other than those already addressed in report.

 

9.2 Council Policies

 

Section 94 Contributions plans

This application is EXEMPT from a levy under Council’s s94A Development Contributions Plan as it falls into the category of development with a cost of works less than $100,000.

 

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  The provisions of the Regulations - S79C(1)(a)

There matters of relevance in this development application that pertains to the provisions of the EP&A Regulations 2000 and relevant procedural matters have been addressed.

 

10.2  Likely impact of the development - S79C(1)(b)

The proposal is for the strata sub-division of an attached dual occupancy will not directly result in any physical works. In respect to strata subdivision, the likely impact of the development would propagate the strata subdivision of similarly substandard sized and dimensioned allotments containing attached dual occupancies in 2A zoned lots and the locality which would cumulatively transform the character of the 2A zone and contravene the intent and the underlying purpose of the subdivision standard.

 

10.3  The suitability of the site for the development – S79C(1)(c) 

The proposed subdivision is not considered to be suitable development of the site having regard to the level of non-compliance with the size of the allotment, the relevant planning matters such as the general aims of the RLEP and the relevant objectives of the 2A zone.

 


10.4  Any submissions made in accordance with the Act or Regulations - S79C(1)(d)

The application was not required to be notified, however a letter of support has been acknowledged in this report.

 

10.5  The public interest – S79C(1)(e)

The proposed strata subdivision of the attached dual occupancy is not in the public interest as it will provide a poor precedent for the strata subdivision of attached dual occupancies on substandard sized allotments of land in the 2A zone which would be contrary to the objectives for the 2A zone.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction:  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application has been assessed having regard to the abovementioned statutory framework, policy documents and background research. The application seeking strata subdivision is considered to be a form of development whereby if permitted would contravene the general aims of the RLEP 1998 (Consolidation), the relevant 2A zone objectives and the underlying intent of the standards for minimum allotment sizes for subdivision and attached dual occupancies.

 

In this respect, it is considered that the development standards for minimum allotment sizes are intended to maintain the existing low density character of the 2A zoned land by ensuring that attached dual occupancy housing are suitably located with access to services, transport, shops and the like, whilst maintaining low density and enhancing established neighbourhood character, enabling a mix of housing and encouraging housing affordability.

 

It is considered that the proposed strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy on a substandard sized allotment of land will be inconsistent with the abovementioned aims, objectives and purposes of the standard. Further, this proposed departure would set a precedent for similar departures within land zoned 2A particularly as similar examples of allotments both in terms of sizes and frontages occur on 2A zoned blocks of land in Randwick Council. In this respect, the resultant subdivision would not represent a proper development of towns for the purposes of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/183/2010 for strata subdivision of an attached dual occupancy at 8 Davidson Crescent, Maroubra, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed development is inconsistent with objectives of the 2A zone. In particular it contravenes Clause 2(l) & Clause 10(1)(a, b, c, and e) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) in that the development propagates a cumulative increase in the density of the residential environment, discourages a mix of housing and housing affordability.

 

2.     The proposed development does not comply with Clause 20B(1) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) in that the proposed subdivision is well below the minimum standard and will be inconsistent with the existing and desired future character of the locality.

 

3.     The proposed development will result in a proliferation of strata titled attached dual occupancy developments on substandard lots in the 2A Zone due to the commercial attractiveness of having separate titles for the dual occupancies.

 

4.     The proposed development does not comply with the minimum allotment sizes stipulated under Council’s LEP 1998 (Consolidation) and will increase densities in areas that are not easily accessible to public transport and services.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP56/10

 

 

Subject:                  355 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Folder No:                   DA/158/2010

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Major Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Alterations & additions to an existing dual occupancy including an additional storey, and construction of new garages fronting Nicol Lane with studio's above (SEPP 1 objection to Floor space ratio and building height)

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Virginia Kerridge Architect

Owner:                         355 Maroubra Road, Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

The subject proposal is referred to Council for determination as it contains a variation to the external wall height development standard stipulated in Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998 by more than 10%. The applicant has submitted a SEPP 1 objection to this development standard as well as to variations in maximum building height and FSR (which are lower than 10%).

 

The subject application is for the alterations & additions to an existing dual occupancy including an additional storey, and construction of new garages fronting Nicol Lane with studio's above.

 

The original DA proposal was notified from 21 May to 4 June 2009 to adjoining and nearby properties in accordance with the ‘DCP – Public Notification of Development Proposals’ and Council Plans. No submissions were received.

 

The site is identified as being within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under RLEP 1998. As indicated above, the proposal has an FSR of 0.53:1 (compared with the maximum 0.5:1 FSR standard applicable under the Randwick LEP 1998) and is accompanied by a State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) objection. The proposal also has a maximum building height of 10.51m exceeding the maximum 9m building height standard by 1.01 m and an external wall height of 10.3m exceeding the maximum 7m external wall height standard by 3.3m  SEPP 1 objections have been submitted in support of the variation from these standards.

 

The SEPP 1 Objections have been assessed and found acceptable as the proposal will be consistent with the planning objectives for the locality and purposes of the standard; the parts of the building affected by the height breach are limited to the middle section of the building arising primarily as a consequence of the steep fall of the land; the proposal is not considered to be visually intrusive or bulky as the additional height and floor area will largely occupy an existing roof/attic space albeit with a new roof form; the development overall is considered to be consistent with the character of existing development particularly having regard to larger developments that have been approved and built in the locality; and the additional density and height will not give rise to any detrimental impacts to surrounding uses in terms of  ventilation, sunlight, privacy and views. Accordingly, an assessment of the SEPP 1 objections indicates that strict compliance with the controls would be unreasonable and unnecessary as indicated in Section 5 of this report.

 

The proposal generally complies with the preferred solutions/performance requirements of the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies. It has been demonstrated in this report that the relevant objectives and performance requirements of the DCP have been achieved in that the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and the character of the locality.

 

The proposal will have a shortfall of one carparking space in the proposal which is considered acceptable as the existing dual occupancy has an existing shortfall of one carparking space on-site and given that the proposal is only for alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy and not for a new building on the subject site.

 

The proposal will be consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 and the specific objectives of Residential 2A Zone, in that the development will deliver a refurbished building that will be consistent with the character of other residential developments in the locality. The development will incorporate suitable design measures that minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures especially in the context of the existing and future desired character of the area. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to have positive planning merits.

 

The proposed development satisfies the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. Additionally, the proposed development satisfies the relevant legislation, State policies and Local planning controls, and is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The proposed alterations and additions will result in a part two (2), part three (3) storey dual occupancy with one dwelling unit placed on top of the other and comprising the following works:

 

Dwelling One (on level one)

·      2 x bedroom, study room, bathroom/wc, living and kitchen/dining area.

 

Dwelling Two (Split dwelling on levels two & part three)

·      2 x bedroom, study room, bathroom/wc living and kitchen/dining area (on part level 2).

·      master bedroom, en suite (on part level 3).

 

Each dwelling will have separate detached garages with studios above at ground level fronting Nicol Lane.

 

3.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is known as Lot 1380 in DP 752015 and is located on the eastern side of Maroubra Road near the intersection of Maroubra Road and French Street.

 

Figure 1 : Aerial view of subject site and locality

 

The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage to Maroubra Road of 15.24m; a secondary frontage to Nicol Lane on the eastern boundary and side (northern and southern) boundary depths of 40.75m and 41.295m respectively, and has a site area of 605.5 sqm.

 

The site rises steeply from Nicol Lane to Maroubra Road with the difference in level is some 7m. The site also slopes gently with a cross fall from north to south a difference of some 1.5m. 

 

The site is currently occupied by a two-storey brick and tiled roof dual occupancy with one dwelling on each of the existing two floors served by a common stairwell within the front entry area. Each dual occupancy has an existing detached timber garage and storage sheds attached to each other along the eastern boundary fronting Nicol Lane. To the north of the subject site is a two storey semi-detached dwelling house at 357 Maroubra Road; to the south is a two storey brick dual occupancy at No 353 Maroubra Road; to the west is Maroubra Road and to the east is Nicol Lane. Nicol Lane has a number residential allotments with relatively rear garages and dwelling structures fronting it.

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The existing dual occupancy on-site

2. Existing dwelling viewed from Maroubra Road street level – note significant drop in level (3m) from kerb to boundary

3. Existing and adjoining building to the north viewed from Maroubra Road as screened by existing vegetation.

4. Existing and adjoining building to south 

 


 

5. Existing development on the opposite western side of Maroubra Road 

6 Existing development on the opposite western side of Maroubra Road.

 

7. Existing development on the opposite western side of Maroubra Road 

8. Existing development on  eastern side of Maroubra Road 

 

9. Existing development on the eastern side of Maroubra Road 

 

 

 

 

 

4.    Site History

 

DA/337/1981 – refused 8 December 1981 for erection of a studio above an existing garage at the rear of residential flat building.

 

DA/195/1988 – Alterations and additions to existing residential flat building

 

5.      State Environmental Planning Policy No 1 Objections

 

As described above, the proposal seeks to vary development standards contained with Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 as follows:

 

·      Floor Space Ratio (Clause 20F)

A maximum FSR standard of 0.5:1 is applicable to the subject site pursuant to Clause 20F of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal will result in an FSR of 0.53:1 (322.88 sqm).

 

The applicant has submitted an objection under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 - Development Standards, and has argued that strict compliance with Clause 20F of Randwick LEP is unreasonable and unnecessary. Principles for assessing SEPP 1 Objections have been established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case, Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827. 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. The principles established in Wehbe v Pittwater Council are addressed in the assessment of the applicant’s current SEPP 1 Objection:

 

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).

 

The stated purpose of the maximum FSR standard as outlined in the LEP is:

 

“To establish reasonable upper limits for development in residential, business, industrial and special use zones through a limit on the amount of floor space that can be provided. This will help reduce the potential for adverse impact on nearby and adjoining development while still providing for reasonable levels of development and redevelopment.”

 

The applicant has submitted the following arguments in support of the SEPP1 Objection:

 

 

It is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

·      The excess floor area of 20 sqm is considered a minor increase, amounting to 6% of the permissible FSR, which will be suitably distributed throughout the proposed building mass such that the proposed development will not be visually intrusive and will not read as an overdevelopment in the existing streetscape and locality. In this regard, the proposal will retain the footprint of the existing building as well as maintain the envelope of the existing building on all elevations with the exception of an additional upper floor master bedroom and studios above the proposed garages. The proposed new upper floor master bedroom is not considered to add to visual bulk and scale in the streetscape for the following reasons:

 

·      A significant portion of this new upper floor structure will be built into the void area of the existing pitched roof

 

·      The new upper floor structure is setback significantly on all four sides from the building line of the existing (and proposed) building such that it will be localised in the middle section of the building.

 

·      The proposed studios above garage rear buildings will be consistent in scale and  compatible in character with other rear buildings fronting Nicol Lane including similar rear garages and dwelling structures that have frontage to this Lane. Furthermore, the proposed garage/studio buildings will not impede access to natural light and will maintain consistency with the existing setbacks of adjoining and nearby garages/buildings along Nicol Lane.

 

·      The proposed development will be in keeping with the existing height and scale of housing development in adjoining and surrounding sites. In particular, it will not dominate the two storey pair of semi-detached dwellings and the dual occupancy immediately adjoining the site to the north and south respectively. It should be noted that the proposed development will occupy the same footprint as the existing dual occupancy on-site which is located at a significantly lower level (approximately 3.1m) from the Maroubra Road footpath. The combined effect of the lower level and significant setback from Maroubra Road footpath is to essentially relieve any perception of visual bulk and scale when viewed from the street.

 

·      There are comparably large, as well as higher, dwellings on both the eastern and western side of Maroubra Road beyond the subject site and its immediate adjoining properties (see Figures 5 to 9 above). Having regard to the nature of existing surrounding development in Maroubra Road and the locality, numerous examples of substantial contemporary dwellings exist such that the proposed development will not be out of context in the streetscape nor inconsistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development and will satisfy the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regards to floor space ratio.

 

·      The proposed development will have adequate landscape area (60% of site area) which complies with the minimum 50% requirement under Clause 20E of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation) and adequate deep soil landscaping (max 78% of landscaped area) which complies with the maximum 50% requirement under Clause 20E of the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

·      The proposal will be consistent with the objectives of the Residential 2A zone in which the site is located primarily as it will provide a low density scale of development thus maintaining the existing low density residential character of the locality. The exceedance in FSR will not result in an unsympathetic medium or high density development but rather will maintain the desirable attributes of the established residential area.

 

·      The proposal will not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas in terms of privacy, solar access, views, and bulk and scale as indicated in relevant assessment sections of this report.

 

In conclusion, the proposal has adequately addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the underlying and stated purposes of the standard and the local planning objectives for the locality and objectives of the Act. The SEPP 1 objection has been provide that appropriately justifies that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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.”

 

The variation from the FSR control is consistent with the aims of the SEPP No.1 because it would not detract from the objects of the Act under Section 5 (a) (i) and (ii) in that the resultant development would promote the orderly use and development of the subject land because

 

·      it will have a height, bulk and scale that will not detract from the predominant existing character of its specific location containing predominantly low to medium density residential development typically large duplexes and medium to large detached dwellings. 

 

·      it will create additional floor area that will not negatively impact upon the amenity of adjoining and surrounding uses  in terms of privacy, solar access, views and visual bulk and scale impacts.

 

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”.

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, for maintaining the low to medium density housing forms in the locality, including dwelling houses, semi-detached housing, dual occupancies, 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.

 

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 standard 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 standard is unreasonable and unnecessary for the proposal to  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 standard 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:

Compliance would, in this case, be unreasonable as the underlying objectives of the standard is achieve.

 

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 maximum building and external wall height development standard has 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, which is characterised by low to medium density residential development. 

 

·      Building and External Wall Height (Clause 20G)

 

The proposal seeks a variation to the maximum building and external wall heights. The proposal has a maximum building height of 10.51m (to pitch of roof) and maximum external wall (north and south elevation) to 10.3 m, which exceeds the maximum building and external wall height specified in Clause 20G Randwick LEP 1998 of 10m and 7m respectively.

 

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).

 

Assessing Officer: The stated purpose of the standards as outlined in the LEP is:

 

Building Heights: To set upper limits for the height of buildings in residential and business zones that are consistent with the redevelopment potential of land in those zones given other development restrictions, such as floor space and landscaping, and have regard for the amenity for surrounding areas.

 

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

 

“With regard to the maximum building height, this proposal seeks an objection to the current development standards as determined within the Randwick LEP 1998 when considered with the circumstances of the site and the proposed design. The adaptive reuse of the existing building envelope has included the addition of a second floor master bedroom to be housed largely within the existing attic volume. It is proposed a partial increase to the existing building height by 510 mm from the existing ridge line to the area housing this master bedroom. It is also proposed to partially increase the external wall height of the building by approximately 805 mm, or 11.5% beyond the 7000 mm limit, to the new southern timber clad wall at its’ easternmost point, and by 76 mm, or 1.08% beyond the 7000 mm limit, at its’ westernmost point connecting to an existing wall. It should be noted that the existing easternmost wall with RL 47.51 is approximately 8412 mm, or 20.17% beyond the 7000 mm limit, to the natural ground line. The proposed plan of the new timber clad south eastern volume mitigates this by stepping in from the existing easternmost wall by 1025 mm, and stepping down in height to RL 47.09, or 420 mm lower than the existing external wall.

 

The height of both the existing and the proposed buildings should be viewed in relation to the existing topographical features. These features see a considerable decline in the ground line of approximately 7090 mm throughout the length of the site. The site is located on the low side of the street along Maroubra Road, and does not breach height limits as viewed from this area. Any impacts of the proposed additional level housing the master bedroom, and the proposed south eastern timber clad volume, are mitigated by the declining nature of the site, the considered use of the existing attic space, and the large setbacks of these additions from the existing building and boundaries. The proposal maintains the objectives governing height as listed within the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan including:”

 

·      To ensure the height and scale of development relates to the topography with minimal cut and fill.

·      To ensure developments are not excessive in height and scale but are compatible with the existing character of the locality.

·      To ensure buildings preserve privacy and natural light access for neighbouring residents and allow a sharing of views.

·      To ensure additions to dwellings do not detract from the individual character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

·      To ensure buildings enhance the predominant neighbourhood and street character.

 

The proposal also maintains the performance requirements within the Development

Control Plan including;

 

P1 The height of buildings relate to those in the surrounding streetscape, with higher buildings located to minimise impacts on the neighbours and the streetscape.

 

P2 Buildings are designed to enhance the existing desirable built form character of the street by adopting, where relevant, existing characteristics of:

 

-        mass and proportion;

-        materials, patterns, textures, colours and decorative elements;

-        roof form and pitch;

-        façade articulation;

-        window and door location and proportions;

-        verandahs, eaves and parapets.

 

P3 The location and design of development relates to the topography of the site, with minimal cut and fill.

 

P4 Buildings are designed to preserve privacy and natural light access for

neighbouring residents.

 

P6 Buildings are designed to allow a sharing of views.

 

The proposed design being on the low side of the street has no unreasonable impact when viewed from the public domain and neighbouring sites, allowing for views over the proposal is in keeping with the Council’s objectives.

The proposed height and scale complements established patterns in the surrounding streetscape.”

 

The applicant’s arguments are considered sound for the following reasons:

 

·      The exceedance in maximum building height occurs only in a small section the roof covering the new top level master bedroom with most of this new addition occupying the void of the pitched roof of the existing building. The use of an angled pavilion-style roof form is a design preference of the applicant that is considered reasonable and acceptable in terms of visual interest and design. The minor localised breach of the height limit resulting from this roof form is warranted as it does not create excessive visual bulk and scale; is not considered intrusive or dominant; and does not give rise to detrimental amenity impacts on adjoining/surrounding properties.

 

·      The top level master bedroom is set-in from the perimeter of the building on all sides except for the staircase which is light and not intrusive in nature.

 

·      The additional external wall height is localised in the north and south elevations of the upper floor additions of the building. Whilst the exceedance in wall height amounts to a maximum of 3.3 m, this exceedance is significantly setback from the north and south building lines of the proposed building (ie., the subject north and south elevations comprise a significantly staggered wall) such that its visual impact will be significantly ameliorated. Furthermore, the exceedance in wall height at this point occurs as a consequence of the steep fall in the slope of the land but is nonetheless mitigated by its generous setback from the southern and northern boundaries.

 

·      The proposed non-compliance do not result in any inconsistencies with the objectives of the 2A zone in which the site is located or the general objectives for the built and natural environment and amenity or the objectives of the FSR standard. In particular, the proposed development will be in keeping with the existing height and scale of housing development in adjoining and surrounding sites, and will not dominate the two storey pair of semi-detached dwellings and the dual occupancy immediately adjoining the site to the north and south respectively. It should be noted that the proposed development will occupy the same footprint as the existing dual occupancy on-site which is located at a significantly lower level (approximately 3.1m) from the Maroubra Road footpath. The combined effect of the lower level and significant setback from Maroubra Road footpath is to essentially relieve any perception of visual bulk and scale when viewed from the street.

 

·      There are comparably large, as well as higher, dwellings on both the eastern and western side of Maroubra Road beyond the subject site and its immediate adjoining properties. Having regard to the nature of existing surrounding development in Maroubra Road and the locality, numerous examples of substantial contemporary dwellings exist (see Figures 5 to 9 above) such that the proposed development will not be out of context in the streetscape nor inconsistent with the bulk and scale of surrounding development and will satisfy the overall objectives and performance requirements of the DCP with regards to floor space ratio.

 

·      The increase in the wall and building height arises from the steep topography of the subject site but results in a building envelope that will not give rise to any significant adverse overshadowing impacts, view loss, privacy or visual impacts on adjoining and surrounding properties.

 

·      The proposed building is substantially below the Maroubra Road carriageway and is setback significantly from this carriageway (with an existing planted verge separating the subject site from Maroubra Road) such that the proposed building envelope will not be excessive or seen as inconsistent with surrounding residential development and the Maroubra Road streetscape.

 

The proposal satisfies the purpose of the building height standards and the SEPP 1 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.”

 

The applicant has presented a case to establish that compliance with the standards would not hinder the attainment of the objects of the Act. The proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the character of the locality and this is consistent with the objects as quoted in the SEPP. The variation from the Building and External Wall Height standards is consistent with the aims of SEPP 1 as it 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 and economic use of the land, and would not result in significant adverse environmental or social impacts.

 

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”.

 

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 standard will not allow the best economic use of the site and the delivery of a suitably scaled in-fill residential development in an established neighbourhood.

 

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:

 

Table - Establishing compliance is unreasonable or necessary

Method

Assessment

First

The most commonly invoked way is to establish that compliance with the development standard 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 standard 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 standard 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 floor space ratio standard has 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 A zoning is considered to be appropriate for the locality.

 

5.    Community Consultation

 

The proposal was notified from 7 May 2010 to 24 May 2010. Two submissions were received in response to the notification raising the following issues:

 

Inaccurate FSR calculations

 

Comment: The applicant has rechecked floor area calculations and responded in writing advising that all calculations are accurate and in accordance with survey details. The calculations made by the objector purporting to show a higher floor area for the proposal does not accord with the definition of floor area in the Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

Proposed height significantly exceeds maximum height standard.

 

Comment: This issue has been adequately addressed in Section 5 above where it was indicated that the variation in FSR has been the subject of a SEPP 1 Objection. The SEPP 1 objection has been assessed and found to be well founded such that strict compliance with the standard would be unreasonable and unnecessary primarily as the proposal accords with local planning objectives, and will have a visual bulk and scale that is not considered to be out of character in the context of existing development in the adjoining/surrounding land and not considered to result in any detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining residents.

 

Proposed design not sympathetic to that of existing houses including view from Nicol Lane

 

Comment: The objectors note the relatively intact character of existing dwellings on their side of the Maroubra Road (that the proposed development should therefore respect). The subject locality is not a heritage conservation area nor is the subject property a heritage item that would warrant strict consideration of existing builtform styles and design. In any event, as noted as well by the objectors, the broader area along Maroubra Road has been relatively “compromised” by existing contemporary development that are much larger in visual bulk and scale than the proposed development. Accordingly, compared to these larger developments, and also when viewed from Nicol Lane, the proposal will have a visual bulk and scale that is not considered to be excessive or intrusive.   

 

Given this existing context, it would be unreasonable to dictate a particular design format for the proposed development especially where the other tests of compatibility (solar access, privacy, views, and visual bulk and scale) with existing development in the area have been adequately met.

 

The DCP provides Preferred Solutions and guidelines on first floor additions for dwelling houses. However, the application of the preferred solutions in this case do not strictly apply as alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy involves a roof top addition for a separate dwelling unit within the existing dual occupancy and with this a change in roof form to provide an identity to both this unit and the overall refurbished building. The roof top addition and its roof form is not considered to be incompatible nor intrusive especially in comparison to larger residential developments in surrounding properties.

 

Loss of Privacy

 

Comment: Loss of privacy from the proposed new upper floor deck has been raised by the objector. Whilst the proposed new deck is linked to a bedroom (and not a living room), a condition requiring privacy screens to be applied along the northern edge of this deck and a reduction in the length of this deck will be applied should approval be granted.

 

Objection has been raised to the proposed balconies linked to the living areas of each dwelling unit on the first and second floors. The applicant advises that the proposed balconies are re-instatement of old balconies that are currently enclosed. The provision of these balconies add to the amenity of the dwelling units and are considered reasonable subject to screening measures in the form of privacy screens along the northern edge of these balconies. A condition will be applied should approval be granted.

 

Concern has also been raised to the potential loss of privacy from the windows of the proposed studios above the rear garages. Overlooking from the proposed studios are not considered to be an issue for the following reasons:

 

·      The north-facing windows of the proposed studios are high sill windows that will not be conducive to overlooking.

 

·      There are existing dense vegetation along the common boundary of the subject site and the objector’s property that will screen any potential overlooking from the proposed studios.

 

·      The studios will be located at approximately min 8m and max 15m from the objector’s deck which will are significant separation distances to mitigate any potential loss of privacy.

 

Other concerns – stormwater impact due to excavation, engineering adequacy of proposed rainwater tank and asbestos contamination.

 

Comment: These issues will be adequately addressed by way of standard and special conditions should approval be granted.

 

 

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    Development Engineers

The application was referred to Council’s Development Engineers for comment. No objections were raised subject to conditions with any approval.

 

6.2    Building Services and Environmental Health Comments

The application was referred to Council’s Building Services for comment. No objections were raised subject to conditions with any approval.

 

7.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

7.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 1998

The site is identified as being within Zone No. 2A (Residential A Zone) under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation). The proposal is permissible in the zone, and consistent with the aims of RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) contained in Clause 2 of the LEP, specifically 

 

(e)    to ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage and aesthetic character of the City

 

(g)    to promote, protect and enhance the environmental qualities of the city

 

(h)    to recognise the importance of the ecological sustainability in the planning and development processes.

 

The proposal also supports the specific objectives of Residential 2A Zone by providing a development that seeks:

 

(a)    To provide a low density residential environment

(b)    To maintain desirable attributes of established residential areas

(c)    To protect the amenity of existing residents.

 

Overall, the proposal will deliver a refurbished dual occupancy development which will be compatible with the predominant and desired character of the locality.

 

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

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

20B

Minimum allotment sizes

Attached dual occupancy within zone 2A – min 400 sqm and 15m frontage.

Site area = 605.5 sqm

Frontage = 15.24m (Maroubra Road)

Complies

20E

Landscape area

Min 40% landscape area

Max 50% of landscape area must be deep soil.

60% landscape area

Max 78% of landscape area is deep soil.

 

Complies

20F Floor Space Ratio

Max 0.5:1

Max 0.53:1

No, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

20G

Building heights

Max building height – 9.5m

 

Max external wall height – 7m

 

Max building height = 10.51m

 

Max external wall height = 10.3m to underside of proposed skillion roof.

No, SEPP 1 Objection submitted

22

Services

Adequate facilities for supply of water, disposal of sewage and drainage are required to support a proposed development

The provision of utility and civil services will be required by appropriate conditions of consent.

Complies, subject to conditions

40 Earthworks

Council to consider the likely impact on existing drainage patterns and soil stability in the locality, and the effects of the proposed works on the likely future use or redevelopment of the land

The proposal requires mainly filling of the land to accommodate functional floor plates for the ground floor and garage levels. The application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineer for assessment. It is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact on the drainage pattern and use of the land, subject to the recommended engineering conditions.

 

Standard conditions are also recommended to ensure that suitable soil retention and erosion control measures are undertaken during works on the site.

 

Therefore, the proposal is considered satisfactory in this regard.

Complies, subject to conditions

 

8.4    State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies to the proposed development. The development application is accompanied by a BASIX Certificate numbered A55309. The requirements specified in the above certificate will be imposed by appropriate standard conditions pursuant to Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

 

 

9.      Policy Controls

 

9.1    Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies

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

 

Landscaping

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

40% of the total site area (or 136.56m2) is provided as landscaped area.

A total of 388.6m2 or 60% of the site is reserved as landscaped area as defined in the DCP. Complies.

S1

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

The rear courtyard has a total area of approximately 140m2. Complies.

S1

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

The rear courtyard is capable of accommodating a rectangle of approximately 14m x 10m in dimension. Complies.

S1

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

The above-mentioned private open space is located in the rear portion of the site. Complies.

S6

20% of the total site area has permeable treatment.

The proposed soft landscaped or permeable surfaces amount to 302m2 or 49% of the site. Complies.

 

Floor Area

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

The preferred solution for an allotment of this size is a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 (or 302.75m2 gross floor area).

The proposed FSR is 0.53:1, which equates to 322.88m2 gross floor area. Does not comply. Refer to SEPP 1 Objection and assessment above. 

 

Height, Form & Materials

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

External wall height of the building not exceed 7m

Maximum 10.3m on north and south elevation to top of skillion roof over the top floor addition. Does not comply, refer to SEPP 1 objection and assessment above.

S1

External wall height of buildings or additions to the rear does not exceed 3.5 m.

Separate garages/studios buildings proposed at the rear will exceed 3.5m. However the proposal will be consistent with the performance solution of the DCP in that the scale of the proposed garage/studio structures at the rear is not considered to be incompatible or out of character with that of existing garage structures along Nicol Lane. Furthermore, the proposed garage/studio building will not impede access to natural light and will maintain consistency with the existing setbacks of adjoining garages along Nicol Lane.

S3

Cut or fill does not exceed 1m.

Amended proposal will have up to approximately 0.7m fill. Complies.

S3

No excavation within 900mm of a side boundary.

No excavation will occur within 900mm of side boundaries. Complies.

S3

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary.

No excavation within 4m of a rear boundary. Complies.

S4

The length of a second storey portion is no greater than 12m at less than 1.5m from a southern boundary.

Second storey portion will be located greater than 1.5m (ie., min approximately 2.6m) from the southern boundary with a staggered length of 15m. Complies.

S5

The second storey portion of a semi-detached dwelling be confined to within the existing roof space or be set back from the front elevation behind a substantial portion of the existing roof form and the design respects the symmetry of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

Not applicable.

 

Floor Space Ratio and Building/Wall Height

The Objectives and Performance Requirements of the DCP are that developments are not excessive in height, bulk or scale; are compatible with the existing character of the locality; and minimise adverse effects of bulk on neighbours and the street. The performance and consistency of the density and height of the building has been assessed in the assessment of the SEPP 1 objections in Section 5 above.

 

Building Setbacks

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Front setback is average of adjoining dwellings or 6m.

“Garage/street level”:

Max 6m from Maroubra Road boundary at ground floor bedroom decreasing to min 5.3m.

Partial non-compliance, refer to comments below.

S2

No part of the building is closer than 4.5m from rear boundary.

Minimum 7.5m from rear boundary. Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 900mm for any part of the building at ground level.

Ground level (to Maroubra Road ):

Northern boundary:

Min 2.6m 

Southern boundary:

Min 2.1 m

Complies.

S3

Side setbacks be 1.5m at second floor level.

First Floor Level:

 

Northern boundary:

Min 2.6m

 

Southern boundary: 

Min 2.1m

 

Complies

 

Side setbacks be 3m at third floor level and above.

Second Floor Level:

Northern boundary:

Min 2.6m / Max 4.6m

 

Southern boundary: 

Min 3.6m

 

 

 

Front setback

The Objective of the front setback control aims to integrate new developments with the established streetscape pattern and to ensure retention of established vegetation.

 

A minor section of the building will be setback 5.3m from the street boundary and does not comply with the 6m preferred solution. Notwithstanding this, the proposal is reasonable in relation to front setback as the majority of the proposed building will be consistent with the setback of adjoining properties along Maroubra Road such that the proposed front setback of the proposed development is not considered to detract from any established development pattern in the locality.

 

Rear setback

The proposed building containing garages with studios above will be setback by 1m from the rear boundary to Nicol Lane and therefore does not comply with the rear setback preferred solutions. Notwithstanding this, the proposed garage/studio building will replace existing garages that are also built to the rear boundary. Additionally, the proposed garage/studio building will be consistent with the performance requirements of the controls in not impeding access to natural light and maintaining consistency with the existing setbacks of adjoining garages along Nicol Lane. Furthermore, the scale of the proposed garage/studio structures at the rear is not considered to be incompatible or out of character with that of existing garage structures along Nicol Lane.

 

Side setback

The side setback controls aim to allow occupants and neighbours adequate natural lighting and ventilation.

 

A minor section of the northern wall at the second floor level will be setback 2.6m from the northern boundary in the form of the stairwell of the proposed second floor split apartment which does not comply with the 3m setback control for third floor level and above. Apart from this, the northern wall of the upper floor addition will be setback 4.6m thus readily complying with the 3m control. Furthermore, the proposal is consistent with the performance requirements of the controls in that adequate natural lighting and ventilation will be available for future occupants and neighbours.

 

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.

There will be no changes to the existing location of living rooms and their associated openings in the proposed dual occupancies so that there will be no change in the existing privacy impacts of these living room windows especially in relation to the adjoining northern property at No. 357 Maroubra Road.

 

Additionally, the proposal will reinstate original balconies (linked to the living areas of each dual occupancy) that are currently enclosed. Objection to the re-instatement of these balconies has been raised by the owners of the adjoining northern property at No 357 Maroubra Road essentially due to potential overlooking of an existing rear deck in the objector’s property. A condition will be applied requiring screening measures along the northern edge of the openings to the subject balconies on the first and second floor to protect the privacy of No. 357 Maroubra Road. Overlooking from the new balcony on the third floor is mitigated by the fact that it will be linked to the new upper floor master bedroom and not a living room. Notwithstanding this, to further protect the privacy of the adjoining property at No. 357 Maroubra Road a condition will also be applied requiring :

 

·      the installation of a privacy screen along the northern edge of this new balcony

 

·      a reduction in the length of this balcony to a maximum 3m measured from the east facing wall of the master bedroom.

S1

Direct view into open space of an adjoining dwelling is obscured or screened within 9m and is beyond a 45 degree angle.

The proposal will have a line of timber framed kitchen windows wrapping around from the south elevation to the east elevation that potentially overlooks the rear yard of the adjoining southern property at No. 353 Maroubra Road. Whilst no objection has been received from the owner of No 353 Maroubra Road, a condition will be applied requiring that the south-facing section of these windows in the south elevation be deleted to protect the privacy of the rear yard of No 353 Maroubra Road.

Overlooking of the rear yard of No. 353 Maroubra Road from all east-facing balconies of the proposed development will be mitigated by the separation distance of these balconies form the rear yard of No. 353 Maroubra Road which is in excess of 10m. Furthermore, the existing planting along the southern common boundary and the significant fall in the slope of the subject site and adjoining land will mitigate any potential privacy impacts.

 

S1

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

 

Compliant.

S3

Buildings comply with AS 371 and AS 2107.

The proposal has incorporated appropriate materials to minimize adverse acoustic impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

 

Safety & Security

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1,2,3

Front doors of dwellings are visible from the street.

 

Complies.

S1,3

Dwellings have at least one habitable room window overlooking the street.

 

Complies.

S2

A Council-approved street number is conspicuously displayed at the front of the dwelling or front fence.

 

To be required by condition.

 

Garages & Driveways

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Council’s Parking DCP requires 1 space, for dwellings with 2 bedrooms or less, or 2 spaces, for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or more.

The development contains 1 x 2 bed room + study which requires 1 carparking space and 1 x 3 bedroom + study units which requires 2 carparking spaces. The proposal will provide a single garage for each unit so that there will be a shortfall of one carspace for the 3 bedroom unit + study. The shortfall in carparking is addressed below.

 

S1

Car parking spaces have a minimum dimension of 5.5m x 2.5m.

The car spaces have a dimension of 2.5m (W) x 5.5m (L). Adequate width extension has been allowed for the spaces adjacent to wall obstruction. The parking design is considered to satisfy Australian Standard 2890.1. Satisfactory. 

S1

Driveways have minimum width of 3m and are set back at least 1m from the side boundary.

The proposal has minimal driveway as garages are built almost to the rear boundary to Nicol Lane and will have 1m setback from northern and southern eastern side boundary. Complies.

S1

Driveways have a maximum width of 3m at the property boundary.

Max width of 4.1 at property boundary to Nicol Lane.

Complies

S1

Driveway gradients should not exceed a maximum of 1 in 8 for the first 5m from street alignment and 1 in 6 thereafter.

The proposed driveway gradient has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and is considered satisfactory subject to conditions.

S1

With respect to garages and carports to rear lanes these should be set back 1m to improve pedestrian visibility.

Proposed garages setback by 1.784m from rear lane boundary to Nicol Lane.

Complies.

S2

Parking and access is provided from the rear of the allotment where possible.

Complies.

S2

Garages and carports located behind the building line where parking only available from the front of the site.

Complies.

S2

Driveways, car parking spaces and structures do not occupy more than 35% of the width of the allotment

Carparking does not occupy any frontage on Maroubra Road.

Complies.

 

Design of parking facility

The Objectives of the DCP are to ensure on-site parking and driveway facilities are not visually intrusive and do not detract from the local streetscape.

 

The proposal has a shortfall of one carparking space to for the 3 bedroom + study unit. The applicant advises that this shortfall is acceptable as the current three bedroom dwelling on-site has only a single garage. The applicant’s advice is considered acceptable especially as the proposal is only for alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy and not for a new redevelopment of the subject site. Furthermore, topographically, it would be difficult to accommodate additional carparking without extensive excavation of the subject site and removal of significant soft landscaped area in the rear yard. The shortfall in carparking is minor, amounting to one carspace which can be readily off-set by the availability of existing public bus services on Road.  Additionally, the applicant indicates that adequate local supply of on street carparking is available in the area as indicated by an absence of restricted parking or a resident parking scheme on Maroubra Road and surrounding streets.

 

 Fences

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

Existing sandstone fences and walls are retained/recycled.

Not applicable.

S1

Solid front fences or on street frontages in front of the building line are no higher than 1.2m.

A condition will be applied requiring details of fencing to be provided in accordance with the DCP prior to issue of compliance certificate.

S1

Fences in front of the building line or on street frontages may be up to 1.8m provided that the upper two thirds is at least 50% open.

 

Solar Access and Energy Efficiency

 

Preferred Solution

Assessment

S1

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

Refer to the “BASIX” section of this report.

S2

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

 

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.

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 potential roof-mounted solar panels on the adjoining dwellings for more than 3 hours on the winter solstice.

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 overshadow any north-facing windows to living areas of neighbouring southern dwelling at No 353 Maroubra Road beyond that already experienced from the existing house.  Shadow diagrams submitted with the DA indicate that any increased overshadowing relates largely to the upper floor addition which largely overlaps the shadow cast by the existing dwelling house below whose envelope remains unchanged under this proposal. Furthermore, the significant fall of the subject site east to west as well that of the adjoining southern site mitigates against the increase overshadowing arising from the upper floor addition.

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 direct sunlight to any principal outdoor recreation space of neighbouring dwellings beyond that already experienced currently from the existing house. As indicated above, shadow diagrams submitted with the DA indicate that any increased overshadowing relates largely to the upper floor addition which largely overlaps the shadow cast by the existing dwelling house whose envelope remains unchanged under this proposal. Additionally, any increased overshadowing impacts will be mitigated by the significantly declining nature of the subject site.

 

9.2    DCP - Parking

 

The proposal will have a shortfall of one carparking space in the proposal which is considered acceptable as the existing dual occupancy has an existing shortfall of one carparking space on-site and given that the proposal is only for alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy and not for a new building on the subject site.

 

9.3    Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

The Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 2 July 2007, is applicable to the proposed development. In accordance with the plan, the following monetary levy is required:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost

$100,001 - $200,000

$186,450.00

0.5%

$9322.50

10.    Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Refer to the “Environmental Planning Instruments” section of this report for details.

Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument

Not applicable.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

Refer to the “Policy Control” section of this report.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

Clause 7 of the EP&A Regulation 2000 requires the consent authority to consider the provisions of the Building Code of Australia. Accordingly, an appropriate condition is recommended to address the above matter.

 

Clause 92 of the Regulation requires the consent authority to consider relevant Australian Standards relating to demolition of structures. A specific condition is recommended to require compliance with Australian Standard 2601.

 

Clause 93 of the Regulation requires the consent authority to consider the structural capacity and fire safety aspects of a building. Appropriate conditions are recommended to address the above matters.

Section 79C(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been assessed within the body of this report.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the predominant residential land uses in the locality. The proposal is not considered to result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The site is located within an area, which is predominantly characterised by low density residential developments. The subject site contains an existing dual occupancy whose footprint will be largely retained and thus will maintain the existing character and builtform of the locality. The site has sufficient dimension to accommodate the proposed alterations and additions. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development. 

 

Section 79C(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

Two submissions were received and issues raised have been addressed in relevant sections of this report. 

Section 79C(1)(e) – The public interest

The proposal is not considered to result in significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered satisfactory in public interest terms.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:          Leadership in sustainability, excellence in urban design and development, integrated transport and land use.

Direction:          Improved design and sustainability across all development, integrating transport and pedestrian links between town centres and key locations.

Key action:       Encourage and reward design excellence and sustainability.

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site.

 

The SEPP 1 Objections submitted in relation to variations from the maximum FSR and Building and external wall heights standards have been assessed and considered to be well founded in the circumstances. In particular, the proposal will be consistent with the planning objectives for the locality; the proposal is not considered to be visually intrusive or bulky; the development overall is considered to be consistent with the character of existing development in the streetscape and locality; and the additional density will not give rise to any detrimental impacts to surrounding uses in terms of ventilation, sunlight, privacy, views, and parking impacts.

 

The proposal complies with the relevant preferred solutions and performance requirements in the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached dual Occupancies (with the exception of FSR and building height which has been addressed in the SEPP 1 objection).

 

The proposal will not have a significant impact on the amenity of surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access, privacy and views.

 

The recommendation is for approval of the application subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council support the objection under State Environmental Planning No. 1 (SEPP No.1) in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 20F and 20G of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (as amended), relating to maximum floor space ratio and maximum wall and building height, on the grounds that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the clauses and will not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding locality and that the Department of Planning be advised accordingly.

 

AND

 

B.     That Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No D/158/2010 for the alterations & additions to an existing dual occupancy including an additional storey, and construction of new garages fronting Nicol Lane with studio's above at 355 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:-

 

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 100, DA 101, DA 102, DA 200, DA 201, and DA 300, all Revision A, dated March 2010, and stamped received by Council on 12 March 2010, and the application form, and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the details/amendments approved pursuant to the deferred commencement conditions and 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 colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the proposed development are to be compatible with adjacent developments to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape. Specifically, the use of natural materials rather than the proposed predominantly painted surface shall be provided.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the relevant building works.

 

3.       Details of the following amendments shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development:

 

·      Installation of privacy screens along the whole northern edge of the balcony linked to the master bedroom on the third/uppermost floor. Privacy screens shall be a maximum height of 1.8m measured form the floor level of the balcony and shall be constructed and articulated in a suitable natural material to improve the aesthetic quality of  the screen wall and minimise any visual bulk and scale.

·      Reduction in the length of the balcony linked to the master bedroom on the third/uppermost floor to a maximum 3m measured from the east-facing wall  of the proposed upper floor master bedroom.

·      Installation of privacy screens along the whole northern edge of the balconies linked to the living rooms of the proposed dwelling units on the first and second floors. Privacy screens shall be a maximum height of 1.8m measured form the floor level of the balcony and shall be constructed and articulated in a suitable natural material to improve the aesthetic quality of  the screen wall and minimise any visual bulk and scale.

·      Deletion of all south-facing kitchen/dining room windows of the proposed dwelling units on the first and second floors and replacement with suitable matching wall. 

 

4.       Details of all front and rear boundary fencing are to be provided in accordance with the DCP – Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies prior to issue of compliance certificate. Details shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

5.       Details of all proposed rainwater tanks including appropriate certification from a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to issuing of a Construction Certificate, which certifies the structural adequacy of all structures that support the loads imposed by the rainwater tanks including all retaining walls holding back fill and supporting rainwater tanks.

 

6.       Street and unit numbering must be provided to the premises in a prominent position, in accordance with the Australia Post guidelines and AS/NZS 4819 (2003) to the satisfaction of Council, prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development. In this regard, an application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, together with the required fee, for the allocation of appropriate street and unit numbers for the development, prior to issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

7.       The reflectivity index of glass used in the external façade of the development must not exceed 20 percent. Details shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

9.       There must be no encroachment of the structure/s onto Council’s road reserve, footway or public place, unless written permission has been obtained from the Council beforehand.

 

10.     All building, plumbing and drainage work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

The approved Construction Certificate plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre prior to commencing any building or excavation works, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

If suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped. For Quick Check agent details please refer to Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au and go to the Building, Developing and Plumbing, then Quick Check or Building and Renovating or telephone 13 20 92.

 

The principal certifying authority must ensure that a Quick Check Agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before commencing any works.

 

11.     In accordance with Section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all of the required commitments listed in the relevant BASIX Certificate for this development are fulfilled.

 

 

12.     In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a relevant BASIX Certificate and associated documentation 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.

 

13.     In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue a final Occupation Certificate for this development, unless it is satisfied that each of the required BASIX commitments has been fulfilled.

 

Relevant documentary evidence of compliance with the BASIX commitments is to be forwarded to the Council upon issuing the final Occupation Certificate.

 

The following condition is applied to meet additional demands for public facilities:

 

14.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 2 July 2007, the following monetary levy must be paid to Council.

 

Category

Cost

Applicable

Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost

$100,001 - $200,000

$186,450.00

0.5%

$9322.50

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to

 

a)   a construction certificate being issued

b)   a subdivision certificate being issued

 

for the proposed development. The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment.

 

Council’s Section 94A Development Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

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

 

Regulatory

 

15.     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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

18.     Prior to the commencement of any building or fire safety works, the person having the benefit of the development consent must:

 

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

 

ii)       appoint a principal contractor for the building work.

 

iii)       notify the principal contractor of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority, and

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·       name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours.

·       name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority,

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

23.     A Fire Safety Certificate must be submitted to Council prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate, in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

A single and complete Fire Safety Certificate must be provided which includes details of all of the fire safety measures contained in the building and as detailed in the fire safety schedule attached to the Construction Certificate.

 

Prior to issuing any Occupation Certificate the Principal Certifying Authority must be satisfied that all of the relevant fire safety measures have been included and are sufficiently detailed within the Fire safety Certificate.

 

A copy of the fire safety certificate must be displayed in the building near the entrance and a copy must be forwarded to the NSW Fire Brigades.

 

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

 

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

 

25.     All building, plumbing and drainage work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

The approved Construction Certificate plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent or Customer Centre prior to commencing any building or excavation works, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s sewer and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

If suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped.  For Quick Check agent details please refer to Sydney Water’s web site at www.sydneywater.com.au and go to the Building, Developing and Plumbing, then Quick Check or Building and Renovating or telephone 13 20 92.

 

The principal certifying authority must ensure that a Quick Check Agent/Sydney Water has appropriately stamped the plans before commencing any works.

 

Structural adequacy

 

26.     A Certificate prepared by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority prior to issuing of a Construction Certificate, which certifies that the structural adequacy of the existing building to support the loads superimposed by the proposed third floor addition.

 

Construction site management

 

27.     Demolition work and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements (as applicable):

 

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Hazardous Substances) Regulation 2001

·           Occupational Health and Safety (Asbestos Removal Work) Regulation 2001

·           WorkCover NSW Codes of Practice and Guidelines

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

·           Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy (adopted 13 September 2005)

 

28.     In accordance with Council’s Asbestos Policy, the following requirements are to be satisfied if any materials containing asbestos are present in the building:

 

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

 

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

 

b)     A Demolition Work Plan must be developed and implemented in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures.

 

c)     A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 10m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation). Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.

 

d)     Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 1996.

 

e)     Asbestos waste must be disposed of at an approved waste disposal depot (refer to the DEC or Waste Service NSW for details of sites). Copies of all receipts detailing method and location of disposal must be maintained on site and be provided to Council officers upon request, as evidence of correct disposal.

 

f)      On demolition sites involving the removal of asbestos, a  professionally manufactured sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ and include details of the licensed contractor. The sign shall measure not less than 400mm x 300mm and the sign is to be installed prior to demolition work commencing and is to remain in place until such time as all asbestos has been safely removed from the site.

 

29.     All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations are to be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Retaining walls, shoring, or piling must be designed and installed in accordance with appropriate professional standards and the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards.  Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring or piling are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority for the development prior to commencing such excavations or works.

 

30.     The adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times.

 

If an excavation associated with the erection or demolition of a building extends below the level of the base of the footings of any building located on an adjoining allotment of land, the person causing the excavation must:

·       preserve and protect the building /s on the adjoining land from damage; and

·       effectively support  the excavation and building; and

·       at least seven (7) days before excavating below the level of the base of the footings of a building on an adjoining allotment of land (including a public road or public place), give notice of the intention and particulars of the works to the owner of the adjoining land.

 

Notes

 

·    This consent and condition does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the principal contractor or owner-builder must obtain:

a)     the consent of the owners of such adjoining or supported land to trespass or encroach, or

b)     an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000, or

c)     an easement under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919, or

d)     an easement under section 40 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979, as appropriate.

 

·    Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 creates a statutory duty of care in relation to support of land.  Accordingly, a person has a duty of care not to do anything on or in relation to land being developed (the supporting land) that removes the support provided by the supporting land to any other adjoining land (the supported land).

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery and pile drivers (or the like) must be minimised by using appropriate plant and equipment and silencers and a construction noise and vibration minimisation strategy, prepared by a suitably qualified consultant is to be implemented during the works, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

d)     Bulk bins/waste containers must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council. Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services department.

 

e)     During construction stages, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by the NSW Department of Housing. Sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout construction. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

·       Placement of a waste skip, container or other article.

 

Fire safety

 

34.     The existing levels of fire and safety within the building are to be upgraded in accordance with the following requirements and the fire safety certificate provisions of Part 9 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 must be complied with, prior to issuing an occupation certificate :

 

a)     The following works are to be undertaken in accordance with the specified provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA), as applicable:

 

1)       Provide a -/60/30 fire door set, with a self-closing device, to the front entry of each sole-occupancy unit in accordance with clause C3.11 of the Building Code of Australia (BCA),

 

2)       Provide a ceiling having a Fire Resistance Level (FRL) of 90/90/90 between the ground floor and first floor apartment in order to table 3 of Specification C1.1 of Section C of the Building Code of Australia.

 

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

 

b)     All new building works (including the proposed alterations/additions) must satisfy the relevant performance or deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

c)     All of the fire safety upgrading works and new building work must be detailed in the Construction Certificate for the development.

 

35.     The fire safety upgrading works must be carried out prior to issuing of an Occupation Certificate for the development and written confirmation must be provided to Council (from the Principal Certifying Authority) which confirms that all of the upgrading works have been carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent.

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate security against damage to Council’s infrastructure:

 

36.     The following damage/civil works security deposit requirement is to be complied with prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development, as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; or as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

a)   $2000.00   -      Damage/Civil Works Security Deposit

 

The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash or cheque with the Council and is refundable upon:

 

§  A satisfactory inspection by Council that no damage has occurred to the Council assets such as roadway, kerb, guttering, drainage pits footway, or verge; and

§  Completion of the civil works as conditioned in this development consent by Council.

 

The applicant is to advise Council, in writing, of the completion of all building works and/or obtaining an occupation certificate, if required.

 

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

 

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

 

a)     Construct an asphalt/concrete vehicular crossing opposite the vehicular entrance to the site.

 

38.     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.

 

39.     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:

 

40.     The Council’s Development Engineer has inspected the above site and has determined that the design alignment level at the property boundary for the driveways or the like, must be as follows:

 

Nicol Lane Frontage - 150mm above the edge of the asphalt road in Nicol Lane at all points along the laneway. 

 

41.     The design alignment levels issued by Council and their relationship to the roadway 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.

 

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

 

43.     The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment in Nicol Lane must be at least 150mm below the alignment level as specified for the vehicular access. 

 

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

 

44.     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.

 

45.     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.

 

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

 

46.     Plans in relation to site drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the plans are to be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issue, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)       A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system.  This may involve either connection to the Council's street gutter, or into a Council stormwater pit.  Note:  All proposals should indicate the location of the closest Council stormwater pit and line regardless of the point of discharge.  This information can be obtained by a visual inspection of the area and perusing Council's drainage plans.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

e)       Given the change in levels of the subject site, including in the area of the proposed new garages/studios buildings, there must be no discharge or concentration of stormwater from the subject site onto    adjoining properties. Details of compliance shall be provided.

                  

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

 

48.     All site stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) to either:

 

a)       Nicol Lane ; OR

b)       A suitably sized infiltration system.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·      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/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

 

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

 

·      A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system provided for the access grate.

 

·      A sign adjacent to the pit stating:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Trees on Council’s Maroubra Road embankment

 

51.     The applicant must ensure that the existing vegetation within Council’s Maroubra Road verge/embankment, on either side of the pedestrian stairs, for the full width of the site, will remain unaffected by this application, with all Site Management Plans and similar needing to show that materials associated with the proposed works will not be stored/located in this area during the course of the works.

 

The applicant may contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 should they need to discuss this requirement further.

 

Removal of Trees within site

 

52.     Approval is granted for removal of the following trees, subject to the planting of 2 x 25 litre broad canopied replacement trees (not palms) within the rear yard of the site, selecting those native coastal species that will attain a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity:

 

a)     Those shrubs/small trees surrounding the existing building only where necessary in order to accommodate the proposed works, as all were observed to be exempt from the provisions of Council’s Tree Preservation Order (TPO) due to their small size or location, comprising a Banksia serrata (Saw Toothed Banksia) near its northwest corner, a Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) near its southwest corner, a Hibiscus rosa-sinensis (Hibiscus) right in the southwest corner of the property, a Banksia ericifolia (Heath Banksia) about halfway along the length of the southern boundary, and a Glochidion ferdinandii (Cheese Tree) near its northeast corner;

 

b)     In the rear yard, the Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm), beyond the southeast corner of the existing building, and then further to its east, a Lagerstroemia indica (Crepe Myrtle), as adding up to 1 metre of fill in this area as shown on the Southern Elevation (DA201) would cause their death;

 

c)           The two Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s) growing along the southern boundary, adjacent the existing garage, as well as the Robinia psuedoacacia (Robinia), growing in the southeast corner of the site in order to accommodate the new garage and associated works as shown.

 

53.     The PCA must ensure that these replacement trees are properly installed, prior to the issue of a Final Occupation Certificate, with the applicant/owners required to maintain these trees in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity.

 

Protection of neighbouring trees at 357 Maroubra Road

 

54.     In order to ensure retention of those trees located within the rear yard of the adjoining property to the north, 357 Maroubra Road, against the common boundary, being from west to east, a Morus nigra (Mulberry), a Eucalyptus nicholii (Willow Leafed Peppermint), and then further to their east, towards Nicol Lane, a Eucalyptus sideroxylon (Ironbark) in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.  All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show the retention of these neighbouring trees, with the position and diameter of both their trunks and canopies to be clearly shown on all drawings.

 

b.  The Construction Certificate plans must show that in order to protect the root system of the Willow Leafed Peppermint, an area of undisturbed deep soil (at existing levels) must be maintained along the northern boundary, for a width of 1.5 metres, beneath the extent of its canopy/dripline, with any excavations for retaining walls or similar to be located outside this setback.

 

c.  Within the 1.5m side setback specified above, there is to be no other structures, services, detention tanks, stormwater infiltration systems, pipes or similar.

 

d.  Within the zone specified in point ‘b’ above, there is to be no storage of materials, machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble.

 

e.  Any initial excavations associated with the approved works described in point ‘b’ above must be initially performed by hand, to a minimum depth of 600mm, where any roots encountered which are in direct conflict with the approved and need to be cut, are to be pruned cleanly by hand, and the affected area backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

Advisory Conditions

 

A1.     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

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP57/10

 

Subject:                  Reporting variation to Development Standard under State Environment

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 June to 30 June 2010 eight (8) SEPP 1s were approved during this period with one of those under delegation by Council officer and seven (7) 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:

 

1.

SEPP 1 Register from 1 to 30 June 2010

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP58/10

 

Subject:                  Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) - delegate declarations of interest

Folder No:                   F2009/00256

Author:                   Karen Armstrong, Manager Strategic Planning     

 

Introduction

 

A report to the Council meeting of 22 June 2010 provided an update on relevant JRPP issues and recent changes to the JRPP procedures. The Council resolution included a request that:

 

“c) the previous report in relation to this matter (and specifically in relation to JRPP delegates being required to declare interests in matters that have been before the JRPP) be brought back to Council for reconsideration and to enable Council to formulate a position on the matter.”

 

The relevant report of 26 May 2009 is attached, for the Council’s consideration.

 

Issues

 

The Council report of 26 May 2009 (Attachment 1) summarised the JRPP procedures that Council’s JRPP members ‘will not present the Council’s view during the discussion of the JRPP but their own consideration of the application’. The report also noted that the Guidelines require that members are not to express an opinion/position prior to the DA being finalised for consideration, as per the Council’s DA process.

 

The recently updated JRPP Operational Procedures, prepared by the Department of Planning, reaffirmed the above position with further explanation on the earlier advice, provided primarily in its sections 4 ‘Assessment process’ and 5 ‘Determining process’.

 

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 JRPP procedures are prepared by the Department of Planning for all JRPPs and their members and the community to understand and ensure consistency in the approach to regional DA assessment across NSW.

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted

 

 


Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Council report of 26 May 2009  - Council's nominees for Joint Regional Planning Committee

 

 

 

 


Council report of 26 May 2009  - Council's nominees for Joint Regional Planning Committee

Attachment 1

 

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM25/09

 

 

Subject:                  Council's Nominees for Joint Regional Planning Committee

Folder No:                   F2009/08174

Author:                   Ray Brownlee, General Manager     

 


Introduction

 

The New South Wales Planning Reform in 2008 foreshadowed the establishment of Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPPs). The JRPPs will be charged with the responsibility of determining applications classified as regional development. The JRPPs are also to advise the Minister on environmental planning instruments of regional significance if requested by the Minister.

 

The Minister for planning, the Hon Kristina Keneally, MP has written to all Councils in NSW and has asked Councils to nominate two members to be part of the Panels.

 

It is recommended that Council nominates two Councillors to be panel members.

 

Issues

 

The development applications for projects classified as regional development will be referred to JRPP for determination.

 

The regional development projects will include:

 

1.     Commercial, residential, retail and tourism with Capital Investment Value (CIV) between $10M and $100M.

 

2.     Public and private community infrastructure and ecotourism with a CIV of more than $5M.

 

3.     Designated development (Environmental Impact Statement – EIS is required).

 

4.     Certain major coastal development.

 

5.     When Council is the proponent or is conflicted in relation to a development with a CIV of more than 5M.

 

Within the Sydney Metropolitan Region there will be two panels. These are Sydney

Metro East Region and Sydney Metro West Region.

 

Based on the criteria identified above, Randwick Council could potentially have

less than 10 applications per annum applications that fall within JRPPs development.

 

The JRPPs will be comprised of 5 members. Three of the members will be appointed by the Minister. The Panel is not subject to the direction or control of the Minister. These members must have expertise in planning, architecture, environment, heritage, urban design, land economics, traffic and transport, law, engineering and tourism.

 

Council has been asked to nominate two representatives to become panel members when regional development applications for Randwick Council will be considered by the Panel. Council has also been asked to nominate an alternate when one of its nominees is unable to attend. At least one of Council’s nominees must have expertise in the fields detailed above. The Departments guidelines outline the requirements and suitability for the membership.

 

The guidelines note that the Council’s nominees for the JRPP will not present the view of the Council during the discussion of the JRPP but their own consideration of the application (Section 6 of the attached Expression of Interest document).

 

All members of JRPPs including the Council’s members are not to express an opinion/position prior to the DA being finalised for JRPPs consideration. This is similar to current situation that requires councillors refrain from expressing an opinion/position until the assessment is finalised.

 

Council officers will be responsible for the assessment of applications. In other words, with regard to Randwick Council’s regional development application the relevant Randwick Council officers will assess the application and will report it to the JRPP for determination.

 

Council will have the opportunity to provide its views to the JRPP through a submission. Council officers will be developing a protocol surrounding the reporting of applications to Council when JRPP is the determining authority.

 

Councils may choose to undertake a local Expression of Interest (EOI) process to identify members of the community who would make suitable members of the JRPP. This could be undertaken through existing channels such as Council’s Mayoral Column in the local media, Council’s website or newsletter (where applicable).

 

Council’s nominees

 

As one of Council’s nominees must have high level expertise in one of the fields above, it is proposed to recommend Councillor Scott Nash to be one of the nominees. Councillor Nash has qualifications in law and has completed a Masters Degree in City and Town Planning. He also advocates in various planning matters at the Land and Environment Court of NSW.

 

Council’s second nominee will need to have a broad range of skills in planning and development matters.

 

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

 

The Department of Planning is yet to provide Council with information detailing the lodgement, advertising and the fees associated with the developments subject to JRPP determination. Council will raise these issues in discussion with the Department and the outcomes will be reported to Council.

 

 


Council report of 26 May 2009  - Council's nominees for Joint Regional Planning Committee

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council endorse Councillor Scott Nash to be Randwick City Council’s nominee on the JRPP;

 

b)     Council nominate a second Councillor for the JRPP; and

 

c)     Council nominate a Councillor as an alternate member on the JRPP.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Letter from The Hon Kristina Keneally, MP and Expressions of interest and nominations for the Joint Regional Planning Panels - Information Package for Council Nominees May 2009

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP59/10

 

Subject:                  Proposed Cultural Arts Program Budget to Activate Community Centres

Folder No:                   F2006/00452

Author:                   Teresa Mok, Coordinator Community Planning     

 

Summary

 

This report proposes an annual cultural arts program aimed at activating Council’s community centres and halls. The proposal will demonstrate Council’s commitment towards:

 

1.     promoting a sense of community;

2.     creating vibrant spaces;

3.     supporting strategies and actions within our cultural plan; and

4.     optimising the use of our community centres and halls.

 

In order to fund the proposed cultural arts program, this report recommends that an annual budget amounting to $35,000 be allocated to the program.  This will require the redirection of a portion of funds from the existing Australia Day budget ($50,000). It is recommended that:

 

1.     Council endorse the Cultural Arts Program and that $35,000 be reallocated from the Australia Day event budget 2010-11 to fund an annual program of cultural and performing arts events;

2.     the remaining balance of Australia Day event budget be used to fund Australia Day Citizen Ceremony and associated costs ($15,000); and

3.     a separate report with suggestions of suitable smaller scale activities to be held at Coogee Beach on Australia Day will be put to Council.

 

Current Position

 

In 2009, the Council introduced the Cultural Community Grants Program to fund applicants seeking financial (and in-kind) assistance to hold community and cultural events within the City.  This grants program has two allocation rounds per year and an annual budget of about $105,000.

 

As anticipated, the Cultural Community Grants Program process is attracting applicants from the broader community. In administering this grants process, the following trends are observed:

 

§  the funded activities tended to be more ‘community’ than ‘cultural’ in nature, e.g. Family day, Christmas Carols, Surfing and swimming challenges/competitions held by Surf Clubs.

§  a marked preference for activities to be held in public parks, reserves and beaches.

§  increasing competition among applicants for financial assistance as the grants program becomes more established and known to the community.

 

Should Council endorse the proposed Cultural Arts Program, events such as the free film festival and arts and craft shows would be considered under it.

Details of Proposed Cultural Arts Program

 

The proposal involves the commissioning of performing arts groups including dance, plays, musical groups of various genres, and cultural events such as art exhibitions, film nights and lecture series, in line with the actions identified in our cultural plan.

 

Council staff will identify and directly engage artists and musicians to promote and perform/exhibit their works at council-owned venues/facilities. A number of these activities (except for dance programs requiring timber sprung floor) will be staged at the Prince Henry Centre since it is a stunning venue with capacity to accommodate different types of performances and a range of art exhibitions.  Events will also be staged in Randwick Community Centre as it will benefit from greater public exposure as more residents are made aware of its location. Decisions about the venue for the different performances will depend on the nature of the activity/event and the anticipated target audiences. 

 

There are many ways to package the cultural arts program. The packaged program could be delivered, for example, over a two month timeframe with performances or activities scheduled over this period as (for example) Randwick Winter Festival or Culture Vultures.  Alternatively, some events could be staged once a month throughout the year, such as Family Night at the Movies. One off events are also possible, such as The Star Wars Movie Marathon whereby the trilogy is shown back to back during the school holidays. Details of activities will be developed to ensure that the overall program achieves optimal results and represents value for money.

 

Events scheduled under the proposed Cultural Arts Program will not compete with activities or events funded under our Cultural Community Grants Program.  It will offer a wider choice of arts related activities, to be held on a regular basis.  The major components are that:

 

§  Most performances or activities will be held on council owned premises (community centres and halls, including the Town Hall). The aim is to enliven our community facilities and provide opportunities for residents, particularly those at risk of social isolation (eg senior citizens and stay-at-home carers with pre-school children) to attend.

§  A number of music and theatrical performances will be staged.  There could be a potential for a subsidised affordable rate – say between $5 - $15 dollars per ticket, for certain performances or event. 

§  The intention is to develop a program that will appeal to all ages but Council will pay performers for staging their acts/show, except in instances where the artist has received a grant through the Cultural Community Grants Program.

§  $35,000 will fund approximately 14 performances or events (conservatively @$2,500 per show/act).  Other events such as musical ensembles, film night or talks/lectures by noteworthy persons will cost considerably less to hold. Related cultural events such as a Songfest for amateur choir groups may not even require a cash outlay by Council if joining fees for competitors and audiences are charged to cover the prize money.  However, organising such an event will require staff time, to identify, select and negotiate the various cultural events, followed by marketing and promotional work.

 

The intention is to support talented and emerging Australian artists or talented local residents/musicians/artists. Many musicians are also high school and university students and don’t often get paid work opportunities, and this in one avenue which Council can demonstrate its support for the emerging arts and culture sector.

Ideas include staging on an annual basis selected HSC art works of local high school students (along the lines of the Art Express Salon des Refuse); Mid-morning tea and music for senior citizens and perhaps a different session for Mums, Bubs+Tots (a choice of music ensembles with morning tea). These events could also double as information sessions where speakers may be invited to talk about childcare issues or health related information for senior citizens.

 

Essentially, the first two years will involve a degree of market testing and participant survey, to determine the more popular of events to schedule for subsequent years and to strive towards cost neutrality.

 

Source of Funding

 

The Australia Day Citizenship Ceremony and the Community event at Coogee have an annual budget of around $50,000.  The cost of staging Australia Day at Coogee Beach was around $35,000.

 

Due to the alcohol ban at Coogee Beach, the number of people present at Coogee Beach on 26 January 2010 fell to several hundred people.  The timing of the event, between 11am to 3 pm also had an impact on the attendance rate, being the hottest time of the day, when the Cancer Council and other health authorities suggest to the public to minimise sun exposure.  Council officers have discussed with the Police the possibility of the event to be held sometime from the 2 to 6 February.  The Police did not favour this option.

 

Maintaining the allocated Australia Day budget to stage events at Coogee Beach on Australia for substantially reduced number of people does not represent good value for money. The suggested reallocation of $35,000 from the annual Australia Day budget of $50,000 will enable Council to continue to hold the citizenship ceremony and to hold small scale community activities at the Prince Henry Centre.

 

A separate report with suggestions of small scale suitable activities to be held at Coogee Beach on Australia Day will also be put to Council.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

Direction 5:       A range of cultural, sporting and leisure activities.

Key action:       Increase public art, performance spaces and opportunities for creative expression across our City.

 

Financial Source and Impacts

 

In terms of resourcing implications for existing staff, it is envisaged that the part time Cultural Project Officer, together with the Community Centres Manager, will have a major role in developing and refining the programming, marketing and budget requirements within their current work plans.  Members of the Council’s Arts and Cultural Advisory Panel will provide guidance, where relevant, to help develop a suitably diverse cultural arts program for a wider target audience.

 

A balanced approach will be taken, recognising the income generating potential of Council’s community centres. Programming the cultural events at these centres will where possible avoid peak periods.

 

Conclusion

 

The Council already funds a substantial number of activities and events held at its beaches, parks and reserves.  However, a large proportion of our residents also appreciate, and have expressed a wish for more artistic and performance based events to address this imbalance.

 

Reallocating a budget within Council to fund its own cultural arts program will enable the Council to activate its own centres year round, and to select the most appropriate of its venues to hold these activities.  Having its own budget for a Cultural Arts Program will also give the Council a degree of control when developing the annual program, which is important to ensure that the activities or events are sufficiently broad to cater to the diverse interests of our residents.

 

 

Recommendation

 

It is recommended that:

 

a)     Council endorse the Cultural Arts Program and that $35,000 be reallocated from the Australia Day event budget 2010-11 and funded in future budgets for an annual program of cultural and performing arts events;

 

b)     the remaining balance of Australia Day event budget be used to fund Australia Day Citizen Ceremony and associated costs ($15,000); and

 

c)     a separate report with suggestions of suitable smaller-scale activities to be held       at Coogee Beach on Australia Day will be put to Council.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP60/10

 

Subject:                  Land & Environmental Court Appeals

Folder No:                   F2006/00383

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

There have been two recent decisions of the Land and Environment Court in relation to appeals against either Council’s decision to refuse consent to a development application or in the case of the Racecourse Drive-in proposal a deemed refusal of the application.

 

Issues

 

31 Fischer Street, KINGSFORD

DA/896/2008 sought consent for a Torrens title subdivision of existing site into two lots.

 

The lot had previously been the subject of an approved attached dual occupancy development. However, that development had not been fully complied with in terms of some outstanding building work which resulted in the two dwellings being separate.

 

The development application for the subdivision would have resulted in two lots less than the required minimum lot size of 450m2 pursuant to Clause 30(1) of the RLEP. The lots impact would have been 387m2 respectively. Subsequent to the lodgement of the development application new LEP provisions had come into effect which prescribed a minimum lot size of 400m2.

 

The Court noted that the controls contained with the RLEP stated the relevant purpose of the prescribed lot sizes was to “protect local amenity”. The Court in applying the approach adopted by the Chief Judge in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 considered that there was no compelling evidence presented in the SEPP 1 objection to show how the development, by way of “considerably” smaller lots, would protect the amenity of the area.

 

The Commissioner noted that the smaller effective lot areas could be better managed by retention of the development on one title “whereby the closer proximity of the various elements of the development is under one ownership control”.

 

The Court held that the applicant SEPP1 objection, in relying on the absence of any environmental harm rather than in demonstrating how the proposed development enhanced the local amenity, failed and that compliance with the minimum lot development standard was not unnecessary or unreasonable. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the SEPP 1 objection disallowed.

 

77-97 Alison Road, RANDWICK

DA/880/2009 sought consent to use part of the Royal Randwick Racecourse infield precinct parking area as a drive-in cinema on Friday, Saturday & Sunday evenings in the months of July to September each year with the viewing capacity of up to 500 vehiclesCouncil did not object to the Racecourse drive-in proposal subject to the applicant agreeing to a trial period, left in/right out only from High St and advising patrons that the entry to the venue shall be from Anzac Parade and High St. These matters were agreed to by the applicant and form conditions of the sealed orders of the Court.

 

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

 

The costs to date in relation to the matters above are detailed below:

 

1.     31 Fisher St - $7961

2.     Racecourse Drive-in – Yet to be determined

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP61/10

 

Subject:                  Chifley Sports Reserve draft Final Plan of Management

Folder No:                   F2009/00086

Author:                   Ross Anthony, Environmental Planning Officer

 

Executive Summary

 

The NSW Department of Lands appointed Randwick City Council as the manager of the Chifley Sports Reserve and the Chifley Sports Reserve Trust in February 2008. On 12 May 2009, Council resolved (Andrews/ Notley-Smith) to prepare a draft Plan of Management (PoM) to facilitate the upgrade of the Reserve to provide for a range of sports and passive recreation activities. Council endorsed (Andrews/ White) a draft PoM for public consultation on 23 February 2010, which was publically exhibited for approximately 8 weeks from 9 March to 30 April 2010. The PoM has been amended to reflect community feedback and other proposed improvements to the Reserve.

 

This report recommends Council adopt the attached Chifley Sports Reserve Plan of Management and, in accordance with the requirements of the Crown Lands Act 1989, forward the PoM to the Minister for Lands for final endorsement.

 

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 baseball diamonds, an amenities building and a disused cricket oval. An informal car park and vehicle access is off Bunnerong Road. The site has been extensively filled and the remaining vegetation on the Reserve is dominated by grass and weeds species.

 

Recreational Needs Study & La Perouse Skate Park and Youth Space Report

 

The PoM has incorporated the recommendations of Council’s Recreational Needs Study (adopted May 2008) and the La Perouse Skate Park and Youth Space Report (commissioned in 2008). Key recommendations of the Recreational Needs Study include to provide for sport activities as the primary role of the Reserve, but to also provide for passive uses eg. picnic areas; to broaden the times the fields are able to be used with some fields being flood lit; and to focus on providing spaces with multiple uses, such as rectangle fields (soccer, rugby, oz tag, etc) to optimise the use of the open spaces.

 

The Recreational Needs Study also noted that a skateboard park was ranked in the top three most required future recreation facilities. The supporting Skate Park Report found that due to the physical conditions/context, access, security, amenities, impact on surrounding uses and distance from dwellings, Chifley Sports Reserve was the most suitable site for such a facility and this has therefore also been included in the PoM.

 

The Plan of Management

 

The PoM (Appendix 2) 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 and undertake extensive weed control and vegetation rehabilitation

§                improve pedestrian access around the site

§                improve vehicle access and parking on the periphery of the site

§                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

§                provide a youth recreation/ skate 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 Landscape Concept Plan included in the PoM shows the indicative layout of the Reserve and provides for a variety of summer and winter sports field layouts to ensure flexibility and to respond to the needs of local sporting groups. It provides for two dedicated baseball fields in the northern portion (the draft PoM exhibited only included one dedicated field) and a range of possible fields in the southern portion. The final combination will be dependent on future tendering by local sporting groups. The possible sports include soccer, rugby league, rugby union, touch football, Oz-tag, AFL, cricket, archery, gaelic football, soft ball and t – ball.

 

Substantial passive areas and facilities are also provided for use at all times. Outside times when the sport fields are booked, the entire Reserve will be available for passive recreation by the community.

 

Consultation

 

The draft PoM was on exhibition for public consultation for approximately 8 weeks from Tuesday 9 March to Friday 30 April 2010. Consultation with relevant stakeholders included:

 

§                notices in the local newspaper, on site and on Council’s website;

§                exhibition of the draft at Council’s Administration Building, Bowen and Malabar libraries and on council’s web site;

§                direct notification to adjoining residents, land owners, members of the Sports Committee, local schools and youth based community groups, relevant precinct committees and the NSW Land and Property Management Authority;

§                meetings with interested stakeholders; and

§                presentations and attendance at the La Perouse and Matraville precinct committee meetings.

 

16 submissions were received: 8 from residents, 4 from sports groups and one each from the NSW Land and Property Management Authority, La Perouse Youth Haven and the La Perouse and Matraville Precinct Committees. In general there was support for the upgrade and improvement of the Reserve with specific issues raised regarding the types of sports and extent of activities, traffic and parking, lighting, need for support facilities such as a kiosk, and the types of trees and other plant species to be used.

 

The Eastern Suburbs Junior Baseball League, the only group currently using the Reserve, noted that the reduction in the number of dedicated baseball fields to one was too little to enable the League to continue and an additional field has been provided in the final PoM.

 

The Sydney Bowman Archery Club and NSW Gaelic Athletic Association requested that archery and Gaelic football also be included as potential sports at the Reserve. These could be suitable and supports a diversity of the sports being played in the City.

 

The La Perouse Youth Haven and some residents expressed strong support for the skate park and youth facilities. Only one submission queried the need for the facility, as identified in the Recreational Needs Study and La Perouse Skate Park and Youth Space Report.

 

The La Perouse Precinct Committee expressed concern about a range of issues, including traffic management, the location of parking on Little Bay Road, privacy, field lighting and noise, extent of sporting areas compared to passive space and a request to ban the amplification of sound of any kind. A number of changes have been made to the PoM to address the many valid issues raised.

 

The Matraville Precinct Committee was mostly supportive and made a number of suggested improvements regarding sustainability, landscaping, traffic management and security.  These have also resulted in changes to improve the PoM.

 

A detailed summary of the submissions and responses is provided in Appendix 1.

 

Amendments

 

Following the public exhibition and consultation, the following key changes have been made to the PoM to address issues raised in the submissions:

 

§         the northern boundary of proposed works has been slightly extended into the existing unmade road reservations to accommodate a larger car park area and larger baseball fields. This has not changed vehicle access arrangements to the site which remains from Bunnerong Road;

§         an additional dedicated junior baseball field has been included and the senior baseball field has been increased in length to meet standard size requirements;

§         the children’s playground has been relocated to a more central location and to accommodate the rearranged baseball fields;

§         the Little Bay Road carpark has been substantially reduced in size with most parking now being provided in carparks with access from Bunnerong Road;

§         greater recognition of the traffic analysis requirements for Bunnerong Road and the car park access within the final detailed design to be undertaken for the upgrade;

§         the range of sports that could potentially use the Reserve has been expanded to include more diverse sporting options, such as archery or Gaelic football. The PoM does not exclude other sports not specifically noted and use of the fields is subject to final tendering by local sports groups;

§         more detail has been included in the Action Plan to address issues such as sustainability, access, location of lighting and flora management;

§         the indicative plantings list has been expanded to include more native plants, grasses and shrubs;

§         references to the Department of Lands have been changed to its current name of the Land and Property Management Authority; and

§         general typographical and grammar amendments.

 

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 was 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 PoM are estimated at $8 Million, which has been allocated in various future Council budgets.

 

Conclusion

 

The PoM provides 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 facilitates essential rehabilitation and revegetation works; upgrades of the Reserve for both active and passive recreation to a ‘District Park’ standard; and improves the quality, safety and useability of the site. 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     Endorse the Chifley Sports Reserve Plan of Management;

 

b)     Forward the Plan of Management to the Minister for Lands for final approval and notification in the Government Gazette; and

 

c)     Agree that the Director City Planning may make minor modifications to rectify any numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors as required in finalising the Plan of Management.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.             Community Consultation Comments Summary – INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

2.             FINAL Chifley Sports Reserve PoM 19 July 2010 – INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM26/10

 

Subject:                  Australian Mayoral Aviation Council - Atendance at 2010 Conference

Folder No:                   F2004/07399

Author:                   David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services     

 

Introduction

 

The 28th Annual Conference of the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council (AMAC) will be held at Perth from 10 to 12 November 2010.

 

Issues

 

In August 2008, Council resolved to become a member of the AMAC as this organisation is considered to be the most appropriate forum in which Council can have its say on issues of major regional concern associated with the Sydney international airport.

 

Through this body, Council will continue to challenge the Government’s plans to greatly expand the Airport’s operating capacity, as well as the suitability of retail and commercial development proposals for the Airport site and the potential impacts this form of development will have on the local area and the wider Sydney region.

 

The Australian Mayoral Aviation Council was initiated through consensus by a number of local authorities in December 1982. Membership is open to the Mayor or Councillor (or an appropriate nominee) of local authorities throughout Australia affected, or potentially affected, by airport operations or aircraft noise.

 

The AMAC convenes a conference on an annual basis to provide delegates with the opportunity to meet and discuss issues, to hear and examine speakers on a wide variety of subjects and to determine the future of the organisation through the forum of an Annual General Meeting.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in sustainability.

Direction 2c:      Strong partnerships between Council, community groups and government agencies in order to champion our community’s needs to other service providers and government agencies to advocate on our community’s behalf.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of attending this conference has been allowed for in the 2010-11 budget.

 

Conclusion

 

Given Council’s membership of the AMAC and the impact of the Sydney international airport on the Randwick City Council area, the Mayor and General Manager will attend the 2010 conference.

 


 

Recommendation

 

That the Mayor and General Manager attend the 28th Annual Conference of the Australian Mayoral Aviation Council to be held in Perth from 10 to 12 November 2010.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM27/10

 

Subject:                  Future of Riverina Red Gum Forests

Folder No:                   PROJ/10353/2007

Author:                   David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services     

 

Introduction

 

At its ordinary meeting held 23 March 2010 on a motion pursuant to notice put forward by Councillor Matson it was resolved:

 

“That Council:

 

(a)    resolves to support local resident, Mr Bob Carr’s, call for a national protest against the NSW Labor Government’s proposal to allow logging of the giant River Red Gums, in southwest NSW, until 2015; and

 

(b)    will write to local MP’s noting Council’s support for Mr Carr’s protest call; and

 

(c)    will invite Premier Ms Kristina Keneally, in her capacity as a local MP, to address a Council meeting clarifying the State Government’s logging schedule and how this State policy will benefit her local residents as NSW citizens.”

 

A response has been received from the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment which outlines the future plans for the Riverina Red Gum Forests. The following is an extract from the Minister’s response.

 

Issues

 

The NSW Government has approved the majority of the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) recommendations regarding Red Gum forests along the Murray, Murrumbidgee and Lachlan rivers in the Riverina.

 

The Government's decision means that:

 

·           over 100,000 hectares of iconic, internationally recognised River Red Gums will be protected, including 65,922 hectares of national parks, 15,259 hectares of regional parks and 20,684 hectares of Indigenous protected areas;

·           the new national and regional parks will be established in their entirety from 1 July 2010.

 

As part of the decision, the Koondrook, Perricoota and Campbells Island state forests will remain state forests, as recommended by the NRC.

 

The NSW Government is very mindful of the needs of regional communities, so a support package of up to $97 million has been allocated to include:

 

·           $12 million for regional employment and community development, including the provision of counselling services for timber workers;

·           $21.5 million for worker assistance for those workers directly employed in the industry who are affected by the declaration of national and regional parks;

·           $25 million for business exit packages for mills directly affected by the parks decisions, on a sustainable yield basis;

·           $5 million for structural improvement initiatives for Riverina industries;

·           almost $12 million in capital over three years to establish the national and regional parks and associated infrastructure, with additional management funding of over $3 million per year;

·           $2 million for Aboriginal communities to support the establishment of Indigenous protected areas and new reserves;

·           $5.3 million for research including ecological thinning trials and compliance costs. The new parks and Indigenous protected areas will conserve:

·           two wetlands of international significance, Millewa and Werai;

·           two Living Murray icon sites, Millewa Forest and the River Murray Channel;

·           more than 50 species of threatened terrestrial fauna;

·           11 species of threatened fish;

·           43 species of threatened plants; and

·           significant breeding habitat for 18 migratory bird species listed under international agreements with China, Japan and Korea.

 

There are an estimated 401,000 hectares of River Red Gum in the Riverina on a combination of private land, leasehold, Crown forests and national park. Between 65 and 90 percent of these forests are currently dead or dying due to lack of water, with major implications for the local communities reliant on them. The NRC said:

The River red gum forests and the industries and social systems they support are in decline due to river regulation, over-allocation of water and drought.

 

The Government's decision improves the prospects that environmental water will be supplied to the River Red Gums, wetlands and the new parks through existing Commonwealth and State environmental water programs.

 

It was clear from the NRC's report, and acknowledged by a range of stakeholders during the consultation process, that irrespective of any decision by the Government to create new protected areas in the Riverina River Red Gum forests, logging would have to be substantially reduced — at least halved by some estimates — to reach sustainable levels. If the Government had not approved new national parks, the industry would naturally decline with no support package or new initiatives in place.

 

After extensive consultation with all stakeholders, the Government believes it has acted to strike the right balance between protecting the River Red Gums and supporting regional communities. Implementation of the structural adjustment program for the timber industry is being overseen by a Government steering committee, chaired by the Department of Premier and Cabinet. Discussions with affected timber businesses and workers are already well underway.

 

The Government has set up a website where you can find all the relevant information on the changing management of the NSW River Red Gum forests. It can be found at http://www.riverredqums.nsw.qov.au/

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 10:      A Healthy Environment.

Direction 10(a):  Council is a leader in fostering sustainability behaviours.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The measures announced by the NSW Government in response to the NRC recommendations have been delivered by legislation and passed by the NSW Parliament on 20 May 2010. This will ensure that the decision cannot be reversed.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the response from the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, which outlines the future plans for the Riverina Red Gum Forests, be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM28/10

 

Subject:                  Randwick Boys High School - proposed 'Mayor's Award'

Folder No:                   F2010/06574

Author:                   David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services     

 

Introduction

 

The Principal of Randwick Boys High School has written to the Mayor seeking support for the introduction of a ‘Mayor’s Award’.

 

Issues

 

Randwick Boys High School is the only comprehensive, government boys’ high school in the Randwick City Council area and the school is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of its award system, in particular, the way that it celebrates academic, civic and sporting achievement.  The purpose of the review is to make the Awards Presentation Day more relevant to students and to be more inclusive of the local community.

 

The Principal has indicated that the proposed ‘Mayor’s Award’ would recognise the Mayor who instituted the award, and each year, the serving Mayor would be invited to present the award at the school.  The Mayor’s Award would be recognised in perpetuity by an Honour Board which would include Cr Procopiadis’ name, as the instituting Mayor, along with each annual recipient.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2c:      Strong partnerships between the Council, community groups and government agencies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of instituting the award and operating it for a period of five years would be $5,000 and, if the report recommendation is adopted, this could be funded from the 2010-11 Contingency Fund

 

Conclusion

 

This represents an opportunity for Council to demonstrate its ongoing commitment to the local community and, in particular, to public education.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council agree to the introduction of a ‘Mayor’s Award’ for Randwick Boys High School and agrees to fund the cost of instituting and operating the award for a period of five years at a cost of $5,000 to be funded from the 2010-11 Contingency Fund.

 

 

 


Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM29/10

 

Subject:                  Kite Flying - Maroubra Beach

Folder No:                   F2004/07128

Author:                   Fiona Calabrese, Manager - Organisational Staff Service     

 

Introduction

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting on 25 August 2009, as an outcome of report GM38/09, on a risk assessment on kite flying at Randwick beaches, it was resolved that a report be brought back to Council recommending appropriate controls on kite boarding at Maroubra Beach.

 

In order to have a clear understanding of the extent of the sport at Maroubra and the issues relating to its safe operation, Council’s beach inspectors have been monitoring kite surfing activity over the summer season.

 

Also, a legal opinion was sought on whether Council can safely approve the continuation of kite surfing at Maroubra beach and any potential liability to Council if approval was granted.

 

Issues

 

The following provides an overview of the relevant marine legislation, the current usage of Maroubra Beach and kite surfing activity.

 

Kite surfing and relevant marine legislation

Kite surfing is an activity in which a person is situated on or over water on a board, a ski or skis or a vessel and the power of a controllable kite, or similar equipment, is used to propel the person across the surface of the water. A surf kite is classified as a vessel and therefore comes under NSW marine legislation.

Throughout this report the sport is referred to as both kite surfing and kite boarding. These are different names for the same sport.

 

Implications of classification as a vessel under marine legislation;

 

·           Kite surfers and their equipment, including kite and lines, must maintain a minimum distance of 60m from any persons or non-powered vessels or 30m from powered vessels and any objects in the water or if that is not possible a safe distance.

·           Stay out of a designated surf zone. A designated surf zone is defined as the area extending 500 metres out from shore between surf patrol flags or signs.

·           Stay out of a swimming area, which is defined as the area extending 60 metres out from shore between signs for swimmers.

 

In practical terms at Maroubra Beach this means that a kite surfer must be at least 60 metres from a swimming zone and at least 60 metres from a board rider or person on a surf ski, kayak or the like. This is illustrated in Figure 1. The kite surfers may travel at speeds between 10 to 15 knots – about 18 to 25 kilometres per hour.

 

Figure 1: Required exclusion according to Maritime law around a swimming zone

 

Kite surfing at Maroubra Beach

Currently the beach inspectors ask that any kite surfers check in with them before entering the water. The kite surfer must show proof of NSW Kite Boarding Association membership before they are allowed in the water. The key reason for seeking proof of membership is that any member of the NSW Kite Boarding Association has public liability cover to $10 million. However these are voluntary conditions and some kite surfers do not meet them and/or refuse to accept them. There have been some growing problems with international visitors who do not have membership and will not agree to the voluntary restrictions. In several cases the kite surfers have been quite confrontational and aggressive and have not wanted to take directions from the life guards. These are not regular incidents but there has been several over the summer season.

 

Kite surfing does not attract many practitioners and over the summer season perhaps only 30 to 40 wanted to kite surf at Maroubra. A key reason for the low numbers is that the life guards do not allow kite surfing at Maroubra when there are two sets of flags up. Generally each set of flags provides an area 120 metres in length. With two surf clubs based at Maroubra there are usually two sets of flags set up every weekend and public holiday from October until the end of April and for the six week summer holiday period over December and January. There is at least one set of flags set up every day of the year except in dangerous surf conditions when the beach is closed

 

The attached map of the beach which is 980 metres in length illustrates why it is not possible to allow kite surfers when two sets of flags are in place.

 

·           Northern end of beach cannot be utilised for swimming or kite surfing because of storm water outlet and rocks  (270 metres)

·           Two sets of flags each up to 120 metres in length with a 60 metre exclusion zone on either side (total 480 metres)

·           When there are two sets of flags there is only a frontage of 230 metres in the middle and southern part of the beach for board riders.

 

Maroubra Beach is very popular with board riders as it is the most consistent break in the eastern suburbs and gets both southerly and north easterly swells. There is also ample free parking. On a reasonable day at Maroubra there can be more than eighty (80) board riders in the water at any one time. The life guards do not designate a specific area for board rider as this will vary each day depending on the wind and sand bars.

 

Other key beach users include the surf school and the surf clubs. The surf school holds classes every day especially in the afternoons which corresponds with the most popular time for kite surfing. It has no designated area but the trainers tend to pick a quieter part of the beach depending on the breaks. The other major beach users are the two surf clubs which hold training for nippers on boards, usually on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and training for senior members on surf skis and occasionally surf boats and the rubber ducky. All of these activities take place away from the flagged area.

 

During the winter months there are competitions for board riders and body boarders held nearly every weekend.

 

The prevalent summer seasonal wind is the north easterly which creates good conditions for both board riders and kite surfers. The only other wind suitable for kite surfing is a westerly that takes them out to sea although this is not as well favoured by the kite surfers. If a kite surfer went out in a south easterly wind this would bring them straight into the flagged area.

 

While it is easier to restrict kite surfers from entering designated surf zone it is almost impossible to keep them at least 60 metres from board riders and generally kite surfing poses more danger to board riders than swimmers. The map illustrates the general pattern of movement of a kite surfer in a NE wind. In tacking out to sea they cut across the board riding breaks on the southern part of the beach. When they surf back to shore they are required to maintain a distance of 500 metres from the flags and keep at least 60 metres from any one board rider. The map shows that this is impossible and Randwick needs to assess the risk of continuing to allow kite surfing.

 

Legal Advice

Council sought a legal opinion from Eakin McCaffery Cox on the following:

 

·           whether it can safely approve the continuation of kite surfing at Maroubra beach

·           Council’s liability if kite surfing was allowed and if there was an accident involving a kite surfer and another beach user

·           if kite surfer was allowed under the existing conditions whether the life guards would be liable if a kite surfer ignored the conditions or their advice, entered the water and subsequently caused injury to another person

A copy of the legal advice is provided as attachment 2.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship to the City plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:         A liveable city.

Direction 6b:        Our town centres, beaches, public places and streets are safe, inviting, clean and support a recognisable image of our City.

Direction 6c:        The safety of our community is paramount and is acknowledged and supported through proactive policies, programs and strategies.

Financial impact statement

 

The only financial impact relates to the cost of either new signage or changing some existing signs.

 

Conclusion

 

The legal advice provided in Attachment 2 concluded that:

 

“Randwick City Council is at risk of prosecution under the provisions of the Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000, in the event of an injury to an employee or other user of the beach or surf, caused by a kite surfer, which injury occurred during a period in which RCC had lifeguards patrolling the beach.

 

There is no immediate risk of a claim for damages at common law, however, for abundant caution, risk warnings, both oral and in writing, should be considered.”

 

This was based on the fact that it is almost impossible to keep kite surfers at least 60 metres from board riders and therefore having identified this risk, Council is obliged to adopt measures that are reasonably practical to remove the risk.

 

However, the legal advice also suggested that, as Randwick Council’s undertaking ceases outside of the specified patrol times of the lifeguards, that there are no obligations under the OH&S Act outside of these times. Therefore, it would be possible to allow kite surfing for restricted times, if signage clearly stated that:

 

·           kite surfing was prohibited during the times when the beach is patrolled by lifeguards

·           kite surfers need to keep a minimum of 60 metres from all other persons and non powered vessels

·           persons engaged in recreational activities undertaken outside of the designated patrol hours do so at their own risk.

 

The beach lifeguards would need to advertise clearly their designated patrol hours.

 

This would provide opportunities for the responsible local kite surfers who only enter the water at the end of the day when the flags are down to continue to kite surf at Maroubra Beach. The challenge for Randwick Council is to manage the various users at the beach, maintain a safe environment and meet our legislative obligations.

 

The kite surfing association would need to be notified of these changed conditions so that they can change the information on their website.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Kite surfing be allowed on Maroubra Beach during the times when the beach is not patrolled by the Randwick City Council beach lifeguards

 

b)     Signage be erected that clearly states the following:

 

i.    kite surfing is prohibited during the times when the beach is patrolled by lifeguards

ii.   kite surfers need to keep a minimum of 60 metres from all other persons and non powered vessels

iii.   persons engaged in recreational activities undertaken outside of the designated patrol hours do so at their own risk.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

A5 MAP – INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

2.View

Legal Advice - Eakin McCaffery Cox - dated 1 July 2010

 

 

 

 


Legal Advice - Eakin McCaffery Cox - dated 1 July 2010

Attachment 2

 

 

 






Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM30/10

 

Subject:                  Funding of Heffron Park Plan of Management

Folder No:                   F2004/08399

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to inform Councillors of developments on Council’s request for funding assistance for the Heffron Park Plan of Management.

 

Issues

 

In July 2009, Council was invited to attend a meeting at the Randwick Labor Club to discuss the NSW State Plan.

 

Councillor Matthews attended the meeting and held discussions with The Hon. Carmel Tebutt, MP (Deputy Premier and Minister for Health) who gave an undertaking to consider funding of the Heffron Park Plan of Management in the NSW State Plan.

 

Ms Tebutt subsequently wrote to Councillor Matthews, indicating that she had written to both the Premier and the Minister for Gaming and Racing regarding the Heffron Park Plan of Management, with a request that they respond to Council directly on this issue. To date, however, no response has been received from either the Premier of the Minister for Gaming and Racing.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

Outcome 5a:     Maximise opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy both active       and passive open space uses.

 

Financial impact statement

 

As reported to Council in April 2009, the cost of implementing the Heffron Park Plan of Management will be approximately $33.36M.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that Council follow up with the Premier and the Minister for Gaming and Racing and, also the Minister for Sport and Recreation (as the most appropriate Minister to deal with funding of a regional sporting and recreation facility) and pursue an update on the commitment to funding the Heffron Park Plan of Management as part of the NSW State Plan.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council write to the Premier, the Minister for Sport and Recreation and the Minister for Gaming and Racing requesting an update on the commitment to funding the Heffron Park Plan of Management as part of the NSW State Plan.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM31/10

 

Subject:                  Delegations of Authority

Folder No:                   F2004/06895

Author:                   Julie Hartshorn, Senior Administrative Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

Council’s delegations are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that the General Manager has appropriate authority to provide for the day to day management of the Council’s administrative and regulatory functions and to ensure that Council staff are not acting outside the limits of their delegated authority.

 

Issues

 

A council may, by resolution, delegate to the General Manager or any other person or body (not including another employee of the council) any of the functions of the council, other than the following:

 

a)  the appointment of the General Manager

b)  the making of a rate

c)  a determination under section 549 as to the levying of a rate

d)  the making of a charge

e)  the fixing of a fee

f)   the borrowing of money

g)  the voting of money for expenditure on its works, services or operations

h)  the compulsory acquisition, purchase, sale, exchange or surrender of any land or other property (but not including the sale of items of plant or equipment)

i)   the acceptance of tenders which are required under this Act to be invited by the council

j)   the adoption of a management plan under section 406

k)  the adoption of a financial statement included in an annual financial report

l)   a decision to classify or reclassify public land under Division 1 of Part 2 of Chapter 6,

m) the fixing of an amount or rate for the carrying out by the council of work on private land

n)  the decision to carry out work on private land for an amount that is less than the amount or rate fixed by the council for the carrying out of any such work

o)  the review of a determination made by the council, and not by a delegate of the council, of an application for approval or an application that may be reviewed under section 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

p)  the power of the council to authorise the use of reasonable force for the purpose of gaining entry to premises under section 194

q)  a decision under section 356 to contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons

r)   a decision under section 234 to grant leave of absence to the holder of a civic office

s)  the making of an application, or the giving of a notice, to the Governor or Minister

t)  this power of delegation

u)  any function under this or any other Act that is expressly required to be exercised by resolution of the council.


There are currently three (3) delegation matters that require attention:

 

1.     Formal delegations to enable staff to process applications under the new Government Information (Public Access) Act (GIPA) were delegated to the General Manager at the 22 June Council Meeting.  An additional delegation is suggested to enable the General Manager to review and update Council’s ‘Publication Guide.’  Council is required (under s20 of the GIPA Act) to produce, and make available on its website, a ‘Publication Guide.’  Randwick City Council’s Publication Guide complies with the GIPA Act requirements and has been approved by the NSW Information Commissioner (in accordance with the requirements of the GIPA Act).  The Publication Guide is attached for Council’s endorsement.  It is suggested, however, that, given the administrative nature of the Publication Guide, that the General Manager be delegated authority to review and update the Guide on as ‘as required’ basis.  The Publication Guide is required to be reviewed at least once every 12 months.  The proposed amendment to the Delegations Register is as follows:

 

RF033

Government Information (Public Access) Act –Publication Guide

Proposed new delegation

To review and update Council’s Publication Guide (prepared under s20 of the Government Information (Public Access) (GIPA) Act 2009) on an as required basis.

 

2.     The recent introduction of the Building Professionals Act 2005 and the Building Professionals Regulation 2007 has resulted in the requirement for 2 new delegations which were provided for at the 25 May Council Meeting. There is a further requirement, however, for the Acts and Regulations table in the Delegations Register to reflect the new Act and Regulations.  The proposed amendment to the Delegations Register is as follows:

 


RA001

Acts and Regulations

Amended delegation

To exercise all powers vested in Council by the following Acts and Regulations:

 

(jj) Building Professionals Act 2005 and Regulations

 

3.     A proposed new delegation is required to deal with Council business relationships and marketing opportunities.  This delegation with allow the Mayor and General Manager to spend up to $1,500 to meet all the expenses incurred during business meetings with government officials and business executives and will ensure greater transparency and eliminate any perceptions of bias in our dealing with such parties.  The proposed new delegation is as follows:

 


RB003

Business relationships and marketing opportunities

Proposed new delegation

To authorise expenditure within the adopted budget of up to $1,500 (per occurrence) in order to meet all the expenses incurred during business meetings with government officials and business executives

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 11:      Excellence in staff management.

Direction 11a:    A working environment that provides a strong platform for productivity and achievement and allows all staff to contribute to the best of their ability to achieving Councils outcomes.

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

It is recommended that the proposed amendments to the ‘Delegations of Authority’ and the GIPA Act Publication Guide (as endorsed by the NSW Information Commissioner) be adopted.

 

For accountability purposes a copy of the Delegations Register (including the sub-delegations from the General Manager to staff) is available on Council’s website.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the Publication Guide dated 1 July 2010 and produced in accordance with the requirements of the Government Information (Public Access) Act be adopted;

 

b)     pursuant to section 377 of the Local Government Act, the Delegations of Authority be amended as follows;

 


RA001

Acts and Regulations

Amended delegation

To exercise all powers vested in Council by the following Acts and Regulations:

 

(jj) Building Professionals Act 2005 and Regulations


RB003

Business relationships and marketing opportunities

Proposed new delegation

To authorise expenditure within the adopted budget of up to $1,500 (per occurrence) in order to meet all the expenses incurred during business meetings with government officials and business executives (to be delegated to the Mayor and General Manager)

RF033

Government Information (Public Access) Act –Publication Guide

Proposed new delegation

To review and update Council’s Publication Guide (prepared under s20 of the Government Information (Public Access) (GIPA) Act 2009) on an as required basis.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

GIPA Publication Guide

 

 

 

 


GIPA Publication Guide

Attachment 1

 

 












Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM32/10

 

Subject:                  Management of Blenheim House -       17 Blenheim Street, Randwick

Folder No:                   F2004/06336

Author:                   Sharon Plunkett, Property Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

Council resolved at an Ordinary Council meeting on 24 November 2009:

 

“(Notley-Smith/Andrews) that the General Manager prepare a report to Council in early 2010 addressing the issues of open days, lease conditions, maintenance checks and planning for the future occupancy and use of Blenheim House on completion of the current lease agreement in February 2018, in accordance with Council’s ten (10) year Strategic Plan.”

 

Issues

 

Open Days

The lease conditions stipulate that the lessee is “to open the demised premises for public inspection for four (4) days of each year provided that no such public inspection shall take place without the prior approval of the lessor’s architect.  The lessor’s approval for the dates of the four (4) days shall be obtained beforehand.”

 

At an Ordinary Council meeting on 11 December 2007, Council resolved: “that the number of open for inspection days for Blenheim House be decreased from four (4) per annum to one (1) weekend open day per annum for a trial period of one (1) year in order to address problems including increased security risk, privacy of the tenant and impact on the tenant’s business interest.”

 

The open days for 2009 were held on Thursday, 10 December and Sunday, 13 December 2009. Council staff supervised both open days. As a previous open day resulted in the theft of personal belongings, security was employed. Thirteen volunteers were in attendance to assist with the open days. A maximum number of 50 visitors attended the open days. There was one reported trip and fall incident, which was managed by Council staff and Helen Bailey, the lessee of the premises.

 

After consultation with both the Friends of Blenheim House and the lessees of the premises, the open days for 2010 will be held on Thursday, 11 November and Sunday, 14 November 2010. These open days will be promoted on Council’s website and in the Mayoral Column, with appropriate signage erected at the premises advising the public of the dates of these open days.

 

Lease Conditions

The lease agreement with Graham Bailey, Helen Bailey and Justin Bailey runs until 25 February 2018. The lessee shall pay rent and all outgoings including all rates and taxes and insurances. The lessee is also responsible for building and maintenance costs. The lessee undertook significant restoration and rebuilding works in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by Council’s architects, surveyors and consultants as approved by Council within the subject time frame.

 

The lease also notes the application of the Residential Tenancies Act 1987, which permits the lessee to occupy the premises throughout the duration of the lease and to comprehensively insure the contents of the property at their own expense. The contents insurance does not cover the theft or damage of any item by an invited guest which means that the policy does not apply for any open days. The lessee to date has complied with all the terms and conditions of the lease agreement.

 

Maintenance Checks

The lease conditions direct the lessee to permit the lessor and the lessor’s consultants onto the property to inspect the condition and maintenance of the property from time to time. Regular property inspections are carried out in line with the open days by Council’s Property Section. The property is in a good state of repair with regular maintenance being undertaken by the lessees. There is an ongoing issue with rising damp in the cellar area which is being managed by the lessees through the use of fans, which operate on a 24 hour basis.

 

It is Council’s intention to engage a heritage architect to inspect the premises in accordance with the lease condition mentioned above. It is proposed that the $5,000.00 bond held by the Friends of Blenheim House be used to fund any works determined by the heritage architect as being required.

 

Future Occupation

The lease continues for eight years until 25 February 2018. There is no option to renew under the current lease agreement. Whilst the lessee’s have expressed an interest in continuing the occupation of the premises which would ensure the quality maintenance of the premises and result in a financial gain to Council, a full evaluation of Council’s intended use and the on-going maintenance of the premises must be conducted closer to the expiry of the agreement.

 

The property should be indentified in Council’s Property Development Strategy at a latter date in 2017 closer to the expiry of the lease in 2018, with the occupation and maintenance of the premises to be closely monitored and all options considered in accordance with Council’s ten (10) year strategic plan.

 

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

 

The lessees of Blenheim House are fulfilling their obligations under the lease complying with all the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The premises and gardens are well maintained. The open days are negotiated on an annual basis and Council will continue to supervise the open days and provide security. The future use of the premises should be assessed at a date closer to the expiry of the lease agreement in 2018.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

(a)    Council receives and notes the report on the issues of open days, lease conditions, maintenance checks and the future occupation of Blenheim House;

 

(b)    Council engage a heritage architect to inspect the premises and determine any works required; and

 

(c)    Council’s Property Section oversee the open days to be held on Thursday, 11 November and Sunday, 14 November 2010.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

General Manager's Report No. GM33/10

 

Subject:                  Actions Arising from Sister Cities National Conference

Folder No:                   F2007/00072

Author:                   David Kelly, Manager Administrative Services     

 

Introduction

 

At its ordinary Council meeting held December, 2009 Council resolved:

 

“That:

 

(a)    the invitation from the Mayor of Rockhampton City Council to attend the 2010 ASCA national conference be accepted; and

 

(b)    any interested councillors advise the General Manager for registration purposes.”

 

Accordingly a number of our Councillors attended this conference which ran from the 11 to 14 July 2010. The purpose of this report is to outline the actions arising from this most informative event.

 

Issues

 

The program was designed to assist delegates to maximise their sister city programs with a combination of keynote speakers, interactive workshops and master classes, networking opportunities and optional tours. A parallel youth program was also run in conjunction with the adult program, with a focus on interactive learning through story telling, dance, arts and multimedia.

 

Whilst attending an information session focussing on multiculturalism, dialogue commenced with the City of Casey, Victoria. This council has developed excellent programs to increase the involvement of their many different ethnic groups in their general community. Council staff will now look to develop a sister city relationship with the City of Casey, Victoria in an effort to learn more about the initiatives they have undertaken with their ethnic communities, which in turn will bring benefits for our own community services with respect to multiculturalism.

 

Of particular interest and relevance to Randwick Council was the keynote address from Professor Scott Bowman (Vice-Chancellor and President of CQ University). Professor Bowman had a wealth of knowledge to share on the importance of engaging communities, and the challenges involved with dealing with international staff and students, very similar to the challenges faced here in Randwick with the UNSW. It is intended to make further contact with Professor Bowman in order to obtain more information on engaging communities and then to open dialogue with the University of New South Wales so that assistance can be given to international students who are having difficulties engaging with their local community whilst attending university.

 

Discussions were held with Toowoomba Regional Council and Coffs Harbour City Council on the great work both Councils have undertaken with respect to economic development. As a result of these discussions, Councillor Smith will be moving a motion pursuant to notice requesting that Randwick Council prepare an economic brief on Randwick City drawing inspiration from documents such as the Toowoomba Regional Council Economic Brief 2009 and the Coffs Harbour Economic Profile 2010. Also arising from these discussions, Councillor Smith will be recommending to Council that it investigates the establishment of an economic development and tourism board for Randwick City. The report will look at membership, objectives and a charter statement. The General Manager will then liaise with Randwick City Tourism Inc. and the Combined Chambers of Commerce regarding the establishment of this board.

 

Also of great interest at the conference was the session conducted by Rockhampton City Council and its Japanese Sister City on their student exchange program and snapshots photograph competition. Council staff will look into facilitating student exchange programs and running a photographic art competition whereby residents of Council’s sister cities submit photos they believe best represent their city. The best photos would then be exchanged and publicly exhibited increasing cultural and artistic diversity.

 

Finally discussions were held with the Japanese Local Government Centre’s Sydney office (CLAIR). CLAIR conducts research on the systems and operations of local governance, best practices, current issues and challenges faced by local governments in Australia and New Zealand. Council staff will look at exchanging information on such matters with CLAIR to stay abreast of the latest issues and best practices in local government.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 11:     Providing a work environment that respects and maximises opportunities and potential and enables staff/Councillors to contribute to the achievement of the outcomes of the organisation.

Direction 11d:    Structured learning and development ensures that staff/Councillors have the skills, knowledge and competencies to meet the organisation’s demands and the demands of a challenging workplace.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

This conference proved invaluable as a number of excellent programs and initiatives were identified which are potentially of enormous benefit to Council and the community.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report on the 2010 Australian Sister Cities Association national conference be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Director City Services Report No. CS11/10

 

Subject:                  City Services - Organisational Restructure/Increase in Service Levels

Folder No:                   F2008/00521

Author:                   Jorde Frangoples, Director City Services     

 

Introduction

 

This report outlines proposed changes to service levels and organisational structure to the following City Services Teams:

 

·           operating hours of Randwick and Malabar libraries,

·           winter staffing arrangements of the Lifeguard Services team

·           staffing of Beach Services, and

·           changes to Technical Services to resource the Buildings for our Community Program.

 

For some time we have been multi-skilling and developing the ability of our workforce to accommodate changes in work practices and external pressures. However, there comes a time where we must also review our structure in order to better deliver the outcomes required by the stakeholders.

 

The Changes to the Library Service

Randwick City Library Service usage has increased dramatically over the past 3 years, despite the Randwick branch library being closed for a period in 2009 for the refurbishment.

 

 

 

Demand for information and access to activities for children is trending up and there is a need to extend hours of the Randwick Branch Library and Malabar Community Library to meet the needs of the community.

 

In total the Randwick Library Service is currently open a total of 137.5 hours per week. It is proposed to open a total of 159 hours per week.

 

Issues

The refurbished Randwick Branch Library is currently open 46 hours per week, as it was prior to reopening in October 2009:

 

Randwick Branch Library

Existing

Proposed

Monday - Wednesday

9.30am – 6pm

9.30am-6pm

Thursday

9.30am – 7pm

9.30am – 7pm

Friday

9.30am – 6pm

9.30am – 6pm

Saturday

9.30am – 12 noon

9.30am – 4pm

Sunday

Closed

12noon – 4pm

 

Since reopening, usage has increased enormously, with 109% increase in membership and 34% increase in circulation. Attendance at the ‘Babies love Books’ lap sit program is on average 120 mothers and their children, Kids Club attracts 85 mothers and children and the literary events have attracted between 60 and 250 people depending on the event.

 

There is public demand to open on Saturday until 4pm and Sunday from 12 noon to 4pm, in line with the Bowen Library’s opening hours. This would be an additional 8 hours per week. The increase in opening hours aligns closer to the shopping centre opening hours.

 

Conversely, our smaller branch library, the Malabar Community Library, is only open 26 hours per week, which limits the access local schools and individuals have to the library. It is positioned as a community library, a place for local families to get information, to get involved in activities.

 

Mothers with young children, schools and the elderly tend to use the library in the morning, and as Monday and Friday mornings are currently closed, the library is less accessible and cannot meet the needs of these customers.

 

Malabar Library services the needs of families with young children by promoting early literacy through the successful ‘Babies love books’ lap sit program and ‘Kids Club’ activities. Opening longer hours will afford families and young children in the southern suburbs the same level of quality resources and services and access to a Toy Library as are available at Bowen and Randwick libraries.

 

It will also enable the library to service the demand by local preschools to visit the library for story times delivered by library staff. Currently 4 preschools make regular visits to enjoy library programs.

 

Extending Malabar’s opening hours with Monday and Friday mornings available will allow for more class visits from local schools and child care centres. The library will be able to offer class visits, story and craft sessions to a further 9 preschools and 5 public schools, making this community asset more accessible to local residents.

 

It is proposed to extend the hours of opening by 13.5 hours during the week to 39.5 hours per week, to make the library more accessible to the community and thereby increase usage.


The changes proposed are as follows:

 

Malabar Community Library

Existing

Proposed

Monday

3pm – 7pm

10am – 7pm

Tuesday - Thursday

9.30am – 1pm; 2pm – 5pm

10am – 5pm

Friday

Closed

10am – 5pm

Saturday

9.30am – 12noon

9.30am – 12noon

 

The Changes to Aquatic Services

During winter the lifeguard service reduces from 16 lifeguards (10 seasonal) to 6 fulltime staff, which are deployed as 3 fulltime staff per shift to cover Coogee (one staff member) and Maroubra beach (two staff members).  

 

Currently the seasonal lifeguards commence at the end of September until the end of April each year. Increasing the service level at Coogee beach would involve employing two staff fulltime, one for each shift at a cost of 2 staff by 5 months. No increase in staff levels over the summer period is required. The proposed organisational structure is attached.

 

Issues

Randwick City Council has been following best practice procedures for the number of lifeguards maintained at each patrolled beach during the summer and winter season. This accepted best practice procedure incorporates a number of regulations including the Australian Beach Safety and Management Program (ABSAMP), Surf Life Saving Australia service level calculator and Council risk assessment to achieve a final service level requirement for each beach. Each time that there is a major incident at any beach, crowd numbers increase or the beach rating (ABSAMP) changes, this service level needs to be reviewed.

 

For the past 10 years, the service level has been maintained at 3 staff per shift over winter. However, Lifeguards have been under increasing pressure over the winter months due to the increase in usage by the public, increase in first aid responses and an increase in rescues.

 

 

The review of the Surf Life Saving regulations indicated that the current service level at Coogee beach is now inadequate over the winter period. This service level regulation takes into account 6 key indicators including ABSAMP, visitation levels, frequency of use, residency of visitors, incident history and remoteness of location. A final score for each of these indicators obtains an overall recommendation of the service level required. Due to the increase in visitation and major incident history, the Coogee beach service level rating has changed from requiring 1 lifeguard, to requiring two lifeguards at all times.

 

The Changes to Waste & Cleaning Services

It is proposed convert two existing vacant permanent position in the coastal teams into seasonal positions.  As a consequence, it will allow the organisation to increase its day labour on the beaches in the summer peak and down scale in the winter.

 

This proposal will have no negative effects on the beach, pool and toilet cleaning because of ongoing changes to work practices and procedures; it is proposed to employ seasonal staff in place of the two permanent staff in the summer school holidays in order to meet the demands of the beach peak season.  The proposed organisational structure is attached.

 

The Changes to Technical Services

In addition to the adopted changes in the General Manager’s Report (GM 24/10) of 22 June 2010 the proposed structure changes to the Technical Services Department considers the future needs of the organisation. The proposed organisational structure is attached. The changes are;

 

·      Create a Building for our Community Coordinator. (without additional cost to salaries.)

·      Amalgamate the Parks & Recreation Coordinator from the structure. (This position is currently vacant.) and the Landscape Design Coordinator Positions into one position titled Open Space Asset Coordinator

·      create a Tree Management Coordinator

 

Issues

The landscape design function has decreased dramatically in the last two financial years. Nevertheless, internal landscape design capabilities are required for a host of other projects it is difficult to justify a separate front line management structure. The Parks and recreation Coordinators position is currently vacant. It is proposed to advertise the amalgamate position of Open Space Asset Coordinator.

 

The Council and the community consider tree management to be a significant issue. Tree management in the city of Randwick is complex and often controversial. The current Officer generally liaisons with the Manager directly. It is proposed to formalise this by creating a new coordinators position that directly reports to the manager. This restructure is effectively a change of reporting lines only.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:     Enrich our range of community services that meet our community’s needs.

Direction 2b:    Our libraries will continue to be key centres of community life and interaction.

Outcome 6:     A Liveable City.

Direction 6c:    The safety of our community is paramount and is acknowledged and supported through proactive policies, programmes and strategies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

Because of ongoing productivity improvements related to the investment in technology and the potential for the corresponding alteration to rostering, the cost

of extending the Malabar Community Library hours of opening by 13.5 hours per week and extending Randwick Branch Library’s hours by 8 hours per week will be partially absorbed by productivity efficiencies across all libraries. The overall cost is $79,500 per annum.

 

Noting that two less seasonal life guards will be required for the summer months the two extra full-time permanent lifeguards will be $30,520 per annum.

 

Two full-time permanent positions in Beach Services are to be amended to seasonal positions in the organisational structure at a saving of $110,000 per annum.

 

Overall the proposed increases in services levels are cost neutral.

 

Consultation

 

All affect staff and the relevant Unions will be consulted on this matter. Furthermore, this report will be presented to the next available Joint Consultative committee for consultation.

 

Conclusion

 

The Randwick Branch Library is situated in one of the busiest shopping centres in Sydney. Since the refurbishment, usage of the library has increased and demand for longer hours has become more persistent. Given Council’s investment in this facility, extending the opening hours on the weekend would be money well-spent.

 

Extending the hours at Malabar during the week would be a way of making this facility more accessible to the local community and enable many more childcare centres and schools to use it in the additional two mornings that it is open.

 

Overall this would extend Randwick City Library Service’s hours of opening from 137.5 hours per week to 159 hours per week.

 

Increasing the number of winter lifeguards is required for Council to maintain ‘best practice’ service levels and maintain accepted industry regulations. This will in turn provide a safer environment for both public and staff.

 

Reducing the fulltime permanent Beach Services staff positions to fund the permanent fulltime lifeguard positions will not reduce the beach cleaning service levels for the peak summer months.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council increase the service levels for the Randwick Branch Library by opening an extra 8 hours per week;

 

b)     Council increase the service levels for the Malabar Community Library by opening an extra 13.5 hours per week;

 

c)     Council increase the service levels for Coogee beach in the winter by the increase in permanent winter lifeguard staff;

 

d)     Council note the reduction of permanent fulltime beach services staff; and

 

e)     Council note the changes to the Technical Services Department.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF30/10

 

Subject:                  Coogee Patchworks Group Hire of Clovelly Senior Citizens' Hall

Folder No:                   F2004/07674

Author:                   Sharon Plunkett, Property Coordinator     

 

Introduction

 

At its Ordinary meeting held 23 February 2010 Council resolved “that a report come back to Council on the current situation facing the Coogee Patchworks Group, such report to address issues including the insurance and the amount owing to Council if the reduced rate is applied retrospectively.” An investigation into the current situation facing the Coogee Patchworks Group has now been completed.

 

Issues

 

A meeting was held between Council staff and Maria Pender, Shirley Wright and Jennifer Lean-Fore representing the Coogee Patchworks Group on Tuesday 2 March 2010 to discuss the various issues requiring immediate attention.

 

Coogee Patchworks Group uses the Clovelly Senior Citizens Hall for two (2) hours on a Thursday evening between 7pm and 9pm and is currently charged the community rate of $15.00 per hour.  The total amount due for the full financial year is $1,470.00. Council informed the Group that they can make a written application for a rebate of 20% to the General Manager, thus reducing the rate per hour to $12.00 and reducing the hire fees for the full year to $1,176.00.  Council has since received this written request for the rebate.

 

Ms Pender advised that the Coogee Patchworks Group’s public liability insurance comes to $772.92 per year. Ms Pender was advised that Council’s current Community Groups Insurance covers their group for public liability insurance. Council staff then contacted Coogee Patchworks Group’s insurance company and advised them of the duplicate policy and requested immediate reimbursement to the Coogee Patchworks Group directly for the premiums for the duplicate period. This $772.92 has since been paid to Council by Coogee Patchworks and covers the vast majority of rental arrears owed by the Group.

 

A copy of the minutes of the last meeting of Coogee Patchworks has been received by Council.  At that meeting a resolution was passed to disband Coogee Patchworks and form the Clovelly Seniors Citizens Group.  As the Clovelly Seniors Centre was purpose built to house the Clovelly Senior Citizens Group, fees for hire of the centre are not applicable to this Group.  Hence no further rental invoices will be raised for this particular Senior Citizens Group.

 

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 financial impact of writing off the rental amount still owed by the Coogee Patchworks Group is 403.08.

 

Conclusion

 

As every effort has been made by the Coogee Patchworks Group to assist Council in paying off the rental arrears, it is proposed that the remainder of rent still owing, which totals $403.08, be written off at this point in time.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     The report on the Coogee Patchwork’s Group hire of Clovelly Senior Citizens Hall be received and noted;

 

b)     Council continues with the provision of the annual public liability insurance for the Clovelly Senior Citizens Group and does not raise any further rental invoices as they are not applicable to this Group; and

 

c)     The amount of $403.08 in rental arrears owed by the Coogee Patchworks Group be written off, as this amount is no longer recoverable.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF31/10

 

Subject:                  Affixing of the Council Seal

Folder No:                   F2004/06336

Author:                   John Drivas, Property Officer     

 

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.     The Infants’ Home Child & Family Services ABN: 71 174 918 661 trading as Randwick South Sydney Family Day Care in relation to a licence for a community building at 23 Munda Street, Randwick

2.     Clovelly Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd in relation to a licence for a community building at 1-11 Ocean Street, Clovelly.

 

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.     A licence agreement with The Infants’ Home Child & Family Services ABN: 71 174 918 661 trading as Randwick South Sydney Family Day Care will generate an annual income of $7,613.13 exclusive of GST.

2.     A licence agreement with Clovelly Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd will generate an annual income of $10,867.50 exclusive of 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.     The Infants’ Home Child & Family Services ABN: 71 174 918 661 trading as Randwick South Sydney Family Day Care in relation to a licence for a community building at 23 Munda Street, Randwick; and

 

2.     Clovelly Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd in relation to a licence for a community building at 1-11 Ocean Street, Clovelly.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF32/10

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - June 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–June 2010” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of June 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.

 

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 $2.746 million during June 2010. The decrease is representative of negative cash flow for the month as expenditure exceeded income.  There was an unrealised capital loss on investments for June of $14,373.93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from July 2004 to June 2010. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

 

The above graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio for the past twelve months.

 

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 June 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 June 2010.

 

 

 

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 previous twelve months.

 

 

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 6.10%, compared with the benchmark index of 4.57%. The portfolio return for the month was inflated by the income distribution from the Blackrock Care & Maintenance fund.

 

The official Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) cash interest rate remained unchanged at 4.50% at the June 2010 meeting (N.B The RBA rates continued to remain unchanged at the July 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 $5.525 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

3,000,542

3,000,542

Blackrock

Care & Maintenance Fund

Collective Investment

Not Rated

2,525,312

2,432,130

 

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 $2.00 million in structured products. The following table depicts the latest information in respect to these products, CBA Shield Series 21 latest valuation being as at 31 May 2010. 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

1,187,330

Low

28/02/11

Longreach

Series 33 (STIRM)

Capital Protected Note

A+

1,000,000

1,136,800

Low

10/05/13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

 

2,000,000

2,324,130

 

 

 

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 current revised budget provision for income from this source is $2,008,003.00. Investment income to 30 June 2010 amounted to $2,242,321.51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Following is the detailed Investment Report – June


Conclusion

 

All investments as at 30 June 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 June 2010 be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF33/10

 

Subject:                  Matraville Town Centre Action Plan

Folder No:                   F2010/00091

Author:                   James Farrar, Economic Development Officer     

 

Introduction

 

The Randwick Economic Development Strategy (EDS) was commissioned to promote a strong local economy for Council’s business, commercial and industrial sectors and town centres under The Randwick City Plan’s economic theme: ‘A Prospering City’. Under the EDS, the Matraville Town Centre is identified as a priority to be addressed in the short term.

 

Issues

 

Consultants SGS Economics and Planning were contracted to prepare a Matraville Town Centre Action Plan with a focus on the Bunnerong Road commercial strip of Matraville. The purpose of the Action Plan is to:-

 

·           Consolidate previous studies prepared for Matraville;

·           Confirm the vision for the centre;

·           Identify business opportunities; and

·           Develop an action plan for rejuvenation of the centre.

 

Randwick City Council has hosted two rounds of consultations at the Prince Henry Centre. Invitations for the first and second meetings were sent to Bunnerong Road retailers, land owners and local business groups such as the Matraville Chamber of Commerce. The second consultation was additionally advertised in the Mayoral Column and attracted both business owners and residents.

 

The first round of consultation included:-

·           A presentation by SGS Consultants about the local area and review of previous studies; and

·           Round table discussions of issues and ideas for Matraville.

 

The second round of consultation included:-

·           A review of the Action Plan tabled by SGS summarising the above ideas; and

·           Round table discussions of the five objectives of the Action Plan;

 

Objectives:

1.  A prospering town centre

2.  Places for people

3.  Sense of community

4.  Moving around

5.  Looking after the environment

 

Approximately 40 people were in attendance at the most recent meeting. The Mayor Cr John Procopiadis and Deputy Mayor Cr Robert Belleli were both present and addressed those attending. Council’s Director of Governance and Financial Services, Geoff Banting also delivered a presentation on the progress made thus far with respect to the Action Plan for Matraville. SGS Consultants and council staff then facilitated table discussions with all those in attendance.

Attendees were also provided with copies of the draft Action Plan, maps and diagrams of nearby developments such as Heffron Park and the Chifley Athletics Fields, whilst copies of previous studies were also made available. There was also positive feedback regarding immediate goals such as community events. At present the only major event is the Christmas carols and house lights attractions in the Barwon park area. The action plan includes opportunities for Council to investigate other events and assist in their promotion.

 

Feedback from both consultation meetings was sent to SGS Consultants to be incorporated in the Action Plan. Actions are primarily assigned to Randwick City Council, Matraville Chambers of Commerce and the Precinct Committee with various time frames assigned.

 

The Action Plan includes (but is not limited to) some of the following key actions with Randwick City Council as the lead organisation:-

 

Short Term:       Trial period of no outdoor dinning fees, working with the community to set up local markets, provision of a community venue, promote local community events and Shop Local.

 

Medium Term:    Public domain upgrades, a sustainability shopfront or display for business, changes to the Cycleways Plan to include the Matraville Town Centre.

 

Long Term:        Plans of management for Heffron Park and the Chifley Athletics Fields upgrades and improvements to gateways.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 8:       A Strong Local Economy.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

Funds were set aside to develop this Action Plan in the Economic Development Strategy budget.

 

Conclusion

 

The outcomes of both consultation meetings with community have been incorporated into the attached Matraville Town Centre Action Plan.

 

Recommendation

 

(a)     That Council receive and adopt the Matraville Town Centre Action Plan; and

 

(b)     Prioritise and implement all the short term actions contained in the Action Plan as soon as possible.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Matraville Centre Action Plan

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF34/10

 

Subject:                  Final Migration of Councils Online Applications to an In-House Hosted and Supported Corporate Application Solution

Folder No:                   F2010/00057

Author:                   Graham Curley, Manager Information Services     

 

Introduction

 

As Council would be aware, Randwick City Council resolved to terminate the existing Council’s On-Line contract with Capgemini (report to Council dated 28 July 2009). Further, Council resolved to accept the recommendations in the report to Council dated 8 December 2009 which would allow for the replacement and implementation of core business applications currently managed and hosted by Capgemini as part of the COL contract.

 

Since this time a number of Randwick City Council staff and application vendors have been working on the project to migrate and implement the replacement core business applications.

 

Issues

 

It is planned that the migration and implementation of these core business applications into Randwick City Council’s business environment be done in two stages:

 

1.     The implementation of the library management system, in September 2010.

2.     The implementation of the remainder of the core business applications in October 2010.

 

Stage 1:

The implementation and cutover of library management system will require that Randwick City Council’s libraries be unavailable for library borrowing services and public PC usage for a 24 hour period.

 

To minimise the impact of this planned unavailability, it is recommended this cut over commence Saturday evening and continue throughout the Sunday. This will effect both the Bowen and Randwick branch Libraries, which are scheduled to be open from 12pm – 4pm on Sundays. During the cut over the library can remain open to the public for studying purposes only. The current project schedule has this closure occurring on or around 4 - 5 September 2010. It is further recommended that Randwick City Council plan for and advertise this outage to the public.

 

Stage 2:

The implementation and cutover of all other core business applications will require that some Council services be unavailable to the public for a short period of time. Services that will be unavailable include access to Council documents, queries relating to historic payments, rates, developments, etc. and online payments. Some over the counter payments and lodgements will still be able to be facilitated.

 

To minimise the impact of this planned unavailability of services, it is proposed that part of the implementation and cutover be scheduled to occur over a four day period commencing on a Friday and concluding on the Monday evening thereby allowing four days for the implementation and cutover to be completed and limiting the unavailability of services to only two days. The current project schedule has this unavailability of services occurring over the period of Friday 8 – 11 Monday October inclusive. It is further recommended that Randwick City Council plan for and advertise this unavailability of services to the public

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome: Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction: Continuous improvement based on accountability, transparency, and good         governance.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The overall financial impact of the replacement of Council’s core corporate applications was reported to Council in the report to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 23 March 2010 and the Finance Report to Council dated 11 May 2010.

 

Conclusion

 

In order for the final migration of Randwick City Council’s core business applications to be completed the migration and implementation will be done in two stages. This will require closure of the Bowen and Randwick Branch Libraries for borrowing services and use of public PCs for one Sunday on or around 5 September 2010 and the unavailability of some Council services to the public between the 8th and 11th October 2010.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the closure of the Bowen and Randwick Branch Libraries for borrowing services and public PC access for one Sunday on or around 5 September 2010, and the unavailability of some Council services between the 8 and 11 October 2010 be approved.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM34/10

 

Subject:                  Motion Pursuant to Notice from           Cr Notley-Smith - Sydney Airport Community Forum

Folder No:                   F2004/07972

Submitted by:          Councillor Notley-Smith, East Ward     

 

That Council write to the Federal Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, requesting Randwick City Council be admitted as a member of the Sydney Airport Community Forum.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM35/10

 

 

Subject:                  Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Economic Brief

Folder No:                   F2008/00589

Submitted by:          Councillor Smith, North Ward     

 

That Council prepare an economic brief on Randwick City drawing inspiration from documents such as the Toowoomba Regional Council Economic Brief 2009 and the Coffs Harbour Economic Profile 2010.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM36/10

 

 

Subject:                  Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Economic Development & Tourism Board

Folder No:                   F2005/00797

Submitted by:          Councillor Smith, North Ward     

 

That Council investigate the establishment of an economic development and tourism board for Randwick City. The report will look at membership, objectives and a charter statement.  The General Manager will liaise with Randwick City Tourism Inc. and the Combined Chambers of Commerce regarding the establishment of the board.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM37/10

 

 

Subject:                  Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Promotion of Sister City Relationships

Folder No:                   F2005/00294

Submitted by:          Councillor Smith, North Ward     

 

That Council prepare a booklet promoting its Sister City relationships. Content will include a description of sister city relationships and the history, benefits and ongoing nature of current sister city relationships Randwick has.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM38/10

 

 

Subject:                  Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Randwick in Gloucesteshire, England

Folder No:                   F2005/00294

Submitted by:          Councillor Smith, North Ward     

 

That Council:

a)     Seek to formalise a sister city relationship with Randwick in Gloucestershire, England.

b)     If successful, hold a photographic art competition whereby residents of the respective cities submit photos they believe best represent their city. The best photos will then be exchanged and publicly exhibited increasing cultural and artistic diversity.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No.

NM39 /10

 

 

Subject:                  Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Erection of signpost to Sister Cities

Folder No:                   F2005/00294

Submitted by:          Councillor Smith, North Ward      

 

That Council

a)     Erect a signpost in front of the Town Hall showing the direction and distance to its Sister Cities; and

b)     Install an information board next to this signpost explaining what a Sister City is and the nature of the relationship.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM40/10

 

 

Subject:                  Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Terms of Reference for Youth Advisory Committee

Folder No:                   F2004/07647

Submitted by:          Councillor Smith, North Ward     

 

That Council review the terms of reference for the Youth Advisory Committee in an attempt to encourage participation.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council

27 July 2010

 

 

 

Motion Pursuant to Notice No. NM41/10

 

 

Subject:                  Motion Pursuant to Notice from Cr Smith - Promotion of Voluntary Service in Surf Life Saving

Folder No:                   F2010/00125

Submitted by:          Councillor Smith, North Ward     

 

That Council liaise with the four Surf Life Saving Clubs within Randwick City as to how Council can assist with promoting voluntary service in the Surf Life Saving movement in the lead up to the next Summer season.